10. These things might be discussed more fully and at greater length, but enough has been said for our purpose in dealing with you. We have only to show you the gate which you despair of finding, and make the unin- structed despair of it too. You can be made to enter only by good-will, on which the divine mercy bestows peace, as the song in the Gospel says, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men of good-will. "^ It is enough, I say, to have shown you that there is no way of solving the religious ques- tion of good and evil, unless whatever is, as far as it is, is from God; while as far as it falls away from being it is not of God, and yet is always ordered by Divine Providence in agreement with the whole system. If you do not yet see this, I know nothing else that I can do but to discuss the things already said with greater particularity. For nothing save piety and purity can lead the mind to greater things.
CHAP. 8. — EVIL IS NOT A SUBSTANCE, BUT A DISAGREEMENT HOSTILE TO SUBSTANCE.
11. For what other answer will you give to the question. What is evil? but either that it is against nature, or that it is hurtful, or that it is corruption, or something similar?
as Origen believed, but only those which do return. Those who shall be punished in everlasting fire do not return to God, from whom they fell away. Still they are in order as existintr in pun- ishment where their existence is most suitable." [This does not really meet the difficulty suggested on a preceding page.— A. H.
I Isa. xlv. 7. _ 2 [That is to say nothing is absolutely evil, and conversely what IS absolutely evil is ipso facto non-existent. — A. H. N.]
3 Luke ii. 14.
But I have shown that in these replies you make shipwreck of your cause, unless, in- deed, you will answer in the- childish way in which you generally speak to children, that evil is iire, poison, a wild beast, and so on. For one of the leaders of this heresy, whose instructions we attended with great familiarity and frequency, used to say with reference to a person who held that evil was not a sub- stance, "I should like to put a scorpion in the man's hand, and see whether he would not withdraw his hand; and in so doing he would get a proof, not in words but in the thing it- self, that evil is a substance, for he would not deny that the animal is a substance." He said this not in the presence of the person, but to us, when we repeated to him the re- mark which had troubled us, giving, as I said, a childish answer to children. For who with the least tincture of learning or science does not see that these things hurt by disagree- ment with the bodily temperament, while at other times they agree with it, so as not only not to hurt, but to produce the best effects? For if this poison were evil in itself, the scor- pion itself would suffer first and most. In fact, if the poison were quite taken from the animal, it would die. So for its body it is evil to lose what it is evil for our body to re- ceive; and it is good for it to have what it is good for us to want. Is the same thing then both good and evil? By no means; but evil is what is against nature, for this is evil both to the animal and to us. This evil is the disa- greement, w.iich certainly is not a substance, but hostile to substance. Whence then is it? See what it leads to, and you will learn, if any inner light lives in you. It leads all that it destroys to non-existence. Now God is the author of existence; and there is no existence which, as far as it is existing, leads to non-ex- istence. Thus we learn whence disagreement is not; as to whence it is, nothing can be said. 12. We read in history of a female crim- inal in Athens, who succeeded in drinking the quantity of poison allotted as a fatal draught for the condemned with little or no injury to her health, by taking it at intervals. So being condemned, she took the poison in the prescribed quantity like the rest, but rendered it powerless by accustoming herself to it, and did not die like the rest. And as this excited great wonder, she was banished. If poison is an evil, are we to think that she made it to be no evil to her? What could be more ab- surd than this? But because disagreement is an evil, what she did was to make the poison- ous matter agree with her own body by a process of habituation. For how could she by any amount of cunning have brought it Chap. IX.]
ON THE MORALS OF THE MANICH^ANS.
72> about that disagreement should not hurt her? Why so? Because what is truly and properly an evil is hurtful both always and to all. Oil is beneficial to our bodies, but very much the opposite to many six-footed animals. And is not hellebore sometimes food, sometimes medicine, and sometimes poison. Does not every one maintain that salt taken in excess is poisonous? And yet the benefits to the body from salt are innumerable and most im- portant. Sea-water is injurious when drunk hy land animals, but it is most suitable and useful to many who bathe their bodies in it; and to fish it is useful and wholesome in both ways. Bread nourishes man, but kills hawks. And does not mud itself, which is offensive and noxious when swallowed or smelt, serve as cooling to the touch in hot weather, and as a cure for wounds from fire? What can be nastier than dung, or more worthless than ashes? And yet they are of such use to the fields, that the Romans thought divine honors due to the discoverer, Sterculio, from whose name the word for dung [stercus\ is derived.
13. But why enumerate details which are countless? We need not go farther than the four elements themselves, which, as every one knows, are beneficial when there is agree- ment, and bitterly opposed to nature when there is disagreement in the objects acted ui:)on. We who live in air die under earth or nder water, while innumerable animals creep .live in sand or loose earth, and fish die in oiir air. Fire consumes our bodies, but, wiien suitably applied, it both restores from ijold, and expels diseases without number. The sun to which you bow the knee, and than which, indeed, there is no fairer object nong visible things, strengthens the eyes f eagles, but hurts and dims our eyes when we gaze on it; and yet we too can accustom < 'urselves to look upon it without injury. Will \ ou, then, ziWosv the sun to be compared to lie poison which the Athenian woman made harmless by habituating herself to it? Re- ilect for once, and consider that if a substance is an evil because it hurts some one, the light which you worship cannot be acquitted of this ' iiarge. See the preferableness of making (nil in general to consist in this disagreement, Trom which the sun's ray produces dimness in the eyes, though nothing is pleasanter to the eyes than light."
CHAP. 9. — THE MANICH.EAN FICTIONS AHOUT THINGS GOOD AND EVIL ARE NOT CONSISTKNT WITH THEMSELVES.
14. I have said these things to make vou ' [The reasoning here is admirably adapted to Auyustin's pur- -.^e, which is to refute the Manichajan notion of the evil nature of iterial substances. — A. H. N.]
cease, if that is possible, giving the name of evil to a region boundless in depth and length; to a mind wandering through the region; to the five caverns of the elements, — one full of darkness, another of waters, another of winds, another of fire, another of smoke; to the ani- mals born in each of these elements, — ser- pents in the darkness, swimming creatures in the waters, flying creatures in the winds, quadrupeds in the fire, bipeds in the smoke. For these things, as you describe them, can- not be called evil; for all such things, as far as they exist, must have their existence from the most high God, for as far as they exist they are good. If pain and weakness is an evil, the animals you speak of were of such physical strength that their abortive offspring, after, as your sect believes, the world was formed of them, fell from heaven to earth, according to you, and could not die. If blindness is an evil, they could see; if deaf- ness, they could hear. If to be nearly or al- together dumb is an evil, their speech was so clear and intelligible, that, as you assert, they decided to make war against God in compli- ance with an address delivered in their as- sembly. If sterility is an evil, they were prolific in children. If exile is an evil, they were in their own country, and occupied their own territories. If servitude is an evil, some of them were rulers. If death is an evil, they were alive, and the life was such that, by your statement, even after God was victorious, it was impossible for the mind ever to die.
15. Can you tell me how it is that in the chief evil so many good things are to be found, the opposites of the evils above men- tioned? and if these are not evils, can an}^ substance be an evil, as far as it is a sub- stance? If weakness is not an evil, can a weak body be an evil? If blindness is not an evil, can darkness be an evil? If deafness is not an evil, can a deaf man be an evil? If dumbness is not an evil, can a fish be an evil? If sterility is not an evil, how can we call a barren animal an evil? If exile is not an evil, how can we give that name to an animal in exile, or to an animal sending some one into exile? If servitude is not an evil, in what sense is a subject animal an evil, or one en- forcing subjection? If death is not an evil, in what sense is a mortal animal an evil, or one causing death? Or if these are evils, must we not give the name of good things to bodily strength, sight, hearing, persuasive speech, fertility, native land, liberty, life, all which you hold to exist in that kingdom of evil, and yet venture to call it the perfection of evil?
16. Once more, if, as has never been de- 74 THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Chap. X.
nied, unsuitahleness is an evil, what can be more suitable than those elements to their respective animals, — the darkness to serpents, the waters to swimming creatures, the winds to flying creatures, the fire to voracious ani- mals, the smoke to soaring animals? Such is the harmony which you describe as existing in the race of strife; such the order in the seat of confusion. If what is hurtful is an evil, I do not repeat the strong objection al- ready stated, that no hurt can be. suffered where no good exists; but if that is not so clear, one thing at least is easily seen and understood as following from the acknowl- edged truth, that what is hurtful is an evil. The smoke in that region did not hurt bipeds: it produced them, and nourished and sus- tained them without injury in their birth, their growth, and their rule. But now, when the evil has some good mixed with it, the smoke has become more hurtful, so that we, who certainly are bipeds, instead of being sustained by it, are blinded, and suffocated, and killed by it. Could the mixture of good have given such destructiveness to evil ele- ments? Could there be such confusion in the divine government?
17. In the other cases, at least, how is it that we find that congruity which misled your author and induced him to fabricate false- hoods? Why does darkness agree with ser- pents, and waters with swimming creatures, and winds with flying creatures, though the fire burns up quadrupeds, and smoke chokes us? Then, again, have not serpents very sharp sight, and do they not love the sun- shine, and abound most where the calmness of the air prevents the clouds from gathering much or often? How very absurd that the natives and lovers of darkness should live most comfortably and agreeably where the clearest light is enjoyed! Or if you say that it is the heat rather than the light that they enjoy, it would be more reasonable to assign to fire serpents, which are naturally of rapid motion, than the slow-going asp.' Besides, all must admit that light is agreeable to the eyes of the asp, for they are compared to an eagle's eyes. But enough of the lower ani- mals. Let us, I pray, attend to what is true of ourselves without persisting in error, and so our minds shall be disentangled from silly and mischievous falsehoods. For is it not intolerable perversity to say that in the race of darkness, where there was no mixture of light, the biped animals had so sound and strong, so incredible force of eyesight, that even in their darkness they could see the per- ' [The text has asinuin in this sentence but asf>ide»i in the next. The former is evidently a mistake. — A. H. N.]
fectly pure light (as you represent it) of the kingdom of God? for, according to you, even these beings could see this light, and could gaze at it, and study it, and delight in it, and desire it; whereas our eyes, after mixture with light, with the chief good, yea, with God, have become so tender and weak, that we can neither see anything in the dark, nor bear to look at the sun, but, after looking, lose sight of what we could see before.
18. The same remarks are applicable if we take corruption to be an evil, which no one doubts. The smoke did not corrupt that race of animals, though it corrupts animals now. Not to go over all the particulars, which would be tedious, and is not necessary, the living creatures of your imaginary de- scription were so much less liable to corrup- tion than animals are now, that their abortive and premature offspring, cast headlong from heaven to earth, both lived and were produc- tive, and could band together again, having, forsooth, their original vigor, because they were conceived before good was mixed with the evil; for, after this mixture, the animals born are, according to you, those which we now see to be very feeble and easily giving way to corruption. Can any one persist in the belief of error like this, unless he fails to see these things, or is affected by your habit and association in such an amazing way as to be proof against all the force of reasoning?
CHAP. IC- — THREE MORAL SYMBOLS DEVISED BY THE MANICH.EANS FOR NO GOOD.
19. Now that I have shown, as I think, how much darkness and error is in your opinions about good and evil things in general, let us examine now those three symbols which you extol so highly, and boast of as excellent ob- servances. What then are those three sym- bols? That of the mouth, that of the hands, and that of the breast. What does this mean? That man, we are told, should be pure and innocent in mouth, in hands, and in breast. But what if he sins with eyes, ears, or nose? What if he hurts some one with his heels, or perhaps kills him? How can he be reckoned criminal when he has not sinned with mouth, hands, or breast? But, it is replied, by the mouth we are to understand all the organs of sense in the head; by the hands, all bodily actions; by the breast, all lustful tendencies. To what, then, do you assign blasphemies? To the mouth or to the hand? For blas- phemy is an action of the tongue. And if all actions are to be classed under one head, why should you join together the actions of the hands and the feet, and not those of the tongue. Do you wish to separate the action Chap. XI. J OX THE MORALS OF THE MANICH.4<:aNS.
75 of the tongue, as being for the purpose of expressing something, from actions which are not for this purpose, so that tlie symbol of the hands should mean abstinence from all evil actions which are not for the purpose of expressing something? But then, what if some one sins by expressing something with his hands, as is done in writing or in some significant gesture? This cannot be assigned to the tongue and the mouth, for it is done by the hands. When you have three symbols of the mouth, the hands, and the breast, it is quite inadmissible to charge against the mouth sins found in the hands. And if you assign action in general to the hands, there is no reason for including under this the action of the feet and not that of the tongue. Do you see how the desire of novelty, witl' its attendant error, lands you in great difficulties? For you find it impossible to include purifica- tion of all sins in these three symbols, which you set forth as a kind of new classification.
CHAP. 1 1. THE VALUE OF THE SYMBOL OF THE MOUTH AMONG THE MANICH.tANS, WHO ARE FOUND GUILTY OF BLASPHEMING GOD.
20. Classify as you please, omit what you please, we must discuss the doctrines you in- sist upon most. You say that the symbol of the mouth implies refraining from all blas- phemy. But blasphemy is speaking evil of good things. So usually the word blasphemy is applied only to speaking evil of God; for as regards man there is uncertainty, but God is without controversy good. If, then, you are proved guilty of saying worse things of God than any one else says, what becomes of your famous symbol of the mouth? The evidence is not obscure, but clear and obvious to every understanding, and irresistible, the more so that no one can remain in ignorance of it, that God is incorruptible, immutable, liable to no injury, to no want, to no weakness, to no misery. All this the common sense of rational beings perceives, and even you assent when you hear it.
21. But when you begin to relate your fables, that God is corruptible, and mutable, and subject to injury, and exposed to want and weakness, and not secure from misery, this is what you are blind enough to teach, and what some are blind enough to believe. And this is not all; for, according to you, God is not only corruptible, but corrupted; not only changeable, but changed; not only subject to injury, but injured; not only liable to want, but in want; not only possibly, Init actually weak; not only exposed to misery, but miserable. You say that the soul is God, or a part of God. I do not see how it can be part of God without being God. A part cf gold is gold; of silver silver; of stone stone; and, to come to greater things, part of earth is earth, part of water is water, and of air air; and if you take part from fire, you will not deny it to be fire; and part of light can be nothing but light. Why then should part of God not be. God? Has God a jointed body, like man and the lower animals? For part of man is not man.
22. I will deal with each of these opinions separately. If you view God as resembling light, you must admit that part of God is God. Hence, when you make the soul part of God, though you allow it to be corrupted as being foolish, and changed as having once been wise, and in want as needmg health, and feeble as needing medicine, and mis- erable as desiring happiness, all these things you profanely attril)ute to God. Or if you deny these things of the mind, it follows that the Spirit is not required to lead the soul into truth, since it is not in folly; nor is the soul renewed by true religion, since it does not need renewal; nor is it perfected by your symbols, since it is already perfect; nor does God give it assistance, since it does not need it; nor is Christ its physician, since it is in health; nor does it require the promise of happiness in another life. Way then is Jesus called the deliverer, according to His own words in the Gospel, " If the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed? " ' And the Apostle Paul says, "Ye have been called to liberty."^ The soul, then, which has not attained this liberty is in bondage. There- fore, according to you, God, since part of God is God, is both corrupted by folly, and is changed by falling, and is injured by the loss of perfection, and is in need of help, and is weakened by disease, and bowed down with misery, and subject to disgraceful bondage.
23. Again, if part of God is not God, still He is not incorrupt when His part is cor- rupted, nor unchanged when there is change in any part, nor uninjured when He is not perfect in every part, nor free from want when He is busily endeavoring to recover part of Himself, nor quite whole when He has a weak part, nor perfectly happy when any part is suf- fering misery, nor entirely free when any part is under bondage. These are conclusions to which you are driven, because you say that the soul, which you see to be in such a calam- itous condition, is part of God. If you can succeed in making your sect abandon these and many similar opinions, then you may speak of your moutii being free from blas- John viii. 36.
= Gal. V. 13 76 THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Chap. XIII.
phemies. Better still, leave the sect; for if you cease to believe and to repeat what Manichceus has written, you will be no longer Manlchseans.
24. That God is the supreme good, and that than which nothing can be or can be con- ceived better, we must either understand or believe, if we wish to keep clear of blasphemy. There is a relation of numbers which cannot possibly be impaired or altered, nor can any nature by any amount of violence prevent the number which comes after one from being the double of one. This can in no way be changed; and yet you represent God as changeable! This relation preserves its in- tegrity inviolable; and you will not allow God an equality even in this! Let some race of darkness take in the abstract the number three, consisting of indivisible units, and di- vide it into two equal parts. Your mind per- ceives that no hostility could effect this. And can that which is unable to injure a numerical relation injure God? If it could not, what possible necessity could there be for a part of him to be mixed with evil, and driven into such miseries?
CHAP. 12. MANICH^AN SUBTERFUGE.
25. For this gives rise to the question, which used to throw us into great perplexity even when we were your zealous disciples, nor could we find any answer, — what the race of darkness would have done to God, suppos- ing He had refused to fight with it at the cost of such calamity to part of Himself. For if God would not have suffered any loss by re- maining quiet, we thought it hard that we had been sent to endure so much. Again, if He would have suffered. His nature cannot have been incorruptible, as it behoves the nature of God to be. Sometimes the answer was, that it was not for the sake of escaping evil or avoiding injurj^, but that God in His natural goodness wished to bestow the bless- ing of order on a disturbed and disordered nature. This is not what we find in the Manichasan books: there it is constantly im- plied and constantly asserted that God guarded against an invasion of His enemies. But sup- posing tliis answer, which was given from want of a better, to represent the opinion of the Manichaeans, is God, in their view, vindicated from the charge of cruelty or weakness? For this goodness of His to the hostile race proved most pernicious to His own subjects. Be- sides, if God's nature could not be corrupted nor changed, neither could any destructive influence corrupt or change us; and the order to be bestowed on the race of strangers might have been bestowed without robbing us of it.
26. Since those times, however, another answer has appeared which I heard recently at Carthage. For one, whom I wish much to see brought out of this error, when reduced to this same dilemma, ventured to say that the kingdom had its own limits, which miglit be invaded by a hostile race, though God Himself could not be injured. But this is a reply which your founder would never con- sent to give; for he would be likely to see that such an opinion would lead to a still speedier demolition of his heresy. And in fact any one of average intellect, who hears that in this nature part is subject to injury and part not, will at once perceive that this makes not two but three natures, — one viola- ble, a second inviolable, and a third violating.
CHAT', i^. ACTIONS TO BE JUDGED OF FROM THEIR MOTIVE, NOT FROM EXTERNALS. MAN- ICH^AN ABSTINENCE TO BE TRIED BY THIS PRINCIPLE.
27. Having every day in your mouth these blasphemies which come from your heart, you ought not to continue holding up the symbol of the mouth as something wonderful, to en- snare the ignorant. But perhaps you think the symbol of the mouth excellent and ad- mirable because you do not eat flesh or drink wine. But what is your end in this? For according as the end we have in view in our actions, on account of which we do whatever we do, is not only not culpable but also praiseworthy, so only can our actions merit any praise. If the end we have regard to in any performance is unlawful and blameworthy, the performance itself will be unhesitatingly condemned as improper.
28. We are told of Catiline that he could bear cold, thirst, and hunger.' This the vile miscreant had in common with our apostles. What then distinguishes the parri- cide from our apostles but the precisely opposite end which he followed? He bore these things in order to gratify his fierce and ungoverned passions; they, on the other hand, in order to restrain these passions and subdue them to reason. You often say, when you are told of the great number of Catholic virgins, a she-mule is a virgin. This, indeed, is said in ignorance of the Catholic system, and is not applicable. Still, what you mean is that this continence is worthless unless it leads, on right principles, to an end of high excellence. Catholic Christians might also compare your abstinence from wine and flesh to that of cattle and many small birds, as like- wise of countless sorts of worms. But, not ' Sallust, inprolog. Catilin. § 3.
Chap. XIV.]
OX THE MORALS OF THE MANICH.'^:ANS.
/ / to be impertinent like you, I will not make j this comparison prematurely, but will first j examine your end in wliat you do. For I suppose I may safely take it as agreed on, that in such customs the end is the thing to look to. Therefore, if your end is to be frugal and to restrain the appetite which finds gratification in eating and drinking, I assent and approve. But this is not the case.