|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | -----------------
| + | Moved to [http://www.logicmuseum.com/authors/augustine/civitate-10.htm here]. |
| − | ON THE CITY OF GOD, BOOK X
| |
| − | -----------------
| |
| − | [[Directory:Logic Museum/Augustine City of God|Index]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | Translated by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Dods_%28theologian%29 Marcus Dods]
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | *[[#c0|Introduction]]
| |
| − | *[[#c1|Chapter 1]] That the Platonists Themselves Have Determined that God Alone Can Confer Happiness Either on Angels or Men, But that It Yet Remains a Question Whether Those Spirits Whom They Direct Us to Worship, that We May Obtain Happiness, Wish Sacrifice to Be Offered to Themselves, or to the One God Only
| |
| − | *[[#c2|Chapter 2]] The Opinion of Plotinus the Platonist Regarding Enlightenment from Above
| |
| − | *[[#c3|Chapter 3]] That the Platonists, Though Knowing Something of the Creator of the Universe, Have Misunderstood the True Worship of God, by Giving Divine Honor to Angels, Good or Bad
| |
| − | *[[#c4|Chapter 4]] That Sacrifice is Due to the True God Only
| |
| − | *[[#c5|Chapter 5]] Of the Sacrifices Which God Does Not Require, But Wished to Be Observed for the Exhibition of Those Things Which He Does Require
| |
| − | *[[#c6|Chapter 6]] Of the True and Perfect Sacrifice
| |
| − | *[[#c7|Chapter 7]] Of the Love of the Holy Angels, Which Prompts Them to Desire that We Worship the One True God, and Not Themselves
| |
| − | *[[#c8|Chapter 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
| |
| − | *[[#c9|Chapter 9]] Of the Illicit Arts Connected with Demonolatry, and of Which the Platonist Porphyry Adopts Some, and Discards Others
| |
| − | *[[#c10|Chapter 10]] Concerning Theurgy, Which Promises a Delusive Purification of the Soul by the Invocation of Demons
| |
| − | *[[#c11|Chapter 11]] Of Porphyry's Epistle to Anebo, in Which He Asks for Information About the Differences Among Demons
| |
| − | *[[#c12|Chapter 12]] Of the Miracles Wrought by the True God Through the Ministry of the Holy Angels
| |
| − | *[[#c13|Chapter 13]] Of the Invisible God, Who Has Often Made Himself Visible, Not as He Really Is, But as the Beholders Could Bear the Sight
| |
| − | *[[#c14|Chapter 14]] That the One God is to Be Worshipped Not Only for the Sake of Eternal Blessings, But Also in Connection with Temporal Prosperity, Because All Things are Regulated by His Providence
| |
| − | *[[#c15|Chapter 15]] Of the Ministry of the Holy Angels, by Which They Fulfill the Providence of God
| |
| − | *[[#c16|Chapter 16]] Whether Those Angels Who Demand that We Pay Them Divine Honor, or Those Who Teach Us to Render Holy Service, Not to Themselves, But to God, are to Be Trusted About the Way to Life Eternal
| |
| − | *[[#c17|Chapter 17]] Concerning the Ark of the Covenant, and the Miraculous Signs Whereby God Authenticated the Law and the Promise
| |
| − | *[[#c18|Chapter 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
| |
| − | *[[#c19|Chapter 19]] On the Reasonableness of Offering, as the True Religion Teaches, a Visible Sacrifice to the One True and Invisible God
| |
| − | *[[#c20|Chapter 20]] Of the Supreme and True Sacrifice Which Was Effected by the Mediator Between God and Men
| |
| − | *[[#c21|Chapter 21]] Of the Power Delegated to Demons for the Trial and Glorification of the Saints, Who Conquer Not by Propitiating the Spirits of the Air, But by Abiding in God
| |
| − | *[[#c22|Chapter 22]] Whence the Saints Derive Power Against Demons and True Purification of Heart
| |
| − | *[[#c23|Chapter 23]] Of the Principles Which, According to the Platonists, Regulate the Purification of the Soul
| |
| − | *[[#c24|Chapter 24]] Of the One Only True Principle Which Alone Purifies and Renews Human Nature
| |
| − | *[[#c25|Chapter 25]] That All the Saints, Both Under the Law and Before It, Were Justified by Faith in the Mystery of Christ's Incarnation
| |
| − | *[[#c26|Chapter 26]] Of Porphyry's Weakness in Wavering Between the Confession of the True God and the Worship of Demons
| |
| − | *[[#c27|Chapter 27]] Of the Impiety of Porphyry, Which is Worse Than Even the Mistake of Apuleius
| |
| − | *[[#c28|Chapter 28]] How It is that Porphyry Has Been So Blind as Not to Recognize the True Wisdom-Christ
| |
| − | *[[#c29|Chapter 29]] Of the Incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Which the Platonists in Their Impiety Blush to Acknowledge
| |
| − | *[[#c30|Chapter 30]] Porphyry's Emendations and Modifications of Platonism
| |
| − | *[[#c31|Chapter 31]] Against the Arguments on Which the Platonists Ground Their Assertion that the Human Soul is Co-Eternal with God
| |
| − | *[[#c32|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
| |
| − | | |
| − |
| |
| − | | |
| − | {| border=1 cellpadding=10
| |
| − | !valign = top width=45%|Latin
| |
| − | !valign = top width=55%|Latin
| |
| − |
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c0"><b>BOOK X</b> [] ||The City of God (Book X) Argument-In this book Augustin teaches that the good angels wish God alone, whom they themselves serve, to receive that divine honor which is rendered by sacrifice, and which is called "latreia." He then goes on to dispute against Porphyry about the principle and way of the soul's cleansing and deliverance.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c1"><b>BOOK X</b> [I] Omnium certa sententia est, qui ratione quoquo modo uti possunt, beatos esse omnes homines velle. Qui autem sint vel unde fiant dum mortalium quaerit infirmitas, multae magnaeque controversiae concitatae sunt, in quibus philosophi sua studia et otia contriverunt, quas in medium adducere atque discutere et longum est et non necessarium. Si enim recolit qui haec legit, quid in libro egerimus octauo in eligendis philosophis, cum quibus haec de beata vita, quae post mortem futura est, quaestio tractaretur, utrum ad eam uni Deo vero, qui etiam effector est deorum, an plurimis diis religione sacrisque seruiendo pervenire possimus: non etiam hic eadem repeti expectat, praesertim cum possit relegendo, si forte oblitus est, adminiculare memoriam. Elegimus enim Platonicos omnium philosophorum merito nobilissimos, propterea quia sapere potuerunt licet inmortalem ac rationalem vel intellectualem hominis animam nisi participato lumine illius Dei, a quo et ipsa et mundus factus est, beatam esse non posse; ita illud, quod omnes homines appetunt, id est vitam beatam, quemquam isti assecuturum negant, qui non illi uni optimo, quod est incommutabilis Deus, puritate casti amoris adhaeserit. Sed quia ipsi quoque sive cedentes uanitati errorique populorum sive, ut ait apostolus, euanescentes in cogitationibus suis multos deos colendos ita putaverunt vel putari voluerunt, ut quidam eorum etiam daemonibus divinos honores sacrorum et sacrificiorum deferendos esse censerent, quibus iam non parua ex parte respondimus: nunc videndum ac disserendum est, quantum Deus donat, inmortales ac beati in caelestibus sedibus dominationibus, principatibus potestatibus constituti, quos isti deos et ex quibus quosdam vel bonos daemones vel nobiscum angelos nominant, quo modo credendi sint velle a nobis religionem pietatemque servari; hoc est, ut apertius dicam, utrum etiam sibi an tantum Deo suo, qui etiam noster est, placeat eis ut sacra faciamus et sacrificemus, vel aliqua nostra seu nos ipsos religionis ritibus consecremus. Hic est enim divinitati vel, si expressius dicendum est, deitati debitus cultus, propter quem uno verbo significandum, quoniam mihi satis idoneum non occurrit Latinum, Graeco ubi necesse est insinuo quid velim dicere. *Latrei/an quippe nostri, ubicumque sanctarum scripturarum positum est, interpretati sunt seruitutem. Sed ea seruitus, quae debetur hominibus, secundum quam praecipit apostolus seruos dominis suis subditos esse debere, alio nomine Graece nuncupari solet; *latrei/a vero secundum consuetudinem, qua locuti sunt qui nobis divina eloquia condiderunt, aut semper aut tam frequenter ut paene semper ea dicitur seruitus, quae pertinet ad colendum Deum. Proinde si tantummodo cultus ipse dicatur, non soli Deo deberi videtur. Dicimur enim colere etiam homines, quos honorifica vel recordatione vel praesentia frequentamus. Nec solum ea, quibus nos religiosa humilitate subicimus, sed quaedam etiam, quae subiecta sunt nobis, perhibentur coli. Nam ex hoc verbo et agricolae et coloni et incolae vocantur, et ipsos deos non ob aliud appellant caelicolas, nisi quod caelum colant, non utique venerando, sed inhabitando, tamquam caeli quosdam colonos; non sicut appellantur coloni, qui condicionem debent genitali solo, propter agriculturam sub dominio possessorum, sed, sicut ait quidam Latini eloquii magnus auctor: Vrbs antiqua fuit, Tyrii tenuere coloni. Ab incolendo enim colonos vocavit, non ab agricultura. Hinc et civitates a maioribus civitatibus velut populorum examinibus conditae coloniae nuncupantur. Ac per hoc cultum quidem non deberi nisi Deo propria quadam notione verbi huius omnino verissimum est; sed quia et aliarum rerum dicitur cultus, ideo Latine uno verbo significari cultus Deo debitus non potest. Nam et ipsa religio quamuis distinctius non quemlibet, sed Dei cultum significare videatur (unde isto nomine interpretati sunt nostri eam, quae Graece *thrhskei/a dicitur): tamen quia Latina loquendi consuetudine, non inperitorum, verum etiam doctissimorum, et cognationibus humanis atque adfinitatibus et quibusque necessitudinibus dicitur exhibenda religio, non eo vocabulo vitatur ambiguum, cum de cultu deitatis vertitur quaestio, ut fidenter dicere valeamus religionem non esse nisi cultum Dei, quoniam videtur hoc verbum a significanda observantia propinquitatis humanae insolenter auferri. Pietas quoque proprie Dei cultus intellegi solet, quam Graeci *eusebeian vocant. Haec tamen et erga parentes officiose haberi dicitur. More autem uulgi hoc nomen etiam in operibus misericordiae frequentatur; quod ideo arbitror evenisse, quia haec fieri praecipue mandat Deus eaque sibi vel pro sacrificiis vel prae sacrificiis placere testatur. Ex qua loquendi consuetudine factum est, ut et Deus ipse dicatur pius; quem sane Graeci nullo suo sermonis usu *eu)sebh=n vocant, quamuis *eu)se/beian, pro misericordia illorum etiam uulgus usurpet. Vnde in quibusdam scripturarum locis, ut distinctio certior appareret, non *eu)se/beian, quod ex bono cultu, sed *theose/beian, quod ex Dei cultu compositum resonat, dicere maluerunt. Vtrumlibet autem horum nos uno verbo enuntiare non possumus. Quae itaque *latrei/a Graece nuncupatur et Latine interpretatur seruitus, sed ea qua colimus Deum; vel quae *thrhskei/a Graece, Latine autem religio dicitur, sed ea quae nobis est erga Deum; vel quam illi *theose/beian, nos vero non uno verbo exprimere, sed Dei cultum possumus appellare: hanc ei tantum Deo deberi dicimus, qui verus est Deus facitque suos cultores deos. Quicumque igitur sunt in caelestibus habitationibus inmortales et beati, si nos non amant nec beatos esse nos volunt, colendi utique non sunt. Si autem amant et beatos volunt, profecto inde volunt, unde et ipsi sunt; an aliunde ipsi beati, aliunde nos? ||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 honors to the one true God, the Creator of all gods, or by worshipping many gods, and he will not expect us to repeat here the same argument, especially 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," Romans 1:21 supposed or allowed others to suppose that many gods should be worshipped, so that some of them considered that divine honor by worship and sacrifice should be 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.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. ?at?e?a, 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, Ephesians 6:5 is usually designated by another word in Greek, whereas the service which is paid to God alone by worship, is always, or almost always, called ?at?e?a in the usage of those who wrote from the divine oracles. This cannot so well be called simply "cultus," for in that case it would not seem to be due exclusively to God; for the same word is applied to the respect we pay either to the memory or the living presence of men. From it, too, we derive the words agriculture, colonist, and others. And the heathen call their gods "c_S licolж," not because they worship heaven, but because they dwell in it, and as it were colonize it,-not in the sense in which we call those colonists who are attached to their native soil to cultivate it under the rule of the owners, but in the sense in which the great master of the Latin language says, "There was an ancient city inhabited by Tyrian colonists." He called them colonists, not because they cultivated the soil, but because they inhabited the city. So, too, cities that have hived off from larger cities are called colonies. Consequently, while it is quite true that, using the word in a special sense, "cult" can be 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.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 ???s?e?a; 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, e?s?Яe?a, 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, in which sense the Greeks never use e?seЯe??, though e?s?Яe?a 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 e?s?Яe?a, the more general word, but ?e?s?Яe?a, 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 ?at?e?a, and in Latin "servitus" [service], but the service due to God only; this worship, which in Greek is called ???s?e?a, and in Latin "religio," but the religion by which we are bound to God only; this worship, which they call ?e?s?Яe?a, but which we cannot express in one word, but call it the worship of God,-this, we say, belongs only to that God who is the true God, and who makes His worshippers gods. And therefore, whoever these immortal and blessed inhabitants of heaven 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?
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c2"><b>BOOK X</b> [II] Sed non est nobis ullus cum his excellentioribus philosophis in hac quaestione conflictus. Viderunt enim suisque litteris multis modis copiosissime mandaverunt hinc illos, unde et nos, fieri beatos, obiecto quodam lumine intellegibili, quod Deus est illis et aliud est quam illi, a quo inlustrantur, ut clareant atque eius participatione perfecti beatique subsistant. Saepe multumque Plotinus asserit sensum Platonis explanans, ne illam quidem, quam credunt esse universitatis animam, aliunde beatam esse quam nostram, idque esse lumen quod ipsa non est, sed a quo creata est et quo intellegibiliter inluminante intellegibiliter lucet. Dat etiam similitudinem ad illa incorporea de his caelestibus conspicuis amplisque corporibus, tamquam ille sit sol et ipsa sit luna. Lunam quippe solis obiectu inluminari putant. Dicit ergo ille magnus Platonicus animam rationalem, sive potius intellectualis dicenda sit, ex quo genere etiam inmortalium beatorumque animas esse intellegit, quos in caelestibus sedibus habitare non dubitat, non habere supra se naturam nisi Dei, qui fabricatus est mundum, a quo et ipsa facta est; nec aliunde illis supernis praeberi vitam beatam et lumen intellegentiae veritatis, quam unde praebetur et nobis, consonans euangelio, ubi legitur: Fuit homo missus a Deo, cui nomen erat Iohannes; hic venit in testimonium, ut testimonium perhiberet de lumine, ut omnes crederent per eum. Non erat ille lumen, sed ut testimonium perhiberet de lumine. Erat lumen verum, quod inluminat omnem hominem venientem in hunc mundum. In qua differentia satis ostenditur animam rationalem vel intellectualem, qualis erat in Iohanne, sibi lumen esse non posse, sed alterius veri luminis participatione lucere. Hoc et ipse Iohannes fatetur, ubi ei perhibens testimonium dicit: Nos omnes de plenitudine eius accepimus. ||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 their blessed life, and the light of truth, the 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 lights every man that comes into the world;" John 1:6-9 a distinction which sufficiently proves that the rational or intellectual soul such as John had cannot be its own light, but needs to receive illumination from another, the true Light. This John himself avows when he delivers his witness: "We have all received of His fullness."
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c3"><b>BOOK X</b> [III] Quae cum ita sint, si Platonici vel quicumque alii ista senserunt cognoscentes Deum sicut Deum glorificarent et gratias agerent nec euanescerent in cogitationibus suis nec populorum erroribus partim auctores fierent, partim resistere non auderent: profecto confiterentur et illis inmortalibus ac beatis et nobis mortalibus ac miseris, ut inmortales ac beati esse possimus, unum Deum deorum colendum, qui et noster est et illorum. Huic nos seruitutem, quae *latrei/a Graece dicitur, sive in quibusque sacramentis sive in nobis ipsis debemus. Huius enim templum simul omnes et singuli templa sumus, quia et omnium concordiam et singulos inhabitare dignatur; non in omnibus quam in singulis maior, quoniam nec mole distenditur nec partitione minuitur. Cum ad illum sursum est, eius est altare cor nostrum; eius Vnigenito eum sacerdote placamus; ei cruentas victimas caedimus, quando usque ad sanguinem pro eius veritate certamus; eum suavissimo adolemus incenso, cum in eius conspectu pio sanctoque amore flagramus; ei dona eius in nobis nosque ipsos vovemus et reddimus; ei beneficiorum eius sollemnitatibus festis et diebus statutis dicamus sacramusque memoriam, ne volumine temporum ingrata subrepat oblivio; ei sacrificamus hostiam humilitatis et laudis in ara cordis igne feruidam caritatis. Ad hunc videndum, sicut videri poterit, eique cohaerendum ab omni peccatorum et cupiditatum malarum labe mundamur et eius nomine consecramur. Ipse enim fons nostrae beatitudinis, ipse omnis appetitionis est finis. Hunc eligentes vel potius religentes (amiseramus enim neglegentes) _ hunc ergo religentes, unde et religio dicta perhibetur, ad eum dilectione tendimus, ut perveniendo quiescamus, ideo beati, quia illo fine perfecti. Bonum enim nostrum, de cuius fine inter philosophos magna contentio est, nullum est aliud quam illi cohaerere, cuius unius anima intellectualis incorporeo, si dici potest, amplexu veris impletur fecundaturque virtutibus. Hoc bonum diligere in toto corde, in tota anima et in tota virtute praecipimur; ad hoc bonum debemus et a quibus diligimur duci, et quos diligimus ducere. Sic complentur duo illa praecepta in quibus tota lex pendet et prophetae: Diliges Dominum Deum tuum in toto corde tuo et in tota anima tua et in tota mente tua, et: Diliges proximum tuum tamquam te ipsum. Vt enim homo se diligere nosset, constitutus est ei finis, quo referret omnia quae ageret, ut beatus esset; non enim qui se diligit aliud uult esse quam beatus. Hic autem finis est adhaerere Deo. Iam igitur scienti diligere se ipsum, cum mandatur de proximo diligendo sicut se ipsum, quid aliud mandatur, nisi ut ei, quantum potest, commendet diligendum Deum? Hic est Dei cultus, haec vera religio, haec recta pietas, haec tantum Deo debita seruitus. Quaecumque igitur inmortalis potestas quantalibet virtute praedita si nos diligit sicut se ipsam, ei uult esse subditos, ut beati simus, cui et ipsa subdita beata est. Si ergo non colit Deum, misera est, quia privatur Deo; si autem colit Deum, non uult se coli pro Deo. Illi enim potius divinae sententiae suffragatur et dilectionis viribus favet, qua scriptum est: Sacrificans diis eradicabitur, nisi Domino soli. ||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 ?at?e?a, 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, 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: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your mind, and with all your soul;" and "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Matthew 22:37-40 For, 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." And so, when one who has this intelligent self-love is commanded to love his neighbor 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 sacrifices unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed." Exodus 22:20
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c4"><b>BOOK X</b> [IV] Nam, ut alia nunc taceam, quae pertinent ad religionis obsequium, quo colitur Deus, sacrificium certe nullus hominum est qui audeat dicere deberi nisi deo. Multa denique de cultu divino usurpata sunt, quae honoribus deferrentur humanis, sive humilitate nimia sive adulatione pestifera; ita tamen, ut, quibus ea deferrentur, homines haberentur, qui dicuntur colendi et venerandi, si autem multum eis additur, <et&lg adorandi: quis vero sacrificandum censuit nisi ei, quem deum aut scivit aut putavit aut finxit? Quam porro antiquus sit in sacrificando Dei cultus, duo illi fratres Cain et Abel satis indicant, quorum maioris Deus reprobavit sacrificium, minoris aspexit. ||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 honor 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 favorably on the younger's.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c5"><b>BOOK X</b> [V] Quis autem ita desipiat, ut existimet aliquibus usibus Dei esse necessaria, quae in sacrificiis offeruntur? Quod cum multis locis divina scriptura testetur, ne longum faciamus, breue illud de psalmo commemorare suffecerit: Dixi Domino, Dominus meus es tu, quoniam bonorum meorum non eges. Non solum igitur pecore vel qualibet alia re corruptibili atque terrena, sed ne ipsa quidem iustitia hominis Deus egere credendus est, totumque quod recte colitur Deus homini prodesse, non Deo. Neque enim fonti se quisquam dixerit consuluisse, si biberit; aut luci, si viderit. Nec quod ab antiquis patribus alia sacrificia facta sunt in victimis pecorum, quae nunc Dei populus legit, non facit, aliud intellegendum est, nisi rebus illis eas res fuisse significatas, quae aguntur in nobis, ad hoc ut inhaereamus Deo et ad eundem finem proximo consulamus. Sacrificium ergo visibile inuisibilis sacrificii sacramentum id est sacrum signum est. Vnde ille paenitens apud prophetam vel ipse propheta quaerens Deum peccatis suis habere propitium: Si voluisses, inquit, sacrificium, dedissem utique; holocaustis non delectaberis. Sacrificium Deo spiritus contritus; cor contritum et humiliatum Deus non spernet. Intueamur quem ad modum, ubi Deum dixit nolle sacrificium, ibi Deum ostendit velle sacrificium. Non uult ergo sacrificium trucidati pecoris, et uult sacrificium contriti cordis. Illo igitur quod eum nolle dixit, hoc significatur, quod eum velle subiecit. Sic itaque illa Deum nolle dixit, quo modo ab stultis ea velle creditur, velut suae gratia voluptatis. Nam si ea sacrificia quae uult (quorum hoc unum est: cor contritum et humiliatum dolore paenitendi) nollet eis sacrificiis significari, quae velut sibi delectabilia desiderare putatus est: non utique de his offerendis in lege uetere praecepisset. Et ideo mutanda erant oportuno certoque iam tempore, ne ipsi Deo desiderabilia vel certe in nobis acceptabilia, ac non potius quae his significata sunt crederentur. Hinc et alio loco psalmi alterius: Si esuriero, inquit, non dicam tibi; meus est enim orbis terrae et plenitudo eius. Numquid manducabo carnes taurorum aut sanguinem hircorum potabo? tamquam diceret: Vtique si mihi essent necessaria, non a te peterem, quae habeo in potestate. Deinde subiungens quid illa significent: Immola, inquit, Deo sacrificium laudis et redde Altissimo vota tua et inuoca me in die tribulationis, et eximam te et glorificabis me. Item apud alium prophetam: In quo, inquit, adprehendam Dominum, assumam Deum meum excelsum? Si adprehendam illum in holocaustis, in vitulis anniculis? Si acceptaverit Dominus in milibus arielum aut in denis milibus hircorum pinguium? Si dedero primogenita mea inpietatis, fructum ventris mei pro peccato animae meae? Si adnuntiatum est tibi, homo, bonum? Aut quid Dominus exquirat a te nisi facere iudicium et diligere misericordiam et paratum esse ire cum Domino Deo tuo? Et in huius prophetae verbis utrumque distinctum est satisque declaratum illa sacrificia per se ipsa non requirere Deum, quibus significantur haec sacrificia, quae requirit Deus. In epistula, quae inscribitur ad Hebraeos: Bene facere, inquit, et communicatores esse nolite oblivisci; talibus enim sacrificiis placetur Deo. Ac per hoc ubi scriptum est: Misericordiam volo quam sacrificium nihil aliud quam sacrificium sacrificio praelatum oportet intellegi; quoniam illud, quod ab omnibus appellatur sacrificium, signum est veri sacrificii. Porro autem misericordia verum sacrificium est; unde dictum est, quod paulo ante commemoravi: Talibus enim sacrificiis placetur Deo. Quaecumque igitur in ministerio tabernaculi sive templi multis modis de sacrificiis leguntur divinitus esse praecepta, ad dilectionem Dei et proximi significando referuntur. In his enim duobus praeceptis, ut scriptum est, tota lex pendet et prophetae. ||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, You are my God: for Thou needest not my goodness." We must believe, then, that God has no need, not only of cattle, or any other earthly and material thing, but even of man's righteousness, and that whatever right worship is paid to God 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 read 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 neighbor 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 You desired 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." 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 you; for the world is mine and the fullness thereof. Will I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats?" as if He should say, Supposing such things were necessary to me, I would never ask you for what I have in my own hand. Then he goes on to mention what these signify: "Offer unto God the sacrifice of praise, and pay your vows unto the Most High. And call upon me in the day of trouble: I will deliver you, and you shall glorify me." 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 you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?" Micah 6:6-8 In the words of this prophet, these two things are distinguished and set 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." Hebrews 13:16 And so, when it is written, "I desire mercy rather than sacrifice," Hosea 6:6 nothing else is meant than that one sacrifice is preferred to another; for that which in common speech is called sacrifice is only the symbol of the true sacrifice. Now mercy is the true sacrifice, and therefore it is said, as I have just quoted, "with such sacrifices God is well pleased." All the divine ordinances, therefore, which we read concerning the sacrifices in the service of the tabernacle or the temple, we are to refer to the love of God and our neighbor. For "on these two commandments," as it is written, "hang all the law and the prophets." Matthew 22:40
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c6"><b>BOOK X</b> [VI] Proinde verum sacrificium est omne opus, quo agitur, ut sancta societate inhaereamus Deo, relatum scilicet ad illum finem boni, quo veraciter beati esse possimus. Vnde et ipsa misericordia, qua homini subvenitur, si non propter Deum fit, non est sacrificium. Etsi enim ab homine fit vel offertur, tamen sacrificium res divina est, ita ut hoc quoque vocabulo id Latini ueteres appellaverint. Vnde ipse homo Dei nomine consecratus et Deo votus, in quantum mundo moritur ut Deo vivat, sacrificium est. Nam et hoc ad misericordiam pertinet, quam quisque in se ipsum facit. Propterea scriptum est: Miserere animae tuae placens Deo. Corpus etiam nostrum cum temperantia castigamus, si hoc, quem ad modum debemus, propter Deum facimus, ut non exhibeamus membra nostra arma iniquitatis peccato, sed arma iustitiae Deo, sacrificium est. Ad quod exhortans apostolus ait: Obsecro itaque vos, fratres, per miserationem Dei, ut exhibeatis corpora uestra hostiam vivam, sanctam, Deo placentem, rationabile obsequium uestrum. Si ergo corpus, quo inferiore tamquam famulo vel tamquam instrumento utitur anima, cum eius bonus et rectus usus ad Deum refertur, sacrificium est: quanto magis anima ipsa cum se refert ad Deum, ut igne amoris eius accensa formam concupiscentiae saecularis amittat eique tamquam incommutabili formae subdita reformetur, hinc ei placens, quod ex eius pulchritudine acceperit, fit sacrificium! Quod idem apostolus consequenter adiungens: Et nolite, inquit, conformari huic saeculo; sed reformamini in novitate mentis uestrae ad probandum vos quae sit voluntas Dei, quod bonum et bene placitum et perfectum. Cum igitur vera sacrificia opera sint misericordiae sive in nos ipsos sive in proximos, quae referuntur ad Deum; opera vero misericordiae non ob aliud fiant, nisi ut a miseria liberemur ac per hoc ut beati simus (quod non fit nisi bono illo, de quo dictum est: Mihi autem adhaerere Deo bonum est): profecto efficitur, ut tota ipsa redempta civitas, hoc est congregatio societasque sanctorum, universale sacrificium offeratur Deo per sacerdotem magnum, qui etiam se ipsum obtulit in passione pro nobis, ut tanti capitis corpus essemus, secundum formam serui. Hanc enim obtulit, in hac oblatus est, quia secundum hanc mediator est, in hac sacerdos, in hac sacrificium est. Cum itaque nos hortatus esset apostolus, ut exhibeamus corpora nostra hostiam vivam, sanctam, Deo placentem, rationabile obsequium nostrum, et non conformemur huic saeculo, sed reformemur in novitate mentis nostrae: ad probandum quae sit voluntas Dei, quod bonum et bene placitum et perfectum, quod totum sacrificium nos ipsi sumus: Dico enim, inquit, per gratiam Dei, quae data est mihi, omnibus, qui sunt in vobis, non plus sapere, quam oportet sapere, sed sapere ad temperantiam; sicut unicuique Deus partitus est mensuram fidei. Sicut enim in uno corpore multa membra habemus, omnia autem membra non eosdem actus habent r ita multi unum corpus sumus in Christo; singuli autem alter alterius membra, habentes dona diversa secundum gratiam, quae data est nobis. Hoc est sacrificium Christianorum: multi unum corpus in Christo. Quod etiam sacramento altaris fidelibus noto frequentat ecclesia, ubi ei demonstratur, quod in ea re, quam offert, ipsa offeratur. ||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. And therefore even the mercy we show to men, if it is not shown for God's sake, is not a sacrifice. For, though made or offered by man, sacrifice is a divine thing, as those who called it sacrifice meant to indicate. Thus man himself, consecrated in the name of God, and vowed to God, is a sacrifice 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 your soul by pleasing God." Sirach 30:24 Our body, too, as 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. Romans 6:13 Exhorting to this sacrifice, the apostle says, "I beseech you, therefore, brethren, by the mercy of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service." Romans 12:1 If, then, the body, which, being inferior, the soul uses as a servant or instrument, is a sacrifice when it is used rightly, and with reference to God, how much more does the soul itself become a sacrifice when it offers itself to God, 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 you may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God." Romans 12:2 Since, therefore, true sacrifices are works of mercy to ourselves or others, done with 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," 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 has 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." Romans 12:3-6 This is the sacrifice of Christians: we, being many, are one body in Christ. And this also is the sacrifice which the Church continually celebrates in the sacrament of the altar, known to the faithful, in which she teaches that she herself is offered in the offering she makes to God.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c7"><b>BOOK X</b> [VII] Merito illi in caelestibus sedibus constituti inmortales et beati, qui creatoris sui participatione congaudent, cuius aeternitate firmi, cuius veritate certi, cuius munere sancti sunt, quoniam nos mortales et miseros, ut inmortales beatique simus, misericorditer diligunt, nolunt nos sibi sacrificari, sed ei, cuius et ipsi nobiscum sacrificium se esse noverunt. Cum ipsis enim sumus una civitas Dei, cui dicitur in psalmo: Gloriosissima dicta sunt de te, civitas Dei; cuius pars in nobis peregrinatur, pars in illis opitulatur. De illa quippe superna civitate, ubi Dei voluntas intellegibilis atque incommutabilis lex est, de illa superna quodam modo curia (geritur namque ibi cura de nobis) ad nos ministrata per angelos sancta illa scriptura descendit, ubi legitur: Sacrificans diis eradicabitur, nisi Domino soli. Huic scripturae, huic legi, praeceptis talibus tanta sunt adtestata miracula, ut satis appareat, cui nos sacrificari velint inmortales ac beati, qui hoc nobis volunt esse quod sibi. ||It is very right that these blessed and immortal spirits, who inhabit celestial dwellings, and rejoice in the communications of their Creator's fullness, firm in His eternity, assured in His truth, holy by His grace, since they compassionately and tenderly regard us miserable mortals, and wish us to become immortal and happy, do not desire us to sacrifice to themselves, but to Him whose sacrifice they know themselves to be in common with us. For we and they together are the one city of God, to which it is said in the psalm, "Glorious things are spoken of you, O city of God;" the human part sojourning here below, the angelic aiding from above. For from that heavenly city, in which God's will is the intelligible and unchangeable law, from that heavenly council-chamber,-for they sit in counsel regarding us,-that holy Scripture, descended to us by the ministry of angels, in which it is written, "He that sacrifices unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed," Exodus 22:20 -this Scripture, this law, these precepts, have been confirmed by such miracles, that it is sufficiently evident to whom these immortal and blessed spirits, who desire us to be like themselves, wish us to sacrifice.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c8"><b>BOOK X</b> [VIII] Nam nimis uetera si commemorem, longius quam sat est reuoluere videbor, quae miracula facta sint adtestantia promissis Dei, quibus ante annorum milia praedixit Abrahae, quod in semine eius omnes gentes benedictionem fuerant habiturae. Quis enim non miretur eidem Abrahae filium peperisse coniugem sterilem eo tempore senectutis, quo parere nec fecunda iam posset, atque in eiusdem Abrahae sacrificio flammam caelitus factam inter divisas victimas cucurrisse, eidemque Abrahae praedictum ab angelis caeleste incendium Sodomorum, quos angelos hominibus similes hospitio susceperat et per eos de prole ventura Dei promissa tenuerat, ipsoque inminente iam incendio miram de Sodomis per eosdem angelos liberationem Loth filii fratris eius, cuius uxor in via retro respiciens atque in salem repente conversa magno admonuit sacramento neminem in via liberationis suae praeterita desiderare debere? Illa vero quae et quanta sunt, quae iam per Moysen pro populo Dei de iugo seruitutis eruendo in Aegypto mirabiliter gesta sunt, ubi magi Pharaonis, hoc est regis Aegypti, qui populum illum dominatione deprimebat, ad hoc facere quaedam mira permissi sunt, ut mirabilius vincerentur! Illi enim faciebant veneficiis et incantationibus magicis, quibus sunt mali angeli, hoc est daemones, dediti; Moyses autem tanto potentius, quanto iustius, nomine Dei, qui fecit caelum et terram, seruientibus angelis eos facile superavit. Denique in tertia plaga deficientibus magis decem plagae per Moysen magna mysteriorum dispositione completae sunt, quibus ad Dei populum dimittendum Pharaonis et Aegyptiorum dura corda cesserunt. Moxque paenituit, et cum abscedentes Hebraeos consequi conarentur, illis diviso mari per siccum transeuntibus unda hinc atque hinc in sese redeunte cooperti et oppressi sunt. Quid de illis miraculis dicam, quae, cum in deserto idem populus ductaretur, stupenda divinitate crebuerunt: aquas, quae bibi non poterant misso in eas, sicut Deus praeceperat, ligno amaritudine caruisse sitientesque satiasse; manna esurientibus venisse de caelo et, cum esset colligentibus constituta mensura, quidquid amplius quisque collegerat, exortis vermibus putruisse, ante diem vero sabbati duplum collectum, quia sabbato colligere non licebat, nulla putredine violatum; desiderantibus carne uesci, quae tanto populo nulla sufficere posse videbatur, volatilibus castra completa et cupiditatis ardorem fastidio satietatis extinctum; obuios hostes transtitumque prohibentes atque proeliantes orante Moyse manibusque eius in figuram crucis extentis nullo Hebraeorum cadente prostratos; seditiosos in populo Dei ac sese ab ordinata divinitus societate dividentes ad exemplum visibile inuisibilis poenae vivos terra dehiscente submersos; virga percussam petram tantae multitudini abundantia fluenta fudisse; serpentum morsus mortiferos, poenam iustissimam peccatorum, in ligno exaltato atque prospecto aeneo serpente sanatos, ut et populo subveniretur adflicto, et mors morte destructa velut crucifixae mortis similitudine signaretur? Quem sane serpentem propter facti memoriam reservatum cum postea populus errans tamquam idolum colere coepisset, Ezechias rex religiosa potestate Deo seruiens cum magna pietatis laude contrivit. ||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. Genesis 18:18 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; or that the angels in human form, whom he had hospitably entertained, and who had renewed God's promise of offspring, should also have predicted the destruction of Sodom by fire from heaven; Genesis xviii and that his nephew Lot should have been rescued from Sodom by the angels as the fire was just descending, while his wife, who looked back as she went, and was immediately turned into salt, stood as a sacred beacon warning us that no one who is being saved should long for what he is leaving? How striking also were the wonders done by Moses to rescue God's people from the yoke of slavery in Egypt, when the magi of the Pharaoh, that is, the king of Egypt, who tyrannized over this people, were 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.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c9"><b>BOOK X</b> [IX] Haec et alia multa huiusce modi, quae omnia commemorare nimis longum est, fiebant ad commendandum unius Dei veri cultum et multorum falsorumque prohibendum. Fiebant autem simplici fide atque fiducia pietatis, non incantationibus et carminibus nefariae curiositatis arte compositis, quam vel magian vel detestabiliore nomine goetian vel honorabiliore theurgian vocant, qui quasi conantur ista discernere et inlicitis artibus deditos alios damnabiles, quos et maleficos uulgus appellat (hos enim ad goetian pertinere dicunt), alios autem laudabiles videri volunt, quibus theurgian deputant; cum sint utrique ritibus fallacibus daemonum obstricti sub nominibus angelorum. Nam et Porphyrius quandam quasi purgationem animae per theurgian, cunctanter tamen et pudibunda quodam modo disputatione promittit; reuersionem vero ad Deum hanc artem praestare cuiquam negat; ut videas eum inter vitium sacrilegae curiositatis et philosophiae professionem sententiis alternantibus fluctuare. Nunc enim hanc artem tamquam fallacem et in ipsa actione periculosam et legibus prohibitam cavendam monet; nunc autem velut eius laudatoribus cedens utilem dicit esse mundandae parti animae, non quidem intellectuali, qua rerum intellegibilium percipitur veritas, nullas habentium similitudines corporum; sed spiritali, qua corporalium rerum capiuntur imagines. Hanc enim dicit per quasdam consecrationes theurgicas, quas teletas vocant, idoneam fieri atque aptam susceptioni spirituum et angelorum et ad videndos deos. Ex quibus tamen theurgicis teletis fatetur intellectuali animae nihil purgationis accedere, quod eam faciat idoneam ad videndum Deum suum et perspicienda ea, quae vere sunt. Ex quo intellegi potest, qualium deorum vel qualem visionem fieri dicat theurgicis consecrationibus, in qua non ea videntur, quae vere sunt. Denique animam rationalem sive, quod magis amat dicere, intellectualem, in sua posse dicit euadere, etiamsi quod eius spiritale est nulla theurgica fuerit arte purgatum; porro autem a theurgo spiritalem purgari hactenus, ut non ex hoc ad inmortalitatem aeternitatemque perveniat. Quamquam itaque discernat a daemonibus angelos, aeria loca esse daemonum, aetheria vel empyria disserens angelorum, et admoneat utendum alicuius daemonis amicitia, quo subuectante vel paululum a terra possit eleuari quisque post mortem, aliam vero viam esse perhibeat ad angelorum superna consortia: cavendam tamen daemonum societatem expressa quodam modo confessione testatur, ubi dicit animam post mortem luendo poenas cultum daemonum a quibus circumveniebatur horrescere; ipsamque theurgian, quam velut conciliatricem angelorum deorumque commendat, apud tales agere potestates negare non potuit, quae vel ipsae inuideant purgationi animae, vel artibus seruiant inuidorum, querelam de hac re Chaldaei nescio cuius expromens: "Conqueritur, inquit, vir in Chaldaea bonus, purgandae animae magno in molimine frustratos sibi esse successus, cum vir ad eadem potens tactus inuidia adiuratas sacris precibus potentias alligasset, ne postulata concederent. Ergo et ligavit ille, inquit, et iste non solvit." Quo indicio dixit apparere theurgian esse tam boni conficiendi quam mali et apud deos et apud homines disciplinam; pati etiam deos et ad illas perturbationes passionesque deduci, quas communiter daemonibus et hominibus Apuleius adtribuit; deos tamen ab eis aetheriae sedis altitudine separans et Platonis asserens in illa discretione sententiam. ||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, or the more honorable 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.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 recognized, 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 recognize the things that truly exist. And from this acknowledgment we may infer what kind of gods these are, and what kind of vision of them is imparted by theurgic consecrations, if by it one cannot see the things which truly exist. He says, further, that the rational, or, as he prefers 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 Chaldжan or other: "A good man in Chaldжa 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.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c10"><b>BOOK X</b> [X] Ecce nunc alius Platonicus, quem doctiorem ferunt, Porphyrius, per nescio quam theurgicam disciplinam etiam ipsos deos obstrictos passionibus et perturbationibus dicit, quoniam sacris precibus adiurari tenerique potuerunt, ne praestarent animae purgationem, et ita terreri ab eo, qui imperabat malum, ut ab alio, qui poscebat bonum, per eandem artem theurgicam solvi illo timore non possent et ad dandum beneficium liberari. Quis non videat haec omnia fallacium daemonum esse commenta, nisi eorum miserrimus seruus et a gratia veri liberatoris alienus? Nam si haec apud deos agerentur bonos, plus ibi utique valeret beneficus purgator animae quam maleuolus inpeditor. Aut si diis iustis homo, pro quo agebatur, purgatione videbatur indignus, non utique ab inuido territi nec, sicut ipse dicit, per metum valentioris numinis inpediti, sed iudicio libero id negare debuerunt. Mirum est autem, quod benignus ille Chaldaeus, qui theurgicis sacris animam purgare cupiebat, non invenit aliquem superiorem deum, qui vel plus terreret atque ad bene faciendum cogeret territos deos, vel ab eis terrentem compesceret, ut libere bene facerent; si tamen theurgo bono sacra defuerunt, quibus ipsos deos, quos inuocabat animae purgatores, prius ab illa timoris peste purgaret. Quid enim causae est, cur deus potentior adhiberi possit a quo terreantur, nec possit a quo purgentur? An invenitur deus qui exaudiat inuidum et timorem diis incutiat ne bene faciant; nec invenitur deus qui exaudiat beneuolum et timorem diis auferat ut bene faciant? O theurgia praeclara, o animae praedicanda purgatio, ubi plus imperat inmunda inuidentia, quam inpetrat pura beneficientia! Immo vero malignorum spirituum cavenda et detestanda fallacia, et salutaris audienda doctrina. Quod enim qui has sordidas purgationes sacrilegis ritibus operantur quasdam mirabiliter pulchras, sicut iste commemorat, vel angelorum imagines vel deorum tamquam purgato spiritu vident (si tamen vel tale aliquid vident), illud est, quod apostolus dicit: Quoniam satanas transfigurat se velut angelum lucis. Eius enim sunt illa phantasmata, qui miseras animas multorum falsorumque deorum fallacibus sacris cupiens inretire et a vero veri Dei cultu, quo solo mundantur et sanantur, avertere, sicut de Proteo dictum est, formas se vertit in omnes, hostiliter insequens, fallaciter subveniens, utrobique nocens. ||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 fulfill 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 Chaldжan 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 Chaldжan, 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." 2 Corinthians 11:14 For these are the delusive appearances of that spirit who longs to entangle wretched souls in the deceptive worship of many 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," equally hurtful, whether he assaults us as an enemy, or assumes the disguise of a friend.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c11"><b>BOOK X</b> [XI] Melius sapuit iste Porphyrius, cum ad Anebontem scripsit Aegyptium, ubi consulenti similis et quaerenti et prodit artes sacrilegas et euertit. Et ibi quidem omnes daemones reprobat, quos dicit ob inprudentiam trahere humidum uaporem et ideo non in aethere, sed in aere esse sub luna atque in ipso lunae globo; verum tamen non audet omnes fallacias et malitias et ineptias, quibus merito movetur, omnibus daemonibus dare. Quosdam namque benignos daemones more appellat aliorum, cum omnes generaliter inprudentes esse fateatur. Miratur autem quod non solum dii alliciantur victimis, sed etiam compellantur atque cogantur facere quod homines volunt; et si corpore et incorporalitate dii a daemonibus distinguuntur, quo modo deos esse existimandum sit solem et lunam et visibilia cetera in caelo, quae corpora esse non dubitat; et si dii sunt, quo modo alii benefici, alii malefici esse dicantur; et quo modo incorporalibus, cum sint corporei, coniungantur. Quaerit etiam veluti dubitans, utrum in divinantibus et quaedam mira facientibus animae sint passiones an aliqui spiritus extrinsecus veniant, per quos haec valeant; et potius venire extrinsecus conicit, eo quod lapidibus et herbis adhibitis et alligent quosdam, et aperiant clausa ostia, vel aliquid eius modi mirabiliter operentur. Vnde dicit alios opinari esse quoddam genus, cui exaudire sit proprium, natura fallax, omniforme, multimodum, simulans deos et daemones et animas defunctorum, et hoc esse quod efficiat haec omnia quae videntur bona esse vel praua; ceterum circa ea, quae vere bona sunt, nihil opitulari, immo vero ista nec nosse, sed et male conciliare et insimulare atque inpedire nonnumquam virtutis sedulos sectatores, et plenum esse temeritatis et fastus, gaudere nidoribus, adulationibus capi, et cetera, quae de hoc genere fallacium malignorumque spirituum, qui extrinsecus in animam veniunt humanosque sensus sopitos vigilantesue deludunt, non tamquam sibi persuasa confirmat, sed tam tenuiter suspicatur aut dubitat, ut haec alios asserat opinari. Difficile quippe fuit tanto philosopho cunctam diabolicam societatem vel nosse vel fidenter arguere, quam quaelibet anicula Christiana nec cunctatur esse, et liberrime detestatur. Nisi forte iste et ipsum, ad quem scribit, Anebontem tamquam talium sacrorum praeclarissimum antistitem et alios talium operum tamquam divinorum et ad deos colendos pertinentium admiratores verecundatur offendere. Sequitur tamen et ea velut inquirendo commemorat, quae sobrie considerata tribui non possunt nisi malignis et fallacibus potestatibus. Quaerit enim cur tamquam melioribus inuocatis quasi peioribus imperetur, ut iniusta praecepta hominis exsequantur; cur adtrectatum re Veneria non exaudiant inprecantem, cum ipsi ad incestos quosque concubitus quoslibet ducere non morentur; cur animantibus suos antistites oportere abstinere denuntient, ne uaporibus profecto corporeis polluantur, ipsi vero et aliis uaporibus inliciantur et nidoribus hostiarum, cumque a cadaveris contactu prohibeatur inspector, plerumque illa cadaveribus celebrentur; quid sit, quod non daemoni vel alicui animae defuncti, sed ipsi soli et lunae aut cuicumque caelestium homo vitio cuilibet obnoxius intendit minas eosque territat falso, ut eis extorqueat veritatem. Nam et caelum se conlidere comminatur et cetera similia homini inpossibilia, ut illi dii tamquam insipientissimi pueri falsis et ridiculis comminationibus territi quod imperatur efficiant. Dicit etiam scripsisse Chaeremonem quendam, talium sacrorum vel potius sacrilegiorum peritum, ea, quae apud Aegyptios sunt celebrata rumoribus vel de Iside vel de Osiri marito eius, maximam vim habere cogendi deos, ut faciant imperata, quando ille, qui carminibus cogit, ea se prodere vel euertere comminatur, ubi se etiam Osiridis membra dissipaturum terribiliter dicit, si facere iussa neglexerint. Haec atque huius modi uana et insana hominem diis minari, nec quibuslibet, sed ipsis caelestibus et siderea luce fulgentibus, nec sine effectu, sed violenta potestate cogentem atque his terroribus ad facienda quae voluerit perducentem, merito Porphyrius admiratur; immo vero sub specie mirantis et causas rerum talium requirentis dat intellegi illo s haec agere spiritus, quorum genus superius sub aliorum opinatione descripsit, non, ut ipse posuit, natura, sed vitio fallaces, qui simulant deos et animas defunctorum, daemones autem non, ut ait ipse, simulant, sed plane sunt. Et quod ei videtur herbis et lapidibus et animantibus et sonis certis quibusdam ac vocibus et figurationibus atque figmentis, quibusdam etiam observatis in caeli conversione motibus siderum fabricari in terra ab hominibus potestates idoneas variis effectibus exsequendis, totum hoc ad eosdem ipsos daemones pertinet ludificatores animarum sibimet subditarum et voluptaria sibi ludibria de hominum erroribus exhibentes. Aut ergo re vera dubitans et inquirens ista Porphyrius ea tamen commemorat, quibus conuincantur et redarguantur, nec ad eas potestates, quae nobis ad beatam vitam capessendam favent, sed ad deceptores daemones pertinere monstrentur; aut, ut meliora de philosopho suspicemur, eo modo voluit hominem Aegyptium talibus erroribus deditum et aliqua magna se scire opinantem non superba quasi auctoritate doctoris offendere, nec aperte adversantis altercatione turbare, sed quasi quaerentis et discere cupientis humilitate ad ea cogitanda convertere et quam sint contemnenda vel etiam devitanda monstrare. Denique prope ad epistulae finem petit se ab eo doceri, quae sit ad beatitudinem via ex Aegyptia sapientia. Ceterum illos, quibus conversatio cum diis ad hoc esset, ut ob inveniendum fugitivum vel praedium comparandum, aut propter nuptias vel mercaturam vel quid huius modi mentem divinam inquietarent, frustra eos videri dicit coluisse sapientiam; illa etiam ipsa numina, cum quibus conversarentur, etsi de ceteris rebus vera praedicerent, tamen quoniam de beatitudine nihil cautum nec satis idoneum monerent, nec deos illos esse nec benignos daemones, sed aut illum, qui dicitur fallax, aut humanum omne commentum. ||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 vapors, 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 bring about all these things which have the appearance of good or evil, but that what is really good they never help us in, and are indeed unacquainted with, for they make wickedness easy, but throw obstacles in the path of those who eagerly follow virtue; and that they are filled with pride and rashness, delight in sacrificial odors, are taken with flattery. These and the other characteristics of this race of deceitful and malicious spirits, who come into the souls of men and delude their senses, both 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.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, Chжremon, 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 fulfill 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 favorable 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.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c12"><b>BOOK X</b> [XII] Verum quia tanta et talia geruntur his artibus, ut universum modum humanae facultatis excedant: quid restat, nisi ut ea, quae mirifice tamquam divinitus praedici vel fieri videntur nec tamen ad unius Dei cultum referuntur, cui simpliciter inhaerere fatentibus quoque Platonicis et per multa testantibus solum beatificum bonum est, malignorum daemonum ludibria et seductoria inpedimenta, quae vera pietate cavenda sunt, prudenter intellegantur? Porro autem quaecumque miracula sive per angelos sive quocumque modo ita divinitus fiunt, ut Dei unius, in quo solo beata vita est, cultum religionemque commendent, ea vere ab eis vel per eos, qui nos secundum veritatem pietatemque diligunt, fieri ipso Deo in.illis operante credendum est. Neque enim audiendi sunt, qui Deum inuisibilem visibilia miracula operari negant, cum ipse etiam secundum ipsos fecerit mundum, quem certe visibilem negare non possunt. Quidquid igitur mirabile fit in hoc mundo, profecto minus est quam totus hic mundus, id est caelum et terra et omnia quae in eis sunt, quae certe Deus fecit. Sicut autem ipse qui fecit, ita modus quo fecit occultus est et inconprehensibilis homini. Quamuis itaque miracula visibilium naturarum videndi assiduitate viluerint, tamen, cum ea sapienter intuemur, inusitatissimis rarissimisque maiora sunt. Nam et omni miraculo, quod fit per hominem, maius miraculum est homo. Quapropter Deus, qui fecit visibilia caelum et terram, non dedignatur facere visibilia miracula in caelo vel terra, quibus ad se inuisibilem colendum excitet animam adhuc visibilibus deditam; ubi vero et quando faciat, incommutabile consilium penes ipsum est, in cuius dispositione iam tempora facta sunt quaecumque futura sunt. Nam temporalia movens temporaliter non movetur, nec aliter novit facienda quam facta, nec aliter inuocantes exaudit quam inuocaturos videt. Nam et cum exaudiunt angeli eius, ipse in eis exaudit, tamquam in vero nec manu facto templo suo, sicut in hominibus sanctis suis, eiusque temporaliter fiunt iussa aeterna eius lege conspecta. ||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.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c13"><b>BOOK X</b> [XIII] Nec movere debet, quod, cum sit inuisibilis, saepe visibiliter patribus apparuisse memoratur. Sicut enim sonus, quo auditur sententia in silentio intellegentiae constituta, non est hoc quod ipsa: ita et species, qua visus est Deus in natura inuisibili constitutus, non erat quod ipse. Verum tamen ipse in eadem specie corporali videbatur, sicut illa sententia ipsa in sono vocis auditur; nec illi ignorabant inuisibilem Deum in specie corporali, quod ipse non erat, se videre. Nam et loquebatur cum loquente Moyses et ei tamen dicebat.: Si inveni gratiam ante te, ostende mihi temet ipsum, scienter ut videam te. Cum igitur oporteret Dei legem in edictis angelorum terribiliter dari, non uni homini paucisue sapientibus, sed universae genti et populo ingenti: coram eodem populo magna facta sunt in monte, ubi lex per unum dabatur, conspiciente multitudine metuenda et tremenda quae fiebant. Non enim populus Israel sic Moysi credidit, quem ad modum suo Lycurgo Lacedaemonii, quod a Iove seu Apolline leges, quas condidit, accepisset. Cum enim lex dabatur populo, qua coli unus iubebatur Deus, in conspectu ipsius populi, quantum sufficere divina providentia iudicabat, mirabilibus rerum signis et motibus apparebat ad eandem legem dandam creatori seruire creaturam. ||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 recognized 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 Your sight, show me Yourself, that I may see and know You." Exodus 33:13 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 Lacedжmonians 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.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c14"><b>BOOK X</b> [XIV] Sicut autem unius hominis, ita humani generis, quod ad Dei populum pertinet, recta eruditio per quosdam articulos temporum tamquam aetatum profecit accessibus, ut a temporalibus ad aeterna capienda et a visibilibus ad inuisibilia surgeretur; ita sane ut etiam illo tempore, quo visibilia promittebantur divinitus praemia, unus tamen colendus commendaretur Deus, ne mens humana vel pro ipsis terrenis vitae transitoriae beneficiis cuiquam nisi vero animae creatori et domino subderetur. Omnia quippe, quae praestare hominibus vel angeli vel homines possunt, in unius esse Omnipotentis potestate quisquis diffitetur, insanit. De providentia certe Plotinus Platonicus disputat eamque a summo Deo, cuius est intellegibilis atque ineffabilis pulchritudo, usque ad haec terrena et ima pertingere flosculorum atque foliorum pulchritudine conprobat; quae omnia quasi abiecta et velocissime pereuntia decentissimos formarum suarum numeros habere non posse confirmat, nisi inde formentur, ubi forma intellegibilis et incommutabilis simul habens omnia perseuerat. Hoc Dominus Iesus ibi ostendit, ubi ait: Considerate lilia agri, non laborant neque neunt. Dico autem vobis, quia nec Salomon in tota gloria sua sic amictus est, sicut unum ex eis. Quod si faenum agri, quod hodie est et cras in clibanum mittitur, Deus sic uestit: quanto magos vos, modicae fidei? Optime igitur anima humana adhuc terrenis desideriis infirma ea ipsa, quae temporaliter exoptat bona infima atque terrena vitae huic transitoriae necessaria et prae illius vitae sempiternis beneficiis contemnenda, non tamen nisi ab uno Deo expectare consuescit, ut ab illius cultu etiam in istorum desiderio non recedat, ad quem contemptu eorum et ab eis aversione perveniat. ||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. 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 today is and tomorrow is cast into the oven, how much more shall He clothe you, O you of little faith.!" Matthew 6:28-30 It was best, therefore, that the soul of man, which was still weakly desiring earthly things, should be accustomed to seek from God alone even these petty temporal 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.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c15"><b>BOOK X</b> [XV] Sic itaque divinae providentiae placuit ordinare temporum cursum, ut, quem ad modum dixi et in actibus apostolorum legitur, lex in edictis angelorum daretur de unius veri Dei cultu, in quibus et persona ipsius Dei, non quidem per suam substantiam, quae semper corruptibilibus oculis inuisibilis permanet, sed certis indiciis per subiectam creatori creaturam visibiliter appareret et syllabatim per transitorias temporum morulas humanae linguae vocibus loqueretur, qui in sua natura non corporaliter, sed spiritaliter, non sensibiliter, sed intellegibiliter, non temporaliter, sed, ut ita dicam, aeternaliter nec incipit loqui nec desinit; quod apud illum sincerius audiunt, non corporis aure, sed mentis, ministri eius et nuntii, qui eius veritate incommutabili perfruuntur inmortaliter beati; et quod faciendum modis ineffabilibus audiunt et usque in ista visibilia atque sensibilia perducendum, incunctanter atque indifficulter efficiunt. Haec autem lex distributione temporum data est, quae prius haberet, ut dictum est, promissa terrena, quibus tamen significarentur aeterna, quae visibilibus sacramentis celebrarent multi, intellegerent pauci. Vnius tamen Dei cultus apertissima illic et vocum et rerum omnium contestatione praecipitur, non unius de turba, sed qui fecit caelum et terram et omnem animam et omnem spiritum, qui non est quod ipse. Ille enim fecit, haec facta sunt, atque ut sint et bene se habeant, eius indigent, a quo facta sunt. ||And so it has pleased Divine Providence, as I have said, and as we read in the Acts of the Apostles, Acts 7:53 that the law 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.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c16"><b>BOOK X</b> [XVI] Quibus igitur angelis de beata et sempiterna vita credendum esse censemus? Vtrum eis, qui se religionis ritibus coli volunt sibi sacra et sacrificia flagitantes a mortalibus exhiberi, an eis, qui hunc omnem cultum uni Deo creatori omnium deberi dicunt eique reddendum vera pietate praecipiunt, cuius et ipsi contemplatione beati sunt et nos futuros esse promittunt? Illa namque visio Dei tantae pulchritudinis visio est et tanto amore dignissima, ut sine hac quibuslibet aliis bovis praeditum atque abundantem non dubitet Plotinus infelicissimum dicere. Cum ergo ad hunc unum quidam angeli, quidam vero ad se ipsos latria colendos signis mirabilibus excitent, et hoc ita, ut illi istos coli prohibeant, isti autem illum prohibere non audeant: quibus potius sit credendum, respondeant Platonici, respondeant quicumque philosophi, respondeant theurgi vel potius periurgi; hoc enim sunt omnes illae artes vocabulo digniores; postremo respondeant homines, si ullus naturae suae sensus, quod rationales creati sunt, ex aliqua parte vivit in eis; respondeant, inquam, eisne sacrificandum sit diis vel angelis, qui sibi sacrificari iubent, an illi uni, cui iubent hi qui et sibi et istis prohibent? Si nec isti nec illi ulla miracula facerent, sed tantum praeciperent, alii quidem ut sibi sacrificaretur, alii vero id uetarent, sed uni tantum iuberent Deo: satis deberet pietas ipsa discernere, quid horum de fastu superbiae, quid de vera religione descenderet. Plus etiam dicam: si tantum hi mirabilibus factis humanas animas permoverent, qui sacrificia sibi expetunt, illi autem, qui hoc prohibent et uni tantum Deo sacrificari iubent, nequaquam ista visibilia miracula facere dignarentur: profecto non sensu corporis, sed ratione mentis praeponenda eorum esset auctoritas. Cum vero Deus id egerit ad commendanda eloquia veritatis suae, ut per istos inmortales nuntios non sui fastum, sed maiestatem illius praedicantes faceret maiora, certiora, clariora, miracula ne infirmis piis illi, qui sacrificia sibi expetunt, falsam religionem facilius persuaderent, eo quod sensibus eorum quaedam stupenda monstrarent: quem tandem ita desipere libeat, ut non vera eligat quae sectetur, ubi et ampliora invenit quae miretur? Illa quippe miracula deorum gentilium, quae commendat historia (non ea dico, quae interuallis temporum occultis ipsius mundi causis, verum tamen sub divina providentia constitutis et ordinatis monstrosa contingunt; quales sunt inusitati partus animalium et caelo terraque rerum insolita facies, sive tantum terrens sive etiam nocens, quae procurari atque mitigari daemonicis ritibus fallacissima eorum astutia perhibentur; sed ea dico, quae vi ac potestate eorum fieri satis evidenter apparet, ut est quod effigies deorum Penatium, quas de Troia Aeneas fugiens advexit, de loco in locum migrasse referuntur; quod cotem Tarquinius nouacula secuit; quod Epidaurius serpens Aesculapio naviganti Romam comes adhaesit; quod navem, qua simulacrum matris Phrygiae uehebatur, tantis hominum boumque conatibus inmobilem redditam una muliercula zona alligatam ad suae pudicitiae testimonium movit et traxit; quod virgo Vestalis, de cuius corruptione quaestio vertebatur, aqua inpleto cribro de Tiberi neque perfluente abstulit controversiam) _ haec ergo atque huius modi nequaquam illis, quae in populo Dei facta legimus, virtute ac magnitudine conferenda sunt; quanto minus ea, quae illorum quoque populorum, qui tales deos coluerunt, legibus iudicata sunt prohibenda atque plectenda, magica scilicet vel theurgica! quorum pleraque specie tenus mortalium sensus imaginaria ludificatione decipiunt, quale est lunam deponere, "donec suppositas, ut ait Lucanus, propior despumet in herbas"; quaedam vero etsi nonnullis piorum factis videantur opere coaequari, finis ipse, quo discernuntur, incomparabiliter haec nostra ostendit excellere. Illis enim multi tanto minus sacrificiis colendi sunt, quanto magis haec expetunt; his vero unus commendatur Deus, qui se nullis talibus indigere et scripturarum suarum testificatione et eorundem postea sacrificiorum remotione demonstrat. Si ergo angeli sibi expetunt sacrificium, praeponendi eis sunt, qui non sibi, sed Deo creatori omnium, cui seruiunt. Hinc enim ostendunt quam sincero amore nos diligant, quando per sacrificium non sibi, sed ei nos subdere volunt, cuius et ipsi contemplatione beati sunt, et ad eum nos pervenire, a quo ipsi non recesserunt. Si autem angeli, qui non uni sed plurimis sacrificia fieri volunt, non sibi, sed eis diis volunt, quorum deorum angeli sunt: etiam sic eis praeponendi sunt illi, qui unius Dei deorum angeli sunt, cui sacrificari sic iubent, ut alicui alteri uetent, cum eorum nullus huic uetet, cui uni isti sacrificari iubent. Porro si, quod magis indicat eorum superba fallacia, nec boni nec bonorum deorum angeli sunt, sed daemones mali, qui non unum solum ac summum Deum, sed se ipsos sacrificiis coli volunt: quod maius quam unius Dei contra eos eligendum est praesidium, cui seruiunt angeli boni, qui non sibi, sed illi iubent ut sacrificio seruiamus, cuius nos ipsi sacrificium esse debemus? ||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. 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,-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 endeavor to convince us by stupendous appeals to our senses, who is so utterly unreasonable as not to choose and follow the truth, when he finds that it is heralded by even more striking evidences than falsehood?As for those miracles which history ascribes to the gods of the 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 Жneas 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 Жsculapius 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?" 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?
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c17"><b>BOOK X</b> [XVII] Proinde lex Dei, quae in edictis data est angelorum, in qua unus Deus deorum religione sacrorum iussus est coli, alii vero quilibet prohibiti, in arca erat posita, quae arca testimonii nuncupata est. Quo nomine satis significatur non Deum, qui per illa omnia colebatur, circumcludi solere vel contineri loco, cum responsa eius et quaedam humanis sensibus darentur signa ex illius arcae loco, sed voluntatis eius hinc testimonia perhiberi; quod etiam ipsa lex erat in tabulis conscripta lapideis et in arca, ut dixi, posita, quam tempore peregrinationis in heremo cum tabernaculo, quod similiter appellatum est tabernaculum testimonii, cum debita sacerdotes veneratione portabant; signumque erat, quod per diem nubes apparebat, quae sicut ignis nocte fulgebat; quae nubes cum moveretur, castra movebantur, et ubi staret, castra ponebantur. Reddita sunt autem illi legi magni miraculi testimonia praeter ista, quae dixi, et praeter voces, quae ex illius arcae loco edebantur. Nam cum terram promissionis intrantibus eadem arca transiret, Iordanes fluuius ex parte superiore subsistens et ex inferiore decurrens et ipsi et populo siccum praebuit transeundi locum. Deinde civitatis, quae prima hostilis occurrit more gentium deos plurimos colens, septiens eadem arca circumacta muri repente ceciderunt, nulla manu oppugnati, nullo ariete percussi. Post haec etiam cum iam in terra promissionis essent et eadem arca propter eorum peccata fuisset ab hostibus capta, hi, qui ceperant, in templo eam dei sui, quem prae ceteris colebant, honorifice conlocarunt abeuntesque clauserunt, apertoque postridie simulacrum, cui supplicabant, invenerunt conlapsum deformiterque confractum. Deinde ipsi prodigiis acti deformiusque puniti arcam divini testimonii populo, unde ceperant, reddiderunt. Ipsa autem redditio qualis fuit! Inposuerunt eam plaustro eique ivuencas, a quibus vitulos sugentes abstraxerant, subiunxerunt et eas quo vellent ire siverunt, etiam hic vim divinam explorare cupientes. At illae sine duce homine atque rectore ad Hebraeos viam pertinaciter gradientes nec reuocatae mugitibus esurientium filiorum magnum sacramentum suis cultoribus reportarunt. Haec atque huius modi Deo parua sunt, sed magna terrendis salubriter erudiendisque mortalibus. Si enim philosophi praecipueque Platonici rectius ceteris sapuisse laudantur, sicut paulo ante commemoravi, quod divinam providentiam haec quoque rerum infima atque terrena administrare docuerunt numerosarum testimonio pulchritudinum, quae non solum in corporibus animalium, verum in herbis etiam faenoque gignuntur: quanto evidentius haec adtestantur divinitati, quae ad horam praedicationis eius fiunt, ubi ea religio commendatur, quae omnibus caelestibus, terrestribus, infernis sacrificari uetat, uni Deo tantum iubens, qui solus diligens et dilectus beatos facit eorumque sacrificiorum tempora imperata praefiniens eaque per meliorem sacerdotem in melius mutanda praedicens non ista se appetere, sed per haec alia potiora significare testatur, non ut ipse his honoribus sublimetur, sed ut nos ad eum colendum eique cohaerendum igne amoris eius accensi, quod nobis, non illi, bonum est, excitemur. ||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 favorite god, and left it shut up there, but, on opening the temple next day, they found the image they used to pray to fallen to the ground and shamefully shattered. Then, being them selves 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 honors, 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?
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c18"><b>BOOK X</b> [XVIII] An dicet aliquis ista falsa esse miracula nec fuisse facta, sed mendaciter scripta? Quisquis hoc dicit, si de his rebus negat omnino ullis litteris esse credendum, potest etiam dicere nec deos ullos curare mortalia. Non enim se aliter colendos esse persuaserunt nisi mirabilium operum effectibus, quorum et historia gentium testis est, quarum dii se ostentare mirabiles potius quam utiles ostendere potuerunt. Vnde hoc opere nostro, cuius hunc iam decimum librum habemus in manibus, non eos suscepimus refellendos, qui vel ullam esse vim divinam negant vel humana non curare contendunt, sed eos, qui nostro Deo conditori sanctae et gloriosissimae civitatis deos suos praeferunt, nescientes eum ipsum esse etiam mundi huius visibilis et mutabilis inuisibilem et incommutabilem conditorem et vitae beatae non de his, quae condidit, sed de se ipso verissimum largitorem. Eius enim propheta veracissimus ait: Mihi autem adhaerere Deo bonum est. De fine boni namque inter philosophos quaeritur, ad quod adipiscendum omnia officia referenda sunt. Nec dixit iste: Mihi autem divitiis abundare bonum est, aut insigniri purpura et sceptro vel diademate excellere, aut, quod nonnulli etiam philosophorum dicere non erubuerunt: Mihi voluptas corporis bonum est; aut quod melius velut meliores dicere visi sunt: Mihi virtus animi mei bonum est; sed: Mihi, inquit, adhaerere Deo bonum est. Hoc eum docuerat, cui uni tantummodo sacrificandum sancti quoque angeli eius miraculorum etiam contestatione monuerunt. Vnde et ipse sacrificium eius factus erat, cuius igne intellegibili correptus ardebat, et in eius ineffabilem incorporeumque complexum sancto desiderio ferebatur. Porro autem si multorum deorum cultores (qualescumque deos suos esse arbitrentur) ab eis facta esse miracula vel civilium rerum historiae vel libris magicis sive, quod honestius putant, theurgicis credunt: quid causae est, cur illis litteris nolint credere ista facta esse, quibus tanto maior debetur fides, quanto super omnes est magnus, cui uni soli sacrificandum esse praecipiunt? ||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." 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?
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c19"><b>BOOK X</b> [XIX] Qui autem putant haec visibilia sacrificia diis aliis congruere, illi vero tamquam inuisibili inuisibilia et maiora maiori meliorique meliora, qualia sunt purae mentis et bonae voluntatis officia: profecto nesciunt haec ita signa esse illorum, sicut verba sonantia signa sunt rerum. Quocirca sicut orantes atque laudantes ad eum dirigimus significantes voces, cui res ipsas in corde quas significamus offerimus: ita sacrificantes non alteri visibile sacrificium offerendum esse noverim usquam illi, cuius in cordibus nostris inuisibile sacrificium nos ipsi esse debemus. Tunc nobis favent nobisque congaudent atque ad hoc ipsum nos pro suis viribus adivuant angeli quique virtutesque superiores et ipsa bonitate ac pietate potentiores. Si autem illis haec exhibere voluerimus, non libenter accipiunt, et cum ad homines ita mittuntur, ut eorum praesentia sentiatur, apertissime uetant. Sunt exempla in litteris sanctis. Putaverunt quidam deferendum angelis honorem vel adorando vel sacrificando, qui debetur Deo, et eorum sunt admonitione prohibiti iussique hoc ei deferre, cui uni fas esse noverunt. Imitati sunt angelos sanctos etiam sancti homines Dei. Nam Paulus et Barnabas in Lycaonia facto quodam miraculo sanitatis putati sunt dii, eisque Lycaonii victimas immolare voluerunt; quod a se humili pietate removentes eis in quem crederent adnuntiaverunt Deum. Nec ob aliud fallaces illi superbe sibi hoc exigunt, nisi quia vero Deo deberi sciunt. Non enim re vera, ut ait Porphyrius et nonnulli putant, cadaverinis nidoribus, sed divinis honoribus gaudent. Copiam vero nidorum magnam habent undique, et si amplius vellent, ipsi sibi poterant exhibere. Qui ergo divinitatem sibi arrogant spiritus, non cuiuslibet corporis fumo, sed supplicantis animo delectantur, cui decepto subiectoque dominentur, intercludentes iter ad Deum verum, ne sit homo illius sacrificium, dum sacrificatur cuipiam praeter illum. ||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 honor 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 honor, and announced to them the God in whom they should believe. And those deceitful and proud spirits, who exact worship, do so simply because they know it to be due to the true God. For that which they take pleasure in is not, as Porphyry says and some fancy, the smell of the victims, but divine honors. They have, in fact, plenty odors 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 carcasses but with the suppliant spirit which they deceive and hold in subjection, and hinder from drawing near to God, preventing him from offering himself in sacrifice to God by inducing him to sacrifice to others.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c20"><b>BOOK X</b> [XX] Vnde verus ille mediator, in quantum formam serui accipiens mediator effectus est Dei et hominum, homo Christus Iesus, cum in forma Dei sacrificium cum Patre sumat, cum quo et unus Deus est, tamen in forma serui sacrificium maluit esse quam sumere, ne vel hac occasione quisquam existimaret cuilibet sacrificandum esse creaturae. Per hoc et sacerdos est, ipse offerens, ipse et oblatio. Cuius rei sacramentum cotidianum esse voluit ecclesiae sacrificium, quae cum ipsius capitis corpus sit, se ipsam per ipsum discit offerre. Huius veri sacrificii multiplicia variaque signa erant sacrificia prisca sanctorum, cum hoc unum per multa figuraretur, tamquam verbis multis res una diceretur, ut sine fastidio multum commendaretur. Huic summo veroque sacrificio cuncta sacrificia falsa cesserunt. ||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.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c21"><b>BOOK X</b> [XXI] Moderatis autem praefinitisque temporibus etiam potestas permissa daemonibus, ut hominibus quos possident excitatis inimicitias adversus Dei civitatem tyrannice exerceant sibique sacrificia non solum ab offerentibus sumant et a volentibus expetant, verum etiam ab inuitis persequendo violenter extorqueant, non solum perniciosa non est, sed etiam utilis invenitur ecclesiae, ut martyrum numerus impleatur; quos civitas Dei tanto clariores et honoratiores cives habet, quanto fortius adversus impietatis peccatum et usque ad sanguinem certant. Hos multo elegantius, si ecclesiastica loquendi consuetudo pateretur, nostros heroas vocaremus. Hoc enim nomen a Iunone dicitur tractum, quod Graece Iuno *(/Hra appellatur, et ideo nescio quis filius eius secundum Graecorum fabulas Heros fuerit nuncupatus, hoc videlicet veluti mysticum significante fabula, quod aer Iunoni deputetur, ubi volunt cum daemonibus heroas habitare, quo nomine appellant alicuius meriti animas defunctorum. Sed a contrario martyres nostri heroes nuncuparentur, si, ut dixi, usus ecclesiastici sermonis admitteret, non quo eis esset cum daemonibus in aere societas, sed quod eosdem daemones, id est aerias vincerent potestates et in eis ipsam, quid quid putatur significare, Iunonem, quae non usquequaque inconvenienter a poetis inducitur inimica virtutibus et caelum petentibus viris fortibus inuida. Sed rursus ei succumbit infeliciter ceditque Vergilius, ut, cum apud eum illa dicat: Vincor ab Aenea, ipsum Aenean admoneat Helenus quasi consilio religioso et dicat: Iunoni cane vota libens, dominamque potentemSupplicibus supera donis. Ex qua opinione Porphyrius, quamuis non ex sua sententia, sed ex aliorum, dicit bonum deum vel genium non venire in hominem, nisi malus fuerit ante placatus; tamquam fortiora sint apud eos numina mala quam bona, quando quidem mala inpediunt adiutoria bonorum, nisi eis placata dent locum, malisque nolentibus bona prodesse non possunt; nocere autem mala possunt, non sibi valentibus resistere bonis. Non est ista verae veraciterque sanctae religionis via; non sic Iunonem, hoc est aerias potestates piorum virtutibus inuidentes, nostri martyres vincunt. Non omnino, si dici usitate posset, heroes nostri supplicibus donis, sed virtutibus divinis Heran superant. Commodius quippe Scipio Africanus est cognominatus, quod virtute Africam vicerit, quam si hostes donis placasset, ut parcerent. ||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 honored citizens, because they have striven even to blood against the sin of impiety. If the ordinary language of the Church allowed it, we might more elegantly call these men our heroes. For this name is said to be derived from Juno, who in Greek is called Hкrк, 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 Жneas," Helenus gives Жneas himself this religious advice:"Pay vows to Juno: overbearHer queenly soul with gift and prayer."In conformity with this opinion, Porphyry- expressing, however, not so much his own views as other people's-says that a good god or genius cannot come to a man unless the evil genius has been first of all propitiated, implying that the evil deities had greater power than the good; for, until they have been appeased and give 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 Hкrк, not by suppliant gifts, but by divine virtues. As Scipio, who conquered Africa by his valor, is more suitably styled Africanus than if he had appeased his enemies by gifts, and so won their mercy.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c22"><b>BOOK X</b> [XXII] Vera pietate homines Dei aeriam potestatem inimicam contrariamque pietati exorcizando eiciunt, non placando, omnesque temptationes adversitatis eius vincunt orando non ipsam, sed Deum suum adversus ipsam. Non enim aliquem vincit aut subiugat nisi societate peccati. In eius ergo nomine vincitur, qui hominem adsumpsit egitque sine peccato, ut in ipso sacerdote ac sacrificio fieret remissio peccatorum, id est per mediatorem Dei et hominum, hominem Christum Iesum, per quem facta peccatorum purgatione reconciliamur Deo. Non enim nisi peccatis homines separantur a Deo, quorum in hac vita non fit nostra virtute, sed divina miseratione purgatio, per indulgentiam illius, non per nostram potentiam; quia et ipsa quantulacumque virtus, quae dicitur nostra, illius est nobis bonitate concessa. Multum autem nobis in hac carne tribueremus, nisi usque ad eius depositionem sub venia viveremus. Propterea ergo nobis per Mediatorem praestita est gratia, ut polluti carne peccati carnis peccati similitudine mundaremur. Hac Dei gratia, qua in nos ostendit magnam misericordiam suam, et in hac vita per fidem regimur, et post hanc vitam per ipsam speciem incommutabilis veritatis ad perfectionem plenissimam perducemur. ||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.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c23"><b>BOOK X</b> [XXIII] Dicit etiam Porphyrius divinis oraculis fuisse responsum nos non purgari lunae teletis atque solis, ut hinc ostenderetur nullorum deorum teletis hominem posse purgari. Cuius enim teletae purgant, si lunae solisque non purgant, quos inter caelestes deos praecipuos habent? Denique eodem dicit oraculo expressum principia posse purgare, ne forte, cum dictum esset non purgare teletas solis et lunae, alicuius alterius dei de turba valere ad purgandum teletae crederentur. Quae autem dicat esse principia tamquam Platonicus, novimus. Dicit enim Deum Patrem et Deum Filium, quem Graece appellat paternum intellectum vel paternam mentem; de Spiritu autem sancto aut nihil aut non aperte aliquid dicit; quamuis quem alium dicat horum medium, non intellego. Si enim tertiam, sicut Plotinus, ubi de tribus principalibus substantiis disputat, animae naturam etiam iste vellet intellegi, non utique diceret horum medium, id est Patris et Filii medium. Postponit quippe Plotinus animae naturam paterno intellevi; iste autem cum dicit medium, non postponit, sed interponit. Et nimirum hoc dixit, ut potuit sive ut voluit, quod nos sanctum Spiritum, nec Patris tantum nec Filii tantum, sed utriusque Spiritum dicimus. Liberis enim verbis loquuntur philosophi, nec in rebus ad intellegendum difficillimis offensionem religiosarum aurium pertimescunt. Nobis autem ad certam regulam loqui fas est, ne verborum licentia etiam de rebus, quae his significantur, impiam gignat opinionem. ||Even Porphyry asserts that it was revealed by divine oracles that we are not purified by any sacrifices to sun or moon, meaning it to be inferred that we are not purified by sacrificing to any gods. For what mysteries can purify, if those of the sun and moon, which are 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. For he speaks of God the Father and God the Son, whom he calls (writing in Greek) the intellect or mind of the Father; but of the Holy Spirit he says either nothing, or nothing plainly, for I do not understand what other he speaks of as holding the middle place between these two. For if, like Plotinus in his discussion regarding the three principal substances, he wished us to understand by this third the soul of nature, he would certainly not have given it the middle place between these two, that is, between the Father and the Son. For Plotinus places the soul of nature after the intellect of the Father, while Porphyry, making it the 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.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c24"><b>BOOK X</b> [XXIV] Nos itaque ita non dicimus duo vel tria principia, cum de Deo loquimur, sicut nec duos deos vel tres nobis licitum est dicere, quamuis de unoquoque loquentes, vel de Patre vel de Filio vel de Spiritu sancto, etiam singulum quemque Deum esse fateamur, nec dicamus tamen quod haeretici Sabelliani, eundem esse Patrem, qui est et Filius, et eundem Spiritum sanctum, qui est et Pater et Filius, sed Patrem esse Filii Patrem, et Filium Patris Filium, et Patris et Filii Spiritum sanctum nec Patrem esse nec Filium. Verum itaque dictum est non purgari hominem nisi principio, quamuis pluraliter apud eos sint dicta principia. XXIV. Sed subditus Porphyrius inuidis potestatibus, de quibus et erubescebat, et eas libere redarguere formidabat, noluit intellegere Dominum Christum esse principium, cuius incarnatione purgamur. Eum quippe in ipsa carne contempsit, quam propter sacrificium nostrae purgationis adsumpsit, magnum scilicet sacramentum ea superbia non intellegens, quam sua ille humilitate deiecit verus benignusque Mediator, in ea se ostendens mortalitate mortalibus, quam maligni fallacesque mediatores non habendo se superbius extulerunt miserisque hominibus adiutorium deceptorium velut inmortales mortalibus promiserunt. Bonus itaque verusque Mediator ostendit peccatum esse malum, non carnis substantiam vel naturam, quae cum anima hominis et suscipi sine peccato potuit et haberi, et morte deponi et in melius resurrectione mutari; nec ipsam mortem, quamuis esset poena peccati, quam tamen pro nobis sine peccato ipse persolvit, peccando esse vitandam, sed potius, si facultas datur, pro iustitia perferendam. Ideo enim soluere potuit moriendo peccata, quia et mortuus est, et non pro peccato. Hunc ille Platonicus non cognovit esse principium; nam cognosceret purgatorium. Neque enim caro principium est aut anima humana, sed Verbum per quod facta sunt omnia. Non ergo caro per se ipsa mundat, sed per Verbum a quo suscepta est, cum Verbum caro factum est et habitavit in nobis. Nam de carne sua manducanda mystice loquens, cum hi qui non intellexerunt offensi recederent dicentes: Durus est hic sermo, quis eum potest audire? respondit manentibus ceteris: Spiritus est qui vivificat, caro autem non prodest quicquam. Principium ergo suscepta anima et carne et animam credentium mundat et carnem. Ideo quaerentibus Iudaeis quis esset respondit se esse principium. Quod utique carnales, infirmi, peccatis obnoxii et ignorantiae tenebris obuoluti nequaquam percipere possemus, nisi ab eo mundaremur atque sanaremur per hoc quod eramus et non eramus. Eramus enim homines, sed iusti non eramus; in illius autem incarnatione natura humana erat, sed iusta, non peccatrix erat. Haec est mediatio, qua manus lapsis iacentibusque porrecta est; hoc est semen dispositum per angelos, in quorum edictis et lex dabatur, qua et unus Deus coli iubebatur et hic Mediator venturus promittebatur. ||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 recognize 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 recognized by Porphyry as the Principle, otherwise he would have recognized Him as the Purifier. The Principle is neither the flesh nor the human soul in Christ but the Word by which all things were made. The flesh, therefore, does not 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." John 1:14 For speaking mystically of eating His flesh, when those who did not understand Him were offended and went away, saying, "This is an hard saying, who can hear it?" He answered to the rest who remained, "It is the Spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing." John 6:60-64 The Principle, therefore, having assumed a human soul and flesh, cleanses the soul and flesh of believers. Therefore, when the Jews asked Him who He was, He answered that He was the Principle. And this we carnal and feeble men, liable to sin, and 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.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c25"><b>BOOK X</b> [XXV] Huius sacramenti fide etiam iusti antiqui mundari pie vivendo potuerunt, non solum antequam lex populo Hebraeo daretur (neque enim eis praedicator Deus vel angeli defuerunt), sed ipsius quoque legis temporibus, quamuis in figuris rerum spiritalium habere videretur promissa carnalia, propter quod uetus dicitur testamentum. Nam et prophetae tunc erant, per quos, sicut per angelos, eadem promissio praedicata est, et ex illorum numero erat, cuius tam magnam divinamque sententiam de boni humani fine paulo ante commemoravi: Mihi autem adhaerere Deo bonum est. In quo plane psalmo duorum testamentorum, quae dicuntur uetus et nouum, satis est declarata distinctio. Propter carnales enim terrenasque promissiones, cum eas impiis abundare perspiceret, dicit pedes suos paene fuisse commotos et effusos in lapsum propemodum gressus suos, tamquam frustra Deo ipse seruisset, cum ea felicitate, quam de illo expectabat, contemptores eius florere perspiceret; seque in rei huius inquisitione laborasse, volentem cur ita esset adprehendere, donec intraret in sanctuarium Dei et intellegeret in novissima eorum, qui felices videbantur erranti. Tunc eos intellexit in eo, quod se extulerunt, sicut dicit, fuisse deiectos et defecisse ac perisse propter iniquitates suas; totumque illud culmen temporalis felicitatis ita eis factum tamquam somnium evigilantis, qui se repente invenit suis quae somniabat fallacibus gaudiis destitutum. Et quoniam in hac terra vel in civitate terrena magni sibi videbantur: Domine, inquit, in civitate tua imaginem eorum ad nihilum rediges. Quid huic tamen utile fuerit etiam ipsa terrena non nisi ab uno vero Deo quaerere, in cuius potestate sunt omnia, satis ostendit ubi ait: Velut pecus factus sum apud te, et ego semper tecum. Velut pecus dixit utique "non intellegens." "Ea quippe a te desiderare debui, quae mihi cum impiis non possunt esse communia, quibus eos cum abundare cernerem, putavi me incassum tibi seruisse, quando et illi haec haberent, qui tibi seruire noluissent. Tamen ego semper tecum, quia etiam in talium rerum desiderio deos alios non quaesivi." Ac per hoc sequitur: Tenuisti manum dexterae meae, in voluntate tua deduxisti me, et cum gloria adsumpsisti me; tamquam ad sinistram cuncta illa pertineant, quae abundare apud impios cum vidisset paene conlapsus est. Quid enim mihi est, inquit, in caelo, et a te quid volui super terram? Reprehendit se ipsum iusteque sibi displicuit, quia, cum tam magnum bonum haberet in caelo (quod post intellexit), rem transitoriam, fragilem et quodam modo luteam felicitatem a suo Deo quaesivit in terra. Defecit, inquit, cor meum et caro mea, Deus cordis mei, defectu utique bono ab inferioribus ad superna; unde in alio psalmo dicitur: Desiderat et deficit anima mea in atria Domini; item in alio: Defecit in salutare tuum anima mea. Tamen cum de utroque dixisset, id est de corde et carne deficiente, non subiecit: Deus cordis et carnis meae, sed Deus cordis mei. Per cor quippe caro mundatur. Vnde dicit Dominus: Mundate, quae intus sunt, et quae foris sunt munda erunt. Partem deinde suam dicit ipsum Deum, non aliquid ab eo, sed ipsum. Deus, inquit, cordis mei, et pars mea Deus in saecula; quod inter multa, qu ab hominibus eliguntur, ipse illi placuerit eligendus. Quia ecce, inquit, qui longe se faciunt a te, peribunt. perdidisti omnem, qui fornicatur abs te, hoc est, qui multorum deorum uult esse prostibulum. Vnde sequitur illud, propter quod et cetera de eodem psalmo dicenda visa sunt: Mihi autem adhaerere Deo bonum est, non longe ire, non per plurima fornicari. Adhaerere autem Deo tunc perfectum erit, cum totum, quod liberandum est, fuerit liberatum. Nunc vero fit illud, quod sequitur: Ponere in Deo spem meam. Spes enim quae videtur, non est spes; quod enim videt quis, quid et sperat? ait apostolus. Si autem quod non videmus speramus, per patientiam expectamus. In hac autem spe nunc constituti agamus quod sequitur, et simus nos quoque pro modulo nostro angeli Dei, id est nuntii eius, adnuntiantes eius voluntatem et gloriam gratiamque laudantes. Vnde cum dixisset: Ponere in Deo spem meam, ut adnuntiem, inquit, omnes laudes tuas in portis filiae Sion. Haec est gloriosissima civitas Dei; haec unum Deum novit et colit; hanc angeli sancti adnuntiaverunt, qui nos ad eius societatem inuitaverunt civesque suos in illa esse voluerunt; quibus non placet ut eos colamus tamquam nostros deos, sed cum eis et illorum et nostrum Deum; nec eis sacrificemus, sed cum ipsis sacrificium simus Deo. Nullo itaque dubitante, qui haec deposita maligna obstinatione considerat, omnes inmortales beati, qui nobis non inuident (neque enim si inuiderent, essent beati), sed potius nos diligunt, ut et nos cum ipsis beati simus, plus nobis favent, plus adivuant, quando unum Deum cum illis colimus, Patrem et Filium et Spiritum sanctum, quam si eos ipsos per sacrificia coleremus. ||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." 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 labored in vain, until he went into the sanctuary of God, and understood the end of those whom he had erroneously considered happy. Then he understood that they were cast down by that very thing, as he says, which they had made their boast, and that they had been consumed and perished for their inequities; and that that whole fabric of temporal prosperity had become as a dream when one awakes, 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 Your city You will reduce their image to nothing." He also shows how beneficial it had been for him to seek even earthly blessings only from the one true God, in whose power are all things, for he says, "As a beast was I before You, and I am always with You." "As a beast," he says, meaning that he was stupid. For I ought to have sought from You such things as the ungodly could not enjoy as well as I, and not those things which I saw them enjoying in abundance, and hence concluded I was serving You in vain, because they who declined to serve You had what I had not. Nevertheless, "I am always with You," because even in my desire for such things I did not pray to other gods. And consequently he goes on, "You have holden me by my right hand, and by Your counsel You have 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 You 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 longs, yea, even fails, for the courts of the Lord." Yet, though he had said of both his heart and his flesh that they were failing, he did not say, 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." Matthew 23:26 He then says that God Himself,-not anything received from Him, but Himself,-is his portion. "The God of my heart, and my portion for ever." Among the various objects of human choice, God alone satisfied him. "For, lo," he says, "they that are far from You shall perish: Thou destroyest all them that go a-whoring from You,"-that is, who prostitute themselves to many gods. And then follows the verse for which all the rest of the psalm seems to prepare: "It is good for me to 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." Romans 8:24-25 Being, then, for the present established in this hope, let us do what the Psalmist further indicates, and become in our measure angels or messengers of God, declaring His will, and praising His glory and His grace. For when he had said, "To place my hope in God," he goes on, "that I may declare all Your praises in the gates of the daughter of Zion." This is the most glorious city of God; this is the city which knows and worships one God: she is celebrated by the holy angels, who invite us to their society, and desire us to become fellow-citizens with them in this city; for they do not wish us to worship them as our gods, but to join them in worshipping their God and ours; nor to sacrifice to them, but, together with them, to become a sacrifice to God. Accordingly, whoever 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.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c26"><b>BOOK X</b> [XXVI] Nescio quo modo, quantum mihi videtur, amicis suis theurgis erubescebat Porphyrius. Nam ista utcumque sapiebat, sed contra multorum deorum cultum non libere defendebat. Et angelos quippe alios esse dixit, qui deorsum descendentes hominibus theurgicis divina pronuntient; alios autem, qui in terris ea, quae Patris sunt, et altitudinem eius profunditatemque declarent. Num igitur hos angelos, quorum ministerium est declarare voluntatem Patris, credendum est velle nos subdi nisi ei, cuius nobis adnuntiant voluntatem? Vnde optime admonet etiam ipse Platonicus imitandos eos potius quam inuocandos. Non itaque debemus metuere, ne inmortales et beatos uni Deo subditos non eis sacrificando offendamus. Quod enim non nisi uni vero Deo deberi sciunt, cui et ipsi adhaerendo beati sunt, procul dubio neque per ullam significantem figuram, neque per ipsam rem, quae sacramentis significatur, sibi exhiberi volunt. Daemonum est haec arrogantia superborum atque miserorum, a quibus longe diversa est pietas subditorum Deo nec aliunde quam illi cohaerendo beatorum. Ad quod bonum percipiendum etiam nobis sincera benignitate oportet ut faveant, neque sibi arrogent quo eis subiciamur, sed eum adnuntient sub quo eis in pace sociemur. Quid adhuc trepidas, o philosophe, adversus potestates et veris virtutibus et veri Dei muneribus inuidas habere liberam vocem? Iam distinxisti angelos, qui Patris adnuntiant voluntatem, ab eis angelis, qui ad theurgos homines nescio qua deducti arte descendunt. Quid adhuc eos honoras, ut dicas pronuntiare divina? Quae tandem divina pronuntiant, qui non voluntatem Patris adnuntiant? Nempe illi sunt, quos sacris precibus inuidus alligavit, ne praestarent animae purgationem, nec a bono, ut dicis, purgare cupiente ab illis vinculis solvi et suae potestati reddi potuerunt. Adhuc dubitas haec maligna esse daemonia, vel te fingis fortasse nescire, dum non vis theurgos offendere, a quibus curiositate deceptus ista perniciosa et insana pro magno beneficio didicisti? Audes istam inuidam non potentiam, sed pestilentiam, et non dicam dominam, sed, quod tu fateris, ancillam potius inuidorum isto aere transcenso leuare in caelum et inter deos uestros etiam sidereos conlocare, vel ipsa quoque sidera his opprobriis infamare? ||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 honor of declaring divine truth? If they do not declare the will of the Father, what divine revelations can they make? Are not these the evil spirits who were bound over by the incantations of an envious man, 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 slave, 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?
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c27"><b>BOOK X</b> [XXVII] Quanto humanius et tolerabilius consectaneus tuus Platonicus Apuleius erravit, qui tantummodo daemones a luna et infra ordinatos agitari morbis passionum mentisque turbelis honorans eos quidem, sed volens nolensque confessus est; deos tamen caeli superiores ad aetheria spatia pertinentes, sive visibiles, quos conspicuos lucere cernebat, solem ac lunam et cetera ibidem lumina, sive inuisibiles, quos putabat, ab omni labe istarum perturbationum quanta potuit disputatione secrevit! Tu autem hoc didicisti non a Platone, sed a Chaldaeis magistris, ut in aetherias vel empyrias mundi sublimitates et firmamenta caelestia extolleres vitia humana, ut possent dii uestri theurgis pronuntiare divina; quibus divinis te tamen per intellectualem vitam facis altiorem, ut tibi videlicet tamquam philosopho theurgicae artis purgationes nequaquam necessariae videantur; sed aliis eas tamen inportas, ut hanc veluti mercedem reddas magistris tuis, quod eos, qui philosophari non possunt, ad ista seducis, quae tibi tamquam superiorum capaci esse inutilia confiteris; ut videlicet quicumque a philosophiae virtute remoti sunt, quae ardua nimis atque paucorum est, te auctore theurgos homines, a quibus non quidem in anima intellectuali, verum saltem in anima spiritali purgentur, inquirant, et quoniam istorum, quos philosophari piget, incomparabiliter maior est multitudo, plures ad secretos et inlicitos magistros tuos, quam ad scholas Platonicas venire cogantur. Hoc enim tibi inmundissimi daemones, deos aetherios se esse fingentes, quorum praedicator et angelus factus es, promiserunt, quod in anima spiritali theurgica arte purgati ad Patrem quidem non redeunt, sed super aerias plagas inter deos aetherios habitabunt. Non audit ista hominum multitudo, propter quos a daemonum dominatu liberandos Christus advenit. In illo enim habent misericordissimam purgationem et mentis et spiritus et corporis sui. Propterea quippe totum hominem sine peccato ille suscepit, ut totum, quo constat homo, a peccatorum peste sanaret. Quem tu quoque utinam cognovisses eique te potius quam vel tuae virtuti, quae humana, fragilis et infirma est, vel perniciosissimae curiositati sanandum tutius commisisses. Non enim te decepisset, quem uestra, ut tu ipse scribis, oracula sanctum inmortalemque confessa sunt; de quo etiam poeta nobilissimus poetice quidem, quia in alterius adumbrata persona, veraciter tamen, si ad ipsum referas, dixit: Te duce, si qua manent sceleris uestigia nostri, Inrita perpetua soluent formidine terras. Ea quippe dixit, quae etiam multum proficientium in virtute iustitiae possunt propter huius vitae infirmitatem, etsi non scelera, scelerum tamen manere uestigia, quae non nisi ab illo saluatore sanantur, de quo iste versus expressus est. Nam utique non hoc a se ipso se dixisse Vergilius in eclogae ipsius quarto ferme versu indicat, ubi ait: Vltima Cumaei venit iam carminis aetas; unde hoc a Cumaea Sibylla dictum esse incunctanter apparet. Theurgi vero illi vel potius daemones deorum speciem figurasque fingentes inquinant potius quam purgant humanum spiritum falsitate phantasmatum et deceptoria uanarum ludificatione formarum. Quo modo enim purgent hominis spiritum, qui inmundum habent proprium? Alioquin nullo modo carminibus inuidi hominis ligarentur ipsumque inane beneficium, quod praestaturi videbantur, aut metu premerent aut simili inuidentia denegarent. Sufficit quod purgatione theurgica neque intellectualem animam, hoc est mentem nostram, dicis posse purgari, et ipsam spiritalem, id est nostrae animae partem mente inferiorem, quam tali arte purgari posse asseris, inmortalem tamen aeternamque non posse hac arte fieri confiteris. Christus autem vitam promittit aeternam; unde ad eum mundus vobis quidem stomachantibus, mirantibus tamen stupentibusque concurrit. Quid prodest quia negare non potuisti errare homines theurgica disciplina et quam plurimos fallere per caecam insipientemque sententiam atque esse certissimum errorem agendo et supplicando ad principes angelosque decurrere, et rursum, quasi ne operam perdidisse videaris ista discendo, mittis homines ad theurgos, ut per eos anima spiritalis purgetur illorum, qui non secundum intellectualem animam vivunt? ||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 honors; 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 Chaldжan 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 your auspices, if any traces of our crimes remain, they shall be obliterated, and earth freed from its perpetual fear." 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 Cumжan sibyl has now arrived;" whence it plainly appears that this had been dictated by the Cumжan 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 labor 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?
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c28"><b>BOOK X</b> [XXVIII] Mittis ergo homines in errorem certissimum, neque hoc tantum malum te pudet, cum virtutis et sapientiae profitearis amatorem; quam si vere ac fideliter amasses, Christum Dei virtutem et Dei sapientiam cognovisses 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 virtute purgari. Aliquando etiam dicis, quod teletae non post mortem eleuant animam, ut iam nec eidem ipsi, quam spiritalem vocas, aliquid post huius vitae finem prodesse videantur; et tamen versas 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 vel legum periculis vel ipsius actionis. Atque utinam hoc saltem abs te miseri audiant et inde, ne illic absorbeantur, abscedant aut eo penitus non accedant. Ignorantiam certe et propter eam multa vitia per nullas teletas purgari dicis, sed per solum *patriko\n *nou=n, id est paternam mentem sive intellectum, qui paternae est conscius voluntatis. Hunc autem Christum esse non credis; contemnis enim eum propter corpus ex femina acceptum et propter crucis opprobrium, excelsam videlicet sapientiam spretis atque abiectis infimis idoneus de superioribus carpere. At ille implet, quod prophetae sancti de illo veraciter praedixerunt: Perdam sapientiam sapientium et prudentiam prudentium reprobabo. Non enim suam in eis perdit et reprobat, quam ipse donavit, sed quam sibi arrogant, qui non habent ipsius. Vnde commemorato isto prophetico testimonio sequitur et dicit apostolus: Vbi sapiens? ubi scriba? ubi conquisitor huius saeculi? Nonne stultam fecit Deus sapientiam huius mundi? Nam quoniam in Dei sapientia non cognovit 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 vero vocatis Iudaeis et Graecis Christum Dei virtutem et Dei sapientiam; quoniam stultum Dei sapientius est hominibus, et infirmum Dei fortius est hominibus. Hoc quasi stultum et infirmum tamquam sua virtute sapientes fortesque contemnunt. Sed haec est gratia, quae sanat infirmos, non superbe iactantes falsam beatitudinem suam, sed humiliter potius veram miseriam confitentes. ||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 pat????? ????, 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." Isaiah 29:14 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." 1 Corinthians 1:19-25 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.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c29"><b>BOOK X</b> [XXIX] Praedicas Patrem et eius Filium, quem vocas paternum intellectum seu mentem, et horum medium, quem putamus te dicere Spiritum sanctum, et more uestro appellas tres deos. Vbi, etsi verbis in disciplinatis utimini, videtis tamen qualitercumque et quasi per quaedam tenuis imaginationis umbracula, quo nitendum sit; sed incarnationem incommutabilis Filii Dei, qua saluamur, ut ad illa, quae credimus vel ex quantulacumque parte intellegimus, venire possimus, non uultis agnoscere. Itaque videtis utcumque, etsi de longinquo, etsi acie caligante, patriam in qua manendum est, sed viam qua eundum est non tenetis. Confiteris tamen gratiam, quando quidem ad Deum per virtutem intellegentiae pervenire paucis dicis esse concessum. Non enim dicis: Paucis placuit, vel: Pauci voluerunt; sed cum dicis esse concessum, procul dubio Dei gratiam, non hominis sufficientiam confiteris. Vteris etiam hoc verbo apertius, ubi Platonis sententiam sequens nec ipse dubitas in hac vita hominem nullo modo ad perfectionem sapientiae pervenire, secundum intellectum tamen viventibus omne quod deest providentia Dei et gratia post hanc vitam posse compleri. O si cognovisses Dei gratiam per Iesum Christum dominum nostrum ipsamque eius incarnationem, qua hominis animam corpusque suscepit, summum esse exemplum gratiae videre potuisses. Sed quid faciam? Scio me frustra loqui mortuo, sed quantum ad te adtinet; quantum autem ad eos, qui te magnipendunt et te vel qualicumque amore sapientiae vel curiositate artium, quas non debuisti discere, diligunt, quos potius in tua compellatione alloquor, fortasse non frustra. Gratia Dei non potuit gratius commendari, quam ut ipse unicus Dei Filius in se incommutabiliter manens indueretur hominem et spiritum dilectionis suae daret hominibus homine medio, qua ad illum ab hominibus veniretur, qui tam longe erat inmortalis a mortalibus incommutabilis a commutabilibus, iustus ab impiis 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. Sed huic veritati ut possetis adquiescere, humilitate opus erat, quae ceruici uestrae difficillime persuaderi potest. Quid enim incredibile dicitur, praesertim vobis qui talia sapitis, quibus ad hoc credendum vos ipsos admonere debeatis; quid, inquam, vobis incredibile dicitur, cum dicitur Deus adsumpsisse 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 vero 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 divino, etsi mutabile incommutabili, tamen spiritum spiritui, aut ut verbis utar, quae in usu habetis, incorporeum incorporeo, quam corpus incorporeo cohaerere. An forte vos offendit inusitatus corporis partus ex virgine? Neque hoc debet offendere, immo potius ad pietatem suscipiendam debet adducere, quod mirabilis mirabiliter natus est. An vero 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 visibilis 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 est omne fugiendum? Solem quoque istum et cetera sidera non solum in libris uestris corpora esse fatemini, quod vobiscum omnes homines et conspicere non cunctantur et dicere; verum etiam altiore, ut putatis, peritia haec esse animalia beatissima perhibetis et cum his corporibus sempiterna. Quid ergo est, quod, cum vobis fides Christiana suadetur, tunc obliviscimini, aut ignorare vos fingitis, quid disputare aut docere soleatis? Quid causae est, cur propter opiniones uestras, quas vos ipsi oppugnatis, Christiani esse nolitis, nisi quia Christus humiliter venit et vos 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 demonstravit exemplum. Sed qualiacumque sint, cum incorruptibilia prorsus et inmortalia nihiloque animae contemplationem, qua in Deo figitur, inpedientia praedicentur vosque 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 videamini, nisi quia illud est, quod iterum dico: Christus est humilis, vos superbi? An forte corrigi pudet? Et hoc vitium non nisi superborum est. Pudet videlicet doctos homines ex discipulis Platonis fieri discipulos Christi, qui piscatorem suo spiritu docuit sapere ac dicere: In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum. Hoc erat in principio apud Deum. Omnia per ipsum facta sunt, et sine ipso factum est nihil, quod factum est. In ipso vita erat, et vita 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 viluit superbis Deus ille magister, quia Verbum caro factum est et habitavit 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 gravius affligantur. ||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.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 you 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 you 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 shines in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not." John 1:1-5 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." John 1:14 So that, with these miserable creatures, it is not enough that they are sick, but they boast of their sickness, and are ashamed of the medicine which could heal them. And, doing so, they secure not elevation, but a more disastrous fall.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c30"><b>BOOK X</b> [XXX] Si post Platonem aliquid emendare existimatur indignum, cur ipse Porphyrius nonnulla et non parua emendavit? 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 veraces angeli docuerunt, quod prophetae Dei spiritu acti locuti sunt, quod ipse quem venturum 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 diversa! 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. Vbi etsi aliquid inconvenienter 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 emendavit, 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 vivis, ita vivos ex mortuis semper fieri; falsumque esse ostendit, quod Platonice videtur dixisse Vergilius, in campos Elysios purgatas animas missas (quo nomine tamquam per fabulam videntur significari gaudia beatorum) ad fluuium Letheum euocari, hoc est ad oblivionem praeteritorum: Scilicet inmemores supera ut convexa revisant Rursus et incipiant in corpora velle reuerti. Merito displicuit hoc Porphyrio quoniam re vera credere stultum est ex illa vita, 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 obliviscantur malorum, malorum autem oblivio facit corporum desiderium, ubi rursus implicentur malis: profecto erit infelicitatis causa summa felicitas et stultitiae causa perfectio sapientiae et inmunditiae causa summa mundatio. Nec veritate 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 veritate 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 verum esset, quid hoc scire prodesset, nisi forte inde se nobis auderent praeferre Platonici, quia id nos in hac vita iam nesciremus, quod ipsi in alia meliore vita 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 circulos alternante semper beatitate et miseria suspicati sunt. Quod si ita est, ecce Platonicus in melius a Platone dissentit; ecce vidit, quod ille non vidit, nec post talem ac tantum magistrum refugit correctionem, sed homini praeposuit veritatem. ||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 various 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,"That earthward they may pass once more,Remembering not the things before,And with a blind propension yearnTo 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.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c31"><b>BOOK X</b> [XXXI] Cur ergo non potius divinitati credimus de his rebus, quas humano ingenio peruestigare non possumus, quae animam quoque ipsam non Deo coaeternam, sed creatam dicit esse, quae non erat? Vt enim hoc Platonici nollent credere, hanc utique causam idoneam sibi videbantur adferre, quia, nisi quod semper ante 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 voluntatem in aeternum mansuros esse perhibeat. Verum id quo modo intellegant invenerunt, non esse hoc videlicet 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 atque in illo dii 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, cur 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 ante non fuerit. Illa igitur omnis argumentatio dissoluta est, qua putatur nihil esse posse sine fine temporis, nisi quod initium non habet temporis. Inventa est enim animae beatitudo, quae cum initium temporis habuerit, finem temporis non habebit. Quapropter divinae auctoritati humana cedat infirmitas, eisque beatis et inmortalibus de vera 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 voluit, etiam usque ad mortem sacrificium pro nobis dignatus est fieri. ||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.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c32"><b>BOOK X</b> [XXXII] Haec est religio, quae universalem continet viam animae liberandae, quoniam nulla nisi hac liberari potest. Haec est enim quodam modo regalis via, 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, quod universalem contineat viam animae liberandae, vel a philosophia verissima aliqua vel ab Indorum moribus ac disciplina, aut inductione Chaldaeorum aut alia qualibet via, nondumque in suam notitiam eandem viam historiali cognitione perlatam: procul dubio confitetur esse aliquam, sed nondum in suam venisse notitiam. Ita ei non sufficiebat quidquid de anima liberanda studiosissime didicerat sibique vel potius aliis nosse ac tenere videbatur. Sentiebat enim adhuc sibi deesse aliquam praestantissimam auctoritatem, quam de re tanta sequi oporteret. Cum autem dicit vel a philosophia verissima aliqua nondum in suam notitiam pervenisse sectam, quae universalem contineat viam animae liberandae: satis, quantum arbitror, ostendit vel eam philosophiam, in qua ipse philosophatus est, non esse verissimam, vel ea non contineri talem viam. Et quo modo iam potest esse verissima, qua non continetur haec via? Nam quae alia via est universalis animae liberandae, nisi qua universae animae liberantur ac per hoc sine illa nulla anima liberatur? Cum autem addit et dicit: "Vel ab Indorum moribus ac disciplina, vel ab inductione Chaldaeorum vel alia qualibet via", manifestissima voce testatur neque illis quae ab Indis neque illis quae a Chaldaeis didicerat hanc universalem viam liberandae animae contineri; et utique se a Chaldaeis oracula divina sumpsisse, quorum adsiduam commemorationem facit, tacere non potuit. Quam uult ergo intellegi animae liberandae universalem viam nondum receptam vel ex aliqua verissima philosophia vel ex earum gentium doctrinis, quae magnae velut in divinis rebus habebantur, quia pius apud eas curiositas valuit quorumque angelorum cognoscendorum et colendorum, nondumque in suam notitiam historiali cognitione perlatam? Quaenam ista est universalis via, nisi quae non suae cuique genti propria, sed universis gentibus quae communis esset divinitus inpertita est? Quam certe iste homo non mediocri ingenio praeditus esse non dubitat. Providentiam quippe divinam sine ista universali via 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 universalis via, quae non est alia quam religio Christiana, oppugnari permittebatur ab idolorum daemonumque cultoribus regibusque terrenis, propter asserendum et consecrandum martyrum numerum, hoc est testium veritatis, per quos ostenderetur omnia corporalia mala pro fide pietatis et commendatione veritatis esse toleranda. Videbat ergo ista Porphyrius et per huius modi persecutiones cito istam viam perituram et propterea non esse ipsam liberandae animae universalem putabat, non intellegens hoc, quod eum movebat et quod in eius electione perpeti metuebat, ad eius confirmationem robustioremque commendationem potius pertinere. Haec est igitur animae liberandae universalis via, id est universis gentibus divina miseratione concessa, cuius profecto notitia ad quoscumque iam venit et ad quoscumque ventura 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 verum non esse iudicavit, quia nondum in fidem suam receptum fuerat vel in notitiam nondum peruenerat. Haec est, inquam, liberandorum credentium universalis via, de qua fidelis Abraham divinum 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 universalis via, 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 verum Deum sequendo coluit, cui haec promittenti fideliter credidit. Haec est universalis via, de qua in sancta prophetia dictum est: Deus misereatur nostri et benedicat nos f inluminet uultum suum super nos, ut cognoscamus in terra viam tuam, in omnibus gentibus salutare tuum. Vnde tanto post ex Abrahae semine carne suscepta de se ipso ait ipse Saluator: Ego sum via, veritas et vita. Haec est universalis via, de qua tanto ante prophetatum est: Erit in novissimis diebus manifestus mons Domini, paratus in cacumine montium et extolletur super colles, et venient ad eum universae gentes et ingredientur nationes multae et dicent: Venite, ascendamus in montem Domini et in domum Dei Iacob; et adnuntiabit nobis viam suam, et ingrediemur in ea. Ex Sion enim prodiet lex et verbum Domini ab Hierusalem. Via ergo ista non est unius gentis, sed universarum gentium; et lex verbumque Domini non in Sion et Hierusalem remansit, sed inde processit, ut se per universa diffunderet. Vnde ipse Mediator post resurrectionem suam discipulis trepidantibus ait: Oportebat impleri 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 universalis animae liberandae via, 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 civitatis Dei ex omnibus gentibus congregandae, et tabernaculo et templo et sacerdotio et sacrificiis significaverunt et eloquiis quibusdam manifestis, plerisque mysticis praedixerunt; praesens autem in carne ipse Mediator et beati eius apostoli iam testamenti novi gratiam reuelantes apertius indicarunt, quae aliquanto occultius superioribus sunt significata temporibus, pro aetatum generis humani distributione, sicut eam Deo sapienti placuit ordinare, mirabilium operum divinorum, quorum superius pauca iam posui, contestantibus signis. Non enim apparuerunt tantummodo visiones angelicae et caelestium ministrorum sola verba sonuerunt, verum etiam hominibus Dei verbo simplicis pieitatis agentibus spiritus inmundi de hominum corporibus ac sensibus pulsi sunt, vitia corporis languoresque sanati, fera animalia terrarum et aquarum, volatilia caeli, ligna, elementa, sidera divina iussa fecerunt, inferna cesserunt, mortui revixerunt; exceptis ipsius Saluatoris propriis singularibusque miraculis, maxime nativitatis et resurrectionis, quorum in uno maternae virginitatis tantummodo sacramentum, in altero autem etiam eorum, qui in fine resurrecturi sunt, demonstravit exemplum. Haec via totum hominem mundat et inmortalitati mortalem ex omnibus quibus constat partibus praeparat. Vt enim non alia purgatio ei parti quaereretur, quam vocat intellectualem Porphyrius, alia ei, quam vocat spiritalem, aliaque ipsi corpori: propterea totum suscepit veracissimus potentissimusque mundator atque saluator. Praeter hanc viam, quae, partim cum haec futura praenuntiantur, partim cum facta nuntiantur, numquam generi humano defuit, nemo liberatus est, nemo liberatur, nemo liberabitur. Quod autem Porphyrius universalem viam animae liberandae nondum in suam notitiam historiali cognitione dicit esse perlatam: quid hac historia vel inlustrius inveniri potest, quae universum orbem tanto apice auctoritatis obtinuit, vel fidelius, in qua ita narrantur praeterita, ut futura etiam praedicantur, quorum multa videmus impleta, ex quibus ea quae restant sine dubio speremus implenda? Non enim potest Porphyrius vel quicumque Platonici etiam in hac via quasi terrenarum rerum et ad vitam istam mortalem pertinentium divinationem praedictionemque contemnere, quod merito in aliis uaticinantibus et quorumlibet modorum vel artium divinationibus faciunt. Negant enim haec vel magnorum hominum vel magni esse pendenda, et recte. Nam vel inferiorum fiunt praesensione causarum, sicut arte medicinae quibusdam antecedentibus signis plurima euentura valetudini praevidentur; vel inmundi daemones sua disposita facta praenuntiant, quorum ius et in mentibus atque cupiditatibus iniquorum ad quaeque congruentia facta ducendis quodam modo sibi vindicant, et in materia infima fragilitatis humanae. Non talia sancti homines in ista universali animarum liberandarum via 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 vere magna atque divina, quae quantum dabatur cognita Dei voluntate futura nuntiabant. Christus quippe in carne venturus et quae in illo tam clara perfecta sunt atque in eius nomine impleta, paenitentia hominum et ad Deum conversio voluntatum, remissio peccatorum, gratia iustitiae, fides piorum et per universum orbem in veram divinitatem multitudo credentium, culturae simulacrorum daemonumque subuersio et a temptationibus exercitatio, proficientium purgatio et liberatio ab omni malo, iudicii dies, resurrectio mortuorum, societatis impiorum aeterna damnatio regnumque aeternum gloriosissimae civitatis Dei conspectu eius inmortaliter perfruentis in huius viae scripturis praedicta atque promissa sunt; quorum tam multa impleta conspicimus, ut recta pietate futura esse cetera confidamus. Huius viae rectitudinem usque ad Deum videndum eique in aeternum cohaerendum in sanctarum scripturarum qua praedicatur atque adseritur veritate quicumque non credunt et ob hoc nec intellegunt, oppugnare possunt, sed expugnare non possunt. Quapropter in decem istis libris, etsi minus quam nonnullorum de nobis expectabat intentio, tamen quorundam studio, quantum verus Deus et Dominus adivuare dignatus est, satisfecimus refutando contradictiones impiorum, qui conditori sanctae civitatis, de qua disputare instituimus, deos suos praeferunt. Quorum decem librorum quinque superiores adversus eos conscripti sunt, qui propter bona vitae huius deos colendos putant; quinque autem posteriores adversus eos, qui cultum deorum propter vitam, quae post mortem futura est, servandum existimant. Deinceps itaque, ut in primo libro polliciti sumus, de duarum civitatum, quas in hoc saeculo perplexas diximus inuicemque permixtas, exortu et procursu et debitis finibus quod dicendum arbitror, quantum divinitus adivuabor expediam. ||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 Anim_S , 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 Chaldжans, 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 Chaldжans, 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 Chaldжans; and yet he could not forbear stating that it was from the Chaldжans 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.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 your seed shall all nations be blessed." Genesis 22:18 He, indeed, was by birth a Chaldжan; 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," Galatians 3:19 in whom this universal way, thrown open to all nations for the deliverance of the soul, might be found, he was ordered to leave his country, and kindred, and father's house. Then was he himself, first of all, delivered from the Chaldжan 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 Your way may be known upon earth, Your 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." John 14:6 This is the universal way, of which so long before it had been predicted, "And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established 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." Isaiah 2:2-3 This way, therefore, is not the property of one, but of all nations. The law and the word of the Lord did not remain in Zion and Jerusalem, but 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 spoke 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." Luke 24:44-47 This is the universal way of the soul's deliverance, which the holy angels and the holy prophets formerly disclosed where they could among the few men who found the grace of God, and especially in the Hebrew nation, whose commonwealth was, as it were, consecrated to prefigure and 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.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.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.
| |
| − | | |
| − | |}
| |
| − | [[Category:Logic Museum Parallel Texts]]
| |
