How It is that Porphyry Has Been So Blind as Not to Recognize the True Wisdom—Christ.

Chapter 28.—How It is that Porphyry Has Been So Blind as Not to Recognize the True Wisdom—Christ.

Caput XXVIII. Quibus persuasionibus Porphyrius obcaecatus non potuerit ueram sapientiam, quod est Christus, agnoscere.

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 recognized 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 And would that in this, at least, you were listened to by its wretched votaries, that they might be withdrawn from entire absorption in it, or might even be preserved from tampering with it at all!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 fulfills 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.” 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.” 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.

Mittis ergo homines in errorem certissimum, neque hoc tantum malum te pudet, cum uirtutis et sapientiae profitearis amatorem; quam si uere ac fideliter amasses, Christum Dei uirtutem et Dei sapientiam cognouisses nec ab eius saluberrima humilitate tumore inflatus uanae scientiae resiluisses. Confiteris tamen etiam spiritalem animam sine theurgicis artibus et sine teletis, quibus frustra discendis elaborasti, posse continentiae uirtute purgari. Aliquando etiam dicis, quod teletae non post mortem eleuant animam, ut iam nec eidem ipsi, quam spiritalem uocas, aliquid post huius uitae finem prodesse uideantur; et tamen uersas haec multis modis et repetis, ad nihil aliud, quantum existimo, nisi ut talium quoque rerum quasi peritus appareas et placeas inlicitarum artium curiosis, uel ad eas facias ipse curiosos. Sed bene, quod metuendam dicis hanc artem uel legum periculis uel ipsius actionis. Adque utinam hoc saltem abs te miseri audiant et inde, ne illic absorbeantur, abscedant aut eo penitus non accedant. Ignorantiam certe et propter eam multa uitia per nullas teletas purgari dicis, sed per solum πατριϰὸν voov, id est paternam mentem siue intellectum, qui paternae est conscius uoluntatis. Hunc autem Christum esse non credis; contemnis enim eum propter corpus ex femina acceptum et propter crucis obprobrium, excelsam uidelicet sapientiam spretis adque abiectis infimis idoneus de superioribus carpere. At ille inplet, quod prophetae sancti de illo ueraciter praedixerunt: Perdam sapientiam sapientium et prudentiam prudentium reprobabo. Non enim suam in eis perdit et reprobat, quam ipse donauit, sed quam sibi adrogant, qui non habent ipsius. Unde commemorato isto prophetico testimonio sequitur et dicit apostolus: Ubi sapiens? ubi scriba? ubi conquisitor huius saeculi? Nonne stultam fecit Deus sapientiam huius mundi? Nam quoniam in Dei sapientia non cognouit mundus per sapientiam Deum, placuit Deo per stultitiam praedicationis saluos facere credentes. Quoniam quidem Iudaei signa petunt et Graeci sapientiam quaerunt; nos autem, inquit, praedicamus Christum crucifixum, Iudaeis quidem scandalum, gentibus autem stultitiam, ipsis uero uocatis Iudaeis et Graecis Christum Dei uirtutem et Dei sapientiam; quoniam stultum Dei sapientius est hominibus, et infirmum Dei fortius est hominibus. Hoc quasi stultum et infirmum tamquam sua uirtute sapientes fortesque contemnunt. Sed haec est gratia, quae sanat infirmos, non superbe iactantes falsam beatitudinem suam, sed humiliter potius ueram miseriam confitentes.

Chapter 29.—Of the Incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Which the Platonists in Their Impiety Blush to Acknowledge.

Caput XXIX. De incarnatione Domini nostri Iesu Christi, quam confiteri Platonicorum erubescit in pietas.

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 recognize. 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 recognized 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! 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.

Praedicas Patrem et eius Filium, quem uocas paternum intellectum seu mentem, et horum medium, quem putamus te dicere Spiritum sanctum, et more uestro appellas tres deos. Ubi, etsi uerbis indisciplinatis utimini, uidetis tamen qualitercumque et quasi per quaedam tenuis imaginationis umbracula, quo nitendum sit; sed incarnationem incommutabilis Filii Dei, qua saluamur, ut ad illa, quae credimus uel ex quantulacumque parte intellegimus, uenire possimus, non uultis agnoscere. Itaque uidetis utcumque, etsi de longinquo, etsi acie caligante, patriam in qua manendum est. sed uiam qua eundum est non tenetis. Confiteris tamen gratiam, quando quidem ad Deum per uirtutem intellegentiae peruenire paucis dicis esse concessum. Non enim dicis: Paucis placuit, uel: Pauci uoluerunt; sed cum dicis esse concessum, procul dubio Dei gratiam, non hominis sufficientiam confiteris. Uteris etiam hoc uerbo apertius, ubi Platonis sententiam sequens nec ipse dubitas in hac uita hominem nullo modo ad perfectionem sapientiae peruenire, secundum intellectum tamen uiuentibus omne quod deest prouidentia Dei et gratia post hanc uitam posse conpleri.s o si cognouisses Dei gratiam per Iesum Ch:istum dominum nostrum ipsamque eius incarnationem, qua hominis animam corpusque suscepit, summum esse exemplum gratiae uidere potuisses. Sed quid faciam? Scio me frustra loqui mortuo, sed quantum ad te adtinet: quantum autem ad eos, qui te magnipendunt et te uel qualicumque amore sapientiae uel curiositate artium, quas non debuisti discere, diligunt, quos potius in tua conpellatione adloquor, fortasse non frustra. Gratia Dei non potuit gratius commendari, quam ut ipse unicus Dei Filius in se incommutabiliter manens indueretur hominem et spem dilectionis suae daret hominibus homine medio, qua ad illum ab hominibus ueniretur, qui tam longe erat inmortalis a mortalibus, incommutabilis a commutabilibus, iustus ab inpiis, beatus a miseris. Et quia naturaliter indidit nobis, ut beati inmortalesque esse cupiamus, manens beatus suscipiensque mortalem, ut nobis tribueret quod amamus, perpetiendo docuit contemnere quod timemus.

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.” 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.” 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.

Sed huic ueritati ut possetis adquiescere, humilitate opus erat, quae ceruici uestrae difficillime persuaderi potest. Quid enim incredibile dicitur, praesertim uobis qui talia sapitis, quibus ad hoc credendum uos ipsos admonere debeatis; quid, inquam, uobis incredibile dicitur, cum dicitur Deus adsumsisse humanam animam et corpus? Vos certe tantum tribuitis animae intellectuali, quae anima utique humana est, ut eam consubstantialem paternae illi menti, quem Dei Filium confitemini, fieri posse dicatis. Quid ergo incredibile est, si aliqua una intellectualis anima modo quodam ineffabili et singulari pro multorum salute suscepta est? Corpus uero animae cohaerere, ut homo totus et plenus sit, natura ipsa nostra teste cognoscimus. Quod nisi usitatissimum esset, hoc profecto esset incredibilius; facilius quippe in fidem recipiendum est, etsi humanum diuino, etsi mutabilem incommutabili, tamen spiritum spiritui, aut ut uerbis utar quae in usu habetis, incorporeum incorporeo, quam corpus incorporeo cohaerere. An forte uos offendit inusitatus corporis partus ex uirgine? Neque hoc debet offendere, immo potius ad pietatem suscipiendam debet adducere, quod mirabilis mirabiliter natus est. An uero quod ipsum corpus morte depositum et in melius resurrectione mutatum iam incorruptibile neque mortale in superna subuexit, hoc fortasse credere recusatis intuentes Porphyrium in his ipsis libris, ex quibus multa posui, quos de regressu animae scripsit, tam crebro praecipere omne corpus esse fugiendum, ut anima possit beata permanere cum Deo? Sed ipse potius ista sentiens corrigendus fuit, praesertim cum de anima mundi huius uisibilis et tam ingentis corporeae molis cum illo tam incredibilia sapiatis. Platone quippe auctore animal esse dicitis mundum et animal beatissimum, quod uultis esse etiam sempiternum. Quo modo ergo nec umquam soluetur a corpore, nec umquam carebit beatitudine, si, ut beata sit anima, corpus sit omne fugiendum? Solem quoque istum et cetera sidera non solum in libris uestris corpora esse fatemini, quod uobiscum omnes homines et conspicere non cunctantur et dicere; uerum etiam altiore, ut putatis, peritia haec esse animalia beatissima perhibetis et cum his corporibus sempiterna. Quid ergo est, quod, cum uobis fides Christiana suadetur, tunc obliuiscimini, aut ignorare uos fingitis, quid disputare aut docere soleatis? Quid causae est, quur propter opiniones uestras, quas uos ipsi obpugnatis, Christiani esse nolitis, nisi quia Christus humiliter uenit et uos superbi estis? Qualia sanctorum corpora in resurrectione futura sint, potest aliquanto scrupulosius inter Christianarum scripturarum doctissimos disputari; futura tamen sempiterna minime dubitamus, et talia futura, quale sua resurrectione Christus demonstrauit exemplum. Sed qualiacumque sint, cum incorruptibilia prorsus et inmortalia nihiloque animae contemplationem, qua in Deo figitur, inpedientia praedicentur uosque etiam dicatis esse in caelestibus inmortalia corpora inmortaliter beatorum: quid est quod, ut beati simus, omne corpus fugiendum esse opinamini, ut fidem Christianam quasi rationabiliter fugere uideamini, nisi quia illud est, quod iterum dico: Christus est humilis, uos superbi? An forte corrigi pudet? Et hoc uitium non nisi. superborum est. Pudet uidelicet doctos homines ex discipulis Platonis fieri discipulos Christi, qui piscatorem suo spiritu docuit sapere ac dicere: In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat aput Deum, et Deus erat Verbum. Hoc erat in principio aput Deum. Omnia per ipsum facta sunt, et sine ipso factum est nihil, quod factum est. In ipso uita erat, et uita erat lux hominum, et lux in tenebris lucet, et tenebrae eam non conprehenderunt. Quod initium sancti euangelii, cui nomen est secundum Iohannem, quidam Platonicus, sicut a sancto sene Simpliciano, qui postea Mediolanensi ecclesiae praesedit episcopus, solebamus audire, aureis litteris conscribendum et per omnes ecclesias in locis eminentissimis proponendum esse dicebat. Sed ideo uiluit superbis Deus ille magister, quia Verbum caro factum est et habitauit in nobis; ut parum sit miseris quod aegrotant, nisi se etiam in ipsa aegritudine extollant et de medicina, qua sanari poterant, erubescant. Non enim hoc faciunt ut erigantur, sed ut cadendo grauius adfligantur.

Chapter 30.—Porphyry’s Emendations and Modifications of Platonism.

Caput XXX. Quanta Platonici dogmatis Porphyrius refutauerit et dissentiendo correxerit.

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. Plotinus also, Porphyry’s teacher, held this opinion; 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 honorable a creed is that which was taught by the holy and truthful angels, uttered by the prophets who were moved by God’s Spirit, preached by Him who was foretold as the coming 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 honorable, 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 recognize 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 favorite 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,

Si post Platonem aliquid emendare existimatur indignum, quur ipse Porphyrius nonnulla et non parua emendauit? Nam Platonem animas hominum post mortem reuolui usque ad corpora bestiarum scripsisse certissimum est. Hanc sententiam Porphyrii doctor tenuit et Plotinus; Porphyrio tamen iure displicuit. In hominum sane non sua quae dimiserant, sed alia noua corpora redire humanas animas arbitratus est. Puduit scilicet illud credere, ne mater fortasse filium in mulam reuoluta uectaret; et non puduit hoc credere, ubi reuoluta mater in puellam filio forsitan nuberet. Quanto creditur honestius, quod sancti et ueraces angeli docuerunt, quod prophetae Dei spiritu acti locuti sunt, quod ipse quem uenturum Saluatorem praemissi nuntii praedixerunt, quod missi apostoli qui orbem terrarum euangelio repleuerunt, — quanto, inquam, honestius creditur reuerti animas semel ad corpora propria quam reuerti totiens ad diuersa! Verum tamen, ut dixi, ex magna parte correctus est in hac opinione Porphyrius, ut saltem in solos homines humanas animas praecipitari posse sentiret, beluinos autem carceres euertere minime dubitaret. Dicit etiam ad hoc Deum animam mundo dedisse, ut materiae cognoscens mala ad Patrem recurreret nec aliquando iam talium polluta contagione teneretur. Ubi etsi aliquid inconuenienter sapit (magis enim data est corpori, ut bona faceret; non enim mala disceret, si non faceret), in eo tamen aliorum Platonicorum opinionem et non in re parua emendauit, quod mundatam ab omnibus malis animam et cum Patre constitutam numquam iam mala mundi huius passuram esse confessus est. Qua sententia profecto abstulit, quod esse Platonicum maxime perhibetur, ut mortuos ex uiuis, ita uiuos ex mertuis semper fieri; falsumque esse ostendit, quod Platonice uidetur dixisse Vergilius, in campos Elysios purgatas animas missas (quo nomine tamquam per fabulam uidentur significari gaudia beatorum) ad fluuium Letheum euocari, hoc est ad obliuionem praeteritorum: Scilicet inmemores supera ut conuexa reuisant Rursus et incipiant in corpora uelle reuerti.

“That earthward they may pass once more,

Remembering not the things before,

And with a blind propension yearn

To fleshly bodies to return.”

This found no favor with Porphyry, and very justly; for it is indeed foolish to believe that souls should desire to return from that life, which cannot be very blessed 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.

Merito displicuit hoc Porphyrio, quoniam re uera credere stultum est ex illa uita, quae beatissima esse non poterit nisi de sua fuerit aeternitate certissima, desiderare animas corruptibilium corporum labem et inde ad ista remeare, tamquam hoc agat summa purgatio, ut inquinatio requiratur. Si enim quod perfecte mundantur hoc efficit, ut omnium obliuiscantur malorum, malorum autem obliuio facit corporum desiderium, ubi rursus inplicentur malis: profecto erit infelicitatis causa summa felicitas et stultitiae causa perfectio sapientiae et inmunditiae causa summa mundatio. Nec ueritate ibi beata erit anima, quamdiucumque erit, ubi oportet fallatur, ut beata sit. Non enim beata erit nisi secura; ut autem secura sit, falso putabit semper se beatam fore, quoniam aliquando erit et misera. Cui ergo gaudendi causa falsitas erit, quo modo de ueritate gaudebit? Vidit hoc Porphyrius purgatamque animam ob hoc reuerti dixit ad Patrem, ne aliquando iam malorum polluta contagione teneatur. Falso igitur a quibusdam est Platonicis creditus quasi necessarius orbis ille ab eisdem abeundi et ad eadem reuertendi. Quod etiamsi uerum esset, quid hoc scire prodesset, nisi forte inde se nobis auderent praeferre Platonici, quia id nos in hac uita iam nesciremus, quod ipsi in alia meliore uita purgatissimi et sapientissimi fuerant nescituri et falsum credendo beati futuri? Quod si absurdissimum et stultissimum est dicere, Porphyrii profecto est praeferenda sententia his, qui animarum circulo alternantem semper beatitudinem et miseriam suspicati sunt. Quod si ita est, ecce Platonicus in melius a Platone dissentit; ecce uidit, quod ille non uidit, nec post talem ac tantum magistrum refugit correctionem, sed homini praeposuit ueritatem.

Chapter 31.—Against the Arguments on Which the Platonists Ground Their Assertion that the Human Soul is Co-Eternal with God.

Caput XXXI. Contra argumentum Platonicorum, quo animam humanam Deo adserunt esse coaeternam.

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 honor 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.

Quur ergo non potius diuinitati credimus de his rebus, quas humano ingenio peruestigare non possumus, quae animam quoque ipsam non Deo coaeternam, sed creatam dicit esse, quae non erat? Ut enim hoc Platonici nollent credere, hanc utique causam idoneam sibi uidebantur adferre, quia, nisi quod semper antea fuisset, sempiternum deinceps esse non posset; quamquam et de mundo et de his, quos in mundo deos a Deo factos scribit Plato, apertissime dicat eos esse coepisse et habere initium, finem tamen non habituros, sed per conditoris potentissimam uoluntatem in aeternum mansuros esse perhibeat. Verum id quo modo intellegant inuenerunt, non esse hoc uidelicet temporis, sed substitutionis initium. Sicut enim, inquiunt, si pes ex aeternitate semper fuisset in puluere, semper ei subesset uestigium, quod tamen uestigium a calcante factum nemo dubitaret, nec alterum altero prius esset, quamuis alterum ab altero factum esset: sic, inquiunt, et mundus adque in illo di creati et semper fuerunt semper existente qui fecit, et tamen facti sunt.’ Numquid ergo, si anima semper fuit, etiam miseria eius semper fuisse dicenda est? Porro si aliquid in illa, quod ex aeterno non fuit, esse coepit ex tempore, quur non fieri potuerit, ut ipsa esset ex tempore quae antea non fuisset? Deinde beatitudo quoque eius post experimentum malorum firmior et sine fine mansura, sicut iste confitetur, procul dubio coepit ex tempore, et tamen semper erit, cum antea non fuerit. Illa igitur omnis argumentatio dissoluta est, qua putatur nihil esse posse sine fine temporis, nisi quod initium non habet temporis. Inuenta est enim animae beatitudo, quae cum initium temporis habuerit, finem temporis non habebit. Quapropter diuinae auctoritati humana. cedat infirmitas, eisque beatis et inmortalibus de uera religione credamus, qui sibi honorem non expetunt, quem Deo suo, qui etiam noster est, deberi sciunt, nec iubent, ut sacrificium faciamus, nisi ei tantum, cuius et nos cum illis, ut saepe dixi et saepe dicendum est, sacrificium esse debemus, per eum sacerdotem offerendi, qui in homine, quem suscepit, secundum quem et sacerdos esse uoluit, etiam usque ad mortem sacrificium pro nobis dignatus est fieri.

Chapter 32.—Of the Universal Way of the Soul’s Deliverance, Which Porphyry Did Not Find Because He Did Not Rightly Seek It, and Which the Grace of Christ Has Alone Thrown Open.

Caput XXXII. De uniuersali uia animae liberandae, quam Porphyrius male quaerendo non repperit, et quam sola gratia Christiana reserauit.

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 Animœ, that no system of doctrine which furnishes the universal way for delivering the soul has as yet been received, either from the truest philosophy, or from the ideas and practices of the Indians, or from the reasoning of the Chaldæans, or from any source 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, 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.

Haec est religio, quae uniuersalem continet uiam animae liberandae, quoniam nulla nisi hac liberari potest. Haec est enim quodam modo regalis uia, quae una ducit ad regnum, non temporali fastigio nutabundum, sed aeternitatis firmitate securum. Cum autem dicit Porphyrius in primo iuxta finem de regressu animae libro nondum receptum in unam quandam sectam, quae uniuersalem contineat uiam animae liberandae, uel a philosophia uerissima aliqua uel ab Indorum moribus ac disciplina, aut inductione Chaldaeorum aut alia qualibet uia, nondumque in suam notitiam eandem uiam historiali cognitione perlatam: procul dubio confitetur esse aliquam, sed nondum in suam uenisse notitiam. Ita ei non sufficiebat quidquid de anima liberanda studiosissime didicerat sibique uel potius aliis nosse ac tenere uidebatur. Sentiebat enim adhuc sibi deesse aliquam praestantissimam auctoritatem, quam de re tanta sequi oporteret. Cum autem dicit uel a philosophia uerissima aliqua nondum in suam notitiam peruenisse sectam, quae uniuersalem contineat uiam animae liberandae: satis, quantum arbitror, ostendit uel eam philosophiam, in qua ipse philosophatus est, non esse uerissimam, uel ea non contineri talem uiam. Et quo modo iam potest esse uerissima, qua non continetur haec uia? Nam quae alia uia est uniuersalis animae liberandae, nisi qua uniuersae animae liberantur ac per hoc sine illa nulla anima liberatur? Cum autem addit et dicit: uel ab Indorum moribus ac disciplina, uel ab inductione Chaldaeorum uel alia qualibet uia’, manifestissima uoce testatur neque illis quae ab Indis neque illis quae a Chaldaeis didicerat hanc uniuersalem uiam liberandae animae contineri; et utique se a Chaldaeis oracula diuina sumsisse, quorum adsiduam commemorationem facit, tacere non potuit. Quam uult ergo intellegi animae liberandae uniuersalem uiam nondum receptam uel ex aliqua uerissima philosophia uel ex earum gentium doctrinis, quae magnae uelut in diuinis rebus habebantur, quia plus aput eas curiositas ualuit quorumque angelorum cognoscendorum et colendorum, nondumque in suam notitiam historiali cognitione perlatam? Quaenam ista est uniuersalis uia, nisi quae non suae cuique genti propria, sed uniuersis gentibus quae communis esset diuinitus inpertita est? Quam certe iste homo non mediocri ingenio praeditus esse non dubitat. Prouidentiam quippe diuinam sine ista uniuersali uia liberandae animae genus humanum relinquere potuisse non credit. Neque enim ait non esse, sed hoc tantum bonum tantumque adiutorium nondum receptum, nondum in suam notitiam esse perlatum; nec mirum. Tunc enim Porphyrius erat in rebus humanis, quando ista liberandae animae uniuersalis uia, quae non est alia quam religio Christiana, obpugnari permittebatur ab idolorum daemohumque cultoribus regibusque terrenis, propter adserendum et consecrandum martyrum numerum, hoc est testium ueritatis, per quos ostenderetur omnia corporalia mala pro fide pietatis et commendatione ueritatis esse toleranda. Videbat ergo ista Porphyrius et per huius modi persecutiones cito istam uiam perituram et propterea non esse ipsam liberandae animae uniuersalem putabat, non intellegens hoc, quod eum mouebat et quod in eius electione perpeti metuebat, ad eius confirmationem robustioremque commendationem potius pertinere.

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 it self 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.” 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,” 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.” 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.” 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.” 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.” 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 fulfillment, no man has been delivered, no man is delivered, no man shall be delivered.

Haec est igitur animae liberandae uniuersalis uia, id est uniuersis gentibus diuina miseratione concessa, cuius profecto notitia ad quoscumque iam uenit et ad quoscumque uentura est, nec debuit nec debebit ei dici: Quare modo? et: Quare sero? quoniam mittentis consilium non est humano ingenio penetrabile. Quod sensit etiam iste, cum dixit, nondum receptum hoc donum Dei et nondum in suam notitiam fuisse perlatum. Neque enim propterea uerum non esse iudicauit, quia nondum in fidem suam receptum fuerat uel in notitiam nondum peruenerat. Haec est, inquam, liberandorum credentium uniuersalis uia, de qua fidelis Abraham diuinum accepit oraculum: In semine tuo benedicentur omnes gentes. Qui fuit quidem gente Chaldaeus, sed ut talia promissa perciperet et ex illo propagaretur semen dispositum per angelos in manu Mediatoris, in quo esset ista liberandae animae uniuersalis uia, hoc est omnibus gentibus data, iussus est discedere de terra sua et de cognatione sua et de domo patris sui. Tunc ipse primitus a Chaldaeorum superstitionibus liberatus unum uerum Deum sequendo coluit, cui haec promittenti fideliter credidit. Haec est uniuersalis uia, de qua in sancta prophetia dictum est: Deus misereatur nostri et benedicat nos; inluminet uultum suum super nos et misereatur nostri, ut cognoscamus in terra uiam tuam, in omnibus gentibus salutare tuum. Unde tanto post ex Abrahae semine carne suscepta de ipso ait ipse Saluator: Ego sum uia, ueritas et uita. Haec est uniuersalis uia, de qua tanto ante praedictum est: Erit in nouissimis diebus manifestatus mons domus Domini, paratus super cacumina montium et extolletur super colles, et uenient ad eum uniuersae gentes et ingredientur nationes multae et dicent: Venite, ascendamus in montem Domini et in domum Dei Iacob; et adnuntiabit nobis uiam suam, et ingrediemur in eam. Ex Sion enim prodiet lex et uerbum Domini ab Hierusalem. Via ergo ista non est unius gentis, sed uniuersarum gentium; et lex uerbumque Domini non in Sion et Hierusalem remansit, sed inde processit, ut se per uniuersa diffunderet. Unde ipse Mediator post resurrectionem suam discipulis trepidantibus ait: Oportebat inpleri quae scripta sunt in lege et prophetis et psalmis de me. Tunc aperuit illis sensum, ut intellegerent scripturas, et dixit eis, quia oportebat Christum pati et resurgere a mortuis tertio die et praedicari in nomine eius paenitentiam et remissionem peccatorum per omnes gentes incipientibus ab Hierusalem. Haec est igitur uniuersalis animae liberandae uia, quam sancti angeli sanctique prophetae prius in paucis hominibus ubi potuerunt Dei gratiam reperientibus et maxime in Hebraea gente, cuius erat ipsa quodam modo sacrata res publica in prophetationem et praenuntiationem ciuitatis Dei ex omnibus gentibus congregandae, et tabernaculo et templo et sacerdotio et sacrificiis significauerunt et eloquiis quibusdam manifestis, plerisque mysticis praedixerunt: praesens autem in carne ipse Mediator et beati eius apostoli iam testamenti noui gratiam reuelantes apertius indicarunt, quae aliquanto occultius superioribus sunt significata temporibus, pro aetatum generis humani distributione, sicut eam Deo sapienti placuit ordinare, mirabilium operum diuinorum, quorum superius pauca iam posui, contestantibus signis. Non enim apparuerunt tantummodo uisiones angelicae et caelestium ministrorum sola uerba sonuerunt, uerum etiam hominibus Dei uerbo simplicis pietatis agentibus spiritus inmundi de hominum corporibus ac sensibus pulsi sunt, uitia corporis languoresque sanati, fera animalia terrarum et aquarum, uolatilia caeli, ligna, elementa, sidera diuina iussa fecerunt, inferna cesserunt, mortui reuixerunt; exceptis ipsius Saluatoris propriis singularibusque miraculis, maxime natiuitatis et resurrectionis, quorum in uno maternae uirginitatis tantummodo sacramentum, in altero autem etiam eorum, qui in fine resurrecturi sunt, demonstrauit exemplum. Haec uia totum hominem mundat et inmortalitati mortalem ex omnibus quibus constat partibus praeparat. Ut enim non alia purgatio ei parti quaereretur, quam uocat intellectualem Porphyrius, alia ei, quam uocat spiritalem, aliaque ipsi corpori: propterea totum suscepit ueracissimus potentissimusque mundator adque saluator. Praeter hanc uiam, quae, partim cum haec futura praenuntiantur, partim cum facta nuntiantur, numquam generi humano defuit, nemo liberatus est, nemo liberatur, nemo liberabitur.

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 pre-monitory 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.

Quod autem Porphyrius uniuersalem uiam animae liberandae nondum in suam notitiam historiali cognitione dicit esse perlatam: quid hac historia uel inlustrius inueniri potest, quae uniuersum orbem tanto apice auctoritatis obtinuit, uel fidelius, in qua ita narrantur praeterita, ut futura etiam praedicantur, quorum multa uidemus inpleta, ex quibus ea quae restant sine dubio speremus inplenda? Non enim potest Porphyrius uel quicumque Platonici etiam in hac uia quasi terrenarum rerum et ad uitam istam mortalem pertinentium diuinationem praedictionemque contemnere, quod merito in aliis uaticinationibus et quorumlibet modorum uel artium diuinationibus faciunt. Negant enim haec uel magnorum hominum uel magni esse pendenda, et recte. Nam uel inferiorum fiunt praesensione causarum, sicut arte medicinae quibusdam antecedentibus signis plurima euentura ualetudine praeuidentur; uel inmundi daemones sua disposita facta praenuntiant, quorum ius et in mentibus adque cupiditatibus iniquorum ad quaeque congruentia facta ducendis quodam modo sibi uindicant, et in materia infima fragilitatis humanae. Non talia sancti homines in ista uniuersali animarum liberandarum uia gradientes tamquam magna prophetare curarunt, quamuis et ista eos non fugerint et ab eis saepe praedicta sint ad eorum fidem faciendam, quae mortalium sensibus non poterant intimari nec ad experimentum celeri facilitate perduci. Sed alia erant uere magna adque diuina, quae quantum dabatur cognita Dei uoluntate futura nuntiabant. Christus quippe in carne uenturus et quae in illo tam clara perfecta sunt adque in eius nomine inpleta, paenitentia hominum et ad Deum conuersio uoluntatum, remissio peccatorum, gratia iustitiae, fides piorum et per uniuersum orbem in ueram diuinitatem multitudo credentium, culturae simulacrorum daemonumque subuersio et a tentationibus exercitatio, proficientium purgatio et liberatio ab omni malo, iudicii dies, resurrectio mortuorum, societatis inpiorum aeterna damnatio regnumque aeternum gloriosissimae ciuitatis Dei conspectu eius inmortaliter perfruentis in huius uiae scripturis praedicta adque promissa sunt; quorum tam multa inpleta conspicimus, ut recta pietate futura esse cetera confidamus. Huius uiae rectitudinem usque ad Deum uidendum eique in aeternum cohaerendum in sanctarum scripturarum qua praedicatur adque adseritur ueritate quicumque non credunt et ob hoc nec intellegunt, obpug are possunt, sed expugnare non possunt.

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 fulfillment 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.

Quapropter in decem istis libris, etsi minus quam nonnullorum de nobis expectabat intentio, tamen quorundam studio, quantum uerus Deus et Dominus adiuuare dignatus est, satisfecimus refutando contradictiones inpiorum, qui conditori sanctae ciuitatis, de qua disputare instituimus, deos suos praeferunt. Quorum decem librorum quinque superiores aduersus eos conscripti sunt, qui propter bona uitae huius deos colendos putant; quinque autem posteriores aduersus eos, qui cultura deorum propter uitam, quae post mortem futura est, seruandum existimant. Deinceps itaque, ut in primo libro polliciti sumus, de duarum ciuitatum, quas in hoc saeculo perplexas diximus inuicemque permixtas, exortu et procursu et debitis finibus quod dicendum arbitror, quantum diuinitus adiuuabor, expediam.