men, but by the direct command of your gods." * It would be better to worship a virtuous man,
such as Scipio, than these immoral gods. But as for the sack of Rome, it need not trouble
Christians, who have a sanctuary in the "pilgrim city of God."
In this world, the two cities--the earthly and the heavenly--are commingled; but hereafter the
predestinate and the reprobate will be separated. In this life, we cannot know who, even among
our seeming enemies, are to be found ultimately among the elect.
The most difficult part of the work, we are told, will consist in the refutation of the
philosophers, with the best of whom Christians are to a large extent in agreement--for instance
as to immortality and the creation of the world by God. â€
The philosophers did not throw over the worship of the heathen gods, and their moral
instructions were weak because the gods were wicked. It is not suggested that the gods are mere
fables; they are held by Saint Augustine to exist, but to be devils. They liked to have filthy
stories told of them, because they wanted to injure men. Jupiter's deeds count more, with most
pagans, than Plato's doctrines or Cato's opinions. " Plato, who would not allow poets to dwell in
a well-governed city, showed that his sole worth was better than those gods, that desire to be
honoured with stage-plays." ‡
Rome was always wicked, from the rape of the Sabine women onwards. Many chapters are
devoted to the sinfulness of Roman imperialism. Nor is it true that Rome did not suffer before
the State became Christian; from the Gauls and the civil wars it suffered as much as from the
Goths, and more.
Astrology is not only wicked, but false; this may be proved from the different fortunes of twins,
who have the same horoscope. § The Stoic conception of Fate (which was connected with
astrology) is mistaken, since angels and men have free will. It is true that God has
foreknowledge of our sins, but we do not sin because of His foreknowledge. It is a mistake to
suppose that virtue brings unhappiness,
* The City of God, I, 31.Â
§This argument is not original; it is derived from the academic sceptic Carneades. Cf.
Cumont, Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism, p. 166.â
€
Ibid., I, 35.â
€
¡Ibid., II, 14.