---
title: "City of God · De civitate Dei"
author: "Augustine"
translator: "Marcus Dods"
languages: [la, en]
shelf: "Church Fathers"
section: 30 of 116
url: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/30/
cite: "Augustine, tr. Marcus Dods, City of God · De civitate Dei, section 30. Scriptura (scriptura.si), https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/30/"
---

# City of God · De civitate Dei

*Augustine, tr. Marcus Dods*

“Two loves have made two cities.” Augustine’s Latin, in Hoffmann’s critical text, beside Dods’s English, chapter by chapter.

> Latin: Augustine, De civitate Dei, ed. Emanuel Hoffmann, CSEL 40 (Vienna: Tempsky, 1899–1900), as encoded by the Open Greek and Latin project, University of Leipzig (stoa0040.stoa003.opp-lat3, CC BY-SA 4.0); apparatus omitted.

> English: Marcus Dods, The City of God (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, first series, vol. 2, 1887).

> Chapters are matched one to one except where the two editions divide them differently; within a chapter the Latin sentences are shared out over the English paragraphs by position.

## 30. How Far Christians Ought to Be from Boasting, If They Have Done Anything for the Love of the Eternal Country, When the Romans Did Such Great Things for Human Glory and a Terrestrial City.

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/30/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/30/#p-N

[¶0] Chapter 18.—How Far Christians Ought to Be from Boasting, If They Have Done Anything for the Love of the Eternal Country, When the Romans Did Such Great Things for Human Glory and a Terrestrial City.

> Latin: Caput XVIII. Quam alieni a iactantia esse debeant Christiani, si aliquid fecerint pro dilectione patriae aeternae, cum tanta Romani gesserint pro humana gloria et ciuitate terrena.

[¶1] What great thing, therefore, is it for that eternal and celestial city to despise all the charms of this world, however pleasant, if for the sake of this terrestrial city Brutus could even put to death his son,—a sacrifice which the heavenly city compels no one to make? But certainly it is more difficult to put to death one’s sons, than to do what is required to be done for the heavenly country, even to distribute to the poor those things which were looked upon as things to be massed and laid up for one’s children, or to let them go, if there arise any temptation which compels us to do so, for the sake of faith and righteousness. For it is not earthly riches which make us or our sons happy; for they must either be lost by us in our lifetime, or be possessed when we are dead, by whom we know not, or perhaps by whom we would not. But it is God who makes us happy, who is the true riches of minds. But of Brutus, even the poet who celebrates his praises testifies that it was the occasion of unhappiness to him that he slew his son, for he says,

> Latin: Quid ergo magnum est pro illa aeterna caelestique patria cuncta saeculi huius quamlibet iucunda blandimenta contemnere, si pro hac temporali adque terrena filios Brutus potuit et occidere, quod illa facere neminem cogit? Sed certe difficilius est filios interimere, quam quod pro ista faciendum est, ea, quae filiis congreganda uidebantur adque seruanda, uel donare pauperibus uel, si existat tentatio, quae id pro fide adque iustitia fieri conpellat, amittere. Felices enim uel nos uel filios nostros non diuitiae terrenae faciunt aut nobis uiuentibus amittendae aut nobis mortuis a quibus nescimus uel forte a quibus nolumus possidendae; sed Deus felices facit, qui est mentium uera opulentia. Bruto autem, quia filios occidit, infelicitatis perhibet testimonium etiam poeta laudator.

[¶2] “And call his own rebellious seed

[¶3] For menaced liberty to bleed.

[¶4] Unhappy father! howsoe’er

> Latin: Ait enim: Natosqne pater nona bella monentes Ad poenam pulchra pro libertate uocabit Infelix, utcumque ferent ea facta minores.

[¶5] The deed be judged by after days.”

[¶6] But in the following verse he consoles him in his unhappiness, saying,

[¶7] “His country’s love shall all o’erbear.”

> Latin: Sed uersu sequenti consolatus est infelicem: Uincit amor patriae laudumque inmensa cupido.

[¶8] There are those two things, namely, liberty and the desire of human praise, which compelled the Romans to admirable deeds. If, therefore, for the liberty of dying men, and for the desire of human praise which is sought after by mortals, sons could be put to death by a father, what great thing is it, if, for the true liberty which has made us free from the dominion of sin, and death, and the devil,—not through the desire of human praise, but through the earnest desire of fleeing men, not from King Tarquin, but from demons and the prince of the demons,—we should, I do not say put to death our sons, but reckon among our sons Christ’s poor ones? If, also, another Roman chief, surnamed Torquatus, slew his son, not because he fought against his country, but because, being challenged by an enemy, he through youthful impetuosity fought, though for his country, yet contrary to orders which he his father had given as general; and this he did, notwithstanding that his son was victorious, lest there should be more evil in the example of authority despised, than good in the glory of slaying an enemy;—if, I say, Torquatus acted thus, wherefore should they boast themselves, who, for the laws of a celestial country, despise all earthly good things, which are loved far less than sons? If Furius Camillus, who was condemned by those who envied him, notwithstanding that he had thrown off from the necks of his countrymen the yoke of their most bitter enemies, the Veientes, again delivered his ungrateful country from the Gauls, because he had no other in which he could have better opportunities for living a life of glory;—if Camillus did thus, why should he be extolled as having done some great thing, who, having, it may be, suffered in the church at the hands of carnal enemies most grievous and dishonoring injury, has not betaken himself to heretical enemies, or himself raised some heresy against her, but has rather defended her, as far as he was able, from the most pernicious perversity of heretics, since there is not another church, I say not in which one can live a life of glory, but in which eternal life can be obtained? If Mucius, in order that peace might be made with King Porsenna, who was pressing the Romans with a most grievous war, when he did not succeed in slaying Porsenna, but slew another by mistake for him, reached forth his right hand and laid it on a red-hot altar, saying that many such as he saw him to be had conspired for his destruction, so that Porsenna, terrified at his daring, and at the thought of a conspiracy of such as he, without any delay recalled all his warlike purposes, and made peace;—if, I say, Mucius did this, who shall speak of his meritorious claims to the kingdom of heaven, if for it he may have given to the flames not one hand, but even his whole body, and that not by his own spontaneous act, but because he was persecuted by another? If Curtius, spurring on his steed, threw himself all armed into a precipitous gulf, obeying the oracles of their gods, which had commanded that the Romans should throw into that gulf the best thing which they possessed, and they could only understand thereby that, since they excelled in men and arms, the gods had commanded that an armed man should be cast headlong into that destruction;—if he did this, shall we say that that man has done a great thing for the eternal city who may have died by a like death, not, however, precipitating himself spontaneously into a gulf, but having suffered this death at the hands of some enemy of his faith, more especially when he has received from his Lord, who is also King of his country, a more certain oracle, “Fear not them who kill the body, but cannot kill the soul?” If the Decii dedicated themselves to death, consecrating themselves in a form of words, as it were, that falling, and pacifying by their blood the wrath of the gods, they might be the means of delivering the Roman army;—if they did this, let not the holy martyrs carry themselves proudly, as though they had done some meritorious thing for a share in that country where are eternal life and felicity, if even to the shedding of their blood, loving not only the brethren for whom it was shed, but, according as had been commanded them, even their enemies by whom it was being shed, they have vied with one another in faith of love and love of faith. If Marcus Pulvillus, when engaged in dedicating a temple to Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva, received with such indifference the false intelligence which was brought to him of the death of his son, with the intention of so agitating him that he should go away, and thus the glory of dedicating the temple should fall to his colleague;—if he received that intelligence with such indifference that he even ordered that his son should be cast out unburied, the love of glory having overcome in his heart the grief of bereavement, how shall any one affirm that he had done a great thing for the preaching of the gospel, by which the citizens of the heavenly city are delivered from divers errors and gathered together from divers wanderings, to whom his Lord has said, when anxious about the burial of his father, “Follow me, and let the dead bury their dead?” Regulus, in order not to break his oath, even with his most cruel enemies, returned to them from Rome itself, because (as he is said to have replied to the Romans when they wished to retain him) he could not have the dignity of an honorable citizen at Rome after having been a slave to the Africans, and the Carthaginians put him to death with the utmost tortures, because he had spoken against them in the senate. If Regulus acted thus, what tortures are not to be despised for the sake of good faith toward that country to whose beatitude faith itself leads? Or what will a man have rendered to the Lord for all He has bestowed upon him, if, for the faithfulness he owes to Him, he shall have suffered such things as Regulus suffered at the hands of his most ruthless enemies for the good faith which he owed to them? And how shall a Christian dare vaunt himself of his voluntary poverty, which he has chosen in order that during the pilgrimage of this life he may walk the more disencumbered on the way which leads to the country where the true riches are, even God Himself;—how, I say, shall he vaunt himself for this, when he hears or reads that Lucius Valerius, who died when he was holding the office of consul, was so poor that his funeral expenses were paid with money collected by the people?—or when he hears that Quintius Cincinnatus, who, possessing only four acres of land, and cultivating them with his own hands, was taken from the plough to be made dictator,—an office more honorable even than that of consul,—and that, after having won great glory by conquering the enemy, he preferred notwithstanding to continue in his poverty? Or how shall he boast of having done a great thing, who has not been prevailed upon by the offer of any reward of this world to renounce his connection with that heavenly and eternal country, when he hears that Fabricius could not be prevailed on to forsake the Roman city by the great gifts offered to him by Pyrrhus king of the Epirots, who promised him the fourth part of his kingdom, but preferred to abide there in his poverty as a private individual? For if, when their republic,—that is, the interest of the people, the interest of the country, the common interest,—was most prosperous and wealthy, they themselves were so poor in their own houses, that one of them, who had already been twice a consul, was expelled from that senate of poor men by the censor, because he was discovered to possess ten pounds weight of silverplate,—since, I say, those very men by whose triumphs the public treasury was enriched were so poor, ought not all Christians, who make common property of their riches with a far nobler purpose, even that (according to what is written in the Acts of the Apostles) they may distribute to each one according to his need, and that no one may say that anything is his own, but that all things may be their common possession,—ought they not to understand that they should not vaunt themselves, because they do that to obtain the society of angels, when those men did well-nigh the same thing to preserve the glory of the Romans?

> Latin: Haec sunt duo illa, libertas et cupiditas laudis humanae, quae ad facta conpulit miranda Romanos. Si ergo pro libertate moriturorum et cupiditate laudum, quae a mortalibus expetuntur, occidi filii a patre potuerunt: quid magnum est, si pro uera libertate, quae nos. ab iniquitatis et mortis et diaboli dominatu liberos facit, nec cupiditate humanarum laudum, sed caritate liberandorum hominum, non a Tarquinio rege, sed a daemonibus et daemonum principe, non filii occiduntur, sed Christi pauperes inter filios conputantur? Si alius etiam Romanus princeps, cognomine Torquatus, filium, non quia contra patriam, sed etiam pro patria, tamen quia contra imperium suum, id est contra quod imperauerat pater imperator, ab hoste prouocatus iuuenali ardore pugnauerat, licet uicisset, occidit, ne plus mali esset in exemplo imperii contemti quam boni in gloria hostis occisi: ut quid. se iactent, qui pro inmortalis patriae legibus omnia, quae multo minus quam filii diliguntur, bona terrena contemnunt? Si Furius Camillus etiam ingratam patriam, a cuius ceruicibus acerrimorum hostium Veientium iugum depulerat damnatusque ab aemulis fuerat, a Gallis iterum liberauit, quia non habebat potiorem, ubi posset uiuere gloriosius: quur extollatur, uelut grande aliquid fecerit, qui forte in ecclesia ab inimicis carnalibus grauissimam exhonorationis passus iniuriam non se ad eius hostes haereticos transtulit aut aliquam contra illam ipse haeresem condidit, sed eam potius quantum ualuit ab haereticorum perniciosissima prauitate defendit, cum alia non sit, non ubi uiuatur in hominum gloria, sed ubi uita ad aeterna aeterna? Si Mucius, ut cum Porsenna rege pax fieret, qui grauissimo bello Romanos premebat, quia Porsennam ipsum occidere non potuit et pro eo alterum deceptus occidit, in ardentem aram ante eius oculos dexteram extendit, dicens multos tales, qualem illum uideret, in eius exitium coniurasse cuius ille fortitudinem et coniurationem talium perhorrescens sine ulla dubitatione se ab illo bello facta pace conpescuit: quis regno caelorum inputaturus est merita sua, si pro illo non unam manum neque hoc sibi ultro faciens, sed persequente aliquo patiens totum flammis corpus inpenderit? Si Curtius armatus equo concito in abruptum hiatum terrae se praecipitem dedit, deorum suorum oraculis seruiens, quoniam iusserant, ut illuc id quod Romani haberent optimum mitteretur, nec aliud intellegere potuerunt, quam uiris armisque se excellere, unde uidelicet oportebat, ut deorum iussis in illum interitum uir praecipitaretur armatus: quid se magnum pro aeterna patria fecisse dicturus est, qui aliquem fidei suae passus inimicum non se ultro in talem mortem mittens, sed ab illo missus obierit; quando quidem a Domino suo eodemque rege patriae suae certius oraculum accepit: Nolite timere eos, qui corpus occidunt, animam autem non possunt occidere? Si se occidendos certis uerbis quodam modo consecrantes Decii deuouerunt, ut illis cadentibus et iram deorum sanguine suo placantibus Romanus liberaretur exercitus: nullo modo superbient sancti martyres, tamquam dignum aliquid pro illius patriae participatione fecerint, ubi aeterna est et uera felicitas, si usque ad sui sanguinis effusionem non solum suos fratres, pro quibus fundebatur, uerum et ipsos inimicos, a quibus fundebatur, sicut eis praeceptum est, diligentes caritatis fide et fidei caritate certarunt? Si Marcus Puluillus dedicans aedem Iouis Iunonis Mineruae falso sibi ab inuidis morte filii nuntiata, ut illo nuntio perturbatus abscederet adque ita dedicationis gloriam collega eius consequeretur, ita contemsit, ut eum etiam proici insepultum iuberet (sic in eius corde orbitatis dolorem gloriae cupiditas uicerat): quid magnum se pro euangelii sancti praedicatione, qua ciues supernae patriae de diuersis liberantur et colliguntur erroribus, fecisse dicturus est, cui Dominus de sepultura patris sui sollicito ait: Sequere me et sine mortuos sepelire mortuos suos? Si Marcus Regulus, ne crudelissimos hostes iurando falleret, ad eos ab ipsa Roma reuersus est, quoniam, sicut Romanis eum tenere uolentibus respondisse fertur, postea quam Afris seruierat, dignitatem illic honesti ciuis habere non posset, eumque Carthaginienses, quoniam contra eos in Romano senatu egerat, grauissimis suppliciis necauerunt: qui cruciatus non sunt pro fide illius patriae contemnendi, ad cuius beatitudinem fides ipsa perducit? aut quid retribuetur Domino pro omnibus quae retribuit, si pro fide quae illi debetur talia fuerit homo passus, qualia pro fide quam perniciosissimis inimicis debebat passus est Regulus? Quo modo se audebit extollere de uoluntaria paupertate Christianus, ut in huius uitae peregrinatione expeditior ambulet uiam, quae perducit ad patriam, ubi uerae diuitiae Deus ipse est, cum audiat uel legat Lucium Valerium, qui in suo defunctus est consulatu, usque adeo fuisse pauperem, ut nummis a populo conlatis eius sepultura curaretur? audiat uel legat Quintium Cincinnatum, cum quattuor iugera possideret et ea suis manibus coleret, ab aratro esse adductum, ut dictator fieret, maior utique honore quam consul, uictisque hostibus ingentem gloriam consecutum in eadem paupertate mansisse? Aut quid se magnum fecisse praedicabit, qui nullo praemio mundi huius fuerit ab aeternae illius patriae societate seductus, cum Fabricium didicerit tantis muneribus Pyrrhi, regis Epirotarum, promissa etiam quarta parte regni, a Romana ciuitate non potuisse deuelli ibique in sua paupertate priuatum manere maluisse? Nam illud quod rem publicam, id est rem populi, rem patriae, rem communem, cum haberent opulentissimam adque ditissimam, sic ipsi in suis domibus pauperes erant, ut quidam eorum, qui iam bis consul fuisset, ex illo senatu hominum pauperum pelleretur notatione censoria, quod decem pondo argenti in uasis habere conpertus est; ita idem ipsi pauperes erant, quorum triumphis publicum ditabatur aerarium: nonne omnes Christiani, qui excellentiore proposito diuitias suas communes faciunt secundum id quod scriptum est in actibus apostolorum, ut distribuatur unicuique sicut cuique opus est, et nemo dicat aliquid proprium, sed sint illis omnia communia, intellegunt se nulla ob hoc uentilari oportere iactantia, id faciendo pro obtinenda societate angelorum, cum paene tale aliquid illi fecerint pro conseruanda gloria Romanorum?

[¶9] How could these, and whatever like things are found in the Roman history, have become so widely known, and have been proclaimed by so great a fame, had not the Roman empire, extending far and wide, been raised to its greatness by magnificent successes? Wherefore, through that empire, so extensive and of so long continuance, so illustrious and glorious also through the virtues of such great men, the reward which they sought was rendered to their earnest aspirations, and also examples are set before us, containing necessary admonition, in order that we may be stung with shame if we shall see that we have not held fast those virtues for the sake of the most glorious city of God, which are, in whatever way, resembled by those virtues which they held fast for the sake of the glory of a terrestrial city, and that, too, if we shall feel conscious that we have held them fast, we may not be lifted up with pride, because, as the apostle says, “The sufferings of the present time are not worthy to be compared to the glory which shall be revealed in us.” But so far as regards human and temporal glory, the lives of these ancient Romans were reckoned sufficiently worthy. Therefore, also, we see, in the light of that truth which, veiled in the Old Testament, is revealed in the New, namely, that it is not in view of terrestrial and temporal benefits, which divine providence grants promiscuously to good and evil, that God is to be worshipped, but in view of eternal life, everlasting gifts, and of the society of the heavenly city itself;—in the light of this truth we see that the Jews were most righteously given as a trophy to the glory of the Romans; for we see that these Romans, who rested on earthly glory, and sought to obtain it by virtues, such as they were, conquered those who, in their great depravity, slew and rejected the giver of true glory, and of the eternal city.

> Latin: Haec et alia, si qua huius modi reperiuntur in litteris eorum, quando sic innotescerent, quando tanta fama praedicarentur, nisi Romanum imperium longe lateque porrectum magnificis successibus augeretur? Proinde per illud imperium tam latum tamque diuturnum uirorumque tantorum uirtutibus praeclarum adque gloriosum et illorum intentioni merces quam quaerebant est reddita, et nobis proposita necessariae commonitionis exempla, ut, si uirtutes, quarum istae utcumque sunt similes, quas isti pro ciuitatis terrenae gloriae tenuerunt, pro Dei gloriosissima ciuitate non tenuerimus, pudore pungamur; si tenuerimus, superbia non extollamur; quoniam, sicut dicit apostolus, indignae sunt passiones huius temporis ad futuram gloriam, quae reuelabitur in nobis. Ad humanam uero gloriam praesentisque temporis satis digna uita aestimabatur illorum. Unde etiam Iudaei, qui Christum occiderunt, reuelante testamento nouo quod in uetere uelatum fuit, ut non pro terrenis et temporalibus beneficiis, quae diuina prouidentia permixte bonis malisque concedit, sed pro aeterna uita muneribusque perpetuis et ipsius supernae ciuitatis societate colatur Deus unus et uerus, rectissime istorum gloriae donati sunt, ut hi, qui qualibuscumque uirtutibus terrenam gloriam quaesiuerunt et adquisiuerunt, uincerent eos, qui magnis uitiis datorem uerae gloriae et ciuitatis aeternae occiderunt adque respuerunt.

### Concerning the Difference Between True Glory and the Desire of Domination.

[¶11] Chapter 19.—Concerning the Difference Between True Glory and the Desire of Domination.

> Latin: Caput XIX. Quo inter se differant cupiditas gloriae et cupiditas dominationis.

[¶12] There is assuredly a difference between the desire of human glory and the desire of domination; for, though he who has an overweening delight in human glory will be also very prone to aspire earnestly after domination, nevertheless they who desire the true glory even of human praise strive not to displease those who judge well of them. For there are many good moral qualities, of which many are competent judges, although they are not possessed by many; and by those good moral qualities those men press on to glory, honor and domination, of whom Sallust says, “But they press on by the true way.”

> Latin: Interest sane inter cupiditatem humanae gloriae et cupiditatem dominationis. Nam licet procliue sit, ut, qui humana gloria nimium delectatur, etiam dominari ardenter adfectet, tamen qui ueram licet humanarum laudum gloriam concupiscunt, dant operam bene iudicantibus non displicere.

[¶13] But whosoever, without possessing that desire of glory which makes one fear to displease those who judge his conduct, desires domination and power, very often seeks to obtain what he loves by most open crimes. Therefore he who desires glory presses on to obtain it either by the true way, or certainly by deceit and artifice, wishing to appear good when he is not. Therefore to him who possesses virtues it is a great virtue to despise glory; for contempt of it is seen by God, but is not manifest to human judgment. For whatever any one does before the eyes of men in order to show himself to be a despiser of glory, if they suspect that he is doing it in order to get greater praise,—that is, greater glory,—he has no means of demonstrating to the perceptions of those who suspect him that the case is really otherwise than they suspect it to be. But he who despises the judgment of praisers, despises also the rashness of suspectors. Their salvation, indeed, he does not despise, if he is truly good; for so great is the righteousness of that man who receives his virtues from the Spirit of God, that he loves his very enemies, and so loves them that he desires that his haters and detractors may be turned to righteousness, and become his associates, and that not in an earthly but in a heavenly country. But with respect to his praisers, though he sets little value on their praise, he does not set little value on their love; neither does he elude their praise, lest he should forfeit their love. And, therefore, he strives earnestly to have their praises directed to Him from whom every one receives whatever in him is truly praiseworthy. But he who is a despiser of glory, but is greedy of domination, exceeds the beasts in the vices of cruelty and luxuriousness. Such, indeed, were certain of the Romans, who, wanting the love of esteem, wanted not the thirst for domination; and that there were many such, history testifies. But it was Nero Cæsar who was the first to reach the summit, and, as it were, the citadel, of this vice; for so great was his luxuriousness, that one would have thought there was nothing manly to be dreaded in him, and such his cruelty, that, had not the contrary been known, no one would have thought there was anything effeminate in his character. Nevertheless power and domination are not given even to such men save by the providence of the most high God, when He judges that the state of human affairs is worthy of such lords. The divine utterance is clear on this matter; for the Wisdom of God thus speaks: “By me kings reign, and tyrants possess the land.” But, that it may not be thought that by “tyrants” is meant, not wicked and impious kings, but brave men, in accordance with the ancient use of the word, as when Virgil says,

> Latin: Sunt enim multa in moribus bona, de quibus multi bene iudicant, quamuis ea multi non habeant; per ea bona morum nituntur ad gloriam et imperium uel dominationem, de quibus ait Sallustius: ‘Sed ille uera uia nititur.) Quisquis autem sine cupiditate gloriae, qua ueretur homo bene iudicantibus displicere, dominari adque imperare desiderat, etiam per apertissima scelera quaerit plerumque obtinere quod diligit. Proinde qui gloriam concupiscit, aut uera uia nititur aut certe dolis adque fallaciis contendit, uolens bonus uideri esse, quod non est. Et ideo uirtutes habenti magna uirtus est contemnere gloriam, quia contemtus eius in conspectu Dei est, iudicio autem non aperitur humano. Quidquid enim fecerit ad oculos hominum, quo gloriae contemtor appareat, ad maiorem laudem, hoc est ad maiorem gloriam, facere si credatur, non est unde se suspicantium sensibus aliter esse, quam suspicantur, ostendat. Sed qui contemnit iudicia laudantium, contemnit etiam suspicantium temeritatem, quorum tamen, si uere bonus est, non contemnit salutem, quoniam tantae iustitiae est qui de spiritu Dei uirtutes habet, ut etiam ipsos diligat inimicos, et ita diligat, ut suos osores uel detractores uelit correctos habere consortes non in terrena patria, sed superna; in laudatoribus autem suis, quamuis paruipendat quod eum laudant, non tamen paruipendit quod amant, nec eos uult fallere laudantes, ne decipiat diligentes; ideoque instat ardenter, ut potius ille laudetur, a quo habet homo quidquid in eo iure laudatur. Qui autem gloriae contemtor dominationis est auidus, bestias superat siue crudelitatis uitiis siue luxuriae. Tales quidam Romani fuerunt. Non enim cura existimationis amissa dominationis cupiditate caruerunt. Multos tales fuisse prodit historia; sed huius uitii summitatem et quasi arcem quandam Nero Caesar primus obtinuit, cuius fuit tanta luxuries, ut nihil ab eo putaretur uirile metuendum; tanta crudelitas, ut nihil molle habere crederetur, si nesciretur. Etiam talibus tamen dominandi potestas non datur nisi summi Dei prouidentia, quando res humanas iudicat talibus dominis dignas. Aperta de hac re uox diuina est loquente Dei sapientia: Per me reges regnant et tyranni per me tenent terram. Sed ne tyranni non pessimi adque inprobi reges, sed uetere nomine fortes dicti existimentur (unde ait Vergilius: Pars mihi pacis erit dextram tetigisse tyranni): apertissime alio loco de Deo dictum est: Quia regnare facit hominem hypocritam propter peruersitatem populi.

[¶14] “For know that treaty may not stand

[¶15] Where king greets king and joins not hand,”

[¶16] in another place it is most unambiguously said of God, that He “maketh the man who is an hypocrite to reign on account of the perver sity of the people.” Wherefore, though I have, according to my ability, shown for what reason God, who alone is true and just, helped forward the Romans, who were good according to a certain standard of an earthly state, to the acquirement of the glory of so great an empire, there may be, nevertheless, a more hidden cause, known better to God than to us, depending on the diversity of the merits of the human race. Among all who are truly pious, it is at all events agreed that no one without true piety,—that is, true worship of the true God—can have true virtue; and that it is not true virtue which is the slave of human praise. Though, nevertheless, they who are not citizens of the eternal city, which is called the city of God in the sacred Scriptures, are more useful to the earthly city when they possess even that virtue than if they had not even that. But there could be nothing more fortunate for human affairs than that, by the mercy of God, they who are endowed with true piety of life, if they have the skill for ruling people, should also have the power. But such men, however great virtues they may possess in this life, attribute it solely to the grace of God that He has bestowed it on them—willing, believing, seeking. And, at the same time, they understand how far they are short of that perfection of righteousness which exists in the society of those holy angels for which they are striving to fit themselves. But however much that virtue may be praised and cried up, which without true piety is the slave of human glory, it is not at all to be compared even to the feeble beginnings of the virtue of the saints, whose hope is placed in the grace and mercy of the true God.

> Latin: Quam ob rem, quamuis ut potui satis exposuerim qua causa Deus unus uerus et iustus Romanos secundum quandam formam terrenae ciuitatis bonos adiuuerit ad tanti imperii gloriam consequendam: potest tamen et alia causa esse latentior propter diuersa merita generis humani, Deo magis nota quam nobis, dum illud constet inter omnes ueraciter pios, neminem sine uera pietate, id est ueri Dei uero cultu, ueram posse habere uirtutem, nec eam ueram esse, quando gloriae seruit humanae; eos tamen, qui ciues non sint ciuitatis aeternae, quae in sacris litteris nostris dicitur ciuitas Dei, utiliores esse terrenae ciuitati, quando habent uirtutem uel ipsam, quam si nec ipsam. Illi autem, qui uera pietate praediti bene uiuunt, si habent scientiam regendi populos, nihil est felicius rebus humanis, quam si Deo miserante habeant potestatem. Tales autem homines uirtutes suas, quantascumque in hac uita possunt habere, non tribuunt nisi gratiae Dei, quod eas uolentibus credentibus petentibus dederit, simulque intellegunt. quantum sibi desit ad perfectionem iustitiae, qualis est in illorum sanctorum angelorum societate, cui se nituntur aptare. Quantumlibet autem laudetur adque praedicetur uirtus, quae sine uera pietate seruit hominum gloriae, nequaquam sanctorum exiguis initiis conparanda est, quorum spes posita est in gratia et in misericordia ueri Dei.

### That It is as Shameful for the Virtues to Serve Human Glory as Bodily Pleasure.

[¶18] Chapter 20.—That It is as Shameful for the Virtues to Serve Human Glory as Bodily Pleasure.

> Latin: Caput XX. Tam turpiter seruire uirtutes humanae gloriae quam corporis uoluptati.

[¶19] Philosophers,—who place the end of human good in virtue itself, in order to put to shame certain other philosophers, who indeed approve of the virtues, but measure them all with reference to the end of bodily pleasure, and think that this pleasure is to be sought for its own sake, but the virtues on account of pleasure,—are wont to paint a kind of word-picture, in which Pleasure sits like a luxurious queen on a royal seat, and all the virtues are subjected to her as slaves, watching her nod, that they may do whatever she shall command. She commands Prudence to be ever on the watch to discover how Pleasure may rule, and be safe. Justice she orders to grant what benefits she can, in order to secure those friendships which are necessary for bodily pleasure; to do wrong to no one, lest, on account of the breaking of the laws, Pleasure be not able to live in security. Fortitude she orders to keep her mistress, that is, Pleasure, bravely in her mind, if any affliction befall her body which does not occasion death, in order that by remembrance of former delights she may mitigate the poignancy of present pain. Temperance she commands to take only a certain quantity even of the most favorite food, lest, through immoderate use, anything prove hurtful by disturbing the health of the body, and thus Pleasure, which the Epicureans make to consist chiefly in the health of the body, be grievously offended. Thus the virtues, with the whole dignity of their glory, will be the slaves of Pleasure, as of some imperious and disreputable woman.

> Latin: Solent philosophi, qui finem boni humani in ipsa uirtute constituunt, ad ingerendum pudorem quibusdam philosophis. qui uirtutes quidem probant, sed eas uoluptatis corporalis fine metiuntur et illam per se ipsam putant adpetendam. istas propter ipsam, tabulam quandam uerbis pingere, ubi uoluptas in sella regali quasi delicata quaedam regina considat, eique uirtutes famulae subiciantur, obseruantes eius nutum, ut faciant quod illa imperauerit, quae prudentiae iubeat, ut uigilanter inquirat, quo modo uoluptas regnet et salua sit; iustitiae iubeat, ut praestet beneficia quae potest ad conparandas amicitias corporalibus commodis necessarias, nulli faciat iniuriam, ne offensis legibus uoluptas uiuere secura non possit; fortitudini iubeat. ut, si dolor corpori accesserit, qui non conpellat in mortem, teneat dominam suam, id est uoluptatem, fortiter in animi cogitatione, ut per pristinarum deliciarum suarum recordationem mitiget praesentis doloris aculeos; temperantiae iubeat, ut tantum capiat alimentorum etsi qua delectant, ne per inmoderationem noxium aliquid ualetudinem turbet et uoluptas, quam etiam in corporis sanitate Epicurei maximam ponunt, grauiter offendatur.

[¶20] There is nothing, say our philosophers, more disgraceful and monstrous than this picture, and which the eyes of good men can less endure. And they say the truth. But I do not think that the picture would be sufficiently becoming, even if it were made so that the virtues should be represented as the slaves of human glory; for, though that glory be not a luxurious woman, it is nevertheless puffed up, and has much vanity in it. Wherefore it is unworthy of the solidity and firmness of the virtues to represent them as serving this glory, so that Prudence shall provide nothing, Justice distribute nothing, Temperance moderate nothing, except to the end that men may be pleased and vain glory served. Nor will they be able to defend themselves from the charge of such baseness, whilst they, by way of being despisers of glory, disregard the judgment of other men, seem to themselves wise, and please themselves. For their virtue,—if, indeed, it is virtue at all,—is only in another way subjected to human praise; for he who seeks to please himself seeks still to please man. But he who, with true piety towards God, whom he loves, believes, and hopes in, fixes his attention more on those things in which he displeases himself, than on those things, if there are any such, which please himself, or rather, not himself, but the truth, does not attribute that by which he can now please the truth to anything but to the mercy of Him whom he has feared to displease, giving thanks for what in him is healed, and pouring out prayers for the healing of that which is yet unhealed.

> Latin: Ita uirtutes cum tota suae gloria dignitatis tamquam imperiosae cuidam et inhonestae mulierculae seruient uoluptati. Nihil hac pictura dicunt esse ignominiosius et deformius et quod minus ferre bonorum possit aspectus; et uerum dicunt. Sed non existimo satis debiti decoris esse picturam, si etiam talis fingatur, ubi uirtutes humanae gloriae seruiunt. Licet enim ipsa gloria delicata mulier non sit, inflata [tamen] est et multum inanitatis habet. Unde non ei digne seruit soliditas quaedam firmitasque uirtutum, ut nihil prouideat prouidentia, nihil distribuat iustitia, nihil toleret fortitudo, nihil temperantia moderetur, nisi unde placeatur hominibus et uentosae gloriae seruiatur. Nec illi se ab ista foeditate defenderint, qui, cum aliena spernant iudicia uelut gloriae contemtores, sibi sapientes uidentur et sibi placent. Nam eorum uirtus, si tamen ulla est, alio modo quodam humanae subditur laudi; neque enim ipse, qui sibi placet, homo non est. Qui autem uera pietate in Deum, quem diligit, credit et sperat, plus intendit in ea, quibus sibi displicet, quam in ea, si qua in illo sunt, quae non tam ipsi quam ueritati placent; neque id tribuit, unde iam potest placere, nisi eius misericordiae, cui metuit displicere; de his sanatis gratias agens, de illis sanandis preces fundens.

### That the Roman Dominion Was Granted by Him from Whom is All Power, and by Whose Providence All Things are Ruled.

[¶22] Chapter 21.—That the Roman Dominion Was Granted by Him from Whom is All Power, and by Whose Providence All Things are Ruled.

> Latin: Caput XXI. Romanum regnum a Deo uero esse dispositum, a quo est omnis potestas et cuius prouidentia reguntur uniuersa.

[¶23] These things being so, we do not attribute the power of giving kingdoms and empires to any save to the true God, who gives happiness in the kingdom of heaven to the pious alone, but gives kingly power on earth both to the pious and the impious, as it may please Him, whose good pleasure is always just. For though we have said something about the principles which guide His administration, in so far as it has seemed good to Him to explain it, nevertheless it is too much for us, and far surpasses our strength, to discuss the hidden things of men’s hearts, and by a clear examination to determine the merits of various kingdoms. He, therefore, who is the one true God, who never leaves the human race without just judgment and help, gave a kingdom to the Romans when He would, and as great as He would, as He did also to the Assyrians, and even the Persians, by whom, as their own books testify, only two gods are worshipped, the one good and the other evil,—to say nothing concerning the Hebrew people, of whom I have already spoken as much as seemed necessary, who, as long as they were a kingdom, worshipped none save the true God. The same, therefore, who gave to the Persians harvests, though they did not worship the goddess Segetia, who gave the other blessings of the earth, though they did not worship the many gods which the Romans supposed to preside, each one over some particular thing, or even many of them over each several thing,—He, I say, gave the Persians dominion, though they worshipped none of those gods to whom the Romans believed themselves indebted for the empire. And the same is true in respect of men as well as nations. He who gave power to Marius gave it also to Caius Cæsar; He who gave it to Augustus gave it also to Nero; He also who gave it to the most benignant emperors, the Vespasians, father and son, gave it also to the cruel Domitian; and, finally, to avoid the necessity of going over them all, He who gave it to the Christian Constantine gave it also to the apostate Julian, whose gifted mind was deceived by a sacrilegious and detestable curiosity, stimulated by the love of power. And it was because he was addicted through curiosity to vain oracles, that, confident of victory, he burned the ships which were laden with the provisions necessary for his army, and therefore, engaging with hot zeal in rashly audacious enterprises, he was soon slain, as the just consequence of his recklessness, and left his army unprovisioned in an enemy’s country, and in such a predicament that it never could have escaped, save by altering the boundaries of the Roman empire, in violation of that omen of the god Terminus of which I spoke in the preceding book; for the god Terminus yielded to necessity, though he had not yielded to Jupiter. Manifestly these things are ruled and governed by the one God according as He pleases; and if His motives are hid, are they therefore unjust?

> Latin: Quae cum ita sint, non tribuamus dandi regni adque imperii potestatem nisi Deo uero, qui dat felicitatem in regno caelorum solis piis; regnum uero terrenum et piis et inpiis. sicut ei placet, cui nihil iniuste placet. Quamuis enim aliquid dixerimus, quod apertum nobis esse uoluit: tamen multum est ad nos et ualde superat uires nostras hominum occulta discutere et liquido examine merita diiudicare regnorum. Ille igitur unus uerus Deus, qui nec iudicio nec adiutorio deserit genus humanum, quando uoluit et quantum uoluit Romanis regnum dedit; qui dedit Assyriis, uel etiam Persis, a quibus solos duos deos coli, unum bonum, alterum malum, continent litterae istorum; ut taceam de populo Hebraeo, de quo iam dixi quantum satis uisum est, qui praeter unum Deum non coluit et quando regnauit. Qui ergo Persis dedit segetes sine cultu deae Segetiae, qui alia dona terrarum sine cultu tot deorum, quos isti rebus singulis singulos, uel etiam rebus singulis plures praeposuerunt: ipse etiam regnum dedit sine cultu eorum, per quorum cultum se isti regnasse crediderunt. Sic etiam hominibus: qui Mario, ipse Gaio Caesari; qui Augusto, ipse et Neroni; qui Vespasianis, uel patri uel filio, suauissimis imperatoribus, ipse et Domitiano crudelissimo; et ne per singulos ire necesse sit, qui Constantino Christiano, ipse apostatae Iuliano, cuius egregiam indolem decepit amore dominandi sacrilega et detestanda curiositas, cuius uanis deditus oraculis erat, quando fretus securitate uictoriae naues, quibus uictus necessarius portabatur, incendit; deinde feruide instans inmodicis ausibus et mox mento temeritatis occisus in locis hostilibus egenum reliquit exercitum, ut aliter inde non posset euadi, nisi contra illud auspicium dei Termini, de quo superiore libro diximus, Romani imperii termini mouerentur. Cessit enim Terminus deus necessitati, qui non cesserat Ioui. Haec plane Deus unus et uerus regit et gubernat, ut placet; et si occultis causis, numquid iniustis?