Book Ten

It is the decided 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 expended their leisure. To adduce 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 honours 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 as, even if he has forgotten it, he may refresh his memory by reperusal. For we made selection of the Platonists, justly esteemed the noblest of the philosophers, because they had the wit 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 any who does not cleave with a pure and holy love to that one supreme good, the unchangeable God. But as even these philosophers, whether accommodating to the folly and ignorance of the people, or, as the apostle says, "becoming vain in their imaginations,"³⁶⁴ supposed or allowed others to suppose that many gods should be worshipped, so that some of them considered that divine honour by worship and sacrifice should be rendered even to the demons (an error I have already exploded), we must now, by God's help, ascertain 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.

Everyone who uses reason agrees that all people want to be happy. But who is happy, and how do people become happy? Human understanding is weak, and these questions stir endless, angry disputes. Philosophers have wasted their strength and spent their leisure on them. It would be tedious and unnecessary to present and discuss their various opinions. The reader may remember what we said in Book Eight. There we selected the philosophers with whom we might discuss the happiness of the future life. We asked whether we can reach it by honoring the one true God, the Creator of all gods, or by worshipping many gods. So the reader should not expect us to repeat that argument here. Even if he has forgotten it, he can read it again to refresh his memory. We chose the Platonists, who are rightly considered the noblest of the philosophers. They understood that the human soul is immortal and rational, or intellectual. Yet it cannot be happy unless it shares in the light of God, who made both the soul and the world. They also understood that all people desire a happy life. No one can attain it without holding fast, with pure and holy love, to the one supreme good, the unchangeable God. Even these philosophers, however, believed or allowed others to believe that many gods should be worshipped. Perhaps they were accommodating the folly and ignorance of the people. Or perhaps, as the apostle says, they were “becoming vain in their imaginations.”³⁶⁴ Some even thought that demons should be honored as gods through worship and sacrifice. I have already refuted that error. Now, with God's help, we must discover what the immortal and blessed spirits think of our worship and devotion. These spirits dwell in heaven among dominations, principalities, and powers. The Platonists call them gods. Some call them good demons or, as we do, angels. To put the question more plainly, do the angels want us to offer them sacrifice and worship, and to dedicate our possessions and ourselves to them? Or do they want us to do these things only for God, who is their God 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, as there does not occur to me any Latin term sufficiently exact, I shall avail myself, whenever necessary, of a Greek word. Λατρεία, whenever it occurs in Scripture, is rendered by the word service. But that service which is due to men, and in reference to which the apostle writes that servants must be subject to their own masters,³⁶⁵ is usually designated by another word in Greek,³⁶⁶ whereas 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.³⁶⁷ And the heathen 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."³⁶⁸ 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 rendered to none but God, yet, as the word is applied to other things besides, the cult due to God cannot in Latin be expressed by this word alone.

This is the worship owed to divinity, or, more accurately, to the Deity. I cannot think of a Latin word precise enough to express this worship in a single word. So, whenever necessary, I will use a Greek word. Whenever λατρεία appears in Scripture, it is translated as “service.” But Greek usually uses another word for the service owed to human beings.³⁶⁶ The apostle refers to this service when he writes that servants must submit to their own masters.³⁶⁵ By contrast, the writers of the divine oracles always, or almost always, use λατρεία for the service of worship given to God alone. This service cannot be adequately called simply “cultus.” That word would not seem to refer exclusively to what is owed to God. It is also used for the respect we pay to people, whether to their memory or in their presence. From it we also derive the words agriculture, colonist, and others.³⁶⁷ The pagans call their gods “cœlicolæ,” not because they worship heaven, but because they live there, as if they were its colonists. This does not mean they are colonists in the sense of people bound to their native soil to farm it under its owners. Rather, it is the sense in which the great master of the Latin language says, “There was an ancient city inhabited by Tyrian colonists.”³⁶⁸ He called them colonists because they inhabited the city, not because they farmed the land. Likewise, cities founded by people who leave larger cities are called colonies. It is therefore quite true that, in a special sense, “cult” can be offered to no one but God. Yet the word is also used for other things. So in Latin, this word alone cannot express the cult owed to God.

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; yet, as not only the uneducated, but also the best instructed, 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, unable as we are 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 charity, which, I suppose, arises from the circumstance that God enjoins the performance of 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,³⁶⁹ in which sense the Greeks never use εὐσεβεῖν, though εὐσέβεια is applied to works of charity 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.³⁷⁰ And therefore, whoever these immortal and blessed inhabitants of heaven be, 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?

The word "religion" might seem to describe more precisely the worship owed to God alone. For this reason, Latin translators have used it to translate θρησκεία. Yet both the uneducated and the best educated use "religion" to describe human ties, relationships, and affinities. Using it to discuss the worship of God would therefore inevitably cause ambiguity. We cannot say that religion means only the worship of God without contradicting common usage. People also use the word for the observance of social relationships. "Piety," or εὐσέβεια in Greek, is also commonly understood as the proper term for the worship of God. Yet it is also used for duty toward parents. Ordinary people use it for acts of charity too. I suppose this is because God commands such acts and says he is pleased with them instead of, or in preference to, sacrifices. This usage has even led people to call God himself pious.³⁶⁹ The Greeks never use εὐσεβεῖν in this sense. Yet ordinary Greek speakers also apply εὐσέβεια to acts of charity. In some passages of Scripture, therefore, they have tried to preserve the distinction. They use θεοσέβεια, which literally means the worship of God, rather than the more general word εὐσέβεια. We, on the other hand, cannot express either idea in a single word. In Greek, this worship is called λατρεία, and in Latin "servitus" [service], but it is service owed to God alone. In Greek it is called θρησκεία, and in Latin "religio," but it is the religion that binds us to God alone. They also call it θεοσέβεια. We cannot express that in one word, but call it the worship of God. This worship, we say, belongs only to the true God, who makes his worshippers gods.³⁷⁰ Therefore, whoever these immortal and blessed inhabitants of heaven may be, we should not worship them if they do not love us and wish us to be blessed. But if they do love us and desire our happiness, they cannot wish us to attain it by means other than those they themselves have enjoyed. For how could they wish our blessedness to come from one source and theirs from another?

2. The opinion of Plotinus the Platonist regarding enlightenment from above.

2. The Platonist Plotinus’s view of enlightenment from above.

But with these more estimable 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 that they may be penetrated 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, viz. 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 comprehends the souls of the blessed immortals who inhabit heaven,—has no nature superior to it save 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; the same came for a witness to bear witness of that Light, that through Him all might believe. He was not that Light, but that he might bear witness of the Light. That was the true Light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world;"³⁷¹—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. This John himself avows when he delivers his witness: "We have all received of His fulness."³⁷²

But we have no dispute on this matter with these more respected philosophers. They understood that these spirits find happiness in the same source as we do. They expressed this insight fully in their writings, in various ways. That source is a spiritual light, which is their God and is distinct from them. It illuminates them, filling them with light, so that they enjoy perfect happiness by sharing in God. Plotinus, commenting on Plato, repeatedly and strongly makes the same claim about the soul they believe is the world’s soul. Even it finds happiness in the same source as we do. That source is the Light, which is distinct from the soul and created it. Through its spiritual illumination, the soul receives light to understand spiritual realities. Plotinus also compares these spiritual realities to the great, visible bodies in the heavens. God is like the sun, and the soul is like the moon. For these philosophers believe that the moon receives its light from the sun. This great Platonist says that only God is above the rational soul, or rather the intellectual soul. God created both the world and the soul itself. Plotinus includes among intellectual souls those of the blessed immortals who inhabit heaven. He says that these heavenly spirits receive their blessed life and the light of truth from the same source as we do. This agrees with the gospel, where we read: "There was a man sent from God whose name was John; the same came for a witness to bear witness of that Light, that through him all might believe. He was not that Light, but that he might bear witness of the Light. That was the true Light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world;"³⁷¹ This distinction clearly proves that a rational or intellectual soul, such as John had, cannot be its own light. It must receive illumination from another, the true Light. John himself declares this when he bears witness: "We have all received of his fulness."³⁷²

This being so, if the Platonists, or those who think with them, knowing God, glorified Him as God and gave thanks, if they did not become vain in their own thoughts, if they did not originate or yield to the popular errors, 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 render it outwardly or inwardly; for we are all His temple, each of us severally and all of us together, because He condescends 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 unto 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, lest through the lapse of time ungrateful oblivion should steal upon us; 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 that we may see Him, so far as He can be seen; it is that we may cleave 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,³⁷³ we tend towards Him by love, that we may rest in Him, and find our blessedness by attaining that end. For our good, about which philosophers have so keenly contended, 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 enjoined 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: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy mind, and with all thy soul;" and "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."³⁷⁴ For, that man might be intelligent in his self-love, there was appointed for him an end to which he might refer all his actions, 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."³⁷⁵ And so, when one who has this intelligent self-love is commanded to love his neighbour as himself, what else is enjoined than that he shall 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 with what virtue endowed, 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 stead. On the contrary, these higher powers acquiesce heartily in the divine sentence in which it is written, "He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed."³⁷⁶

This being so, suppose the Platonists, or those who agree with them, knew God, glorified him as God, and gave thanks. Suppose they did not become futile in their own thoughts or start or accept popular errors. Then they would certainly acknowledge that the blessed immortals cannot remain happy without worshipping the one God of gods. Nor can we miserable mortals become happy without worshipping him. He is their God and ours. We owe him the worship called λατρεία in Greek, whether we offer it outwardly or inwardly. For we are all his temple, each of us individually and all of us together. He graciously chooses to live in each person and in the whole harmonious body. He is no greater in all of us than in each of us, since he is neither expanded nor divided. Our heart, when it rises to him, is his altar. His Only-begotten Son is the priest who intercedes for us. We offer him bleeding victims when we fight for his truth, even to the point of shedding blood. We offer him the sweetest incense when we come before him burning with holy and devout love. We devote and surrender ourselves to him, along with his gifts in us. Through solemn feasts and on appointed days, we consecrate the memory of his benefits to him. We do this so that, as time passes, we do not forget them in ingratitude. On the altar of our heart, we offer him the sacrifice of humility and praise, kindled by burning love. We are cleansed of every stain of sin and evil desire and consecrated in his name. This is so that we may see him, as far as he can be seen, and hold fast to him. For he is the source of our happiness and the end of all our desires. We are attached to him, or rather, reattached, for we had detached ourselves and lost our hold on him. Reattached to him,³⁷³ we move toward him in love, so that we may rest in him. By reaching that end, we find our blessedness. The good over which philosophers have argued so fiercely is nothing other than union with God. By spiritually embracing him, if I may put it that way, the rational soul is filled and made fruitful with true virtues. We are commanded to love this good with all our heart, all our soul, and all our strength. Those who love us should lead us to this good, and we should lead those we love to it. In this way, we fulfill the two commandments on which all the law and the prophets depend: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your mind, and with all your soul," and "Love your neighbor as yourself."³⁷⁴ For people to love themselves wisely, an end was appointed for them. They could direct all their actions toward it and so be blessed. For anyone who loves himself desires nothing else. And the end set before him is "to draw near to God."³⁷⁵ When someone who loves himself wisely is commanded to love his neighbor as himself, what else is he commanded to do? He must do all he can to encourage his neighbor to love God. This is the worship of God, true religion, right devotion, and the service due to God alone. Suppose, then, that an immortal power loves us as he loves himself, whatever virtues he possesses. He must desire that we find happiness by submitting to God, just as he himself finds happiness by submitting to God. If he does not worship God, he is wretched because he is deprived of God. If he does worship God, he cannot wish to be worshipped in God's place. On the contrary, these higher powers wholeheartedly accept God's judgment, as it is written: "Whoever sacrifices to any god except the Lord alone shall be utterly destroyed."³⁷⁶

4. That sacrifice is due to the true God only.

4. Sacrifice is owed only to the true God.

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 unduly used in showing honour to men, whether through an excessive humility or pernicious flattery; yet, while this is done, those persons who are thus worshipped and venerated, or even adored, are reckoned no more than human; and who ever thought of sacrificing save to one whom he knew, supposed, or feigned 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 favourably on the younger's.

For now, let us set aside the other religious acts by which God is worshipped. Surely no one would dare to say that sacrifice is due to anyone but God. Many acts of divine worship are wrongly used to honor human beings, whether through excessive humility or harmful flattery. Yet those who are worshipped, venerated, or even adored in this way are still regarded as merely human. Who has ever thought of sacrificing to anyone except one they knew, believed, or pretended was a god? The two brothers, Cain and Abel, show clearly how ancient a part of God's worship sacrifice is. God rejected the elder brother's sacrifice and looked favorably on the younger brother's.

5. Of the sacrifices which God does not require, but wished to be observed for the exhibition of those things which He does require.

5. On the sacrifices God does not require, but wanted people to observe to show what he does require.

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 explodes this idea. Not to be wearisome, suffice it to quote this brief saying from a psalm: "I have said to the Lord, Thou art my God: for Thou needest not my goodness."³⁷⁷ 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 profits not Him, but man. For no man would say he did a benefit 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 now-a-days reads of 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 neighbour to do the same. A sacrifice, therefore, is the visible sacrament or sacred sign of an invisible sacrifice. Hence that penitent in the psalm, or it may be the Psalmist himself, entreating God to be merciful to his sins, says, "If Thou desiredst sacrifice, I would give it: Thou delightest not in whole burnt-offerings. The sacrifice of God is a broken heart: a heart contrite and humble God will not despise."³⁷⁸ 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. Thus, that 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, viz. to gratify His own pleasure. For if He had not wished that the sacrifices He requires, as, e.g., 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 enjoined their presentation; and they were destined to be merged when the fit opportunity arrived, in order that men might not suppose that the sacrifices themselves, rather than the things symbolized by them, were pleasing to God or acceptable in us. Hence, in another passage from another psalm, he says, "If I were hungry, I would not tell thee; for the world is mine and the fulness thereof. Will I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats?"³⁷⁹ as if He should say, Supposing such things were necessary to me, I would never ask thee for what I have in my own hand. Then he goes on to mention what these signify: "Offer unto God the sacrifice of praise, and pay thy vows unto the Most High. And call upon me in the day of trouble: I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me."³⁸⁰ So in another prophet: "Wherewith 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 first-born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? Hath He showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?"³⁸¹ In the words of this prophet, these two things are distinguished and set forth with sufficient explicitness, 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, "To do good and to communicate, forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased."³⁸² And so, when it is written, "I desire mercy rather than sacrifice,"³⁸³ 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 neighbour. For "on these two commandments," as it is written, "hang all the law and the prophets."³⁸⁴

Who is foolish enough to think that God needs the things offered to him for his own use? Divine Scripture rejects this idea in many places. To avoid being tedious, one brief saying from a psalm is enough: "I said to the Lord, You are my God. You do not need my goodness."³⁷⁷ We must believe, then, that God needs neither cattle nor any other earthly or material thing. He does not even need human righteousness. Whatever proper worship we offer God benefits us, not him. No one would claim to benefit a fountain by drinking from it, or the light by seeing. The ancient church offered animal sacrifices. Today, God's people read about them without copying them. This shows only that those sacrifices represented what we do to draw near to God and encourage our neighbors to do the same. A sacrifice, then, is the visible sacrament or sacred sign of an invisible sacrifice. In a psalm, a penitent person, perhaps the psalmist himself, asks God to show mercy for his sins. He says, "If you desired a sacrifice, I would give it. You do not delight in whole burnt offerings. The sacrifice God desires is a broken heart. God will not despise a broken and humble heart."³⁷⁸ Notice how, while saying that God refuses sacrifice, he shows that God requires sacrifice. God does not desire the sacrifice of a slaughtered animal. He desires the sacrifice of a broken heart. So the sacrifice God does not want is a symbol of the sacrifice he does want. God does not want sacrifices as foolish people imagine he does, for his own pleasure. The old law commanded that they be offered. This was because they symbolized the sacrifices God does require, such as a heart humbled and broken by sorrow for sin. People thought God wanted the outward sacrifices because they pleased him. But when the right time came, those sacrifices were to pass away. Then people would not think that the sacrifices themselves pleased God or were acceptable in us, rather than the things they symbolized. In another psalm, God says, "If I were hungry, I would not tell you, for the world and everything in it are mine. Would I eat the flesh of bulls or drink the blood of goats?"³⁷⁹ It is as though he were saying, "Even if I needed such things, I would never ask you for what is already in my hands." He then says what these offerings represent: "Offer God the sacrifice of praise, and fulfill your vows to the Most High. Call on me in the day of trouble. I will deliver you, and you will glorify me."³⁸⁰ Another prophet says, "How shall I come before the Lord and bow before God on high? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with year-old calves? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my wrongdoing, the child of my body for the sin of my soul? He has shown you, O man, what is good. What does the Lord require of you but to act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God?"³⁸¹ The prophet makes two things clear. God does not require these sacrifices for their own sake. He does require the sacrifices they symbolize. The letter called "To the Hebrews" says, "Do not forget to do good and to share with others. God is well pleased with such sacrifices."³⁸² And when Scripture says, "I desire mercy rather than sacrifice,"³⁸³ it simply means that one sacrifice is preferred to another. What people commonly call sacrifice is only a symbol of the true sacrifice. Mercy is the true sacrifice. That is why, as I have just quoted, "God is well pleased with such sacrifices." We should therefore understand all the divine commands about sacrifices in the tabernacle or temple as referring to love of God and neighbor. For, as it is written, "All the law and the prophets depend on these two commandments."³⁸⁴

6. Of the true and perfect sacrifice.

6. The true and perfect sacrifice.

Thus a true sacrifice is every work which is done that we may be united to God in holy fellowship, and which has a reference to that supreme good and end in which alone we can be truly blessed.³⁸⁵ 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 sacrifice³⁸⁶ meant to indicate. Thus man himself, consecrated in the name of God, and vowed to God, is a sacrifice in so far as he dies to the world 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 thy soul by pleasing God."³⁸⁷ Our body, too, is a sacrifice when we chasten it by temperance, if we do so as we ought, for God's sake, that we may not yield our members instruments of unrighteousness unto sin, but instruments of righteousness unto God.³⁸⁸ Exhorting to this sacrifice, the apostle says, "I beseech you, therefore, brethren, by the mercy of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service."³⁸⁹ 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, in order that, being 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 remoulded in the image of permanent loveliness? And this, indeed, the apostle subjoins, saying, "And be not conformed to this world; but be ye transformed in the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God."³⁹⁰ Since, therefore, true sacrifices are works of mercy to ourselves or others, done with a 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,"³⁹¹ 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, 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 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, that we might prove 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 unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith. For, as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office, so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another, having gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us."³⁹² 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.

A true sacrifice is any work done to unite us with God in holy fellowship. It must be directed toward that supreme good and ultimate end in which alone we can be truly blessed.³⁸⁵ So even the mercy we show others is not a sacrifice unless we show it for God's sake. Although a person makes or offers a sacrifice, it is a divine thing. Those who called it sacrifice³⁸⁶ meant to show this. Thus a person consecrated in God's name and dedicated to him is a sacrifice. This is so when that person dies to the world in order to live for God. This is part of the mercy each person shows to themselves. As Scripture says, "Have mercy on your soul by pleasing God."³⁸⁷ Our body, too, is a sacrifice when we discipline it through self-control. We must do this as we ought, for God's sake. Then we will not offer the parts of our bodies to sin as instruments of unrighteousness. Instead, we will offer them to God as instruments of righteousness.³⁸⁸ Urging us to make this sacrifice, the apostle says, "I urge you, therefore, brothers and sisters, by God's mercy, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God. This is your reasonable service."³⁸⁹ The soul uses the body, which is inferior to it, as a servant or instrument. Yet the body is a sacrifice when it is used rightly and directed toward God. How much more, then, does the soul itself become a sacrifice when it offers itself to God? Set aflame by the fire of his love, the soul can receive his beauty and become pleasing to him. It loses the form given it by earthly desire and is remade in the image of lasting beauty. The apostle adds this very point, saying, "Do not conform to this world. Instead, be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you can discern the good, acceptable, and perfect will of God."³⁹⁰ True sacrifices, then, are works of mercy toward ourselves or others, done for God's sake. Works of mercy have no other purpose than to relieve distress or bring happiness. And there is no happiness apart from that good of which it is said, "It is good for me to be very near to God."³⁹¹ It follows that the whole redeemed city, the congregation or community of the saints, is offered to God as our sacrifice. It is offered through the great High Priest, who offered himself to God in his suffering for us. He did this so that we might be members of him, our glorious head, in his form as a servant. He offered this form, and in it he was offered. For in this form he is the Mediator, our Priest, and the Sacrifice. The apostle urged us to present our bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, as our reasonable service. He also urged us not to conform to the world, but to be transformed by the renewing of our minds. In this way we can discern God's good, acceptable, and perfect will, that is, the true sacrifice of ourselves. He then says, "Through the grace God has given me, I say to everyone among you: do not think more highly of yourself than you ought. Instead, think soberly, according to the measure of faith God has given each person. We have many members in one body, and not all members have the same function. In the same way, we who are many are one body in Christ, and each of us is a member of the others. We have different gifts, according to the grace given to us."³⁹² This is the sacrifice of Christians: we who are many are one body in Christ. This is also the sacrifice that the Church continually celebrates in the sacrament of the altar, which the faithful know. In it, the Church teaches that she herself is offered in the offering she makes to God.

7. Of the love of the holy angels, which prompts them to desire that we worship the one true God, and not themselves.

7. How the holy angels' love leads them to want us to worship the one true God, not themselves.

It is very right that these blessed and immortal spirits, who inhabit celestial dwellings, and rejoice in the communications of their Creator's fulness, 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 thee, O city of God;"³⁹³ 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, "He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed,"³⁹⁴—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.

It is only right that these blessed and immortal spirits do not want us to sacrifice to them. They live in heavenly dwellings and share joyfully in the fullness of their Creator. They are secure in his eternity, confident in his truth, and holy through his grace. They look with compassion and tenderness on us miserable mortals, and they want us to become immortal and happy. They want us to sacrifice to God, for they know that, like us, they themselves are his sacrifice. Together, we and they are the one city of God. The psalm says of this city, "Glorious things are spoken of thee, O city of God."³⁹³ Its human members live as travelers here below, while its angelic members help from above. In that heavenly city, God's will is the law, a law that can be understood and never changes. There the angels also deliberate about us. From that heavenly council, holy Scripture came down to us through the ministry of angels. In it we read, "He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed."³⁹⁴ This Scripture, its law, and its commands have been confirmed by such miracles that it is clear enough whom these immortal and blessed spirits want us to sacrifice to. They want us to be like themselves.

8. Of the miracles which God has condescended to adhibit, through the ministry of angels, to His promises for the confirmation of the faith of the godly.

8. The miracles God graciously added to his promises through the service of angels, to strengthen the faith of the godly.

I should seem tedious were I to recount all the ancient miracles, which were wrought in attestation of God's promises which He made to Abraham thousands of years ago, that in his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed.³⁹⁵ For who can but 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;³⁹⁶ 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;³⁹⁷ 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 suffered to do some wonderful things that they might be vanquished all the more signally! 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; whereas Moses, dealing out the miracles delegated to him, brought ten plagues upon the land, so that the hard hearts of Pharaoh and the Egyptians yielded, and the people were let go. But, quickly repenting, and essaying 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 begat worms and putrefied when any one 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 brazen 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 afterwards worshipped by the mistaken people as an idol, and was destroyed by the pious and God-fearing king Hezekiah, much to his credit.

I would seem tedious if I recounted all the ancient miracles confirming God’s promises to Abraham thousands of years ago. God promised that through Abraham’s offspring all the nations of the earth would be blessed.³⁹⁵ Who could fail to marvel that Abraham’s barren wife gave birth to a son? She was at an age when even a woman who had borne many children could no longer give birth. Who could fail to marvel that, when Abraham offered a sacrifice, a flame from heaven passed between the divided pieces?³⁹⁶ Or that angels in human form, whom he had welcomed as guests, renewed God’s promise of offspring? They also foretold that Sodom would be destroyed by fire from heaven.³⁹⁷ As the fire was about to fall, the angels rescued his nephew Lot from Sodom. But Lot’s wife looked back as she left and was immediately turned into salt. She stood as a sacred warning that no one being saved should long for what he is leaving behind. How striking, too, were the wonders Moses performed to free God’s people from slavery in Egypt! Pharaoh, the king of Egypt, ruled the people as a tyrant. His magicians were allowed to perform some wonders so that their defeat would be all the more decisive. They used magical arts and spells favored by evil spirits, or demons. But Moses had much greater power because right was on his side and angels helped him. In the name of the Lord, who made heaven and earth, he easily defeated them. The magicians failed at the third plague. Moses, performing the miracles entrusted to him, brought ten plagues upon the land. Finally, the hard hearts of Pharaoh and the Egyptians gave way, and they let the people go. But they soon changed their minds and tried to catch the departing Hebrews. The Hebrews had crossed the sea on dry ground, but the returning waters engulfed and overwhelmed their pursuers. What can I say of the frequent and astounding displays of divine power as the people were led through the wilderness? The waters were too bitter to drink. But when a piece of wood was thrown into them at God’s command, they lost their bitterness and satisfied the thirsty. Manna came down from heaven to satisfy their hunger. If anyone gathered more than the appointed amount, it bred worms and rotted. Yet when they gathered twice as much on the day before the Sabbath, it stayed fresh. They were not allowed to gather it on the Sabbath. When they longed for meat, birds filled the camp and satisfied their hunger. It had seemed impossible to supply meat to so many people. Enemies met them and tried to block their passage with weapons. But when Moses prayed with his hands extended in the shape of a cross, the enemies were defeated. Not a single Hebrew was lost. Rebels arose among God’s people and separated themselves from the community God had ordered. The earth swallowed them alive, a visible sign of an invisible punishment. When a rock was struck with a rod, it poured out more than enough water for the whole host. The bites of deadly serpents were sent as a just punishment for sin. But those bitten were healed by looking at the bronze serpent lifted up before them. In this destruction of death by death, the suffering people were not only healed. They were also shown a symbol of death’s crucifixion. The serpent was kept in memory of this event. Later, the misguided people worshipped it as an idol. The pious and God-fearing King Hezekiah destroyed it, much to his credit.

9. Of the illicit arts connected with demonolatry, and of which the Platonist Porphyry adopts some, and discards others.

9. On the forbidden practices connected with demon worship, some of which the Platonist Porphyry accepts and others he rejects.

These miracles, and many others of the same nature, which it were tedious to mention, were wrought 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 wrought 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,³⁹⁸ or the more honourable designation theurgy; for they wish to discriminate between those whom the people call magicians, who practise 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.

These miracles, and many others like them that would be tedious to list, were performed for a purpose. They promoted the worship of the one true God and forbade the worship of many false gods. They were performed through simple faith and godly trust, not through spells and charms. Such spells and charms come from criminal dealings with the unseen world. The art involved is called magic, or by the more hateful name necromancy,³⁹⁸ or by the more honorable name theurgy. Some wish to distinguish between those whom people call magicians and those who practice theurgy. Magicians practice necromancy, devote themselves to forbidden arts, and are condemned. Those who practice theurgy seem to these people worthy of praise. In truth, however, both groups are slaves to the deceitful rites of demons, whom they invoke as 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 to any one 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 practise 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 sensible images, is recognised, but the spiritual part, which takes cognizance of the images of things material. This part, he says, is prepared and fitted for intercourse 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 recognise 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 calling 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 habitation of the latter is 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 owns 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, execrates 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 treats 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 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 perturbed and agitated by the emotions which Apuleius attributed to demons and men, but from which he preserved the gods by that sublimity of residence, which, in common with Plato, he accorded to them.

Even Porphyry promises some kind of purification of the soul through theurgy, though he does so hesitantly and reluctantly. Yet he denies that this art can bring anyone back to God. His opinion seems to waver between his commitment to philosophy and an art he considers presumptuous and sacrilegious. At one moment, he warns us to avoid theurgy because it is deceptive, illegal, and dangerous to practitioners. At another, as if to accommodate its supporters, he says it can cleanse one part of the soul. This is not the intellectual part, which recognizes the truth of intelligible things that have no sensory images. Rather, it is the spiritual part, which perceives images of material things. He says certain theurgic consecrations, or “mysteries,” prepare this part to communicate with spirits and angels and see the gods. Yet he admits that these mysteries do not make the intellectual soul pure enough to see its God and recognize what truly exists. From this admission, we can judge what kind of gods these are and what kind of vision theurgic consecrations provide. For through them one cannot see what truly exists. He also says that the rational soul, or intellectual soul, as he prefers to call it, can enter heaven without the spiritual part being cleansed by theurgy. He says theurgy cannot purify the spiritual part enough to let it enter immortality and eternity. He distinguishes angels from demons, saying that demons live in the air, while angels live in the ether and the empyrean. He advises us to make friends with a demon who might help us after death and raise us at least a little above the earth. He admits that we must reach the heavenly company of angels by another way. Yet he also clearly warns us to avoid the company of demons. He says that, after death, the soul makes amends for its sin and condemns the worship of the demons that ensnared it. Though he recommends theurgy as a way to win the favor of angels and demons, he cannot deny something about it. It deals with powers that either envy the soul its purity or serve the practices of those who do. He makes this complaint through the words of a certain Chaldaean. “A good man in Chaldaea complains,” he says, “that his strongest efforts to cleanse his soul were frustrated. Another man, who had influence in these matters and envied his purity, had prayed to the powers. By his spells, he had bound them not to listen to the good man’s request. Therefore,” Porphyry adds, “what one man bound, the other could not release.” From this he concludes that theurgy is a craft that brings about both good and evil among gods and humans. He also concludes that the gods have passions and are disturbed and agitated by emotions. Apuleius attributed these emotions to demons and humans, but not to the gods. Like Plato, he believed the gods were free from them because they lived in a lofty realm.

10. Concerning theurgy, which promises a delusive purification of the soul by the invocation of demons.

10. On theurgy, which falsely promises to purify the soul by calling on demons.

But here we have another and a much more learned Platonist than Apuleius, Porphyry, to wit, asserting that, by I know not what theurgy, even the gods themselves are subjected to passions and perturbations; for by adjurations they were so bound and terrified that they could not confer purity of soul,—were so terrified by him who imposed on them a wicked command, that they could not by the same theurgy be freed from that terror, and fulfil the righteous behest of him 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 be a wretched slave of theirs, and an alien from 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 evil-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 avows, by the fear of a stronger deity, but should have simply denied the boon on their own free judgment. And it is surprising that that well-disposed Chaldæan, who desired to purify his soul by theurgical rites, found no superior deity who could either terrify the frightened gods still more, and force them to confer the boon, or compose 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? Is there found a god who listens to the envious man, and frightens the gods from doing good? and is there not found a god who listens to the well-disposed man, and removes the fear of the gods that they may do him good? O excellent theurgy! O 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. Rather let us abominate 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."³⁹⁹ For these are the delusive appearances of that spirit who longs to entangle wretched souls in the deceptive worship of many and 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,"⁴⁰⁰ equally hurtful, whether he assaults us as an enemy, or assumes the disguise of a friend.

Here we have another Platonist, Porphyry, who is much more learned than Apuleius. He claims that through some kind of theurgy, even the gods themselves become subject to passions and distress. They were bound and terrified by magical commands, so that they could not purify a soul. The man who gave them a wicked command frightened them so much that the same theurgy could not free them from fear. They could not fulfill the righteous request of the man who prayed to them, or do the good he sought. Who cannot see that all these things are tricks of deceiving demons? Only someone who is their wretched slave and a stranger to the grace of the true Liberator. If the Chaldaean had been dealing with good gods, surely a well-intentioned man seeking to purify his soul would have had more influence with them than an evil man trying to prevent him. Or perhaps the gods were just and considered him unworthy of the purification he sought. Even so, they should not have been frightened by an envious person. Nor should fear of a stronger deity have stopped them, as Porphyry admits it did. They should simply have refused the favor according to their own free judgment. It is surprising that the well-intentioned Chaldaean wanted to purify his soul through theurgical rites, yet found no higher deity to help him. Such a deity might have frightened the fearful gods even more and forced them to grant the favor. Or he might have calmed their fears, allowing them to do good without being forced. This is surprising even if the good theurgist himself had no rites to remove fear from those gods. After all, he had called on them to purify his own soul. Why is there a god powerful enough to frighten the lesser gods, but none powerful enough to free them from fear? Can a god be found who listens to the envious man and frightens the gods away from doing good? And can none be found who listens to the well-intentioned man and removes their fear, so that they can do him good? What excellent theurgy! What admirable purification of the soul! Here the force of impure envy has more influence than a plea for purity and holiness. Instead, let us hate and avoid the deceit of such wicked spirits, and listen to sound teaching. Some people perform these filthy cleansings through sacrilegious rites. Porphyry also tells us that, after initiation, they see certain wonderfully beautiful appearances of angels or gods, though we may question whether they see them. The apostle refers to this when he speaks of "Satan transforming himself into an angel of light."³⁹⁹ These are the deceptive appearances of a spirit who longs to trap wretched souls in the false worship of many false gods. He wants to turn them away from the true worship of the true God, by whom alone they are cleansed and healed. This spirit, as was said of Proteus, "turns himself into all shapes."⁴⁰⁰ He is equally harmful whether he attacks us as an enemy or disguises himself as a friend.

11. Of Porphyry's epistle to Anebo, in which he asks for information about the differences among demons.

11. Porphyry's letter to Anebo, asking about the differences among demons.

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 explodes 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 vapours, and therefore residing not in the ether, but in the air beneath the moon, and indeed in the moon itself. Yet he has not 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 benignant 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 bodies he does not doubt that they are,—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 hurtful, and how they, being corporeal, are numbered with 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 without. 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 property 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 odours, 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 in sleep and waking, 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 acquainting himself with and confidently assailing the whole fraternity 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 marvelled at these magical feats as divine works, and closely allied to the worship of the gods.

Porphyry struck a better tone in his letter to Anebo the Egyptian. Pretending to be an inquirer seeking advice, he exposed and discredited these sacrilegious arts. In that letter, he rejected all demons. He claimed they were so foolish that sacrificial fumes attracted them. For this reason, he said, they lived not in the ether but in the air below the moon, and even in the moon itself. Yet he did not dare attribute all the deceptions and malicious and foolish practices he rightly condemned to all demons. Although he admitted that demons as a race were foolish, he accommodated popular beliefs enough to call some of them good. He expressed surprise that sacrifices not only influenced the gods but also compelled them to do what people wanted. He could not understand how the sun, moon, and other visible heavenly bodies were considered gods. He had no doubt that they were bodies. Yet gods were supposedly distinguished from demons by having no bodies. If these heavenly bodies were gods, he also wondered why some were called beneficial and others harmful. And how could they, being bodies, be counted among the gods, who have no bodies? Still presenting himself as uncertain, he asked whether diviners and wonderworkers had unusually powerful souls. Or did spirits outside them give them the power to perform these acts? He leaned toward the latter view. After all, they used stones and herbs to cast spells, open locked doors, and perform similar wonders. For this reason, he said, some people believed there was a race of beings whose nature was to listen to humans. These beings were deceitful and resourceful. They could take any form and pretend to be gods, demons, or dead people. According to this view, these beings brought about everything that appeared good or evil in such practices. But they never helped people achieve what was truly good. They did not even know what true good was. They made wickedness easy but put obstacles in the way of those who eagerly pursued virtue. They were full of pride and recklessness, delighted in the smells of sacrifice, and were won over by flattery. Porphyry described these and other traits of this race of deceitful and malicious spirits. They entered people’s souls and deceived their senses, both in sleep and while awake. But he did not claim to be convinced of these things himself. He expressed enough suspicion and doubt to present them only as common beliefs. We should sympathize with this great philosopher. He found it difficult to understand and confidently attack the whole fellowship of devils, which any Christian old woman would describe without hesitation and hate without reservation. Perhaps, however, he feared offending Anebo, the recipient of his letter and the most prominent supporter of these mysteries. Or perhaps he feared offending others who admired these magical feats as divine works closely connected with 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 make no scruple of tempting 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, that he may wring from them a real boon,—for he threatens that he will demolish the sky, and such like impossibilities,—that those gods, being alarmed, like silly children, with 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 he who used the spells threatened to divulge or do away with these mysteries, and cried with a threatening voice that he would scatter the members of Osiris if they neglected his orders. Not without reason is Porphyry surprised 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 sidereal light,—and that these threats should be effectual to constrain them with resistless power, and alarm them so that they fulfil his wishes. Not without reason does he, in the character of an inquirer into the reasons of these surprising things, give it to 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 demons they really are. 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 upon earth powers capable of bringing about various results, all that is only the mystification which these demons practise 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 favourable view of the philosopher, he adopted this method with the Egyptian who was wedded to these errors, and was proud of them, that he might not offend him by assuming the attitude of a teacher, nor discompose his mind by the altercation of a professed assailant, 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 relinquished. Towards the conclusion of his letter, he requests Anebo to inform him what the Egyptian wisdom indicates as the way to blessedness. But as to those who hold intercourse 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 yet 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.

However, he continues to explore the subject, still posing as an inquirer. He mentions things that no reasonable person could attribute to anything but malicious and deceitful powers. He asks why, after the better spirits have been invoked, the worse ones are ordered to carry out people’s wicked desires. Why do these spirits refuse to listen to a man who has just embraced a woman? Yet they have no hesitation about tempting people to incest and adultery. Why are their priests ordered to avoid animal food for fear of contamination from bodily vapors? Yet the spirits themselves are attracted by the smoke of sacrifices and other vapors. Why are initiates forbidden to touch a dead body, when their mysteries are celebrated almost entirely through dead bodies? He also asks why a person given to vice can make threats against the sun, moon, or other heavenly bodies. He does not threaten a demon or the soul of a dead person. Instead, he frightens the heavenly bodies with imaginary terrors to force a real favor from them. He threatens to destroy the sky and do other impossible things. Supposedly, these gods are alarmed by imaginary and absurd threats, like foolish children, and do as they are ordered. Porphyry also relates an account by Chæremon, a man deeply versed in these sacred, or rather sacrilegious, mysteries. Chæremon wrote that the famous Egyptian mysteries of Isis and her husband Osiris had great power to compel the gods. The person casting the spells would threaten to reveal or destroy these mysteries. He would cry out threateningly that he would scatter the parts of Osiris’s body if the gods ignored his orders. Porphyry is right to be surprised that anyone should make such wild and empty threats against the gods. These are not insignificant gods, but heavenly gods who shine with the light of the stars. He is also right to wonder that these threats should constrain them with irresistible force. They supposedly become so frightened that they fulfill the man’s wishes. Porphyry is right, as an inquirer into these astonishing matters, to suggest who is responsible. He implies that the acts are done by the race of spirits he described earlier, as though reporting other people’s opinions. These spirits deceive, not by nature, as he said, but because of their own corruption. They impersonate gods and dead people, but not demons, as he said, for they really are demons. Porphyry also suggests that people create powers on earth through herbs, stones, animals, incantations, sounds, and drawings. Some drawings are fanciful, while others copy the movements of the heavenly bodies. These powers are supposedly capable of producing various effects. But all this is merely a deception practiced by demons on those under their control. They do it to amuse themselves at their victims’ expense. Perhaps, then, Porphyry was sincere in his doubts and questions. He may have mentioned these things to prove beyond doubt that they were the work of deceitful demons. They were not the work of powers that help us obtain life. Or, to take a more favorable view of the philosopher, he may have used this approach for another reason. The Egyptian he addressed was attached to these errors and proud of them. Porphyry may have wished to avoid offending him by posing as a teacher. He may also have wished to avoid upsetting him by arguing as an open opponent. Instead, he posed as an inquirer, humbly eager to learn. In this way, he could draw the Egyptian’s attention to these matters. He could show how deserving they were of contempt and rejection. Near the end of his letter, he asks Anebo to explain what Egyptian wisdom teaches about the way to blessedness. He speaks of those who communicate with the gods and pester them only for such things as finding a runaway slave, acquiring property, or arranging a marriage. He declares that their claims to wisdom are empty. He adds that even if these same gods spoke the truth on other matters, their disclosures about blessedness were still misguided and unsatisfactory. They therefore cannot be gods or good demons. They must be either the spirit called the deceiver or mere products of the imagination.

12. Of the miracles wrought by the true God through the ministry of the holy angels.

12. On the miracles performed by the true God through the service of the holy angels.

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 adherence to whom, as the Platonists themselves abundantly testify, all blessedness consists, are the pastime of wicked spirits, who thus seek to seduce and hinder the truly godly? On the other hand, we cannot but believe that all miracles, whether wrought by angels or by other means, so long as they are so done as to commend the worship and religion of the one God in whom alone is blessedness, are wrought by those who love us in a true and godly sort, or through their means, 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 marvellous 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 always before us, yet, when we arouse 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 his instrumentality. Therefore God, who made the visible heaven and earth, does not disdain to work visible miracles in heaven or earth, that He may thereby 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 already they were 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; neither 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.

These arts produce wonders far beyond human power. Their predictions and actions seem miraculous and divine. Yet they form no part of the worship of the one God. As the Platonists themselves repeatedly affirm, all blessedness consists in remaining faithful to him. What choice do we have but to believe that these wonders are the work and amusement of wicked spirits? They use them to lead the truly godly astray and hinder them. On the other hand, we must believe that all miracles which commend the worship and religion of the one God come from those who truly and godly love us, or are brought about through them. This is true whether angels perform them or they happen by other means. God himself works in those who bring them about. Only in him is there blessedness. We cannot listen to those who claim that the invisible God works no visible miracles. Even they believe that he made the world, which they surely cannot deny is visible. Whatever marvel happens in this world is certainly less marvelous than the whole world itself. I mean the sky and the earth and everything in them, which God certainly made. But just as the Creator himself is hidden and beyond human understanding, so is the way he created the world. We give little thought to the constant miracle of this visible world because it is always before us. Yet when we rouse ourselves to consider it, we see that it is greater than the rarest and most unheard-of marvels. A human being is a greater miracle than any miracle performed through a human being. Therefore God, who made the visible heaven and earth, does not consider it beneath him to work visible miracles there. Through them, he awakens the soul, immersed in visible things, to worship him, the invisible God. The place and time of these miracles depend on his unchanging will. In that will, future events are ordered as though they had already happened. He sets things in time in motion without himself moving through time. He does not know future things in one way and past things in another. Nor does he hear those who pray differently from how he sees those who will pray. Even when his angels hear us, he himself hears us in them. They are his true temple, not made by human hands, as are those people who are his saints. His answers take effect in time, but he has arranged them by his eternal decree.

13. Of the invisible God, who has often made Himself visible, not as He really is, but as the beholders could bear the sight.

13. The invisible God has often made himself visible, not as he truly is, but in a way people could bear to see.

Neither 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 recognised that, though the bodily form was not God, they saw the invisible God. For, though Moses conversed with God, yet he said, 'If I have found grace in Thy sight, show me Thyself, that I may see and know Thee.'⁴⁰¹ And as it was fit 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 wrought, 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 beheld the awful appearances. 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 enjoined the worship of one God was given to the people, marvellous signs and earthquakes, such as the divine wisdom judged sufficient, were brought about in the sight of all, that they might know that it was the Creator who could thus use creation to promulgate His law.

We should not be surprised that God, though invisible, often appeared visibly to the patriarchs. A sound that communicates a thought formed silently in the mind is not the thought itself. In the same way, the form in which God appeared was not God himself, who is invisible by nature. Yet it was God himself who was seen in that form, just as the thought itself is heard in the voice. The patriarchs understood that the bodily form was not God, yet they saw the invisible God. Although Moses spoke with God, he still said, "If I have found favor in your sight, show me yourself, so that I may see and know you."⁴⁰¹ The law was given not to one person or a few enlightened people, but to a whole, populous nation. So it was fitting that awe-inspiring signs should accompany it. Through the ministry of angels, great wonders were performed before the people on the mountain. There, the law was given to them through one man, while the crowd watched the fearsome sights. The people of Israel did not believe Moses as the Spartans believed their Lycurgus. They believed Lycurgus because he had received the laws he gave them from Jupiter or Apollo. When the law commanding the worship of one God was given, marvelous signs and earthquakes occurred before all the people. Divine wisdom judged these signs sufficient to show them that it was the Creator who could use creation to proclaim 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, 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 he 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 discourses concerning 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, were they not fashioned by Him whose unseen and unchangeable beauty continually pervades all things.⁴⁰² This is proved also by the Lord Jesus, where He says, 'Consider the lilies, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin. And yet I say unto you that Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. But if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to-day is and to-morrow is cast into the oven, how much more shall He clothe you, O ye of little faith!'⁴⁰³ 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 boons, and the earthly necessaries of this transitory life, which are contemptible in comparison with eternal blessings, in order that the desire even of these things might not draw it aside from the worship of Him, to whom we come by despising and forsaking such things.

The education of the human race, represented by the people of God, has progressed through distinct periods, like a person passing through stages of life. In this way, humanity could gradually rise from earthly things to heavenly things, and from the visible to the invisible. This goal was always kept clearly in view. Even when earthly rewards were promised, the one God was presented as the one to be worshiped. Thus people would acknowledge no other than the true Creator and Lord of the spirit, even when seeking earthly blessings in this temporary life. Anyone who denies that all things angels or humans can give us are in the power of the one Almighty is a madman. The Platonist Plotinus discusses providence and points to the beauty of flowers and leaves. From this beauty, he argues that providence reaches even these earthly things, from the supreme God, whose beauty is unseen and beyond words. He argues that all these fragile and perishing things could not have such exquisite and intricate beauty unless they were made by him. His unseen and unchanging beauty continually fills all things.⁴⁰² The Lord Jesus also demonstrates this when he says, “Consider how the lilies grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that even Solomon in all his glory was not dressed like one of these. If God so clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and thrown into the oven tomorrow, how much more will he clothe you, you of little faith!”⁴⁰³ It was therefore best for the human soul, still weakly desiring earthly things, to learn to seek even these small, temporary gifts from God alone. It was also to seek from him the earthly necessities of this temporary life. These things are insignificant compared with eternal blessings. This would prevent even the desire for them from drawing the soul away from worshiping God, whom we reach by despising and abandoning such things.

15. Of the ministry of the holy angels, by which they fulfil the providence of God.

15. On the service of the holy angels, through which they carry out God's providence.

And so it has pleased Divine Providence, as I have said, and as we read in the Acts of the Apostles,⁴⁰⁴ that the law enjoining the worship of one God should be given by the disposition of angels. But among them the person of God Himself visibly appeared, not, indeed, in His proper substance, which ever 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 sense, but to the mind; not in words that occupy time, but, if I may so say, 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 sensible and visible world. And this law was given in conformity with the age of the world, and contained at the first earthly promises, as I have said, which, however, symbolized eternal ones; and these eternal blessings few understood, though many took a part in the celebration of their visible signs. Nevertheless, with one consent both the words and the visible rites of that law enjoin 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.

As I have said, divine providence chose to give the law requiring the worship of one God through the work of angels. We also read this in the Acts of the Apostles.⁴⁰⁴ Among those angels, God himself appeared visibly. He did not appear in his own substance, which always remains invisible to mortal eyes. Instead, he appeared through unmistakable signs provided by creation in obedience to its Creator. He also used human speech, speaking one syllable after another. Yet in his own nature, he speaks spiritually, not bodily. He speaks to the mind, not to the senses. He does not speak in words that take time to utter. Rather, if I may put it this way, he speaks eternally, without beginning or end. His servants and messengers hear exactly what he says, not with bodily ears but with the ear of the mind. They are blessed forever by their enjoyment of his unchanging truth. They receive his directions in a way beyond words. Then they carry them out without delay or difficulty in the world of the senses and visible things. This law was given in a form suited to that age of the world. At first, as I have said, it contained earthly promises, which symbolized eternal ones. Few understood these eternal blessings, though many took part in celebrating their visible signs. Nevertheless, both the words and the visible rites of that law consistently command the worship of one God. He is not one among many gods. He made heaven and earth, and every soul and spirit other than himself. He created, and everything else was created. All things need their Creator both to exist and to flourish.

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 render 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 he who enjoys all other blessings in abundance, and has not this, is supremely miserable.⁴⁰⁵ Since, therefore, miracles are wrought 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,⁴⁰⁶—for this name is good enough for those who practise 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 wrought 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 proceeded from proud arrogance, and which from true religion. I will say more. If miracles had been wrought only by those who demand sacrifice for themselves, while those who forbade this, and enjoined sacrificing to the one God only, thought fit entirely to forego the use of visible miracles, the authority of the latter was 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, wrought miracles of surpassing grandeur, certainty, and distinctness, in order that the weak among the godly might not be drawn away to false religion by those who require us to sacrifice to them and endeavour 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?

Which angels should we believe about blessed and eternal life? Should we believe those who want religious worship and demand that people sacrifice to them? Or should we believe those who say that all such worship belongs to one God, the Creator? These angels teach us to worship him with true devotion. They are already blessed by seeing him, and they promise that we too will be blessed in him. The vision of God is so beautiful and infinitely desirable that Plotinus makes a striking claim. He says that anyone who has every other blessing in abundance but lacks this vision is utterly miserable.⁴⁰⁵ Some angels perform miracles to lead us to worship this God. Others perform them to lead us to worship themselves. The first forbid us to worship the others, while the others dare not forbid us to worship God. Which should we listen to? Let the Platonists answer, or any other philosophers, or the theurgists, or rather, periurgists.⁴⁰⁶ That name is good enough for those who practice such arts. In short, let everyone answer, if any spark of natural understanding remains in them. As rational beings, they possess this understanding when they are created. Should we sacrifice to the gods or angels who order us to sacrifice to them? Or should we sacrifice to the One whom the other angels tell us to worship? These angels forbid us to worship either themselves or the others. Suppose neither group had performed miracles, but had only given commands. One group ordered us to sacrifice to themselves. The other forbade this and ordered us to sacrifice to God. A godly mind would have had no trouble distinguishing proud arrogance from true religion. I will say more. Suppose only those who demand sacrifice for themselves had performed miracles. Suppose those who forbade this and commanded sacrifice to the one God alone had chosen to perform no visible miracles. Even then, all who used their reason, and not merely their eyes, should have preferred their authority. But God has performed miracles of surpassing grandeur, certainty, and clarity. He has done this to commend the messages of his truth to us. He has worked through these immortal messengers, who proclaim his majesty, not their own pride. He did this so that the weak among the godly would not be drawn into false religion. Those who demand sacrifice try to persuade us through astonishing appeals to our senses. But the truth is announced by even more striking evidence than falsehood. Who, then, is so utterly unreasonable that they would not choose and follow it?

As for those miracles which history ascribes to the gods of the heathen,—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 manifestly enough are wrought by their power and force, 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 the like, are by no means to be compared for greatness and virtue to those which, we read, were wrought among God's people. How much less can we compare those marvels, which even the laws of heathen nations prohibit and punish,—I mean the magical and theurgic marvels, of which the great part are merely illusions practised upon the senses, as the drawing down of the moon, "that," as Lucan says, "it may shed a stronger influence on the plants?"⁴⁰⁷ And if some of these do seem to equal those which are wrought by the godly, the end for which they are wrought 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 thus 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 so bid us to worship Him as to preclude our worshipping any other. But, further, if it be 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 bid us sacrifice, not to themselves, but to Him whose sacrifice we ourselves ought to be?

History tells of miracles attributed to pagan gods. I do not mean the extraordinary events that sometimes happen from unknown physical causes. Divine Providence arranges and ordains these events. They include monstrous births and unusual weather, whether merely alarming or also harmful. Some say that communication with demons and their deeply deceptive tricks bring about and end these events. Rather, I mean those marvels that are clearly enough brought about by the power and force of those gods. For example, the household gods Æneas carried from Troy during his escape moved from place to place. Tarquin cut a whetstone with a razor. The serpent of Epidaurus joined Æsculapius as a companion on his voyage to Rome. The ship carrying the image of the Phrygian mother could not be moved by a crowd of men and oxen. Yet one weak woman moved it. She tied her belt to the ship and pulled it to prove her chastity. A Vestal Virgin whose virginity was questioned removed suspicion by carrying a sieve full of water from the Tiber. Not a drop fell. These and similar marvels cannot be compared in greatness or virtue to those we read were performed among God’s people. Still less can we compare the marvels that even pagan laws forbid and punish. I mean the marvels of magic and theurgy. Most of these are merely illusions that deceive the senses. One example is drawing down the moon, “that,” as Lucan says, “it may shed a stronger influence on the plants.”⁴⁰⁷ Even if some seem equal to those performed by godly people, their purpose distinguishes them. It shows that ours are incomparably more excellent. Those miracles promote the worship of many gods, who deserve worship less the more they demand it. But ours promote the worship of the one God. Both through the testimony of his own Scriptures and through the eventual abolition of sacrifices, he proves that he needs no such offerings. If any angels demand sacrifice for themselves, we must prefer those who demand it for God, not themselves. He is the Creator of all, and they serve him. In this way they show how sincerely they love us. Through sacrifice, they wish to subject us not to themselves, but to him. They themselves are blessed by contemplating him. They wish to bring us to him, from whom they themselves have never strayed. On the other hand, some angels may want us to sacrifice not to one god, but to many. They may ask us to sacrifice not to themselves, but to the gods whose angels they are. Even then, we must prefer the angels of the one God of gods. They tell us to worship him in a way that rules out worship of any other. But their pride and deceitfulness rather suggest another possibility. They may be neither good angels nor angels of good gods, but wicked demons. They may want sacrifice offered not to the one supreme God, but to themselves. If so, what better protection against them can we choose than that of the one God whom the good angels serve? These angels tell us to sacrifice not to themselves, but to him, whose sacrifice we ourselves ought to be.

17. Concerning the ark of the covenant, and the miraculous signs whereby God authenticated the law and the promise.

17. The ark of the covenant and the miraculous signs by which God confirmed the law and the promise.

On this account it was that the law of God, given by the disposition 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 responses emanated from it along with signs appreciable by the senses, but that His will was declared from that throne. The law itself, too, was engraven on tables 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 in like manner 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 proceeded 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 round the first hostile and polytheistic city they came to, its walls suddenly fell down, though assaulted by no hand, struck by no battering-ram. Afterwards, too, when they were now resident 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 favourite 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 what was the manner of its restoration? 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 such like wonders are small, but they are mighty to terrify and give wholesome instruction to men. For if philosophers, and especially the Platonists, are with justice esteemed 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 are observable not only in the bodies of animals, but even in plants and grasses, how much more plainly do these things attest the presence of divinity 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 to 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 that He Himself may be glorified by these honours, but that we may be stirred up to worship and cleave to Him, being inflamed by His love, which is our advantage rather than His?

For this reason, the law of God was placed in the ark, which was called the ark of the testimony. The law had been given through the agency of angels. It commanded that sacred worship be given to the one God of gods alone, and to no other. The ark’s name makes clear that God was not shut up or enclosed in it. He was worshipped through all those rites, and his answers came from the ark with signs people could perceive. But the ark was his throne, from which he declared his will. The law itself was engraved on stone tablets and, as I have said, placed in the ark. During the journey through the wilderness, the priests carried the ark with due reverence. They also carried the tabernacle, which was likewise called the tabernacle of the testimony. A sign accompanied them, appearing as a cloud by day and a fire by night. When the cloud moved, the camp moved, and where it stopped, they pitched the camp. Besides these signs and the voices that came from the place where the ark stood, other miracles bore witness to the law. When the ark was carried across the Jordan, as the people entered the promised land, the upper part of the river stopped flowing. The lower part flowed on, leaving dry ground for the ark and the people to cross. Then they came to the first hostile city, whose people worshipped many gods. The ark was carried around it seven times, and its walls suddenly fell. No one had attacked them or struck them with a battering ram. Later, when the people were living in the promised land, their enemies captured the ark as punishment for their sin. The captors placed it triumphantly in the temple of their favored god and left it shut up there. But when they opened the temple the next day, they found the image they used to pray to fallen on the ground and shamefully shattered. They themselves were then alarmed by signs and punished in an even more shameful way. So they returned the ark of the testimony to the people from whom they had taken it. How did they return it? They placed it on a wagon and yoked cows to it after taking away their calves. They let the cows choose their own path, expecting the divine will to be shown in this way. Without anyone driving or directing them, the cows went steadily toward the Hebrews. They paid no attention to the lowing of their calves and so returned the ark to those who worshipped God. These and similar wonders are small things to God. But they have great power to inspire fear and give people instruction for their good. As I have just mentioned, philosophers, especially the Platonists, are rightly considered wiser than other people. They taught that divine providence governs even these earthly and insignificant things. They concluded this from the countless beauties visible not only in animal bodies but also in plants and grasses. How much more clearly, then, do these events testify to the presence of the divine? They happen at the time foretold, and through them God commends the religion that forbids sacrifice to any heavenly, earthly, or infernal being. It commands that sacrifice be offered only to God. He alone blesses us through his love for us and our love for him. He appointed the times for those sacrifices and foretold that they would give way to a better sacrifice offered by a better Priest. In this way he showed that he has no appetite for those sacrifices. Through them, he pointed to other things that bring a more substantial blessing. He did all this not so that he himself might be glorified by these honors, but to move us to worship and cling to him. In this way, his love sets us aflame, to our benefit rather than his.

18. Against those who deny that the books of the Church are to be believed about the miracles whereby the people of God were educated.

18. Against those who deny that the Church’s books can be believed about the miracles through which God’s people were taught.

Will some one 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 whatever can be credited, 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, which the heathen 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 thus speaks His most trustworthy prophet: "It is good for me to be united to God."⁴⁰⁸ Among philosophers it is a question, what is that end and good to the attainment of which all our duties are to have a relation? The Psalmist did not say, It is good for me to have great wealth, or to wear imperial insignia, purple, sceptre, 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 hence 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 wrought by these gods, what reason have they for refusing to believe the miracles recorded in those writings, to which we owe a credence as much greater as He is greater to whom alone these writings teach us to sacrifice?

Will someone say that these miracles are false, that they never happened, and that the accounts of them are lies? Anyone who says this, and claims that no accounts of such things can be trusted, may also say that no gods care about human affairs. For the gods have persuaded people to worship them only through miracles recorded in pagan histories. By these miracles, the gods displayed their own power rather than provided any real help. That is why, in this work, of which I am now writing the tenth book, I have not set out to refute those who deny that any divine power exists or claim that it does not intervene in human affairs. Instead, I address those who prefer their own god to our God, the founder of the holy and most glorious city. They do not know that he is also the invisible and unchanging founder of this visible and changing world. He is the truest giver of the blessed life, which is found not in created things but in him. For his most trustworthy prophet says: "It is good for me to be united to God."⁴⁰⁸ Philosophers debate what ultimate good all our duties should aim to achieve. The Psalmist did not say, It is good for me to have great wealth, or to wear the symbols of imperial power, the purple robes, scepter, and crown. Nor did he say, as some philosophers have not been ashamed to say, It is good for me to enjoy physical pleasure. Nor did he say, as the better philosophers seemed to say, My good is my spiritual strength. Instead, he said, "It is good for me to be united to God." He learned this from the one whom the holy angels, supported by the witness of miracles, presented as the only one worthy of worship. And so he himself became a sacrifice to God. His spiritual love for God set him ablaze, and he longed to cast himself into God's embrace, beyond words and without physical form. The worshippers of many gods may imagine their gods to be of whatever kind they please. If they believe that these gods performed the miracles recorded in their civic histories, in books of magic, or in books of the more respectable theurgy, what reason have they to reject the miracles recorded in our writings? These writings teach us to offer sacrifice to God alone. We should trust them all the more because he is so much greater.

19. On the reasonableness of offering, as the true religion teaches, a visible sacrifice to the one true and invisible God.

19. Why it is reasonable, as the true religion teaches, to offer a visible sacrifice to the one true and invisible God.

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 oblivious 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 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 writ. Some fancied they should, by adoration or sacrifice, pay the same honour to angels as is due to God, and were prevented from doing so by the angels themselves, and ordered to render it to Him to whom alone they know it to be due. And the holy angels have in this been imitated by holy men of God. For Paul and Barnabas, when they had wrought 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 honour, 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 that which they take pleasure in is not, as Porphyry says and some fancy, the smell of the victims, but divine honours. They have, in fact, plenty odours on all hands, and if they wished more, they could provide them for themselves. But the spirits who arrogate to themselves divinity are delighted not with the smoke of carcases, 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.

Some people think visible sacrifices are rightly offered to other gods. They believe that invisible sacrifices, such as purity of mind and holiness of will, should be offered to the invisible God. These sacrifices are greater and better, as God himself is greater and better than all others. Such people must have forgotten that visible sacrifices are signs of invisible ones, just as spoken words are signs of things. When we pray or praise, we speak understandable words to the one to whom we offer those feelings in our hearts. In the same way, we should offer visible sacrifice only to the one to whom we ought to offer ourselves as an invisible sacrifice. When we do this, the angels and all those higher powers who are mighty in goodness and devotion look on us with pleasure. They rejoice with us and help us as much as they can. But if we offer them such worship, they refuse it. When they are sent to people and become visible, they expressly forbid it. Scripture gives examples of this. Some people thought they should honor angels with worship or sacrifice, as they would honor God. But the angels themselves stopped them. They told them to give that honor to the one to whom alone they know it is due. Holy men of God have followed the example of the holy angels. After Paul and Barnabas miraculously healed someone in Lycaonia, the Lycaonians thought they were gods and wanted to sacrifice to them. Paul and Barnabas humbly and devoutly refused this honor. They told the people about the God in whom they should believe. The deceitful and proud spirits who demand worship do so simply because they know it is due to the true God. As Porphyry says, and some people imagine, they do not delight in the smell of sacrificial victims. They delight in divine honors. They have plenty of odors all around them, and if they wanted more, they could provide their own. These spirits claim divinity for themselves. They delight not in the smoke of carcasses, but in the worshipper whom they deceive and hold in submission. They keep that person from drawing near to God. By persuading the worshipper to sacrifice to others, they prevent him from offering himself as a sacrifice to God.

20. Of the supreme and true sacrifice which was effected by the Mediator between God and men.

20. The supreme and true sacrifice made by the mediator between God and humanity.

And hence that true Mediator, in so far 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, yet in the form of a servant He chose rather to be than to receive a sacrifice, that not even by this instance any one might have occasion to suppose that sacrifice should be rendered to any creature. Thus He is both the Priest who offers and the Sacrifice offered. And He designed 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, that there may be less weariness when we speak of it much. To this supreme and true sacrifice all false sacrifices have given place.

The true Mediator took the form of a servant and became the Mediator between God and humanity, the man Christ Jesus. In the form of God, he received sacrifice together with the Father, with whom he is one God. Yet in the form of a servant, he chose to be a sacrifice rather than receive one. He did this so that no one could use his example to suppose that sacrifice should be offered to any creature. Thus he is both the priest who offers and the sacrifice offered. He intended the Church’s sacrifice to be a daily sign of this. The Church is his body and learns to offer herself through him. The ancient sacrifices of the saints were many different signs of this true sacrifice. It was represented in various ways, just as one thing can be expressed by different words. This makes us less weary 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, that they may give expression to 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, completing as it does the number of martyrs, whom the city of God esteems as all the more illustrious and honoured 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 hence, 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 for a quite opposite reason would we call our martyrs heroes,—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, be she what she may, not unsuitably represented, as she commonly is by the poets, as hostile to virtue, and jealous of men of mark 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,"⁴⁰⁹ Helenus gives Æneas himself this religious advice:

At certain appointed and carefully chosen times, demons are given power to express their hostility toward the city of God. They do this by stirring up the people under their influence against it. They receive sacrifices from those who offer them willingly. They also use violent persecution to force sacrifices from the unwilling. This power proves not only harmless but even useful to the Church. It completes the number of martyrs, whom the city of God regards as especially glorious and honored citizens. They have struggled against the sin of impiety even to the point of shedding their blood. If the Church’s ordinary language allowed it, we might more elegantly call these people our heroes. The name is said to come from Juno, who is called Hêrê in Greek. According to Greek myths, one of her sons was therefore called Heros. These stories symbolically represented Juno as mistress of the air. The Greeks supposed that demons and heroes inhabited the air, and by heroes they meant the souls of the worthy dead. But we would call our martyrs heroes for quite the opposite reason, if, as I said, Church usage allowed it. It would not be because they lived with demons in the air. It would be because they conquered these demons, or powers of the air, including Juno herself, whatever she may be. Poets commonly portray her as hostile to virtue and jealous of distinguished men aspiring to heaven, and this is not an unsuitable portrayal. Virgil, however, unfortunately gives way and yields to her. Although he portrays her as saying, "I am conquered by Æneas,"⁴⁰⁹ Helenus gives Æneas himself this religious advice:

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 place, the good can give no assistance; and if the evil deities oppose, the good can give no help; whereas 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; not thus do 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 valour, is more suitably styled Africanus than if he had appeased his enemies by gifts, and so won their mercy.

In keeping with this view, Porphyry says that a good god or spirit cannot come to a person until the evil spirit has been appeased. In saying this, however, he expresses other people’s views rather than his own. He implies that evil deities have greater power than good ones. Until the evil deities have been appeased and step aside, the good ones can offer no assistance. If the evil deities oppose them, the good ones can offer no help. Yet the evil ones can cause harm without the good ones being able to prevent it. This is not the way of the true and truly holy religion. Our martyrs do not conquer Juno in this way. By Juno, I mean the powers of the air, who envy the virtues of the devout. Our heroes, if we may call them that, overcome Hêrê not with pleading gifts, but with divine virtues. Consider Scipio, who conquered Africa by his courage. He is more fittingly called Africanus than if he had appeased his enemies with gifts and won their mercy.

22. Whence the saints derive power against demons and true purification of heart.

22. Where the saints get their power against demons and true purity of heart.

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 that without sin, that Himself being 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 upon us by His goodness. And we might attribute too much to ourselves while in the flesh, unless we lived in the receipt of pardon until we laid it down. This is the reason why there has been vouchsafed 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, wherein He has shown His great compassion toward us, we are both governed by faith in this life, and, after this life, are led onwards to the fullest perfection by the vision of immutable truth.

Through true devotion to God, godly people drive out the hostile power of the air that opposes godliness. They cast it out rather than try to appease it. They overcome all the adversary’s temptations by praying to their own God against him, not by praying to him. The devil can conquer or subdue only those who are allied with sin. Therefore, he is conquered in the name of the one who became human without sin. As both priest and sacrifice, he brought about the forgiveness of sins. He did this as the mediator between God and humanity, the man Christ Jesus. Through him we are cleansed of sin and reconciled to God. Only sins separate us from God. In this life, we are cleansed of them not by our own virtue, but by God’s compassion. It is through his mercy, not our own power. Whatever virtue we call our own is itself a gift of his goodness. While we live in the flesh, we might give ourselves too much credit. To prevent this, we continue to receive pardon until we lay down the flesh. For this reason, we have been granted grace through the mediator. Though we are defiled by sinful flesh, we are cleansed by one who came in the likeness of sinful flesh. Through this grace, God has shown us his great compassion. It guides us by faith in this life. After this life, it leads us toward complete perfection through the vision of unchanging truth.

23. Of the principles which, according to the Platonists, regulate the purification of the soul.

23. The principles that, according to the Platonists, govern the purification of the soul.

Even Porphyry asserts that it was revealed by divine oracles that we are not purified by any sacrifices⁴¹¹ 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 esteemed the chief of the celestial gods, do not purify? He says, too, in the same place, that "principles" can purify, lest it should 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.⁴¹² For he speaks of God the Father and God the Son, whom he calls (writing in Greek) the intellect or mind of the Father;⁴¹³ 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,⁴¹⁴ 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 mean, 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 have a mind to, and in the most difficult matters do not scruple to offend religious ears; but we are bound to speak according to a certain rule, lest freedom of speech beget impiety of opinion about the matters themselves of which we speak.

Even Porphyry says that divine oracles revealed that no sacrifices⁴¹¹ to the sun or moon purify us. He means us to conclude that sacrificing to any gods cannot purify us. For what sacred rites can purify us if those of the sun and moon cannot? These are considered the chief celestial gods. In the same passage, he also says that "principles" can purify. He says this so that no one will suppose that sacrifices to other gods might purify. And we know what he, as a Platonist, means by "principles."⁴¹² He speaks of God the Father and God the Son. Writing in Greek, he calls the Son the intellect or mind of the Father.⁴¹³ But he says either nothing about the Holy Spirit or nothing clearly. I do not understand what other being he says holds the middle place between these two. Plotinus discusses the three principal substances.⁴¹⁴ If Porphyry, like Plotinus, meant the third to be the soul of nature, he would not have placed it between the Father and the Son. For Plotinus places the soul of nature after the intellect of the Father. Porphyry, however, places it in the middle, between the other two, not after them. No doubt he spoke according to his understanding or as he thought best. But we assert that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of both the Father and the Son, not of either alone. Philosophers speak as they please. Even in the most difficult matters, they do not hesitate to offend religious ears. But we must follow a certain rule in our speech. Otherwise, freedom of speech may lead to impious beliefs about the very matters we discuss.

24. Of the one only true principle which alone purifies and renews human nature.

24. The one true source that alone purifies and renews human nature.

Accordingly, when we speak of God, we do not affirm two or three principles, no 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 Ghost, 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 recognise that Christ is the Principle by whose incarnation we are purified. Indeed he despised Him, because of the flesh itself which He assumed, that He might offer a sacrifice for our purification,—a great mystery, unintelligible to Porphyry's pride, which that true and benignant 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 wanting, promising, as the boon 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 opportunity serves, be borne for righteousness' sake. For he was able to expiate sins by dying, because He both died, and not for sin of His own. But He has not been recognised by Porphyry as the Principle, otherwise he would have recognised 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 by its own virtue purify, but by virtue of the Word by which it was assumed, when "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us."⁴¹⁵ For, speaking mystically of eating His flesh, when those who did not understand Him were offended and went away, saying, "This is an hard saying, who can hear it?" He answered to the rest who remained, "It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing."⁴¹⁶ 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.⁴¹⁷ And this we carnal and feeble men, liable to sin, and involved 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; whereas in His incarnation there was a human nature, but it was righteous, and not sinful. This is the mediation whereby a hand is stretched to the lapsed and fallen; this is the seed "ordained by angels," by whose ministry the law also was given enjoining the worship of one God, and promising that this Mediator should come.

So, when we speak of God, we do not say there are two or three principles, just as we cannot say there are two or three gods. We confess that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are each God. Yet we do not say, as the Sabellian heretics do, that the Father is the same as the Son. Nor do we say that the Holy Spirit is the same as the Father and the Son. We say that the Father is the Father of the Son, and the Son is the Son of the Father. The Holy Spirit of the Father and the Son is neither the Father nor the Son. It was therefore true to say that a person is cleansed only by a Principle. But the Platonists were wrong to speak of principles in the plural. Porphyry was under the power of these envious beings. He was ashamed of their influence, yet afraid to throw it off. He refused to recognize Christ as the Principle whose incarnation purifies us. Indeed, he despised Christ because of the very flesh he took on to offer a sacrifice for our purification. This was a great mystery that Porphyry’s pride could not understand. The true and gracious Redeemer humbled that pride by his humility. He revealed himself to mortals through the mortality he took on. The malicious and deceitful mediators boast that they lack this mortality. They promise wretched people deceptive help, as though it were a gift from immortals. In this way, the good and true Mediator showed that sin is evil, not the substance or nature of flesh. For he could take on and retain flesh, together with a human soul, without sin. He could lay it down in death and change it into something better through resurrection. He also showed that, although death is the punishment for sin, he underwent it for our sake without sin. We must not escape death by sinning. Instead, if the occasion calls for it, we should endure death for the sake of righteousness. He was able to atone for sins by dying because he died, and not for any sin of his own. But Porphyry did not recognize him as the Principle. Otherwise, he would have recognized him as the one who purifies. The Principle is neither the flesh nor the human soul in Christ. It is the Word through which all things were made. The flesh does not purify by its own power, but by the power of the Word that took it on. This happened when "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us."⁴¹⁵ He spoke mystically about eating his flesh. Those who did not understand him were offended and went away, saying, "This is an hard saying, who can hear it?" He answered those who remained, "It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing."⁴¹⁶ So the Principle, having taken on a human soul and flesh, cleanses the souls and flesh of believers. Therefore, when the Jews asked him who he was, he answered that he was the Principle.⁴¹⁷ We are worldly and weak, prone to sin and surrounded by the darkness of ignorance. We could not possibly understand this unless he cleansed and healed us. He did this by means of what we were and what we were not. We were human, but we were not righteous. In his incarnation, he had a human nature, but it was righteous and not sinful. Through this mediation, a hand is stretched out to those who have slipped and fallen. This is the seed "ordained by angels." Through their ministry, the law was also given. It commanded the worship of one God and promised that this Mediator would come.

25. That all the saints, both under the law and before it, were justified by faith in the mystery of Christ's incarnation.

25. All the saints, both under the law and before it, were justified by faith in the mystery of Christ becoming human.

It was by faith in this mystery, and godliness of life, that purification was attainable even by the saints of old, 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, and hence the name of Old Testament. For it was then the prophets lived, by whom, as by angels, the same promise was announced; and among them was he whose grand and divine sentiment regarding the end and supreme good of man I have just now quoted, "It is good for me to cleave to God."⁴¹⁸ 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 well-nigh 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 at God's hand. He says, too, that, in investigating this matter with the desire of understanding why it was so, he had laboured 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 perished for their iniquities; and that that whole fabric of temporal prosperity had become as a dream when one awaketh, and suddenly finds himself destitute of all the joys he had imaged in sleep. And, as in this earth or earthy city they seemed to themselves to be great, he says, "O Lord, in Thy city Thou wilt 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, "As a beast was I before Thee, and I am always with Thee." "As a beast," he says, meaning that he was stupid. For I ought to have sought from Thee such things as the ungodly could not enjoy as well as I, and not those things which I saw them enjoying in abundance, and hence concluded I was serving Thee in vain, because they who declined to serve Thee had what I had not. Nevertheless, "I am always with Thee," because even in my desire for such things I did not pray to other gods. And consequently he goes on, "Thou hast holden me by my right hand, and by Thy counsel Thou hast guided me, and with glory hast 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 Thee upon earth?" He blames himself, and is justly displeased with himself; because, though he had in heaven so vast a possession (as he afterwards understood), he yet 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, O God of my heart." Happy failure, from things below to things above! And hence in another psalm he says, "My soul longeth, yea, even faileth, for the courts of the Lord."⁴¹⁹ Yet, though he had said of both his heart and his flesh that they were failing, he did not say, O God of my heart and my flesh, but, O 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."⁴²⁰ He then says that God Himself,—not anything received from Him, but Himself,—is his portion. "The God of my heart, and my portion for ever." Among the various objects of human choice, God alone satisfied him. "For, lo," he says, "they that are far from Thee shall perish: Thou destroyest all them that go a-whoring from Thee,"—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 cleave to God,"—not to go far off; not to go a-whoring with a multitude of gods. And then shall this union with God 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 yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it."⁴²¹ 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, "that I may declare all Thy 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 will lay aside malignant obstinacy, and consider these things, shall be assured that all these blessed and immortal spirits, who do not envy us (for if they envied they were not 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 Ghost, than if we were to offer to themselves sacrifice and worship.

Even the saints of old could be purified through faith in this mystery and through godly lives. This was true before the law was given to the Hebrews, for God and the angels were already there to teach them. It was also true during the periods under the law. Yet the promises of spiritual things were presented through symbols and seemed to concern the flesh. For this reason, it is called the Old Testament. The prophets lived in those times. Like the angels, they announced the same promise. Among them was the man whose great and divine statement I just quoted about humanity’s ultimate purpose and highest good: "It is good for me to cling to God."⁴¹⁸ This psalm clearly announces the distinction between the Old and New Testaments. The psalmist says that his feet nearly slipped when he saw the ungodly enjoying abundant earthly and fleshly blessings. He felt that he had served God in vain. Those who despised God were enjoying more and more of the prosperity he had hoped to receive from God. He tried to understand why this was so, but his efforts were in vain. Then he entered God’s sanctuary and understood the fate of those he had mistakenly thought happy. He understood that the very things they boasted about brought them down. They were consumed and destroyed because of their sins. Their whole structure of temporary prosperity became like a dream. It was like the dream of someone who wakes to find that all the joys imagined in sleep have suddenly vanished. In this earthly city, they seemed great to themselves. But the psalmist says, "O Lord, in your city you will reduce their image to nothing." He also shows how much he gained by seeking even earthly blessings only from the one true God, who has power over all things. He says, "I was like a beast before you, yet I am always with you." By "like a beast," he means that he was foolish. He is saying: I should have sought from you things the ungodly could not enjoy as well as I could. Instead, I sought things I saw them enjoying in abundance. So I concluded that I was serving you in vain, because those who refused to serve you had what I lacked. Nevertheless, "I am always with you," because even when I desired such things, I did not pray to other gods. So he continues, "You have held me by my right hand, guided me with your counsel, and taken me up with glory." It is as if all earthly advantages were blessings for the left hand. Yet his feet had nearly slipped when he saw the wicked enjoying them. He says, "What do I have in heaven, and what have I desired from you on earth?" He blames himself and is rightly displeased with himself. As he later understood, he had a vast possession in heaven. Yet he had asked his God for a temporary, fleeting happiness on earth, a happiness of mud, we might say. He says, "My heart and my flesh fail, O God of my heart." What a happy failure, turning from things below to things above! So in another psalm he says, "My soul longs, and even fails, for the courts of the Lord."⁴¹⁹ He said that both his heart and his flesh were failing. Yet he did not say, "O God of my heart and my flesh," but "O God of my heart." For the flesh is made clean through the heart. Thus the Lord says, "Cleanse what is inside, and the outside will be clean too."⁴²⁰ He then says that God himself is his portion, not anything received from him, but God himself. "The God of my heart, and my portion forever." Of all the things people can choose, God alone satisfied him. He says, "For look, those who are far from you will perish. You destroy all who go whoring away from you." He means those who give themselves to many gods. Then comes the verse for which the rest of the psalm seems to prepare us: "It is good for me to cling to God." It is good not to go far away or to go whoring with many gods. This union with God will be complete when all that is to be redeemed in us has been redeemed. For now, we must, as he goes on to say, "place our hope in God." The apostle says, "What is seen is not hope. Why would anyone still hope for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it patiently."⁴²¹ For now, then, let us stand firm in this hope and do what the psalmist also calls us to do. Let us become, to the extent we can, angels or messengers of God. Let us declare his will and praise his glory and his grace. After saying, "To place my hope in God," he continues, "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 that knows and worships one God. The holy angels celebrate her. They invite us into their company and want us to become their fellow citizens in this city. They do not want us to worship them as our gods. They want us to join them in worshipping their God and ours. They do not want us to sacrifice to them. They want us to join them in becoming a sacrifice to God. Anyone who sets aside malicious stubbornness and considers these things will be assured of this. All these blessed and immortal spirits love us and want us to be as blessed as they are. They do not envy us, for if they did, they would not be blessed. They look on us with greater pleasure and give us greater help when we join them in worshipping one God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, than if we offered sacrifice and worship to them.

26. Of Porphyry's weakness in wavering between the confession of the true God and the worship of demons.

26. On Porphyry's weakness in wavering between acknowledging the true God and worshiping demons.

I know not how it is so, but it seems to me that Porphyry blushed for his friends the theurgists; for he knew all that I have adduced, 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 hence, even this Platonist himself judiciously 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 allegiance 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, that we also may attain to this bliss, they aid us, as is fit, with sincere kindliness, and usurp over us no dominion, but declare to us Him under whose rule we are then fellow-subjects. Why, then, O philosopher, do you still fear to speak freely against the powers which are inimical both to true virtue and to the gifts of the true God? Already you have discriminated between the angels who proclaim God's will, and those who visit theurgists, drawn down by I know not what art. Why do you still ascribe to these latter the honour 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,⁴²² that they should 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, feign ignorance, that you may not give offence to the theurgists, who have allured you by their secret rites, and have taught you, as a mighty boon, 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 slaves, as you yourself own; and are you not ashamed to place them even among your sidereal gods, and so put a slight upon the stars themselves?

I cannot explain why, but it seems to me that Porphyry was ashamed of his friends the theurgists. He knew everything I have presented, yet he did not openly condemn the worship of many gods. He said that some angels visit earth and reveal divine truth to theurgists. Others proclaim on earth the things belonging to the Father, his height and depth. Can we believe that the angels who declare the Father’s will want us to serve anyone but him? After all, it is his will they declare. So even this Platonist wisely observes that we should imitate these angels rather than call upon them. We need not fear offending these immortal and happy servants of the one God by refusing to sacrifice to them. They know that sacrifice is due only to the one true God. They themselves find happiness in their loyalty to him. Therefore, they will not accept sacrifice, either as a symbol or as the reality symbolized by sacrificial rites. Such arrogance belongs to proud and miserable demons. Their nature is directly opposed to the devotion of those who serve God and find happiness in being united with him. So that we too may reach this happiness, the angels help us with the sincere kindness that is fitting. They do not claim power over us. Instead, they proclaim the one under whose rule we become fellow servants with them. Why, then, philosopher, are you still afraid to speak openly against these powers? They 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. The latter are drawn down by some art I do not understand. Why do you still credit them with revealing divine truth? If they do not declare the Father’s will, what divine revelations can they make? Are these not the evil spirits bound by the spells of an envious man,⁴²² so they could not grant purity of soul to another? You say that a good man who longed for purity could not free them from these bonds. Nor could they regain control over their own actions. Do you still doubt that these are wicked demons? Or perhaps you pretend not to know, so that you will not offend the theurgists. They have lured you with their secret rites and taught you these insane and harmful devilries as a great favor. Do you dare place these envious powers above the air and even in heaven? I should rather call them plagues. As you yourself admit, they deserve to be called slaves rather than rulers. Are you not ashamed to place them even among your star gods, and so insult the stars themselves?

27. Of the impiety of Porphyry, which is worse than even the mistake of Apuleius.

27. Porphyry's impiety, which is even worse than Apuleius's mistake.

How much more tolerable and accordant with human feeling is the error of your Platonist co-sectary 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 avowal as by constraint regarding gods whom he honours; but the superior and celestial gods, who inhabit the ethereal regions, whether visible, as the sun, moon, and other luminaries, whose brilliancy makes them conspicuous, or invisible, but believed in by him, he does his utmost to remove beyond the slightest stain of these perturbations. It is not, then, from Plato, but from your Chaldæan teachers you have learned to elevate human vices to the ethereal and empyreal 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 avail themselves of the virtue of philosophy, which is too arduous for the multitude, may, at your instigation, betake themselves 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 frequent 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 shall not indeed return to the Father, but shall 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 infirm human virtue, or to pernicious and curious arts! He would not have deceived you; for Him your own oracles, on your own showing, acknowledged 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 thine auspices, if any traces of our crimes remain, they shall be obliterated, and earth freed from its perpetual fear."⁴²³ By which he indicates that, by reason of the infirmity which attaches to this life, the greatest progress in virtue and righteousness leaves room for the existence, if not of crimes, yet of the traces of crimes, which are obliterated only by that Saviour 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;" whence 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? Were they 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 boon 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 life eternal; and therefore to Him the world flocks, greatly to your indignation, greatly also to your astonishment and confusion. What avails your forced avowal that theurgy leads men astray, and deceives vast numbers by its ignorant and foolish teaching, and that it is the most manifest mistake to have recourse by prayer and sacrifice to angels and principalities, when at the same time, to save yourself from the charge of spending labour in vain on such arts, you direct men to the theurgists, that by their means men, who do not live by the rule of the intellectual soul, may have their spiritual soul purified?

How much more tolerable and humane is the error of Apuleius, your fellow Platonist! He attributed the sickness and turmoil of human passions only to demons who occupy a rank below the moon. Even this admission about gods he honors seems to have been forced from him. But he does his utmost to keep the higher, heavenly gods, who inhabit the ether, free from any trace of these disturbances. Some of these gods are visible, like the sun, moon, and other brilliantly shining lights. Others are invisible, though he believes in them. So you learned not from Plato but from your Chaldean teachers to place human vices in the ether, the highest heavens, and the celestial sky. You did this so that your theurgists might receive divine revelations from your gods. Yet you place yourself above these revelations through your life of the intellect. As a philosopher, you have no need of these theurgic purifications. But, as if to reward your teachers, you recommend these arts to others. They are not philosophers and may be persuaded to use what you admit is useless to you, who are capable of higher things. Those unable to practice philosophy, which is too demanding for most people, may follow your advice and turn to theurgists. These can purify them, not in the intellectual part of the soul, but in its spiritual part. Those unfit for philosophy make up by far the greater part of humanity. So more people may be driven to consult your secret and illicit teachers than attend the Platonic schools. These utterly impure demons pretend to be gods of the ether, and you have become their herald and messenger. They have made a promise to those whose souls are spiritually purified by theurgy. Such people will not return to the Father, they say, but will live among the gods of the ether, above the regions of the air. But the multitudes whom Christ came to free from the tyranny of demons do not listen to such fantasies. In him they receive a most gracious cleansing, shared by mind, spirit, and body alike. He took on the whole of human nature without sin, so that he might heal the whole person from the plague of sin. If only you had known him! If only you had entrusted yourself to him for healing, rather than to your own frail and weak human virtue or to harmful and strange arts! He would not have deceived you. By your own account, your own oracles acknowledged him to be holy and immortal. A most famous poet also speaks of him. The poet speaks poetically, of course, since he applies his words to someone else. Yet they are true if you apply them to Christ: "Under your guidance, if any traces of our crimes remain, they will be wiped away, and the earth freed from its perpetual fear."⁴²³ This indicates that because of the weakness belonging to this life, even the greatest progress in virtue and righteousness leaves room for traces of crimes, if not for crimes themselves. Only the Savior of whom this verse speaks can wipe those traces away. Virgil shows that he did not say this merely from his own imagination. Near the end of his fourth Eclogue, he says, "The last age foretold by the Cumaean sibyl has now arrived." This plainly shows that the Cumaean sibyl had dictated it. But those theurgists, or rather demons, who take on the appearance and form of gods, pollute the human spirit rather than purify it. They do so through false appearances and the deceptive mockery of forms without substance. How can those whose own spirit is unclean cleanse the human spirit? If they were not unclean, they would not be bound by the spells of an envious man. They would neither fear nor resent granting the hollow gift they promise. But it is enough for our purpose that you admit the intellectual soul, that is, our mind, cannot be justified by theurgy. You also admit that the spiritual or lower part of our soul cannot be made eternal and immortal by it, though you maintain that it can be purified. Christ, however, promises eternal life. So the world flocks to him, much to your indignation and also to your astonishment and confusion. You admit, though reluctantly, that theurgy leads people astray and deceives vast numbers with its ignorant and foolish teaching. You also admit that praying and sacrificing to angels and principalities is a most obvious mistake. Yet what good are these admissions when you also direct people to theurgists? To avoid the charge that you have labored in vain on such arts, you send them to theurgists for spiritual purification. These are people who do not live according to the rule of the intellectual soul.

28. How it is that Porphyry has been so blind as not to recognise the true wisdom—Christ.

28. How Porphyry was so blind that he failed to recognize Christ as true wisdom.

You drive men, therefore, into the most palpable error. And yet you are not ashamed of doing so much harm, though you call yourself a lover of virtue and wisdom. Had you been true and faithful in this profession, you would have recognised Christ, the virtue of God and the wisdom of God, and would not, in the pride of vain science, 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 termination of this life, they seem to be of no service even to the part you call spiritual; and yet you recur on every opportunity to these arts, for no other purpose, so far as I 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 by reason of the danger involved in the very practice of it. And would that in this, at least, you were listened to by its wretched votaries, 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 Him you despise on account of the body He took of 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 fulfils what the holy prophets truly predicted regarding Him: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and bring to nought the prudence of the prudent."⁴²⁴ For He does not destroy and bring to nought His own gift in them, but what they arrogate to themselves, and do not hold of Him. And hence the apostle, having quoted this testimony from the prophet, adds, "Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that, in the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling-block, and unto the Greeks foolishness; but unto them which 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."⁴²⁵ This is despised as a weak and foolish thing by those who are wise and strong in themselves; yet 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 therefore lead people into obvious error. Yet you are not ashamed to do so much harm, though you call yourself a lover of virtue and wisdom. If you had been sincere and faithful in this profession, you would have recognized Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God. You would not have turned away from his healing humility in the pride of empty learning. Yet you admit that the spiritual part of the soul can be purified through chastity. It needs no help from the theurgic arts and mysteries you wasted your time learning. You even say at times that these mysteries do not raise the soul after death. So, after this life ends, they seem to be of no use even to the part you call spiritual. Yet you return to these arts at every opportunity. As far as I can see, you do so only to appear skilled in theurgy. Or perhaps you want to please those curious about forbidden arts, or awaken the same curiosity in others. But we give you full credit for saying that this art should be feared. Laws forbid it, and its practice is dangerous in itself. If only its wretched followers would listen to you on this point. They might then be drawn away from their complete absorption in it, or even kept from dabbling in it at all! You say that ignorance and the countless vices it produces cannot be removed by any mysteries. Only the πατρικὸς νοῦς can remove them. By this you mean the Father’s mind or intellect, conscious of the Father’s will. But you do not believe that Christ is this mind. You despise him because he took a body from a woman and suffered the shame of the cross. Your lofty wisdom rejects such low and contemptible things and soars to higher realms. Yet he fulfills what the holy prophets truly predicted about him: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and bring to nothing the understanding of the intelligent."⁴²⁴ He does not destroy or bring to nothing his own gift in them. Rather, he destroys what they claim for themselves and do not receive from him. After quoting this testimony from the prophet, the apostle adds: "Where is the wise person? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this world? Has God not made the wisdom of this world foolish? For in God’s wisdom, the world did not know God through wisdom. So God was pleased to save believers through the foolishness of preaching. Jews demand a sign, and Greeks seek wisdom. But we preach Christ crucified. To Jews he is a stumbling block, and to Greeks he is foolishness. But to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human beings, and the weakness of God is stronger than human beings."⁴²⁵ Those who consider themselves wise and strong despise this as weak and foolish. Yet this is the grace that heals the weak. They do not proudly claim a blessedness of their own. Instead, they humbly acknowledge their real misery.

29. Of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, which the Platonists in their impiety blush to acknowledge.

29. On the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, which the Platonists are impiously ashamed to acknowledge.

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 sort, and as through a veil, see what we should strive towards; but the incarnation of the unchangeable Son of God, whereby we are saved, and are enabled to reach the things we believe, or in part understand, this is what you refuse to recognise. You see in a fashion, although at a distance, although with filmy eye, the country in which we should abide; but the way to it you know not. 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 make 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. Oh, had you but recognised the grace of God in Jesus Christ our Lord, and that very incarnation of His, wherein He assumed a human soul and body, you might have seemed the brightest example of grace!⁴²⁶ But what am I doing? I know it is useless to speak to a dead man,—useless, at least, so far as regards you, but perhaps not in vain for those who esteem you highly, 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 thus, 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, that what we long for He might bestow upon us.

You proclaim the Father and his Son, whom you call the Father’s intellect or mind. Between them, you place a third, whom we suppose you mean to be the Holy Spirit. In your own way, you call these three Gods. Although your words are inaccurate, you do see, in a way and as if through a veil, what we should strive toward. But you refuse to recognize the incarnation of the unchangeable Son of God. Through it we are saved and enabled to reach what we believe or partly understand. You see, in a way, the country where we should dwell, though from a distance and with clouded eyes. But you do not know the way there. Yet you believe in grace. You say that only a few are granted the ability to reach God through intelligence. You do not say, "Few have thought it fitting or have wished to do so." Rather, you say, "It has been granted to few." You clearly acknowledge God’s grace, not human self-sufficiency. You use this word even more explicitly when you follow Plato’s view. You have no doubt that no one can attain perfect wisdom by any means in this life. Whatever is lacking is made up in the life to come, through God’s providence and grace, for those who live by intellect. Oh, if only you had recognized God’s grace in Jesus Christ our Lord. If only you had recognized his incarnation, in which he took on a human soul and body. You might then have seemed the brightest example of grace!⁴²⁶ But what am I doing? I know it is useless to speak to a dead man. It is useless, at least, as far as you are concerned. But perhaps it is not in vain for those who hold you in high regard. They love you because they love wisdom or are curious about those arts you should not have learned. I address them in your name. God could not have shown us his grace more graciously than he did in this way. His only Son, remaining unchangeable in himself, took on humanity. Through the mediation of a human nature, he gave us hope in his love. Through that nature, we who are human might come to him who was so far from us. He is immortal, and we are mortal. He is unchangeable, and we are changeable. He is just, and we are unjust. He is blessed, and we are wretched. He had given us a natural desire for blessedness and immortality. He himself remained blessed, but took on mortality. By enduring what we fear, he taught us to despise it, so that he might give us what we long for.

But in order to your acquiescence in this truth, it is lowliness that is requisite, 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 incredible thing is it, then, if some one soul be 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 be united with the soul. This certainly would be more incredible, were it not of all things the most common; for we should 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 staggers 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, in place 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, in order to the happiness of the soul, 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 cordial assent of all seeing men, but also, in obedience to what you reckon a profounder 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 upon 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 ye are proud? The precise nature of the resurrection bodies of the saints may sometimes occasion discussion among those who are best read in the Christian Scriptures; yet there is not among us the smallest doubt that they shall be everlasting, and of a nature exemplified in the instance of Christ's risen body. But whatever be their nature, since we maintain that they shall be absolutely incorruptible and immortal, and shall offer no hindrance to the soul's contemplation by which it is fixed in God, and as you say that among the celestials the bodies of the eternally blessed are eternal, why do you maintain that, in order to blessedness, every body must be escaped from? Why do you thus seek such a plausible reason for escaping from the Christian faith, if not because, as I again say, Christ is humble and ye proud? Are ye ashamed to be corrected? This is the vice of the proud. It is, forsooth, 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. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not."⁴²⁷ The old saint Simplicianus, afterwards 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."⁴²⁸ 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.

But to accept this truth, you need humility, and it is extremely difficult to persuade you to be humble. What is unbelievable about the claim that God took on a human soul and body? This should be especially believable to people like you, who are accustomed to philosophical speculation. You yourselves attribute such excellence to the intellectual soul, which is, after all, the human soul, that you say it can become one in substance with the intelligence of the Father, whom you believe to be the Son of God. Why, then, is it unbelievable that he took on one soul in a unique way beyond words, for the salvation of many? Our own nature also shows that a person is incomplete unless a body is united with the soul. This would surely be more unbelievable if it were not the most common thing of all. We would more readily believe in a union between spirit and spirit, or, in your terms, between two incorporeal beings. That would be true even if one were human and the other divine, one changeable and the other unchangeable. Such a union is easier to believe than one between a body and an incorporeal soul. But perhaps you are astounded by the unprecedented birth of a body from a virgin. Far from being a difficulty, this should help you accept our religion. A miraculous person was born in a miraculous way. Or do you find it difficult to believe what happened after his body was given up to death? By his resurrection, it was changed into a higher kind of body. It was no longer mortal but incorruptible, and he carried it up into heaven. Perhaps you refuse to believe this because you remember what Porphyry teaches about the soul’s return. In the very books I have quoted so often, he repeatedly teaches that the soul must escape every kind of body. Only then, he says, can it dwell in blessedness with God. But instead of following Porphyry here, you ought to have corrected him. This is especially true since you agree with him in believing such incredible things about the soul of this visible world and its vast material frame. As followers of Plato, you hold that the world is a living creature, a very happy one, which you also want to be everlasting. How, then, can it remain forever bound to a body without ever losing its happiness? How can this be, if the soul must leave the body behind to be happy? You also acknowledge that the sun and the other stars are bodies. Everyone who can see agrees with you on that. But following what you consider a deeper insight, you also declare that they are very blessed living creatures, eternal along with their bodies. Why, then, do you forget or pretend to ignore your usual discussions and teachings when someone urges the Christian faith upon you? Why do you refuse to be Christians because of beliefs that you yourselves disprove? Is it not because Christ came in humility, while you are proud? Those most familiar with the Christian Scriptures may sometimes debate the exact nature of the saints’ resurrection bodies. Yet none of us has the slightest doubt that those bodies will be everlasting and will be like Christ’s risen body. Whatever their nature, we maintain that they will be completely incorruptible and immortal. They will not hinder the soul’s contemplation, through which it remains fixed on God. You say that among heavenly beings, the bodies of the eternally blessed are eternal. Why, then, do you insist that the soul must escape every body to be blessed? Why do you seek such a plausible reason to escape the Christian faith? Is it not, as I say again, because Christ is humble and you are proud? Are you ashamed to be corrected? That is the fault of the proud. Learned people apparently consider it beneath them to leave Plato’s school and become disciples of Christ. Yet Christ, through his Spirit, taught a fisherman to think and say: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not."⁴²⁷ The holy old man Simplicianus, who later became bishop of Milan, used to tell me about a certain Platonist. This man often said that the opening passage of the holy Gospel "According to John" should be written in gold letters. It should, he said, be displayed in the most prominent place in every church. But the proud refuse to take God as their teacher because "the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us."⁴²⁸ For these miserable people, it is not enough to be sick. They boast of their sickness and are ashamed of the medicine that could heal them. In doing so, they do not rise higher. They fall more disastrously.

30. Porphyry's emendations and modifications of Platonism.

30. Porphyry's corrections and changes to Platonism.

If it is considered unseemly to emend anything which Plato has touched, why did Porphyry himself make emendations, and these not a few? for it is very certain that Plato wrote that the souls of men return after death to the bodies of beasts.⁴²⁹ Plotinus also, Porphyry's teacher, held this opinion;⁴³⁰ yet Porphyry justly rejected it. He was of 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, lest a woman who had returned into 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 honourable 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 Saviour by His forerunning heralds, and by the apostles whom He sent forth, and who filled the whole world with the gospel,—how much more honourable, I say, is the belief that souls return once for all to their own bodies, than that they return again and again to divers bodies? Nevertheless Porphyry, as I have said, did considerably improve upon this opinion, in so far, at least, as he maintained that human souls could transmigrate only into human bodies, and made no scruple about demolishing the bestial prisons into which Plato had wished to cast them. He says, too, that God put the soul into the world that it might recognise the evils of matter, and return to the Father, and be for ever emancipated from the polluting contact of matter. And although here is some inappropriate thinking (for the soul is rather given to the body that it may do good; for it would not learn evil unless it did it), yet he corrects the opinion of other Platonists, and that on a point of no small importance, inasmuch as he avows that the soul, which is purged from all evil and received to the Father's presence, shall never again suffer the ills of this life. By this opinion he quite subverted the favourite Platonic dogma, that as dead men are made out of living ones, so living men are made out of dead ones; and he exploded 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 oblivion of the past,

If it is considered improper to correct anything Plato wrote, why did Porphyry himself make so many corrections? Plato certainly wrote that human souls return after death in the bodies of animals.⁴²⁹ Plotinus, Porphyry’s teacher, also held this view.⁴³⁰ Yet Porphyry rightly rejected it. He believed that human souls do return to human bodies, but not to the bodies they had left. Instead, they enter new ones. He recoiled from the other view because a woman who returned as a mule might carry her own son on her back. Yet he did not recoil from a theory that allowed a mother to return as a girl and marry her own son. How much more honorable is the belief that souls return once and for all to their own bodies, rather than returning again and again to different bodies! This belief was taught by the holy and truthful angels and spoken by the prophets, who were moved by God’s Spirit. It was preached by the one whose heralds had foretold his coming as Savior. It was also preached by the apostles he sent out, who filled the whole world with the gospel. Nevertheless, as I have said, Porphyry made a considerable improvement on the other view. At least he maintained that human souls could pass only into human bodies. He had no hesitation about tearing down the animal prisons into which Plato had wanted to cast them. He also says that God put the soul into the world so that it might recognize the evils of matter. It could then return to the Father and be forever freed from matter’s corrupting touch. There is some mistaken thinking here. The soul is given to the body so that it may do good, for it would not learn evil unless it did evil. Yet Porphyry corrects the views of other Platonists on a matter of no small importance. He declares that the soul, once cleansed of all evil and received into the Father’s presence, will never again suffer the troubles of this life. This view completely overturned the favorite Platonic doctrine that, just as the dead come from the living, so the living come from the dead. It also destroyed an idea Virgil seems to have taken from Plato. According to this idea, purified souls sent to the Elysian fields, the poetic name for the joys of the blessed, are summoned to the river Lethe, that is, to forget the past,

This found no favour 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 unless by 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 effects the oblivion of all evils, and the oblivion of evils creates a desire for a body in which the soul may again be entangled with evils, then the supreme felicity will be the cause of infelicity, 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 last, it cannot be founded on truth, if, in order to be blessed, it must be deceived. For it cannot be blessed unless it be free from fear. But, to be free from fear, it must be under the false impression that it shall be always blessed,—the false impression, for it is destined to be also at some time miserable. How, then, shall the soul rejoice in truth, whose joy is founded on falsehood? Porphyry saw this, and therefore said that the purified soul returns to the Father, that it may never more 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, were it true, what were the advantage of knowing it? Would the Platonists presume to allege their superiority to 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 emending 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.

Porphyry rejected this idea, and rightly so. It is foolish to believe that souls would want to leave that life and return to this one. That life cannot be truly blessed unless they are sure it will last. Why would they want to return to the corruption of mortal bodies? That would mean perfect purification only makes defilement desirable. Suppose perfect purification makes souls forget all evils. Suppose that forgetting evil makes them desire a body in which they may again become entangled in evil. Then supreme happiness would cause unhappiness, perfect wisdom would cause foolishness, and the purest cleansing would cause defilement. However long the soul’s blessedness lasts, it cannot rest on truth if the soul must be deceived to be blessed. The soul cannot be blessed unless it is free from fear. But to be free from fear, it must have the false belief that it will always be blessed. This belief is false because the soul is destined to be miserable again. How, then, can the soul rejoice in truth when its joy rests on falsehood? Porphyry saw this. He therefore said that the purified soul returns to the Father, never again to be entangled in the corrupting contact with evil. Some Platonists believe that a necessary cycle carries souls away and brings them back to the same experiences. That belief is false. But even if it were true, what benefit would there be in knowing it? Would the Platonists dare claim to be superior to us because we are ignorant of it in this life? They themselves would be bound to forget it when perfected in purity and wisdom in another, better life. Indeed, they would have to be ignorant of it to be blessed. Such a claim would be utterly absurd and foolish. Therefore, we must surely prefer Porphyry’s view to the idea of souls cycling endlessly between happiness and misery. If this is right, then here is a Platonist correcting Plato. Here is a man who saw what Plato did not see. He did not hesitate to correct so great a master, but preferred truth to Plato.

31. Against the arguments on which the Platonists ground their assertion that the human soul is co-eternal with God.

31. Against the arguments the Platonists use to claim that the human soul has existed as long as God.

Why, then, do we not rather believe the divinity in those matters, which human talent cannot fathom? Why do we not credit the assertion of divinity, that the soul is not co-eternal with God, but is created, and once was not? For the Platonists seemed to themselves to allege 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 concerning 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 been always from eternity in dust, 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 owns, 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 argumentation, 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 incapacity of man give place 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 honour which they know to be due to their God and ours, and who do not command us to sacrifice save only to 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 a sacrifice for us, in that human nature which He assumed, and according to which He desired to be our Priest.

Why, then, do we not trust divine revelation about things that human intelligence cannot understand? Why do we not accept its assertion that the soul is not eternal with God? It was created and once did not exist. The Platonists thought they had a sufficient reason to reject this teaching. They claimed that nothing could last forever unless it had always existed. Yet Plato wrote about the world and the gods in it, whom the supreme God made. He stated most clearly that they had a beginning but would have no end. By the Creator’s sovereign will, they would endure forever. The Platonists, however, have found another way to interpret him. They say he meant a beginning in cause, not in time. “Suppose a foot had always been in dust, from all eternity,” they say. “There would always have been a footprint beneath it. Yet no one would doubt that the pressure of the foot made the print. Although one was made by the other, neither came before the other. In the same way, the world and the gods created in it have always existed, as their Creator has always existed. Yet they were made.” If the soul has always existed, must we say that its misery has always existed too? Something in the soul was not there from eternity but began in time. Why, then, could the soul itself not begin to exist in time, though it had not existed before? The same is true of its blessedness. Plato admits that, after the soul has experienced evils, its blessedness will be more stable and indeed endless. This blessedness certainly begins in time. It did not exist before, yet it will last forever. The whole argument therefore collapses. It fails to establish that nothing can be endless unless it has no beginning. The soul’s blessedness has a beginning, yet it has no end. So let human inability give way to God’s authority. Let us learn what to believe about the true religion from the ever-blessed spirits. They do not seek for themselves the honor they know is due to their God and ours. They command us to sacrifice only to him. As I have often said and must often say again, we and they together ought to be his sacrifice. We should be offered through that Priest who offered himself to death as a sacrifice for us. He did this in the human nature he took on, and in that nature he chose to be our Priest.

This is the religion which possesses the universal way for delivering the soul; for, except by this way, none 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, towards the end of the first book De Regressu Animæ, 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 reasoning⁴³² of the Chaldæans, or from any source whatever, and that no historical reading had made him acquainted with that way, he manifestly 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 concerning 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 there was still wanting a commanding authority 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 comprehend 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 embraced in what he had learned either from the Indians or the Chaldæans; and yet he could not forbear stating that it was from the Chaldæans 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 a curious and fanciful science 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 mediocre 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 boon and assistance 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,⁴³³ 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 a speedy extinction, and that it, therefore, was not the universal way of the soul's deliverance, and did not see that the very thing that thus moved him, and deterred him from becoming a Christian, contributed to the confirmation and more effectual commendation of our religion.

This is the religion that offers the universal way to deliver the soul. No one can be delivered except by this way. It is a kind of royal road. It alone leads to a kingdom that does not totter like all worldly honors, but stands firm on eternal foundations. Near the end of the first book of De Regressu Animæ, Porphyry says that no doctrine offering this universal way had yet been received. It had not come from the truest philosophy, the ideas and practices of the Indians, the reasoning⁴³² of the Chaldæans, or any other source. Nor had any historical reading acquainted him with it. He clearly admits that such a way exists, but that he did not yet know it. Nothing he had learned so laboriously about delivering the soul satisfied him. Nor did anything he seemed to others, if not to himself, to know and believe. He saw that a commanding authority was still missing, one worth following in a matter of such importance. He says he had learned of no doctrine possessing this universal way from any truest philosophy. To me, this shows clearly enough one of two things. Either the philosophy he followed was not the truest, or it did not include such a way. And how can any philosophy be the truest if it does not possess this way? What is the universal way of delivering the soul, if not the way by which all souls are delivered? Without it, therefore, no soul is delivered. He adds that he had not learned of it "from the ideas and practices of the Indians, or from the reasoning of the Chaldæans, or from any source whatever." In the clearest possible terms, he declares that the universal way was not included in what he learned from the Indians or the Chaldæans. Yet he could not refrain from saying that he had received from the Chaldæans the divine oracles he mentions so often. What, then, does he mean by this universal way of delivering the soul? It had not yet been made known by any truest philosophy. Nor had it been made known by the doctrines of nations thought to have great insight into divine matters. These nations were so regarded because they indulged more freely in a curious and fanciful science and worship of angels. What is this universal way that he admits he does not know? Surely it is a way that does not belong to one nation alone, but is common to all and given by God. Porphyry, a man of considerable ability, does not doubt that such a way exists. He believes that divine providence could not have left humanity without this universal way of delivering the soul. He does not say that the way does not exist. He says that this great gift and help has not yet been discovered and has not come to his knowledge. This is no wonder. Porphyry lived when this universal way of delivering the soul, in other words, the Christian religion, was persecuted by idolaters, demon-worshippers, and earthly rulers.⁴³³ This happened so that the number of martyrs, or witnesses to the truth, might be completed and consecrated. Through them, proof might be given that we must endure all bodily suffering for the holy faith and to commend the truth. Porphyry witnessed these persecutions and concluded that this way would soon disappear. He therefore concluded that it was not the universal way of delivering the soul. He did not see that the very thing that moved him and kept him from becoming a Christian helped confirm our religion and commend it more effectively.

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 hereafter come, ought to demand, Why so soon? or, Why so late?—for the design of Him who sends it is impenetrable by human capacity. 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 had no existence. This, I say, is the universal way for the deliverance of believers, concerning which the faithful Abraham received the divine assurance, "In thy seed shall all nations be blessed."⁴³⁴ He, indeed, was by birth a Chaldæan; but, that he might receive these great promises, and that there might be propagated from him a seed "disposed by angels in the hand of a Mediator,"⁴³⁵ 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 was he himself, first of all, 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 unto us, and bless us, and cause His face to shine upon us; that Thy way may be known upon earth, Thy saving health among all nations."⁴³⁶ And hence, when our Saviour, so long after, had taken flesh of the seed of Abraham, He says of Himself, "I am the way, the truth, and the life."⁴³⁷ 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 in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. And many people shall go and say, Come ye, 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."⁴³⁸ 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 issued thence to be universally diffused. And therefore the Mediator Himself, after His resurrection, says to His alarmed disciples, "These are the words which I spake unto you while I was yet 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 opened He their understandings that they might understand the Scriptures, and said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved 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."⁴³⁹ 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 fore-announce 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 latterly came the Mediator Himself 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 conformity with the relation of the ages of the human race, and as it pleased God in His wisdom to appoint, who also bore them witness 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 ministrants, 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 peculiar and proper to the Saviour's own person, especially the nativity and the resurrection; in the one of which He wrought only the mystery of a virgin maternity, while in the other He furnished an instance of the resurrection which all shall 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 Saviour 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 fulfilment, no man has been delivered, no man is delivered, no man shall be delivered.

This, then, is the universal way of the soul’s deliverance. In his compassion, God grants it to all nations. No nation that has learned of it, or may learn of it later, should ask, “Why so soon?” or “Why so late?” The purpose of the one who sends it is beyond human understanding. Porphyry recognized this. He said only that this gift of God had not yet been received and had not yet come to his knowledge. Even so, he did not declare that the way itself did not exist. This is the universal way of deliverance for believers. God assured faithful Abraham of it when he said, “In your offspring all nations shall be blessed.”⁴³⁴ Abraham was a Chaldean by birth. But he was commanded to leave his country, his relatives, and his father’s house. This was so that he might receive these great promises and have offspring “appointed through angels by the hand of a Mediator.”⁴³⁵ In that offspring, the universal way would be found, opened to all nations for the soul’s deliverance. Abraham himself was first delivered from Chaldean superstitions. Through his obedience, he worshiped the one true God, whose promises he faithfully trusted. This is the universal way described in holy prophecy: “May God be merciful to us and bless us, and make his face shine upon us, so that your way may be known on earth, your saving power among all nations.”⁴³⁶ And so, long afterward, when our Savior had taken flesh as a descendant of Abraham, he said of himself, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.”⁴³⁷ This is the universal way foretold so long before: “In the last days, the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established above the mountains and raised above the hills. All nations shall stream to it. Many peoples shall go and say, ‘Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob. He will teach us his ways, and we will walk in his paths.’ For the law shall go out from Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.”⁴³⁸ This way, then, belongs not to one nation, but to all nations. The law and the word of the Lord did not remain in Zion and Jerusalem. They went out from there to spread everywhere. So, after his resurrection, the Mediator himself spoke to his frightened disciples: “These are the words I spoke to you while I was still with you. Everything written about me in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures and said to them, “It is written that Christ must suffer and rise from the dead on the third day. Repentance and forgiveness of sins must be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.”⁴³⁹ This is the universal way of the soul’s deliverance. In earlier times, the holy angels and prophets made it known wherever they could among the few who found God’s grace. They did so especially among the Hebrew people. Their commonwealth was, as it were, set apart to foreshadow and announce the city of God. That city was to be gathered from all nations. Their tabernacle, temple, priesthood, and sacrifices all pointed toward it. This way was declared in some clear statements and in many obscure foreshadowings. But later the Mediator himself came in the flesh, along with his blessed apostles. They revealed how the grace of the New Testament explained more openly what earlier generations had received through obscure hints. This happened in keeping with the different ages of the human race, as God in his wisdom chose to arrange them. He also confirmed their witness with signs and miracles, some of which I have mentioned above. There were visions of angels and words heard from those heavenly servants. But there was more. Men of God, armed with the message of simple devotion, drove unclean spirits from people’s bodies and senses. They healed deformities and sicknesses. Wild animals of land and sea, birds of the air, lifeless things, the elements, and the stars obeyed their divine commands. The powers of hell gave way before them, and the dead were restored to life. I say nothing of the miracles belonging uniquely to the Savior himself, especially his birth and resurrection. In his birth he brought about the mystery of a virgin becoming a mother. In his resurrection he gave an example of the resurrection that all will finally experience. This way purifies the whole person and prepares every part of a mortal for immortality. Our most powerful and truthful Purifier and Savior took on the whole of human nature. He did this so that we would not seek one cleansing for what Porphyry calls the intellectual part, another for what he calls the spiritual part, and another for the body itself. This way has been present among people both in the time of the promises and in the time when their fulfillment was proclaimed. Apart from it, no one has been delivered, no one is delivered, and no one 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 constrained to believe by those that are already fulfilled? For neither Porphyry nor any Platonists can despise divination and prediction, even of things that pertain to 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 premonitory symptoms, or the unclean demons predict what they have resolved to do, that they may thus work upon 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, in so far 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.

Porphyry says that nothing he knew from history had revealed to him the universal way of the soul’s deliverance. But what history is more remarkable than the one whose authoritative voice has taken hold of the whole world? What history is more trustworthy than the one that tells of past events and predicts future ones with equal clarity? Its fulfilled predictions compel us to believe those not yet fulfilled. Neither Porphyry nor any of the Platonists can dismiss divination and prediction, even concerning earthly life. Still, they rightly reject ordinary fortune-telling and divination associated with magic. They deny that these are predictions made by great people or that they are important, and they are right. Such predictions are based either on the ability to foresee secondary causes, or on the schemes of unclean demons. A trained physician, for example, can foresee much of a disease’s course from early symptoms. Unclean demons, meanwhile, predict what they themselves have decided to do. In this way, they work on the thoughts and desires of the wicked with an appearance of authority. They also tempt weak human beings to imitate their impure actions. The saints who follow the universal way do not care to predict such things as if they were important. Yet, to commend the faith, they knew and often predicted things beyond human observation or easy verification by experience. They also predicted other events that were truly important and divine, insofar as God allowed them to know his will. The Scriptures of this way predicted and promised the incarnation of Christ and all the great wonders accomplished in him and performed in his name. They foretold people’s repentance and the turning of their wills to God, the forgiveness of sins, and the grace of righteousness. They foretold the faith of the devout and the multitudes throughout the world who believe in the true God. They foretold the overthrow of idolatry and demon worship, and the testing of the faithful through trials. They foretold the purification of those who persevered and their deliverance from all evil. They foretold the day of judgment, the resurrection of the dead, and the eternal damnation of the community of the ungodly. They also foretold the eternal kingdom of the most glorious city of God, forever blessed by the enjoyment of the vision of God. We see so many of these things fulfilled that we rightly and reverently trust that the rest will also happen. Some do not believe, and therefore do not understand, that this way leads straight to the vision of God and eternal fellowship with him. Yet the Holy Scriptures truly predict and declare that it does. Such people may rage against our position, but they cannot overthrow it.

And therefore, in these ten books, though not meeting, I dare say, the expectation of some, yet I have, as the true God and Lord has vouchsafed to aid 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 be after death. And now, in fulfilment of the promise I made in the first book, I shall go on to say, as God shall aid 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 commingled and implicated with one another.

In these ten books, I may not have met the expectations of some readers. Yet, with the help of the true God and Lord, I have satisfied the wishes of others. I have answered the objections of the ungodly, who prefer their own gods to the founder of the holy city. It was about this city that I undertook to speak. The first five books argued against those who think we should worship the gods for blessings in this life. The second five argued against those who think we should worship them for the sake of life after death. Now I will fulfill the promise I made in the first book. With God’s help, I will say what I think needs to be said about the origin, history, and deserved ends of the two cities. As I have already noted, they are mixed and entangled with one another in this world.