Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| Of the Fratricidal Act of the Founder of the Earthly City, and the Corresponding Crime of the Founder of Rome.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
Chapter 5.—Of the Fratricidal Act
of the Founder of the Earthly City, and the Corresponding Crime of
the Founder of Rome.
Thus the founder of the earthly
city was a fratricide. Overcome with envy, he slew his own
brother, a citizen of the eternal city, and a sojourner on earth.
So that we cannot be surprised that this first specimen, or, as the
Greeks say, archetype of crime, should, long afterwards, find a
corresponding crime at the foundation of that city which was
destined to reign over so many nations, and be the head of this
earthly city of which we speak. For of that city also, as one of
their poets has mentioned, “the first walls were stained with a
brother’s blood,”774
or, as Roman history records, Remus
was slain by his brother Romulus. And thus there is no difference
between the foundation of this city and of the earthly city, unless
it be that Romulus and Remus were both citizens of the earthly
city. Both desired to have the glory of founding the Roman
republic, but both could not have as much glory as if one only
claimed it; for he who wished to have the glory of ruling would
certainly rule less if his power were shared by a living consort.
In order, therefore, that the whole glory might be enjoyed by one,
his consort was removed; and by this crime the empire was made
larger indeed,
but inferior, while otherwise
it would have been less, but better. Now these brothers, Cain and
Abel, were not both animated by the same earthly desires, nor did
the murderer envy the other because he feared that, by both ruling,
his own dominion would be curtailed,—for Abel was not solicitous
to rule in that city which his brother built,—he was moved by
that diabolical, envious hatred with which the evil regard the
good, for no other reason than because they are good while
themselves are evil. For the possession of goodness is by no
means diminished by being shared with a partner either permanent or
temporarily assumed; on the contrary, the possession of goodness is
increased in proportion to the concord and charity of each of those
who share it. In short, he who is unwilling to share this
possession cannot have it; and he who is most willing to admit
others to a share of it will have the greatest abundance to
himself. The quarrel, then, between Romulus and Remus shows how
the earthly city is divided against itself; that which fell out
between Cain and Abel illustrated the hatred that subsists between
the two cities, that of God and that of men. The wicked war with
the wicked; the good also war with the wicked. But with the good,
good men, or at least perfectly good men, cannot war; though, while
only going on towards perfection, they war to this extent, that
every good man resists others in those points in which he resists
himself. And in each individual “the flesh lusteth against the
spirit, and the spirit against the flesh.”775
This spiritual lusting,
therefore, can be at war with the carnal lust of another man; or
carnal lust may be at war with the spiritual desires of another, in
some such way as good and wicked men are at war; or, still more
certainly, the carnal lusts of two men, good but not yet perfect,
contend together, just as the wicked contend with the wicked, until
the health of those who are under the treatment of grace attains
final victory.E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
