City of God 10.16–10.25

Chapter 16. Whether, concerning the attainment of the happy life, we should believe those angels who demand to be worshipped with divine honor, or those who teach that holy service is to be given by religion not to them but to the one God.

Which angels, then, do we judge should be believed about the happy and everlasting life? Those who wish to be worshipped with religious rites, demanding that sacred rites and sacrifices be offered to them by mortals, or those who say that all this worship is owed to the one God, the Creator of all, and teach that it is to be rendered to him with true piety, in contemplating whom they themselves are blessed and promise that we shall be? For that vision of God is a vision of such great beauty and so supremely worthy of love that Plotinus does not hesitate to call one who lacks it most unhappy, however endowed and abounding in any other goods. Since, then, some angels by wonderful signs rouse us to worship this one God with latreia, and others to worship themselves, and this in such a way that the former forbid the latter to be worshipped while the latter do not dare to forbid him, let the Platonists answer which should rather be believed; let any philosophers answer; let the theurgists answer, or rather the periurgists [“meddlers”], for all those arts are more worthy of that name; finally, let men answer, if any sense of their nature, that they were created rational, lives in them in any part; let them answer, I say, whether sacrifice should be offered to the gods or angels who order sacrifice to themselves, or to that one to whom those command it who forbid it both to themselves and to the others? If neither the one nor the other did any miracles, but only gave commands, some that sacrifice be offered to themselves, others forbidding it and commanding it only to the one God, piety itself ought to be enough to discern which of these came from the arrogance of pride and which from true religion. I will say more: if only those who seek sacrifices for themselves moved human souls by wonderful deeds, while those who forbid this and command sacrifice to be offered only to the one God did not deign to do such visible miracles at all, their authority should certainly be preferred, not by bodily sense but by the reason of the mind. But since God has done this to commend the oracles of his truth, that through these immortal messengers, who proclaim not their own arrogance but his majesty, he has done greater, more certain, and more illustrious miracles, lest those who seek sacrifices for themselves should more easily persuade the weak among the pious of a false religion by showing their senses some astonishing things: who, pray, would choose to be so foolish as not to choose the true things to follow, when he also finds there greater things to wonder at? For those miracles of the gods of the Gentiles which history records (I do not mean the portents that happen at intervals of time from hidden causes of the world itself, yet established and ordered under divine providence, such as unusual births of animals and strange appearances in the sky and on earth, whether only frightening or also harmful, which by the most deceitful cunning of the demons are said to be expiated and softened by demonic rites; but I mean those which appear evidently enough to be done by their force and power, as that the images of the household gods which Aeneas brought when fleeing from Troy are said to have moved from place to place; that Tarquin cut a whetstone with a razor; that the serpent of Epidaurus attached itself as a companion to Aesculapius sailing to Rome; that one little woman, to prove her chastity, moved and drew with her girdle tied to it the ship carrying the image of the Phrygian mother, which had been made immovable against the great efforts of men and oxen; that a Vestal virgin, about whose defilement an inquiry was being held, ended the controversy by carrying water from the Tiber in a sieve without its running through): these and such things are in no way to be compared in power and greatness with those we read were done among the people of God; how much less those which even by the laws of the peoples who worshipped such gods were judged forbidden and punishable, that is, magical or theurgic things! Most of these deceive the senses of mortals in appearance only, by imaginary sport, such as drawing down the moon, “until, nearer, it foams upon the herbs placed beneath it,” as Lucan says. And some, even if they seem to equal in effect some of the deeds of the pious, the very end by which they are distinguished shows that ours excel incomparably. For by those the many are shown to be the less worthy of worship by sacrifice the more they demand it; but by these the one God is commended, who shows that he needs no such things, both by the testimony of his Scriptures and by the later removal of those very sacrifices. If, then, angels seek sacrifice for themselves, those are to be preferred to them who seek it not for themselves but for God, the Creator of all, whom they serve. For by this they show with how sincere a love they love us, when by sacrifice they wish to subject us not to themselves but to him in contemplating whom they themselves are blessed, and to bring us to him from whom they have not departed. But if the angels who wish sacrifices to be made not to one but to many wish them not for themselves but for those gods whose angels they are, even so those are to be preferred who are angels of the one God of gods, to whom they command sacrifice in such a way as to forbid it to any other, while none of the others forbids it to him to whom alone these command it. And if, as their proud deceit rather indicates, they are neither good angels nor angels of good gods, but evil demons, who wish not only the one supreme God but themselves to be worshipped with sacrifices, what greater protection against them is to be chosen than that of the one God, whom the good angels serve, who command us to serve with sacrifice not themselves but him whose sacrifice we ourselves ought to be?

Chapter 17. On the ark of the covenant and the miraculous signs done by God to commend the authority of the law and the promise.

Accordingly, the law of God, given in decrees delivered by angels, in which the one God of gods was commanded to be worshipped with sacred religion and all others forbidden, was placed in the ark, which was called the ark of the testimony. By this name it is sufficiently signified, not that God, who was worshipped through all those things, was usually enclosed or contained in a place, although his answers and certain signs to human senses were given from the place of that ark, but that testimonies of his will were borne from there; for the law itself was written on tables of stone and placed, as I said, in the ark, which the priests carried with due veneration during the time of wandering in the desert, together with the tabernacle, which was likewise called the tabernacle of the testimony. And there was a sign: a cloud appeared by day, which shone like fire by night; when the cloud moved the camp moved, and where it stood the camp was pitched. Besides these that I have mentioned, and besides the voices which came from the place of that ark, testimonies of great miracles were given to that law. For when the same ark was crossing as they entered the land of promise, the river Jordan, halting in its upper part and running off in its lower, gave dry ground for it and for the people to cross. Then, when the same ark had been carried round seven times, the walls of the first hostile city they met, which worshipped very many gods after the manner of the Gentiles, suddenly fell, attacked by no hand, struck by no battering ram. After this, too, when they were now in the land of promise and the same ark had been captured by enemies because of their sins, those who had captured it placed it with honor in the temple of their god, whom they worshipped above the rest, and went away and shut it; and when it was opened next day, they found the image to which they prayed fallen down and shamefully broken. Then, driven by portents and more shamefully punished, they returned the ark of the divine testimony to the people from whom they had taken it. And what a return it was! They put it on a cart and yoked to it heifers from whom they had taken away their suckling calves, and let them go where they would, wishing to test the divine power in this way too. And they, without any man to lead or guide them, pressing steadily on the way to the Hebrews, not called back by the lowing of their hungry young, carried back a great sign [sacramentum] to its worshippers. To God these and such things are small, but they are great for terrifying and instructing mortals for their salvation. For if the philosophers, and especially the Platonists, are praised for having thought more rightly than the rest, as I mentioned a little earlier, because they taught that divine providence administers even these lowest and earthly things, by the testimony of the numerous beauties that are produced not only in the bodies of animals but also in plants and grass, how much more clearly do these things bear witness to divinity, which happen at the time of its preaching, where that religion is commended which forbids sacrifice to all heavenly, earthly, and infernal beings, commanding it to the one God alone, who alone, loving and loved, makes men happy; and who, fixing beforehand the times of the sacrifices he commanded, and foretelling that they would be changed for the better through a better priest, testifies that he does not desire these things but signifies through them other, better things; not that he himself may be exalted by these honors, but that we may be roused, kindled by the fire of his love, to worship him and cleave to him, which is good for us, not for him.

Chapter 18. Against those who deny that the church's books should be believed about the miracles by which the people of God were taught.

Will someone say that these miracles are false, that they were not done but written falsely? Whoever says this, if he denies that any writings at all should be believed about these matters, can also say that no gods care for mortal affairs. For they have persuaded men that they should be worshipped only by the effects of wonderful works, to which the history of the nations also bears witness, whose gods could display themselves as wonderful rather than show themselves useful. So in this work of ours, of which we now have the tenth book in hand, we have not undertaken to refute those who either deny that there is any divine power or contend that it does not care for human affairs, but those who prefer their own gods to our God, the founder of the holy and most glorious city, not knowing that he himself is also the invisible and unchangeable founder of this visible and changeable world, and the most true giver of the happy life, not from the things he has made but from himself. For his most truthful prophet says: “But for me it is good to cleave to God.” For among the philosophers the question is asked about the end of good, to the attainment of which all duties are to be referred. And this man did not say, “For me it is good to abound in riches,” or “to be distinguished by purple and scepter, or to excel with a diadem,” or what some of the philosophers too have not blushed to say, “For me the pleasure of the body is good,” or what those who seemed better appeared to say better, “For me the virtue of my mind is good”; but, he says, “For me it is good to cleave to God.” This he had been taught by him to whom alone, as his holy angels too admonished by the testimony of miracles, sacrifice is to be offered. So he himself had become his sacrifice, burning, seized by his intelligible fire, and borne by holy desire into his ineffable and incorporeal embrace. Moreover, if the worshippers of many gods (whatever sort of gods they think theirs to be) believe that miracles were done by them, on the authority of the histories of civil affairs, or of books of magic, or, as they think more respectable, of theurgy, what reason is there why they should refuse to believe the writings that report these things, which deserve belief as much greater as he is great above all, to whom alone they command sacrifice to be offered?

Chapter 19. What the reason is for the visible sacrifice which true religion teaches is to be offered to the one true and invisible God.

Those who think that these visible sacrifices suit other gods, but that to him, as invisible, invisible sacrifices, and as greater, greater ones, and as better, better ones, are fitting, such as the services of a pure mind and a good will, certainly do not know that the former are signs of the latter, as spoken words are signs of things. Therefore, as when we pray and praise we direct signifying words to him to whom we offer in our heart the very things we signify, so when we sacrifice we should know that visible sacrifice is to be offered to no other than him whose invisible sacrifice we ourselves ought to be in our hearts. Then the angels and all the higher powers, more powerful by their very goodness and piety, favor us, rejoice with us, and help us toward this very end with all their strength. But if we wish to offer these things to them, they do not accept them willingly, and when they are sent to men in such a way that their presence is felt, they forbid it most plainly. There are examples in the holy writings. Some thought that the honor owed to God should be paid to angels, either by adoring or by sacrificing, and they were forbidden by the angels' admonition and ordered to pay it to him to whom alone they knew it was lawful. Holy men of God, too, have imitated the holy angels. For Paul and Barnabas in Lycaonia, when they had done a certain miracle of healing, were thought to be gods, and the Lycaonians wished to sacrifice victims to them; turning this away from themselves with humble piety, they proclaimed to them the God in whom they should believe. And those deceivers proudly demand this for themselves for no other reason than that they know it is owed to the true God. For they do not really delight, as Porphyry says and some think, in the smell of corpses, but in divine honors. They have a great abundance of smells from every side, and if they wanted more, they could provide it for themselves. The spirits, then, that arrogate divinity to themselves are delighted not by the smoke of any body but by the soul of the suppliant, which they may rule when it is deceived and subjected, shutting off the way to the true God, so that man may not be his sacrifice while sacrifice is offered to someone other than him.

Chapter 20. On the supreme and true sacrifice which the Mediator between God and men himself became.

Hence that true Mediator, inasmuch as, taking the form of a servant, he became the Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, though in the form of God he receives sacrifice together with the Father, with whom he is also one God, yet in the form of a servant preferred to be the sacrifice rather than to receive it, lest even on this occasion anyone should think that sacrifice should be offered to any creature. By this he is both the priest, himself offering, and himself also the offering. And he willed that the daily sacrifice of the church should be the sacrament of this reality; the church, since it is the body of him, the head, learns to offer itself through him. The ancient sacrifices of the saints were many and various signs of this true sacrifice, since this one was prefigured by many, as one thing might be said in many words, so that it might be much commended without weariness. To this supreme and true sacrifice all false sacrifices have given way.

Chapter 21. On the measure of power given to demons for the glorifying of the saints through the endurance of sufferings; the saints overcame the spirits of the air not by appeasing them but by abiding in God.

At limited and predetermined times the power permitted to the demons, to stir up the men whom they possess and so exercise tyrannical hostility against the city of God, and to receive sacrifices not only from those who offer them and to seek them from those who are willing, but also to extort them violently from the unwilling by persecution, is not only not harmful but is even found useful to the church, so that the number of the martyrs may be filled up; and the city of God holds them as citizens the more illustrious and honored, the more bravely they strive against the sin of impiety, even to blood. These we would call our heroes, much more elegantly, if the church's usage of speech allowed it. For this name is said to be derived from Juno, because Juno is called Hēra in Greek; and so one of her sons or other, according to the fables of the Greeks, was named Heros, the fable signifying, as it were, a mystery: that the air is assigned to Juno, where they hold that heroes dwell with the demons, by which name they call the souls of the dead of some merit. But on the contrary our martyrs would be called heroes, if, as I said, the usage of church speech admitted it, not because they had fellowship with the demons in the air, but because they conquered those same demons, that is, the powers of the air, and in them Juno herself, whatever she is thought to signify, who is not altogether inappropriately brought in by the poets as the enemy of virtues and envious of brave men seeking heaven. But Virgil again unhappily gives way and yields to her; so that, though she says in his poem, “I am conquered by Aeneas,” Helenus warns Aeneas himself, as if by religious counsel, saying: “Sing willing vows to Juno, and overcome the mighty mistress with suppliant gifts.” From this opinion Porphyry, though not in his own view but in that of others, says that a good god or genius does not come to a man unless the evil one has first been appeased; as if evil deities were stronger among them than good ones, since the evil hinder the help of the good unless they are appeased and give way, and the good cannot help against the will of the evil, while the evil can harm, since the good cannot resist them. This is not the way of the true and truly holy religion; not thus do our martyrs conquer Juno, that is, the powers of the air who envy the virtues of the pious. Our heroes, if the word could be used in the usual way, overcome Hera not by suppliant gifts at all, but by divine virtues. Scipio was more fittingly surnamed Africanus because he conquered Africa by valor than if he had appeased the enemy with gifts to spare him.

Chapter 22. From where the saints have power against demons, and from where comes the true purification of the heart.

By true piety men of God cast out the power of the air, hostile and opposed to piety, by exorcising it, not by appeasing it; and they overcome all the temptations of its hostility by praying, not to it, but to their God against it. For it conquers or subjugates no one except through fellowship in sin. It is conquered, then, in the name of him who took on manhood and lived without sin, so that in him, as priest and sacrifice, the forgiveness of sins might come about; that is, through the Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, through whom, when the purification of sins has been made, we are reconciled to God. For men are separated from God only by sins, and in this life their purification is accomplished not by our virtue but by divine mercy, through his forgiveness, not through our power; because even that little virtue, however small, which is called ours, has been granted to us by his goodness. We would attribute much to ourselves in this flesh, were we not to live under pardon until we lay it down. For this reason, then, grace has been given us through the Mediator, so that we, polluted by the flesh of sin, might be cleansed by the likeness of the flesh of sin. By this grace of God, by which he has shown his great mercy toward us, we are both guided by faith in this life, and after this life we shall be brought to the fullest perfection by the very sight of unchangeable truth.

Chapter 23. On the principles in which, the Platonists declare, the purification of the soul lies.

Porphyry also says that it was answered by divine oracles that we are not purified by the teletai of the moon and the sun, so that it might be shown from this that man cannot be purified by the teletai of any gods. For whose teletai purify, if those of the moon and sun do not, whom they hold chief among the heavenly gods? Finally, he says it was declared by the same oracle that the principles can purify, lest perhaps, when it had been said that the teletai of the sun and moon do not purify, the teletai of some other god out of the crowd should be believed to have power to purify. What he, as a Platonist, says the principles are, we know. For he speaks of God the Father and God the Son, whom he calls in Greek the paternal intellect or paternal mind; of the Holy Spirit he says either nothing or nothing clearly; though I do not understand what other being he calls the one between these. For if he, like Plotinus where he discusses the three principal substances, wished the third to be understood as the nature of the soul, he would certainly not call it the one between these, that is, between the Father and the Son. For Plotinus places the nature of the soul after the paternal intellect; but this man, when he says “between”, does not place it after but in between. And no doubt he said, as he could or as he would, what we call the Holy Spirit, the Spirit not of the Father only nor of the Son only, but of both. For philosophers speak with free words and do not fear to offend religious ears in matters most difficult to understand. But it is right for us to speak according to a fixed rule, lest freedom of words beget an impious opinion even about the things they signify.

Chapter 24. On the one true Principle, which alone purifies and renews human nature.

So we do not speak of two or three principles when we speak of God, just as it is not lawful for us to speak of two or three gods, although, speaking of each one, whether of the Father or of the Son or of the Holy Spirit, we confess that each one singly is God. Nor do we say what 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 that the Father is the Father of the Son, and the Son the Son of the Father, and the Holy Spirit of the Father and the Son is neither the Father nor the Son. It was said truly, then, that man is not purified except by a Principle, although among them “principles” are spoken of in the plural. But Porphyry, subject to envious powers, of whom he was both ashamed and afraid to rebuke freely, would not understand that the Lord Christ is the Principle by whose incarnation we are purified. For he despised him in that very flesh which he took for the sacrifice of our purification, not understanding the great mystery [sacramentum] because of that pride which the true and kind Mediator cast down by his humility, showing himself to mortals in that mortality which the malignant and deceitful mediators, by not having it, used to exalt themselves the more proudly and, as immortals to mortals, to promise wretched men a deceitful help. So the good and true Mediator showed that sin is evil, not the substance or nature of the flesh, which, together with a human soul, could be taken on and held without sin, and laid down by death, and changed for the better by resurrection; and that death itself, though it is the punishment of sin, which he nevertheless paid for us without sin, is not to be avoided by sinning, but rather endured, if the opportunity is given, for righteousness. For he could loose sins by dying precisely because he both died and did not die for his own sin. This man, the Platonist, did not recognize as the Principle; for he would have recognized him as the purifier. For neither the flesh nor the human soul is the Principle, but the Word, through whom all things were made. The flesh, then, does not cleanse by itself, but through the Word by whom it was taken up, when “the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.” For when he spoke mystically of eating his flesh, and those who did not understand went away offended, saying, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”, he answered those who remained: “It is the Spirit that gives life; the flesh profits nothing.” The Principle, then, having taken up a soul and flesh, cleanses both the soul and the flesh of believers. That is why, when the Jews asked who he was, he answered that he was the Principle. We, fleshly, weak, liable to sins and wrapped in the darkness of ignorance, could never have grasped this unless we had been cleansed and healed by him through what we were and what we were not. For we were men, but we were not righteous; but in his incarnation there was human nature, but righteous, not sinful. This is the mediation by which a hand was stretched out to the fallen and prostrate; this is the seed ordained through angels, in whose decrees the law too was given, by which both the one God was commanded to be worshipped and this Mediator was promised as coming.

Chapter 25. That all the saints, both under the time of the law and in earlier ages, were justified in the mystery and faith of Christ.

By faith in this mystery the righteous of old too could be cleansed by living piously, not only before the law was given to the Hebrew people (for God or the angels did not fail them as preachers), but also in the times of the law itself, although it seemed to contain fleshly promises as figures of spiritual things, for which reason it is called the Old Testament. For there were prophets then too, through whom, as through angels, the same promise was proclaimed; and of their number was he whose great and divine saying about the end of human good I mentioned a little earlier: “But for me it is good to cleave to God.” In this psalm the distinction between the two testaments, which are called old and new, is clearly enough declared. For because of fleshly and earthly promises, when he saw that the impious abounded in them, he says that his feet were almost moved and his steps had nearly slipped, as though he had served God in vain, when he saw those who despised him flourishing with that happiness which he himself expected from God; and that he labored in inquiring into this, wishing to grasp why it was so, until he entered the sanctuary of God and understood the last end of those who seemed happy to him in his error. Then he understood that in exalting themselves, as he says, they had been cast down, had failed and perished because of their iniquities; and that all that height of temporal happiness had become for them like the dream of one who awakes and suddenly finds himself deprived of the deceitful joys he was dreaming. And since in this land, or in the earthly city, they seemed great to themselves, he says: “O Lord, in your city you will reduce their image to nothing.” Yet how useful it was to him to seek even earthly things only from the one true God, in whose power all things are, he shows clearly enough when he says: “I became like a beast before you, and I am always with you.” “Like a beast”, he said, meaning without understanding: “For I ought to have desired from you such things as cannot be common to me and the impious; when I saw them abounding in these, I thought I had served you in vain, since those who had refused to serve you had these things. Yet I am always with you, for even in desiring such things I did not seek other gods.” And so it follows: “You have held my right hand, and in your will you have led me, and with glory you have taken me up”; as though all those things belonged to the left hand which, when he saw them abounding among the impious, almost made him fall. “For what have I in heaven,” he says, “and what have I wished from you on earth?” He reproached himself and was justly displeased with himself because, when he had so great a good in heaven (as he afterwards understood), he sought from his God on earth a passing, fragile, and in a way muddy happiness. “My heart and my flesh have failed,” he says, “O God of my heart”: a good failing, certainly, from lower things to higher. So in another psalm it is said: “My soul longs and faints for the courts of the Lord”; and in another: “My soul has fainted for your salvation.” Yet when he had spoken of both, that is, of the heart and the flesh failing, he did not add, “God of my heart and my flesh,” but “God of my heart.” For the flesh is cleansed through the heart. So the Lord says: “Cleanse what is within, and what is outside will be clean.” Then he says that his portion is God himself, not something from him, but himself. “God of my heart,” he says, “and God my portion forever”; because among the many things that men choose, it pleased him to choose God himself. “For behold,” he says, “those who make themselves far from you will perish; you have destroyed everyone who commits fornication away from you,” that is, who wishes to be the prostitute of many gods. From which follows that saying for whose sake the rest of this psalm seemed worth discussing: “But for me it is good to cleave to God”: not to go far away, not to commit fornication with very many. Cleaving to God will be perfect when all that is to be set free has been set free. But now what follows is done: “To put my hope in God.” For “hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one hope for what he sees?” says the apostle. “But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.” Being now set in this hope, let us do what follows, and let us too, in our small measure, be angels of God, that is, his messengers, announcing his will and praising his glory and grace. So when he had said, “To put my hope in God,” he says, “that I may announce all your praises in the gates of the daughter of Zion.” This is the most glorious city of God; this city knows and worships the one God; the holy angels announced it, who invited us to its fellowship and wished us to be their fellow citizens in it; it does not please them that we should worship them as our gods, but that with them we should worship their God and ours; nor that we should sacrifice to them, but that with them we should be a sacrifice to God. No one, then, who considers these things without malignant obstinacy doubts that all the blessed immortals, who do not envy us (for if they envied, they would not be blessed), but rather love us so that we too may be blessed with them, favor us more and help us more when we worship with them the one God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, than if we worshipped them themselves by sacrifices.