were not corrupted, it would be incorrupt; or if it could not in any way be corrupted, it would be incorruptible. Now, if corruption is an evil, both incorruption and incorrupti- bility must be good things. We are not, however, speaking at present of incorruptible nature, but of things which admit of corrup- tion, and which, while not corrupted, may be called incorrupt, but not incorruptible. That alone can be called incorruptible which not only is not corrupted, but also cannot in any part be corrupted. Whatever things, then, being incorrupt, but liable to corruption, begin to be corrupted, are deprived of the good which they had as incorrupt. Nor is this a slight good, for corruption is a great evil. And the continued increase of corruption im- plies the continued presence of good, of which they may be deprived. Accordingly, the natures supposed to exist in the region of darkness must have been either corruptible or incorruptible. If they were incorruptible, they were in possession of a good than which nothing is higher. If they were Corruptible, they were either corrupted or not corrupted. If they were not corrupted, they were incor- rupt, to say which of anything is to give it great praise. If they were corrupted, they were deprived of this great good of incorrup- tion; but the deprivation implies the previous possession of the good they are deprived of; and if they possessed this good, they were not the perfection of evil, and consequently all the Manichaean story is a falsehood.
CHAP. 36. THE SOURCE OF EVIL OR OF COR- RUPTION OF GOOD.
41. After thus inquiring what evil is, and learning that it is not nature, but against na- ture, we must next inquire whence it is. If Manichceus had done this, he might have escaped falling into the snare of these serious errors. Out of time and out of order, he began with inquiring into the origin of evil, without first asking what evil was; and so his inquiry led him only to the reception of fool- ish fancies, of which the mind, much fed by the bodily senses, with difficulty rids itself. Perhaps, then, some one, desiring no longer argument, but delivery from error, will ask. Whence is this corruption which we find to be the common evil of good things which are not incorruptible? Such an inquirer will soon find the answer if he seeks for truth with great earnestness, and knocks reverently with sustained assiduity. For while man can use words as a kind of sign for the expression of his thoughts, teaching is the work of the m- corruptible 'i'ruth itself, who is the one true, the one internal I'eacher. He became ex- 148 THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[CirAP. XXXVIII.
ternal also, that He might recall us from the external to the internal; and taking on Him- self the form of a servant, that He might bring down His height to the knowledge of those rising up to Him, He condescended to appear in lowliness to the low. In His name let us ask, and through Him let us seek mercy of the Father while making this inquiry. For to answer in a word the question, Whence is corruption? it is hence, because these natures that are capable of corruption were not be- gotten by God, but made by Him out of nothing; and as we already proved that those natures are good, no one can say with pro- priety that they were not good as made by God. If it is said that God made them per- fectly good, it must be refnembered that the only perfect good is God Himself, the maker of those good things.
CHAP. 37. — GOD ALONE PERFECTLY GOOD.
42. Whac harm, you ask, would follow if those things too were perfectly good? Still, should any one, who admits and believes the perfect goodness of God the Father, inquire what source we should reverently assign to any other perfectly good thing, supposing it to exist, our only correct reply would be, that it is of God the Father, who is perfectly good. And we must bear in mind that what is of Him is born of Him, and not made by Him out of nothing, and that it is therefore per- fectly, that is, incorruptibly, good like God Himself. So we see that it is unreasonable to require that things made out of nothing should be as perfectly good as He who was begotten of God Himself, and who is one as God is one, otherwise God would have be- gotten something unlike Himself. Hence it shows ignorance and impiety to seek for brethren for this only-begotten Son through whom all good things were made by the Father out of nothing, except in this, that He condescended to appear as man. Accord- ingly in Scripture He is called both only- begotten and first-begotten; only-begotten of the Father, and first-begotten from the dead. "And we beheld," says John, "His glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." ' And Paul says, " that He might be the first-born among many brethren."^ 43. But should we say, These things made out of nothing are not good things, but only God's nature is good, we shall be unjust to good things of great value. And there is im- piety in calling it a defect in anything not to be what God is, and in denying a thing to be ^ John i. 14.
2 Rom. viii. 29.
good because it is inferior to God, Pray submit then, thou nature of the rational soul, to be somewhat less than God, but only so far less, that after Him nothing else is above thee. Submit, I say, and yield to Him, lest He drive thee still lower into depths where the punishment inflicted will continually de- tract more and more from the good which thou hast. Thou exaltest thyself against God, if thou art indignant at His preceding thee; and thou art very contumacious in thy thoughts of Him, if thou dost not rejoice un- speakably in the possession of this good, that He alone is above thee. This bemg settled as certain, thou art not to say, God should have made me the only nature: there should be no good thing after me. It could not be that the next good thing to God should be the last. And in this is seen most clearly how great dignity God conferred on thee, that He who in the order of nature alone rules over thee, made other good things for thee to rule over. Nor be surprised that they are not now in all respects subject to thee, and that sometimes they pain thee; for thy Lord has greater authority over the things subject to thee than thou hast, as a master over the ser- vants of his servants. What wonder, then, if, when thou sinnest, that is, disobeyest thy Lord, the things thou before ruledst over are made instrumental in thy punishment? For what is so just, or what is more just than God? For this befell human nature in Adam, of whom this is not the place to speak. Suffice it to say, the righteous Ruler acts in character both in just rewards and in just punishments, in the happiness of those who live rightly, and in the penalty in- flicted on sinners. Nor yet art thou ^ left without mercy, since by an appointed dis- tribution of things and times thou art called to return. Thus the righteous control of the supreme Creator extends even to earthly good things, which are corrupted and restored, that thou mightest have consolations mingled with punishments; that thou mightest botli praise God when delighted by the order of good things, and mightest take refuge in Him when tried b)^ experience of evils. So, as far as earthly things are subject to thee, they teach thee that thou art their ruler; as far as they distress thee, they teach thee to be sub- ject to thy Lord.
CHAP, 38. NATURE MADE BY GOD; CORRUP- TION COMES FROM NOTHING.
44. In this way, though corruption is an 3 [Augustin still addresses himself to the " nature of the ra- tional soul."— A. H. N.]
Chap. XL.]
AGAINST THE EPISTLE OF MANICH^US.
149 evil, and though it comes not from the Author of natures, but from their being made out of nothing, still, in God's government and con- trol over all that He has made, even corrup- tion is so ordered that it hurts only the lowest natures, for the punishment of the condemned, and for the trial and instruction of the re- turning, that they may keep near to the in- corruptible God, and remain incorrupt, which is our only good; as is said by the prophet, "But it is good for me that I keep near to God." ' And you must not say, God did not make corruptible natures: for, as far as they are natures, God made them; but as far as they are corruptible, God did not make them: for corruption cannot come from Him who alone is incorruptible. If you can receive this, give thanks to God; if you cannot, be quiet and do not condemn what you do not yet understand, but humbly wait on Him who j is the light of the mind that thou mayest I know. For in the expression "corruptible I nature'' there are two words, and not one ; only. So, in the expression, God made out I of nothing, "God" and "nothing" are two separate words. Render therefore to each of these words that which belongs to each, so that the word " nature " may go with the word "God, "and the word "corruptible" with the word " nothing." And yet even the corrup- tions, though they have not their origin from God, are to be overruled by Him in accord- ance with the order of inanimate things and the deserts of His intelligent creatures. Thus we say rightly that reward and punishment are both from God. For God's not making cor- ruption is consistent with His giving over to corruption the man who deserves to be cor- rupted, that is, who has begun to corrupt himself by sinning, that he who has wilfully yielded to the allurements of corruption may, against his will, suffer its pains.
CHAP. 39. — IN WHAT SENSE EVILS ARE FROM GOD.
45. Not only is it written in the Old Testa- ment, 'T make gnod, and create evil; "- but more clearly in the New 'i'csuiment, where the Lord says, " Fear not them which kill the body, and have no more that they can do; but fear him who, after he has killed the body, has power to cast the soul into hell." ^ 1 And that to voluntary corruption penal cor- ruption is added in the divine judgment, is I plainly declared by the Apostle Paul, when he I says, "The temple of God is holy, which 1 temple ye are; whoever corrupts tlie temple of God, him will God corrupt." "* If this had I Ps. Ixxiii. 28.
3 Matt. X. 23, and Luke xii. 4.
been said in the Old Law, how vehemently would the Manicha^ans have denounced it as making God a corrupter! And from fear of the word, many Latin translators make it, " him shall God destroy," instead of corrupt, avoiding the offensive word without any change of meaning. Although these would inveigh against any passage in the Old Law or the prophets if God was called in it a de- stroyer. But the Greek original here shows that corrupt is the true word; for it is written distinctly, " Whoever corrupts the temple of God, him will God corrupt." If the Mani- chaeans are asked to explain the words, they will say, to escape making God a corrupter, that corrupt here means to give over to cor- ruption, or some such explanation. Did they read the Old Law in this spirit, they would both find many admirable things in it; and instead of spitefully attacking passages which they did not understand, they would rever- ently postpone the inquiry.
CHAP. 40. — CORRUPTION TENDS TO NON-EXIST- ENCE.
46. But if any one does not believe that corruption comes from nothing, let him place before himself existence and non-existence — one, as it were, on one side, and the other on the other (to speak so as not to outstrip the slow to understand); then let him set some- thing, say the body of an animal, between them, and let him ask himself whether, while the body is being formed and produced, while its size is increasing, while it gains nourishment, health, strength, beauty, stabil- ity, it is tending, as regards its duration and permanence, to this side or that, to existence or non-existence. He will see without diffi- culty, that even in the rudimentary form there is an existence, and that the more the body is established and built up. in form, and figure and strength, the more does it come to exist, and to tend to the side of existence. Then, again, let the body begin to be cor- rupted; let its whole condition be enfeebled, let its vigor languish, its strength decay, its beauty be defaced, its framework be sundered, the consistency of its parts give way and go to pieces; and let him ask now where the body is tending in this corruption, whether to existence or non-existence: he will not surely be so blind or stupid as to doubt how to answer himself, or as not to see that, in propor- tion as anything is corrupted, in that pro- portion it approaches decease. But whatever tends to decease tends to non-existence. Since, then, we must believe that God exists immutably and incorruptibly, while what is called nothing is clearly altogether non- 150 THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Chap. XLIII.
existent; and since, after setting before yourself existence and non-existence, you have observed that the more a visible ob- ject increases the more it tends towards existence, while the more it is corrupted the more it tends towards non-existence, why are you at a loss to tell regarding any nature what in it is from God, and what from nothino;; seeing that visible form is natural, and corruption against nature? The increase of form leads to existence, and we acknowledge God as supreme existence; the increase of corruption leads to non-exist- ence, and we know that what is non-existent is nothing. Why then, I say, are you at a loss to tell regarding a corruptible nature, when you have both the words fiaturc and corruptible, what is from God, and what from nothing? And why do you inquire for a nature contrary to God, since, if you confess that He is the supreme existence, it follows that non-existence is contrary to Him? ' CHAP. 41. — CORRUPTION IS BY GOD^S PERMIS- SION, AND COMES FROM US.
47. You ask, Why does corruption take from nature what God has given to it? It takes nothing but where God permits; and He permits in righteous and well-ordered judgment, according to the degrees of non- intelligent and the deserts of intelligent crea- tures. The word uttered passes away as an object of sense, and perishes in silence; and yet the coming and 'going of these passing words make our speech, and the regular in- tervals of silence give pleasing and appro- priate distinction; and so it is with temporal natures which have this lowest form of beauty, that transition gives them being, and the death of what they give birth to gives them individuality. And if our sense and memory could rightly take in the order and propor- tions of this beauty, it would so please us, that we should not dare to give the name of corruptions to those imperfections which give rise to the distinction. And when distress comes to us through their peculiar beauty, by the loss of beloved temporal things passing away, we both pay the penalty of our sins, and are exhorted to set our affection on eter- nal things.
CHAP. 42. — EXHORTATION TO THE CHIEF GOOD.
48. Let us, then, not seek in this beauty I [We have already encountered in the treatise Concerningtwo .S'(;7//j, substantially the same course of argumentation here" pur- sued. The doctrine of the negativity of evil may be said to have been funHamenta! with Augustin, and he uses it very effectually against Manichaean dualism. — A. H. N.]
for what has not been given to it (and from not having what we seek for, this is the lowest form of beauty); and in that which has been given to it, let us praise God, because He has bestowed this great good of visible form even on the lowest degree of beauty. And let, us not cleave as lovers to this beauty, but as praisers of God let us rise above it; and from this superior position let us pronounce judg- ment on it, instead of so being bound up in it as to be judged along with it. And let us hasten on to that good which has no motion in space or advancement in time, from which all natures in space and time receive their sensible being and their form. To see this good let us purify our heart by faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, who says, " Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God."=^ For the eyes needed in order to see this good are not those with which we see the light spread through space, which has part in one place and part in another, instead of being all in every place. The sight and tfie dis- cernment we are to purify is that by which we see, as far as is allowed in this life, what is- just, what is pious, what is the beauty of wis- dom. He who sees these things, values them far above the fullness of all regions in space, and finds that the vision of tiiese things requires not the extension of his perception through distances in space, but its invigoration by an immaterial influence. ^ CHAP. 43. — CONCLUSION, 49. And as this vision is greatly hindered by those fancies which are originated by the carnal sense, and are retained and modified by the imagination, let us abhor this heresy which has been led by faith in its fancies to represent the divine substance as extended and diffused through space, even through in- finite space, and to cut short one side so as to make room for evil, — not being able to perceive that evil is not nature, but against nature; and to beautify this very evil with such visible appearance, and forms, and con- sistency of parts prevailing in its several natures, not being able to conceive of any nature without those good things, that the evils found fault with in it are buried under a countless abundance of good things.
Here let us close this part of the treatise. The other absurdities of Manichaeus will be exposed in what follows, by the permission and help of God.-* 2 iSIatt. v. 8.
3 [The Neo-Flatonic quality of this section cannot escape the attention of the philosophical student.— A. H. N.]
4 / ide Preface.
ST. AUGUSTIN: REPLY TO • FAUSTUS THE MANICH^AN [CONTRA FAUSTUM MANICHyEUM].
A.D. 400.
TRANSLATED BY REV. RICHARD STOTHBRT, M.A., BOMBAY.
CONTENTS OF REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICH.€AN.
BOOK I.
\Vho Faustus was. Faustus polemical treatise, and Augustin's -emarks thereon 155 liOOK II. Faustus claims to believe the gospel, yei refuses to accept the genealogies. Augustin demurs...150 BOOK III. Faustus objects to the incarnation of God on the ground that the evangelists are at variance with each other, and that incarnation is unsuitable to Deity. Augustin attempts to remove the difficulties. 159 BOOK IV.
Faustus's reasons for rejecting the O. T., and Augustin's animadversions thereon 161 BOOK V.
Faustus seeks to show that the Manichseans and not the Catholics are consistent believers in the gospel, by comparing Manichiean and Catholic obedience to the precepts of the gospel. Augustin exposes the hypocrisy of the iManicha:ans and praises the asceticism of the Catholics 162 BOOK VI.
Faustus avows his disbelief in the O. T., and his neglect of its precepts, and accuses Catholics of incon- sistency in neglecting its ordinances, while claiming to accept it. Augustin explains the relation of the O T. to the N 167 BOOK VII. The genealogical question is again taken up and argued on both sides 174 BOOK VIII.
Faustus maintams that to hold to the O. T. after the giving of the N., is putting new cloth on an old garment. Augustin further explains th.e relation of the O. T. to the N., and reproaches the Mani- chxans with carnality 175 BOOK IX.
Faustus argues mat if the apostles born under the old covenant could lawfully depart from it, much more can he, a Gentile. Augustin explains the relation of Jews and Gentiles alike to the gospel. 175 BOOK X. - Faustus insists tnat the O. T. promises are radically different from those of the N. Augustin admits a difference, but maintains that the moraLl2re£epts are the same in both..."I '. '...176 BOOK XI.
Faustus quct?= nassages to show that the Apostle Paul abandoned belief in the incarnation, to which he earlier heia. Augustin shows that the apostle was consistent with himself in the utterances quoted. 177 BOOK XII. Faustus denies tnat the prophets predicted Christ. Augustin expounds the types of Christ in the O. T. 183 BOOK XIII.
Faustus asserts that even if the O. T. could be shown to contain predictions, it would be of interest only to the Jews. Augustin shows the value of prophesy for Gentiles and Jews alike 199 BOOK XIV. Faustus abhors Moses for cursing Christ. Augustin expounds the doctrine of the suffering Saviour.. 207 BOOK XV. Faustus rejects the O. T. because it leaves no room for Christ. Christ the one bridegroom suffices for his bride, the Church. Augustin reproves the Manichoeans for claiming to be the bride of Christ. 212 BOOK XVI.
Faustus willing to believe not only that the Jewish but that all Gentile prophets wrote of Christ, if proved, but he would none the less insist upon rejecting their superstitions. Augustin maintains that all Aloses wrote is of Christ, and that his writings must be either accepted or rejected as a whole...219 BOOK XVII.
BOOK XVII.
ustus rejects Christ's declaration that he came not to destroy, but to fulfill, as found only in Matthew, who was not present when the words purport to have been spoken. Augustin rebukes the folly of refusing to believe Matthew, and yet believing Manichseus, and shows what the passage really means. 234 154 CONTENTS OF REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICH.EAN.
v/ BOOK XVIII.
The relation of Christ to prophecy, continued 237 BOOK XIX.
Faustus is willing to admit that Christ may have said that he came not to destroy the law and the pro- phets, but to fulfill them; but if he did, it was to pacify the Jews and in a modified sense. Augus- tin replies, and still further elaborates the Catholic view of prophecy and its fulfillment 239 BOOK XX.
Faustus repels the charge of sun-worship, and maintains that while the Manicha?ans believe that God's power dwells in the sun, and His wisdom in the moon, they yet worship one Deity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They are not a schism. of the Gentiles, nor a sect. Augustin emphasizes the charge of polytheism, and goes into an elaborate comparison of Manichsean and pagan mythology. 252 BOOK XXI.
Faustus denies that Manichseans believe in two gods. Hyle no god. Augustin discusses at large the doctrine of God and Hyle, and fixes the charge of dualism upon the Manichseans 264 BOOK XXII.
Faustus states his objections to the morality of the law and the prophets, and Augustin seeks by the application of the type and the allegory to explain away the moral difficulties of the O. T...272 BOOK XXIII, Faustus recurs to the, genealogical difficulty, and insists that even according to Matthew Jesus was not Son of God until his baptism. Augustin sets forth the Catholic view of the relation of the divine and the human in the person of Christ 313 BOOK XXIV.
Faustus explains the Manichsean denial that man was made by God as applying to the fleshly man not to the spiritual. Augustin elucidates the apostle Paul's contrasts between flesh and spirit, so as to . exclude the Manichaean view 3it BOOK XXY.
Faustus ridicules the orthodox claim to believe in the infinity of God by caricaturing the anthropomor- phic representations of the O. T. Augustin despairs of being able to induce the Manichasans to adopt right views of the infinitude of God so long as they regard the soul and God as extended in space. 319 BOOK XXVI.
BOOK XXVI.
Faustus insists that Jesus might have died though not born, by the exercise of divine power, yet he re- jects birth and death alike. Augustin maintains that there are some things that even God cannot do, one of which is to die. He refutes the docetism of the Manichieans 320 BOOK XXVII.
Faustus warns against pressing too far the argument, that if jesus was not born he cannot have suffered.
Augustin accepts the birth and death alike on the testimony of the gospel narrative 324.
BOOK XXVIII.
Faustus recurs to the genealogy and insists upon examining it as regards its consistency with itself. Augustin takes his stand on Scripture authority and maintains that Matthew's statements as to the birth of Christ must be accepted as final 32^, BOOK XXIX.
Faustus seeks to justify docetism. Augustin insists that there is nothing disgraceful in being born.. 326 BOOK XXX.
Faustus denies that Paul's prophecy about those that should forbid to marry, abstain from meats, etc.. applies to the Manichseans more than to the Catholic ascetics. Augustin justifies this application of the prophecy, and shows the difference between Manichoean and Christian asceticism...318 BOOK XXXI.
BOOK XXXI.
The Scripture passage, " To the pure all things are pure, but to the impure and defiled is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience are defiled," is discussed from both points of view, Faustus objecting to its application to his party and Augustin insisting on its application 33T BOOK XXXII.
^ Faustus fails to understand why he should be required either to accept or reject the N. T. as a whole, while the Catholics accept or reject the various parts of the O. T. at pleasure. Augustin denies that the Catholics treat the O. T. arbitrarily, and explains their attitude towards it 33: BOOK XXXIII.
Faustus does not think it would be an honor to sit down with the Patriarchs, whose moral characters as set forth in the O. T. he detests. He justifies his subjective criticism of Scripture. Augustin sums up the argument, claims the victory, and exhorts the Manichiwans to abandon their opposition to the O. T., notwithstanding the difficulties that it presents, and to recognize the authority of the Catholic Church 340 \J ■J REPLY TO FAUSTUS THE MANICHyEAN.
I