Edition Hide
De civitate Dei (CCSL)

Caput XXVII: De contrariis definitionibus Platonis atque Porphyrii, in quibus si uterque alteri cederet, a ueritate neuter deuiaret.

Singula quaedam dixerunt Plato atque Porphyrius, quae si inter se communicare potuissent, facti essent fortasse Christiani. Plato dixit sine corporibus animas in aeternum esse non posse. ideo enim dixit etiam sapientum animas post quamlibet longum tempus, tamen ad corpora redituras. Porphyrius autem dixit animam purgatissimam, cum redierit ad patrem, ad haec mala mundi numquam esse redituram. ac per hoc, quod uerum uidit Plato, si dedisset Porphyrio, etiam iustorum atque sapientum purgatissimas animas ad humana corpora redituras, rursus quod uerum uidit Porphyrius, si dedisset Platoni, numquam redituras ad miserias corruptibilis corporis animas sanctas, ut non singuli haec singula, sed ambo et singuli utrumque dicerent, puto quod uiderent esse iam consequens, ut et redirent animae ad corpora et talia reciperent corpora, in quibus beate atque inmortaliter uiuerent. quoniam secundum Platonem etiam sanctae animae ad humana corpora redibunt, secundum Porphyrium ad mala mundi huius sanctae animae non redibunt: dicat itaque cum Platone Porphyrius: redibunt ad corpora; dicat Plato cum Porphyrio: non redibunt ad mala, et ad ea corpora redire consentient, in quibus nulla patiantur mala. haec itaque non erunt nisi illa quae promittit deus, beatas animas in aeternum cum sua aeterna carne facturus. hoc enim, quantum existimo, iam facile nobis concederent ambo, ut, qui faterentur ad inmortalia corpora redituras animas esse sanctorum, ad sua illas redire permitterent, in quibus mala huius saeculi pertulerunt, in quibus deum, ut his malis carerent, pie fideliter que coluerunt.

Translation Hide
The City of God

Chapter 27.--Of the Apparently Conflicting Opinions of Plato and Porphyry, Which Would Have Conducted Them Both to the Truth If They Could Have Yielded to One Another.

Statements were made by Plato and Porphyry singly, which if they could have seen their way to hold in common, they might possibly have became Christians. Plato said that souls could not exist eternally without bodies; for it was on this account, he said, that the souls even of wise men must some time or other return to their bodies. Porphyry, again, said that the purified soul, when it has returned to the Father, shall never return to the ills of this world. Consequently, if Plato had communicated to Porphyry that which he saw to be true, that souls, though perfectly purified, and belonging to the wise and righteous, must return to human bodies; and if Porphyry, again, had imparted to Plato the truth which he saw, that holy soul, shall never return to the miseries of a corruptible body, so that they should not have each held only his own opinion, but should both have held both truths, I think they would have seen that it follows that the souls return to their bodies, and also that these bodies shall be such as to afford them a blessed and immortal life. For, according to Plato, even holy souls shall return to the body; according to Porphyry, holy souls shall not return to the ills of this world. Let Porphyry then say with Plato, they shall return to the body; let Plato say with Porphyry, they shall not return to their old misery: and they will agree that they return to bodies in which they shall suffer no more. And this is nothing else than what God has promised,--that He will give eternal felicity to souls joined to their own bodies. For this, I presume, both of them would readily concede, that if the souls of the saints are to be reunited to bodies, it shall be to their own bodies, in which they have endured the miseries of this life, and in which, to escape these miseries, they served God with piety and fidelity.