City of God, Book 10

It is the settled opinion of all who use their brains that all men desire to be happy. But who are happy, or how they become so, these are questions about which the weakness of human understanding stirs endless and angry controversies, in which philosophers have wasted their strength and spent their leisure. To bring forward and discuss their various opinions would be tedious, and is unnecessary. The reader may remember what we said in the eighth book, while making a selection of the philosophers with whom we might discuss the question regarding the future life of happiness, whether we can reach it by paying divine honors to the one true God, the Creator of all gods, or by worshipping many gods, and he will not expect us to repeat here the same argument, especially since, even if he has forgotten it, he may refresh his memory by rereading. For we selected the Platonists, justly considered the noblest of the philosophers, because they had the insight to perceive that the human soul, immortal and rational, or intellectual, as it is, cannot be happy except by partaking of the light of that God by whom both itself and the world were made; and also that the happy life which all men desire cannot be reached by anyone who does not cling with a pure and holy love to that one supreme good, the unchangeable God. But since even these philosophers, whether accommodating themselves to the folly and ignorance of the people, or, as the apostle says, “becoming vain in their reasonings,” Romans 1:21 supposed or allowed others to suppose that many gods should be worshipped, so that some of them considered that divine honor by worship and sacrifice should be offered even to the demons (an error I have already refuted), we must now, with God's help, find out what is thought about our religious worship and piety by those immortal and blessed spirits, who dwell in the heavenly places among dominations, principalities, powers, whom the Platonists call gods, and some either good demons, or, like us, angels — that is to say, to put it more plainly, whether the angels desire us to offer sacrifice and worship, and to consecrate our possessions and ourselves, to them or only to God, theirs and ours. For this is the worship which is due to the Divinity, or, to speak more accurately, to the Deity; and, to express this worship in a single word since no sufficiently exact Latin term occurs to me, I shall use a Greek word whenever necessary. Λατρεία, whenever it occurs in Scripture, is translated by the word service. But that service which is due to men, and about which the apostle writes that servants must be subject to their own masters, Ephesians 6:5 is usually designated by another word in Greek, while the service which is paid to God alone by worship, is always, or almost always, called λατρεία in the usage of those who wrote from the divine oracles. This cannot so well be called simply “cultus,” for in that case it would not seem to be due exclusively to God; for the same word is applied to the respect we pay either to the memory or the living presence of men. From it, too, we derive the words agriculture, colonist, and others. And the pagans call their gods “cœlicolæ,” not because they worship heaven, but because they dwell in it, and as it were colonize it — not in the sense in which we call those colonists who are attached to their native soil to cultivate it under the rule of the owners, but in the sense in which the great master of the Latin language says, “There was an ancient city inhabited by Tyrian colonists.” He called them colonists, not because they cultivated the soil, but because they inhabited the city. So, too, cities that have hived off from larger cities are called colonies. Consequently, while it is quite true that, using the word in a special sense, “cult” can be offered to no one but God, still, since the word is applied to other things as well, the cult due to God cannot in Latin be expressed by this word alone. The word “religion” might seem to express more definitely the worship due to God alone, and therefore Latin translators have used this word to represent θρησκεία; but since not only the uneducated, but also the best educated, use the word religion to express human ties, and relationships, and affinities, it would inevitably introduce ambiguity to use this word in discussing the worship of God, since we are unable to say that religion is nothing else than the worship of God, without contradicting the common usage which applies this word to the observance of social relationships. “Piety,” again, or, as the Greeks say, εὐσέβεια, is commonly understood as the proper designation of the worship of God. Yet this word also is used of dutifulness to parents. The common people, too, use it of works of mercy, which, I suppose, arises from the fact that God commands such works, and declares that He is pleased with them instead of, or in preference to sacrifices. From this usage it has also come to pass that God Himself is called pious, in which sense the Greeks never use εὐσεβεῖν, though εὐσέβεια is applied to works of mercy by their common people also. In some passages of Scripture, therefore, they have sought to preserve the distinction by using not εὐσέβεια, the more general word, but θεοσέβεια, which literally denotes the worship of God. We, on the other hand, cannot express either of these ideas by one word. This worship, then, which in Greek is called λατρεία, and in Latin “servitus” [service], but the service due to God only; this worship, which in Greek is called θρησκεία, and in Latin “religio,” but the religion by which we are bound to God only; this worship, which they call θεοσέβεια, but which we cannot express in one word, but call it the worship of God — this, we say, belongs only to that God who is the true God, and who makes His worshippers gods. And therefore, whoever these immortal and blessed inhabitants of heaven are, if they do not love us, and wish us to be blessed, then we ought not to worship them; and if they do love us and desire our happiness, they cannot wish us to be made happy by any other means than they themselves have enjoyed — for how could they wish our blessedness to flow from one source, theirs from another?

But with these more worthy philosophers we have no dispute in this matter. For they perceived, and in various forms abundantly expressed in their writings, that these spirits have the same source of happiness as ourselves — a certain intelligible light, which is their God, and is different from themselves, and illumines them so that they may be filled with light, and enjoy perfect happiness in the participation of God. Plotinus, commenting on Plato, repeatedly and strongly asserts that not even the soul which they believe to be the soul of the world, derives its blessedness from any other source than we do, namely, from that Light which is distinct from it and created it, and by whose intelligible illumination it enjoys light in things intelligible. He also compares those spiritual things to the vast and conspicuous heavenly bodies, as if God were the sun, and the soul the moon; for they suppose that the moon derives its light from the sun. That great Platonist, therefore, says that the rational soul, or rather the intellectual soul — in which class he includes the souls of the blessed immortals who inhabit heaven, — has no nature superior to it except God, the Creator of the world and the soul itself, and that these heavenly spirits derive their blessed life, and the light of truth, from the same source as ourselves, agreeing with the gospel where we read, “There was a man sent from God whose name was John; he came as a witness to bear witness to that Light, so that through Him all might believe. He was not that Light, but came so that he might bear witness to the Light. That was the true Light which lights every man that comes into the world;” John 1:6-9 a distinction which sufficiently proves that the rational or intellectual soul such as John had cannot be its own light, but needs to receive illumination from another, the true Light. John himself declares this when he gives his witness: “We have all received of His fullness.”

This being so, if the Platonists, or those who think as they do, knowing God, glorified Him as God and gave thanks, if they did not become vain in their own thoughts, if they did not originate the popular errors or yield to them, they would certainly acknowledge that neither could the blessed immortals retain, nor we miserable mortals reach, a happy condition without worshipping the one God of gods, who is both theirs and ours. To Him we owe the service which is called in Greek λατρεία, whether we offer it outwardly or inwardly; for we are all His temple, each of us individually and all of us together, because He stoops to inhabit each individually and the whole harmonious body, being no greater in all than in each, since He is neither expanded nor divided. Our heart when it rises to Him is His altar; the priest who intercedes for us is His Only-begotten; we sacrifice to Him bleeding victims when we contend for His truth even to blood; to Him we offer the sweetest incense when we come before Him burning with holy and pious love; to Him we devote and surrender ourselves and His gifts in us; to Him, by solemn feasts and on appointed days, we consecrate the memory of His benefits, so that ungrateful forgetfulness may not steal over us with the passing of time; to Him we offer on the altar of our heart the sacrifice of humility and praise, kindled by the fire of burning love. It is so that we may see Him, as far as He can be seen, and so that we may cling to Him, that we are cleansed from all stain of sins and evil passions, and are consecrated in His name. For He is the fountain of our happiness, He the end of all our desires. Being attached to Him, or rather let me say, re-attached — for we had detached ourselves and lost hold of Him — being, I say, re-attached to Him, we move toward Him by love, so that we may rest in Him, and find our blessedness by attaining that end. For our good, about which philosophers have so keenly argued, is nothing else than to be united to God. It is, if I may say so, by spiritually embracing Him that the intellectual soul is filled and impregnated with true virtues. We are commanded to love this good with all our heart, with all our soul, with all our strength. To this good we ought to be led by those who love us, and to lead those we love. Thus are fulfilled those two commandments on which hang all the law and the prophets: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your mind, and with all your soul;” and “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Matthew 22:37-40 For, so that man might know how to love himself, an end was appointed for him to which he might refer all his actions, so that he might be blessed. For he who loves himself wishes nothing else than this. And the end set before him is “to draw near to God.” And so, when one who has this intelligent self-love is commanded to love his neighbor as himself, what else is commanded than that he do all in his power to commend to him the love of God? This is the worship of God, this is true religion, this right piety, this the service due to God only. If any immortal power, then, no matter what power it is endowed with, loves us as himself, he must desire that we find our happiness by submitting ourselves to Him, in submission to whom he himself finds happiness. If he does not worship God, he is wretched, because deprived of God; if he worships God, he cannot wish to be worshipped in God's place. On the contrary, these higher powers heartily agree with the divine sentence in which it is written, “Whoever sacrifices to any god, except to the Lord alone, shall be utterly destroyed.” Exodus 22:20

But, putting aside for the present the other religious services with which God is worshipped, certainly no man would dare to say that sacrifice is due to any but God. Many parts, indeed, of divine worship are improperly used in showing honor to men, whether through an excessive humility or pernicious flattery; but even when this is done, those persons who are worshipped and venerated in this way, or even adored, are counted as no more than human; and who ever thought of sacrificing except to one whom he knew, supposed, or pretended to be a god? And how ancient a part of God's worship sacrifice is, those two brothers, Cain and Abel, sufficiently show, of whom God rejected the elder's sacrifice, and looked favorably on the younger's.

And who is so foolish as to suppose that the things offered to God are needed by Him for some uses of His own? Divine Scripture in many places refutes this idea. Not to be tedious, it is enough to quote this brief saying from a psalm: “I have said to the Lord, You are my God: for You have no need of my goodness.” We must believe, then, that God has no need, not only of cattle, or any other earthly and material thing, but even of man's righteousness, and that whatever right worship is paid to God benefits not Him, but man. For no man would say he did a favor to a fountain by drinking, or to the light by seeing. And the fact that the ancient church offered animal sacrifices, which the people of God nowadays read about without imitating, proves nothing else than this, that those sacrifices signified the things which we do for the purpose of drawing near to God, and inducing our neighbor to do the same. A sacrifice, therefore, is the visible sacrament or sacred sign of an invisible sacrifice. So that penitent in the psalm, or perhaps the Psalmist himself, begging God to be merciful to his sins, says, “If You desired sacrifice, I would give it: You do not delight in whole burnt offerings. The sacrifice of God is a broken heart: a heart contrite and humble God will not despise.” Observe how, in the very words in which he is expressing God's refusal of sacrifice, he shows that God requires sacrifice. He does not desire the sacrifice of a slaughtered beast, but He desires the sacrifice of a contrite heart. So the sacrifice which he says God does not wish is the symbol of the sacrifice which God does wish. God does not wish sacrifices in the sense in which foolish people think He wishes them, namely, to gratify His own pleasure. For if He had not wished that the sacrifices He requires, such as a heart contrite and humbled by penitent sorrow, should be symbolized by those sacrifices which He was thought to desire because pleasant to Himself, the old law would never have commanded that they be offered; and they were destined to be changed when the fitting time arrived, so that men might not suppose that the sacrifices themselves, rather than the things symbolized by them, were pleasing to God or acceptable in us. So, in another passage from another psalm, he says, “If I were hungry, I would not tell you; for the world is mine and the fullness of it. Will I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats?” as if He were saying, Supposing such things were necessary to me, I would never ask you for what I have in my own hand. Then he goes on to mention what these signify: “Offer to God the sacrifice of praise, and pay your vows to the Most High. And call on me in the day of trouble: I will deliver you, and you shall glorify me.” So in another prophet: “With what shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before the High God? Shall I come before Him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? Has He shown you, man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?” Micah 6:6-8 In the words of this prophet, these two things are distinguished and set out clearly enough, that God does not require these sacrifices for their own sakes, and that He does require the sacrifices which they symbolize. In the epistle entitled “To the Hebrews” it is said, “Do not forget to do good and to share: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.” Hebrews 13:16 And so, when it is written, “I desire mercy rather than sacrifice,” Hosea 6:6 nothing else is meant than that one sacrifice is preferred to another; for that which in common speech is called sacrifice is only the symbol of the true sacrifice. Now mercy is the true sacrifice, and therefore it is said, as I have just quoted, “with such sacrifices God is well pleased.” All the divine ordinances, therefore, which we read concerning the sacrifices in the service of the tabernacle or the temple, we are to refer to the love of God and our neighbor. For “on these two commandments,” as it is written, “hang all the law and the prophets.” Matthew 22:40

Thus a true sacrifice is every work which is done so that we may be united to God in holy fellowship, and which is directed to that supreme good and end in which alone we can be truly blessed. And therefore even the mercy we show to men, if it is not shown for God's sake, is not a sacrifice. For, though made or offered by man, sacrifice is a divine thing, as those who called it sacrifice meant to indicate. Thus man himself, consecrated in the name of God, and vowed to God, is a sacrifice insofar as he dies to the world so that he may live to God. For this is a part of that mercy which each man shows to himself; as it is written, “Have mercy on your soul by pleasing God.”⁠a Our body, too, is a sacrifice when we discipline it by temperance, if we do so as we ought, for God's sake, so that we may not yield our members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but instruments of righteousness to God. Romans 6:13 Exhorting to this sacrifice, the apostle says, “I beg you, therefore, brothers, by the mercy of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service.” Romans 12:1 If, then, the body, which, being inferior, the soul uses as a servant or instrument, is a sacrifice when it is used rightly, and with reference to God, how much more does the soul itself become a sacrifice when it offers itself to God, so that, inflamed by the fire of His love, it may receive of His beauty and become pleasing to Him, losing the shape of earthly desire, and being remolded in the image of permanent loveliness? And this, indeed, the apostle adds, saying, “And do not be conformed to this world; but be transformed in the renewing of your mind, so that you may discern what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God.” Romans 12:2 Since, therefore, true sacrifices are works of mercy to ourselves or others, done with reference to God, and since works of mercy have no other object than the relief of distress or the conferring of happiness, and since there is no happiness apart from that good of which it is said, “It is good for me to be very near to God,” it follows that the whole redeemed city, that is to say, the congregation or community of the saints, is offered to God as our sacrifice through the great High Priest, who offered Himself to God in His passion for us, so that we might be members of this glorious head, according to the form of a servant. For it was this form He offered, in this He was offered, because it is according to it He is Mediator, in this He is our Priest, in this the Sacrifice. Accordingly, when the apostle had exhorted us to present our bodies as a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, our reasonable service, and not to be conformed to the world, but to be transformed in the renewing of our mind, so that we might discern what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God, that is to say, the true sacrifice of ourselves, he says, “For I say, through the grace of God which is given to me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly, as God has dealt to every man the measure of faith. For, as we have many members in one body, and not all members have the same function, so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and each of us members of one another, having gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us.” Romans 12:3-6 This is the sacrifice of Christians: we, being many, are one body in Christ. And this also is the sacrifice which the Church continually celebrates in the sacrament of the altar, known to the faithful, in which she teaches that she herself is offered in the offering she makes to God.

It is very right that these blessed and immortal spirits, who inhabit celestial dwellings, and rejoice in sharing their Creator's fullness, firm in His eternity, assured in His truth, holy by His grace, since they compassionately and tenderly regard us miserable mortals, and wish us to become immortal and happy, do not desire us to sacrifice to themselves, but to Him whose sacrifice they know themselves to be in common with us. For we and they together are the one city of God, to which it is said in the psalm, “Glorious things are spoken of you, city of God;” the human part sojourning here below, the angelic aiding from above. For from that heavenly city, in which God's will is the intelligible and unchangeable law, from that heavenly council-chamber — for they sit in counsel regarding us — that holy Scripture, descended to us by the ministry of angels, in which it is written, “Whoever sacrifices to any god, except to the Lord alone, shall be utterly destroyed,” Exodus 22:20 — this Scripture, this law, these precepts, have been confirmed by such miracles, that it is sufficiently evident to whom these immortal and blessed spirits, who desire us to be like themselves, wish us to sacrifice.

I would seem tedious if I were to recount all the ancient miracles which were performed to confirm God's promises which He made to Abraham thousands of years ago, that in his seed all the nations of the earth would be blessed. Genesis 18:18 For who can fail to marvel that Abraham's barren wife should have given birth to a son at an age when not even a prolific woman could bear children; or, again, that when Abraham sacrificed, a flame from heaven should have run between the divided parts; or that the angels in human form, whom he had hospitably entertained, and who had renewed God's promise of offspring, should also have predicted the destruction of Sodom by fire from heaven; Genesis xviii and that his nephew Lot should have been rescued from Sodom by the angels as the fire was just descending, while his wife, who looked back as she went, and was immediately turned into salt, stood as a sacred beacon warning us that no one who is being saved should long for what he is leaving? How striking also were the wonders done by Moses to rescue God's people from the yoke of slavery in Egypt, when the magi of the Pharaoh, that is, the king of Egypt, who tyrannized over this people, were allowed to do some wonderful things so that they might be defeated all the more strikingly! They did these things by the magical arts and incantations to which the evil spirits or demons are addicted; while Moses, having as much greater power as he had right on his side, and having the aid of angels, easily conquered them in the name of the Lord who made heaven and earth. And, in fact, the magicians failed at the third plague; while Moses, dealing out the miracles delegated to him, brought ten plagues on the land, so that the hard hearts of Pharaoh and the Egyptians yielded, and the people were let go. But, quickly repenting, and trying to overtake the departing Hebrews, who had crossed the sea on dry ground, they were covered and overwhelmed in the returning waters. What shall I say of those frequent and stupendous exhibitions of divine power, while the people were conducted through the wilderness?— of the waters which could not be drunk, but lost their bitterness, and quenched the thirsty, when at God's command a piece of wood was cast into them? Of the manna that descended from heaven to appease their hunger, and which bred worms and rotted when anyone collected more than the appointed quantity, and yet, though double was gathered on the day before the Sabbath (it not being lawful to gather it on that day), remained fresh? Of the birds which filled the camp, and turned appetite into satiety when they longed for flesh, which it seemed impossible to supply to so vast a population? Of the enemies who met them, and opposed their passage with arms, and were defeated without the loss of a single Hebrew, when Moses prayed with his hands extended in the form of a cross? Of the seditious persons who arose among God's people, and separated themselves from the divinely-ordered community, and were swallowed up alive by the earth, a visible token of an invisible punishment? Of the rock struck with the rod, and pouring out waters more than enough for all the host? Of the deadly serpents' bites, sent in just punishment of sin, but healed by looking at the lifted bronze serpent, so that not only were the tormented people healed, but a symbol of the crucifixion of death set before them in this destruction of death by death? It was this serpent which was preserved in memory of this event, and was afterward worshipped by the mistaken people as an idol, and was destroyed by the pious and God-fearing king Hezekiah, much to his credit.

These miracles, and many others of the same nature, which it would be tedious to mention, were performed for the purpose of commending the worship of the one true God, and prohibiting the worship of a multitude of false gods. Moreover, they were performed by simple faith and godly confidence, not by the incantations and charms composed under the influence of a criminal tampering with the unseen world, of an art which they call either magic, or by the more abominable title necromancy, or the more honorable designation theurgy; for they wish to distinguish between those whom the people call magicians, who practice necromancy, and are addicted to illicit arts and condemned, and those others who seem to them to be worthy of praise for their practice of theurgy — the truth, however, being that both classes are the slaves of the deceitful rites of the demons whom they invoke under the names of angels. For even Porphyry promises some kind of purgation of the soul by the help of theurgy, though he does so with some hesitation and shame, and denies that this art can secure for anyone a return to God; so that you can detect his opinion vacillating between the profession of philosophy and an art which he feels to be presumptuous and sacrilegious. For at one time he warns us to avoid it as deceitful, and prohibited by law, and dangerous to those who practice it; then again, as if in deference to its advocates, he declares it useful for cleansing one part of the soul, not, indeed, the intellectual part, by which the truth of things intelligible, which have no images perceptible to the senses, is recognized, but the spiritual part, which takes in the images of things material. This part, he says, is prepared and fitted for dealings with spirits and angels, and for the vision of the gods, by the help of certain theurgic consecrations, or, as they call them, mysteries. He acknowledges, however, that these theurgic mysteries impart to the intellectual soul no such purity as fits it to see its God, and recognize the things that truly exist. And from this acknowledgment we may infer what kind of gods these are, and what kind of vision of them is imparted by theurgic consecrations, if by it one cannot see the things which truly exist. He says, further, that the rational, or, as he prefers to call it, the intellectual soul, can pass into the heavens without the spiritual part being cleansed by theurgic art, and that this art cannot so purify the spiritual part as to give it entrance to immortality and eternity. And therefore, although he distinguishes angels from demons, asserting that the latter live in the air, while the former dwell in the ether and empyrean, and although he advises us to cultivate the friendship of some demon, who may be able after our death to assist us, and elevate us at least a little above the earth — for he admits that it is by another way we must reach the heavenly society of the angels — he at the same time distinctly warns us to avoid the society of demons, saying that the soul, expiating its sin after death, curses the worship of demons by whom it was entangled. And of theurgy itself, though he recommends it as reconciling angels and demons, he cannot deny that it deals with powers which either themselves envy the soul its purity, or serve the arts of those who do envy it. He complains of this through the mouth of some Chaldæan or other: “A good man in Chaldæa complains,” he says, “that his most strenuous efforts to cleanse his soul were frustrated, because another man, who had influence in these matters, and who envied him his purity, had prayed to the powers, and bound them by his conjuring not to listen to his request. Therefore,” adds Porphyry, “what the one man bound, the other could not loose.” And from this he concludes that theurgy is a craft which accomplishes not only good but evil among gods and men; and that the gods also have passions, and are disturbed and agitated by the emotions which Apuleius attributed to demons and men, but from which he preserved the gods by that loftiness of dwelling which, in common with Plato, he granted them.

But here we have another and a much more learned Platonist than Apuleius, namely Porphyry, asserting that, by some theurgy or other, even the gods themselves are subjected to passions and disturbances; for by incantations they were so bound and terrified that they could not confer purity of soul — were so terrified by the man who imposed a wicked command on them, that they could not by the same theurgy be freed from that terror, and fulfill the righteous request of the man who prayed to them, or do the good he sought. Who does not see that all these things are fictions of deceiving demons, unless he is a wretched slave of theirs, and a stranger to the grace of the true Liberator? For if the Chaldæan had been dealing with good gods, certainly a well-disposed man, who sought to purify his own soul, would have had more influence with them than an ill-disposed man seeking to hinder him. Or, if the gods were just, and considered the man unworthy of the purification he sought, at all events they should not have been terrified by an envious person, nor hindered, as Porphyry admits, by the fear of a stronger deity, but should simply have denied the favor on their own free judgment. And it is surprising that that well-disposed Chaldæan, who desired to purify his soul by theurgic rites, found no superior deity who could either terrify the frightened gods still more, and force them to grant the favor, or calm their fears, and so enable them to do good without compulsion — even supposing that the good theurgist had no rites by which he himself might purge away the taint of fear from the gods whom he invoked for the purification of his own soul. And why is it that there is a god who has power to terrify the inferior gods, and none who has power to free them from fear? Can a god be found who listens to the envious man, and frightens the gods from doing good? And can no god be found who listens to the well-disposed man, and removes the fear of the gods so that they may do him good? What an excellent theurgy! What an admirable purification of the soul!— a theurgy in which the violence of an impure envy has more influence than the entreaty of purity and holiness. Let us rather abhor and avoid the deceit of such wicked spirits, and listen to sound doctrine. As to those who perform these filthy cleansings by sacrilegious rites, and see in their initiated state (as he further tells us, though we may question this vision) certain wonderfully lovely appearances of angels or gods, this is what the apostle refers to when he speaks of “Satan transforming himself into an angel of light.” 2 Corinthians 11:14 For these are the delusive appearances of that spirit who longs to entangle wretched souls in the deceptive worship of many false gods, and to turn them aside from the true worship of the true God, by whom alone they are cleansed and healed, and who, as was said of Proteus, “turns himself into all shapes,” equally harmful, whether he assaults us as an enemy, or assumes the disguise of a friend.

It was a better tone which Porphyry adopted in his letter to Anebo the Egyptian, in which, assuming the character of an inquirer consulting him, he unmasks and demolishes these sacrilegious arts. In that letter, indeed, he repudiates all demons, whom he maintains to be so foolish as to be attracted by the sacrificial vapors, and therefore residing not in the ether, but in the air beneath the moon, and indeed in the moon itself. Yet he does not have the boldness to attribute to all the demons all the deceptions and malicious and foolish practices which justly move his indignation. For, though he acknowledges that as a race demons are foolish, he so far accommodates himself to popular ideas as to call some of them kindly demons. He expresses surprise that sacrifices not only incline the gods, but also compel and force them to do what men wish; and he is at a loss to understand how the sun and moon, and other visible celestial bodies — for he does not doubt that they are bodies — are considered gods, if the gods are distinguished from the demons by their incorporeality; also, if they are gods, how some are called beneficent and others harmful, and how they, being corporeal, are counted among the gods, who are incorporeal. He inquires further, and still as one in doubt, whether diviners and wonderworkers are men of unusually powerful souls, or whether the power to do these things is communicated by spirits from outside. He inclines to the latter opinion, on the ground that it is by the use of stones and herbs that they lay spells on people, and open closed doors, and do similar wonders. And on this account, he says, some suppose that there is a race of beings whose nature it is to listen to men — a race deceitful, full of contrivances, capable of assuming all forms, simulating gods, demons, and dead men, — and that it is this race which brings about all these things which have the appearance of good or evil, but that what is really good they never help us in, and are indeed unacquainted with, for they make wickedness easy, but throw obstacles in the path of those who eagerly follow virtue; and that they are filled with pride and rashness, delight in sacrificial odors, are taken with flattery. These and the other characteristics of this race of deceitful and malicious spirits, who come into the souls of men and delude their senses, both asleep and awake, he describes not as things of which he is himself convinced, but only with so much suspicion and doubt as to cause him to speak of them as commonly received opinions. We should sympathize with this great philosopher in the difficulty he experienced in coming to know and confidently attacking the whole brotherhood of devils, which any Christian old woman would unhesitatingly describe and most unreservedly detest. Perhaps, however, he shrank from offending Anebo, to whom he was writing, himself the most eminent patron of these mysteries, or the others who marveled at these magical feats as divine works, and closely allied to the worship of the gods. However, he pursues this subject, and, still in the character of an inquirer, mentions some things which no sober judgment could attribute to any but malicious and deceitful powers. He asks why, after the better class of spirits have been invoked, the worse should be commanded to perform the wicked desires of men; why they do not hear a man who has just left a woman's embrace, while they themselves do not hesitate to tempt men to incest and adultery; why their priests are commanded to abstain from animal food for fear of being polluted by the corporeal exhalations, while they themselves are attracted by the fumes of sacrifices and other exhalations; why the initiated are forbidden to touch a dead body, while their mysteries are celebrated almost entirely by means of dead bodies; why it is that a man addicted to any vice should utter threats, not to a demon or to the soul of a dead man, but to the sun and moon, or some of the heavenly bodies, which he intimidates by imaginary terrors, so that he may wring from them a real favor — for he threatens that he will demolish the sky, and other such impossibilities — so that those gods, alarmed like foolish children by imaginary and absurd threats, may do what they are ordered. Porphyry further relates that a man, Chæremon, profoundly versed in these sacred or rather sacrilegious mysteries, had written that the famous Egyptian mysteries of Isis and her husband Osiris had very great influence with the gods to compel them to do what they were ordered, when the one who used the spells threatened to divulge or do away with these mysteries, and cried with a threatening voice that he would scatter the limbs of Osiris if they neglected his orders. Porphyry is surprised, and with good reason, that a man should utter such wild and empty threats against the gods — not against gods of no account, but against the heavenly gods, and those that shine with the light of the stars — and that these threats should be effective in compelling them with irresistible power, and alarm them so that they fulfill his wishes. With good reason, in the character of an inquirer into the reasons for these surprising things, he lets it be understood that they are done by that race of spirits which he previously described as if quoting other people's opinions — spirits who deceive not, as he said, by nature, but by their own corruption, and who simulate gods and dead men, but not, as he said, demons, for they really are demons. As to his idea that by means of herbs, and stones, and animals, and certain incantations and noises, and drawings, sometimes fanciful, and sometimes copied from the motions of the heavenly bodies, men create on earth powers capable of bringing about various results, all that is only the trickery which these demons practice on those who are subject to them, for the sake of furnishing themselves with merriment at the expense of their dupes. Either, then, Porphyry was sincere in his doubts and inquiries, and mentioned these things to demonstrate and put beyond question that they were the work, not of powers which aid us in obtaining life, but of deceitful demons; or, to take a more favorable view of the philosopher, he adopted this method with the Egyptian who was wedded to these errors, and was proud of them, so that he might not offend him by taking the attitude of a teacher, nor upset him with the quarreling of an open opponent, but, by assuming the character of an inquirer, and the humble attitude of one who was anxious to learn, might turn his attention to these matters, and show how worthy they are to be despised and abandoned. Toward the end of his letter, he requests Anebo to inform him what the Egyptian wisdom indicates as the way to blessedness. But as to those who have dealings with the gods, and pester them only for the sake of finding a runaway slave, or acquiring property, or making a bargain of a marriage, or such things, he declares that their pretensions to wisdom are vain. He adds that these same gods, even granting that on other points their utterances were true, were still so ill-advised and unsatisfactory in their disclosures about blessedness, that they cannot be either gods or good demons, but are either that spirit who is called the deceiver, or mere fictions of the imagination.

Since by means of these arts wonders are done which quite surpass human power, what choice have we but to believe that these predictions and operations, which seem to be miraculous and divine, and which at the same time form no part of the worship of the one God, in clinging to whom, as the Platonists themselves abundantly testify, all blessedness consists, are the pastime of wicked spirits, who in this way seek to seduce and hinder the truly godly? On the other hand, we must believe that all miracles, whether performed by angels or by other means, as long as they are done in such a way as to commend the worship and religion of the one God in whom alone is blessedness, are performed by those who love us in a true and godly way, or through them, with God Himself working in them. For we cannot listen to those who maintain that the invisible God works no visible miracles; for even they believe that He made the world, which surely they will not deny to be visible. Whatever marvel happens in this world, it is certainly less marvelous than this whole world itself — I mean the sky and earth, and all that is in them — and these God certainly made. But, as the Creator Himself is hidden and incomprehensible to man, so also is the manner of creation. Although, therefore, the standing miracle of this visible world is little thought of, because it is always before us, still, when we rouse ourselves to contemplate it, it is a greater miracle than the rarest and most unheard-of marvels. For man himself is a greater miracle than any miracle done through him. Therefore God, who made the visible heaven and earth, does not disdain to work visible miracles in heaven or earth, so that by them He may awaken the soul which is immersed in things visible to worship Himself, the Invisible. But the place and time of these miracles are dependent on His unchangeable will, in which things future are ordered as if they were already accomplished. For He moves things temporal without Himself moving in time, He does not in one way know things that are to be, and, in another, things that have been; nor does He listen to those who pray otherwise than as He sees those that will pray. For, even when His angels hear us, it is He Himself who hears us in them, as in His true temple not made with hands, as in those men who are His saints; and His answers, though accomplished in time, have been arranged by His eternal appointment.

Nor need we be surprised that God, invisible as He is, should often have appeared visibly to the patriarchs. For as the sound which communicates the thought conceived in the silence of the mind is not the thought itself, so the form by which God, invisible in His own nature, became visible, was not God Himself. Nevertheless it is He Himself who was seen under that form, as that thought itself is heard in the sound of the voice; and the patriarchs recognized that, though the bodily form was not God, they saw the invisible God. For, though Moses conversed with God, he still said, “If I have found grace in Your sight, show me Yourself, so that I may see and know You.” Exodus 33:13 And since it was fitting that the law, which was given, not to one man or a few enlightened men, but to the whole of a populous nation, should be accompanied by awe-inspiring signs, great marvels were performed, by the ministry of angels, before the people on the mount where the law was being given to them through one man, while the multitude looked on the awe-inspiring sights. For the people of Israel believed Moses, not as the Lacedæmonians believed their Lycurgus, because he had received from Jupiter or Apollo the laws he gave them. For when the law which commanded the worship of one God was given to the people, marvelous signs and earthquakes, such as the divine wisdom judged sufficient, were brought about in the sight of all, so that they might know that it was the Creator who could use creation in this way to promulgate His law.

The education of the human race, represented by the people of God, has advanced, like that of an individual, through certain epochs, or, as it were, ages, so that it might gradually rise from earthly to heavenly things, and from the visible to the invisible. This object was kept so clearly in view, that, even in the period when temporal rewards were promised, the one God was presented as the object of worship, so that men might not acknowledge any other than the true Creator and Lord of the spirit, even in connection with the earthly blessings of this transitory life. For anyone who denies that all things which either angels or men can give us are in the hand of the one Almighty is a madman. The Platonist Plotinus writes about providence, and, from the beauty of flowers and foliage, proves that from the supreme God, whose beauty is unseen and ineffable, providence reaches down even to these earthly things here below; and he argues that all these frail and perishing things could not have so exquisite and elaborate a beauty, if they were not fashioned by Him whose unseen and unchangeable beauty continually pervades all things. This is proved also by the Lord Jesus, where He says, “Consider the lilies, how they grow; they do not toil, nor do they spin. And yet I say to you that Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, how much more will He clothe you, you of little faith!” Matthew 6:28-30 It was best, therefore, that the soul of man, which was still weakly desiring earthly things, should be accustomed to seek from God alone even these petty temporal favors, and the earthly necessities of this transitory life, which are contemptible in comparison with eternal blessings, so that the desire even for these things might not draw it aside from the worship of Him, to whom we come by despising and forsaking such things.

And so it has pleased Divine Providence, as I have said, and as we read in the Acts of the Apostles, Acts 7:53 that the law commanding the worship of one God should be given by the ministry of angels. But among them the person of God Himself visibly appeared, not, indeed, in His own substance, which always remains invisible to mortal eyes, but by the infallible signs furnished by creation in obedience to its Creator. He made use, too, of the words of human speech, uttering them syllable by syllable successively, though in His own nature He speaks not in a bodily but in a spiritual way; not to the senses, but to the mind; not in words that occupy time, but, if I may say so, eternally, neither beginning to speak nor coming to an end. And what He says is accurately heard, not by the bodily but by the mental ear of His ministers and messengers, who are immortally blessed in the enjoyment of His unchangeable truth; and the directions which they in some ineffable way receive, they execute without delay or difficulty in the visible world of the senses. And this law was given in conformity with the age of the world, and at first contained earthly promises, as I have said, which, however, symbolized eternal ones; and few understood these eternal blessings, though many took part in the celebration of their visible signs. Nevertheless, with one voice both the words and the visible rites of that law command the worship of one God — not one of a crowd of gods, but Him who made heaven and earth, and every soul and every spirit which is other than Himself. He created; all else was created; and, both for being and well-being, all things need Him who created them.

What angels, then, are we to believe in this matter of blessed and eternal life?— those who wish to be worshipped with religious rites and observances, and require that men sacrifice to them; or those who say that all this worship is due to one God, the Creator, and teach us to offer it with true piety to Him, by the vision of whom they are themselves already blessed, and in whom they promise that we shall be so? For that vision of God is the beauty of a vision so great, and is so infinitely desirable, that Plotinus does not hesitate to say that anyone who enjoys all other blessings in abundance, and does not have this, is supremely miserable. Since, therefore, miracles are performed by some angels to induce us to worship this God, by others, to induce us to worship themselves; and since the former forbid us to worship these, while the latter dare not forbid us to worship God, which are we to listen to? Let the Platonists reply, or any philosophers, or the theurgists, or rather, periurgists, — for this name is good enough for those who practice such arts. In short, let all men answer — if, at least, there survives in them any spark of that natural perception which, as rational beings, they possess when created, — let them, I say, tell us whether we should sacrifice to the gods or angels who order us to sacrifice to them, or to that One to whom we are ordered to sacrifice by those who forbid us to worship either themselves or these others. If neither the one party nor the other had performed miracles, but had merely uttered commands, the one to sacrifice to themselves, the other forbidding that, and ordering us to sacrifice to God, a godly mind would have been at no loss to discern which command came from proud arrogance, and which from true religion. I will say more. If miracles had been performed only by those who demand sacrifice for themselves, while those who forbade this, and commanded sacrifice to the one God only, saw fit to forgo visible miracles entirely, the authority of the latter would still have to be preferred by all who would use, not their eyes only, but their reason. But since God, for the sake of commending to us the oracles of His truth, has, by means of these immortal messengers, who proclaim His majesty and not their own pride, performed miracles of surpassing grandeur, certainty, and clarity, so that the weak among the godly might not be drawn away to false religion by those who require us to sacrifice to them and try to convince us by stupendous appeals to our senses, who is so utterly unreasonable as not to choose and follow the truth, when he finds that it is heralded by even more striking evidences than falsehood? As for those miracles which history ascribes to the gods of the pagans — I do not refer to those prodigies which at intervals happen from some unknown physical causes, and which are arranged and appointed by Divine Providence, such as monstrous births, and unusual meteorological phenomena, whether startling only, or also injurious, and which are said to be brought about and removed by communication with demons, and by their most deceitful craft — but I refer to these prodigies which are plainly enough performed by their power and force, such as that the household gods which Æneas carried from Troy in his flight moved from place to place; that Tarquin cut a whetstone with a razor; that the Epidaurian serpent attached himself as a companion to Æsculapius on his voyage to Rome; that the ship in which the image of the Phrygian mother stood, and which could not be moved by a host of men and oxen, was moved by one weak woman, who attached her girdle to the vessel and drew it, as proof of her chastity; that a vestal, whose virginity was questioned, removed the suspicion by carrying from the Tiber a sieve full of water without any of it dropping: these, then, and others like them, are by no means to be compared in greatness and power to those which, we read, were performed among God's people. How much less can we compare those marvels, which even the laws of pagan nations prohibit and punish — I mean the magical and theurgic marvels, of which the great part are merely illusions practiced on the senses, such as the drawing down of the moon, “so that,” as Lucan says, “it may shed a stronger influence on the plants?” And if some of these do seem to equal those which are performed by the godly, the end for which they are performed distinguishes the two, and shows that ours are incomparably the more excellent. For those miracles commend the worship of a plurality of gods, who deserve worship the less the more they demand it; but these of ours commend the worship of the one God, who, both by the testimony of His own Scriptures, and by the eventual abolition of sacrifices, proves that He needs no such offerings. If, therefore, any angels demand sacrifice for themselves, we must prefer those who demand it, not for themselves, but for God, the Creator of all, whom they serve. For in this way they prove how sincerely they love us, since they wish by sacrifice to subject us, not to themselves, but to Him by the contemplation of whom they themselves are blessed, and to bring us to Him from whom they themselves have never strayed. If, on the other hand, any angels wish us to sacrifice, not to one, but to many, not, indeed, to themselves, but to the gods whose angels they are, we must in this case also prefer those who are the angels of the one God of gods, and who tell us to worship Him in such a way as to rule out our worshipping any other. But, further, if it is the case, as their pride and deceitfulness rather indicate, that they are neither good angels nor the angels of good gods, but wicked demons, who wish sacrifice to be paid, not to the one only and supreme God, but to themselves, what better protection against them can we choose than that of the one God whom the good angels serve, the angels who tell us to sacrifice, not to themselves, but to Him whose sacrifice we ourselves ought to be?

This was why the law of God, given by the ministry of angels, and which commanded that the one God of gods alone receive sacred worship, to the exclusion of all others, was deposited in the ark, called the Ark of the Testimony. By this name it is sufficiently indicated, not that God, who was worshipped by all those rites, was shut up and enclosed in that place, though His answers came from it along with signs perceptible to the senses, but that His will was declared from that throne. The law itself, too, was engraved on tablets of stone, and, as I have said, deposited in the ark, which the priests carried with due reverence during the sojourn in the wilderness, along with the tabernacle, which was likewise called the tabernacle of the testimony; and there was then an accompanying sign, which appeared as a cloud by day and as a fire by night; when the cloud moved, the camp was shifted, and where it stood the camp was pitched. Besides these signs, and the voices which came from the place where the ark was, there were other miraculous testimonies to the law. For when the ark was carried across Jordan, on the entrance to the land of promise, the upper part of the river stopped in its course, and the lower part flowed on, so as to present both to the ark and the people dry ground to pass over. Then, when it was carried seven times around the first hostile and polytheistic city they came to, its walls suddenly fell down, though assaulted by no hand, struck by no battering-ram. Afterward, too, when they were now living in the land of promise, and the ark had, in punishment of their sin, been taken by their enemies, its captors triumphantly placed it in the temple of their favorite god, and left it shut up there, but, on opening the temple next day, they found the image they used to pray to fallen to the ground and shamefully shattered. Then, being themselves alarmed by portents, and still more shamefully punished, they restored the Ark of the Testimony to the people from whom they had taken it. And how was it restored? They placed it on a wagon, and yoked to it cows from which they had taken the calves, and let them choose their own course, expecting that in this way the divine will would be indicated; and the cows without any man driving or directing them, steadily pursued the way to the Hebrews, without regarding the lowing of their calves, and thus restored the ark to its worshippers. To God these and similar wonders are small, but they are mighty to terrify and give wholesome instruction to men. For if philosophers, and especially the Platonists, are justly considered wiser than other men, as I have just been mentioning, because they taught that even these earthly and insignificant things are ruled by Divine Providence, inferring this from the numberless beauties which can be observed not only in the bodies of animals, but even in plants and grasses, how much more plainly is the presence of divinity attested by these things which happen at the time predicted, and in which that religion is commended which forbids the offering of sacrifice to any celestial, terrestrial, or infernal being, and commands it to be offered to God only, who alone blesses us by His love for us, and by our love for Him, and who, by arranging the appointed times of those sacrifices, and by predicting that they were to pass into a better sacrifice by a better Priest, testified that He has no appetite for these sacrifices, but through them indicated others of more substantial blessing — and all this not so that He Himself may be glorified by these honors, but so that we may be stirred to worship Him and cling to Him, being inflamed by His love, which is our advantage rather than His?

Will someone say that these miracles are false, that they never happened, and that the records of them are lies? Whoever says so, and asserts that in such matters no records at all can be believed, may also say that there are no gods who care for human affairs. For they have induced men to worship them only by means of miraculous works, to which the pagan histories testify, and by which the gods have made a display of their own power rather than done any real service. This is the reason why we have not undertaken in this work, of which we are now writing the tenth book, to refute those who either deny that there is any divine power, or contend that it does not interfere with human affairs, but those who prefer their own god to our God, the Founder of the holy and most glorious city, not knowing that He is also the invisible and unchangeable Founder of this visible and changing world, and the truest bestower of the blessed life which resides not in things created, but in Himself. For this is what His most trustworthy prophet says: “It is good for me to be united to God.” Among philosophers the question is what that end and good is to whose attainment all our duties are to be directed. The Psalmist did not say, It is good for me to have great wealth, or to wear imperial insignia, purple, scepter, and diadem; or, as some even of the philosophers have not blushed to say, It is good for me to enjoy sensual pleasure; or, as the better men among them seemed to say, My good is my spiritual strength; but, “It is good for me to be united to God.” This he had learned from Him whom the holy angels, with the accompanying witness of miracles, presented as the sole object of worship. And so he himself became the sacrifice of God, whose spiritual love inflamed him, and into whose ineffable and incorporeal embrace he yearned to cast himself. Moreover, if the worshippers of many gods (whatever kind of gods they fancy their own to be) believe that the miracles recorded in their civil histories, or in the books of magic, or of the more respectable theurgy, were performed by these gods, what reason have they for refusing to believe the miracles recorded in those writings, to which we owe a belief as much greater as He is greater to whom alone these writings teach us to sacrifice?

As to those who think that these visible sacrifices are suitably offered to other gods, but that invisible sacrifices, the graces of purity of mind and holiness of will, should be offered, as greater and better, to the invisible God, Himself greater and better than all others, they must be unaware that these visible sacrifices are signs of the invisible, as the words we utter are the signs of things. And therefore, as in prayer or praise we direct intelligible words to Him to whom in our heart we offer the very feelings we are expressing, so we are to understand that in sacrifice we offer visible sacrifice only to Him to whom in our heart we ought to present ourselves as an invisible sacrifice. It is then that the angels, and all those superior powers who are mighty by their goodness and piety, regard us with pleasure, and rejoice with us and assist us to the utmost of their power. But if we offer such worship to them, they decline it; and when on any mission to men they become visible to the senses, they positively forbid it. Examples of this occur in holy Scripture. Some imagined they should, by adoration or sacrifice, pay the same honor to angels as is due to God, and were prevented from doing so by the angels themselves, and ordered to offer it to Him to whom alone they know it to be due. And the holy angels have been imitated in this by holy men of God. For Paul and Barnabas, when they had performed a miracle of healing in Lycaonia, were thought to be gods, and the Lycaonians desired to sacrifice to them, and they humbly and piously declined this honor, and announced to them the God in whom they should believe. And those deceitful and proud spirits, who exact worship, do so simply because they know it to be due to the true God. For what they take pleasure in is not, as Porphyry says and some imagine, the smell of the victims, but divine honors. They have, in fact, plenty of odors on every side, and if they wished for more, they could provide them for themselves. But the spirits who claim divinity for themselves are delighted not with the smoke of carcasses but with the suppliant spirit which they deceive and hold in subjection, and hinder from drawing near to God, preventing him from offering himself in sacrifice to God by inducing him to sacrifice to others.

And so that true Mediator, insofar as, by assuming the form of a servant, He became the Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, though in the form of God He received sacrifice together with the Father, with whom He is one God, still in the form of a servant He chose to be a sacrifice rather than to receive one, so that not even this instance might give anyone occasion to suppose that sacrifice should be offered to any creature. Thus He is both the Priest who offers and the Sacrifice offered. And He intended that there should be a daily sign of this in the sacrifice of the Church, which, being His body, learns to offer herself through Him. Of this true Sacrifice the ancient sacrifices of the saints were the various and numerous signs; and it was thus variously figured, just as one thing is signified by a variety of words, so that there may be less weariness when we speak of it often. All false sacrifices have given way to this supreme and true sacrifice.

The power delegated to the demons at certain appointed and well-adjusted seasons, so that they may express their hostility to the city of God by stirring up against it the men who are under their influence, and may not only receive sacrifice from those who willingly offer it, but may also extort it from the unwilling by violent persecution — this power is found to be not merely harmless, but even useful to the Church, since it completes the number of martyrs, whom the city of God regards as all the more illustrious and honored citizens, because they have striven even to blood against the sin of impiety. If the ordinary language of the Church allowed it, we might more elegantly call these men our heroes. For this name is said to be derived from Juno, who in Greek is called Hêrê, and so, according to the Greek myths, one of her sons was called Heros. And these fables mystically signified that Juno was mistress of the air, which they suppose to be inhabited by the demons and the heroes, understanding by heroes the souls of the well-deserving dead. But we would call our martyrs heroes for quite the opposite reason, — supposing, as I said, that the usage of ecclesiastical language would admit of it — not because they lived along with the demons in the air, but because they conquered these demons or powers of the air, and among them Juno herself, whatever she may be, not unsuitably represented, as she commonly is by the poets, as hostile to virtue, and jealous of distinguished men aspiring to the heavens. Virgil, however, unhappily gives way, and yields to her; for, though he represents her as saying, “I am conquered by Æneas,” Helenus gives Æneas himself this religious advice: Pay vows to Juno: overbear / Her queenly soul with gift and prayer. In conformity with this opinion, Porphyry — expressing, however, not so much his own views as other people's — says that a good god or genius cannot come to a man unless the evil genius has been first of all propitiated, implying that the evil deities had greater power than the good; for, until they have been appeased and give way, the good can give no assistance; and if the evil deities oppose, the good can give no help; while the evil can do injury without the good being able to prevent them. This is not the way of the true and truly holy religion; this is not how our martyrs conquer Juno, that is to say, the powers of the air, who envy the virtues of the pious. Our heroes, if we could so call them, overcome Hêrê, not by suppliant gifts, but by divine virtues. As Scipio, who conquered Africa by his valor, is more suitably called Africanus than if he had appeased his enemies by gifts, and so won their mercy.

It is by true piety that men of God cast out the hostile power of the air which opposes godliness; it is by exorcising it, not by propitiating it; and they overcome all the temptations of the adversary by praying, not to him, but to their own God against him. For the devil cannot conquer or subdue any but those who are in league with sin; and therefore he is conquered in the name of Him who assumed humanity, and did so without sin, so that, being Himself both Priest and Sacrifice, He might bring about the remission of sins, that is to say, might bring it about through the Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, by whom we are reconciled to God, the cleansing from sin being accomplished. For men are separated from God only by sins, from which we are in this life cleansed not by our own virtue, but by the divine compassion; through His indulgence, not through our own power. For, whatever virtue we call our own is itself bestowed on us by His goodness. And we might attribute too much to ourselves while in the flesh, unless we lived by receiving pardon until we laid it down. This is the reason why there has been granted to us, through the Mediator, this grace, that we who are polluted by sinful flesh should be cleansed by the likeness of sinful flesh. By this grace of God, in which He has shown His great compassion toward us, we are both governed by faith in this life, and, after this life, are led onward to the fullest perfection by the vision of immutable truth.

Even Porphyry asserts that it was revealed by divine oracles that we are not purified by any sacrifices to sun or moon, meaning it to be inferred that we are not purified by sacrificing to any gods. For what mysteries can purify, if those of the sun and moon, which are considered the chief of the celestial gods, do not purify? He says, too, in the same place, that “principles” can purify, so that it would not be supposed, from his saying that sacrificing to the sun and moon cannot purify, that sacrificing to some other of the host of gods might do so. And what he as a Platonist means by “principles,” we know. For he speaks of God the Father and God the Son, whom he calls (writing in Greek) the intellect or mind of the Father; but of the Holy Spirit he says either nothing, or nothing plainly, for I do not understand what other he speaks of as holding the middle place between these two. For if, like Plotinus in his discussion regarding the three principal substances, he wished us to understand by this third the soul of nature, he would certainly not have given it the middle place between these two, that is, between the Father and the Son. For Plotinus places the soul of nature after the intellect of the Father, while Porphyry, making it the middle term, does not place it after, but between the others. No doubt he spoke according to his light, or as he thought expedient; but we assert that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit not of the Father only, nor of the Son only, but of both. For philosophers speak as they please, and in the most difficult matters do not hesitate to offend religious ears; but we are bound to speak according to a certain rule, so that freedom of speech may not breed impiety of opinion about the matters themselves of which we speak.

Accordingly, when we speak of God, we do not affirm two or three principles, any more than we are at liberty to affirm two or three gods; although, speaking of each, of the Father, or of the Son, or of the Holy Spirit, we confess that each is God: and yet we do not say, as the Sabellian heretics say, that the Father is the same as the Son, and the Holy Spirit the same as the Father and the Son; but we say that the Father is the Father of the Son, and the Son the Son of the Father, and that the Holy Spirit of the Father and the Son is neither the Father nor the Son. It was therefore truly said that man is cleansed only by a Principle, although the Platonists erred in speaking in the plural of principles. But Porphyry, being under the dominion of these envious powers, whose influence he was at once ashamed of and afraid to throw off, refused to recognize that Christ is the Principle by whose incarnation we are purified. Indeed he despised Him, because of the flesh itself which He assumed so that He might offer a sacrifice for our purification — a great mystery, unintelligible to Porphyry's pride, which that true and kind Redeemer brought low by His humility, manifesting Himself to mortals by the mortality which He assumed, and which the malignant and deceitful mediators are proud of lacking, promising, as the gift of immortals, a deceptive assistance to wretched men. Thus the good and true Mediator showed that it is sin which is evil, and not the substance or nature of flesh; for this, together with the human soul, could without sin be both assumed and retained, and laid down in death, and changed to something better by resurrection. He showed also that death itself, although the punishment of sin, was submitted to by Him for our sakes without sin, and must not be evaded by sin on our part, but rather, if the opportunity arises, be borne for righteousness' sake. For he was able to expiate sins by dying, because He both died, and died for no sin of His own. But He has not been recognized by Porphyry as the Principle, otherwise he would have recognized Him as the Purifier. The Principle is neither the flesh nor the human soul in Christ but the Word by which all things were made. The flesh, therefore, does not purify by its own power, but by virtue of the Word by which it was assumed, when “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” John 1:14 For speaking mystically of eating His flesh, when those who did not understand Him were offended and went away, saying, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” He answered to the rest who remained, “It is the Spirit that gives life; the flesh is of no use.” John 6:60-64 The Principle, therefore, having assumed a human soul and flesh, cleanses the soul and flesh of believers. Therefore, when the Jews asked Him who He was, He answered that He was the Principle. And this we carnal and feeble men, liable to sin, and wrapped in the darkness of ignorance, could not possibly understand, unless we were cleansed and healed by Him, both by means of what we were, and of what we were not. For we were men, but we were not righteous; while in His incarnation there was a human nature, but it was righteous, and not sinful. This is the mediation by which a hand is stretched to the lapsed and fallen; this is the seed “ordained by angels,” by whose ministry the law also was given commanding the worship of one God, and promising that this Mediator should come.

It was by faith in this mystery, and godliness of life, that even the saints of old could attain purification, whether before the law was given to the Hebrews (for God and the angels were even then present as instructors), or in the periods under the law, although the promises of spiritual things, being presented in figure, seemed to be carnal, which is the reason for the name Old Testament. For it was then that the prophets lived, by whom, as by angels, the same promise was announced; and among them was he whose grand and divine saying about the end and supreme good of man I have just now quoted, “It is good for me to cling to God.” In this psalm the distinction between the Old and New Testaments is distinctly announced. For the Psalmist says that when he saw that the carnal and earthly promises were abundantly enjoyed by the ungodly, his feet were almost gone, his steps had nearly slipped; and that it seemed to him as if he had served God in vain, when he saw that those who despised God increased in that prosperity which he looked for from God's hand. He says, too, that, in investigating this matter with the desire of understanding why it was so, he had labored in vain, until he went into the sanctuary of God, and understood the end of those whom he had erroneously considered happy. Then he understood that they were cast down by that very thing, as he says, which they had made their boast, and that they had been consumed and had perished for their iniquities; and that the whole fabric of temporal prosperity had become as a dream when one awakes, and suddenly finds himself destitute of all the joys he had imagined in sleep. And, as on this earth or in the earthly city they seemed to themselves to be great, he says, “Lord, in Your city You will reduce their image to nothing.” He also shows how beneficial it had been for him to seek even earthly blessings only from the one true God, in whose power are all things, for he says, “I was like a beast before You, and I am always with You.” “As a beast,” he says, meaning that he was stupid. For I ought to have sought from You such things as the ungodly could not enjoy as well as I, and not those things which I saw them enjoying in abundance, and so concluded I was serving You in vain, because those who refused to serve You had what I did not have. Nevertheless, “I am always with You,” because even in my desire for such things I did not pray to other gods. And consequently he goes on, “You have held me by my right hand, and by Your counsel You have guided me, and with glory have taken me up;” as if all earthly advantages were left-hand blessings, though, when he saw them enjoyed by the wicked, his feet had almost gone. “For what,” he says, “have I in heaven, and what have I desired from You on earth?” He blames himself, and is justly displeased with himself; because, though he had in heaven so vast a possession (as he afterward understood), he still sought from his God on earth a transitory and fleeting happiness — a happiness of mire, we may say. “My heart and my flesh,” he says, “fail, God of my heart.” Happy failure, from things below to things above! And so in another psalm He says, “My soul longs, indeed, even fails, for the courts of the Lord.” Yet, though he had said of both his heart and his flesh that they were failing, he did not say, God of my heart and my flesh, but, God of my heart; for by the heart the flesh is made clean. Therefore, says the Lord, “Cleanse that which is within, and the outside shall be clean also.” Matthew 23:26 He then says that God Himself — not anything received from Him, but Himself — is his portion. “The God of my heart, and my portion forever.” Among the various objects of human choice, God alone satisfied him. “For, lo,” he says, “those who are far from You shall perish: You destroy all those who go whoring away from You,”— that is, who prostitute themselves to many gods. And then follows the verse for which all the rest of the psalm seems to prepare: “It is good for me to cling to God,”— not to go far off; not to go whoring after a multitude of gods. And this union with God will be perfected, when all that is to be redeemed in us has been redeemed. But for the present we must, as he goes on to say, “place our hope in God.” “For that which is seen,” says the apostle, “is not hope. For what a man sees, why does he still hope for? But if we hope for what we do not see, then we wait for it patiently.” Romans 8:24-25 Being, then, for the present established in this hope, let us do what the Psalmist further indicates, and become in our measure angels or messengers of God, declaring His will, and praising His glory and His grace. For when he had said, “To place my hope in God,” he goes on, “so that I may declare all Your praises in the gates of the daughter of Zion.” This is the most glorious city of God; this is the city which knows and worships one God: she is celebrated by the holy angels, who invite us to their society, and desire us to become fellow citizens with them in this city; for they do not wish us to worship them as our gods, but to join them in worshipping their God and ours; nor to sacrifice to them, but, together with them, to become a sacrifice to God. Accordingly, whoever lays aside malicious obstinacy and considers these things will be assured that all these blessed and immortal spirits, who do not envy us (for if they envied us they would not be blessed), but rather love us, and desire us to be as blessed as themselves, look on us with greater pleasure, and give us greater assistance, when we join them in worshipping one God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, than if we were to offer them sacrifice and worship.

I do not know how it is, but it seems to me that Porphyry blushed for his friends the theurgists; for he knew all that I have brought forward, but did not frankly condemn polytheistic worship. He said, in fact, that there are some angels who visit earth, and reveal divine truth to theurgists, and others who publish on earth the things that belong to the Father, His height and depth. Can we believe, then, that the angels whose office it is to declare the will of the Father, wish us to be subject to any but Him whose will they declare? And so even this Platonist himself wisely observes that we should rather imitate than invoke them. We ought not, then, to fear that we may offend these immortal and happy subjects of the one God by not sacrificing to them; for this they know to be due only to the one true God, in clinging to whom they themselves find their blessedness, and therefore they will not have it given to them, either in figure or in the reality, which the mysteries of sacrifice symbolized. Such arrogance belongs to proud and wretched demons, whose disposition is diametrically opposite to the piety of those who are subject to God, and whose blessedness consists in attachment to Him. And, so that we too may attain this bliss, they aid us, as is fitting, with sincere kindness, and claim no dominion over us, but declare to us Him under whose rule we are then fellow-subjects. Why, then, philosopher, are you still afraid to speak freely against the powers which are hostile both to true virtue and to the gifts of the true God? You have already distinguished between the angels who proclaim God's will, and those who visit theurgists, drawn down by some art or other. Why do you still ascribe to these latter the honor of declaring divine truth? If they do not declare the will of the Father, what divine revelations can they make? Are not these the evil spirits who were bound over by the incantations of an envious man, so that they would not grant purity of soul to another, and could not, as you say, be set free from these bonds by a good man anxious for purity, and recover power over their own actions? Do you still doubt whether these are wicked demons; or do you, perhaps, pretend ignorance, so that you may not give offense to the theurgists, who have allured you by their secret rites, and have taught you, as a mighty favor, these insane and pernicious devilries? Do you dare to elevate above the air, and even to heaven, these envious powers, or pests, let me rather call them, less worthy of the name of sovereign than of slave, as you yourself admit; and are you not ashamed to place them even among your star gods, and so insult the stars themselves?

How much more tolerable and in keeping with human feeling is the error of your fellow Platonist Apuleius! For he attributed the diseases and storms of human passions only to the demons who occupy a grade beneath the moon, and makes even this admission as if under compulsion about gods whom he honors; but the superior and celestial gods, who inhabit the ethereal regions, whether visible, like the sun, moon, and other luminaries, whose brilliance makes them conspicuous, or invisible, but believed in by him, he does his utmost to remove beyond the slightest stain of these disturbances. It is not, then, from Plato, but from your Chaldæan teachers that you have learned to elevate human vices to the ethereal and empyrean regions of the world and to the celestial firmament, in order that your theurgists might be able to obtain from your gods divine revelations; and yet you make yourself superior to these divine revelations by your intellectual life, which dispenses with these theurgic purifications as not needed by a philosopher. But, by way of rewarding your teachers, you recommend these arts to other men, who, not being philosophers, may be persuaded to use what you acknowledge to be useless to yourself, who are capable of higher things; so that those who cannot make use of the power of philosophy, which is too arduous for the multitude, may, at your instigation, go to theurgists by whom they may be purified, not, indeed, in the intellectual, but in the spiritual part of the soul. Now, as the persons who are unfit for philosophy form incomparably the majority of mankind, more may be compelled to consult these secret and illicit teachers of yours than attend the Platonic schools. For these most impure demons, pretending to be ethereal gods, whose herald and messenger you have become, have promised that those who are purified by theurgy in the spiritual part of their soul will not indeed return to the Father, but will dwell among the ethereal gods above the aerial regions. But such fancies are not listened to by the multitudes of men whom Christ came to set free from the tyranny of demons. For in Him they have the most gracious cleansing, in which mind, spirit, and body alike participate. For, in order that He might heal the whole man from the plague of sin, He took without sin the whole human nature. Would that you had known Him, and would that you had committed yourself for healing to Him rather than to your own frail and weak human virtue, or to pernicious and curious arts! He would not have deceived you; for your own oracles, as you yourself report, acknowledged Him as holy and immortal. It is of Him, too, that the most famous poet speaks, poetically indeed, since he applies it to the person of another, yet truly, if you refer it to Christ, saying, “Under your auspices, if any traces of our crimes remain, they will be wiped out, and earth freed from its perpetual fear.” By this he indicates that, because of the weakness that belongs to this life, the greatest progress in virtue and righteousness leaves room for the existence, if not of crimes, then of the traces of crimes, which are wiped out only by that Savior of whom this verse speaks. For that he did not say this at the prompting of his own fancy, Virgil tells us in almost the last verse of that 4th Eclogue, when he says, “The last age predicted by the Cumæan sibyl has now arrived;” from which it plainly appears that this had been dictated by the Cumæan sibyl. But those theurgists, or rather demons, who assume the appearance and form of gods, pollute rather than purify the human spirit by false appearances and the delusive mockery of unsubstantial forms. How can those whose own spirit is unclean cleanse the spirit of man? If they were not unclean, they would not be bound by the incantations of an envious man, and would neither be afraid nor grudge to bestow that hollow favor which they promise. But it is sufficient for our purpose that you acknowledge that the intellectual soul, that is, our mind, cannot be justified by theurgy; and that even the spiritual or inferior part of our soul cannot by this act be made eternal and immortal, though you maintain that it can be purified by it. Christ, however, promises eternal life; and therefore to Him the world flocks, greatly to your indignation, greatly also to your astonishment and confusion. What use is your forced admission that theurgy leads men astray, and deceives vast numbers by its ignorant and foolish teaching, and that it is the plainest mistake to resort by prayer and sacrifice to angels and principalities, when at the same time, to save yourself from the charge of spending labor in vain on such arts, you direct men to the theurgists, so that through them men, who do not live by the rule of the intellectual soul, may have their spiritual soul purified?

You drive men, therefore, into the most obvious error. And yet you are not ashamed of doing so much harm, though you call yourself a lover of virtue and wisdom. If you had been true and faithful in this profession, you would have recognized Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God, and would not, in the pride of empty knowledge, have revolted from His wholesome humility. Nevertheless you acknowledge that the spiritual part of the soul can be purified by the virtue of chastity without the aid of those theurgic arts and mysteries which you wasted your time in learning. You even say, sometimes, that these mysteries do not raise the soul after death, so that, after the end of this life, they seem to be of no use even to the part you call spiritual; and yet you return at every opportunity to these arts, for no other purpose, as far as I can see, than to appear an accomplished theurgist, and gratify those who are curious in illicit arts, or else to inspire others with the same curiosity. But we give you all praise for saying that this art is to be feared, both on account of the legal enactments against it, and because of the danger involved in the very practice of it. And would that in this, at least, you were listened to by its wretched devotees, so that they might be withdrawn from entire absorption in it, or might even be preserved from tampering with it at all! You say, indeed, that ignorance, and the numberless vices resulting from it, cannot be removed by any mysteries, but only by the πατρικὸς νοῦς, that is, the Father's mind or intellect conscious of the Father's will. But that Christ is this mind you do not believe; for you despise Him on account of the body He took from a woman and the shame of the cross; for your lofty wisdom spurns such low and contemptible things, and soars to more exalted regions. But He fulfills what the holy prophets truly predicted regarding Him: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and bring to nothing the prudence of the prudent.” Isaiah 29:14 For He does not destroy and bring to nothing His own gift in them, but what they claim for themselves and do not hold from Him. And so the apostle, having quoted this testimony from the prophet, adds, “Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this world? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom did not know God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save those who believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block, and to the Greeks foolishness; but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.” 1 Corinthians 1:19-25 This is despised as a weak and foolish thing by those who are wise and strong in themselves; but this is the grace which heals the weak, who do not proudly boast a blessedness of their own, but rather humbly acknowledge their real misery.

You proclaim the Father and His Son, whom you call the Father's intellect or mind, and between these a third, by whom we suppose you mean the Holy Spirit, and in your own fashion you call these three Gods. In this, though your expressions are inaccurate, you do in some way, and as if through a veil, see what we should strive toward; but the incarnation of the unchangeable Son of God, by which we are saved, and are enabled to reach the things we believe, or in part understand, this is what you refuse to recognize. You see in a fashion, although at a distance, although with clouded sight, the country in which we should dwell; but you do not know the way to it. Yet you believe in grace, for you say it is granted to few to reach God by virtue of intelligence. For you do not say, “Few have thought fit or have wished,” but, “It has been granted to few,”— distinctly acknowledging God's grace, not man's sufficiency. You also use this word more expressly, when, in accordance with the opinion of Plato, you have no doubt that in this life a man cannot by any means attain to perfect wisdom, but that whatever is lacking is in the future life made up to those who live intellectually, by God's providence and grace. If only you had recognized the grace of God in Jesus Christ our Lord, and that very incarnation of His, in which He assumed a human soul and body, you might have seemed the brightest example of grace! But what am I doing? I know it is useless to speak to a dead man — useless, at least, as far as you are concerned, but perhaps not in vain for those who think highly of you, and love you on account of their love of wisdom or curiosity about those arts which you ought not to have learned; and these persons I address in your name. The grace of God could not have been more graciously commended to us than in this way: that the only Son of God, remaining unchangeable in Himself, should assume humanity, and should give us the hope of His love, by means of the mediation of a human nature, through which we, from the condition of men, might come to Him who was so far off — the immortal from the mortal; the unchangeable from the changeable; the just from the unjust; the blessed from the wretched. And, as He had given us a natural instinct to desire blessedness and immortality, He Himself continuing to be blessed; but assuming mortality, by enduring what we fear, taught us to despise it, so that He might bestow on us what we long for. But for you to accept this truth, what is required is lowliness, and to this it is extremely difficult to bend you. For what is there incredible, especially to men like you, accustomed to speculation, which might have predisposed you to believe in this — what is there incredible, I say, in the assertion that God assumed a human soul and body? You yourselves ascribe such excellence to the intellectual soul, which is, after all, the human soul, that you maintain that it can become consubstantial with that intelligence of the Father whom you believe in as the Son of God. What is incredible, then, about some one soul being assumed by Him in an ineffable and unique manner for the salvation of many? Moreover, our nature itself testifies that a man is incomplete unless a body is united with the soul. This certainly would be more incredible, if it were not the most common of all things; for we would more easily believe in a union between spirit and spirit, or, to use your own terminology, between the incorporeal and the incorporeal, even though the one were human, the other divine, the one changeable and the other unchangeable, than in a union between the corporeal and the incorporeal. But perhaps it is the unprecedented birth of a body from a virgin that troubles you? But, so far from this being a difficulty, it ought rather to assist you to receive our religion, that a miraculous person was born miraculously. Or, do you find a difficulty in the fact that, after His body had been given up to death, and had been changed into a higher kind of body by resurrection, and was now no longer mortal but incorruptible, He carried it up into heavenly places? Perhaps you refuse to believe this, because you remember that Porphyry, in these very books from which I have cited so much, and which treat of the return of the soul, so frequently teaches that a body of every kind is to be escaped from, in order that the soul may dwell in blessedness with God. But here, instead of following Porphyry, you ought rather to have corrected him, especially since you agree with him in believing such incredible things about the soul of this visible world and huge material frame. For, as scholars of Plato, you hold that the world is an animal, and a very happy animal, which you wish to be also everlasting. How, then, is it never to be loosed from a body, and yet never lose its happiness, if, for the soul to be happy, the body must be left behind? The sun, too, and the other stars, you not only acknowledge to be bodies, in which you have the hearty agreement of everyone who can see, but also, in obedience to what you consider a deeper insight, you declare that they are very blessed animals, and eternal, together with their bodies. Why is it, then, that when the Christian faith is pressed on you, you forget, or pretend to ignore, what you habitually discuss or teach? Why is it that you refuse to be Christians, on the ground that you hold opinions which, in fact, you yourselves demolish? Is it not because Christ came in lowliness, and you are proud? The precise nature of the resurrection bodies of the saints may sometimes give rise to discussion among those who are best read in the Christian Scriptures; but there is not the smallest doubt among us that they will be everlasting, and of a nature exemplified in the instance of Christ's risen body. But whatever their nature, since we maintain that they will be absolutely incorruptible and immortal, and will offer no hindrance to the soul's contemplation, by which it is fixed in God, and since you say that among the celestials the bodies of the eternally blessed are eternal, why do you maintain that, for the sake of blessedness, every body must be escaped from? Why do you seek such a plausible reason for escaping from the Christian faith, if not because, as I again say, Christ is humble and you proud? Are you ashamed to be corrected? This is the vice of the proud. It is, of course, a degradation for learned men to pass from the school of Plato to the discipleship of Christ, who by His Spirit taught a fisherman to think and to say, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him; and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in darkness; and the darkness did not comprehend it.” John 1:1-5 The old saint Simplicianus, afterward bishop of Milan, used to tell me that a certain Platonist was in the habit of saying that this opening passage of the holy gospel, entitled, According to John, should be written in letters of gold, and hung up in all churches in the most conspicuous place. But the proud scorn to take God for their Master, because “the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.” John 1:14 So that, with these miserable creatures, it is not enough that they are sick, but they boast of their sickness, and are ashamed of the medicine which could heal them. And, doing so, they secure not elevation, but a more disastrous fall.

If it is considered improper to correct anything Plato has touched, why did Porphyry himself make corrections, and not a few of them? For it is very certain that Plato wrote that the souls of men return after death to the bodies of beasts. Plotinus also, Porphyry's teacher, held this opinion; but Porphyry justly rejected it. He was of the opinion that human souls return indeed into human bodies, but not into the bodies they had left, but other new bodies. He shrank from the other opinion, for fear that a woman who had returned as a mule might possibly carry her own son on her back. He did not shrink, however, from a theory which admitted the possibility of a mother coming back into a girl and marrying her own son. How much more honorable a creed is that which was taught by the holy and truthful angels, uttered by the prophets who were moved by God's Spirit, preached by Him who was foretold as the coming Savior by the heralds who went before Him, and by the apostles whom He sent forth, and who filled the whole world with the gospel, — how much more honorable, I say, is the belief that souls return once for all to their own bodies, than that they return again and again to various bodies? Nevertheless Porphyry, as I have said, did considerably improve on this opinion, insofar, at least, as he maintained that human souls could transmigrate only into human bodies, and did not hesitate to demolish the bestial prisons into which Plato had wished to cast them. He says, too, that God put the soul into the world so that it might recognize the evils of matter, and return to the Father, and be forever freed from the polluting contact of matter. And although here is some inappropriate thinking (for the soul is rather given to the body so that it may do good; for it would not learn evil unless it did it), he nevertheless corrects the opinion of other Platonists, and on a point of no small importance, since he declares that the soul, which is purged from all evil and received to the Father's presence, will never again suffer the ills of this life. By this opinion he completely overturned the favorite Platonic doctrine, that as dead men are made out of living ones, so living men are made out of dead ones; and he demolished the idea which Virgil seems to have adopted from Plato, that the purified souls which have been sent into the Elysian fields (the poetic name for the joys of the blessed) are summoned to the river Lethe, that is, to the forgetting of the past, That earthward they may pass once more, / Remembering not the things before, / And with a blind longing yearn / To fleshly bodies to return. This found no favor with Porphyry, and very justly; for it is indeed foolish to believe that souls should desire to return from that life, which cannot be very blessed except through the assurance of its permanence, and to come back into this life, and to the pollution of corruptible bodies, as if the result of perfect purification were only to make defilement desirable. For if perfect purification brings about the forgetting of all evils, and the forgetting of evils creates a desire for a body in which the soul may again be entangled with evils, then the supreme happiness will be the cause of unhappiness, and the perfection of wisdom the cause of foolishness, and the purest cleansing the cause of defilement. And, however long the blessedness of the soul lasts, it cannot be founded on truth, if, in order to be blessed, it must be deceived. For it cannot be blessed unless it is free from fear. But, to be free from fear, it must be under the false impression that it will always be blessed, — the false impression, for it is destined to be also at some time miserable. How, then, will a soul whose joy is founded on falsehood rejoice in truth? Porphyry saw this, and therefore said that the purified soul returns to the Father, so that it may never again be entangled in the polluting contact with evil. The opinion, therefore, of some Platonists, that there is a necessary revolution carrying souls away and bringing them round again to the same things, is false. But, if it were true, what would be the advantage of knowing it? Would the Platonists presume to claim superiority over us, because we were in this life ignorant of what they themselves were doomed to be ignorant of when perfected in purity and wisdom in another and better life, and which they must be ignorant of if they are to be blessed? If it were most absurd and foolish to say so, then certainly we must prefer Porphyry's opinion to the idea of a circulation of souls through constantly alternating happiness and misery. And if this is just, here is a Platonist correcting Plato, here is a man who saw what Plato did not see, and who did not shrink from correcting so illustrious a master, but preferred truth to Plato.

Why, then, do we not rather believe the divinity in those matters, which human talent cannot fathom? Why do we not believe the assertion of divinity, that the soul is not coeternal with God, but is created, and once was not? For the Platonists thought they were giving an adequate reason for their rejection of this doctrine, when they affirmed that nothing could be everlasting which had not always existed. Plato, however, in writing about the world and the gods in it, whom the Supreme made, most expressly states that they had a beginning and yet would have no end, but, by the sovereign will of the Creator, would endure eternally. But, by way of interpreting this, the Platonists have discovered that he meant a beginning, not of time, but of cause. “For as if a foot,” they say, “had always been in the dust from eternity, there would always have been a print underneath it; and yet no one would doubt that this print was made by the pressure of the foot, nor that, though the one was made by the other, neither was prior to the other; so,” they say, “the world and the gods created in it have always been, their Creator always existing, and yet they were made.” If, then, the soul has always existed, are we to say that its wretchedness has always existed? For if there is something in it which was not from eternity, but began in time, why is it impossible that the soul itself, though not previously existing, should begin to be in time? Its blessedness, too, which, as he admits, is to be more stable, and indeed endless, after the soul's experience of evils — this undoubtedly has a beginning in time, and yet is to be always, though previously it had no existence. This whole argument, therefore, to establish that nothing can be endless except that which has had no beginning, falls to the ground. For here we find the blessedness of the soul, which has a beginning, and yet has no end. And, therefore, let the weakness of man give way to the authority of God; and let us take our belief regarding the true religion from the ever-blessed spirits, who do not seek for themselves that honor which they know to be due to their God and ours, and who do not command us to sacrifice to anyone but Him, whose sacrifice, as I have often said already, and must often say again, we and they ought together to be, offered through that Priest who offered Himself to death as a sacrifice for us, in that human nature which He assumed, and according to which He desired to be our Priest.

This is the religion which possesses the universal way for delivering the soul; for except by this way, no one can be delivered. This is a kind of royal way, which alone leads to a kingdom which does not totter like all temporal dignities, but stands firm on eternal foundations. And when Porphyry says, toward the end of the first book De Regressu Animœ, that no system of doctrine which furnishes the universal way for delivering the soul has as yet been received, either from the truest philosophy, or from the ideas and practices of the Indians, or from the reasoning of the Chaldæans, or from any source at all, and that no reading of history had made that way known to him, he plainly acknowledges that there is such a way, but that as yet he was not acquainted with it. Nothing of all that he had so laboriously learned about the deliverance of the soul, nothing of all that he seemed to others, if not to himself, to know and believe, satisfied him. For he perceived that a commanding authority was still lacking which it might be right to follow in a matter of such importance. And when he says that he had not learned from any truest philosophy a system which possessed the universal way of the soul's deliverance, he shows plainly enough, as it seems to me, either that the philosophy of which he was a disciple was not the truest, or that it did not include such a way. And how can that be the truest philosophy which does not possess this way? For what else is the universal way of the soul's deliverance than that by which all souls universally are delivered, and without which, therefore, no soul is delivered? And when he says, in addition, “or from the ideas and practices of the Indians, or from the reasoning of the Chaldæans, or from any source whatever,” he declares in the most unequivocal language that this universal way of the soul's deliverance was not included in what he had learned either from the Indians or the Chaldæans; and yet he could not refrain from stating that it was from the Chaldæans that he had derived these divine oracles of which he makes such frequent mention. What, therefore, does he mean by this universal way of the soul's deliverance, which had not yet been made known by any truest philosophy, or by the doctrinal systems of those nations which were considered to have great insight in things divine, because they indulged more freely in an inquisitive and fanciful knowledge and worship of angels? What is this universal way of which he acknowledges his ignorance, if not a way which does not belong to one nation as its special property, but is common to all, and divinely bestowed? Porphyry, a man of no ordinary abilities, does not question that such a way exists; for he believes that Divine Providence could not have left men destitute of this universal way of delivering the soul. For he does not say that this way does not exist, but that this great gift and help has not yet been discovered, and has not come to his knowledge. And no wonder; for Porphyry lived in an age when this universal way of the soul's deliverance — in other words, the Christian religion — was exposed to the persecutions of idolaters and demon-worshippers, and earthly rulers, so that the number of martyrs or witnesses for the truth might be completed and consecrated, and that by them proof might be given that we must endure all bodily sufferings in the cause of the holy faith, and for the commendation of the truth. Porphyry, being a witness of these persecutions, concluded that this way was destined to die out quickly, and that it, therefore, was not the universal way of the soul's deliverance, and did not see that the very thing that moved him in this way, and deterred him from becoming a Christian, contributed to the confirmation and more effectual commendation of our religion. This, then, is the universal way of the soul's deliverance, the way that is granted by the divine compassion to the nations universally. And no nation to which the knowledge of it has already come, or may come in the future, ought to demand, Why so soon? Or, Why so late?— for the design of Him who sends it is beyond the reach of the human mind. This was felt by Porphyry when he confined himself to saying that this gift of God was not yet received, and had not yet come to his knowledge. For though this was so, he did not on that account pronounce that the way itself did not exist. This, I say, is the universal way for the deliverance of believers, about which the faithful Abraham received the divine assurance, “In your seed shall all nations be blessed.” Genesis 22:18 He, indeed, was by birth a Chaldæan; but, so that he might receive these great promises, and so that a seed might descend from him “disposed by angels in the hand of a Mediator,” Galatians 3:19 in whom this universal way, thrown open to all nations for the deliverance of the soul, might be found, he was ordered to leave his country, and kindred, and father's house. Then he himself, first of all, was delivered from the Chaldæan superstitions, and by his obedience worshipped the one true God, whose promises he faithfully trusted. This is the universal way, of which it is said in holy prophecy, “God be merciful to us, and bless us, and cause His face to shine on us; so that Your way may be known on earth, Your salvation among all nations.” And so, when our Savior, so long after, had taken flesh from the seed of Abraham, He says of Himself, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” John 14:6 This is the universal way, of which so long before it had been predicted, “And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established on the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow to it. And many people shall go and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and He will teach us of His ways, and we will walk in His paths: for out of Sion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.” Isaiah 2:2-3 This way, therefore, is not the property of one, but of all nations. The law and the word of the Lord did not remain in Zion and Jerusalem, but went out from there to be spread everywhere. And therefore the Mediator Himself, after His resurrection, says to His alarmed disciples, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me. Then He opened their minds so that they might understand the Scriptures, and said to them, So it is written, and so it was necessary for Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.” Luke 24:44-47 This is the universal way of the soul's deliverance, which the holy angels and the holy prophets formerly disclosed where they could among the few men who found the grace of God, and especially in the Hebrew nation, whose commonwealth was, as it were, consecrated to prefigure and announce in advance the city of God which was to be gathered from all nations, by their tabernacle, and temple, and priesthood, and sacrifices. In some explicit statements, and in many obscure foreshadowings, this way was declared; but at last the Mediator Himself came in the flesh, and His blessed apostles, revealing how the grace of the New Testament more openly explained what had been obscurely hinted to preceding generations, in keeping with the order of the ages of the human race, and as it pleased God in His wisdom to appoint, who also bore witness to them with signs and miracles some of which I have cited above. For not only were there visions of angels, and words heard from those heavenly ministers, but also men of God, armed with the word of simple piety, cast out unclean spirits from the bodies and senses of men, and healed deformities and sicknesses; the wild beasts of earth and sea, the birds of air, inanimate things, the elements, the stars, obeyed their divine commands; the powers of hell gave way before them, the dead were restored to life. I say nothing of the miracles belonging uniquely to the Savior's own person, especially the nativity and the resurrection; in the first of which He accomplished only the mystery of a virgin birth, while in the other He furnished an instance of the resurrection which all will at last experience. This way purifies the whole man, and prepares the mortal in all his parts for immortality. For, to prevent us from seeking for one purgation for the part which Porphyry calls intellectual, and another for the part he calls spiritual, and another for the body itself, our most mighty and truthful Purifier and Savior assumed the whole human nature. Except by this way, which has been present among men both during the period of the promises and of the proclamation of their fulfillment, no man has been delivered, no man is delivered, no man will be delivered. As to Porphyry's statement that the universal way of the soul's deliverance had not yet come to his knowledge by any acquaintance he had with history, I would ask, what more remarkable history can be found than that which has taken possession of the whole world by its authoritative voice? Or what more trustworthy than that which narrates past events, and predicts the future with equal clearness, and in the unfulfilled predictions of which we are compelled to believe by those that are already fulfilled? For neither Porphyry nor any Platonists can despise divination and prediction, even of things that concern this life and earthly matters, though they justly despise ordinary soothsaying and the divination that is connected with magical arts. They deny that these are the predictions of great men, or are to be considered important, and they are right; for they are founded, either on the foresight of subsidiary causes, as to a professional eye much of the course of a disease is foreseen by certain warning symptoms, or the unclean demons predict what they have resolved to do, so that they may work in this way on the thoughts and desires of the wicked with an appearance of authority, and incline human frailty to imitate their impure actions. It is not such things that the saints who walk in the universal way care to predict as important, although, for the purpose of commending the faith, they knew and often predicted even such things as could not be detected by human observation, nor be readily verified by experience. But there were other truly important and divine events which they predicted, insofar as it was given them to know the will of God. For the incarnation of Christ, and all those important marvels that were accomplished in Him, and done in His name; the repentance of men and the conversion of their wills to God; the remission of sins, the grace of righteousness, the faith of the pious, and the multitudes in all parts of the world who believe in the true divinity; the overthrow of idolatry and demon worship, and the testing of the faithful by trials; the purification of those who persevered, and their deliverance from all evil; the day of judgment, the resurrection of the dead, the eternal damnation of the community of the ungodly, and the eternal kingdom of the most glorious city of God, ever-blessed in the enjoyment of the vision of God — these things were predicted and promised in the Scriptures of this way; and of these we see so many fulfilled, that we justly and piously trust that the rest will also come to pass. As for those who do not believe, and consequently do not understand, that this is the way which leads straight to the vision of God and to eternal fellowship with Him, according to the true predictions and statements of the Holy Scriptures, they may storm at our position, but they cannot storm it. And therefore, in these ten books, though not meeting, I dare say, the expectation of some, I have nevertheless, as the true God and Lord has graciously aided me, satisfied the desire of certain persons, by refuting the objections of the ungodly, who prefer their own gods to the Founder of the holy city, about which we undertook to speak. Of these ten books, the first five were directed against those who think we should worship the gods for the sake of the blessings of this life, and the second five against those who think we should worship them for the sake of the life which is to come after death. And now, in fulfillment of the promise I made in the first book, I shall go on to say, as God aids me, what I think needs to be said regarding the origin, history, and deserved ends of the two cities, which, as already remarked, are in this world mingled and entangled with one another.