AUGUSTINE’S POLEMIC WITH PORPHYRY IN CITY OF GOD, CH. X, 1–22

Abstract

According to Augustine of Hippo, his teaching and Neoplatonic theories were not in conflict as far as the origin of happiness, which has its source in the Divine light. Porphyry, however, argued that happiness could be given by intermediaries who were good demons by way of worship and theurgy, which allows man to purify his or her soul so that he or she can remain in relationship with God. Against this theory, Augustine is forced to formulate several arguments. Theurgy, according to Porphyry, allows man to be in relationship with God through the intervention of the mediation of good demons. This process justifies the worship of good demons who are themselves happy and who are able, according to this theory, to transmit this happiness to man. Augustine already disagrees with the notion of a „good demon” in Book IX. He argues that here are angels, some good and some bad, but one cannot agree on the existence of good demons. The word ‚demon’ thus has a pejorative sense. In Book X, Augustine begins his argument by saying that demons can only be false mediators in the attainment of happiness by man. The true Mediator who enables man to achieve blessedness is Christ. Only he brings us closer to God and communicates happiness to us. As a result, only Christ is the one who can purify our soul. He becomes the true Mediator between God and man. He is at the same time the true Sacrifice and the Priest, that is, the one who offers. In the life of the Church absolutely everything relates to his sole Sacrifice. He is, therefore, the only Mediator, through whom, by true worship of the sacrament of the Eucharist, man can find the true path towards happiness which is realised in the union of human beings with God. This truth of Christ as the only Mediator is confirmed by the miracles contained in the sacred scriptures. The Biblical miracles are more perfect than the tricks of the theurgists. In Polish language attention should be drawn to the distinction between the terms „mediators” and „Mediator” to emphasise the diametrical difference between them with regard to their theological sense.