The hour is nigh
  When we may feast in quiet.

You recommend us, in fact, to take timely precautions, so that the waves of the discontented raging masses mayn’t disturb us at table.  But the whole point of view is as false as it is now-a-days popular and commended; and so I make haste to enter a protest against it.  It is false, that state, justice, law cannot be upheld without the assistance of religion and its dogmas; and that justice and public order need religion as a necessary complement, if legislative enactments are to be carried out.  It is false, were it repeated a hundred times.  An effective and striking argument to the contrary is afforded by the ancients, especially the Greeks.  They had nothing at all of what we understand by religion.  They had no sacred documents, no dogma to be learned and its acceptance furthered by every one, its principles to be inculcated early on the young.  Just as little was moral doctrine preached by the ministers of religion, nor did the priests trouble themselves about morality or about what the people did or left undone.  Not at all.  The duty of the priests was confined to temple-ceremonial, prayers, hymns, sacrifices, processions, lustrations and the like, the object of which was anything but the moral improvement of the individual.  What was called religion consisted, more especially in the cities, in giving temples here and there to some of the gods of the greater tribes, in which the worship described was carried on as a state matter, and was consequently, in fact, an affair of police.  No one, except the functionaries performing, was in any way compelled to attend, or even to believe in it.  In the whole of antiquity there is no trace of any obligation to believe in any particular dogma.  Merely in the case of an open denial of the existence of the gods, or any other reviling of them, a penalty was imposed, and that on account of the insult offered to the state, which served those gods; beyond this it was free to everyone to think of them what he pleased.  If anyone wanted to gain the favor of those gods privately, by prayer or sacrifice, it was open to him to do so at his own expense and at his own risk; if he didn’t do it, no one made any objection, least of all the state.  In the case of the Romans, everyone had his own Lares and Penates at home; they were, however, in reality, only the venerated busts of ancestors.  Of the immortality of the soul and a life beyond the grave, the ancients had no firm, clear or, least of all, dogmatically fixed idea, but very loose, fluctuating, indefinite and problematical notions, everyone in his own way:  and the ideas about the gods were just as varying, individual and vague.  There was, therefore, really no religion, in our sense of the word, amongst the ancients.  But did anarchy and lawlessness prevail amongst them on that account?  Is not law and civil order, rather, so much their work, that it still forms the foundation of our own?