NPNF1-04. Augustin: The Writings Against the Manichaeans and Against the Donatists

i

A SELECT LIBRARY

OF THE

NICENE AND

POST-NICENE FATHERS

OF

THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.

EDITED BY

PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D., LL.D.,

PROFESSOR IN THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, NEW YORK,

IN CONNECTION WITH A NUMBER OF PATRISTIC SCHOLARS OF EUROPE AND AMERICA.

VOLUME IV

ST. AUGUSTIN:

THE WRITINGS AGAINST THE MANICHÆANS

AND

AGAINST THE DONATISTS

T&T CLARK

EDINBURGH

__________________________________________________

WM. B. EERDMANS PUBLISHING COMPANY

GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN

iii

Editor’s Preface

————————————

This fourth volume of St. Augustin’s Works contains his polemical writings in vindication of the Catholic Church against the heresy of the Manichæans, and the schism of the Donatists.  The former are contained in Tom. II. and VIII., the latter in Tom. IX., of the Benedictine edition.

Like the preceding volumes, this also is more than a reprint of older translations, and contains important additions not previously published.

I.—Seven Writings Against the Manichæan Heresy.  Four of these were translated by the Rev. Richard Stothert, of Bombay, for Dr. Dods’ edition, published by T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1872, and revised by Dr. Albert H. Newman, of Toronto, for the American edition.  The other three treatises are translated, I believe for the first time, by Dr. Newman for this edition.  (See Contents.)

The Edinburgh translation, especially of the first two treatises, is sufficiently faithful and idiomatic, and needed very little alteration by the American editor, who compared it sentence by sentence with the Latin original, and made changes only where they seemed necessary.

This part of the volume is also enriched by an introductory essay of Dr. Newman, which embodies the literature and the results of the most recent as well as the earlier researches concerning that anti-Christian heresy.

II.—The Writings Against the Donatists.  These were well translated by the Rev. J. R. King, of Oxford, and are slightly revised by Dr. Hartranft, of Hartford, after a careful comparison with the Latin.

The literary introduction of Dr. Hartranft, in connection with the translator’s historical preface, will place the reader in the situation of the controversy between the Catholic Church and the Donatists at the time of St. Augustin.

In both sections the treatises are arranged in chronological order.

The fifth volume will contain the writings of St. Augustin against the Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians.  It is in the hands of the printer and will be published in October.

Philip Schaff.

New York, June, 1887.

v

Contents.

__________

Preface.

I.    THE ANTI-MANICHæAN WRITINGS.

Translated by the Rev. RICHARD STOTHERT, M.A., Bombay, and Prof. Albert H. Newman, D.D., LL.D., Toronto

Introductory essay on the Manichæan heresy.

By Dr. Newman.

On the Morals of the Catholic Church

(De Moribus Ecclesiæ Catholicæ),

A.D. 388.

Translated by the Rev. Richard Stothert.

On the Morals of the Manichæans

(De Moribus Manichæorum),

A.D. 388.

Translated by the Rev. Richard Stothert.

On Two Souls, against the Manichæans

(De Duabus Animabus, contra Manichæos),

A.D. 391.

Translated by Dr. Newman.

Acts or Disputation against Fortunatus the Manichæan

(Acta seu Disputatio contra Fortunatum Manichæum),

A.D. 392.

Translated by Dr. Newman.

Against the Epistle of Manichæus called Fundamental

(Contra Epistolam Manichæi quam vocant Fundamenti),

A.D. 397.

Translated by the Rev. R. Stothert.

Reply to Faustus the Manichæan

(Contra Faustus Manichæum, Libri XXXIII ),

A.D. 400.

Translated by the Rev. R. Stothert.

Concerning the nature of good, against the Manichæans

(De Natura Boni contra Manichæos),

A.D. 404.

Translated by Dr. Newman.

II.   THE ANTI-donatist WRITINGS.

Translated by the Rev. J.R. King, M.A., Vicar of St. Peter’s in the East, Oxford, and late Fellow and Tutor of Merton College, Oxford.

The Translation revised, with additional annotations, by the Rev. Chester D. Hartranft, D.D.,  Professor of Biblical and Ecclesiastical History in the Theological Seminary at Hartford, Connecticut.

Introductory to the Anti-Donatist Writings.

By Dr. Hartranft.

On Baptism, against the Donatists

(De Baptismo, contra Donatistas, Libri VII ),

Circa, A.D. 400.

Answer to Letters of Petilian, Bishop of Cirta

(Contra Litteras Petiliani Donatistæ Cirtensis Episcopi, Libri III ),

A.D. 400.

The Correction of the Donatists

(De Correctione Donatistarum Liber seu Epistola CLXXXV ),

Circa, A.D. 417.

Index to the Anti-Manichæan Writings.

Index to the Anti-Donatist Writings.

3

w r I t I n g s

in connection with the

Manichæan controversy

translated by the

Rev. Richard Stothert, M.A.,

Bombay;

and

Albert H. Newman, D.D., LL.D.

Professor of Church History and Comparative Religion, in Toronto

Baptist (Theological) College, Toronto, Canada.

5

Introductory Essay on the Manichæan Heresy,

By Albert H. Newman, D.D., LL.D.

————————————

Chapter I.—Literature.

I.  Sources.

The following bibliography of Manichæism is taken from Schaff’s History of the Christian Church, vol. II. pp. 498–500 (new edition).  Additions are indicated by brackets.

1. Oriental Sources:  The most important, though of comparatively late date.

(a)  Mohammedan (Arabic):  Kitâb al Fihrist.  A history of Arabic literature to 987, by an Arab of Bagdad, usually called Ibn Abi Jakub An-Nadîm; brought to light by Flügel, and published after his death by Rödiger and Müller, in 2 vols. Leipz. 1871-’72.  Book IX. section first, treats of Manichæism.  Flügel’s translation, see below.  Kessler calls the Fihrist a "Fündstätte allerersten Ranges."  Next to it comes the relation of the Mohammedan philosopher, Al-Shahrastani (d. 1153), in his History of Religious Parties and Philosophical Sects, Ed. Cureton, Lond. 1842, 2 vols. (I. 188–192); German translation by Haarbrücker, Halle, 1851.  On other Mohammedan sources, see Kessler in Herzog, IX., 225 sq.

(b)  Persian Sources:  relating to the life of Mani, the Shâhnâmeh (the King’s Book) of Firdausi; ed. by Jul. Mohl, Paris, 1866 (V. 472–475).  See Kessler, ibid. 225.

[Albiruni’s Chronology of Ancient Nations, tr. by E. Sachau, and published by the Oriental Translation Fund, Lond. 1879.  Albîrunî lived 973–1048, and is said to have possessed vast literary resources no longer available to us.  His work seems to be based on early Manichæan sources, and strikingly confirms the narrative preserved by the Fihrist.  See also articles by West and Thomas in Journal of the Asiatic Society, 1868, 1870, 1871.]

(c)  Christian Sources:  In Arabic, the Alexandrian Patriarch Eutychius (d. 916). Annales, ed. Pococke, Oxon. 1628; Barhebræus (d. 1286), in his Historia Dynastiarum, ed. Pococke.  In Syriac:  Ephraem Syrus (d. 393), in various writings.  Esnig or Esnik, an Armenian bishop of the 5th Century, who wrote against Marcion and Mani (German translation from the Armenian by C. Fr. Neumann, in Illgen’s Zeitschrift für die Hist. Theologie, 1834, pp.77–78).

2.  Greek Sources:  [Alexander of Lycopolis:  The Tenets of the Manichæans (first published by Combefis, with a Latin version, in the Auctararium Novissimum, Bibl. S. S. Patrum; again by Gallandi, in his Bibl. Patrum, vol. IV. p. 73 sq.  An English translation by Rev. James B.H. Hawkins, M .A ., appeared in Clark’s Ante-Nicene Library, Vol. XIV. p. 236 sq.; Am. ed. vol. VI. p. 237 sq.  Alexander represents himself as a convert from Paganism to Manichæism, and from Manichæism to Orthodoxy.  He claims to have learned Man6ichæism from those who were intimately associated with Mani himself, and is, therefore, one of the earliest witnesses.¹¹     Baur discredits this claim on internal grounds (Das Manich. Religionssystem, p. 7). ]  Eusebius (H. E. VII. 31, a brief account).  Epiphanius (Haer. 66).  Cyril of Jerusalem (Catech. VI. 20 sq.).  Titus of Bostra (πρὸσ Μανιχαίουσ, ed P. de Lagarde, 1859).  Photius: Adv. Manichæos (Cod. 179, Biblioth.).  John of Damascus:  De Haeres. and Dial.  [Petrus Siculus, Hist. Manichæorum.]

3.  Latin Sources:  Archelaus (Bishop of Cascar in Mesopotamia, d. about 278):  Acta Disputationis cum Manete Hæresiarcha; first written in Syriac, and so far belonging to the Oriental Christian Sources (Comp. Jerome, de Vir. Ill. 72), but extant only in a Latin translation, which seems to have been made from the Greek, edited by Zacagni (Rome, 1698), and Routh (in Reliquiæ Sacræ, vol. V. 3–206); Eng. transl. in Clark’s Ante-Nicene Library (vol. XX. 272–419).  [Am. ed. vol. VI. p. 173 sq.].  These Acts purport to contain the report of a disputation between Archelaus and Mani before a large assembly, which was in full sympathy with the orthodox bishop, but (as Beausobre first proved), they are in form a fiction from the first quarter of the fourth century (about 320), by a Syrian ecclesiastic (probably of Edessa), yet based upon Manichæan documents, and containing much information about Manichæan doctrines.  They consist of various pieces, and were the chief source of information to the West.  Mani is represented (ch. 12), as appearing in a many-colored cloak and trousers, with a sturdy staff of ebony, a Babylonian book under his left arm, and with a mien of an old Persian master.  In his defense he quotes freely from the N.T.  At the end, he makes his escape to Persia (ch. 55).  Comp. H. V. Zittwitz:  Die Acta Archelai et Manetis untersucht, in Kahnis’ Zeitschrift für d. Hist. Theol. 1873, No. IV.  Oblasinski:  Acta Disput. Arch., etc. Lips. 1874 (inaugural dissert.).  Ad. Harnack:  Die Acta Archelai und das Diatessaron Tatians, in Texte und Untersuchungen zur Gesch. der altchristl. Lit. vol. I. Heft 3 (1883), p. 137–153.  Harnack tries to prove that the Gospel variations of Archelaus are taken from Tatian’s Diatessaron.

St. Augustin (d. 430, the chief Latin authority next to the translation of Archelaus).  [Besides the treatises published in Clark’s series, Contra Fortunatum quendam Manichæorum Presbyterum Disput. I. et II., Contra Adimantum Manichæi discipulum, Contra Secundinum Manichæum, De Natura Boni, De duabus Animabus, De Utilitate Credendi, De Haeres. XLVI.  Of these, De duabus Animabus, Contra Fortunatum, and De Natura Boni are added in the present edition, and De Utilitate Credendi has been included among Augustin’s shorter theological treatises in vol. III. of the present series.  In the Confessions and the Letters, moreover, the Manichæans figure prominently.  The treatises included in the present series may be said to fairly represent Augustin’s manner of dealing with Manichæism.  The Anti-Manichæan writings are found chiefly in vol. VIII. of the Benedictine edition, and in volumes I. and XI. of the Migne reprint.  Augustin’s personal connection with the sect extending over a period of nine years, and his consummate ability in dealing with this form of error, together with the fact that he quotes largely from Manichæan literature, render his works the highest authority for Manichæism as it existed in the West at the close of the fifth century.]  Comp. also the Acts of Councils against the Manichæans from the fourth century onwards, in Mansi and Hefele [and Hardouin].

II.  Modern Works.

Isaac de Beausobre (b. 1659 in France, pastor of the French church in Berlin, d. 1738):  Histoire Crit. de Manichée et du Manichéisme, Amst. 1634 and ’39, 2 vols. 4to.  Part of the first volume is historical, the second doctrinal.  Very full and scholarly.  He intended to write a third volume on the later Manichæans.  F. Chr. Baur:  Das Manichäische Religions-system nach den Quellen neu untersucht und entwickelt, Tüb. 1831 (500 pages).  A compre7hensive, philosophical and critical view.  He calls the Manich. system a "glühend prächtiges Natur-und Weltgedicht."  [An able critique of Baur’s work by Schneckenburger appeared in the "Theol. Studien u. Kritiken," 1833, p. 875 sq.  Schneckenburger strives to make it appear that Baur unduly minifies the Christian element in Manichæism.  Later researches have tended to confirm Baur’s main position.  The Oriental sources employed by Flügel and Kessler have thrown much light upon the character of primitive Manichæism, and have enabled us to determine more precisely than Beausobre and Baur were able to do the constituent elements of Mani’s system.  A.V. Wegnern:  Manichæorum Indulgentiæ, Lips. 1827.  Wegnern points out the resemblance between the Manichæan system, in accordance with which the "hearers" participate in the merits of the "elect" without subjecting themselves to the rigorous asceticism practiced by the latter, and the later doctrine and practice of indulgences in the Roman Catholic church.]  Trechsel:  Ueber Kanon, Kritik und Exegese der Manichäer, Bern, 1832.  D. Chwolson:  Die Ssabier und der Ssabismus, Petersb. 1856, 2 vols.  G. Flugel:  Mani, seine Lehre und seine Scriften.  Aus dem Fihrist des Abî Jakub an-Nadîm (987), Leipz. 1862.  Text, translation and commentary, 440 pages.  [Of the highest value, the principal document on which the work is based being, probably, the most authentic exposition of primitive Manichæan doctrine.]  K. Kessler:  Untersuchungen zur Genesis des Manich. Rel. Systems, Leipz. 1876.  By the same:  Mânî oder Beiträge zur Kenntniss der Religionsmischung im Semitismus, Leipz. 1887.  See also his thorough article, Mânî und die Manichær, in "Herzog," new ed. vol. IX. 223–259 (abridged in Schaff’s "Encyclop." II. 1396–1398).  [Kessler has done more than any other writer to establish the relation between the Manichæans and the earlier Oriental sects, and between these and the old Babylonian religion.  The author of this introduction wishes to express his deep obligation to Kessler.  The article on the "Mandäer" in "Herzog," by the same author, is valuable in this connection, though his attempt to exclude all historical connection between this Babylonian Gnostic sect and Palestine can hardly be pronounced a success.  J. B. Mozley:  Ruling Ideas in Early Ages; lecture on "The Manichæans and the Jewish Fathers," with special reference to Augustin’s method of dealing with the cavils of the Manichæans.]  G. T. Stokes:  Manes and Manichæans, in "Smith and Wace," III. 792–801.  A. Harnack:  Manichæism in 9th ed. of the "Encycl. Britannica," vol. XV. (1883), 481–487.  [Also in German, as a Beigabe to his Lehrbuch d. Dogmengeschichte, vol. I. p. 681 sq.  Harnack follows Kessler in all essential particulars.  Of Kessler’s article in "Herzog" he says:  "This article contains the best that we possess on Manichæism."  In this we concur.  W. Cunningham:  S. Austin and his Place in the History of Christian Thought, Hulsean Lectures, 1885, p. 45–72, and passim, Lond. 1886.  This treatise is of considerable value, especially as it regards the philosophical attitude of Augustin towards Manichæism.]  The accounts of Mosheim, Lardner, Schröckh, Walch, Neander, Gieseler [and Wolf].

Chapter II.—Philosophical Basis, and Antecedents of Manichæism.

"About 500 years before the commencement of the Christian era," writes Professor Monier Williams,²²     Indian Wisdom, 3rd ed. (1876), p. 49. "a great stir seems to have taken place in Indo-Aryan, as in Grecian minds, and indeed in thinking minds everywhere throughout the then civilized world.  Thus when Buddha arose in India, Greece had her thinkers in Pythagoras, Persia in Zoroaster, and China in Confucius.  Men began to ask themselves earnestly such questions as—What am I?  Whence have I come?  Whither am I going?  How can I explain my consciousness of personal existence?  What is the relationship between my material and immaterial nature?  What is the world in which I find myself? did a wise, good and all-powerful Being create it out of nothing? or did it evolve out of an eternal germ? or did it come together by 8the combination of eternal atoms?  If created by a Being of infinite wisdom, how can I account for the inequality of condition in it—good and evil, happiness and misery.  Has the Creator form or is he formless?  Has he any qualities or none?"

It is true that such questions pressed themselves with special importunity upon the thinkers of the age mentioned, but we should be far astray if we should think for a moment that now for the first time they suggested themselves and demanded solution.  The fact is that the earliest literary records of the human race bear evidence of high thinking on the fundamental problems of God, man, and the world, and the relations of these to each other.  Recent scholars have brought to light facts of the utmost interest with reference to the pre-Babylonian (Accadian) religion.  A rude nature-worship, with a pantheistic basis, but assuming a polytheistic form, seems to have prevailed in Mesopotamia from a very early period.  "Spirit everywhere dispersed produced all the phenomena of nature, and directed and animated all created beings.  They caused evil and good, guided the movements of the celestial bodies, brought back the seasons in their order, made the wind to blow and the rain to fall, and produced by their influence atmospheric phenomena both beneficial and destructive; they also rendered the earth fertile, and caused plants to germinate and to bear fruit, presided over the births and preserved the lives of living beings, and yet at the same time sent death and disease.  There were spirits of this kind everywhere, in the starry heavens, in the earth, and in the intermediate region of the atmosphere; each element was full of them, earth, air, fire and water; and nothing could exist without them…As evil is everywhere present in nature side by side with good, plagues with favorable influences, death with life, destruction with fruitfulness; an idea of dualism as decided as in the religion of Zoroaster pervaded the conceptions of the supernatural world formed by the Accadian magicians, the evil beings of which they feared more than they valued the powers of good.  There were essentially good spirits, and others equally bad.  These opposing troops constituted a vast dualism, which embraced the whole universe and kept up a perpetual struggle in all parts of the creation."³³     Lenormant, Chaldean Magic (1877),  p. 144-145.   This primitive Turanian quasi-dualism (it was not dualism in the strictest sense of the term) was not entirely obliterated by the Cushite and Semitic civilizations and cults that successively overlaid it.  So firmly rooted had this early mode of viewing the world become that it materially influenced the religions of the invaders rather than suffered extermination.  In the Babylonian religion of the Semitic period the dualistic element was manifest chiefly in the magical rites of the Chaldean priests who long continued to use Accadian as their sacred language.  "Upon this dualistic conception rested the whole edifice of sacred magic, of magic regarded as a holy and legitimate intercourse established by rites of divine origin, between man and the supernatural beings surrounding him on all sides.  Placed unhappily in the midst of this perpetual struggle between the good and bad spirits, man felt himself attacked by them at every moment; his fate depended upon them.…He needed then some aid against the attacks of the bad spirits, against the plagues and diseases which they sent upon him.  This help he hoped to find in incantations, in mysterious and powerful words, the secret of which was known only to the priests of magic, in their prescribed rites and their talismans…The Chaldeans had such a great idea of the power and efficacy of their formulæ, rites and amulets, that they came to regard them as required to fortify the good spirits themselves in their combat with the demons, and as able to give them help by providing them with invincible weapons which should ensure success."⁴⁴     Ibid. p. 146-147.   A large number of magical texts have been preserved and deciphered, and among them "the ‘favorable Alad,’ the ‘favorable Lamma,’ and the ‘favorable Utuq,’ are very frequently opposed…to the ‘evil Alad,’ the ‘evil Lamma,’ the ‘evil Utuq.’"⁵⁵     Ibid. p. 148.  It would be interesting to give in detail the results of the researches of George Smith, Lenor9mant, A.H. Sayce, E. Schrader, Friedrich Delitzsch and others, with reference to the elaborate mythological and cosmological systems of the Babylonians.  Some of the features thereof will be brought out further on by way of comparison with the Manichæan mythology and cosmology.  Suffice it to say that the dualistic element is everywhere manifest, though not in so consistent and definite a form as in Zoroastrianism, to say nothing of Manichæism.

The Medo-Persian invasion brought into Babylonia the Zoroastrian system, already modified, no doubt, by the Elamitic (Cushite) cult.  Yet the old Babylonian religion was too firmly rooted to be supplanted, even by the religion of such conquerors as Darius and Cyrus.  Modifications, however, it undoubtedly underwent.  The dualism inherent in the system became more definite.  The influence of the Jews in Mesopotamia upon the ancient population cannot have been inconsiderable, especially as many of the former, including probably most of the captives of the Northern tribes, were absorbed by the latter.  As a result of this blending of old Babylonian, Persian, and Hebrew blood, traditions, and religious ideas, there was developed in Mesopotamia a type of religious thought that furnished a philosophical basis and a mythological and cosmological garnishing for the Manichæan system.  Dualism, therefore, arising from efforts of the unaided human mind to account for the natural phenomena that appear beneficent and malignant, partly of old Babylonian origin and partly of Persian, but essentially modified by Hebrew influence more or less pure, furnished to Mani the foundation of his system.  We shall attempt at a later stage of the discussion to determine more accurately the relations of Manichæism to the various systems with which correctly or incorrectly it has been associated.  Suffice it to say, at present, that no new problem presented itself to Mani, and that he furnished no essentially new solution of the problems that had occupied the attention of his countrymen for more than 2500 years.  Before proceeding to institute a comparison between Manichæism and the various systems of religious thought to which it stands related, it will be advantageous to have before us an exposition of the Manichæan system itself, based upon the most authentic sources.

Chapter III.—The Manichæan System.

Earlier writers on Manichæism have, for the most part, made the Acta Disp. Archelai et Manetis and the anti-Manichæan writings of Augustin the basis of their representations.  For later Manichæism in the West, Augustin is beyond question the highest authority, and the various polemical treatises which he put forth exhibit the system under almost every imaginable aspect.  The "Acts of the Disputation of Archelaus and Manes," while it certainly rests upon a somewhat extensive and accurative knowledge of early Manichæism, is partially discredited by its generally admitted spuriousness—spuriousness in the sense that it is not a genuine record of a real debate.  It is highly probable that debates of this kind occurred between Mani and various Christian leaders in the East, and so Mani may at one time or other have given utterance to most of the statements that are attributed to him in this writing; or these statements may have been derived, for substance, from his numerous treatises, and have been artfully adapted to the purposes of the writer of the "Acts."  It is certain that most of the representations are correct.  But we can no longer rely upon it as an authentic first-hand authority.  Since Flügel published the treatise from the Fihrist entitled "The Doctrines of the Manichæans, by Muhammad ben Ishâk," with a German translation and learned annotations, it has been admitted that this treatise must be made the basis for all future representations of Manichæism.  Kessler, while he has had access to many other Oriental documents bearing upon the subject, agrees with Flügel in giving the first place to this writing.  On this exposition of the doctrines of the Manichæans, therefore, as expounded by Flügel and Kessler, we must chiefly rely.  The highly poetical mythological form which Mani gave to his speculations renders it exceedingly difficult to 10arrive at assured results with reference to fundamental principles.  If we attempt to state in a plain matter-of-fact way just what Mani taught we are in constant danger of misrepresenting him.  In fact one of the favorite methods employed against Mani’s doctrines by the writer of the "Acts of the Disputation," etc., as well as by Augustin and others, was to reduce Mani’s poetical fancies to plain language and thus to show their absurdity.  The considerations which have led experts like Flügel and Kessler to put so high an estimate upon this document, and the discussions as to the original language in which the sources of the document were written, are beyond the scope of this essay.  Suffice it to say, that so far as we are able to form a judgment on the matter, the reasons for ascribing antiquity and authenticity to the representation of Manichæism contained in the document are decisive.

1.  Mani’s Life.  According to the Fihrist, Mani’s father, a Persian by race, resided at Coche on the Tigris, about forty miles north of Babylon.  Afterwards he removed into Babylonia and settled at Modein, where he frequented an idol-temple like the rest of the people.  He next became associated with a party named Mugtasila (Baptizers), probably identical with or closely related to the Mandæans and Sabeans, both of which parties made much of ceremonial bathings.  Mani, who was born after the removal to Babylonia, is related to have been the recipient of angelic visitations at the age of twelve.  Even at this time he was forewarned that he must leave the religion of his father at the age of twenty-four.  At the appointed time the angel At-Taum appeared again and announced to him his mission.  "Hail, Mani, from me and the Lord, who has sent me to thee and chosen thee for his mission.  But he commands thee to invite men to thy doctrine and to proclaim the glad tidings of truth that comes from him, and to bestow thereon all thy zeal."  Mani entered upon his work, according to Flügel’s careful computation, April 1, 238, or, according to calculations based on another statement, in 252.  Mani maintained that he was the Paraclete promised by Jesus.  He is said, in this document, to have derived his teaching from the Magi and the Christians, and the characters in which he wrote his books, from the Syriac and the Persian.  After travelling in many lands for forty years and disseminating his doctrines in India, China, and Turkestan, he succeeded in impressing his views upon Fîrûz, brother of King Sapor, who had intended to put him to death.  Sapor became warmly attached to Mani and granted toleration to his followers.  Afterwards, according to some accounts, Mani was imprisoned by Sapor and liberated by his successor Hormizd.  He is said to have been crucified by order of King Bahraîm I. (276-’7), and his skin stuffed with straw is said to have been suspended at the city gate.  Eusebius (H. E. VII. 31) describes Mani as "a barbarian in life, both in speech and conduct, who attempted to form himself into a Christ, and then also proclaimed himself to be the very Paraclete and the Holy Spirit.  Then, as if he had been Christ, he selected twelve disciples, the partners of his new religion, and after patching together false and ungodly doctrines collected from a thousand heresies long since extinct, he swept them off like a deadly poison from Persia, upon this part of the world."  The account given in the Acta Archel (written probably about 330-’40), is far more detailed than that of the Fihrist and differs widely therefrom.  It contains much that is highly improbable.  Mani is represented as having for his predecessors one Scythianus, an Egyptian heretic of Apostolic times, and Terebinthus, who went with him to Palestine and after the death of Scythianus removed to Babylonia.  The writings of Terebinthus or Scythianus came into the possession of a certain widow, who purchased Mani when seven years of age (then named Cubricus) and made him heir of her property and books.  He changed his name to Mani (Manes), and, having become imbued with the teachings of the books, began at about sixty years of age to promulgate their teachings, choosing three disciples, Thomas, Addas and Hermas, to whom he entrusted the writings mentioned above, along with some of his own.  Up to this time he knew little of Christianity, but having been imprisoned by the king 11for failure in a promised cure of the king’s son, he studied the Christian Scriptures and derived therefrom the idea of the Paraclete, which he henceforth applied to himself.  After his escape the famous dialogue with Archelaus and that with Diodorus occurred.  Returning to Arabion he was arrested, carried to Persia, flayed alive, and his skin stuffed and suspended as above.  Some additional facts from an Oriental source used by Beausobre have more or less verisimilitude.  According to this, Mani was born of Magian parents about 240 A.D.  He became skilled in music, mathematics, geography, astronomy, painting, medicine, and in the Scriptures.  The account of his ascendancy over Sapor and his subsequent martyrdom is substantially the same as that of the Fihrist.  Albîrunî’s work (see bibliography preceding) confirms the account given by the Fihrist.  The conversion of Sapor to Manichæism (in A.D. 261) is said to be confirmed by Sassanian inscriptions (see Journal of Asiat. Soc. 1868 p. 310-’41, and ibid. p. 376, and 1871 p. 416).

The Fihrist’s account contains a long list of the works of Mani, which is supplemented by other Oriental and Western notices.  The list is interesting as showing the wide range of Mani’s literary activity, or at least of the literature that was afterwards connected with his name.

2.  Mani’s System.  As the life of Mani has been the subject of diversified and contradictory representations, so also have his doctrines.  Here, too, we must make the account given by the Fihrist fundamental.  It will be convenient to treat the subject under the following heads:  Theology, Cosmogony, Anthropology, Soteriology, Cultus, Eschatology, and Ethics.

(1.)  Theology.  Mani taught dualism in the most unqualified sense.  Zoroastrianism is commonly characterized as dualistic, yet it is so in no such sense as is Manichæism.  According to the Fihrist, "Mani teaches:  Two subsistences form the beginning of the world, the one light the other darkness; the two are separated from each other.  The light is the first most glorious being, limited by no number, God himself, the King of the Paradise of Light.  He has five members:  meekness, knowledge, understanding, mystery, insight; and five other spiritual members:  love, faith, truth, nobleness, and wisdom.  He maintained furthermore that the God of light, with these his attributes, is without beginning, but with him two equally eternal things likewise exist, the one the atmosphere, the other the earth.  Mani adds:  and the members of the atmosphere are five [the first series of divine attributes mentioned above are enumerated]; and the members of the earth are five [the second series].  The other being is the darkness, and his members are five:  cloud, burning, hot wind, poison, and darkness.  Mani teaches:  that the light subsistence borders immediately on the dark subsistence, without a dividing wall between them; the light touches with its (lowest) side the darkness, while upwards to the right and left it is unbounded.  Even so the darkness is endless downwards and to the right and left."

This represents Mani’s view of the eternally existent status quo, before the conflict began, and the endless state after the conflict ceases.  What does Mani mean, when he enumerates two series of five attributes each as members of God, and straightway postulates the co-eternity of atmosphere and earth and divides these self-same attributes between the latter?  Doubtless Mani’s theology was fundamentally pantheistic, i.e., pantheistic within the limits of each member of the dualism.  The God of Light himself is apparently conceived of as transcending thought.  Atmosphere and Earth (not the atmosphere and earth that we know, but ideal atmosphere and earth) are the æons derived immediately from the Ineffable One and coëternal with him.  The ten attributes are æons which all belong primarily to the Supreme Being and secondarily to the two great æons, half to each.  The question may arise, and has been often discussed, whether Mani meant to identify God (the Prince of Light) with the Kingdom of Light?  His language, in this treatise, is wavering.  He seems to struggle against such a representation, yet without complete success.

12

What do the other sources teach with reference to the absoluteness of the dualism and with reference to the identification of the Prince of Light with the Kingdom of Light?  According to the Acts of the Disputation of Archelaus and Manes,⁶⁶     Ante-Nicene Library, Am. ed. vol. vi. pp. 182 and 188. Manes "worships two deities, unoriginated, self-existent, eternal, opposed the one to the other.  Of them he represents the one as good, and the other as evil, and assigned the name of Light to the former, and that of Darkness to the latter."  Again, Manes is represented as saying:  "I hold that there are two natures, one good and another evil; and that the one which is good dwells in a certain part proper to it, but that the evil one is this world as well as all things in it, which are placed there like objects imprisoned in the portion of the wicked one" (1 John 5, 19).  According to Alexander of Lycopolis,⁷⁷     Ibid. p. 241. "Mani laid down two principles, God and matter (Hyle).  God he called good, and matter he affirmed to be evil.  But God excelled more in good than matter in evil."  Alexander goes on to show how Mani used the word Hyle, comparing the Manichæan with the Platonic teaching.  Statements of substantially the same purport might be multiplied.  As regards the identification of God (the King of Light) with the Kingdom of Light, and of Satan (the King of Darkness) with the Kingdom of Darkness, the sensuous poetical way in which Mani expressed his doctrines may leave us in doubt.  The probability is, however, that he did pantheistically identify each element of the dualism with his Kingdom.  He personifies the Kingdom of Light and the Kingdom of Darkness, and peoples these Kingdoms with fanciful beings, which are to be regarded as personified attributes of the principles of darkness and light.

A word on the Manichæan conception of matter or Hyle may not be out of place in this connection.  It would seem that the Manichæans practically identified Hyle or matter with the Kingdom of Darkness.  At any rate Hyle is unoriginated and belongs wholly to this Kingdom.

(2.)  Cosmogony.  So much for the Manichæan idea of the Kingdom of Light and the Kingdom of Darkness before the great conflict that resulted in the present order of things.  Why did not they remain separate?  Let us learn from the Fihrist’s narrative:  "Mani teaches further:  Out of this dark earth [the Kingdom of Darkness] arose Satan, not that he was in himself eternal from the beginning, yet were his substances in his elements unoriginated.  These substances now united themselves out of his elements and went forth as Satan, his head as the head of a lion, his body as the body of a dragon, his wings as the wings of a bird, his tail as the tail of a great fish, and his four feet as the feet of creeping animals.  When this Satan under the name Iblis, the (temporally considered) eternal (primeval), had arisen out of the darkness, he devoured and consumed everything, spread destruction right and left, and plunged into the deep, in all these movements bringing down from above desolation and annihilation.  Then he strove for the height, and descried the beams of light; but they were opposed to him.  When he saw later how exalted these were, he was terrified, shrivelled up, and merged himself in his elements.  Hereupon he strove anew with such violence after the height, that the land of light descried the doings of Satan and how he was bent upon murder and destruction.  After they had been apprised thereof, the world of Insight learned of it, then the world of Knowledge, then the world of Mystery, then the world of Understanding, then the world of Meekness.  When at last, he further teaches, the King of the Paradise of Light had also learned of it, he thought how he might suppress Satan, and, Mani adds, those hosts of his would have been mighty enough to overpower Satan.  Yet he desired to do this by means of his own might.  Accordingly, he produced by means of the spirit of his right hand [i.e., the Gentle Breeze], his five worlds, and his twelve elements, a creature, and this is the (temporally considered) Eternal Man 13 [Primordial Man], and summoned him to do battle with the Darkness.  But Primordial Man, Mani adds, armed himself with the five races [natures], and these are the five gods, the Gentle Breeze, the Wind, the Light, the Water and the Fire.  Of them he made his armor, and the first that he put on was the Gentle Breeze.  He then covered the Gentle Breeze with the burning Light as with a mantle.  He drew over the Light Water filled with atoms, and covered himself with the blowing Wind.  Hereupon he took the Fire as a shield and as a lance in his hand, and precipitated himself suddenly out of Paradise until he reached the border of the region that is contiguous to the battle-field.  The Primordial Devil also took his five races [natures]:  Smoke, Burning, Darkness, Hot Wind and Cloud; armed himself with them; made of them a shield for himself; and went to meet Primordial Man.  After they had fought for a long time the Primordial Devil vanquished the Primordial Man, devoured some of his light, and surrounded him at the same time with his races and elements.  Then the King of the Paradise of Light sent other gods, freed him, and vanquished the Darkness.  But he who was sent by the King of Light to rescue Primordial Man is called the Friend of the Light.  This one made a precipitate descent, and Primordial Man was freed from the hellish substances, along with that which he had snatched from the spirit of Darkness and which had adhered to him.  When, therefore, Mani proceeds, Joyfulness and the Spirit of Life drew near to the border, they looked down into the abyss of this deep hell and saw Primordial Man and the angels [i.e., the races or natures with which he was armed], how Iblis, the Proud Oppressors, and the Dark Life surrounded them.  And the Spirit of Life, says Mani, called Primordial Man with a loud voice as quick as lightning and Primordial Man became another god.  When the Primordial Devil had ensnared Primordial Man in the battle, Mani further teaches, the five parts of the Light were mingled with the five parts of the Darkness."

Let us see if we can get at the meaning of this great cosmological poem as far as we have gone.  The thing to be accounted for is the mixture of good and evil.  The complete separation of the eternally existent Kingdoms of Light and Darkness has been posited.  How now are we to account for the mixture of light and darkness, of good and evil, in the present order of things?  Mani would account for it by supposing that a conflict had occurred between an insufficiently equipped representative of the King of Light and the fully equipped ruler of the Kingdom of Darkness.  His view of the vastly superior power of the King of Light would not allow him to suppose that the King of Light fully equipped had personally contended with the King of Darkness, and suffered the loss and contamination of his elements.  Yet he only clumsily obviates this difficulty; for Primordial Man is produced and equipped by the King of Light for the very purpose of combating the King of Darkness, and Mani saves the King of Light from personal contamination only by impugning his judgment.

We have now reached the point where, as a result of the conflict, good and evil are blended.  We must beware of supposing that Mani meant to ascribe any kind of materiality to the members of the Kingdom of Light.  The Kingdom of Light, on the contrary, he regarded as purely spiritual; the Kingdom of Darkness as material.  We have now the conditions for the creation of the present order of things, including man.  How does Mani picture the process and the results of this mixing of the elements?

"The smoke (or vapor) was mingled with the gentle breeze (zephyr), and the present atmosphere resulted.  So that whatever of agreeableness and power to quicken the soul and animal life is found in it [resultant air], is from the zephyr, and whatever of destructiveness and noisomeness is found in it, proceeds from the smoke.  The burning was mingled with the fire; therefore whatever of conflagration, destruction and ruin is found, is from the burning, but whatever of brightness and illumination is in it [the resultant fire], springs 14from the fire.  The light mingled itself with the darkness; therefore in dense bodies as gold, silver and the like, whatever of brightness, beauty, purity and other useful qualities occurs, is from the light, and whatever of tarnish, impurity, density and hardness occurs, springs from the darkness.  The hot wind was mingled with the wind; whatever now is useful and agreeable in this [resultant wind] springs from the wind, and whatever of uneasiness, hurtfulness and deleterious property is found in it [resultant wind] is from the hot wind.  Finally, the mist was mingled with the water, so that what is found in this [resultant water] of clearness, sweetness, and soul-satisfying property, is from the water; whatever, on the contrary, of overwhelming, suffocating, and destroying power, of heaviness, and corruption, is found in it, springs from the mist."

But we must from this point abbreviate the somewhat prolix account.  Primordial Man, after the blending of the elements, ascended on high accompanied by "one of the angels of this intermingling;" in other words, snatching away a part of the imprisoned elements of the Kingdom of Light.

The next step is the creation of the present world, which Mani ascribes to the King of the World of Light, the object being to provide for the escape of the imprisoned elements of Light.  Through an angel he constructed ten heavens and eight earths, an angel being appointed to hold heavens and earths in their places.  A description of the stairways, doors, and halls of the heavens is given in the Fihrist’s narrative.  The stairways lead to the "height of heaven."  The air was used as a medium for connecting heaven and earth.  A pit was formed to be the receptacle of darkness from which the light should be liberated.  The sun and the moon were created to be the receptacles of the light that should be liberated from the darkness, the sun for light that has been mingled with "hot devils," the moon for that which had been mingled with "cold devils."  The moon is represented as collecting light during the first half-month, and during the second pouring it into the sun.  When the sun and moon have liberated all the light they are able, there will be a fire kindled on the earth which will burn for 1468 years, when there will be no light left.  The King of Darkness and his hosts will thereupon withdraw into the pit prepared for them.

(3.)  Anthropology.  So much for the liberation of the imprisoned light, which, according to Mani, was the sole object of creation.  As yet we have heard nothing of the creation of living creatures.  What place do man, the lower animals, and plants sustain in the Manichæan economy?  We are to keep constantly in mind that Primordial Man was not Adam, but a divine æon, and that he ascended into the heights immediately after the blending of parts of his armor with darkness.  The creation of earthly man was an altogether different affair.  We must give the account of man’s creation in Mani’s own words, as preserved by the Fihrist:  "Hereupon one of those Arch-fiends and [one] of the Stars, and Overmastering Violence, Avarice, Lust, and Sin, copulated, and from their copulation sprang the first man, who is Adam, two Arch-fiends, a male and a female, directing the process.  A second copulation followed and from this sprang the beautiful woman who is Eve."

Man, therefore, unlike the world, is the creature of demons, the aim of the demons being to imprison in man, through the propagation of the race, as much as possible of the light, and so to hinder the separating process by the sun and the moon.  Avarice is represented as having secretly seized some of the divine light and imprisoned it in man.  The part played by the Star in the production of man is somewhat obscure in the narrative, yet the Star could hardly have been regarded as wholly evil.  Probably the Star was thought of as a detached portion of the light that had not entered into the sun or the moon.  "When, therefore, the five Angels saw what had taken place, they besought the Messenger of Joyful Knowledge, the Mother of Life, Primordial Man and the Spirit of Life, to send some one to liberate and save man, to reveal to him knowledge and righteousness, and to free 15him from the power of the devils.  They sent, accordingly, Jesus, whom a god accompanied.  These seized the two Arch-fiends, imprisoned them and freed the two creatures (Adam and Eve.)"

Jesus warned Adam of Eve’s violent importunity, and Adam obeyed his injunction not to go near her.  One of the Arch-fiends, however, begat with her a son named Cain, who in turn begat Abel of his mother, and afterwards two maidens Worldly wise and Daughter-of-Avarice.  Cain took the first to wife and gave the other to Abel.  An angel having begotten of Worldly-wise two beautiful daughters (Raufarjâd and Barfarjâd), Abel accused Cain of the act.  Cain enraged by the false accusation slew Abel and took Worldly-wise to wife.  So far Adam had kept himself pure, but Eve was instructed by a demon in the art of enchanting, and she was enabled to excite his lust and to entrap him.  By Adam she bore a beautiful son, whom the demon urged Eve to destroy.  Adam stole the child away and brought it up on cow’s milk and fruit.  This son was named Seth (Schatil).  Adam once more yielded to Eve’s fascinations, but through Seth’s exhortations was induced to flee "eastward to the light and the wisdom of God."  Adam, Seth, Raufarjâd, Barfarjâd, and Worldly-wise died and went to Paradise; while Eve, Cain, and Daughter-of-Avarice went into Hell.  This fantastic perversion of the Biblical narrative of the creation and fall of man has many parallels in Rabbinic literature, and doubtless Mani first became acquainted with the narrative in a corrupted form.  The teaching, however, of this mythologizing evidently is that the indulgence of the flesh and the begetting of children furnish the chief obstacle to the separation of light from darkness.  Adam is represented as striving to escape from the allurements of Eve, but Eve is aided by demonic craft in overcoming him.  Yet Adam does not become enslaved to lust, and so at last is saved.  Eve, lustful from the beginning, is lost along with those of like disposition.

(4.)  Soteriology.  Such was, apparently, Mani’s conception of the creation of man, and of the attempts to liberate the light that was in him.  What were his practical teachings to men of his time as to the means of escape from the Kingdom of Darkness into the Kingdom of Light?  What view did Mani take of the historical Jesus?  The Jesus who warned Adam against the seductions of Eve was evidently not the Jesus of the New Testament.  According to the narrative of the Fihrist, Mani "maintained that Jesus is a devil."  Such a statement occurs nowhere else, so far as we are aware, in the literature of Manichæism.  The sources, however, are unanimous in ascribing to Mani a completely docetical view of the person of Christ.  In using this blasphemous language, he probably referred to the representations of Jesus as God manifest in the flesh, which he regarded as Jewish and abominable.  The New Testament narratives Mani [or at least his followers] regarded as interpolated in the interest of Judaism.  Later Manichæans, under the influence of Marcionism (and orthodoxy) gave to Jesus a far more prominent place in the economy of man’s salvation than did Mani himself.

How then is man to be saved according to Mani?  It is by rigorous asceticism, and by the practice of certain ceremonial observances.  Mani does not rise above the plane of ordinary heathenism in his plan of salvation.  "It is incumbent upon him who will enter into the religion that he prove himself, and that if he sees that he is able to subdue lust and avarice, to leave off the eating of all kinds of flesh, the drinking of wine, and connubial intercourse, and to withhold himself from what is injurious in water, fire, magic and hypocrisy, he may enter into the religion; but if not let him abstain from entering.  But if he loves religion, yet is not able to repress sensuality and avarice, yet he may make himself serviceable for the maintenance of religion and of the Truthful [i.e. the ‘Elect’], and may meet (offset) his corrupt deeds through the use of opportunities where he wholly gives himself up to activity, righteousness, zealous watchfulness, prayer and pious humiliation; for this suf16fices him in this transitory world and in the future eternal world, and his form in the last day will be the second form, of which, God willing, we shall treat further below."

The doctrine of indulgences of which the germs appeared in the Catholic church even before the time of Mani, is here seen fully developed.  What the Greek and Latin sources call the Elect or Perfect and the Hearers, are undoubtedly indicated here by those who are able to devote themselves to rigidly ascetical living, and those who, without such qualifications, are willing to exert themselves fully on behalf of the cause.  These latter evidently become partakers of the merits of those who carry out the ascetical regulations.  That this is primitive Manichæan doctrine is abundantly proved by the general agreement of ancient writers of all classes.  It is noteworthy that nothing Christian appears among the conditions of Manichæan discipleship.  It is not faith in Christ, but the ability to follow a particular kind of outward life that confers standing in the Manichæan society.

(5.)  Cultus.  Let us next look at the precepts of Mani to the initiated:  "Mani imposed upon his disciples commandments, namely, ten commandments, and to these are attached three seals, and fasts of seven days in each month.  The commandments are:  Faith in the four most glorious essences:  God, his Light, his Power, and his Wisdom.  But God, whose name is glorious, is the King of the Paradise of Light; his Light is the sun and the moon, his Power the five angels:  Gentle Breeze, Wind, Light, Water and Fire; and his Wisdom the Sacred Religion.  This embraces five ideas:  that of teachers, the sons of Meekness; that of those enlightened by the Sun, sons of Knowledge; that of the presbyters, sons of Reason; that of the Truthful, sons of Mystery; that of Hearers, sons of Insight.  The ten commandments are:  Abandoning of prayer to idols, of lies, avarice, murder, adultery, theft, of the teaching of jugglery and magic, of duplicity of mind, which betrays doubt on religion, of drowsiness and inertness in business; and the commandment of four or seven prayers.  In prayer one is to stand upright, rub himself with flowing water or with something else, and turn while standing to the great light (the Sun), then prostrate himself and in this position pray:  Blessed be our Leader, the Paraclete, the Ambassador of the Light, blessed be his angels, the Guardians, and highly praised be his resplendent hosts.… In the second prostration let him say:  Thou highly praised, O thou enlightening one, Mani, our Leader, thou root of enlightenment, stem of honorableness, thou great tree who art altogether the means of salvation.  In the third prostration let him say:  I fall down and praise with pure heart and upright tongue the great God, the Father of Light, and their element, highly praised, Blessed One, thou and thy whole glory and thy blessed world, which thou hast called into being.  For he praises thee who praises thy Host, thy Righteous Ones, thy Word, thy Glory, and thy Good Pleasure, because thou art the God who is wholly truth, life and righteousness.  In the fourth prostration let him say:  I praise and fall down before all the gods, all the enlightening angels, before all Light and all Hosts, who are from the great God.  In the fifth prostration let him say:  I fall down and praise the great Host and the enlightening Gods, who with their wisdom assail the Darkness, drive it out and triumph over it.  In the sixth prostration let him say:  I fall down and praise the Father of Glory, the Exalted One, the Enlightening One, who has come forth from the two sciences (see note in Flügel p. 310), and so on to the twelfth prostration. * * The first prayer is accomplished at mid-day, the second between this hour and sunset; then follows the prayer at eventide, after sunset, and hereupon the prayer in the first quarter of the night, three hours after sunset.

"As regards fasting, when the sun is in Sagittarius, and the moon has its full light, fasting is to take place for two days without interruption, also when the new moon begins to appear; likewise when the moon first becomes visible again after the sun has entered into the sign of Capricorn; then when the new moon begins to appear, the sun stands in Aquarius 17and from the moon eight days have flowed, a fast of thirty days occurs, broken, however, daily at sunset.  The common Manichæans celebrate Sunday, the consecrated ones (the ‘Elect’) Monday."

Here we have a somewhat detailed account of the cultus of the early Manichæans.  The forms of invocation do not differ materially from those of the Zoroastrians, of the early Indians, of the Babylonians, and of the Egyptians.  There is not the slightest evidence of Christian influence.  The times of worship and of fasting are determined by the sun and the moon, and practically these are the principal objects of worship.  It is certain that Mani himself was regarded by his followers as the most perfect revealer of God that had ever appeared among men, and, according to this account, he taught his followers to worship him.  We cannot fail to see in this Manichæan cult the old Oriental pantheism modified by a dualism, of which the most fully developed form was the Persian, but which, as we have seen, was by no means confined to Zoroastrianism.

(6.)  Eschatology.  We must conclude our exposition of the doctrines of the Manichæans by quoting from the Fihrist Mani’s teachings on eschatology.

"When death approaches a Truthful One (‘Elect’), teaches Mani, Primordial Man sends a Light-God in the form of a guiding Wise One, and with him three gods, and along with these the water-vessel, clothing, head-gear, crown, and garland of light.  With them comes the maiden, like the soul of this Truthful One.  There appears to him also the devil of avarice and lust, along with other devils.  As soon as the Truthful Man sees these he calls the goddess who has assumed the form of the Wise One and the three other gods to his help, and they draw near him.  As soon as the devils are aware of their presence they turn and flee.  The former, however, take this Truthful One, clothe him with the crown, the garland and the robe, put the water-vessel in his hand and mount with him upon the pillars of promise to the sphere of the moon, to Primordial Man, and to Nahnaha, the Mother of the Living, to the position in which he was at first in the Paradise of Light.  But his body remains lying as before in order that the sun, the moon, and the gods of Light may withdraw from it the powers, i.e., the water, the fire and the gentle breeze, and he rises to the sun and becomes a god.  But the rest of his body, which is wholly darkness, is cast into hell."

In the case of Manichæans of the lower order, described above, the same divine personages appear at his summons.  "They free him also from devils, but he ceases not to be like a man in the world, who in his dreams sees frightful forms and sinks into filth and mire.  In this condition he remains, until his light and his spirit are liberated and he has attained to the place of union with the Truthful, and after a long period of wandering to and fro puts on their garments."

To the sinful man, on the other hand, the divine personages appear, not to free him from the devils that are tormenting him, but rather to "overwhelm him with reproaches, to remind him of his deeds, and strikingly to convince him that he has renounced help for himself, from the side of the Truthful.  Then wanders he round about in the world, unceasingly chased by torments, until this order of things ceases, and along with the world he is cast into hell."

There is nothing original about the eschatology of Mani, and scarcely anything Christian.  We see in it a fully developed doctrine of purgatory, somewhat like the Platonic, and still more like that of the later Catholic church.  Salvation consists simply in the liberation of the light from the darkness.  In the case of the Elect this takes place immediately after death; in the case of adherents who have not practiced the prescribed forms of asceticism, it takes place only after considerable torment.  In the case of the ordinary sensual man, there is no deliverance.  Doubtless Mani would have held that in his case, too, 18whatever particles of light may have been involved in his animal structure are liberated from the dead body.

(7.)  Ethics.  As regards ceremonies we find little that enlightens us in the Fihrist’s account.  Water (that is, water apart from the deleterious elements that have become blended with it) was regarded by Mani as one of the divine elements.  The ablutions in running water mentioned above in connection with the prayers may have sustained some relation to baptism, but can hardly be ascribed to Christian influence.  The connection of the Manichæans with the Mandæans, who made much of ceremonial bathing, will be considered below.  It is certain that Mani’s father was connected with a baptizing party, viz., the Mugtasilah.  According to the Fihrist Mani was the author of an Epistle on Baptism.  The question whether Mani and his followers practised water-baptism or not is by no means an easy one to solve.  The passage cited by Giesseler from Augustin to prove that the "Elect" were initiated by baptism is inconclusive.  Augustin acknowledges that God and the Manichæans themselves alone know what takes place in the secret meetings of the "Elect."  Whatever ceremonies they performed, whether baptism or the Lord’s supper, or some other, were matters of profound secrecy, and so we need not wonder at the lack of definite information.  From a passage quoted by Augustin in his report of a discussion with Felix the Manichæan, we should certainly infer that both ordinances were practised in some form by the Manichæans of the West.  But Augustin himself says that Manichæans deny the saving efficacy of baptism, maintain that it is superfluous, do not require it of those whom they win to their views, etc.  It is certain, therefore, that if they practised baptism and the Lord’s supper at all, they attached to it a meaning radically different from that of Augustin.  It is possible that a ceremonial anointing with oil took the place of baptism.  (Baur, p. 277 sq.).  Augustin mentions a disgusting ceremony in which human semen was partaken of by the Elect in order to deliver the imprisoned light contained therein (De Haeres. 46), and he calls this ceremony a sort of Eucharist.  But his confessed ignorance of the doings of the "Elect" discredits in some measure this accusation.

The Fihrist gives us no definite information about the three signacula.  The seals (not signs) of the mouth, the hand (or hands), and of the bosom.  In these are contained symbolically the Manichæan moral system.  In the book Sadder (Hyde, p. 492) we read:  "It is taught [by the Manichæans] to abstain from every sin, to eliminate every sin from hand, and tongue and thought."  Augustin explains the signacula more fully and represents the Manichæans as attaching great importance to them:  "When I name the mouth, I mean all the senses that are in the head; when I name the hand I mean every operation; when I name the bosom I mean every seminal lust."

It is confidently believed that the foregoing account of the Manichæan system, based upon the Arabic narratives preserved by the Fihrist, supplemented by the principal Eastern and Western sources, contains the essential facts with reference to this strange system of religious thought.  Our next task will to be to ascertain, as precisely as possible, the relations that Manichæism sustained to the various religious systems with which it has commonly been associated.

Chapter IV.—Relation of Manichæism to Zoroastrianism.

The very close connection of these two systems has commonly been presupposed, and is undeniable.  In fact Manichæism has frequently been represented as Zoroastrian dualism, slightly modified by contact with Christianity and other systems.  No one could possibly gain even a superficial view of the two systems without being strongly impressed with their points of resemblance.  A closer examination, however, will reveal points of antagonism just as striking, and will enable us to account for the fact that Mani was put to death by a 19zealous Zoroastrian ruler on account of his recognized hostility to the state religion.  The leading features of the Manichæan system are already before us.  Instead of quoting at length from the Zend-Avesta, which is now happily accessible in an excellent English translation, we may for the sake of brevity quote Tiele’s description of Zoroastrian dualism as a basis of comparison:⁸⁸     Outlines of the Hist. of Religion (1877), p. 173.  Cf. J. Darmsteter, Introduction to the Zend-Avesta, p. xliii., xliv., lvi., lxxii., lxxiv. sq.; and his article in the Contemporary Review (Oct. 1879), on "The Supreme God in the Indo-European Mythology."

"Parsism is decidedly dualistic, not in the sense of accepting two hostile deities, for it recognizes no worship of evil beings, and teaches the adoration only of Ahura Mazda and the spirits subject to him; but in the sense of placing in hostility to each other two sharply divided kingdoms, that of light, of truth, and of purity, and that of darkness, of falsehood, and of impurity.  This division is carried through the whole creation, organic and inorganic, material and spiritual.  Above, in the highest sphere, is the domain of the undisputed sovereignty of the All-wise God; beneath, in the lowest abyss, the kingdom of his mighty adversary; midway between the two lies this world, the theatre of the contest.… This dualism further dominates the cosmogony, the cultus, and the entire view of the moral order of the world held by the Mazda worshippers.  Not only does Anro-Maînyus (Ahriman) spoil by his counter-creations all the good creations of Ahura-Mazda (Ormuzd), but by slaying the protoplasts of man and beast, he brings death into the world, seduces the first pair to sin, and also brings forth noxious animals and plants.  Man finds himself, in consequence, surrounded on all sides by the works of the spirits of darkness and by his hosts.  It is the object of worship to secure the pious against their influence."

Let us bring in review some of the points of resemblance between the two systems.  Both are in a sense dualistic.  In both the kingdoms of Light and Darkness are set over against each other in the sharpest antagonism.  In both we have similar emanations from these kingdoms (or kings).  Yet, while in the Manichæan system the dualism is absolute and eternal, in the later Zoroastrian system (as in the Jewish and Christian doctrine of Satan), Ahriman (Satan) if not merely a fallen creature⁹⁹     This is confidently asserted by Kessler (Art. Mani in Herzog’s RE, 2d ed. vol. IX. p. 258), and after him by Harnack, Encyclopædia Britannica, art. Manichæism.  On the other hand, Lenormant (Anc. Hist. II. p. 30), says:  "Ahriman had been eternal in the past, he had no beginning, and proceeded from no former being * * * .  This being who had no beginning would come to an end. * * * .  Evil then should be finally conquered and destroyed, the creation should become as pure as on its first day, and Ahriman should disappear forever."  Such, doubtless, was the original doctrine, but the form probably in vogue in the time of Mani was more pantheistic or monotheistic, both Ormuzd and Ahriman proceeding from boundless time (Zrvan akarana).  See on this matter, Darmsteter:  Introd. to the Zend-Avesta, p. lxxii, etc., and his art. in Contemp. Review; and Lenormant:  Anc. Hist. as above. of Ormuzd (the good and supreme God) was at least an immeasurably inferior being.  The supreme control of the universe, to which it owes its perfect order, was ascribed by Zoroastrianism to Ormuzd.  The struggle between good and evil, beneficent and malevolent, was due to the opposition of the mighty, but not almighty, Ahriman.  Whatever form of Mazdeism (Zoroastrianism) we take for purposes of comparison, we are safe in saying that the Manichæan dualism was by far the more absolute.

In both systems each side of the dualism is represented by a series (or rather several series) of personified principles.  These agree in the two systems in some particulars.  Yet the variations are quite as noticeable as the agreements.  There is much in common between the Manichæan and the Zoroastrian delineations of the fearful conflict between the Kingdom of Light and the Kingdom of Darkness, yet the beginning of the conflict is quite differently conceived of in the two systems.  In Manichæism the creation is accounted for by the conflict in which Primordial Man was beaten by the powers of Darkness and suffered the mixing of his elements with the elements of darkness.  The actual world was made by the good God, or rather by his subordinates, as a means of liberating the imprisoned light. 20The creation of man is ascribed, on the other hand, to the King of Darkness (or his subordinates), with a view to hindering the escape of the mingled light by diffusion thereof through propagation.  Mazdeism derives the creation solely from Ormuzd, from whose hand it issued "as pure and perfect as himself" (Lenormant, Anc. Hist. II. p. 30).  It was the work of Ahriman to "spoil it by his evil influence."  The appellation "Maker of the material world" is constantly applied to Ormuzd in the Vendîdâd and other sacred books. The most instructive Mazdean account of the creation that has come down to us is that contained in the Vendîdâd, Fargard I.  Ahura Mazda (Ormuzd) is represented here as naming one by one the sixteen good lands that he had created.  Angra Mainyu (Ahriman) is represented as coming to each, one by one, and creating in it noxious things.  Examples of these counter-creations are, the serpents, winter, venomous flies, sinful lusts, mosquitoes, pride, unnatural sin, burying the dead, witchcraft, the sin of unbelief, the burning of corpses, abnormal issues in women, oppression of foreign rulers, excessive heat, etc.  This jumble of physical evils and sins is characteristic of Mazdeism.

According to Mani matter is inherently evil, and it only ceases to be absolutely evil by the mixture with it of the elements of the Kingdom of Light.  Creation is a process forced upon the King of Light by the ravages of the King of Darkness, and is at best only partially good.  Zoroastrianism looked upon earth, fire, water, as sacred elements, to defile which was sin of the most heinous kind.  Manichæism regarded actual fire and water as made up of a mixture of elements of light and darkness, and so, as by no means wholly pure.  Manichæans regarded earth, so far as it consisted of dead matter, with the utmost contempt.  The life-giving light in it was alone thought of with respect.  Zoroastrianism somewhat arbitrarily divided animals and plants between the kingdoms of Ormuzd and Ahriman; but the idea that all material things, so far as they are material, are evil, seems never to have occurred to the early Mazdeists.  Manichæans agreed with Mazdeists in their veneration for the sun, but the principles underlying this veneration seem to have been widely different in the two cases.  The most radical opposition of the two systems is seen in their views of human propagation.  Mani regarded the procreation of children as ministering directly to the designs of the King of Darkness to imprison the light, and so absolutely condemned it.  The Zend-Avesta says:  (Vendîdâd, Fargard IV.):  "Verily I say unto thee, O Spitama Zarathustra; the man who has a wife is far above him who begets no sons; he who keeps a house is far above him who has none; he who has children is far above a childless man."  Mani made great merit of voluntary poverty.  The Zend-Avesta (ibid.) says:  "He who has riches is far above him who has none."  Mani forbade the use of animal food as preventing the escape of the light contained in the bodies of animals.  The Zend-Avesta (ibid.):  "And of two men, he who fills himself with meat is filled with the good spirit much more than he who does not do so; the latter is all but dead; the former is above him by the worth of an Asperena, by the worth of a sheep, by the worth of an ox, by the worth of a man."¹⁰¹⁰     That meat is used in the sense of flesh may be inferred from Darmsteter’s comment on this passage, which he suggests may be a bit of religious polemics against Manichæism.  See his Introd. to the Zend-Avesta, p. xl. sq.

The eschatology of the two systems might be shown to present just as striking contrasts, and just as marked resemblances.  In both systems the consummation of the age is effected by means of a conflagration, the aim of the conflagration in Mazdeism being the punishment and the purging of wicked men, the destruction of wicked spirits, the renovation of the earth, and the inauguration of the sole sovereignty of Ormuzd, while in Manichæism the aim of the conflagration is to liberate the portions of light which the processes of animal and vegetable growth, with the aid of sun and the moon have proved unable to liberate.

21But enough has been said to make it evident that Manichæism was by no means a slightly altered edition of Zoroastrianism.  The points of similarity between the two are certainly more apparent than real, though the historical relationship can by no means be denied.

Chapter V.—The Relation of Manichæism to the Old Babylonian Religion as Seen in Mandæism and Sabeanism.

It would have been strange indeed if the old Babylonian religion, after dominating the minds of the inhabitants of Mesopotamia for so many centuries, had given place completely to the religion of the Medo-Persian conquerors of the country.  Magism itself was a mixture of old Babylonian, Medic and Persian elements.  But there is much reason for believing that the primitive Babylonian faith, in a more or less pure form, persisted until long after the time of Mani, nay, that it has maintained its ground even till the present day.  The researches of Chwolson, Nöldeke, Kessler and others, in the literature and history of the Mandæans and the Sabeans, combined in the last case at least with accurate knowledge of old Babylonian literature and religion, have rendered it highly probable that representatives of the old Babylonian faith were numerous in Mesopotomia and the adjoining regions at the time of Mani, and that Mani himself was more or less closely connected with it.  The Mandæans were a Gnostic sect of the Ophitic type, without Christian elements.  It is the opinion of Kessler, who has devoted much attention to this sect and to the relations of occult religious matters in general in Mesopotomia, that "the source of all Gnosis, and especially the immediate source of Ophitic Gnosis, is not the doctrine of the Persian Zoroaster, not Phœnicean heathenism, not the theory and practise of Greek mysteries, but the old Babylonian-Chaldaic national religion, which maintained itself in Mesopotomia and Babylonia, the abode of the Ophites, Perates, Mandæans, until the post-Christian centuries, and was now opposed by the Gentiles in a mystical-ascetical form to Christianity."  The close connection of the Mandæans with the Ophites, and of both with the old Babylonian religion, would seem to be established beyond question.  The relation of Manichæism to Mandæism has been by no means so clearly shown.  Let us look at some of the supposed points of contact.  Mani’s connection with the Mugtasilah sect (or Baptizers) has already been mentioned.  Kessler seeks to identify this party with the Mandæans, or at least to establish a community of origin and of fundamental principles in the two parties.  He would connect with the old Babylonian sect, of which ceremonial baptism seems to have been a common characteristic, the Palestinian Hemero-baptists, Elkesaites, Nazareans, Ebionites, etc.  There is nothing improbable about this supposition.  Certainly we find elements in Palestinian heresy during the early Christian centuries, which we can hardly suppose to have been indigenous.  And there is no more likely source of occult religious influence than Babylonia, unless it be Egypt, and there is much reason for supposing that even in Alexandria Babylonian influences were active before and after the beginning of the Christian era.  Besides, a large number of Gnostic elements different from these can be traced to Egypt.  How far the Mandæans of modern times, and as they are described in extant literature, correspond with representatives of the old Babylonian religion in the third century, cannot be determined with complete certainty.  Yet there is much about this party that has a primitive appearance, and the tenacity with which it has held aloof from Judaism, Manichæism, Mohammedanism, and Oriental Christianity, during centuries of conflict and oppression, says much for its conservatism.  It would extend this chapter unduly to describe the elaborate cosmogony, mythology, hierarchy, ceremonial, etc., of this interesting party.  For the illustration of Christian Gnosticism the facts that have been brought out are of the utmost value.  As compared with Manichæism, there is a remarkable parallelism 22between the two kingdoms and their subordinates or æons; the conflict between Primordial Man and the King of Darkness has its counterpart in Mandæism.  The close connection of the Mandæan and the Manichæan cosmogony, together with similar views about water in the two parties, would make it highly probable that the Manichæans, like the Mandæans, practised some kind of ceremonial ablutions.

What, now, are the grounds on which the connection of these systems with the old Babylonian religion is based?  The dualistic element in the old Babylonian system was pointed out above.  Kessler seeks to establish an almost complete parallelism between the Mandæan and Manichæan cosmological and mythological systems on the one hand, and the old Babylonian on the other.  That there are points of striking resemblance it is certain.  There is ground to suspect, however, that he has been led by partiality for a theory of his own to minimize unduly the Zoroastrian and Buddhist influence and to magnify unduly the old Babylonian.  Be that as it may, there remains an important residuum of solid fact which must be taken account of by all future students of Manichæism.  There is reason to hope that future work along the lines of Kessler’s researches will bring to light much additional material.

Chapter VI.— The Relation of Manichæism to Buddhism.

The extent of Mani’s dependence on Buddhism is a matter that has been much disputed.  The attention of scholars was first directed to this possible source of Manichæism by the discovery of important features that are radically opposed to Zoroastrianism, Judaism and Christianity, and by the traditional historical connection of Mani with India and Turkestan.  The antagonism of spirit and matter, of light and darkness, the mixture of spirit and light with matter and darkness in the formation of the world, the final catastrophe in which complete simplicity shall be re-established, only inert matter and darkness remaining to represent the Kingdom of Darkness, abstinence from bloody sacrifices, from marriage, from killing or eating animals—points in which Manichæism differs widely from the other systems with which it stands historically related—find their counterpart in Buddhism.  It is certain, moreover, that they were fully developed in Buddhism centuries before the time of Mani.  Baur,¹¹¹¹     Das Manichäische Religionssystem, p. 433 sq. though not the first to suggest a connection of the two systems, was the first to show by a somewhat detailed comparison the close parallelism that exists between Manichæism and Buddhism.  Baur’s reasonings were still further elaborated and confirmed by Neander.¹²¹²     Church Hist. vol. I.   External grounds in favor of Mani’s dependence on Buddhism are the traditions of Mani’s journey to India and China, and of his prolonged stay in Turkestan, where Buddhism flourished at that time.  But it is on internal grounds that we chiefly rely.

If space permitted we could illustrate the close parallelism that undoubtedly exists between Manichæism and Buddhism, from Buddhist documents which have been made accessible through Professor Max Müller and his collaborators in The Sacred Book of the East, far more completely than was possible to Baur and Neander.  It is certain that parallels can be found in Buddhism for almost every feature of Manichæism that is sharply antagonistic to Zoroastrianism.  The Buddhist view of matter as antagonistic to spirit is fundamental.  It is the world of matter that deludes.  It is the body and its passions that prevent the longed-for Nirvana.  Buddhist asceticism is the direct outgrowth of the doctrine of the evil and delusive nature of matter.  The Buddhist doctrine of metempsychosis has its precise counterpart in Manichæism, but it should be said that this doctrine was widely diffused in the West, through Pythagoreanism, before the time of Mani.  The Buddhist tenderness for animal and plant life is paralleled by the Manichæan.  But there is 23considerable difference between the views on which this tenderness is based.  The Buddhist feeling was based, in part at least, upon the doctrine of metempsychosis, animals and plants being regarded as the abodes of human spirits awaiting their release into Nirvana.  The Manichæan looked upon the elements of light (life) contained in animals and plants as particles of God, and any injury done to them as a hindrance to the escape of these elements, to be conveyed away into the Kingdom of Light.  Both looked upon sexual intercourse as among the greatest of evils, though the theory in the two cases was slightly different.  So of the drinking of wine, the eating of animal food, etc.  The final state was conceived of in substantially the same way in the two systems.  Nirvana, the blowing out of man’s life as an individual entity, is quite paralleled by the Manichæan view of the gradual escape of the imprisoned particles of light into the Kingdom of Light.  In both cases the divine pleroma is to be restored in such a way as to destroy individual consciousness.

The Buddhist Bhikkhus (or ascetical monks) correspond very closely with the Manichæan Truthful Ones (Elect), and the relations of these to ordinary adherents of the parties was much the same in the two cases.  Both systems (like Christianity) had the proselyting spirit fully developed.  The position of Mani as a preacher or prophet corresponds with the Buddhist idea of the manifestations of Buddha.  The statement is attributed to Mani that "as Buddha came in the land of India, Zoroaster in the land of Persia, and Jesus in the land of the West, so at last in the epoch of the present this preaching came through me [Mani] in the land of Babylonia."  In the interest of his theory, which makes the old Babylonian religion the chief source of Manichæism, Kessler has attempted to detract from the significance of the Buddhist influence.  Yet he grants that the morality of the Manichæans (including many of the features mentioned above) was Buddhist.  The close connection of the two systems cannot, it would seem, be successfully gainsaid.¹³¹³     Cunningham, St. Austin and his Place in the History of Christian Thought (1886), has these remarks on the relation of Mani to Buddhism:  "Mani was indeed a religious reformer:  deeply impregnated with the belief and practice which Buddhist monks were spreading in the East, he tried with some success to reform the religion of Zoroaster in Persia [i.e. the Persian Empire], his native land.  While his fundamental doctrine, the root of his system, was of Persian origin, and he figured the universe to himself as if it were given over to the unending conflict between the Powers of Light and Darkness, in regard to discipline his system very closely resembles that founded by Buddha; the elect of the Manichæans correspond to the Buddhist monks:  the precepts about abstinence from meat and things of sense are, if not borrowed from the rules Gotama gave for the conduct of his followers, the outcome of the same principles about the nature of man."  Harnack, art. Manichæism in Ency. Britannica, follows Kessler in attaching slight importance to the Buddhist influence on Manichæism, preferring, with him, to derive nearly all of the features ascribed by Baur, Neander and others to Buddhist influence, to the old Babylonian religion, the precise character of which, in the time of Mani, is imperfectly understood.  Harnack’s (and Kessler’s) statements must therefore be taken with some allowance.  There is no objection, however, to supposing that Mani derived from the old Babylonian party or parties with which he came in contact religious principles which were wrought out in detail under the influence of Buddhism.  This is in fact what probably occurred.

Chapter VII.—The Relation of Manichæism to Judaism.

So far as a relation existed it was one of the intensest hostility.  Like the Gnostics in general, Manichæism looked upon the God of the Old Testament as an evil, or at least imperfect being.  On this matter we do not learn so much from the Oriental as from the Western sources, but even from the former the radical antagonism is manifest.

The statement in the Fihrist’s narrative, that "Mani treated all the prophets disparagingly in his books, degraded them, accused them of lying, and maintained that devils had possessed them and that these spoke out of their mouths; nay, he goes so far as expressly to assert in some passages of his books that the prophets were themselves devils," is precisely in the line of the later Manichæan polemics against the Judaistic element in Christianity.

The Manichæan account of the creation shows some acquaintance with the Jewish Scriptures or with Jewish tradition, yet the complete perversion of the Biblical account is 24one of the clearest indications of hostility.  It may be said in general that it is impossible to conceive of two systems of religion that have less in common, or more that is sharply antagonistic.  One of the principal points of controversy between Manichæans and Christians was the defense of the Jewish Scriptures and religion by the latter.  The Manichæan demanded the elimination from the current Christianity, and from the New Testament itself, of every vestige of Judaism.  Their objections to the Old Testament Scriptures and religion were in general substantially the same as those made by other Gnostics, especially by the Marcionites.  The Old Testament anthropomorphic representations seem to have been offensive to them, notwithstanding their own crude conceptions of the conflict between light and darkness, of the creation, etc.  The relation of God to the conquest of Canaan is a point that those inclined to cavil have never failed to make the most of.  The Old Testament encouragement of race propagation, the narratives of polygamy as practised by those that enjoyed the favor of the God of the Old Testament, the seeming approval of prevarication in several well-known cases, the institution of animal sacrifices, the allowing of the use of animal food, were among the standard objections that they raised against Judaism and against Christians who accepted the Old Testament.  Judaism had, since the captivity, had many representatives in Mesopotamia, and Mani was doubtless brought up to abominate the Jews.  Some of his extreme positions may have been primarily due to his radical anti-Judaistic tendencies.  We shall see hereafter how Augustin met the Manichæan objections to the Old Testament.

Chapter VIII.—The Relation of Manichæism to Christianity.

Far more superficial are the relations of Manichæism to Christianity than to any of the heathen systems to which we have adverted.  In fact no Christian idea has been introduced into the system without being completely perverted.  If Christian language is used, it is utterly emptied of its meaning.  If Christian practices are introduced, a completely different motive lies at the basis.  Indeed the wildest of the Christian Gnostic systems kept immeasurably nearer to historical Christianity than did the Manichæans.  While he blasphemed against the historical Jesus, Mani claimed to believe in Christ, a purely spiritual and divine manifestation, whose teachings had been sadly perverted by the Jews.  It is scarcely possible to determine with any certainty what view Mani actually took of New Testament history.  That he claimed to be a follower of Christ, and the Paraclete whom Christ had promised to send, or at least the organ of the Paraclete, Eastern and Western authorities agree.  Mani is said, by Augustin, to have begun his Fundamental Epistle as follows:  "Manichæus, an Apostle of Jesus Christ, by the providence of God the Father.  These are wholesome words from the perennial and living fountain."  So also in the Act. Archel., Mani is represented as introducing a letter:  "Manichæus, an Apostle of Jesus Christ, and all the saints who are with me, and the virgins, to Marcellus, my beloved son:  Grace, mercy, and peace be with you from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ."  There can be no doubt but that Mani and his followers, whether from designed imposture or from less sinister motives, attempted to palm themselves off as Christians, nay, as the only true Christians.  It is certain, moreover, that in this guise they gained many proselytes from the Christian ranks.  As previously remarked, Mani and his followers professed to accept the New Testament Scriptures, yet they treated them in a purely subjective manner, eliminating as Judaistic interpolation whatever they could not reconcile with their own tenets.  Their adherence to the New Testament, as well as their adherence to Christ, was, therefore, virtually a mere pretence.  In common with Christianity, Manichæism laid much stress on redemption, yet there was nothing in common between the Christian idea of redemption through the atoning suffering of Jesus Christ and the Manichæan notion of 25redemption through the escape of imprisoned light.  Manichæans and Christians were at one in advocating self-denial and the due subordination of the flesh.  It need not be pointed out how radically different the Christian view was from the Manichæan view, already expounded.  Yet pagan ascetical ideas had already invaded the Church long before the time of Mani, and many Christians were in a position to be attracted strongly by the Manichæan theory and practice.  The later asceticism as it appeared in the hermit life of the fourth and following centuries was essentially pagan and had much in common with the Manichæan.  Still more manifest is the anatagonism between Manichæism and Christianity on the great fundamental principles of religion.  The Manichæan and Christian ideas of God are mutually contradictory.  Christianity holds fast at the same time to the unity, the omnipotence, the omniscience, the perfect wisdom, the holiness and the goodness of God.  If He permits sin to exist in the world it is not because He looks upon it with complacency, nor because He lacked wisdom to provide against its rise or power to annihilate it at once when it appeared, nor because He did not foresee its rise and its ravages, but because the permission of sin forms part of His all-wise plan for the education of moral and spiritual beings.  If the forces of nature are under certain circumstances hurtful or destructive to man, Christianity does not regard them as the operations of a malevolent power thwarting God’s purposes, but it sees underneath the destructive violence purposes of goodness and of grace; or if it fails to see them in any given instance it yet believes that God doeth all things well.  Christianity admits the existence of evil in men and in demons, yet of evil that ministers to the purposes of the Most High.  Christianity is the only religion that has been able to arrive at a perfectly satisfactory theology, cosmology, anthropology, and eschatology, and this is because Christianity alone has a true and satisfying soteriology.  It is God manifest in the flesh that meets all the conditions for the solution of the problem of human existence.  Manichæism openly antagonized Christianity in its adherence to Old Testament revelation, including the Jewish and Christian monotheism.  The good God could not, they maintained, be the creator of this world and of the universe of being.  That God should be looked upon as in any sense the creator of the devil and his angels, and of the material world, was in their view an absurdity—a monstrosity.  The unchristian character of the Manichæan view of matter, leading to unchristian asceticism, has already been sufficiently indicated.  The reader will only need to compare the principles and practices of Manichæism, as delineated above, with those of Christianity as they are delineated in the New Testament and in the evangelical churches of to-day, to be impressed with the completely anti-Christian character of the former.

How then, it may well be asked, could Manichæism succeed as it did in fascinating so many intelligent members of the Catholic Church during the third, fourth and fifth centuries?  In attempting to answer this question it should be premised that the later Western Manichæism took far more account of historical Christianity than did Mani and his immediate followers.  In the West, at least, Manichæism set itself up as the only genuine exponent of Christianity.  The Jewish-Alexandrian philosophy, and Gnosticism its product, had done much towards discrediting the Old Testament Scriptures, and the moral and religious teachings therein contained.  Devout Jewish and Christian thinkers who had adopted this mode of thought, had attempted by means of the allegorical method of interpretation to reconcile the seeming antagonism between Judaism and philosophy.  But the process was so forced that its results could not be expected to satisfy those that felt no special interest in the removal of the difficulties.  Marcionism represents a stern refusal to apply the allegory, and a determination to exhibit the antagonism between Judaism and current thought, and especially the seeming antagonism between Judaism and Christianity, in the harshest manner.  Marcionism was still vigorous in the East when Manichæism arose, and 26through this party unfavorable views of the Old Testament were widely disseminated.  Many Christians doubtless felt that the Old Testament and its religion were burdensome and trammelling to Christianity.  The very fact that Mani set aside so summarily every element of Judaism that he encountered in the current Christianity, doubtless commended his views to a large and influential element in the East and the West alike.  Mani claimed to set forth a spiritual religion as opposed to a carnal.  The asceticism of Manichæism was in the line of a wide-spread popular ascetical movement that was already in progress, and so commended it to many.  The question as to the origin of evil, and as to the relation of the good, wise and powerful God to the evil that appears in the world, in man and in demons was never asked with more interest than during the early Christian centuries, and any party that should advance a moderately plausible theory was sure to receive its share of public attention.  Mani professed to have a solution and the only possible solution of questions of this class, and however fantastic may have been the forms in which his speculations were set forth, they were doubtless all the more acceptable on this account in that semi-pagan age to many intelligent people.  The fact that these forms satisfied so able a thinker as Mani undoubtedly was, would guarantee their acceptance by a large number both East and West.  There was in the West at this time, and had been for centuries, a hankering after Oriental theosophy, the more extravagant the better.  The wide-spread worship of Mithra was an excellent preparation for the more complete system of Mani.  Manichæism and Neo-Platonism antagonized the Christianity of the fourth and fifth centuries from opposite sides, and those minds for whom Platonism had no charms were almost sure to be attracted by the theosophy of Mani.  "How are we to explain," asks Harnack,¹⁴¹⁴     Encyclopædia Britannica, art. Manichæism. "the rapid spread of Manichæism, and the fact that it really became one of the great religions?  Our answer is, that Manichæism was the most complete Gnosis, the richest, most consequent and most artistic system formed on the basis of the ancient Babylonian religion.… What gave strength to Manichæism was… that it united its ancient mythology and a thorough-going materialistic dualism with an exceedingly simple spiritual worship and a strict morality.  On comparing it with the Semitic religions of nature, we perceive that it retained their mythologies, after transforming them into doctrines, but abolished all their sensuous cultus, substituting instead a spiritual worship as well as a strict morality.  Manichæism was thus able to satisfy the new wants of an old world.  It offered revelation, redemption, moral virtue, and immortality [this last is very doubtful, if conscious immortality be meant], spiritual benefits on the basis of the religion of nature.  A further source of strength lay in the simple, yet firm social organization which was given by Mani himself to his new institution.  The wise man and the ignorant, the enthusiast and the man of the world, could all find acceptance here, and there was laid on no one more than he was able and willing to bear."

The question as to the secret of the fascination that Manichæism was able to exercise even over the most intelligent Western minds, may receive a more concrete answer from the autobiographical account of Augustin’s own relations to the party.  What was it that attracted and enthralled, for nine years, him who was to become the greatest theologian of the age?  In his Confessions (Book III. ch. 6) he gives this impassioned account of his first connection with Manichæism:  "Therefore I fell among men proudly railing, very carnal and voluble, in whose mouth were the snares of the devil—the bird lime being composed of a mixture of the syllables of Thy Name, and of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, the Comforter.  These names departed not out of their mouths, but so far forth as the sound and clatter of the tongue; for the heart was empty of truth.  Still 27they cried ‘Truth, Truth,’ and spoke much about it to me, yet it was not in them, but they spake falsely not of Thee only—who, verily art the Truth—but also of the elements of this world, Thy creatures… O Truth, Truth! how inwardly even then did the marrow of my soul pant after Thee, when they frequently and in a multiplicity of ways, and in numerous and huge books, sounded out Thy Name to me, though it was but a voice.  And these were the dishes in which to me, hungering for Thee, they, instead of Thee, served up the sun and the moon, Thy beauteous works—but yet Thy works, not Thyself, nay, nor Thy first works…Woe, woe, by what steps was I dragged down to the depths of hell!—toiling and turmoiling through want of Truth, when I sought after Thee, my God,—to Thee I confess it, who hadst mercy on me when I had not yet confessed, sought after Thee not according to the understanding of the mind in which Thou desiredst that I should excel the beasts, but according to the sense of the flesh."

Chapter IX.—Augustin and the Manichæans.

In the preceding Chapter we have given in Augustin’s own words some account of the process by which he became ensnared in Manichæan error.  In reading Augustin’s account of his experience among the Manichæans, we can not escape the conviction that he was never wholly a Manichæan, that he never surrendered himself absolutely to the system.  He held it rather as a matter of opinion than as a matter of heart-attachment.  Doubtless the fact that he continued to occupy himself with rhetorical and philosophical studies prevented his complete enthrallment.  His mind was not naturally of an Oriental cast, and the study of the hard, common-sense philosophy of Aristotle, and of the Eclecticism of Cicero, could hardly have failed to make him more or less conscious of the absurdity of Manichæism.  The influence of scientific studies on his mind is very manifest from Confessions, Book V. ch. 3, where he compares the accurate astronomical knowledge with which he had become acquainted, with the absurd cosmological fancies of Faustus, the great Manichæan teacher who appeared at Carthage in Augustin’s twenty-ninth year.  "Many truths, however, concerning the creation did I retain from these men [the philosophers], and the cause appeared to confirm calculations, the succession of seasons, and the visible manifestations of the stars; and I compared them with the sayings of Manichæus, who in his frenzy has written most extensively on these subjects, but discovered not any account either of the solstices, or the equinoxes, the eclipses of the luminaries, or anything of the kind I had learned in the books of secular philosophy.  But therein I was ordered to believe, and yet it corresponded not with those rules acknowledged by calculation and by our light, but was far different."

From this time Augustin’s faith was shaken, and he was soon able to throw off completely the yoke that had become too grievous to be borne.  But to reject Manichæism was not necessarily to become an orthodox Christian.  Augustin finds himself still greatly perplexed about the nature of God and the origin of evil, problems the somewhat plausible Manichæan solutions of which had ensnared him.  It was through Platonism, or rather Neo-Platonism, that he was led to more just and satisfying views, and through Platonism, along with other influences, he was enabled at last to find peace in the bosom of the Catholic church.  "And Thou, willing to show me how Thou ‘resistest the proud, but givest grace unto the humble,’ and by how great an act of mercy Thou hadst pointed out to men the path of humility, in that ‘Thy Word was made flesh and dwelt among men,’—Thou procuredst for me, by the instrumentality of one inflated with monstrous pride, certain books of the Platonists, translated from Greek into Latin.  And therein I read not indeed in the same words but to the self-same effect, enforced by many and divers reasons, that ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  The same was in the beginning with God.  All things were made by Him; and without Him was 28not anything made that was made.’"¹⁵¹⁵     Confessions, Book. VII. ch. 9, vol. 1. p. 108, of the present series.  In other words, Augustin thought that he discerned complete harmony between the prologue of John’s gospel and the teachings of the Platonists, and in this teaching, thus corroborated, he found the solution of the problem that had caused him such anguish of soul.  In this connection Augustin points out in some detail the features that Platonism and Christianity have in common.  Thus Neo-Platonism, not blindly followed, but adapted to his Christian purpose, became not only a means of deliverance to Augustin himself, but a mighty weapon for the combating of Manichæan error.

Neo-Platonism enters so largely and influentially into Augustin’s polemics against Manichæism that it will be apposite here to inquire into the extent and the nature of Augustin’s dependence on this system of thought.  Much has been written on this subject, especially by German and French scholars.  A brief statement of some of the more important points of contact is all that is allowable in an essay like this.  Premising, therefore, that Platonism essentially influenced the entire circle of Augustin’s theological and philosophical thinking, let us first examine the Neo-Platonic and Augustinian conceptions of God.  With Augustin God is absolutely simple and immutable, incomprehensible by men in their present state of existence, exalted above all human powers of thought or expression.  All things may be said of God, and yet nothing worthily; God is honored more by reverential silence than by any human voice.  He is better known by not being known; it is easier to say what He is not, than what He is.  God is wanting in qualities; has no variety and multitude of properties and attributes; is absolutely simple.  By no means is God to be called substance, for the word substance pertains to a certain accident; nor is it allowable to think of Him as composed of substance and of accidents.  Divine qualities are therefore purely subjective.  There is no discrimination in God of substance and accidents, of potency and act, of matter and form, of universal and singular, of superior and inferior.  To know, to will, to do, to be, are in God equivalent and identical.  Eternity itself is the substance of God, which has nothing mutable, nothing past, nothing future.  God makes new things, without being Himself new, unchangeable He makes changeable things, He always works and always rests.  The changes that take place in the world do not fall in the will of God, but solely in the things moved by God.  God changes them out of His unchangeable counsel.  For nearly every one of these statements an almost exact parallel can be pointed out in the writings of Plotinus, the Neo-Platonic writer with whom Augustin was most conversant.¹⁶¹⁶     See G. Loesche:  De Augustino Plotinizante in Doctrina de Deo Disserenda, Jenæ, 1880.  Also, Dorner:  Augustinus, Zeller, Ueberweg, Ritter, and Erdmann:  Histories of Philosophy, sections on Augustin and Neo-Platonism.   It would be easy to point out that Augustin here goes to a dangerous extreme, and narrowly escapes fatalism on the one hand, and denial of the true personality of God on the other.  But the effectiveness of this type of teaching against Manichæism is what chiefly interests us in this connection.  Readers of the following treatises will have no difficulty in seeing for themselves how confidently and with what telling effect Augustin employs this view of God against the crudities of Manichæism, which thought of God as mutable, as capable of being successfully assailed by evil, as rent asunder, as suffering miserable contamination and imprisonment by mixture with matter, as painfully struggling for freedom, as suffering with the suffering of plants and animals, as liberated by their decay and by the digestive operations of the faithful, etc., etc.

Again, while still a Manichæan Augustin had thought and written much about beauty.  On this point also, the throwing off of Manichæism and the adoption of a Platonizing Christianity brought about a revolution in his conceptions.  The exactness with which he has followed Plotinus in his ideas of the beauty of God and of his creatures is remarkable.  This we could fully illustrate by the citation of parallel passages.  But we must content our29selves with remarking that Augustin himself acknowledged his indebtedness, and that his idea of beauty was an important factor in his polemics against Manichæism.  According to Augustin (and Plotinus) God is the most beautiful and splendid of all beings.  He is the beauty of all beauties; all the beautiful things that are the objects of our vision and love He Himself made.  If these are beautiful what is He?  All beauty is from the highest beauty, which is God.  Augustin follows Plato and Plotinus even in neglecting the distinction between the good and the beautiful.  The idea of Divine beauty Augustin applies to Christ also.  He speaks of Him as beautiful God, beautiful Word with God, beautiful on earth, beautiful in the womb, beautiful in the hands of his parents, beautiful in miracles, beautiful in being scourged, beautiful when inciting to life, beautiful when not caring for death, beautiful when laying down his life, beautiful when taking it up again, beautiful in the sepulchre, beautiful in Heaven.  The beauty of the creation, which is simply a reflection of the beauty of God, is not even disturbed by evil or sin.  Beauty is with Augustin (and the Platonists) a comprehensive term, and is almost equivalent to perfect harmony or symmetry of parts, perfect adaptation of beings to the ends for which they exist.

It is patent that this view of the beauty of God and His creation is diametrically opposed to the crude conceptions of Mani, with reference to the disorder of the universe, a disorder not confined even to the Kingdom of Darkness, but invading the Realm of light itself.  So also Augustin’s Platonizing views of the creation must be taken into consideration in judging of his attitude towards Manichæism.  It goes without saying that from Augustin’s theological point of view, to account for creation is a matter of grave difficulty.  How can there be a relation between the infinite and the finite?  Any substantial connection is unthinkable.  The only thing left is a relation of causality.  The finite, according to Plotinus, is an accident, an image and shadow of God.  It is constituted, established, sustained, and nourished by the Divine potency, and is therefore absolutely dependent upon God.  The power that flows from God permeates each and every finite thing.  God as one, whole, and indivisible, is perpetually present with his eternal process, to everything, everywhere.  When Augustin teaches that God of his own free will, subject to no necessity, by His own Word created the world out of nothing, this statement might be taken in connection with his view of the absolute simplicity of God and the consequent denial of distinction between being, willing, doing, etc.  The easiest way to get over the difficulty involved in creation was to maintain the simultaneous creation of all things.  The six days of creation in Genesis are an accommodation to human modes of thinking.  In some expressions Augustin approaches the Platonic doctrine of the ideal or archetypal world.  Finite things, so far as they exist, are essence, i.e., God; so far as they are not essence they do not exist at all.  Thus the distinction between God and the world is almost obliterated.  Again, whatever is finite and derivative is subject to negation or nothingness.  Thus he goes along with Plato and Plotinus to the verge of denying the reality of derived existence, and so narrowly escapes pantheism.

It is easy to see how effectively this conception of creation might be employed against the Manichæan notion of the creation as something forced upon God by the powers of evil, and as a mere expedient for the gradual liberation of his imprisoned elements.  The Manichæan limitation of God and his domain by the bordering Kingdom of Darkness, was in sheer opposition to Augustin’s view of the indivisibility of God and his presence as a whole everywhere and always.  Augustin’s theory that nature or essence, as far as it has existence is God, is quite the antithesis of Mani’s dualism, especially of his supposition that the Kingdom of Darkness is essentially and wholly evil.  Augustin argued that even the inhabitants of the Kingdom of Darkness, and the King of Darkness himself, according to Mani’s own representations, are good so far as they have essence or nature, and evil only so far as they are non-existent.

30With Augustin’s Platonizing view of creation is closely connected his theory of evil and his doctrine of divine providence.  Evil with him, as with the Platonists, has no substantial existence.  It is only privation of good.  It is wanting in essence, substance, truth,—is in short mere negation, and so cannot have God for its efficient cause or author, or be referred to God.  God would not have permitted evil unless by His own supreme power he had been able to make good use of it.  He attempts, with some success, to show the advantages of the permission of evil in the world.  God made all things good from the angels of heaven to the lowest beasts and herbs of the earth.  Augustin delighted, with the Platonists, in dwelling upon the goodness of nature as shown in the animal and vegetable worlds, as well as in the great cosmical phenomena.  Each creature of God has its place, some a higher, some a lower, but all so far as they conform to the idea of their creation, or to their nature, are good.  So far as they fall short of this idea they are evil.

This principle Augustin applied with great force to the confutation of the Manichæan view of the substantiality and permanence of evil.  This may be regarded as the central point in Augustin’s controversies with the Manichæans.  He evidently felt that the Manichæan view of evil was the citadel of their system, and he never wearied of assailing it.  It would be beyond the scope of the present essay to inquire whether and how far Augustin himself became involved in error, in his efforts to dislodge the Manichæans.  Far less satisfactory than his confutation of the fundamental principles of the Manichæan system were his answers to the Manichæan cavils against the Old Testament.  If we may judge from the prominence given in the extant literature to the Old Testament question, this must have been the favorite point of attack with the Manichæans.  The importance of the questions raised and the necessity of answering them was fully recognized by Augustin.  His principal reliance is the allegorical or typological method of interpretation.  It would be hard to find examples of more perverse allegorizing than Augustin’s Anti-Manichæan treatises furnish.  It will not be needful to adduce instances here, as readers of the treatises will discover them in abundance.  Nothing more wearisome and disgusting in Biblical interpretation can well be conceived of than certain sections of The Reply to Faustus, the Manichæan.  Yet Augustin did not fail entirely to recognize the distinction between Old Testament times and New, and he even suggests the theory "that God could in a former age and to a people of a lower moral standard, give commands to do actions, which we should think it wrong to do now.… There was a certain inward want, an unenlightenment, a rudeness of moral conception, in those to whom such commands were given; otherwise they would not have been given.  God would not have given a command to slaughter a whole nation to an enlightened people."¹⁷¹⁷     See J. B. Mozley’s Ruling Ideas in Early Ages, art. The Manichæans and the Jewish Fathers.  The sentence quoted above is Mozley’s.

Yet with all the defects of Augustin’s polemics against the Manichæans, they seem to have been adapted to the needs of the time.  Well does Canon Mozley declare Augustin to have been "the most marvellous controversial phenomenon which the whole history of the Church from first to last presents.… Armed with superabundant facility of expression,—so that he himself observes that one who had written so much must have a good deal to answer for,—he was able to hammer any point of view which he wanted, and which was desirable as a counteracting one to a pervading heresy, with endless repetition upon the ear of the Church; at the same time varying the forms of speech sufficiently to please and enliven."  Certainly he was one of the greatest debaters of any age.  He doubtless deserves the credit of completely checking the progress of Manichæism in the West, and of causing its gradual but almost complete overthrow.  His arguments were probably more effective in guarding Christians against perversion by Manichæan proselytizers, than in converting 31those that were already ensnared by Manichæan error.  Other controversies of a completely different character, especially the Pelagian, caused Augustin to look to other aspects of truth and so led to certain modifications in his own statements, nay led him on some occasions to the verge of Manichæan error itself.  But we are chiefly interested at present in knowing that his earnest efforts against the Manichæans from A.D. 388, the year of his baptism, to A.D. 405, were not in vain.¹⁸¹⁸     For an account of the controversies in which Augustin was engaged with the Manichæans, and for the chronological order of the Anti-Manichæan treatises, see the Preface of the Edinburgh editor.  Cf. Bindemann, on the various controversies, in his Der h. Augustinus, passim.  See also, a good chronological list of St. Augustin’s works in Cunningham:  St. Austin, p. 277 sq.

Chapter X.—Outline of Manichæan History.¹⁹¹⁹     Compare Professor George T. Stokes’ excellent article Manichæans, in Smith and Wace:  Dict. of Chr. Biography, vol. III. p. 798 sq.

In the East Mani’s followers were involved in the persecution that resulted in his death, and many of them fled to Transoxiania.  Their headquarters and the residence of the chief of the sect continued to be Babylon.  They returned to Persia in 661, but were driven back, 908–32.  They seem to have become very numerous in the Transoxiania.  Albîrûnî, 973–1048, speaks of the Manichæans as still existing in large numbers throughout all Mohammedan lands, and especially in the region of Samarkand, where they were known as Sabeans.  He also relates that they were prevalent among the Eastern Turks, in China, Thibet and India.  In Armenia and Cappadocia they gained many followers, and thence made their way into Europe.  The Paulicians are commonly represented as a Manichæan party, but the descriptions that have come down to us would seem to indicate Marcionitic rather than Manichæan elements.  Yet contemporary Catholic writers such as Peter Siculus and Photius constantly assail them as Manichæans.

In the West we have traces of their existence from 287 onwards.  Diocletian, according to a somewhat doubtful tradition, condemned its leaders to the stake, and its adherents to decapitation with confiscation of goods.  The edict is supposed to have been directed to the pro-consul of Africa where Manichæans were making great progress.  According to an early account, Mani sent a special envoy to Africa.  Valentinian (372) and Theodosius (381) issued bloody edicts against them, yet we find them still aggressive in the time of Augustin.  From Africa Manichæism spread into Spain, Gaul and Aquitaine.  Leo the Great and Valentinian III. took measures against them in Italy (440 sq.).  They appear, however, to have continued their work, for Gregory the Great mentions them (590 sq.).  From this time onwards their influence is to be traced in such parties as the Euchites, Enthusiasts, Bogomiles, Catharists, Beghards, etc.  But it is not safe to attach too much importance to the mere fact that these parties were stigmatized as Manichæans by their enemies.  Even in the Reformation time and since, individuals and small parties have appeared which in some features strongly resembled the ancient Manichæans.  Manichæism was a product of the East, and in the East it met with most acceptance.  To the spirit of the West it was altogether foreign, and only in a greatly modified form could it ever have flourished there.  It might persist for centuries as a secret society, but it could not endure the light.

33

Preface to the Anti-Manichæan Writings.

————————————

No reader of the accompanying volume can be expected to take a very lively interest in its contents, unless he has before his mind some facts regarding the extraordinary genius to whom the heresy of Manichæism owes its origin and its name.  His history is involved in considerable obscurity, owing to the suspicious nature of the documents from which it is derived, and the difficulty of constructing a consistent and probable account out of the contradictory statements of the Asiatics and the Greeks.  The ascertained facts, therefore, are few, and may be briefly stated.²⁰²⁰     Beausobre (Histoire Critique de Manichée et du Manichéisme, Amst. 1734, 2 vols.) has collected everything that is known of Mani.  The original sources are here sifted with unusual acuteness, and with great and solid learning, though the author’s strong "bias in favor of a heretic" frequently leads him to make unwarranted statements.  Burton’s estimate of this entertaining and indispensable work (Heresies of Apostol. Age, p. xxi.), is much fairer than Pusey’s (Aug. Conf. p. 314).  A brief account of Mani and his doctrines is given by Milman with his usual accuracy, impartiality and lucidity (Hist. of Christianity, ii. 259, ed. 1867).  For any one who wishes to investigate the subject further, ample references are there given.  A specimen of the confusion that involves the history of Mani will be found in the account given by Socrates (Hist. i. 22).

According to the Chronicle of Edessa, Mani was born A.D. 240.²¹²¹     [For the Oriental accounts of Mani’s parentage and youth, see the Introductory Essay, and the works there referred to.—A.H.N.]   From his original name, Corbicius or Carcubius, Beausobre conjectures that he was born in Carcub, a town of Chaldæa.  He belonged to a Magian family, and while still a youth won a distinguished place among the sages of Persia.  He was master of all the lore peculiar to his class, and was, besides, so proficient a mathematician and geographer, that he was able to construct a globe.  He was a skilled musician, and had some knowledge of the Greek language,—an accomplishment rare among his countrymen.  But his fame, and even his ultimate success as a teacher, was due in great measure to his skill in painting, which was so considerable as to earn for him among the Persians the distinctive title, Mani the painter.  His disposition was ardent and lively but patient and self-restrained.  His appearance was striking, as he wore the usual dress of a Persian sage:  the high-soled shoes, the one red, the other green; the mantle of azure blue, that changed color as he moved; the ebony staff in his right hand, and the Babylonish book under his left arm.

The meaning of his name, Mani, Manes, or Manichæus, has been the subject of endless conjectures.  Epiphanius supposes that he was providentially so named, that men might be warned against the mania of his heresy.²²²²     See also Eusebius:  Hist. Eccl. vii. 31, with Heinichen’s note.   Hyde, whose opinion on any Oriental subject must have weight, tells us that in Persian mani means painter, and that he was so called from his profession.  Archbishop Usher conjectured that it was a form of Manaem or Menahem, which means Paraclete or Comforter; founding this conjecture on the fact that Sulpicius Severus calls the Israelitish king Menahem,²³²³     2 Kings xv. 14. Mane.  Gataker supplements this idea by the conjecture that Mani took this name at his own instance, and in pursuance of his claim to be the Paraclete.  It is more probable that, if his name was really given on account of this meaning, he received it from the widow who seems to have adopted him when a boy, and may have called him her Consolation.  But it is also possible that Mani was not an uncommon Persian name, and that he adopted it for some reason too trifling to discover.²⁴²⁴     "Peut-être cherchons nous du mystere, ou il n’y en a point."—Beausobre, i. 79.

While still a young man he was ordained as a Christian priest, and distinguished himself in that capacity by his knowledge of Scripture, and the zeal with which he discharged his sacred functions.²⁵²⁵     [This is in the highest degree improbable.—A.H.N.]   His heretical tendencies, however, were very soon manifested, stimulated, we may suppose, by his anxiety to make the Christian religion more acceptable to those who adhered to the Eastern systems.  Excommunicated from the Christian Church, Mani found asylum with Sapor, and won his confidence by presenting only the Magian side of his system.  But no sooner did he permit the Christian element to appear, and call himself the apostle of the Lord, and show a desire to reform Magianism, than his sovereign determined to put him to death as a revolutionist.  Forced to flee, he took refuge in Turkestan, and gained influence there, partly by decorating the temples with paintings.  To lend his doctrines the appearance of divine authority, he adopted the same device as Zoroaster 34and Mohammed.  Having discovered a cave through which there ran a rill of water, he laid up in it a store of provisions, and retired there for a year, giving out that he was on a visit to heaven.  In this retirement he produced his Gospel,²⁶²⁶     Called Erteng or Arzeng, i.e., according to Renaudot, an illustrated book. —a work illustrated with symbolical drawings the ingenuity of which has been greatly praised.  This book Mani presented to Hormizdas, the son and successor of Sapor, who professed himself favorable to his doctrine, and even built him a castle as a place of shelter and retirement.  Unfortunately for Mani, Hormizdas died in the second year of his reign; and though his successor, Varanes, was at first willing to shield him from persecution, yet, finding that the Magians were alarmed for their religion, he appointed a disputation to be held between the opposing parties.  Such trials of dialectic in Eastern courts have not unfrequently resulted in very serious consequences to the parties engaged in them.  In this instance the result was fatal to Mani.  Worsted in argument, he was condemned to die, and thus perished in some sense as a martyr.  The mode of his death is uncertain,²⁷²⁷     Böhringer adopts the more horrible tradition.  "Sein Schicksal war, dass er von den Christen, von den Magiern verfolgt, nach mannig fachem Wechsel unter Bahram lebendig geschunden wurde" (p. 386). but it seems that his skin was stuffed with chaff, and hung up in public in terrorem.  This occurred in the year 277, and the anniversary was commemorated as the great religious festival of the Manichæans.

This is not the place to attempt any account or criticism of the strange eclecticism of Mani.²⁸²⁸     Böhringer characterizes it briefly in the words:  "Es ist der alte heidnische Dualismus mit seiner Naturtheologie, der in Mani’s Systeme seine letzten Kräfte sammelt und unter der gleissenden Hülle christlicher Worte und Formen an den reinen Monotheismus des Christenthums und dessen reine Ethik sich heranwagt "   An adequate idea of the system may be gathered from the accompanying treatises.  It may, however, be desirable to give some account of the original sources of information regarding it.

We study the systems of heresiarchs at a disadvantage when our only means of ascertaining their opinions is from the fragmentary quotations and hostile criticism which occur in the writings of their adversaries.  Such, however, is our only source of information regarding the teaching of Mani.  Originally, indeed, this heresy was specially active in a literary direction, assailing the Christian Scriptures with an ingenuity of unbelief worthy of a later age, and apparently ambitious of promulgating a rival canon.  Certainly the writings of its early supporters were numerous;²⁹²⁹     Aug. c. Faustum, xiii. 6 and 18.  [See full list of Mani’s writings in Kessler’s art. in Herzog, R.E.—A.H.N.] and from the care and elegance with which they were transcribed, the sumptuous character of the manuscripts, and the mysterious emblems with which they were adorned, we should fancy it was intended to inspire the people with respect for an authoritative though as yet undefined code.  It is, indeed, nowhere said or implied that the sacred books of the Manichæans were reserved for the eye only of the initiated or elect; and their reception of the New Testament Scriptures (subject to their own revision and emendation) would make it difficult for them to establish any secret code apart from these writings.  They were certainly, however, doctrines of an esoteric kind, which were not divulged to the catechumens or hearers; and many of their books, being written in Persian, Syriac, or Greek, were practically unavailable for the instruction of the Latin speaking population.  It was not always easy, therefore, to obtain an accurate knowledge of their opinions.  Commentaries on the whole of the Old and New Testaments were written by Hierax;³⁰³⁰     Lardner, however, seems to prove that Hierax was not a Manichæan, though some of his opinions approximated to this heresy.  The whole subject of the Manichæan literature is treated by Lardner (Works, iii. p. 374), with the learning of Beausobre and more than Beausobre’s impartiality. a Theosophy by Aristocritus; a book of memoirs, or rather Memorabilia, of Mani, and other works, by Heraclides, Aphthonius, Adas, and Agapius.  Unfortunately all of these books have perished, whether in the flames to which the Christian authorities commanded that all Manichæan books should be consigned, or by the slower if not more critical and impartial processes of time.

Mani himself was the author of several works:  a Gospel, the Treasury of Life (and probably an abridgment of the same), the Mysteries, the Foundation Fpistle, a book of Articles or heads of doctrine, one or two works on astronomy or astrology, and a collection of letters so dangerous, that Manichæans who sought restoration to the Church were required to anathematize them.

Probably the most important of these writings was the Foundation Epistle, so called because it contained the leading articles of doctrine on which the new system was built.  This letter was written in Greek or Syriac; but a Latin version of it was current in Africa, and came into the hands of Augustin, who undertook its refutation.  To accomplish this with the greater precision and effect, he quotes the entire text of each passage of the Epistle before proceeding to criticise it.  Had Augustin accomplished the whole of his task, we should accordingly have been in possession of the whole of this important document.  Unfortunately, for reasons unknown, Augustin stops short at an early point in the Epistle; and though he tells us he had notes on the remainder, and would some day expand and publish them, this promise lay unredeemed for thirty years till the day of his death.  Extracts from the same Epistle and from the Treasury are also given by Augustin in the treatise De Natura Boni.³¹³¹     The De Natura Boni, written in the year 405, is necessarily very much a reproduction of what is elsewhere affirmed, that all natures are good, and created by God, who alone is immutable and incorruptible.  It presents concisely the leading positions of Augustin in this controversy, and concludes with an eloquent prayer that his efforts may be blessed to the conversion of the heretics,—not the only passage which demonstrates that he wrote not for the glory of victory so much as for the deliverance of men from fatal error.

35Next, we have in the Opus Imperfectum of Augustin some extracts from a letter of Mani to Menoch, which Julian had unearthed and republished to convict Augustin of being still tainted with Manichæan sentiments.  These extracts give us some insight into the heresiarch’s opinions regarding the corruption of nature and the evils of sexual love.

Again, we have Mani’s letter to Marcel, preserved by Epiphanius, and given in full by Beausobre;³²³²     Histoire, i. 91. which, however, merely reiterates two of the doctrines most certainly identified with Mani,—the assertion of two principles, and the tenet that the Son of God was man only in appearance.

Finally, Fabricius has inserted in the fifth volume of his Bibliotheca Græca the fragments, such as they are, collected by Grabe.

Such is the fragmentary character of the literary remains of Mani:  for fuller information regarding his opinions we must depend on Theodoret, Epiphanius, Alexander of Lycopolis, Titus of Bostra, and Augustin.  Beausobre is of opinion that the Fathers derived all that they knew of Manichæus from the Acts of Archelaus.³³³³     Published by Zaccagni in his Collectanea Monumentorum Veterum, Romæ, 1698; and by Routh his Reliquiæ Sacræ, vol. v., in which all the material for forming an opinion regarding it is collected.   This professes to be a report of a disputation held between Manes and Archelaus, bishop of Caschar in Mesopotamia.  Grave doubts have been cast on the authenticity of this document, and Burton and Milman seem inclined to consider it an imaginary dialogue, and use it on the understanding that while some of its statements are manifestly untrustworthy, a discriminating reader may gather from it some reliable material.³⁴³⁴     Any one who consults Beausobre on this point will find that historical criticism is not of so recent an origin as some persons seem to think.  It is worth transcribing his own account of the spirit in which he means to do his work:  "Je traiterai mon sujet en Critique, suivant la Regle de S. Paul, Examinez toutes choses, et ne retenez que ce qui est bon.  L’Histoire en general, et l’Histoire Ecclesiastique en particulier, n’est bien souvent qu’un mélange confus de faux et de vrai, entasse par des Ecrivains mal instruits, credules ou passionez.  Cela convient surtout a l’Histoire des Heretiques et des Heresies.  C’est au Lecteur attentif et judicieux d’en faire le discernement, a l’aide d’une critique, qui ne soit trop timide, ni temeraire.  Sans le secours de cet art, on erre dans l’Histoire comme un Pilote sur les mers, lorsqu’il n’a ni boussole, ni carte marine" (i. 7).

In the works of Augustin there are some other pieces which may well be reckoned among the original sources.  In the reply to Faustus, which is translated in this volume, the book of Faustus is not indeed reproduced; but there is no reason for doubting that his arguments are fairly represented, and we think there is evidence that even the original expression of them is preserved.³⁵³⁵     Beausobre and Cave suppose that we have the whole of Faustus’ book embodied in Augustin’s review of it.  Lardner is of opinion that the commencement, and perhaps the greater part, of the work is given, but not the whole.   Augustin had been acquainted with Faustus for many years.  He first met him at Carthage in 383, and found him nothing more than a clever and agreeable talker, making no pretension to science or philosophy, and with only slender reading.³⁶³⁶     See the interesting account of Faustus in the Confessions, v. 10.   His cleverness is sufficiently apparent in his debate with Augustin; the objections he leads are plausible, and put with acuteness, but at the same time with a flippancy which betrays a want of earnestness and real interest in the questions.  In his reply to Faustus, Augustin is very much on the defensive, and his statements are apologetic rather than systematic.³⁷³⁷     [This estimate of Faustus is somewhat too disparaging.  For fuller bibliography, see Introductory Essay.—A.H.N.]

But in an age when the ability to read was by no means commensurate with the interest taken in theological questions, written discussions were necessarily supplemented by public disputations.  These theological contests seem to have been a popular entertainment in North Africa; the people attending in immense crowds, while reporters took down what was said on either side for the sake of appeal as well as for the information of the absent.  In two such disputations Augustin engaged in connection with Manichæism.³⁸³⁸     His willingness to do so, and the success with which he encountered the most renowned champions of this heresy, should have prevented Beausobre from charging him with misunderstanding or misrepresenting the Manichæan doctrine.  The retractation of Felix tells strongly against this view of Augustin’s incompetence to deal with Manichæism.   The first was held on the 28th and 29th of August, 392, with a Manichæan priest, Fortunatus.  To this encounter Augustin was invited by a deputation of Donatists and Catholics,³⁹³⁹     Possidius. Vita Aug. vi. who were alike alarmed at the progress which this heresy was making in the district of Hippo.  Fortunatus at first showed some reluctance to meet so formidable an antagonist, but was prevailed upon by his own sectaries, and shows no nervousness during the debate.  His incompetence, however, was manifest to the Manichæans themselves; and so hopeless was it to think of any further proselytizing in Hippo, that he left that city, and was too much ashamed of himself ever to return.  The character of his reasoning is shifty; he evades Augustin’s questions and starts fresh ones.  Augustin pushes his usual and fundamental objection to the Manichæan system.  If God is impassable and incorruptible, how could He be injured by the assaults of the kingdom of darkness?  In opposition to the statement of Fortunatus, that the Almighty produces no evil, he explains that God made no nature evil, but made man free, and that voluntary 36sin is the grand original evil.  The most remarkable circumstance in the discussion is the desire of Fortunatus to direct the conversation to the conduct of the Manichæans, and the refusal of Augustin to make good the charges which had been made against them, or to discuss anything but the doctrine.⁴⁰⁴⁰     This cannot but make us cautious in receiving the statements of the tract, On the Morals of the Manichæans.  There can be little doubt that many of the Manichæans practiced the ascetic virtues, and were recognizable by the gauntness and pallor of their looks, so that Manichæan became a by-word for any one who did not appreciate the felicity of good living.  Thus Jerome says of a certain class of women, "quam viderint pallentem atque tristem, Miseram, Monacham, et Manichæan vocant" (De Custod. Virg. Ep. 18).  Lardner throws light on the practices of the Manichæans, and effectually disposes of some of the calumnies uttered regarding them.  Pusey’s appendix to his translation of the Confessions may also be referred to with advantage.

Twelve years after this, a similar disputation was held between Augustin and one of the elect among the Manichæans, who had come to Hippo to propagate his religion.  This man, Felix, is described by Augustin⁴¹⁴¹     Retract. ii. 8. as being ill-educated, but more adroit and subtle than Fortunatus.  After a keen discussion, which occupied two days, the proceedings terminated by Felix signing a recantation of his errors in the form of an anathema on Mani, his doctrines, and the seducing spirit that possessed him.  These two disputations are valuable, as exhibiting the points of the Manichæan system to which its own adherents were accustomed to direct attention, and the arguments on which they specially relied for their support.

The works given in the accompanying volume comprehend by no means the whole of Augustin’s writings against this heresy.  Before his ordination he wrote five anti-Manichæan books, entitled, De Libero Arbitrio, De Genesi contra Manichæos, De Moribus Ecclesiæ Catholicæ, De Moribus Manichæorum, and De Vera Religione.  These Paulinus called his anti-Manichæan Pentateuch.  After his ordination he was equally diligent, publishing a little treatise in the year 391, under the title De Utilitate Credendi,⁴²⁴²     Epist. August. xxv. which was immediately followed by a small work, De Duabus Animabus.  In the following year the report of the Disputatio contra Fortunatum was published; and after this, at short intervals, there appeared the books Contra Adimantum, Contra Epistolam Manichæi quam vocant Fundamenti, Contra Faustum, Disputatio contra Felicem, De Naturo Boni, and Contra Secundinum.

Besides these writings, which are exclusively occupied with Manichæism, there are others in which the Manichæan doctrines are handled with more or less directness.  These are the Confessions, the 79th and 236th Letters, the Lecture on Psalm 140, Sermons 1, 2, 12, 50, 153, 182, 237, the Liber de Agone Christiano, and the De Continentia.

Of these writings, Augustin himself professed a preference for the reply to the letter of Secundinus.⁴³⁴³     Retract. ii. 10:  "quod, mea sententia, omnibus quœ adversus illam pestem scribere potui, facile præpono."  The reason of this preference is explained by Bindemann, Der heilige Augstinus, iii. 168.   It is a pleasing feature of the times, that a heretic whom he did not know even by sight should write to Augustin entreating him to abstain from writing against the Manichæans, and reconsider his position, and ally himself with those whom he had till now fancied to be in error.  His language is respectful, and illustrates the esteem in which Augustin was held by his contemporaries; though he does not scruple to insinuate that his conversion from Manichæism was due to motives not of the highest kind.  We have not given this letter and its reply, because the preference of Augustin has not been ratified by the judgment of his readers.

The present volume gives a fair sample of Augustin’s controversial powers.  His nine years’ personal experience of the vanity of Manichæism made him thoroughly earnest and sympathetic in his efforts to disentangle other men from its snares, and also equipped him with the knowledge requisite for this task.  No doubt the Pelagian controversy was more congenial to his mind.  His logical acuteness and knowledge of Scripture availed him more in combating men who fought with the same weapons, than in dealing with a system which threw around its positions the mist of Gnostic speculation, or veiled its doctrine under a grotesque mythology, or based itself on a cosmogony too fantastic for a Western mind to tolerate.⁴⁴⁴⁴     "Wo Entwickelungen, dialektische Begriffe sein sollten, stellt sich ein Bild, ein Mythus ein."—Böhringer, p. 390.   But however Augustin may have misconceived the strange forms in which this system was presented, there is no doubt that he comprehended and demolished its fundamental principles;⁴⁵⁴⁵     Some have thought Augustin more successful here than elsewhere.  Cassiodorus may have thought so when he said:  "diligentius atque vivacius adversus eos quam contra hæreses alias disseruit" (Instit. i. quoted by Lardner). that he did so as a necessary part of his own personal search for the truth; and that in doing so he gained possession, vitally and permanently of ideas and principles which subsequently entered into all he thought and wrote.  In finding his way through the mazes of the obscure region into which Mani had led him, he once for all ascertained the true relation subsisting between God and His creatures, formed his opinion regarding the respective provinces of reason and faith, and the connection of the Old and New Testaments, and found the root of all evil in the created will.

The Editor.

Some knowledge of the Magianism of the time of Mani may be obtained from the sacred books of the Parsis, especially from the Vendidad Sade, an account of which is given by Dr. Wilson, of Bombay, in his book on the Parsi Religion.—Tr.

————————————

37

St. AUGUSTIN:

on the

morals of the catholic church.

 [de moribus ecclesiæ catholicæ].

A.D. 388.

translated by the

rev. richard stothert, m.a.,

bombay

41

Of the Morals of the Catholic Church.⁴⁶⁴⁶     Written in the year 388.  In his Retractations (i. 7) Augustin says:  "When I was at Rome after my baptism, and could not bear in silence the vaunting of the Manichæans about their pretended and misleading continence or abstinence, in which, to deceive the inexperienced, they claim superiority over true Christians, to whom they are not to be compared, I wrote two books, one on the morals of the Catholic Church, the other on the morals of the Manichæans."

[De Moribus Ecclesiæ Catholicæ]. a.d. 388.

It is laid down at the outset that the customs of the holy life of the Church should be referred to the chief good of man, that is, God.  We must seek after God with supreme affection; and this doctrine is supported in the Catholic Church by the authority of both Testaments.  The four virtues get their names from different forms of this love.  Then follow the duties of love to our neighbor.  In the Catholic Church we find examples of continence and of true Christian conduct.

Chapter 1.—How the Pretensions of the Manichæans are to Be Refuted.  Two Manichæan Falsehoods.

1.  Enough, probably, has been done in our other books⁴⁷⁴⁷     [This is commonly supposed to have been the first work of any importance written by the Author against Manichæism.  What he here refers to it is not easy to conjecture.—A.H.N.] in the way of answering the ignorant and profane attacks which the Manichæans make on the law, which is called the Old Testament, in a spirit of vainglorious boasting, and with the approval of the uninstructed.  Here, too, I may shortly touch upon the subject.  For every one with average intelligence can easily see that the explanation of the Scriptures should be sought for from those who are the professed teachers of the Scriptures; and that it may happen, and indeed always happens, that many things seem absurd to the ignorant, which, when they are explained by the learned, appear all the more excellent, and are received in the explanation with the greater pleasure on account of the obstructions which made it difficult to reach the meaning.  This commonly happens as regards the holy books of the Old Testament, if only the man who meets with difficulties applies to a pious teacher, and not to a profane critic, and if he begins his inquiries from a desire to find truth, and not in rash opposition.  And should the inquirer meet with some, whether bishops or presbyters, or any officials or ministers of the Catholic Church, who either avoid in all cases opening up mysteries, or, content with simple faith, have no desire for more recondite knowledge, he must not despair of finding the knowledge of the truth in a case where neither are all able to teach to whom the inquiry is addressed, nor are all inquirers worthy of learning the truth.  Diligence and piety are both necessary:  on the one hand, we must have knowledge to find truth, and, on the other hand, we must deserve to get the knowledge.

2.  But as the Manichæans have two tricks for catching the unwary, so as to make them take them as teachers,—one, that of finding fault with the Scriptures, which they either misunderstand or wish to be misunderstood, the other, that of making a show of chastity and of notable abstinence,—this book shall 42contain our doctrine of life and morals according to Catholic teaching, and will perhaps make it appear how easy it is to pretend to virtue, and how difficult to possess virtue.  I will refrain, if I can, from attacking their weak points, which I know well, with the violence with which they attack what they know nothing of; for I wish them, if possible, to be cured rather than conquered.  And I will quote such testimonies from the Scriptures as they are bound to believe, for they shall be from the New Testament; and even from this I will take none of the passages which the Manichæans when hard pressed are accustomed to call spurious, but passages which they are obliged to acknowledge and approve.  And for every testimony from apostolic teaching I will bring a similar statement from the Old Testament, that if they ever become willing to wake up from their persistent dreams, and to rise towards the light of Christian faith, they may discover both how far from being Christian is the life which they profess, and how truly Christian is the Scripture which they cavil at.

Chapter 2.—He Begins with Arguments, in Compliance with the Mistaken Method of the Manichæans.

3.  Where, then, shall I begin?  With authority, or with reasoning?  In the order of nature, when we learn anything, authority precedes reasoning.  For a reason may seem weak, when, after it is given, it requires authority to confirm it.  But because the minds of men are obscured by familiarity with darkness, which covers them in the night of sins and evil habits, and cannot perceive in a way suitable to the clearness and purity of reason, there is most wholesome provision for bringing the dazzled eye into the light of truth under the congenial shade of authority.  But since we have to do with people who are perverse in all their thoughts and words and actions, and who insist on nothing more than on beginning with argument, I will, as a concession to them, take what I think a wrong method in discussion.  For I like to imitate, as far as I can, the gentleness of my Lord Jesus Christ, who took on Himself the evil of death itself, wishing to free us from it.

Chapter 3.—Happiness is in the Enjoyment of Man’s Chief Good.  Two Conditions of the Chief Good:  1st, Nothing is Better Than It; 2d, It Cannot Be Lost Against the Will.

4.  How then, according to reason, ought man to live?  We all certainly desire to live happily; and there is no human being but assents to this statement almost before it is made.  But the title happy cannot, in my opinion, belong either to him who has not what he loves, whatever it may be, or to him who has what he loves if it is hurtful or to him who does not love what he has, although it is good in perfection.  For one who seeks what he cannot obtain suffers torture, and one who has got what is not desirable is cheated, and one who does not seek for what is worth seeking for is diseased.  Now in all these cases the mind cannot but be unhappy, and happiness and unhappiness cannot reside at the same time in one man; so in none of these cases can the man be happy.  I find, then, a fourth case, where the happy life exists,—when that which is man’s chief good is both loved and possessed.  For what do we call enjoyment but having at hand the objects of love?  And no one can be happy who does not enjoy what is man’s chief good, nor is there any one who enjoys this who is not happy.  We must then have at hand our chief good, if we think of living happily.

5.  We must now inquire what is man’s chief good, which of course cannot be anything inferior to man himself.  For whoever follows after what is inferior to himself, becomes himself inferior.  But every man is bound to follow what is best.  Wherefore man’s chief good is not inferior to man.  Is it then something similar to man himself?  It must be so, if there is nothing above man which he is capable of enjoying.  But if we find something which is both superior to man, and can be possessed by the man who loves it, who can doubt that in seeking for happiness man should endeavor to reach that which is more excellent than the being who makes the endeavor.  For if happiness consists in the enjoyment of a good than which there is nothing better, which we call the chief good, how can a man be properly called happy who has not yet attained to his chief good? or how can that be the chief good beyond which something better remains for us to arrive at?  Such, then, being the chief good, it must be something which cannot be lost against the will.  For no one can feel confident regarding a good which he knows can be taken from him, although he wishes to keep and cherish it.  But if a man feels no confidence regarding the good which he enjoys, how can he be happy while in such fear of losing it?

Chapter 4.—Man—What?

6.  Let us then see what is better than man.  This must necessarily be hard to find, unless 43we first ask and examine what man is.  I am not now called upon to give a definition of man.  The question here seems to me to be,—since almost all agree, or at least, which is enough, those I have now to do with are of the same opinion with me, that we are made up of soul and body,—What is man?  Is he both of these? or is he the body only, or the soul only?  For although the things are two, soul and body, and although neither without the other could be called man (for the body would not be man without the soul, nor again would the soul be man if there were not a body animated by it), still it is possible that one of these may be held to be man, and may be called so.  What then do we call man?  Is he soul and body, as in a double harness, or like a centaur?  Or do we mean the body only, as being in the service of the soul which rules it, as the word lamp denotes not the light and the case together, but only the case, yet it is on account of the light that it is so called?  Or do we mean only the mind, and that on account of the body which it rules, as horseman means not the man and the horse, but the man only, and that as employed in ruling the horse?  This dispute is not easy to settle; or, if the proof is plain, the statement requires time.  This is an expenditure of time and strength which we need not incur.  For whether the name man belongs to both, or only to the soul, the chief good of man is not the chief good of the body; but what is the chief good either of both soul and body, or of the soul only, that is man’s chief good.

Chapter 5.—Man’s Chief Good is Not the Chief Good of the Body Only, But the Chief Good of the Soul.

7.  Now if we ask what is the chief good of the body, reason obliges us to admit that it is that by means of which the body comes to be in its best state.  But of all the things which invigorate the body, there is nothing better or greater than the soul.  The chief good of the body, then, is not bodily pleasure, not absence of pain, not strength, not beauty, not swiftness, or whatever else is usually reckoned among the goods of the body, but simply the soul.  For all the things mentioned the soul supplies to the body by its presence, and, what is above them all, life.  Hence I conclude that the soul is not the chief good of man, whether we give the name of man to soul and body together, or to the soul alone.  For as according to reason, the chief good of the body is that which is better than the body, and from which the body receives vigor and life, so whether the soul itself is man, or soul and body both, we must discover whether there is anything which goes before the soul itself, in following which the soul comes to the perfection of good of which it is capable in its own kind.  If such a thing can be found, all uncertainty must be at an end, and we must pronounce this to be really and truly the chief good of man.

8.  If, again, the body is man, it must be admitted that the soul is the chief good of man.  But clearly, when we treat of morals,—when we inquire what manner of life must be held in order to obtain happiness,—it is not the body to which the precepts are addressed, it is not bodily discipline which we discuss.  In short, the observance of good customs belongs to that part of us which inquires and learns, which are the prerogatives of the soul; so, when we speak of attaining to virtue, the question does not regard the body.  But if it follows, as it does, that the body which is ruled over by a soul possessed of virtue is ruled both better and more honorably, and is in its greatest perfection in consequence of the perfection of the soul which rightfully governs it, that which gives perfection to the soul will be man’s chief good, though we call the body man.  For if my coachman, in obedience to me, feeds and drives the horses he has charge of in the most satisfactory manner, himself enjoying the more of my bounty in proportion to his good conduct, can any one deny that the good condition of the horses, as well as that of the coachman, is due to me?  So the question seems to me to be not, whether soul and body is man, or the soul only, or the body only, but what gives perfection to the soul; for when this is obtained, a man cannot but be either perfect, or at least much better than in the absence of this one thing.

Chapter 6.—Virtue Gives Perfection to the Soul; The Soul Obtains Virtue by Following God; Following God is the Happy Life.

9.  No one will question that virtue gives perfection to the soul.  But it is a very proper subject of inquiry whether this virtue can exist by itself or only in the soul.  Here again arises a profound discussion, needing lengthy treatment; but perhaps my summary will serve the purpose.  God will, I trust, assist me, so that, notwithstanding our feebleness, we may give instruction on these great matters briefly as well as intelligibly.  In either case, whether virtue can exist by itself without the soul, or can exist only in the soul, undoubtedly in the pursuit of virtue the soul follows after something, and this must be 44either the soul itself, or virtue, or something else.  But if the soul follows after itself in the pursuit of virtue, it follows after a foolish thing; for before obtaining virtue it is foolish.  Now the height of a follower’s desire is to reach that which he follows after.  So the soul must either not wish to reach what it follows after, which is utterly absurd and unreasonable, or, in following after itself while foolish, it reaches the folly which it flees from.  But if it follows after virtue in the desire to reach it, how can it follow what does not exist? or how can it desire to reach what it already possesses?  Either, therefore, virtue exists beyond the soul, or if we are not allowed to give the name of virtue except to the habit and disposition of the wise soul, which can exist only in the soul, we must allow that the soul follows after something else in order that virtue may be produced in itself; for neither by following after nothing, nor by following after folly, can the soul, according to my reasoning, attain to wisdom.

10.  This something else then, by following after which the soul becomes possessed of virtue and wisdom, is either a wise man or God.  But we have said already that it must be something that we cannot lose against our will.  No one can think it necessary to ask whether a wise man, supposing we are content to follow after him, can be taken from us in spite of our unwillingness or our persistence.  God then remains, in following after whom we live well, and in reaching whom we live both well and happily.  If any deny God’s existence, why should I consider the method of dealing with them, when it is doubtful whether they ought to be dealt with at all?  At any rate, it would require a different starting-point, a different plan, a different investigation from what we are now engaged in.  I am now addressing those who do not deny the existence of God, and who, moreover, allow that human affairs are not disregarded by Him.  For there is no one, I suppose, who makes any profession of religion but will hold that divine Providence cares at least for our souls.

Chapter 7.—The Knowledge of God to Be Obtained from the Scripture.  The Plan and Principal Mysteries of the Divine Scheme of Redemption.

11.  But how can we follow after Him whom we do not see? or how can we see Him, we who are not only men, but also men of weak understanding?  For though God is seen not with the eyes but with the mind, where can such a mind be found as shall, while obscured by foolishness, succeed or even attempt to drink in that light?  We must therefore have recourse to the instructions of those whom we have reason to think wise.  Thus far argument brings us.  For in human things reasoning is employed, not as of greater certainty, but as easier from use.  But when we come to divine things, this faculty turns away; it cannot behold; it pants, and gasps, and burns with desire; it falls back from the light of truth, and turns again to its wonted obscurity, not from choice, but from exhaustion.  What a dreadful catastrophe is this, that the soul should be reduced to greater helplessness when it is seeking rest from its toil!  So, when we are hasting to retire into darkness, it will be well that by the appointment of adorable Wisdom we should be met by the friendly shade of authority, and should be attracted by the wonderful character of its contents, and by the utterances of its pages, which, like shadows, typify and attemper the truth.

12.  What more could have been done for our salvation?  What can be more gracious and bountiful than divine providence, which, when man had fallen from its laws, and, in just retribution for his coveting mortal things, had brought forth a mortal offspring, still did not wholly abandon him?  For in this most righteous government, whose ways are strange and inscrutable, there is, by means of unknown connections established in the creatures subject to it, both a severity of punishment and a mercifulness of salvation.  How beautiful this is, how great, how worthy of God, in fine, how true, which is all we are seeking for, we shall never be able to perceive, unless, beginning with things human and at hand, and holding by the faith and the precepts of true religion, we continue without turning from it in the way which God has secured for us by the separation of the patriarchs, by the bond of the law, by the foresight of the prophets, by the witness of the apostles, by the blood of the martyrs, and by the subjugation of the Gentiles.  From this point, then, let no one ask me for my opinion, but let us rather hear the oracles, and submit our weak inferences to the announcements of Heaven.⁴⁸⁴⁸     [Augustin’s transition from his fine Platonizing discussion of virtue, the chief good, etc., to the patriarchs, the law, and the prophets is very fine rhetorically and apologetically.—A.H.N.]

Chapter 8.—God is the Chief Good, Whom We are to Seek After with Supreme Affection.

13.  Let us see how the Lord Himself in the gospel has taught us to live; how, too, Paul the apostle,—for the Manichæans dare not reject these Scriptures.  Let us hear, O Christ, what chief end Thou dost prescribe to us; and that is evidently the chief end 45after which we are told to strive with supreme affection.  "Thou shalt love," He says, "the Lord thy God."  Tell me also, I pray Thee, what must be the measure of love; for I fear lest the desire enkindled in my heart should either exceed or come short in fervor.  "With all thy heart," He says.  Nor is that enough.  "With all thy soul."  Nor is it enough yet.  "With all thy mind."⁴⁹⁴⁹     Matt. xxii. 37.  What do you wish more?  I might, perhaps, wish more if I could see the possibility of more.  What does Paul say on this?  "We know," he says, "that all things issue in good to them that love God."  Let him, too, say what is the measure of love.  "Who then," he says, "shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or the sword?"⁵⁰⁵⁰     Rom. viii. 28, 35.   We have heard, then, what and how much we must love; this we must strive after, and to this we must refer all our plans.  The perfection of all our good things and our perfect good is God.  We must neither come short of this nor go beyond it:  the one is dangerous, the other impossible.

Chapter 9.—Harmony of the Old and New Testament on the Precepts of Charity.⁵¹⁵¹     [The most satisfactory feature of Augustin’s apology for the Old Testament Scriptures is his demonstration of the substantial agreement of the Old Testament with undisputed portions of the New Testament.—A.H.N.]

14.  Come now, let us examine, or rather let us take notice,—for it is obvious and can be seen, at once,—whether the authority of the Old Testament too agrees with those statements taken from the gospel and the apostle.  What need to speak of the first statement, when it is clear to all that it is a quotation from the law given by Moses?  For it is there written, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind." ⁵²⁵²     Deut. vi. 5.   And not to go farther for a passage of the Old Testament to compare with that of the apostle, he has himself added one.  For after saying that no tribulation, no distress, no persecution, no pressure of bodily want, no peril, no sword, separates us from the love of Christ, he immediately adds, "As it is written, For Thy sake we are in suffering all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter."⁵³⁵³     Rom. viii. 36; cf. Ps. xliv. 22.   The Manichæans are in the habit of saying that this is an interpolation,—so unable are they to reply, that they are forced in their extremity to say this.  But every one can see that this is all that is left for men to say when it is proved that they are wrong.

15.  And yet I ask them if they deny that this is said in the Old Testament, or if they hold that the passage in the Old Testament does not agree with that of the apostle.  For the first, the books will prove it; and as for the second, those prevaricators who fly off at a tangent will be brought to agree with me, if they will only reflect a little and consider what is said, or else I will press upon them the opinion of those who judge impartially.  For what could agree more harmoniously than these passages?  For tribulation, distress, persecution, famine, nakedness, peril, cause great suffering to man while in this life.  So all these words are implied in the single quotation from the law, where it is said, "For Thy sake we are in suffering."⁵⁴⁵⁴     Retract. i. 7, § 2:—"In the book on the morals of the Catholic Church, where I have quoted the words, ‘For Thy sake we are in suffering all day long, we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter,’ the inaccuracy of my manuscript misled me; for my recollection of the Scriptures was defective from my not being at that time familiar with them.  For the reading of the other manuscripts has a different meaning:  not, we suffer, but we suffer death, or, in one word, we are killed.  That this is the true reading is shown by the Greek text of the Septuagint, from which the Old Testament was translated into Latin.  I have indeed made a good many remarks on the words, ‘For thy sake we suffer,’ and the things said are not wrong in themselves; but, as regards the harmony of the Old and New Testaments, this case certainly does not prove it.  The error originated in the way mentioned above, and this harmony is afterwards abundantly proved from other passages."   The only other thing is the sword, which does not inflict a painful life, but removes whatever life it meets with.  Answering to this are the words, "We are accounted as sheep for the slaughter."  And love could not have been more plainly expressed than by the words, "For Thy sake."  Suppose, then, that this testimony is not found in the Apostle Paul, but is quoted by me, must you not prove, you heretic, either that this is not written in the old law, or that it does not harmonize with the apostle?  And if you dare not say either of these things (for you are shut up by the reading of the manuscript, which will show that it is written, and by common sense, which sees that nothing could agree better with what is said by the apostle), why do you imagine that there is any force in accusing the Scriptures of being corrupted?  And once more, what will you reply to a man who says to you, This is what I understand, this is my view, this is my belief, and I read these books only because I see that everything in them agrees with the Christian faith?  Or tell me at once if you will venture deliberately to tell me to the face that we are not to believe that the apostles and martyrs are spoken of as having endured great sufferings for Christ’s sake, and as having been accounted by their persecutors as sheep for the slaughter?  If you cannot say this, why should you bring a charge against the book in which I find what you acknowledge I ought to believe?

46

Chapter 10.—What the Church Teaches About God.  The Two Gods of the Manichæans.

16.  Will you say that you grant that we are bound to love God, but not the God worshipped by those who acknowledge the authority of the Old Testament?  In that case you refuse to worship the God who made heaven and earth, for this is the God set forth all through these books.  And you admit that the whole of the world, which is called heaven and earth, had God and a good God for its author and maker.  For in speaking to you about God we must make a distinction.  For you hold that there are two gods, one good and the other bad.

But if you say that you worship and approve of worshipping the God who made heaven and earth, but not the God supported by the authority of the Old Testament, you act impertinently in trying, though vainly, to attribute to us views and opinions altogether unlike the wholesome and profitable doctrine we really hold.  Nor can your silly and profane discourses be at all compared with the expositions in which learned and pious men of the Catholic Church open up those Scriptures to the willing and worthy.  Our understanding of the law and the prophets is quite different from what you suppose.  Mistake us no longer.  We do not worship a God who repents, or is envious, or needy, or cruel, or who takes pleasure in the blood of men or beasts, or is pleased with guilt and crime, or whose possession of the earth is limited to a little corner of it.  These and such like are the silly notions you are in the habit of denouncing at great length.  Your denunciation does not touch us.  The fancies of old women or of children you attack with a vehemence that is only ridiculous.  Any one whom you persuade in this way to join you shows no fault in the teaching of the Church, but only proves his own ignorance of it.

17.  If, then, you have any human feeling,—if you have any regard for your own welfare,—you should rather examine with diligence and piety the meaning of these passages of Scripture.  You should examine, unhappy beings that you are; for we condemn with no less severity and copiousness any faith which attributes to God what is unbecoming Him, and in those by whom these passages are literally understood we correct the mistake of ignorance, and look upon persistence in it as absurd.  And in many other things which you cannot understand there is in the Catholic teaching a check on the belief of those who have got beyond mental childishness, not in years, but in knowledge and understanding—old in the progress towards wisdom.  For we learn the folly of believing that God is bounded by any amount of space, even though infinite; and it is held unlawful to think of God, or any part of Him, as moving from one place to another.  And should any one suppose that anything in God’s substance or nature can suffer change or conversion, he will be held guilty of wild profanity.  There are thus among us children who think of God as having a human form, which they suppose He really has, which is a most degrading idea; and there are many of full age to whose mind the majesty of God appears in its inviolableness and unchangeableness as not only above the human body, but above their own mind itself.  These ages, as we said, are distinguished not by time, but by virtue and discretion.⁵⁵⁵⁵     [Augustin’s virtus takes the place of the Greek δυυάμεις and the Vulgate virtutes.  It is not quite certain what meaning he attached to the expression.  He seems to waver between the idea of power and that of virtue in the ethical sense, and finally settles down to the use of the term in the latter sense.  That this does not accord with the meaning of the Apostle is evident.—A.H.N.]   Among you, again, there is no one who will picture God in a human form; but neither is there one who sets God apart from the contamination of human error.  As regards those who are fed like crying babies at the breast of the Catholic Church, if they are not carried off by heretics, they are nourished according to the vigor and capacity of each, and arrive at last, one in one way and another in another, first to a perfect man, and then to the maturity and hoary hairs of wisdom, when they may get life as they desire, and life in perfect happiness.

Chapter 11.—God is the One Object of Love; Therefore He is Man’s Chief Good.  Nothing is Better Than God.  God Cannot Be Lost Against Our Will.

18.  Following after God is the desire of happiness; to reach God is happiness itself.  We follow after God by loving Him; we reach Him, not by becoming entirely what He is, but in nearness to Him, and in wonderful and immaterial contact with Him, and in being inwardly illuminated and occupied by His truth and holiness.  He is light itself; we get enlightenment from Him.  The greatest commandment, therefore, which leads to happy life, and the first, is this:  "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and soul, and mind."  For to those who love the Lord all things issue in good.  Hence Paul adds shortly after, "I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor virtue, nor things present, nor things future, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, 47shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."⁵⁶⁵⁶     Rom. viii. 38, 39.   If, then, to those who love God all things issue in good, and if, as no one doubts, the chief or perfect good is not only to be loved, but to be loved so that nothing shall be loved better, as is expressed in the words, "With all thy soul, with all thy heart, and with all thy mind," who, I ask, will not at once conclude, when these things are all settled and most surely believed, that our chief good which we must hasten to arrive at in preference to all other things is nothing else than God?  And then, if nothing can separate us from His love, must not this be surer as well as better than any other good?

19.  But let us consider the points separately.  No one separates us from this by threatening death.  For that with which we love God cannot die, except in not loving God; for death is not to love God, and that is when we prefer anything to Him in affection and pursuit.  No one separates us from this in promising life; for no one separates us from the fountain in promising water.  Angels do not separate us; for the mind cleaving to God is not inferior in strength to an angel.  Virtue does not separate us; for if what is here called virtue is that which has power in this world, the mind cleaving to God is far above the whole world.  Or if this virtue is perfect rectitude of our mind itself, this in the case of another will favor our union with God, and in ourselves will itself unite us with God.  Present troubles do not separate us; for we feel their burden less the closer we cling to Him from whom they try to separate us.  The promise of future things does not separate us; for both future good of every kind is surest in the promise of God, and nothing is better than God Himself, who undoubtedly is already present to those who truly cleave to Him.  Height and depth do not separate us; for if the height and depth of knowledge are what is meant, I will rather not be inquisitive than be separated from God; nor can any instruction by which error is removed separate me from Him, by separation from whom it is that any one is in error.  Or if what is meant are the higher and lower parts of this world, how can the promise of heaven separate me from Him who made heaven?  Or who from beneath can frighten me into forsaking God, when I should not have known of things beneath but by forsaking Him?  In fine, what place can remove me from His love, when He could not be all in every place unless He were contained in none?

Chapter 12.—We are United to God by Love, in Subjection to Him.

20.  "No other creature," he says, separates us.  O man of profound mysteries!  He thought it not enough to say, no creature:  but he says no other creature; teaching that with which we love God and by which we cleave to God, our mind, namely, and understanding, is itself a creature.  Thus the body is another creature; and if the mind is an object of intellectual perception, and is known only by this means, the other creature is all that is an object of sense, which as it were makes itself known through the eyes, or ears, or smell, or taste, or touch, and this must be inferior to what is perceived by the intellect alone.  Now, as God also can be known by the worthy, only intellectually,⁵⁷⁵⁷     [I.e. only by the use of the mental faculty of which God Himself is the Creator and Author; not by any independently existing power "of the same nature with Him who created it."—A.H.N.] exalted though He is above the intelligent mind as being its Creator and Author, there was danger lest the human mind, from being reckoned among invisible and immaterial things, should be thought to be of the same nature with Him who created it, and so should fall away by pride from Him to whom it should be united by love.  For the mind becomes like God, to the extent vouchsafed by its subjection of itself to Him for information and enlightenment.  And if it obtains the greatest nearness by that subjection which produces likeness, it must be far removed from Him by that presumption which would make the likeness greater.  It is this presumption which leads the mind to refuse obedience to the laws of God, in the desire to be sovereign, as God is.

21.  The farther, then, the mind departs from God, not in space, but in affection and lust after things below Him, the more it is filled with folly and wretchedness.  So by love it returns to God,—a love which places it not along with God, but under Him.  And the more ardor and eagerness there is in this, the happier and more elevated will the mind be, and with God as sole governor it will be in perfect liberty.  Hence it must know that it is a creature.  It must believe what is the truth,—that its Creator remains ever possessed of the inviolable and immutable nature of truth and wisdom, and must confess, even in view of the errors from which it desires deliverance, that it is liable to folly and falsehood.  But then again, it must take care that it be not separated by the love of the other creature, that is, of this visible world, from the love of God Himself, which sanctifies it in order to lasting happiness.  No 48other creature, then,—for we are ourselves a creature,—separates us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Chapter 13.—We are Joined Inseparably to God by Christ and His Spirit.

22.  Let this same Paul tell us who is this Christ Jesus our Lord.  "To them that are called," he says, "we preach Christ the virtue of God, and the wisdom of God."⁵⁸⁵⁸     1 Cor. i. 23, 24.   And does not Christ Himself say, "I am the truth?"⁵⁹⁵⁹     John xiv. 6.   If, then, we ask what it is to live well,—that is, to strive after happiness by living well,—it must assuredly be to love virtue, to love wisdom, to love truth, and to love with all the heart, with all the soul, and with all the mind; virtue which is inviolable and immutable, wisdom which never gives place to folly, truth which knows no change or variation from its uniform character.  Through this the Father Himself is seen; for it is said, "No man cometh unto the Father but by me."  To this we cleave by sanctification.  For when sanctified we burn with full and perfect love, which is the only security for our not turning away from God, and for our being conformed to Him rather than to this world; for "He has predestinated us," says the same apostle, "that we should be conformed to the image of His Son."⁶⁰⁶⁰     Rom. viii. 29.

23.  It is through love, then, that we become conformed to God; and by this conformation, and configuration, and circumcision from this world we are not confounded with the things which are properly subject to us.  And this is done by the Holy Spirit.  "For hope," he says, "does not confound us; for the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit, which is given unto us."⁶¹⁶¹     Rom. v. 5.   But we could not possibly be restored to perfection by the Holy Spirit, unless He Himself continued always perfect and immutable.  And this plainly could not be unless He were of the nature and of the very substance of God, who alone is always possessed of immutability and invariableness.  "The creature," it is affirmed, not by me but by Paul, "has been made subject to vanity."⁶²⁶²     Rom. viii. 20.   And what is subject to vanity is unable to separate us from vanity, and to unite us to the truth.  But the Holy Spirit does this for us.  He is therefore no creature.  For whatever is, must be either God or the creature.

Chapter 14.—We Cleave to the Trinity, Our Chief Good, by Love.

24.  We ought then to love God, the Trinity in unity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; for this must be said to be God Himself, for it is said of God, truly and in the most exalted sense, "Of whom are all things, by whom are all things, in whom are all things."  Those are Paul’s words.  And what does he add?  "To Him be glory."⁶³⁶³     Rom. xi. 36.   All this is exactly true.  He does not say, To them; for God is one.  And what is meant by, To Him be glory, but to Him be chief and perfect and widespread praise?  For as the praise improves and extends, so the love and affection increases in fervor.  And when this is the case, mankind cannot but advance with sure and firm step to a life of perfection and bliss.  This, I suppose, is all we wish to find when we speak of the chief good of man, to which all must be referred in life and conduct.  For the good plainly exists; and we have shown by reasoning, as far as we were able, and by the divine authority which goes beyond our reasoning, that it is nothing else but God Himself.  For how can any thing be man’s chief good but that in cleaving to which he is blessed?  Now this is nothing but God, to whom we can cleave only by affection, desire, and love.

Chapter 15.—The Christian Definition of the Four Virtues.

25.  As to virtue leading us to a happy life, I hold virtue to be nothing else than perfect love of God.  For the fourfold division of virtue I regard as taken from four forms of love.  For these four virtues (would that all felt their influence in their minds as they have their names in their mouths!), I should have no hesitation in defining them:  that temperance is love giving itself entirely to that which is loved; fortitude is love readily bearing all things for the sake of the loved object; justice is love serving only the loved object, and therefore ruling rightly; prudence is love distinguishing with sagacity between what hinders it and what helps it.  The object of this love is not anything, but only God, the chief good, the highest wisdom, the perfect harmony.  So we may express the definition thus:  that temperance is love keeping itself entire and incorrupt for God; fortitude is love bearing everything readily for the sake of God; justice is love serving God only, and therefore ruling well all else, as subject to man; prudence is love making a right distinction between what helps it towards God and what might hinder it.⁶⁴⁶⁴     [It would be difficult to find in Christian literature a more beautiful and satisfactory exposition of love to God.  The Neo-Platonic influence is manifest, but it is Neo-Platonism thoroughly Christianized.—A.H.N.]

49

Chapter 16.—Harmony of the Old and New Testaments.

26.  I will briefly set forth the manner of life according to these virtues, one by one, after I have brought forward, as I promised, passages from the Old Testament parallel to those I have been quoting from the New Testament.  For is Paul alone in saying that we should be joined to God so that there should be nothing between to separate us?  Does not the prophet say the same most aptly and concisely in the words, "It is good for me to cleave to God?" ⁶⁵⁶⁵     Ps. lxxiii. 28.   Does not this one word cleave express all that the apostle says at length about love?  And do not the words, It is good, point to the apostle’s statement, "All things issue in good to them that love God?"  Thus in one clause and in two words the prophet sets forth the power and the fruit of love.

27.  And as the apostle says that the Son of God is the virtue of God and the wisdom of God,—virtue being understood to refer to action, and wisdom to teaching (as in the gospel these two things are expressed in the words, "All things were made by Him," which belongs to action and virtue; and then, referring to teaching and the knowledge of the truth, he says, "The life was the light of men"⁶⁶⁶⁶     John i. 3, 4. ),—could anything agree better with these passages than what is said in the Old Testament⁶⁷⁶⁷     [Augustin seems to make no distinction between Apocryphal and Canonical books.  The book of Wisdom was evidently a favorite with him, doubtless on account of its decided Platonic quality.—A.H.N.] of wisdom, "She reaches from end to end in strength, and orders all things sweetly?"  For reaching in strength expresses virtue, while ordering sweetly expresses skill and method.  But if this seems obscure, see what follows:  "And of all," he says, "God loved her; for she teaches the knowledge of God, and chooses His works."  Nothing more is found here about action; for choosing works is not the same as working, so this refers to teaching.  There remains action to correspond with the virtue, to complete the truth we wish to prove.  Read then what comes next:  "But if," he says, "the possession which is desired in life is honorable, what is more honorable than wisdom, which works all things?"  Could anything be brought forward more striking or more distinct than this, or even more fully expressed?  Or, if you wish more, hear another passage of the same meaning.  "Wisdom," he says, "teaches sobriety, and justice, and virtue." ⁶⁸⁶⁸     Wisd. viii. 1, 4, 7.   Sobriety refers, I think, to the knowledge of the truth, or to teaching; justice and virtue to work and action.  And I know nothing comparable to these two things, that is, to efficiency in action and sobriety in contemplation, which the virtue of God and the wisdom of God, that is, the Son of God, gives to them that love Him, when the same prophet goes on to show their value; for it is thus stated:  "Wisdom teaches sobriety, and justice, and virtue, than which nothing is more useful in life to man."⁶⁹⁶⁹     Retract. i. 7, § 3:—"The quotation from the book of Wisdom is from my manuscript, where the reading is, ‘Wisdom teaches sobriety, justice, and virtue.’  From these words I have made some remarks true in themselves, but occasioned by a false reading.  It is perfectly true that wisdom teaches truth of contemplation, as I have explained sobriety; and excellence of action, which is the meaning I give to justice and virtue.  And the reading in better manuscripts has the same meaning:  ‘It teaches sobriety, and wisdom, and justice, and virtue.’  These are the names given by the Latin translator to the four virtues which philosophers usually speak about.  Sobriety is for temperance, wisdom for prudence, virtue for fortitude, and justice only has its own name.  It was long after that we found these virtues called by their proper names in the Greek text of this book of Wisdom."

28.  Perhaps some may think that those passages do not refer to the Son of God.  What, then, is taught in the following words:  "She displays the nobility of her birth, having her dwelling with God?"⁷⁰⁷⁰     Wisd. viii. 3.   To what does birth refer but to parentage?  And does not dwelling with the Father claim and assert equality?  Again, as Paul says that the Son of God is the wisdom of God,⁷¹⁷¹     1 Cor. i. 24. and as the Lord Himself says, "No man knoweth the Father save the only-begotten Son,"⁷²⁷²     Matt. xi. 27. what could be more concordant than those words of the prophet:  "With Thee is wisdom which knows Thy works, which was present at the time of Thy making the world, and knew what would be pleasing in Thine eyes?"⁷³⁷³     Wisd. ix. 9.   And as Christ is called the truth, which is also taught by His being called the brightness of the Father⁷⁴⁷⁴     Heb. i. 3. (for there is nothing round about the sun but its brightness which is produced from it), what is there in the Old Testament more plainly and obviously in accordance with this than the words, "Thy truth is round about Thee?"⁷⁵⁷⁵     Ps. lxxxix. 8.   Once more, Wisdom herself says in the gospel, "No man cometh unto the Father but by me;"⁷⁶⁷⁶     John xiv. 6. and the prophet says, "Who knoweth Thy mind, unless Thou givest wisdom?" and a little after, "The things pleasing to Thee men have learned, and have been healed by wisdom."⁷⁷⁷⁷     Wisd. ix. 17-19.

29.  Paul says, "The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit which is given unto us;"⁷⁸⁷⁸     Rom. v. 5. and the prophet says, "The Holy Spirit of knowledge will shun guile."⁷⁹⁷⁹     Wisd. i. 5.   For where there is guile there is no love.  Paul says that we are "conformed to the image of the Son of God;"⁸⁰⁸⁰     Rom. viii. 29. and the 50prophet says, "The light of Thy countenance is stamped upon us."⁸¹⁸¹     Ps. iv. 6.   Paul teaches that the Holy Spirit is God, and therefore is no creature; and the prophet says, "Thou sendest Thy Spirit from the higher."⁸²⁸²     Wisd. ix. 17.   For God alone is the highest, than whom nothing is higher.  Paul shows that the Trinity is one God, when he says, "To Him be glory;"⁸³⁸³     Rom. xi. 36. and in the Old Testament it is said, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is one God."⁸⁴⁸⁴     Deut. vi. 4.

Chapter 17.—Appeal to the Manichæans, Calling on Them to Repent.

30.  What more do you wish?  Why do you resist ignorantly and obstinately?  Why do you pervert untutored minds by your mischievous teaching?  The God of both Testaments is one.  For as there is an agreement in the passages quoted from both, so is there in all the rest, if you are willing to consider them carefully and impartially.  But because many expressions are undignified, and so far adapted to minds creeping on the earth, that they may rise by human things to divine,⁸⁵⁸⁵     [Here we have the key to all that is best in Augustin’s defense of the anthropomorphisms and the seemingly imperfect ethical representations of the Old Testament.  See Mozley’s essay on "The Manichæans and the Jewish Fathers," in his Ruling Ideas in Early Ages.  The entire volume represents an attempt to account for the elements in the Old Testament that offend the Christian consciousness.—A.H.N.] while many are figurative, that the inquiring mind may have the more profit from the exertion of finding their meaning, and the more delight when it is found, you pervert this admirable arrangement of the Holy Spirit for the purpose of deceiving and ensnaring your followers.  As to the reason why divine Providence permits you to do this, and as to the truth of the apostle’s saying, "There must needs be many heresies, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you,"⁸⁶⁸⁶     1 Cor. xi. 19. it would take long to discuss these things, and you, with whom we have now to do, are not capable of understanding them.  I know you well.  To the consideration of divine things, which are far higher than you suppose, you bring minds quite gross and sickly, from being fed with material images.

31.  We must therefore in your case try not to make you understand divine things, which is impossible, but to make you desire to understand.  This is the work of the pure and guileless love of God, which is seen chiefly in the conduct, and of which we have already said much.  This love, inspired by the Holy Spirit, leads to the Son, that is, to the wisdom of God, by which the Father Himself is known.  For if wisdom and truth are not sought for with the whole strength of the mind, it cannot possibly be found.  But when it is sought as it deserves to be, it cannot withdraw or hide itself from its lovers.  Hence its words, which you too are in the habit of repeating, "Ask, and ye shall receive; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:"⁸⁷⁸⁷     Matt. vii. 7.   "Nothing is hid which shall not be revealed."⁸⁸⁸⁸     Matt. x. 26.   It is love that asks, love that seeks, love that knocks, love that reveals, love, too, that gives continuance in what is revealed.  From this love of wisdom, and this studious inquiry, we are not debarred by the Old Testament, as you always say most falsely, but are exhorted to this with the greatest urgency.

32.  Hear, then, at length, and consider, I pray you, what is said by the prophet:  "Wisdom is glorious, and never fadeth away; yea, she is easily seen of them that love her, and found of such as seek her.  She preventeth them that desire her, in making herself first known unto them.  Whoso seeketh her early shall have no great travail; for he shall find her sitting at his doors.  To think, therefore, upon her is perfection of wisdom; and whoso watcheth for her shall quickly be without care.  For she goeth about seeking such as are worthy of her, showeth herself favorably unto them in the ways, and meeteth them in every thought.  For the very true beginning of her is the desire of discipline; and the care of discipline is love; and love is the keeping of her laws; and the giving heed unto her laws is the assurance of incorruption; and incorruption maketh us near unto God.  Therefore the desire of wisdom bringeth to a kingdom." ⁸⁹⁸⁹     Wisd. vi. 12-20.   Will you still continue in dogged hostility to these things?  Do not things thus stated, though not yet understood, make it evident to every one that they contain something deep and unutterable?  Would that you could understand the things here said!  Forthwith you would abjure all your silly legends and your unmeaning material imaginations, and with great alacrity, sincere love, and full assurance of faith, would betake yourselves bodily to the shelter of the most holy bosom of the Catholic Church.

Chapter 18.—Only in the Catholic Church is Perfect Truth Established on the Harmony of Both Testaments.

33.  I could, according to the little ability I have, take up the points separately, and could expound and prove the truths I have learned, which are generally more excellent and lofty than words can express; but this 51cannot be done while you bark at it.  For not in vain is it said, "Give not that which is holy to dogs."⁹⁰⁹⁰     Matt. vii. 6.   Do not be angry.  I too barked and was a dog; and then, as was right, instead of the food of teaching, I got the rod of correction.  But were there in you that love of which we are speaking, or should it ever be in you as much as the greatness of the truth to be known requires, may God vouchsafe to show you that neither is there among the Manichæans the Christian faith which leads to the summit of wisdom and truth, the attainment of which is the true happy life, nor is it anywhere but in the Catholic teaching.  Is not this what the Apostle Paul appears to desire when he says, "For this cause I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, that He would grant unto you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with might by His Spirit in the inner man:  that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all saints what is the height, and length, and breadth, and depth, and to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye may be filled with all the fullness of God?"⁹¹⁹¹     Eph. iii. 14-19.   Could anything be more plainly expressed?

34.  Wake up a little, I beseech you, and see the harmony of both Testaments, making it quite plain and certain what should be the manner of life in our conduct, and to what all things should be referred.  To the love of God we are incited by the gospel, when it is said, "Ask, seek, knock;"⁹²⁹²     Matt. vii. 7. by Paul, when he says, "That ye, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend;"⁹³⁹³     Eph. iii. 7. by the prophet also, when he says that wisdom can easily be known by those who love it, seek for it, desire it, watch for it, think about it, care for it.  The salvation of the mind⁹⁴⁹⁴     [Animi not mentis.—A.H.N.] and the way of happiness is pointed out by the concord of both Scriptures; and yet you choose rather to bark at these things than to obey them.  I will tell you in one word what I think.  Do you listen to the learned men of the Catholic Church with as peaceable a disposition, and with the same zeal, that I had when for nine years I attended on you:⁹⁵⁹⁵     From his 19th to his 28th year.   there will be no need of so long a time as that during which you made a fool of me.  In a much, a very much, shorter time you will see the difference between truth and vanity.

Chapter 19.—Description of the Duties of Temperance, According to the Sacred Scriptures.

35.  It is now time to return to the four virtues, and to draw out and prescribe a way of life in conformity with them, taking each separately.  First, then, let us consider temperance, which promises us a kind of integrity and incorruption in the love by which we are united to God.  The office of temperance is in restraining and quieting the passions which make us pant for those things which turn us away from the laws of God and from the enjoyment of His goodness, that is, in a word, from the happy life.  For there is the abode of truth; and in enjoying its contemplation, and in cleaving closely to it, we are assuredly happy; but departing from this, men become entangled in great errors and sorrows.  For, as the apostle says, "The root of all evils is covetousness; which some having followed, have made shipwreck of the faith, and have pierced themselves through with many sorrows."⁹⁶⁹⁶     1 Tim. vi. 10.   And this sin of the soul is quite plainly, to those rightly understanding, set forth in the Old Testament in the transgression of Adam in Paradise.  Thus, as the apostle says, "In Adam we all die, and in Christ we shall all rise again."⁹⁷⁹⁷     1 Cor. xv. 22.   Oh, the depth of these mysteries!  But I refrain; for I am now engaged not in teaching you the truth, but in making you unlearn your errors, if I can, that is, if God aid my purpose regarding you.

36.  Paul then says that covetousness is the root of all evils; and by covetousness the old law also intimates that the first man fell.  Paul tells us to put off the old man and put on the new.⁹⁸⁹⁸     Col. iii. 9, 10.   By the old man he means Adam who sinned, and by the new man him whom the Son of God took to Himself in consecration for our redemption.  For he says in another place, "The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven, heavenly.  As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy; and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.  And as we have borne the image of the earthy, let us also bear the image of the heavenly," ⁹⁹⁹⁹     1 Cor. xv. 47-49. —that is, put off the old man, and put on the new.  The whole duty of temperance, then, is to put off the old man, and to be renewed in God,—that is, to scorn all bodily delights, and the popular applause, and to turn the whole love to things divine and unseen.  Hence that following passage which is so admirable:  "Though our outward man perish, 52our inward man is renewed day by day."¹⁰⁰¹⁰⁰     2 Cor. iv. 16.   Hear, too, the prophet singing, "Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me."¹⁰¹¹⁰¹     Ps. li. 10.   What can be said against such harmony except by blind barkers?

Chapter 20.—We are Required to Despise All Sensible Things, and to Love God Alone.

37.  Bodily delights have their source in all those things with which the bodily sense comes in contact, and which are by some called the objects of sense; and among these the noblest is light, in the common meaning of the word, because among our senses also, which the mind uses in acting through the body, there is nothing more valuable than the eyes, and so in the Holy Scriptures all the objects of sense are spoken of as visible things.  Thus in the New Testament we are warned against the love of these things in the following words:  "While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal."¹⁰²¹⁰²     2 Cor. iv. 18.   This shows how far from being Christians those are who hold that the sun and moon are to be not only loved but worshipped.  For what is seen if the sun and moon are not?  But we are forbidden to regard things which are seen.  The man, therefore, who wishes to offer that incorrupt love to God must not love these things too.  This subject I will inquire into more particularly elsewhere.  Here my plan is to write not of faith, but of the life by which we become worthy of knowing what we believe.  God then alone is to be loved; and all this world, that is, all sensible things, are to be despised,—while, however, they are to be used as this life requires.

Chapter 21.—Popular Renown and Inquisitiveness are Condemned in the Sacred Scriptures.

38.  Popular renown is thus slighted and scorned in the New Testament:  "If I wished," says St. Paul, "to please men, I should not be the servant of Christ."¹⁰³¹⁰³     Gal. i. 10.   Again, there is another production of the soul formed by imaginations derived from material things, and called the knowledge of things.  In reference to this we are fitly warned against inquisitiveness to correct which is the great function of temperance.  Thus it is said, "Take heed lest any one seduce you by philosophy."  And because the word philosophy originally means the love and pursuit of wisdom, a thing of great value and to be sought with the whole mind, the apostle, with great prudence, that he might not be thought to deter from the love of wisdom, has added the words, "And the elements of this world."¹⁰⁴¹⁰⁴     Col. ii. 8.   For some people, neglecting virtues, and ignorant of what God is, and of the majesty of nature which remains always the same, think that they are engaged in an important business when searching with the greatest inquisitiveness and eagerness into this material mass which we call the world.  This begets so much pride, that they look upon themselves as inhabitants of the heaven of which they often discourse.  The soul, then, which purposes to keep itself chaste for God must refrain from the desire of vain knowledge like this.  For this desire usually produces delusion, so that the soul thinks that nothing exists but what is material; or if, from regard to authority, it confesses that there is an immaterial existence, it can think of it only under material images, and has no belief regarding it but that imposed by the bodily sense.  We may apply to this the precept about fleeing from idolatry.

39.  To this New Testament authority, requiring us not to love anything in this world,¹⁰⁵¹⁰⁵     1 John ii. 15. especially in that passage where it is said, "Be not conformed to this world,"¹⁰⁶¹⁰⁶     Rom. xii. 2. —for the point is to show that a man is conformed to whatever he loves,—to this authority, then, if I seek for a parallel passage in the Old Testament, I find several; but there is one book of Solomon, called Ecclesiastes, which at great length brings all earthly things into utter contempt.  The book begins thus:  "Vanity of the vain, saith the Preacher, vanity of the vain; all is vanity.  What profit hath a man of all his labor which he taketh under the sun?" ¹⁰⁷¹⁰⁷     Eccles. i. 2, 3.   If all these words are considered, weighed, and thoroughly examined, many things are found of essential importance to those who seek to flee from the world and to take shelter in God; but this requires time and our discourse hastens on to other topics.  But, after this beginning, he goes on to show in detail that the vain¹⁰⁸¹⁰⁸     Retract. i. 7, § 3: —"I found in many manuscripts the reading, ‘Vanity of the vain.’  But this is not in the Greek, which has ‘Vanity of vanities.’  This I saw afterwards.  And I found that the best Latin manuscripts had vanities and not vain.  But the truths I have drawn from this false reading are self-evident." are those who are deceived by things of this sort; and he calls this which deceives them vanity,—not that God did not create those things, but because men choose to subject themselves by their sins to those things, which the divine law has made subject to them in well-doing.  For when you consider things beneath your53self to be admirable and desirable, what is this but to be cheated and misled by unreal goods?  The man, then, who is temperate in such mortal and transient things has his rule of life confirmed by both Testaments, that he should love none of these things, nor think them desirable for their own sakes, but should use them as far as is required for the purposes and duties of life, with the moderation of an employer instead of the ardor of a lover.  These remarks on temperance are few in proportion to the greatness of the theme, but perhaps too many in view of the task on hand.

Chapter 22.—Fortitude Comes from the Love of God.

40.  On fortitude we must be brief.  The love, then, of which we speak, which ought with all sanctity to burn in desire for God, is called temperance, in not seeking for earthly things, and fortitude in bearing the loss of them.  But among all things which are possessed in this life, the body is, by God’s most righteous laws, for the sin of old, man’s heaviest bond, which is well known as a fact but most incomprehensible in its mystery.  Lest this bond should be shaken and disturbed, the soul is shaken with the fear of toil and pain; lest it should be lost and destroyed, the soul is shaken with the fear of death.  For the soul loves it from the force of habit, not knowing that by using it well and wisely its resurrection and reformation will, by the divine help and decree, be without any trouble made subject to its authority.  But when the soul turns to God wholly in this love, it knows these things, and so will not only disregard death, but will even desire it.

41.  Then there is the great struggle with pain.  But there is nothing, though of iron hardness, which the fire of love cannot subdue.  And when the mind is carried up to God in this love, it will soar above all torture free and glorious, with wings beauteous and unhurt, on which chaste love rises to the embrace of God.  Otherwise God must allow the lovers of gold, the lovers of praise, the lovers of women, to have more fortitude than the lovers of Himself, though love in those cases is rather to be called passion or lust.  And yet even here we may see with what force the mind presses on with unflagging energy, in spite of all alarms, towards that it loves; and we learn that we should bear all things rather than forsake God, since those men bear so much in order to forsake Him.

Chapter 23.—Scripture Precepts and Examples of Fortitude.

42.  Instead of quoting here authorities from the New Testament, where it is said, "Tribulation worketh patience; and patience, experience and experience, hope;"¹⁰⁹¹⁰⁹     Rom. v. 3, 4. and where, in addition to these words, there is proof and confirmation of them from the example of those who spoke them; I will rather summon an example of patience from the Old Testament, against which the Manichæans make fierce assaults.  Nor will I refer to the man who, in the midst of great bodily suffering, and with a dreadful disease in his limbs, not only bore human evils, but discoursed of things divine.  Whoever gives considerate attention to the utterances of this man, will learn from every one of them what value is to be attached to those things which men try to keep in their power, and in so doing are themselves brought by passion into bondage, so that they become the slaves of mortal things, while seeking ignorantly to be their masters.  This man, in the loss of all his wealth, and on being suddenly reduced to the greatest poverty, kept his mind so unshaken and fixed upon God, as to manifest that these things were not great in his view, but that he was great in relation to them, and God to him.¹¹⁰¹¹⁰     Job. i. 2.   If this mind were to be found in men in our day, we should not be so strongly cautioned in the New Testament against the possession of these things in order that we may be perfect; for to have these things without cleaving to them is much more admirable than not to have them at all.¹¹¹¹¹¹     [It is interesting to observe how remote Augustin was from attaching superior merit to voluntary poverty, or to other forms of asceticism as ends in themselves.  What he prized was the ability to use without abusing, to have without cleaving to the good things which God provides.—A.H.N.]

43.  But since we are speaking here of bearing pain and bodily sufferings, I pass from this man, great as he was, indomitable as he was:  this is the case of a man.  But these Scriptures present to me a woman of amazing fortitude, and I must at once go on to her case.  This woman, along with seven children, allowed the tyrant and executioner to extract her vitals from her body rather than a profane word from her mouth, encouraging her sons by her exhortations, though she suffered in the tortures of their bodies, and was herself to undergo what she called on them to bear.¹¹²¹¹²     2 Mac. vii.   What patience could be greater than this?  And yet why should we be astonished that the love of God, implanted in her inmost heart, bore up against tyrant, and executioner, and pain, and sex, and natural affection?  Had she not heard, "Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints?"¹¹³¹¹³     Ps. cxvi. 15.   Had she not heard, "A patient man is better than the mightiest?"¹¹⁴¹¹⁴     Prov. xvi. 32.   Had she not heard, "All that is appointed 54thee receive; and in pain bear it; and in abasement keep thy patience:  for in fire are gold and silver tried?"¹¹⁵¹¹⁵     Ecclus. ii. 4, 5.   Had she not heard, "The fire tries the vessels of the potter, and for just men is the trial of tribulation?"¹¹⁶¹¹⁶     Ecclus. xxvii. 6.   These she knew, and many other precepts of fortitude written in these books, which alone existed at that time, by the same divine Spirit who writes those in the New Testament.

Chapter 24.—Of Justice and Prudence.

44.  What of justice that pertains to God?  As the Lord says, "Ye cannot serve two masters,"¹¹⁷¹¹⁷     Matt. vi. 24. and the apostle denounces those who serve the creature rather than the Creator,¹¹⁸¹¹⁸     Rom. i. 25. was it not said before in the Old Testament, "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve?"¹¹⁹¹¹⁹     Deut. vi. 13.   I need say no more on this, for these books are full of such passages.  The lover, then, whom we are describing, will get from justice this rule of life, that he must with perfect readiness serve the God whom he loves, the highest good, the highest wisdom, the highest peace;¹²⁰¹²⁰     A name given by Augustin to the Holy Spirit, v. xxx. and as regards all other things, must either rule them as subject to himself, or treat them with a view to their subjection.  This rule of life, is, as we have shown, confirmed by the authority of both Testaments.

45.  With equal brevity we must treat of prudence, to which it belongs to discern between what is to be desired and what to be shunned.  Without this, nothing can be done of what we have already spoken of.  It is the part of prudence to keep watch with most anxious vigilance, lest any evil influence should stealthily creep in upon us.  Thus the Lord often exclaims, "Watch;"¹²¹¹²¹     Matt. xxiv. 42. and He says, "Walk while ye have the light, lest darkness come upon you."¹²²¹²²     John xii. 35.   And then it is said, "Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?"¹²³¹²³     1 Cor. v. 6.   And no passage can be quoted from the Old Testament more expressly condemning this mental somnolence, which makes us insensible to destruction advancing on us step by step, than those words of the prophet, "He who despiseth small things shall fall by degrees."¹²⁴¹²⁴     Ecclus. xix. 1.   On this topic I might discourse at length did our haste allow of it.  And did our present task demand it, we might perhaps prove the depth of these mysteries, by making a mock of which profane men in their perfect ignorance fall, not certainly by degrees, but with a headlong overthrow.

Chapter 25.—Four Moral Duties Regarding the Love of God, of Which Love the Reward is Eternal Life and the Knowledge of the Truth.

46.  I need say no more about right conduct.  For if God is man’s chief good, which you cannot deny, it clearly follows, since to seek the chief good is to live well, that to live well is nothing else but to love God with all the heart, with all the soul, with all the mind; and, as arising from this, that this love must be preserved entire and incorrupt, which is the part of temperance; that it give way before no troubles, which is the part of fortitude; that it serve no other, which is the part of justice; that it be watchful in its inspection of things lest craft or fraud steal in, which is the part of prudence.  This is the one perfection of man, by which alone he can succeed in attaining to the purity of truth.  This both Testaments enjoin in concert; this is commended on both sides alike.  Why do you continue to cast reproaches on Scriptures of which you are ignorant?  Do you not see the folly of your attack upon books which only those who do not understand them find fault with, and which only those who find fault fail in understanding?  For neither can an enemy know them, nor can one who knows them be other than a friend to them.

47.  Let us then, as many as have in view to reach eternal life, love God with all the heart, with all the soul, with all the mind.  For eternal life contains the whole reward in the promise of which we rejoice; nor can the reward precede desert, nor be given to a man before he is worthy of it.  What can be more unjust than this, and what is more just than God?  We should not then demand the reward before we deserve to get it.  Here, perhaps, it is not out of place to ask what is eternal life; or rather let us hear the Bestower of it:  "This," He says, "is life eternal, that they should know Thee, the true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent."¹²⁵¹²⁵     John xvii. 3.   So eternal life is the knowledge of the truth.  See, then, how perverse and preposterous is the character of those who think that their teaching of the knowledge of God will make us perfect, when this is the reward of those already perfect!  What else, then, have we to do but first to love with full affection Him whom we desire to know?¹²⁶¹²⁶     Retract. i. 7. § 4:—"I should have said sincere affection rather than full; or it might be thought that the love of God will be no greater when we shall see Him face to face.  Full, then, must be here understood as meaning that it cannot be greater while we walk by faith.  There will be greater, yea, perfect fullness, but only by sight."   Hence arises that principle on which we have all 55along insisted, that there is nothing more wholesome in the Catholic Church than using authority¹²⁷¹²⁷     [By authority Augustin does not mean the authority of the Church or of Scripture, but he refers to the loving recognition of the authority of God as the condition of true discipleship.—A.H.N.] before argument.

Chapter 26.—Love of Ourselves and of Our Neighbor.

48.  To proceed to what remains.  It may be thought that there is nothing here about man himself, the lover.  But to think this, shows a want of clear perception.  For it is impossible for one who loves God not to love himself.  For he alone has a proper love for himself who aims diligently at the attainment of the chief and true good; and if this is nothing else but God, as has been shown, what is to prevent one who loves God from loving himself?  And then, among men should there be no bond of mutual love?  Yea, verily; so that we can think of no surer step towards the love of God than the love of man to man.

49.  Let the Lord then supply us with the other precept in answer to the question about the precepts of life; for He was not satisfied with one as knowing that God is one thing and man another, and that the difference is nothing less than that between the Creator and the thing created in the likeness of its Creator.  He says then that the second precept is, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."¹²⁸¹²⁸     Matt. xxii. 39.   Now you love yourself suitably when you love God better than yourself.  What, then, you aim at in yourself you must aim at in your neighbor, namely, that he may love God with a perfect affection.  For you do not love him as yourself, unless you try to draw him to that good which you are yourself pursuing.  For this is the one good which has room for all to pursue it along with thee.  From this precept proceed the duties of human society, in which it is hard to keep from error.  But the first thing to aim at is, that we should be benevolent, that is, that we cherish no malice and no evil design against another.  For man is the nearest neighbor of man.

50.  Hear also what Paul says:  "The love of our neighbor," he says, "worketh no ill."¹²⁹¹²⁹     Rom. xiii. 10.   The testimonies here made use of are very short, but, if I mistake not, they are to the point, and sufficient for the purpose.  And every one knows how many and how weighty are the words to be found everywhere in these books on the love of our neighbor.  But as a man may sin against another in two ways, either by injuring him or by not helping him when it is in his power, and as it is for these things which no loving man would do that men are called wicked, all that is required is, I think, proved by these words, "The love of our neighbor worketh no ill."  And if we cannot attain to good unless we first desist from working evil, our love of our neighbor is a sort of cradle of our love to God, so that, as it is said, "the love of our neighbor worketh no ill," we may rise from this to these other words, "We know that all things issue in good to them that love God."¹³⁰¹³⁰     Rom. viii. 28.

51.  But there is a sense in which these either rise together to fullness and perfection, or, while the love of God is first in beginning, the love of our neighbor is first in coming to perfection.  For perhaps divine love takes hold on us more rapidly at the outset, but we reach perfection more easily in lower things.  However that may be, the main point is this, that no one should think that while he despises his neighbor he will come to happiness and to the God whom he loves.  And would that it were as easy to seek the good of our neighbor, or to avoid hurting him, as it is for one well trained and kind-hearted to love his neighbor!  These things require more than mere good-will, and can be done only by a high degree of thoughtfulness and prudence, which belongs only to those to whom it is given by God, the source of all good.  On this topic—which is one, I think, of great difficulty—I will try to say a few words such as my plan admits of, resting all my hope in Him whose gifts these are.

Chapter 27.—On Doing Good to the Body of Our Neighbor.

52.  Man, then, as viewed by his fellow-man, is a rational soul with a mortal and earthly body in its service.  Therefore he who loves his neighbor does good partly to the man’s body, and partly to his soul.  What benefits the body is called medicine; what benefits the soul, discipline.  Medicine here includes everything that either preserves or restores bodily health.  It includes, therefore, not only what belongs to the art of medical men, properly so called, but also food and drink, clothing and shelter, and every means of covering and protection to guard our bodies against injuries and mishaps from without as well as from within.  For hunger and thirst, and cold and heat, and all violence from without, produce loss of that health which is the point to be considered.

53.  Hence those who seasonably and wisely supply all the things required for warding off 56these evils and distresses are called compassionate, although they may have been so wise that no painful feeling disturbed their mind in the exercise of compassion.¹³¹¹³¹     Retract. i. 7. § 4:—"This does not mean that there are actually in this life wise men such as are here spoken of.  My words are not, ‘although they are so wise,’ but ‘although they were so wise.’"  [Augustin’s ideal wise man was evidently the "Gnostic" of Clement of Alexandria.  The conception is Stoical and Neo-Platonic.—A.H.N.]   No doubt the word compassionate implies suffering in the heart of the man who feels for the sorrow of another.  And it is equally true that a wise man ought to be free from all painful emotion when he assists the needy, when he gives food to the hungry and water to the thirsty, when he clothes the naked, when he takes the stranger into his house, when he sets free the oppressed, when, lastly, he extends his charity to the dead in giving them burial.  Still the epithet compassionate is a proper one, although he acts with tranquillity of mind, not from the stimulus of painful feeling, but from motives of benevolence.  There is no harm in the word compassionate when there is no passion in the case.

54.  Fools, again, who avoid the exercise of compassion as a vice, because they are not sufficiently moved by a sense of duty without feeling also distressful emotion, are frozen into hard insensibility, which is very different from the calm of a rational serenity.  God, on the other hand, is properly called compassionate; and the sense in which He is so will be understood by those whom piety and diligence have made fit to understand.  There is a danger lest, in using the words of the learned, we harden the souls of the unlearned by leading them away from compassion instead of softening them with the desire of a charitable disposition.  As compassion, then, requires us to ward off these distresses from others, so harmlessness forbids the infliction of them.

Chapter 28.—On Doing Good to the Soul of Our Neighbor.  Two Parts of Discipline, Restraint and Instruction.  Through Good Conduct We Arrive at the Knowledge of the Truth.

55.  As regards discipline, by which the health of the mind is restored, without which bodily health avails nothing for security against misery, the subject is one of great difficulty.  And as in the body we said it is one thing to cure diseases and wounds, which few can do properly, and another thing to meet the cravings of hunger and thirst, and to give assistance in all the other ways in which any man may at any time help another; so in the mind there are some things in which the high and rare offices of the teacher are not much called for,—as, for instance, in advice and exhortation to give to the needy the things already mentioned as required for the body.  To give such advice is to aid the mind by discipline, as giving the things themselves is aiding the body by our resources.  But there are other cases where diseases of the mind, many and various in kind, are healed in a way strange and indescribable.  Unless His medicine were sent from heaven to men, so heedlessly do they go on in sin, there would be no hope of salvation; and, indeed, even bodily health, if you go to the root of the matter, can have come to men from none but God, who gives to all things their being and their well-being.

56.  This discipline, then, which is the medicine of the mind, as far as we can gather from the sacred Scriptures, includes two things, restraint and instruction.  Restraint implies fear, and instruction love, in the person benefited by the discipline; for in the giver of the benefit there is the love without the fear.  In both of these God Himself, by whose goodness and mercy it is that we are anything, has given us in the two Testaments a rule of discipline.  For though both are found in both Testaments, still fear is prominent in the Old, and love in the New; which the apostle calls bondage in the one, and liberty in the other.  Of the marvellous order and divine harmony of these Testaments it would take long to speak, and many pious and learned men have discoursed on it.  The theme demands many books to set it forth and explain it as far as is possible for man.  He, then, who loves his neighbor endeavors all he can to procure his safety in body and in soul, making the health of the mind the standard in his treatment of the body.  And as regards the mind, his endeavors are in this order, that he should first fear and then love God.  This is true excellence of conduct, and thus the knowledge of the truth is acquired which we are ever in the pursuit of.

57.  The Manichæans agree with me as regards the duty of loving God and our neighbor, but they deny that this is taught in the Old Testament.  How greatly they err in this is, I think, clearly shown by the passages quoted above on both these duties.  But, in a single word, and one which only stark madness can oppose, do they not see the unreasonableness of denying that these very two precepts which they commend are quoted by the Lord in the Gospel from the Old Testament, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind;" and the other, "Thou 57shalt love thy neighbor as thyself?"¹³²¹³²     Deut. vi. 5; Lev. xix. 18; Matt. xxii. 37, 39.   Or if they dare not deny this, from the light of truth being too strong for them, let them deny that these precepts are salutary; let them deny, if they can, that they teach the best morality; let them assert that it is not a duty to love God, or to love our neighbor; that all things do not issue in good to them that love God; that it is not true that the love of our neighbor worketh no ill (a two-fold regulation of human life which is most salutary and excellent).  By such assertions they cut themselves off not only from Christians, but from mankind.  But if they dare not speak thus, but must confess the divinity of the precepts, why do they not desist from assailing and maligning with horrible profanity the books from which they are quoted?

58.  Will they say, as they often do, that although we find these precepts in the books, it does not follow that all is good that is found there?  How to meet and refute this quibble I do not well see.  Shall I discuss the words of the Old Testament one by one, to prove to stubborn and ignorant men their perfect agreement with the New Testament?  But when will this be done?  When shall I have time, or they patience?  What, then, is to be done?  Shall I desert the cause, and leave them to escape detection in an opinion which, though false and impious, is hard to disprove?  I will not.  God will Himself be at hand to aid me; nor will He suffer me in those straits to remain helpless or forsaken.

Chapter 29.—Of the Authority of the Scriptures.

59.  Attend, then, ye Manichæans, if perchance there are some of you of whom your superstition has hold so as to allow you yet to escape.  Attend, I say, without obstinacy, without the desire to oppose, otherwise your decision will be fatal to yourselves.  No one can doubt, and you are not so lost to the truth as not to understand that if it is good, as all allow, to love God and our neighbor, whatever hangs on these two precepts cannot rightly be pronounced bad.  What it is that hangs on them it would be absurd to think of learning from me.  Hear Christ Himself; hear Christ, I say; hear the Wisdom of God:  "On these two commandments," He says, "hang all the law and the prophets."¹³³¹³³     Matt. xxii. 40.

60.  What can the most shameless obstinacy say to this?  That these are not Christ’s words?  But they are written in the Gospel as His words.  That the writing is false?  Is not this most profane blasphemy?  Is it not most presumptuous to speak thus?  Is it not most foolhardy?  Is it not most criminal?  The worshippers of idols, who hate even the name of Christ, never dared to speak thus against these Scriptures.  For the utter overthrow of all literature will follow, and there will be an end to all books handed down from the past, if what is supported by such a strong popular belief and established by the uniform testimony of so many men and so many times, is brought into such suspicion, that it is not allowed to have the credit and the authority of common history.  In fine, what can you quote from any writings of which I may not speak in this way if it is quoted against my opinion and my purpose?¹³⁴¹³⁴     [The strong testimony borne by Augustin against the perverse subjective criticism of the Manichæns has an important application to the present time.—A.H.N.]

61.  And is it not intolerable that they forbid us to believe a book widely known and placed now in the hands of all, while they insist on our believing the book which they quote?  If any writing is to be suspected, what should be more so than one which has not merited notoriety, or which may be throughout a forgery, bearing a false name?  If you force such a writing on me against my will, and make a display of authority to drive me into belief, shall I, when I have a writing which I see spread far and wide for a length of time, and sanctioned by the concordant testimony of churches scattered over all the world, degrade myself by doubting, and, worse degradation, by doubting at your suggestion?  Even if you brought forward other readings, I should not receive them unless supported by general agreement; and this being the case, do you think that now, when you bring forward nothing to compare with the text except your own silly and inconsiderate statement, mankind are so unreasonable and so forsaken by divine Providence as to prefer to those Scriptures not others quoted by you in refutation, but merely your own words?  You ought to bring forward another manuscript with the same contents, but incorrupt and more correct, with only the passage wanting which you charge with being spurious.  For example, if you hold that the Epistle of Paul to the Romans is spurious, you must bring forward another incorrupt, or rather another manuscript with the same epistle of the same apostle, free from error and corruption.  You say you will not, lest you be suspected of corrupting it.  This is your usual reply, and a true one.  Were you to do this, we should assuredly have this very suspicion; and all men of any sense would have it too.  See then 58what you are to think of your own authority; and consider whether it is right to believe your words against these Scriptures, when the simple fact that a manuscript is brought forward by you makes it dangerous to put faith in it.

Chapter 30.—The Church Apostrophised as Teacher of All Wisdom.  Doctrine of the Catholic Church.

62.  But why say more on this?  For who but sees that men who dare to speak thus against the Christian Scriptures, though they may not be what they are suspected of being, are at least no Christians?  For to Christians this rule of life is given, that we should love the Lord Our God with all the heart, with all the soul, and with all the mind, and our neighbor as ourselves; for on these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.  Rightly, then, Catholic Church, most true mother of Christians, dost thou not only teach that God alone, to find whom is the happiest life, must be worshipped in perfect purity and chastity, bringing in no creature as an object of adoration whom we should be required to serve; and from that incorrupt and inviolable eternity to which alone man should be made subject, in cleaving to which alone the rational soul escapes misery, excluding everything made, everything liable to change, everything under the power of time; without confounding what eternity, and truth, and peace itself keeps separate, or separating what a common majesty unites:  but thou dost also contain love and charity to our neighbor in such a way, that for all kinds of diseases with which souls are for their sins afflicted, there is found with thee a medicine of prevailing efficacy.

63.  Thy training and teaching are childlike for children, forcible for youths, peaceful for the aged, taking into account the age of the mind as well as of the body.  Thou subjectest women to their husbands in chaste and faithful obedience, not to gratify passion, but for the propagation of offspring,¹³⁵¹³⁵     [This view of the marriage relation seems to have been almost universal in the ancient Church.  Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria are fond of dwelling upon it.  For Augustin’s views more fully stated see his De Bono Conjugali, 6.  See also an interesting excursus on "Continence in Married Life" in Cunningham’s St. Austin, p. 168. sq.—A.H.N.] and for domestic society.  Thou givest to men authority over their wives, not to mock the weaker sex, but in the laws of unfeigned love.  Thou dost subordinate children to their parents in a kind of free bondage, and dost set parents over their children in a godly rule.  Thou bindest brothers to brothers in a religious tie stronger and closer than that of blood.  Without violation of the connections of nature and of choice, thou bringest within the bond of mutual love every relationship of kindred, and every alliance of affinity.  Thou teachest servants to cleave to their masters from delight in their task rather than from the necessity of their position.  Thou renderest masters forbearing to their servants, from a regard to God their common Master, and more disposed to advise than to compel.  Thou unitest citizen to citizen, nation to nation, yea, man to man, from the recollection of their first parents, not only in society but in fraternity.  Thou teachest kings to seek the good of their peoples; thou counsellest peoples to be subject to their kings.  Thou teachest carefully to whom honor is due, to whom regard, to whom reverence, to whom fear, to whom consolation, to whom admonition, to whom encouragement, to whom discipline, to whom rebuke, to whom punishment; showing both how all are not due to all, and how to all love is due, and how injury is due to none.¹³⁶¹³⁶     [If this apostrophe had been addressed to "Christianity" rather than to the "Catholic Church," no Christian could fail to see in it one of the noblest tributes ever bestowed on the religion of Christ.  Augustin identified Christianity with the organized body which was far from realizing the ideal that he here sets forth.  As an apostrophe to ideal Christianity nothing could be finer.—A.H.N.]

64.  Then, after this human love has nourished and invigorated the mind cleaving to thy breast, and fitted it for following God, when the divine majesty has begun to disclose itself as far as suffices for man while a dweller on the earth, such fervent charity is produced, and such a flame of divine love is kindled, that by the burning out of all vices, and by the purification and sanctification of the man, it becomes plain how divine are these words, "I am a consuming fire,"¹³⁷¹³⁷     Deut. iv. 24.  Retract. i. 7, § 5:—"The Pelagians may think that I have spoken of perfection as attainable in this life.  But they must not think so.  For the fervor of charity which is fitted for following God, and of force enough to consume all vices, can have its origin and growth in this life; but it does not follow that it can here accomplish the purpose of its origin, so that no vice shall remain in the man; although this great effect is produced by this same fervor of charity, when and where this is possible, that as the laver of regeneration purifies from the guilt of all the sins which attach to man’s birth, or come from his evil conduct, so this perfection may purify him from all stain from the vices which necessarily attend human infirmity in this world.  So we must understand the words of the apostle:  ‘Christ loved the Church, and gave himself for it; cleansing it with the washing of water by the word, that He might present it to Himself a glorious Church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing’ (Eph. v. 25-27).  For in this world there is the washing of water by the word which purifies the Church.  But as the whole Church, as long as it is here, says, ‘Forgive us our debts,’ it certainly is not while here without spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but from that which it here receives, it is led on to the glory which is not here, and to perfection." and, "I have come to send fire on the earth."¹³⁸¹³⁸     Luke xii. 49.   These two utterances of one God stamped on both Testaments, exhibit with harmonious testimony, the sanctification of the soul, pointing forward to the accomplishment of that which 59is also quoted in the New Testament from the Old:  "Death is swallowed up in victory.  O death, where is thy sting?  Where, O death, is thy contest?"¹³⁹¹³⁹     Hos. xiii. 14; 1 Cor. xv. 54, 55.   Could these heretics understand this one saying, no longer proud but quite reconciled, they would worship God nowhere but with thee and in thy bosom.  In thee, as is fit, divine precepts are kept by widely-scattered multitudes.  In thee, as is fit, it is well understood how much more heinous sin is when the law is known than when it is unknown.  For "the sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law,"¹⁴⁰¹⁴⁰     1 Cor. xv. 56. which adds to the force with which the consciousness of disregard of the precept strikes and slays.  In thee it is seen, as is fit, how vain is effort under the law, when lust lays waste the mind, and is held in check by fear of punishment, instead of being overborne by the love of virtue.  Thine, as is fit, are the many hospitable, the many friendly, the many compassionate, the many learned, the many chaste, the many saints, the many so ardent in their love to God, that in perfect continence and amazing indifference to this world they find happiness even in solitude.

Chapter 31.—The Life of the Anachoretes and Cœnobites Set Against the Continence of the Manichæans.

65.  What must we think is seen by those who can live without seeing their fellow-creatures, though not without loving them?  It must be something transcending human things in contemplating which man can live without seeing his fellow-man.  Hear now, ye Manichæans, the customs and notable continence of perfect Christians, who have thought it right not only to praise but also to practise the height of chastity, that you may be restrained, if there is any shame in you, from vaunting your abstinence before uninstructed minds as if it were the hardest of all things.  I will speak of things of which you are not ignorant, though you hide them from us.  For who does not know that there is a daily increasing multitude of Christian men of absolute continence spread all over the world, especially in the East and in Egypt, as you cannot help knowing?

66.  I will say nothing of those to whom I just now alluded, who, in complete seclusion from the view of men, inhabit regions utterly barren, content with simple bread, which is brought to them periodically, and with water, enjoying communion with God, to whom in purity of mind they cleave, and most blessed in contemplating His beauty, which can be seen only by the understanding of saints.  I will say nothing of them, because some people think them to have abandoned human things more than they ought, not considering how much those may benefit us in their minds by prayer, and in their lives by example, whose bodies we are not permitted to see.  But to discuss this point would take long, and would be fruitless; for if a man does not of his own accord regard this high pitch of sanctity as admirable and honorable, how can our speaking lead him to do so?  Only the Manichæans, who make a boast of nothing, should be reminded that the abstinence and continence of the great saints of the Catholic Church has gone so far, that some think it should be checked and recalled within the limits of humanity,—so far above men, even in the judgment of those who disapprove, have their minds soared.

67.  But if this is beyond our tolerance, who can but admire and commend those who, slighting and discarding the pleasures of this world, living together in a most chaste and holy society, unite in passing their time in prayers, in readings, in discussions, without any swelling of pride, or noise of contention, or sullenness of envy; but quiet, modest, peaceful, their life is one of perfect harmony and devotion to God, an offering most acceptable to Him from whom the power to do those things is obtained?  No one possesses anything of his own; no one is a burden to another.  They work with their hands in such occupations as may feed their bodies without distracting their minds from God.  The product of their toil they give to the decans or tithesmen,—so called from being set over the tithes,—so that no one is occupied with the care of his body, either in food or clothes, or in anything else required for daily use or for the common ailments.  These decans, again, arranging everything with great care, and meeting promptly the demands made by that life on account of bodily infirmities, have one called "father," to whom they give in their accounts.  These fathers are not only more saintly in their conduct, but also distinguished for divine learning, and of high character in every way; and without pride they superintend those whom they call their children, having themselves great authority in giving orders, and meeting with willing obedience from those under their charge.  At the close of the day they assemble from their separate dwellings before their meal to hear their father, assembling to the number of three thousand at least for one father; for one may have even a much larger number than this.  They listen with astonishing 60eagerness in perfect silence, and give expression to the feelings of their minds as moved by the words of the preacher, in groans, or tears, or signs of joy without noise or shouting.  Then there is refreshment for the body, as much as health and a sound condition of the body requires, every one checking unlawful appetite, so as not to go to excess even in the poor, inexpensive fare provided.  So they not only abstain from flesh and wine, in order to gain the mastery over their passions, but also from those things which are only the more likely to whet the appetite of the palate and of the stomach, from what some call their greater cleanness, which often serves as a ridiculous and disgraceful excuse for an unseemly taste for exquisite viands, as distant from animal food.  Whatever they possess in addition to what is required for their support (and much is obtained, owing to their industry and frugality), they distribute to the needy with greater care than they took in procuring it for themselves.  For while they make no effort to obtain abundance, they make every effort to prevent their abundance remaining with them,—so much so, that they send shiploads to places inhabited by poor people.  I need say no more on a matter known to all.¹⁴¹¹⁴¹     [This picture of cœnobitic life, even in its purest form, is doubtless idealized.  It is certain that the monasteries very soon became hot-beds of vice, and the refuge of the scum of society.—A.H.N.]

68.  Such, too, is the life of the women, who serve God assiduously and chastely, living apart and removed as far as propriety demands from the men, to whom they are united only in pious affection and in imitation of virtue.  No young men are allowed access to them, nor even old men, however respectable and approved, except to the porch, in order to furnish necessary supplies.  For the women occupy and maintain themselves by working in wool, and hand over the cloth to the brethren, from whom, in return, they get what they need for food.  Such customs, such a life, such arrangements, such a system, I could not commend as it deserves, if I wished to commend it; besides, I am afraid that it would seem as if I thought it unlikely to gain acceptance from the mere description of it, if I considered myself obliged to add an ornamental eulogium to the simple narrative.  Ye Manichæans, find fault here if you can.  Do not bring into prominence our tares before men too blind to discriminate.

Chapter 32.—Praise of the Clergy.

69.  There is not, however, such narrowness in the moral excellence of the Catholic Church as that I should limit my praise of it to the life of those here mentioned.  For how many bishops have I known most excellent and holy men, how many presbyters, how many deacons, and ministers of all kinds of the divine sacraments, whose virtue seems to me more admirable and more worthy of commendation on account of the greater difficulty of preserving it amidst the manifold varieties of men, and in this life of turmoil!  For they preside over men needing cure as much as over those already cured.  The vices of the crowd must be borne with in order that they may be cured, and the plague must be endured before it is subdued.  To keep here the best way of life and a mind calm and peaceful is very hard.  Here, in a word, we are among people who are learning to live.  There they live.

Chapter 33.—Another Kind of Men Living Together in Cities.  Fasts of Three Days.

70.  Still I would not on this account cast a slight upon a praiseworthy class of Christians,—those, namely, who live together in cities, quite apart from common life.  I saw at Milan a lodging-house of saints, in number not a few, presided over by one presbyter, a man of great excellence and learning.  At Rome I knew several places where there was in each one eminent for weight of character, and prudence, and divine knowledge, presiding over all the rest who lived with him, in Christian charity, and sanctity, and liberty.  These, too, are not burdensome to any one; but, in the Eastern fashion, and on the authority of the Apostle Paul, they maintain themselves with their own hands.  I was told that many practised fasts of quite amazing severity, not merely taking only one meal daily towards night, which is everywhere quite common, but very often continuing for three days or more in succession without food or drink.  And this among not men only, but women, who also live together in great numbers as widows or virgins, gaining a livelihood by spinning and weaving, and presided over in each case by a woman of the greatest judgment and experience, skilled and accomplished not only in directing and forming moral conduct, but also in instructing the understanding.¹⁴²¹⁴²     [Augustin ascribes a broadmindedness and charitableness to the ascetics of his time which was doubtless quite subjective.  The ascetics of that age with whose history we are acquainted were not of this type.  Jerome is an example.—A.H.N.]

71.  With all this, no one is pressed to endure hardships for which he is unfit; nothing is imposed on any one against his will; nor is he condemned by the rest because he con61fesses himself too feeble to imitate them:  for they bear in mind how strongly Scripture enjoins charity on all:  they bear in mind "To the pure all things are pure,"¹⁴³¹⁴³     Tit. i. 15. and "Not that which entereth into your mouth defileth you, but that which cometh out of it."¹⁴⁴¹⁴⁴     Matt. xv. 11.   Accordingly, all their endeavors are concerned not about the rejection of kinds of food as polluted, but about the subjugation of inordinate desire and the maintenance of brotherly love.  They remember, "Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats; but God shall destroy both it and them;"¹⁴⁵¹⁴⁵     1 Cor. vi. 13. and again, "Neither if we eat shall we abound, nor if we refrain from eating shall we be in want;"¹⁴⁶¹⁴⁶     1 Cor. viii. 8. and, above all, this:  "It is good, my brethren, not to eat flesh, nor drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother is offended;" for this passage shows that love is the end to be aimed at in all these things.  "For one man," he says, "believes that he can eat all things:  another, who is weak, eateth herbs.  He that eateth, let him not despise him that eateth not; and let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth:  for God hath approved him.  Who art thou that thou shouldest judge another man’s servant?  To his own master he stands or fails; but he shall stand:  for God is able to make him to stand."  And a little after:  "He that eateth, to the Lord he eateth, and giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks."  And also in what follows:  "So every one of us shall give account of himself to God.  Let us not, then, any more judge one another:  but judge this rather, that ye place no stumbling-block, or cause of offence, in the way of a brother.  I know, and am confident in the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing common in itself:  but to him that thinketh anything to be common, to him it is common."  Could he have shown better that it is not in the things we eat, but in the mind, that there is a power able to pollute it, and therefore that even those who are fit to think lightly of these things, and know perfectly that they are not polluted if they take any food in mental superiority, without being gluttons, should still have regard to charity?  See what he adds:  "For if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably."¹⁴⁷¹⁴⁷     Rom. xiv. 2-21.

72.  Read the rest:  it is too long to quote all.  You will find that those able to think lightly of such things,—that is, those of greater strength and stability,—are told that they must nevertheless abstain, lest those should be offended who from their weakness are still in need of such abstinence.  The people I was describing know and observe these things; for they are Christians, not heretics.  They understand Scripture according to the apostolic teaching, not according to the presumptuous and fictitious name of apostle.¹⁴⁸¹⁴⁸     See title of the Epistle of Manichæus, Contra Faust. xiii. 4.   Him that eats not no one despises; him that eats no one judges; he who is weak eats herbs.  Many who are strong, however, do this for the sake of the weak; with many the reason for so doing is not this, but that they may have a cheaper diet, and may lead a life of the greatest tranquillity, with the least expensive provision for the support of the body.  "For all things are lawful for me," he says; "but I will not be brought under the power of any." ¹⁴⁹¹⁴⁹     1 Cor. vi. 12.   Thus many do not eat flesh, and yet do not superstitiously regard it as unclean.  And so the same people who abstain when in health take it when unwell without any fear, if it is required as a cure.  Many drink no wine; but they do not think that wine defiles them; for they cause it to be given with the greatest propriety and moderation to people of languid temperament, and, in short, to all who cannot have bodily health without it.  When some foolishly refuse it, they counsel them as brothers not to let a silly superstition make them weaker instead of making them holier.  They read to them the apostle’s precept to his disciple to "take a little wine for his many infirmities."¹⁵⁰¹⁵⁰     1 Tim. v. 23.   Then they diligently exercise piety; bodily exercise, they know, profiteth for a short time, as the same apostle says.¹⁵¹¹⁵¹     1 Tim. iv. 8.

73.  Those, then who are able, and they are without number, abstain both from flesh and from wine for two reasons:  either for the weakness of their brethren, or for their own liberty.  Charity is principally attended to.  There is charity in their choice of diet, charity in their speech, charity in their dress, charity in their looks.  Charity is the point where they meet, and the plan by which they act.  To transgress against charity is thought criminal, like transgressing against God.  Whatever opposes this is attacked and expelled; whatever injures it is not allowed to continue for a single day.  They know that it has been so enjoined by Christ and the apostles; that without it all things are empty, with it all are fulfilled.

Chapter 34.—The Church is Not to Be Blamed for the Conduct of Bad Christians, Worshippers of Tombs and Pictures.

74.  Make objections against these, ye 62Manichæans, if you can.  Look at these people, and speak of them reproachfully, if you dare, without falsehood.  Compare their fasts with your fasts, their chastity with yours; compare them to yourselves in dress, food, self-restraint, and, lastly, in charity.  Compare, which is most to the point, their precepts with yours.  Then you will see the difference between show and sincerity, between the right way and the wrong, between faith and imposture, between strength and inflatedness, between happiness and wretchedness, between unity and disunion; in short, between the sirens of superstition and the harbor of religion.

75.  Do not summon against me professors of the Christian name, who neither know nor give evidence of the power of their profession.¹⁵²¹⁵²       [Augustin says nothing of the encouragement given to such pagan practices by men regarded in that age as possessed of almost superhuman sanctity, such as Sulpicius Severus, Paulinus of Nola, etc.  He speaks of corruptions as if they were exceptional, whereas they seem to have been the rule.  Yet there is force in his contention that Christianity be judged by its best products rather than by the worst elements associated with it.—A.H.N.]   Do not hunt up the numbers of ignorant people, who even in the true religion are superstitious, or are so given up to evil passions as to forget what they have promised to God.  I know that there are many worshippers of tombs and pictures.  I know that there are many who drink to great excess over the dead, and who, in the feasts which they make for corpses, bury themselves over the buried, and give to their gluttony and drunkenness the name of religion.  I know that there are many who in words have renounced this world, and yet desire to be burdened with all the weight of worldly things, and rejoice in such burdens.  Nor is it surprising that among so many multitudes you should find some by condemning whose life you may deceive the unwary and seduce them from Catholic safety; for in your small numbers you are at a loss when called on to show even one out of those whom you call the elect who keeps the precepts, which in your indefensible superstition you profess.  How silly those are, how impious, how mischievous, and to what extent they are neglected by most, nearly all of you, I have shown in another volume.

76.  My advice to you now is this:  that you should at least desist from slandering the Catholic Church, by declaiming against the conduct of men whom the Church herself condemns, seeking daily to correct them as wicked children.  Then, if any of them by good will and by the help of God are corrected, they regain by repentance what they had lost by sin.  Those, again, who with wicked will persist in their old vices, or even add to them others still worse, are indeed allowed to remain in the field of the Lord, and to grow along with the good seed; but the time for separating the tares will come.¹⁵³¹⁵³     [Augustin’s ideal representation of Christianity and his identification of the organized Catholic Church with Christianity is quite inconsistent with the practice of the Church which he here seeks to justify.  No duty is more distinctly enjoined upon believers in the New Testament than separation from unbelievers and evil doers.  But such separation is impracticable in an established Church such as that to which Augustin rejoiced to belong.—A.H.N.]   Or if, from their having at least the Christian name, they are to be placed among the chaff rather than among thistles, there will also come One to purge the floor and to separate the chaff from the wheat, and to assign to each part (according to its desert) the due reward.¹⁵⁴¹⁵⁴     Matt. iii. 13, and xiii. 24-43.

Chapter 35.—Marriage and Property Allowed to the Baptized by the Apostles.

77.  Meanwhile, why do you rage? why does party spirit blind your eyes?  Why do you entangle yourselves in a long defence of such great error?  Seek for fruit in the field, seek for wheat in the floor:  they will be found easily, and will present themselves to the inquirer.  Why do you look so exclusively at the dross?  Why do you use the roughness of the hedge to scare away the inexperienced from the fatness of the garden?  There is a proper entrance, though known to but a few; and by it men come in, though you disbelieve it, or do not wish to find it.  In the Catholic Church there are believers without number who do not use the world, and there are those who "use it," in the words of the apostle, "as not using it,"¹⁵⁵¹⁵⁵     1 Cor. vii. 31. as was proved in those times when Christians were forced to worship idols.  For then, how many wealthy men, how many peasant householders, how many merchants, how many military men, how many leading men in their own cities, and how many senators, people of both sexes, giving up all these empty and transitory things, though while they used them they were not bound down by them, endured death for the salutary faith and religion, and proved to unbelievers that instead of being possessed by all these things they really possessed them?

78.  Why do you reproach us by saying that men renewed in baptism ought no longer to beget children, or to possess fields, and houses, and money?  Paul allows it.  For, as cannot be denied, he wrote to believers, after recounting many kinds of evil-doers who shall not possess the kingdom of God:  "And such were you," he says:  "but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in 63the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."  By the washed and sanctified, no one, assuredly, will venture to think any are meant but believers, and those who have renounced this world.  But, after showing to whom he writes, let us see whether he allows these things to them.  He goes on:  "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient:  all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.  Meat for the belly, and the belly for meats:  but God will destroy both it and them.  Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.  But God raised up the Lord, and will raise us up also by His own power.  Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot?  God forbid.  Know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is made one body? for the twain, saith He, shall be one flesh.  But he that is joined to the Lord is one spirit.  Flee fornication.  Whatever sin a man doeth is without the body:  but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.  Know ye not that your members are the temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?  For ye are bought with a great price:  glorify God, and carry Him in your body."¹⁵⁶¹⁵⁶     1 Cor. vi. 11-20.   "But of the things concerning which ye wrote to me:  it is good for a man not to touch a woman.  Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.  Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence:  and likewise also the wife unto the husband.  The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband:  and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.  Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may have leisure for prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.  But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.  For I would that all men were even as I myself:  but every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that."¹⁵⁷¹⁵⁷     1 Cor. vii. 1-7.

79.  Has the apostle, think you, both shown sufficiently to the strong what is highest, and permitted to the weaker what is next best?  Not to touch a woman he shows is highest when he says, "I would that all men were even as I myself."  But next to this highest is conjugal chastity, that man may not be the prey of fornication.  Did he say that these people were not yet believers because they were married?  Indeed, by this conjugal chastity he says that those who are united are sanctified by one another, if one of them is an unbeliever, and that their children also are sanctified.  "The unbelieving husband," he says, "is sanctified by the believing wife, and the unbelieving woman by the believing husband:  otherwise your children would be unclean; but now are they holy."¹⁵⁸¹⁵⁸     1 Cor. vii. 14.   Why do you persist in opposition to such plain truth?  Why do you try to darken the light of Scripture by vain shadows?

80.  Do not say that catechumens are allowed to have wives, but not believers; that catechumens may have money, but not believers.  For there are many who use as not using.  And in that sacred washing the renewal of the new man is begun so as gradually to reach perfection, in some more quickly, in others more slowly.  The progress, however, to a new life is made in the case of many, if we view the matter without hostility, but attentively.  As the apostle says of himself, "Though the outward man perish, the inward man is renewed day by day."¹⁵⁹¹⁵⁹     2 Cor. iv. 16.   The apostle says that the inward man is renewed day by day that it may reach perfection; and you wish it to begin with perfection!  And it were well if you did wish it.  In reality, you aim not at raising the weak, but at misleading the unwary.  You ought not to have spoken so arrogantly, even if it were known that you are perfect in your childish precepts.  But when your conscience knows that those whom you bring into your sect, when they come to a more intimate acquaintance with you, will find many things in you which nobody hearing you accuse others would suspect, is it not great impertinence to demand perfection in the weaker Catholics, to turn away the inexperienced from the Catholic Church, while you show nothing of the kind in yourself to those thus turned away?  But not to seem to inveigh against you without reason, I will now close this volume, and will proceed at last to set forth the precepts of your life and your notable customs.

65

St. AUGUSTIN:

on the

morals of the manichæans.

 [de moribus manichæorum].

A.D. 388.

translated by the

rev. richard stothert, m.a.,

bombay

69

On the Morals of the Manichæans.

[De Moribus Manichæorum.] a.d. 388.

Containing a particular refutation of the doctrine of these heretics regarding the origin and nature of evil; an exposure of their pretended symbolical customs of the mouth, of the hands, and of the breast; and a condemnation of their superstitious abstinence and unholy mysteries.  Lastly, some crimes brought to light among the Manichæans are mentioned.

Chapter 1.—The Supreme Good is that Which is Possessed of Supreme Existence.

1.  Every one, I suppose, will allow that the question of things good and evil belongs to moral science, in which such terms are in common use.  It is therefore to be wished that men would bring to these inquiries such a clear intellectual perfection as might enable them to see the chief good, than which nothing is better or higher, next in order to which comes a rational soul in a state of purity and perfection. ¹⁶⁰¹⁶⁰     This statement has a complete parallel in Clement of Alexandria, and along with what follows, is Neo-Platonic.—A.H.N.]   If this were clearly understood, it would also become evident that the chief good is that which is properly described as having supreme and original existence.  For that exists in the highest sense of the word which continues always the same, which is throughout like itself, which cannot in any part be corrupted or changed, which is not subject to time, which admits of no variation in its present as compared with its former condition.  This is existence in its true sense.  For in this signification of the word existence there is implied a nature which is self-contained, and which continues immutably.  Such things can be said only of God, to whom there is nothing contrary in the strict sense of the word.  For the contrary of existence is non-existence.  There is therefore no nature contrary to God.  But since the minds with which we approach the study of these subjects have their vision damaged and dulled by silly notions, and by perversity of will, let us try as we can to gain some little knowledge of this great matter by degrees and with caution, making our inquiries not like men able to see, but like men groping the dark.

Chapter 2.—What Evil is.  That Evil is that Which is Against Nature.  In Allowing This, the Manichæans Refute Themselves.

2.  You Manichæans often, if not in every case, ask those whom you try to bring over to your heresy, Whence is evil?  Suppose I had now met you for the first time, I would ask you, if you please, to follow my example in putting aside for a little the explanation you suppose yourselves to have got of these subjects, and to commence this great inquiry with me as if for the first time.  You ask me, Whence is evil?  I ask you in return, What is evil?  Which is the more reasonable question?  Are those right who ask whence a thing is, when they do not know what it is; or he who thinks it necessary to inquire first what it is, in order to avoid the gross absurdity of searching for the origin of a thing unknown?  Your answer is quite correct, when you say that evil is that which is contrary to nature; for no one is so mentally blind as not to see that, in every kind, evil is that which is contrary to the nature of the kind.  But the establishment of this doctrine is the overthrow of your heresy.  For evil is no nature, 70if it is contrary to nature.  Now, according to you, evil is a certain nature and substance.  Moreover, whatever is contrary to nature must oppose nature and seek its destruction.  For nature means nothing else than that which anything is conceived of as being in its own kind.  Hence is the new word which we now use derived from the word for being,—essence namely, or, as we usually say, substance,—while before these words were in use, the word nature was used instead.  Here, then, if you will consider the matter without stubbornness, we see that evil is that which falls away from essence and tends to non-existence.

3.  Accordingly, when the Catholic Church declares that God is the author of all natures and substances, those who understand this understand at the same time that God is not the author of evil.  For how can He who is the cause of the being of all things be at the same time the cause of their not being,—that is, of their falling off from essence and tending to non-existence?  For this is what reason plainly declares to be the definition of evil.  Now, how can that race of evil of yours, which you make the supreme evil, be against nature, that is, against substance, when it, according to you, is itself a nature and substance?  For if it acts against itself, it destroys its own existence; and when that is completely done, it will come at last to be the supreme evil.  But this cannot be done, because you will have it not only to be, but to be everlasting.  That cannot then be the chief evil which is spoken of as a substance. ¹⁶¹¹⁶¹     [On Augustin’s view of negativity of evil and on the relation of this view to Neo-Platonism, see Introduction, chapter IX.  Augustin’s view seems to exclude the permanence of evil in the world, and so everlasting punishment and everlasting rebellion against God.—A.H.N.]

4.  But what am I to do?  I know that many of you can understand nothing of all this.  I know, too, that there are some who have a good understanding and can see these things, and yet are so stubborn in their choice of evil,—a choice that will ruin their understanding as well,—that they try rather to find what reply they can make in order to impose upon inactive and feeble minds, instead of giving their assent to the truth.  Still I shall not regret having written either what one of you may come some day to consider impartially, and be led to abandon your error, or what men of understanding and in allegiance to God, and who are still untainted with your errors, may read and so be kept from being led astray by your addresses.

Chapter 3.—If Evil is Defined as that Which is Hurtful, This Implies Another Refutation of the Manichæans.

5.  Let us then inquire more carefully, and, if possible, more plainly.  I ask you again, What is evil?  If you say it is that which is hurtful, here, too, you will not answer amiss.  But consider, I pray you; be on your guard, I beg of you; be so good as to lay aside party spirit, and make the inquiry for the sake of finding the truth, not of getting the better of it.  Whatever is hurtful takes away some good from that to which it is hurtful; for without the loss of good there can be no hurt.  What, I appeal to you, can be plainer than this? what more intelligible?  What else is required for complete demonstration to one of average understanding, if he is not perverse?  But, if this is granted, the consequence seems plain.  In that race which you take for the chief evil, nothing can be liable to be hurt, since there is no good in it.  But if, as you assert, there are two natures,—the kingdom of light and the kingdom of darkness; since you make the kingdom of light to be God, attributing to it an uncompounded nature,¹⁶²¹⁶²     [It is probable that Mani thought of the Kingdom of Light pantheistically, and that the principles personified in his mythological system were the result of efforts on his part to connect the infinite with the finite.—A.H.N.] so that it has no part inferior to another, you must grant, however decidedly in opposition to yourselves, you must grant, nevertheless, that this nature, which you not only do not deny to be the chief good, but spend all your strength in trying to show that it is so, is immutable, incorruptible, impenetrable, inviolable, for otherwise it would not be the chief good; for the chief good is that than which there is nothing better, and for such a nature to be hurt is impossible.  Again, if, as has been shown, to hurt is to deprive of good, there can be no hurt to the kingdom of darkness, for there is no good in it.  And as the kingdom of light cannot be hurt, as it is inviolable, what can the evil you speak of be hurtful to?

Chapter 4.—The Difference Between What is Good in Itself and What is Good by Participation.

6.  Now, compare with this perplexity, from which you cannot escape, the consistency of the statements in the teaching of the Catholic Church, according to which there is one good which is good supremely and in itself, and not by the participation of any good, but by its own nature and essence; and another good which is good by participation, and by having something bestowed.  Thus it has its being as good from the supreme good, which, however, is still self-contained, and loses nothing. 71This second kind of good is called a creature, which is liable to hurt through falling away.  But of this falling away God is not the author, for He is author of existence and of being.  Here we see the proper use of the word evil; for it is correctly applied not to essence, but to negation or loss.  We see, too, what nature it is which is liable to hurt.  This nature is not the chief evil, for when it is hurt it loses good; nor is it the chief good, for its falling away from good is because it is good not intrinsically, but by possessing the good.  And a thing cannot be good by nature when it is spoken of as being made, which shows that the goodness was bestowed.  Thus, on the one hand, God is the good, and all things which He has made are good, though not so good as He who made them.  For what madman would venture to require that the works should equal the workman, the creatures the Creator?  What more do you want?  Could you wish for anything plainer than this?

Chapter 5.—If Evil is Defined to Be Corruption, This Completely Refutes the Manichæan Heresy.

7.  I ask a third time, What is evil?  Perhaps you will reply, Corruption.  Undeniably this is a general definition of evil; for corruption implies opposition to nature, and also hurt.  But corruption exists not by itself, but in some substance which it corrupts; for corruption itself is not a substance.  So the thing which it corrupts is not corruption, is not evil; for what is corrupted suffers the loss of integrity and purity.  So that which has no purity to lose cannot be corrupted; and what has, is necessarily good by the participation of purity.  Again, what is corrupted is perverted; and what is perverted suffers the loss of order, and order is good.  To be corrupted, then, does not imply the absence of good; for in corruption it can be deprived of good, which could not be if there was the absence of good.  Therefore that race of darkness, if it was destitute of all good, as you say it was, could not be corrupted, for it had nothing which corruption could take from it; and if corruption takes nothing away, it does not corrupt.  Say now, if you dare, that God and the kingdom of God can be corrupted, when you cannot show how the kingdom of the devil, such as you make it, can be corrupted.

Chapter 6.—What Corruption Affects and What It is.

8.  What further does the Catholic light say?  What do you suppose, but what is the actual truth, that it is the created substance which can be corrupted, for the uncreated, which is the chief good, is incorruptible; and corruption, which is the chief evil, cannot be corrupted; besides, that it is not a substance?  But if you ask what corruption is, consider to what it seeks to bring the things which it corrupts; for it affects those things according to its own nature.  Now all things by corruption fall away from what they were, and are brought to non-continuance, to non-existence; for existence implies continuance.  Thus the supreme and chief existence is so called because it continues in itself, or is self-contained.  In the case of a thing changing for the better, the change is not from continuance, but from perversion to the worse, that is, from falling away from essence; the author of which falling away is not He who is the author of the essence.  So in some things there is change for the better, and so a tendency towards existence.  And this change is not called a perversion, but reversion or conversion; for perversion is opposed to orderly arrangement.  Now things which tend towards existence tend towards order, and, attaining order they attain existence, as far as that is possible to a creature.  For order reduces to a certain uniformity that which it arranges; and existence is nothing else than being one.  Thus, so far as anything acquires unity, so far it exists.  For uniformity and harmony are the effects of unity, and by these compound things exist as far as they have existence.  For simple things exist by themselves, for they are one.  But things not simple imitate unity by the agreement of their parts; and so far as they attain this, so far they exist.  This arrangement is the cause of existence, disorder of non-existence; and perversion or corruption are the other names for disorder.  So whatever is corrupted tends to non-existence.  You may now be left to reflect upon the effect of corruption, that you may discover what is the chief evil; for it is that which corruption aims at accomplishing.

Chapter 7.—The Goodness of God Prevents Corruption from Bringing Anything to Non-Existence.  The Difference Between Creating and Forming.

9.  But the goodness of God does not permit the accomplishment of this end, but so orders all things that fall away that they may exist where their existence is most suitable, till in the order of their movements they return to that from which they fell away.¹⁶³¹⁶³     In Retract. i. 7, § 6, it is said:  "This must not be understood to mean that all things return to that from which they fell away, 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 existing in punishment where their existence is most suitable."  [This does not really meet the difficulty suggested on a preceding page.—A.H.N.] 72Thus, when rational souls fall away from God, although they possess the greatest amount of free-will, He ranks them in the lower grades of creation, where their proper place is.  So they suffer misery by the divine judgment, while they are ranked suitably to their deserts.  Hence we see the excellence of that saying which you are always inveighing against so strongly, "I make good things, and create evil things."¹⁶⁴¹⁶⁴     Isa. xlv. 7.   To create is to form and arrange.  So in some copies it is written, "I make good things and form evil things."  To make is used of things previously not in existence; but to form is to arrange what had some kind of existence, so as to improve and enlarge it.  Such are the things which God arranges when He says, "I form evil things," meaning things which are falling off, and so tending to non-existence,—not things which have reached that to which they tend.  For it has been said, Nothing is allowed in the providence of God to go the length of non-existence.¹⁶⁵¹⁶⁵     [That is to say nothing is absolutely evil, and conversely what is absolutely evil is ipso facto non-existent.—A.H.N.]

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 uninstructed 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."¹⁶⁶¹⁶⁶     Luke ii. 14.   It is enough, I say, to have shown you that there is no way of solving the religious question 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.

Chapter 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?  But I have shown that in these replies you make shipwreck of your cause, unless, indeed, you will answer in the childish way in which you generally speak to children, that evil is fire, 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 substance, "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 itself, 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 remark 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 disagreement 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 scorpion 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 receive; 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 disagreement, which 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-existence:  Thus we learn whence disagreement is not; as to whence it is, nothing can be said.

12.  We read in history of a female criminal 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 absurd than this?  But because disagreement is an evil, what she did was to make the poisonous matter agree with her own body by a process of habituation.  For how could she by any amount of cunning have brought it 73about 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 important.  Sea-water is injurious when drunk by 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, Stercutio, 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 agreement, and bitterly opposed to nature when there is disagreement in the objects acted upon.  We who live in air die under earth or under water, while innumerable animals creep alive in sand or loose earth, and fish die in our air.  Fire consumes our bodies, but, when suitably applied, it both restores from cold, and expels diseases without number.  The sun to which you bow the knee, and than which, indeed, there is no fairer object among visible things, strengthens the eyes of eagles, but hurts and dims our eyes when we gaze on it; and yet we too can accustom ourselves to look upon it without injury.  Will you, then, allow the sun to be compared to the poison which the Athenian woman made harmless by habituating herself to it?  Reflect 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 charge.  See the preferableness of making evil in general to consist in this disagreement, from which the sun’s ray produces dimness in the eyes, though nothing is pleasanter to the eyes than light.¹⁶⁷¹⁶⁷     [The reasoning here is admirably adapted to Augustin’s purpose, which is to refute the Manichæan notion of the evil nature of material substance.—A.H.N.]

Chapter 9.—The Manichæan Fictions About Things Good and Evil are Not Consistent with Themselves.

14.  I have said these things to make you 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 animals born in each of these elements,—serpents 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, cannot 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 deafness, they could hear.  If to be nearly or altogether dumb is an evil, their speech was so clear and intelligible, that, as you assert, they decided to make war against God in compliance with an address delivered in their assembly.  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 mentioned? and if these are not evils, can any substance be an evil, as far as it is a substance?  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 enforcing 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 de74nied, unsuitableness 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 animals, 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 already 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 acknowledged truth, that what is hurtful is an evil.  The smoke in that region did not hurt bipeds:  it produced them, and nourished and sustained 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 elements?  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 falsehoods?  Why does darkness agree with serpents, 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 sunshine, 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.¹⁶⁸¹⁶⁸       [The text has asinum in this sentence but aspidem in the next.  The former is a mistake.—A.H.N.]   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 animals.  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 perfectly 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 description were so much less liable to corruption than animals are now, that their abortive and premature offspring, cast headlong from heaven to earth, both lived and were productive, 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?

Chapter 10.—Three Moral Symbols Devised by the Manichæans 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 observances.  What then are those three symbols?  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 blasphemy 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 75of the tongue, as being for the purpose of expressing something, from actions which are not for this purpose, so that the 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, with its attendant error, lands you in great difficulties?  For you find it impossible to include purification of all sins in these three symbols, which you set forth as a kind of new classification.

Chapter 11.—The Value of the Symbol of the Mouth Among the Manichæans, Who are Found Guilty of Blaspheming God.

20.  Classify as you please, omit what you please, we must discuss the doctrines you insist upon most.  You say that the symbol of the mouth implies refraining from all blasphemy.  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, but 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 of 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 needing health, and feeble as needing medicine, and miserable as desiring happiness, all these things you profanely attribute 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.  Why 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?"¹⁶⁹¹⁶⁹     John viii. 36.   And the Apostle Paul says, "Ye have been called to liberty."¹⁷⁰¹⁷⁰     Gal. v. 13.   The soul, then, which has not attained this liberty is in bondage.  Therefore, 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 corrupted, 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 suffering 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 calamitous 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 mouth being free from blas76phemies.  Better still, leave the sect; for if you cease to believe and to repeat what Manichæus has written, you will be no longer Manichæans.

24.  That God is the supreme good, and that than which nothing can be or can be conceived 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 integrity 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 divide it into two equal parts.  Your mind perceives 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?

Chapter 12.—Manichæan 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, supposing 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 remaining 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 injury, but that God in His natural goodness wished to bestow the blessing of order on a disturbed and disordered nature.  This is not what we find in the Manichæan books:  there it is constantly implied and constantly asserted that God guarded against an invasion of His enemies.  But supposing this answer, which was given from want of a better, to represent the opinion of the Manichæans, 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.  Besides, 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 might be invaded by a hostile race, though God Himself could not be injured.  But this is a reply which your founder would never consent 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 violable, a second inviolable, and a third violating.

Chapter 13.—Actions to Be Judged of from Their Motive, Not from Externals.  Manichæan 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 ensnare the ignorant.  But perhaps you think the symbol of the mouth excellent and admirable 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.¹⁷¹¹⁷¹     Sallust, in prolog. Catilin. § 3.   This the vile miscreant had in common with our apostles.  What then distinguishes the parricide 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 likewise of countless sorts of worms.  But, not 77to be impertinent like you, I will not make this comparison prematurely, but will first examine your end in what 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.

29.  Suppose, what is quite possible, that there is one so frugal and sparing in his diet, that, instead of gratifying his appetite or his palate, he refrains from eating twice in one day, and at supper takes a little cabbage moistened and seasoned with lard, just enough to keep down hunger; and quenches his thirst, from regard to his health, with two or three draughts of pure wine; and this is his regular diet:  whereas another of different habits never takes flesh or wine, but makes an agreeable repast at two o’clock on rare and foreign vegetables, varied with a number of courses, and well sprinkled with pepper, and sups in the same style towards night; and drinks honey-vinegar, mead, raisin-wine, and the juices of various fruits, no bad imitation of wine, and even surpassing it in sweetness; and drinks not for thirst but for pleasure; and makes this provision for himself daily, and feasts in this sumptuous style, not because he requires it, but only gratifying his taste;—which of these two do you regard as living most abstemiously in food and drink?  You cannot surely be so blind as not to put the man of the little lard and wine above this glutton!

30.  This is the true view; but your doctrine sounds very differently.  For one of your elect distinguished by the three symbols may live like the second person in this description, and though he may be reproved by one or two of the more sedate, he cannot be condemned as abusing the symbols.  But should he sup with the other person, and moisten his lips with a morsel of rancid bacon, or refresh them with a drink of spoilt wine, he is pronounced a transgressor of the symbol, and by the judgment of your founder is consigned to hell, while you, though wondering, must assent.  Will you not discard these errors?  Will you not listen to reason?  Will you not offer some little resistance to the force of habit?  Is not such doctrine most unreasonable?  Is it not insanity?  Is it not the greatest absurdity that one, who stuffs and loads his stomach every day to gratify his appetite with mushrooms, rice, truffles, cake, mead, pepper, and assafœtida, and who fares thus every day, cannot be convicted of transgressing the three symbols, that is, the rule of sanctity; whereas another, who seasons his dish of the commonest herbs with some smoky morsel of meat, and takes only so much of this as is needed for the refreshment of his body, and drinks three cups of wine for the sake of keeping in health, should, for exchanging the former diet for this, be doomed to certain punishment?

Chapter 14.—Three Good Reasons for Abstaining from Certain Kinds of Food.

31.  But, you reply, the apostle says, "It is good, brethren, neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine."¹⁷²¹⁷²     Rom. xiv. 21.   No one denies that this is good, provided that it is for the end already mentioned, of which it is said, "Make not provision for the flesh to fulfill the lusts thereof;"¹⁷³¹⁷³     Rom. xiii. 14. or for the ends pointed out by the apostle, namely, either to check the appetite, which is apt to go to a more wild and uncontrollable excess in these things than in others, or lest a brother should be offended, or lest the weak should hold fellowship with an idol.  For at the time when the apostle wrote, the flesh of sacrifices was often sold in the market.  And because wine, too, was used in libations to the gods of the Gentiles, many weaker brethren, accustomed to purchase such things, preferred to abstain entirely from flesh and wine rather than run the risk of having fellowship, as they considered it, with idols, even ignorantly.  And, for their sakes, even those who were stronger, and had faith enough to see the insignificance of these things, knowing that nothing is unclean except from an evil conscience, and holding by the saying of the Lord, "Not that which entereth into your mouth defileth you, but that which cometh out of it," ¹⁷⁴¹⁷⁴     Matt. xv. 2. still, lest these weaker brethren should stumble, were bound to abstain from these things.  And this is not a mere theory, but is clearly taught in the epistles of the apostle himself.  For you are in the habit of quoting only the words, "It is good, brethren, neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine," without adding what follows, "nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended or is made weak."  These words show the intention of the apostle in giving the admonition.

32.  This is evident from the preceding and succeeding context.  The passage is a long one to quote, but, for the sake of those who are indolent in reading and searching the sacred Scriptures, we must give the whole of it.  "Him that is weak in the faith," says the apostle, "receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.  For one believeth that he may eat 78all things:  another, who is weak, eateth herbs.  Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth, for God hath received him.  Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth; yea, he shall be holden up:  for God is able to make him stand.  One man esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every day alike.  Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.  He that regardeth the day, regardeth it to the Lord.  He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.  For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.  For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord:  whether we live, therefore, or die, we are the Lord’s.  For to this end Christ both lived, and died and rose again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and living.  But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of God.  For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.¹⁷⁵¹⁷⁵     Isa. xlv. 23, 24.   So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.  Let us not, therefore, judge one another any more:  but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling-block, or occasion to fall, in his brother’s way.  I know, and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing common of itself:  but to him that esteemeth anything to be common, to him it is common.  But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably.  Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.  Let not then our good be evil spoken of.  For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.  For he who in this serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.  Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things whereby one may edify another.  For meat destroys not the work of God.  All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offense.  It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.  Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God.  Happy is he who condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.  And he that distinguishes is damned if he eats, because he eateth not of faith:  for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.  We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves.  Let every one of us please his neighbor for his good to edification.  For even Christ pleased not Himself."¹⁷⁶¹⁷⁶     Rom. xiv. and xv. 1-3.

33.  Is it not clear that what the apostle required was, that the stronger should not eat flesh nor drink wine, because they gave offense to the weak by not going along with them, and made them think that those who in faith judged all things to be pure, did homage to idols in not abstaining from that kind of food and drink?  This is also set forth in the following passage of the Epistle to the Corinthians:  "As concerning, therefore, the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.  For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him.  Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge:  for some, with conscience of the idol unto this hour, eat it as a thing offered to an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.  But meat commendeth us not to God:  for neither, if we eat, shall we abound; neither, if we eat not, shall we suffer want.  But take heed, lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling-block to them that are weak.  For if any man see one who has knowledge sit at meat in the idol’s temple, shall not his conscience being weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; and through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?  But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.  Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh forever, lest I make my brother to offend."¹⁷⁷¹⁷⁷     1 Cor. viii. 4, etc.

34.  Again, in another place:  "What say I then? that the idol is anything? or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is anything?  But the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to devils, and not to God:  and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.  Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils:  ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table and of the table of devils.  Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than He?  All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient:  all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.  Let no man seek his own, but every man what is another’s.  Whatso79ever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake.  But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shows it, and for conscience sake:  conscience, I say, not thine own, but another’s:  for why is my liberty judged of another man’s conscience?  For if I be a partaker with thanksgiving, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks?  Whether, therefore, ye eat or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.  Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Greeks, nor to the Church of God:  even as I please all men in all things not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many that they may be saved.  Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ." ¹⁷⁸¹⁷⁸     1 Cor. x. 19-25 and 28, xi. 1.

35.  It is clear, then, I think, for what end we should abstain from flesh and wine.  The end is threefold:  to check indulgence, which is mostly practised in this sort of food, and in this kind of drink goes the length of intoxication; to protect weakness, on account of the things which are sacrificed and offered in libation; and, what is most praiseworthy of all, from love, not to offend the weakness of those more feeble than ourselves, who abstain from these things.  You, again, consider a morsel of meat unclean; whereas the apostle says that all things are clean, but that it is evil to him that eateth with offence.  And no doubt you are defiled by such food, simply because you think it unclean.  For the apostle says, "I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing common of itself:  but to him that esteemeth anything common, to him it is common."  And every one can see that by common he means unclean and defiled.  But it is folly to discuss passages of Scripture with you; for you both mislead people by promising to prove your doctrines, and those books which possess authority to demand our homage you affirm to be corrupted by spurious interpolations.  Prove then to me your doctrine that flesh defiles the eater, when it is taken without offending any one, without any weak notions, and without any excess.¹⁷⁹¹⁷⁹     [Augustin’s comparison of Manichæan with Christian asceticism is thoroughly just and admirable.—A.H.N.]

Chapter 15.—Why the Manichæans Prohibit the Use of Flesh.

36.  It is worth while to take note of the whole reason for their superstitious abstinence, which is given as follows:—Since, we are told, the member of God has been mixed with the substance of evil, to repress it and to keep it from excessive ferocity,—for that is what you say,—the world is made up of both natures, of good and evil, mixed together.  But this part of God is daily being set free in all parts of the world, and restored to its own domain.  But in its passage upwards as vapor from earth to heaven, it enters plants, because their roots are fixed in the earth, and so gives fertility and strength to all herbs and shrubs.  From these animals get their food, and, where there is sexual intercourse, fetter in the flesh the member of God, and, turning it from its proper course, they come in the way and entangle it in errors and troubles.  So then, if food consisting of vegetables and fruits comes to the saints, that is, to the Manichæans by means of their chastity, and prayers, and psalms, whatever in it is excellent and divine is purified, and so is entirely perfected, in order to restoration, free from all hindrance, to its own domain.  Hence you forbid people to give bread or vegetables, or even water, which would cost nobody anything, to a beggar, if he is not a Manichæan, lest he should defile the member of God by his sins, and obstruct its return.

37.  Flesh, you say, is made up of pollution itself.  For, according to you, some portion of that divine part escapes in the eating of vegetables and fruits:  it escapes while they undergo the infliction of rubbing, grinding, or cooking, as also of biting or chewing.  It escapes, too, in all motions of animals, in the carriage of burdens, in exercise, in toil, or in any sort of action.  It escapes, too, in our rest, when digestion is going on in the body by means of internal heat.  And as the divine nature escapes in all these ways, some very unclean dregs remain, from which, in sexual intercourse, flesh is formed.  These dregs, however, fly off, in the motions above mentioned, along with what is good in the soul; for though it is mostly, it is not entirely good.  So, when the soul has left the flesh, the dregs are utterly filthy, and the soul of those who eat flesh is defiled.

Chapter 16.—Disclosure of the Monstrous Tenets of the Manichæans.

38.  O the obscurity of the nature of things!  How hard to expose falsehood!  Who that hears these things, if he is one who has not learned the causes of things, and who, not yet illuminated by any ray of truth, is deceived by material images, would not think them true, precisely because the things spoken of are invisible, and are presented to the mind under the form of visible things, and can be eloquently expressed?  Men of this description exist in numbers and in droves, who are kept from being led away into these errors 80more by a fear grounded on religious feeling than by reason.  I will therefore endeavor, as God may please to enable me, so to refute these errors, as that their falsehood and absurdity will be manifest not only in the judgment of the wise, who reject them on hearing them, but also to the intelligence of the multitude.

39.  Tell me then, first, where you get the doctrine that part of God, as you call it, exists in corn, beans, cabbage, and flowers and fruits.  From the beauty of the color, say they, and the sweetness of the taste; this is evident; and as these are not found in rotten substances, we learn that their good has been taken from them.  Are they not ashamed to attribute the finding of God to the nose and the palate?  But I pass from this.  For I will speak, using words in their proper sense; and, as the saying is, this is not so easy in speaking to you.  Let us see rather what sort of mind is required to understand this; how, if the presence of good in bodies is shown by their color, the dung of animals, the refuse of flesh itself, has all kinds of bright colors, sometimes white, often golden; and so on, though these are what you take in fruits and flowers as proofs of the presence and indwelling of God.  Why is it that in a rose you hold the red color to be an indication of an abundance of good, while the same color in blood you condemn?  Why do you regard with pleasure in a violet the same color which you turn away from in cases of cholera, or of people with jaundice, or in the excrement of infants?  Why do you believe the light, shining appearance of oil to be a sign of a plentiful admixture of good, which you readily set about purifying by taking the oil into your throats and stomachs, while you are afraid to touch your lips with a drop of fat, though it has the same shining appearance as oil?  Why do you look upon a yellow melon as part of the treasures of God, and not rancid bacon fat or the yolk of an egg?  Why do you think that whiteness in a lettuce proclaims God, and not in milk?  So much for colors, as regards which (to mention nothing else) you cannot compare any flower-clad meadow with the wings and feathers of a single peacock, though these are of flesh and of fleshly origin.

40.  Again, if this good is discovered also by smell, perfumes of excellent smell are made from the flesh of some animals.  And the smell of food, when cooked along with flesh of delicate flavor, is better than if cooked without it.  Once more, if you think that the things that have a better smell than others are therefore cleaner, there is a kind of mud which you ought to take to your meals instead of water from the cistern; for dry earth moistened with rain has an odor most agreeable to the sense, and this sort of mud has a better smell than rain-water taken by itself.  But if we must have the authority of taste to prove the presence in any object of part of God, he must dwell in dates and honey more than in pork, but more in pork than in beans.  I grant that He dwells more in a fig than in a liver; but then you must allow that He is more in liver than in beet.  And, on this principle, must you not confess that some plants, which none of you can doubt to be cleaner than flesh, receive God from this very flesh, if we are to think of God as mixed with the flavor?  For both cabbages taste better when cooked along with flesh; and, while we cannot relish the plants on which cattle feed, when these are turned into milk we think them improved in color, and find them very agreeable to the taste.

41.  Or must we think that good is to be found in greater quantity where the three good qualities—a good color, and smell, and taste—are found together?  Then you must not admire and praise flowers so much, as you cannot admit them to be tried at the tribunal of the palate.  At least you must not prefer purslain to flesh, since flesh when cooked is superior in color, smell, and taste.  A young pig roasted (for your ideas on this subject force us to discuss good and evil with you as if you were cooks and confectioners, instead of men of reading or literary taste) is bright in color, and agreeable in smell, and pleasant in taste.  Here is a perfect evidence of the presence of the divine substance.  You are invited by this threefold testimony, and called on to purify this substance by your sanctity.  Make the attack.  Why do you hold back?  What objection have you to make.  In color alone the excrement of an infant surpasses lentils; in smell alone a roast morsel surpasses a soft green fig; in taste alone a kid when slaughtered surpasses the plant which it fed on when alive:  and we have found a kind of flesh in flavor of which all three give evidence.  What more do you require?  What reply will you make?  Why should eating meat make you unclean, if using such monstrosities in discussion does not?  And, above all, the rays of the sun, which you surely think more of than all animal or vegetable food, have no smell or taste, and are remarkable among other substances only by their eminently bright color; which is a loud call to you, and an obligation, in spite of yourselves, to place nothing higher than a bright color among the evidences of an admixture of good.

8142.  Thus you are forced into this difficulty, that you must acknowledge the part of God as dwelling more in blood, and in the filthy but bright-colored animal refuse which is thrown out in the streets, than in the pale leaves of the olive.  If you reply, as you actually do, that olive leaves when burnt give out a flame, which proves the presence of light, while flesh when burnt does not, what will you say of oil, which lights nearly all the lamps in Italy?  What of cow dung (which surely is more unclean than the flesh), which peasants use when dry as fuel, so that the fire is always at hand, and the liberation of the smoke is always going on?  And if brightness and lustre prove a greater presence of the divine part, why do you yourselves not purify it, why not appropriate it, why not liberate it?  For it is found chiefly in flowers, not to speak of blood and countless things almost the same as blood in flesh or coming from it, and yet you cannot feed on flowers.  And even if you were to eat flesh, you would certainly not take with your gruel the scales of fish, or some worms and flies, though these all shine with a light of their own in the dark.

43.  What then remains, but that you should cease saying that you have in your eyes, nose, and palate sufficient means of testing the presence of the divine part in material objects?  And, without these means, how can you tell not only that there is a greater part of God in plants than in flesh, but that there is any part in plants at all?  Are you led to think this by their beauty—not the beauty of agreeable color, but that of agreement of parts?  An excellent reason, in my opinion.  For you will never be so bold as to compare twisted pieces of wood with the bodies of animals, which are formed of members answering to one another.  But if you choose the testimony of the senses, as those must do who cannot see with their mind the full force of existence, how do you prove that the substance of good escapes from bodies in course of time, and by some kind of attrition, but because God has gone out of it, according to your view, and has left one place for another?  The whole is absurd.  But, as far as I can judge, there are no marks or appearances to give rise to this opinion.  For many things plucked from trees, or pulled out of the ground, are the better of some interval of time before we use them for food, as leeks and endive, lettuce, grapes, apples, figs, and some pears; and there are many other things which get a better color when they are not used immediately after being plucked, besides being more wholesome for the body, and having a finer flavor to the palate.  But these things should not possess all these excellent and agreeable qualities, if, as you say, they become more destitute of good the longer they are kept after separation from their mother earth.  Animal food itself is better and more fit for use the day after the animal is killed; but this should not be, if, as you hold, it possessed more good immediately after the slaughter than next day, when more of the divine substance had escaped.

44.  Who does not know that wine becomes purer and better by age?  Nor is it, as you think, more tempting to the destruction of the senses, but more useful for invigorating the body,—only let there be moderation, which ought to control everything.  The senses are sooner destroyed by new wine.  When the must has been only a short time in the vat, and has begun to ferment, it makes those who look down into it fall headlong, affecting their brain, so that without assistance they would perish.  And as regards health, every one knows that bodies are swollen up and injuriously distended by new wine?  Has it these bad properties because there is more good in it?  Are they not found in wine when old because a good deal of the divine substance has gone?  An absurd thing to say, especially for you, who prove the divine presence by the pleasing effect produced on your eyes, nose, and palate!  And what a contradiction it is to make wine the poison of the princes of darkness, and yet to eat grapes!  Has it more of the poison when in the cup than when in the cluster?  Or if the evil remains unmixed after the good is gone, and that by the process of time, how is it that the same grapes, when hung up for awhile, become milder, sweeter, and more wholesome? or how does the wine itself, as already mentioned, become purer and brighter when the light has gone, and more wholesome by the loss of the beneficial substance?

45.  What are we to say of wood and leaves, which in course of time become dry, but cannot be the worse on that account in your estimation?  For while they lose that which produces smoke, they retain that from which a bright flame arises; and, to judge by the clearness, which you think so much of, there is more good in the dry than in the green.  Hence you must either deny that there is more of God in the pure light than in the smoky one, which will upset all your evidences; or you must allow it to be possible that, when plants are plucked up, or branches plucked off, and kept for a time, more of the nature of evil may escape from them than 82of the nature of good.  And, on the strength of this, we shall hold that more evil may go off from plucked fruits; and so more good may remain in animal food.  So much on the subject of time.

46.  As for motion, and tossing, and rubbing, if these give the divine nature the opportunity of escaping from these substances, many things of the same kind are against you, which are improved by motion.  In some grains the juice resembles wine, and is excellent when moved about.  Indeed, as must not be overlooked, this kind of drink produces intoxication rapidly; and yet you never called the juice of grain the poison of the princes of darkness.  There is a preparation of water, thickened with a little meal, which is the better of being shaken, and, strange to say, is lighter in color when the light is gone.  The pastry cook stirs honey for a long time to give it this light color, and to make its sweetness milder and less unwholesome:  you must explain how this can come from the loss of good.  Again, if you prefer to test the presence of God by the agreeable effects on the hearing, and not sight, or smell, or taste, harps get their strings and pipes their bones from animals; and these become musical by being dried, and rubbed, and twisted.  So the pleasures of music, which you hold to have come from the divine kingdom, are obtained from the refuse of dead animals, and that, too, when they are dried by time, and lessened by rubbing, and stretched by twisting.  Such rough treatment, according to you, drives the divine substance from living objects; even cooking them, you say, does this.  Why then are boiled thistles not unwholesome?  Is it because God, or part of God, leaves them when they are cooked?

47.  Why mention all the particulars, when it is difficult to enumerate them?  Nor is it necessary; for every one knows how many things are sweeter and more wholesome when cooked.  This ought not to be, if, as you suppose, things lose the good by being thus moved about.  I do not suppose that you will find any proof from your bodily senses that flesh is unclean, and defiles the souls of those who eat it, because fruits, when plucked and shaken about in various ways, become flesh; especially as you hold that vinegar, in its age and fermentation, is cleaner than wine, and the mead you drink is nothing else than cooked wine, which ought to be more impure than wine, if material things lose the divine members by being moved about and cooked.  But if not, you have no reason to think that fruits, when plucked, kept, handled, cooked, and digested, are forsaken by the good, and therefore supply most unclean matter for the formation of bodies.

48.  But if it is not from their color and appearance, and smell and taste, that you think the good to be in these things, what else can you bring forward?  Do you prove it from the strength and vigor which those things seem to lose when they are separated from the earth and put to use?  If this is your reason (though its erroneousness is seen at once, from the fact that the strength of some things is increased after their separation from the earth, as in the case already mentioned of wine, which becomes stronger from age),—if the strength, then, is your reason, it would follow that the part of God is to be found in no food more abundantly than in flesh.  For athletes, who especially require vigor and energy, are not in the habit of feeding on cabbage and fruit without animal food.

49.  Is your reason for thinking the bodies of trees better than our bodies, that flesh is nourished by trees and not trees by flesh.  You forget the obvious fact that plants, when manured with dung, become richer and more fertile and crops heavier, though you think it your gravest charge against flesh that it is the abode of dung.  This then gives nourishment to things you consider clean, though it is, according to you, the most unclean part of what you consider unclean.  But if you dislike flesh because it springs from sexual intercourse, you should be pleased with the flesh of worms, which are bred in such numbers, and of such a size, in fruits, in wood, and in the earth itself, without any sexual intercourse.  But there is some insincerity in this.  For if you were displeased with flesh because it is formed from the cohabitation of father and mother, you would not say that those princes of darkness were born from the fruits of their own trees; for no doubt you think worse of these princes than of flesh, which you refuse to eat.

50.  Your idea that all the souls of animals come from the food of their parents, from which confinement you pretend to liberate the divine substance which is held bound in your viands, is quite inconsistent with your abstinence from flesh, and makes it a pressing duty for you to eat animal food.  For if souls are bound in the body by those who eat animal food, why do you not secure their liberation by being beforehand in eating the food?  You reply, it is not from the animal food that the good part comes which those people bring into bondage, but from the vegetables which they take with their meat.  What will you say then of the souls of lions, who feed only on flesh?  They drink, is the reply, and so 83the soul is drawn in from the water and confined in flesh.  But what of birds without number?  What of eagles, which eat only flesh, and need no drink?  Here you are at a loss, and can find no answer.  For if the soul comes from food, and there are animals which neither drink anything nor have any food but flesh, and yet bring forth young, there must be some soul in flesh; and you are bound to try your plan of purifying it by eating the flesh.  Or will you say that a pig has a soul of light, because it eats vegetables, and drinks water; and that the eagle, because it eats only flesh, has a soul of darkness, though it is so fond of the sun?¹⁸⁰¹⁸⁰     [Much of the foregoing, as well as of what follows, seems to the modern reader like mere trifling, but Augustin’s aim was by introducing many familiar illustrations to show the utter absurdity of the Manichæan distinctions between clean and unclean.  It must be confessed that he does this very effectively.—A.H.N.]

51.  What a confusion of ideas!  What amazing fatuity!  All this you would have escaped, if you had rejected idle fictions, and had followed what truth sanctions in abstinence from food, which would have taught you that sumptuous eating is to be avoided, not to escape pollution, as there is nothing of the kind, but to subdue the sensual appetite.  For should any one, from inattention to the nature of things, and the properties of the soul and body, allow that the soul is polluted by animal food, you will admit that it is much much more defiled by sensuality.  Is it reasonable, then, or rather, is it not most unreasonable, to expel from the number of the elect a man who, perhaps for his health’s sake, takes some animal food without sensual appetite; while, if a man eagerly devours peppered truffles, you can only reprove him for excess, but cannot condemn him as abusing your symbol?  So one who has been induced, not by sensuality, but for health, to eat part of a fowl, cannot remain among your elect; though one may remain who has yielded voluntarily to an excessive appetite for comfits and cakes without animal matter.  You retain the man plunged in the defilements of sensuality, and dismiss the man polluted, as you think, by the mere food; though you allow that the defilement of sensuality is far greater than that of meat.  You keep hold of one who gloats with delight over highly-seasoned vegetables, unable to keep possession of himself; while you shut out one who, to satisfy hunger, takes whatever comes, if suitable for nourishment, ready either to use the food, or to let it go.  Admirable customs!  Excellent morals!  Notable temperance!

52.  Again, the notion that it is unlawful for any one but the elect to touch as food what is brought to your meals for what you call purification, leads to shameful and sometimes to criminal practices.  For sometimes so much is brought that it cannot easily be eaten up by a few; and as it is considered sacrilege to give what is left to others, or, at least, to throw it away, you are obliged to eat to excess, from the desire to purify, as you call it, all that is given.  Then, when you are full almost to bursting, you cruelly use force in making the boys of your sect eat the rest.  So it was charged against some one at Rome that he killed some poor children, by compelling them to eat for this superstitious reason.  This I should not believe, did I not know how sinful you consider it to give this food to those who are not elect, or, at any rate, to throw it away.  So the only way is to eat it; and this leads every day to gluttony, and may sometimes lead to murder.

53.  For the same reason you forbid giving bread to beggars.  By way of showing compassion, or rather of avoiding reproach, you advise to give money.  The cruelty of this is equalled by its stupidity.  For suppose a place where food cannot be purchased:  the beggar will die of starvation, while you, in your wisdom and benevolence, have more mercy on a cucumber than on a human being!  This is in truth (for how could it be better designated) pretended compassion, and real cruelty.  Then observe the stupidity.  What if the beggar buys bread for himself with the money you give him?  Will the divine part, as you call it, not suffer the same in him when he buys the food as it would have suffered if he had taken it as a gift from you?  So this sinful beggar plunges in corruption part of God eager to escape, and is aided in this crime by your money!  But you in your great sagacity think it enough that you do not give to one about to commit murder a man to kill, though you knowingly give him money to procure somebody to be killed.  Can any madness go beyond this?  The result is, that either the man dies if he cannot get food for his money, or the food itself dies if he gets it.  The one is true murder; the other what you call murder:  though in both cases you incur the guilt of real murder.  Again, there is the greatest folly and absurdity in allowing your followers to eat animal food, while you forbid them to kill animals.  If this food does not defile, take it yourselves.  If it defiles, what can be more unreasonable than to think it more sinful to separate the soul of a pig from its body than to defile the soul of a man with the pig’s flesh.

Chapter 17.—Description of the Symbol of the Hands Among the Manichæans.

54.  We must now notice and discuss the 84symbol of the hands.  And, in the first place, your abstaining from the slaughter of animals and from injuring plants is shown by Christ to be mere superstition; for, on the ground that there is no community of rights between us and brutes and trees, He both sent the devils into an herd of swine,¹⁸¹¹⁸¹     Matt. viii. 32. and withered by His curse a tree in which He had found no fruit.¹⁸²¹⁸²     Matt. xxi. 19.   The swine assuredly had not sinned, nor had the tree.  We are not so insane as to think that a tree is fruitful or barren by its own choice.  Nor is it any reply to say that our Lord wished in these actions to teach some other truths; for every one knows that.  But assuredly the Son of God would not commit murder to illustrate truth, if you call the destruction of a tree or of an animal murder.  The signs which Christ wrought in the case of men, with whom we certainly have a community of rights, were in healing, not in killing them.  And it would have been the same in the case of beasts and trees, if we had that community with them which you imagine.

55.  I think it right to refer here to the authority of Scripture, because we cannot here enter on a profound discussion about the soul of animals, or the kind of life in trees.  But as you preserve the right to call the Scriptures corrupted, in case you should find them too strongly opposed to you,—although you have never affirmed the passages about the tree and the herd of swine to be spurious,—still, lest some day you should wish to say this of them too, when you find how much they are against you, I will adhere to my plan, and will ask you, who are so liberal in your promises of evidence and truth, to tell me first what harm is done to a tree, I say not by plucking a leaf or an apple,—for which, however, one of you would be condemned at once as having abused the symbol, if he did it intentionally, and not accidentally,—but if you tear it up by the root.  For the soul in trees, which, according to you, is a rational soul, is, in your theory, freed from bondage when the tree is cut down,—a bondage, too, where it suffered great misery and got no profit.  For it is well known that you, in the words of your founder, threaten as a great, though not the greatest punishment, the change from a man to a tree; and it is not probable that the soul in a tree can grow in wisdom as it does in a man.  There is the best reason for not killing a man, in case you should kill one whose wisdom or virtue might be of use to many, or one who might have attained to wisdom, whether by the advice of another without himself, or by divine illumination in his own mind.  And the more wisdom the soul has when it leaves the body, the more profitable is its departure, as we know both from well-grounded reasoning and from wide-spread belief.  Thus to cut down a tree is to set free the soul from a body in which it makes no progress in wisdom.  You—the holy men, I mean—ought to be mainly occupied in cutting down trees, and in leading the souls thus emancipated to better things by prayers and psalms.  Or can this be done only with the souls which you take into your belly, instead of aiding them by your understanding?

56.  And you cannot escape the admission that the souls in trees make no progress in wisdom while they are there, when you are asked why no apostle was sent to teach trees as well as men, or why the apostle sent to men did not preach the truth to trees also.  Your reply must be, that the souls while in such bodies cannot understand the divine precepts.  But this reply lands you in great difficulties; for you declare that these souls can hear your voices and understand what you say, and see bodies and their motions, and even discern thoughts.  If this is true, why could they learn nothing from the apostle of light?  Why could they not learn even much better than we, since they can see into the mind?  Your master, who, as you say, has difficulty in teaching you by speech, might have taught these souls by thought; for they could see his ideas in his mind before he expressed them.  But if this is untrue, consider into what errors you have fallen.

57.  As for your not plucking fruits or pulling up vegetables yourselves, while you get your followers to pluck and pull and bring them to you, that you may confer benefits not only on those who bring the food but on the food which is brought, what thoughtful person can bear to hear this?  For, first, it matters not whether you commit a crime yourself, or wish another to commit it for you.  You deny that you wish this!  How then can relief be given to the divine part contained in lettuce and leeks, unless some one pull them and bring them to the saints to be purified.  And again, if you were passing through a field where the right of friendship permitted you to pluck anything you wished, what would you do if you saw a crow on the point of eating a fig?  Does not, according to your ideas, the fig itself seem to address you and to beg of you piteously to pluck it yourself and give it burial in a holy belly, where it may be purified and restored, rather than that the crow should swallow it and make it 85part of his cursed body, and then hand it over to bondage and torture in other forms?  If this is true, how cruel you are!  If not, how silly!  What can be more contrary to your opinions than to break the symbol?  What can be more unkind to the member of God than to keep it?

58.  This supposes the truth of your false and vain ideas.  But you can be shown guilty of plain and positive cruelty flowing from the same error.  For were any one lying on the road, his body wasted with disease, weary with journeying, and half-dead from his sufferings, and able only to utter some broken words, and if eating a pear would do him good as an astringent, and were he to beg you to help him as you passed by, and were he to implore you to bring the fruit from a neighboring tree, with no divine or human prohibition to prevent your doing so, while the man is sure to die for the want of it, you, a Christian man and a saint, will rather pass on and abandon a man thus suffering and entreating, lest the tree should lament the loss of its fruit, and you should be doomed to the punishment threatened by Manichæus for breaking the symbol.  Strange customs, and strange harmlessness!

59.  Now, as regards killing animals, and the reasons for your opinion, much that has been said will apply also to this.  For what harm will be done to the soul of a wolf by killing the wolf, since the wolf, as long as it lives, will be a wolf, and will not listen to any preacher, or give up, in the least, shedding the blood of sheep; and, by killing it, the rational soul, as you think, will be set free from its confinement in the body?  But you make this slaughter unlawful even for your followers; for you think it worse than that of trees.  And in this there is not much fault to be found with your senses,—that is, your bodily senses.  For we see and hear by their cries that animals die with pain, although man disregards this in a beast, with which, as not having a rational soul, we have no community of rights.  But as to your senses in the observation of trees, you must be entirely blind.  For not to mention that there are no movements in the wood expressive of pain, what is clearer than that a tree is never better than when it is green and flourishing, gay with flowers, and rich in fruit?  And this comes generally and chiefly from pruning.  But if it felt the iron, as you suppose, it ought to die of wounds so many, so severe, instead of sprouting at the places, and reviving with such manifest delight.

60.  But why do you think it a greater crime to destroy animals than plants, although you hold that plants have a purer soul than animals?  There is a compensation, we are told, when part of what is taken from the fields is given to the elect and the saints to be purified.  This has already been refuted; and it has, I think, been proved sufficiently that there is no reason for saying that more of the good part is found in vegetables than in flesh.  But should any one support himself by selling butcher-meat, and spend the whole profit of his business in purchasing food for your elect, and bring larger supplies for those saints than any peasant or farmer, will he not plead this compensation as a warrant for his killing animals?  But there is, we are told, some other mysterious reason; for a cunning man can always find some resource in the secrets of nature when addressing unlearned people.  The story, then, is that the heavenly princes who were taken from the race of darkness and bound, and have a place assigned them in this region by the Creator of the world, have animals on the earth specially belonging to them, each having those coming from his own stock and class; and they hold the slaughterers of those animals guilty, and do not allow them to leave the earth, but harass them as much as they can with pains and torments.  What simple man will not be frightened by this, and, seeing nothing in the darkness shrouding these things, will not think that the fact is as described?  But I will hold to my purpose, with God’s help, to rebut mysterious falsehood by the plainest truth.

61.  Tell me, then, if animals on land and in water come in regular succession by ordinary generation from this race of princes, since the origin of animal life is traced to the abortive births in that race;—tell me, I say, whether bees and frogs, and many other creatures not sprung from sexual intercourse,¹⁸³¹⁸³     [This is, of course, a physiological blunder, but Augustin doubtless states what was the common view at the time.—A.H.N.] may be killed with impunity.  We are told they cannot.  So it is not on account of their relation to certain princes that you forbid your followers to kill animals.  Or if you make a general relationship to all bodies, the princes would be equally concerned about trees, which you do not require your followers to spare.  You are brought back to the weak reply, that the injuries done in the case of plants are atoned for by the fruits which your followers bring to your church.  For this implies that those who slaughter animals, and sell their flesh in the market, if they are your followers, and if they bring to you vegetables bought with their gains, may think nothing 86of the daily slaughter, and are cleared of any sin that may be in it by your repasts.

62.  But if you say that, in order to expiate the slaughter, the thing must be given as food, as in the case of fruits and vegetables,—which cannot be done, because the elect do not eat flesh, and so your followers must not slaughter animals,—what reply will you give in the case of thorns and weeds, which farmers destroy in clearing their fields, while they cannot bring any food to you from them?  How can there be pardon for such destruction, which gives no nourishment to the saints?  Perhaps you also put away any sin committed, for the benefit of the fruits and vegetables, by eating some of these.  What then if the fields are plundered by locusts, mice, or rats, as we see often happen?  Can your rustic follower kill these with impunity, because he sins for the good of his crops?  Here you are at a loss; for you either allow your followers to kill animals, which your founder prohibited, or you forbid them to be cultivators, which he made lawful.  Indeed, you sometimes go so far as to say that an usurer is more harmless than a cultivator,—you feel so much more for melons than for men.  Rather than hurt the melons, you would have a man ruined as a debtor.  Is this desirable and praiseworthy justice, or not rather atrocious and damnable error?  Is this commendable compassion, or not rather detestable barbarity?

63.  What, again, of your not abstaining yourselves from the slaughter of lice, bugs, and fleas?  You think it a sufficient excuse for this to say that these are the dirt of our bodies.  But this is clearly untrue of fleas and bugs; for every one knows that these animals do not come from our bodies.  Besides, if you abhor sexual intercourse as much as you pretend to do, you should think those animals all the cleaner which come from our bodies without any other generation; for although they produce offspring of their own, they are not produced in ordinary generation from us.  Again, if we must consider as most filthy the production of living bodies, still worse must be the production of dead bodies.  There must be less harm, therefore, in killing a rat, a snake, or a scorpion, which you constantly say come from our dead bodies.  But to pass over what is less plain and certain, it is a common opinion regarding bees that they come from the carcases of oxen; so there is no harm in killing them.  Or if this too is doubted, every one allows that beetles, at least, are bred in the ball of mud which they make and bury.¹⁸⁴¹⁸⁴     V. Retract. i. 7. § 6, where Augustin allows that this is doubtful, and that many have not even heard of it.   You ought therefore to consider these animals, and others that it would be tedious to specify, more unclean than your lice; and yet you think it sinful to kill them, though it would be foolish not to kill the lice.  Perhaps you hold the lice cheap because they are small.  But if an animal is to be valued by its size, you must prefer a camel to a man.

64.  Here we may use the gradation which often perplexed us when we were your followers.  For if a flea may be killed on account of its small size, so may the fly which is bred in beans.  And if this, so also may one of a little larger size, for its size at birth is even less.  Then again, a bee may be killed, for its young is no larger than a fly.  So on to the young of a locust, and to a locust; and then to the young of a mouse, and to a mouse.  And, to cut short, it is clear we may come at last to an elephant; so that one who thinks it no sin to kill a flea, because of its small size, must allow that it would be no sin in him to kill this huge creature.  But I think enough has been said of these absurdities.

Chapter 18.—Of the Symbol of the Breast, and of the Shameful Mysteries of the Manichæans.

65.  Lastly, there is the symbol of the breast, in which your very questionable chastity consists.  For though you do not forbid sexual intercourse, you, as the apostle long ago said, forbid marriage in the proper sense, although this is the only good excuse for such intercourse.  No doubt you will exclaim against this, and will make it a reproach against us that you highly esteem and approve perfect chastity, but do not forbid marriage, because your followers—that is, those in the second grade among you—are allowed to have wives.  After you have said this with great noise and heat, I will quietly ask, Is it not you who hold that begetting children, by which souls are confined in flesh, is a greater sin than cohabitation?  Is it not you who used to counsel us to observe as much as possible the time when a woman, after her purification, is most likely to conceive, and to abstain from cohabitation at that time, lest the soul should be entangled in flesh?  This proves that you approve of having a wife, not for the procreation of children, but for the gratification of passion.  In marriage, as the marriage law declares, the man and woman come together for the procreation of children.  Therefore whoever makes the procreation of children a greater sin than copulation, forbids marriage, and makes the woman not a wife, but a mistress, who for some gifts presented 87to her is joined to the man to gratify his passion.  Where there is a wife there must be marriage.  But there is no marriage where motherhood is not in view; therefore neither is there a wife.  In this way you forbid marriage.  Nor can you defend yourselves successfully from this charge, long ago brought against you prophetically by the Holy Spirit.

66.  Moreover, when you are so eager in your desire to prevent the soul from being confined in flesh by conjugal intercourse, and so eager in asserting that the soul is set free from seed by the food of the saints, do you not sanction, unhappy beings, the suspicion entertained about you?  For why should it be true regarding corn and beans and lentils and other seeds, that when you eat them you wish to set free the soul, and not true of the seeds of animals?  For what you say of the flesh of a dead animal, that it is unclean because there is no soul in it, cannot be said of the seed of the animal; for you hold that it keeps confined the soul which will appear in the offspring, and you avow that the soul of Manichæus himself is thus confined.  And as your followers cannot bring these seeds to you for purification, who will not suspect that you make this purification secretly among yourselves, and hide it from your followers, in case they should leave you?¹⁸⁵¹⁸⁵     [Compare what is said about the disgusting ceremonial of Ischas by Cyril of Jerusalem (Cat. vi.), Augustin (Haeres. xlvi.), Pope Leo X. (Serm. V. de Jejuniis, X. Mens.).  These charges were probably unfounded, though they are not altogether out of harmony with the Manichæan principles.—A.H.N.]   If you do not these things, as it is to be hoped you do not, still you see how open to suspicion your superstition is, and how impossible it is to blame men for thinking what your own profession suggests, when you maintain that you set free souls from bodies and from senses by eating and drinking.  I wish to say no more about this:  you see yourselves what room there is here for denunciation.  But as the matter is one rather to repress than to invite remark, and also as throughout my discourse my purpose appears of exaggerating nothing, and of keeping to bare facts and arguments, we shall pass on to other matters.

Chapter 19.—Crimes of the Manichæans.

67.  We see then, now, the nature of your three symbols.  These are your customs.  This is the end of your notable precepts, in which there is nothing sure, nothing steadfast, nothing consistent, nothing irreproachable, but all doubtful, or rather undoubtedly and entirely false, all contradictory, abominable, absurd.  In a word, evil practices are detected in your customs so many and so serious, that one wishing to denounce them all, if he were at all able to enlarge, would require at least a separate treatise for each.  Were you to observe these, and to act up to your profession, no childishness, or folly, or absurdity would go beyond yours; and when you praise and teach these things without doing them, you display craft and deceit and malevolence equal to anything that can be described or imagined.

68.  During nine full years that I attended you with great earnestness and assiduity, I could not hear of one of your elect who was not found transgressing these precepts, or at least was not suspected of doing so.  Many were caught at wine and animal food, many at the baths; but this we only heard by report.  Some were proved to have seduced other men’s wives, so that in this case I could not doubt the truth of the charge.  But suppose this, too, a report rather than a fact.  I myself saw, and not I only, but others who have either escaped from that superstition, or will, I hope, yet escape,—we saw, I say, in a square in Carthage, on a road much frequented, not one, but more than three of the elect walking behind us, and accosting some women with such indecent sounds and gestures as to outdo the boldness and insolence of all ordinary rascals.  And it was clear that this was quite habitual, and that they behaved in this way to one another, for no one was deterred by the presence of a companion, showing that most of them, if not all, were affected with this evil tendency.  For they did not all come from one house, but lived in quite different places, and quite accidentally left together the place where they had met.  It was a great shock to us, and we lodged a complaint about it.  But who thought of inflicting punishment,—I say not by separation from the church, but even by severe rebuke in proportion to the heinousness of the offence?

69.  All the excuse given for the impunity of those men was that, at that time, when their meetings were forbidden by law, it was feared that the persons suffering punishment might retaliate by giving information.  What then of their assertion that they will always have persecution in this world, for which they suppose that they will be thought the more of? for this is the application they make of the words about the world hating them. ¹⁸⁶¹⁸⁶     John xv. 18.   And they will have it that truth must be sought for among them, because, in the promise of the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, it is said that the world cannot receive Him.¹⁸⁷¹⁸⁷     John xiv. 17.   This is not the place to discuss this question.  But clearly, 88if you are always to be persecuted, even to the end of the world, there will be no end to this laxity, and to the unchecked spread of all this immorality, from your fear of giving offence to men of this character.

70.  This answer was also given to us, when we reported to the very highest authorities that a woman had complained to us that in a meeting, where she was along with other women, not doubting of the sanctity of these people, some of the elect came in, and when one of them had put out the lamp, one, whom she could not distinguish, tried to embrace her, and would have forced her into sin, had she not escaped by crying out.  How common must we conclude the practice to have been which led to the misdeed on this occasion!  And this was done on the night when you keep the feast of vigils.  Forsooth, besides the fear of information being given, no one could bring the offender before the bishop, as he had so well guarded against being recognized.  As if all who entered along with him were not implicated in the crime; for in their indecent merriment they all wished the lamp to be put out.

71.  Then what wide doors were opened for suspicions, when we saw them full of envy, full of covetousness, full of greed for costly foods, constantly at strife, easily excited about trifles!  We concluded that they were not competent to abstain from the things they professed to abstain from, if they found an opportunity in secret or in the dark.  There were two of sufficiently good character, of active minds, and leaders in their debates, with whom we had a more particular and intimate acquaintance than with the rest.  One of them was much associated with us, because he was also engaged in liberal studies; he is said to be now an elder there.  These two were very jealous of one another, and one accused the other—not openly, but in conversation, as he had opportunity, and in whispers—of having made a criminal assault on the wife of one of the followers.  He again, in clearing himself to us, brought the same charge against another of the elect, who lived with this follower as his most trusted friend.  He had, going in suddenly, caught this man with the woman, and his enemy and rival had advised the woman and her paramour to raise this false report about him, that he might not be believed if he gave any information.  We were much distressed, and took it greatly to heart, that although there was a doubt about the assault on the woman, the jealous feeling in those two men, than whom we found none better in the place, showed itself so keenly, and inevitably raised a suspicion of other things.¹⁸⁸¹⁸⁸     Doubtless Augustin exaggerates the immorality of the Manichæans; but there must have been a considerable basis of fact for his charges.—A.H.N.]

72.  Another thing was, that we very often saw in theatres men belonging to the elect, men of years and, it was supposed, of character, along with a hoary-headed elder.  We pass over the youths, whom we used to come upon quarrelling about the people connected with the stage and the races; from which we may safely conclude how they would be able to refrain in secret, when they could not subdue the passion by which they were exposed in the eyes of their followers, bringing on them disgrace and flight.  In the case of the saint, whose discussions we attended in the street of the fig-sellers, would his atrocious crime have been discovered if he had been able to make the dedicated virgin his wife without making her pregnant?  The swelling womb betrayed the secret and unthought-of iniquity.  When her brother, a young man, heard of it from his mother, he felt keenly the injury, but refrained, from regard to religion, from a public accusation.  He succeeded in getting the man expelled from that church, for such conduct cannot always be tolerated; and that the crime might not be wholly unpunished, he arranged with some of his friends to have the man well beaten and kicked.  When he was thus assailed, he cried out that they should spare him, from regard to the authority of the opinion of Manichæus, that Adam the first hero had sinned, and was a greater saint after his sin.

73.  This, in fact, is your notion about Adam and Eve.¹⁸⁹¹⁸⁹     Compare the account from the Fihrist, in our Introduction, Chapter III.—A.H.N.]   It is a long story; but I will touch only on what concerns the present matter.  You say that Adam was produced from his parents, the abortive princes of darkness; that he had in his soul the most part of light, and very little of the opposite race.  So while he lived a holy life, on account of the prevalence of good, still the opposite part in him was stirred up, so that he was led away into conjugal intercourse.  Thus he fell and sinned, but afterwards lived in greater holiness.  Now, my complaint is not so much about this wicked man, who, under the garb of an elect and holy man, brought such shame and reproach on a family of strangers by his shocking immorality.  I do not charge you with this.  Let it be attributed to the abandoned character of the man, and not to your habits.  I blame the man for the atrocity, and not you.  Still there is 89this in you all that cannot, as far as I can see, be admitted or tolerated, that while you hold the soul to be part of God, you still maintain that the mixture of a little evil prevailed over the superior force and quantity of good.  Who that believes this, when incited by passion, will not find here an excuse, instead of checking and controlling his passion?

Chapter 20.—Disgraceful Conduct Discovered at Rome.

74.  What more shall I say of your customs?  I have mentioned what I found myself when I was in the city when the things were done.  To go through all that happened at Rome in my absence would take a long time.  I will, however, give a short account of it; for the matter became so notorious, that even the absent could not remain in ignorance of it.  And when I was afterwards in Rome, I ascertained the truth of all I had heard, although the story was told me by an eye-witness whom I knew so well and esteemed so highly, that I could not feel any doubt about it.  One of your followers, then, quite equal to the elect in their far-famed abstinence, for he was both liberally educated, and was in the habit of defending your sect with great zeal, took it very ill that he had cast in his teeth the vile conduct of the elect, who lived in all kinds of places, and went hither and thither for lodging of the worst description.  He therefore desired, if possible, to assemble all who were willing to live according to the precepts into his own house, and to maintain them at his own expense; for he was above the average in carelessness as to spending money, besides being above the average in the amount he had to spend.  He complained that his efforts were hindered by the remissness of the bishops, whose assistance he required for success.  At last one of your bishops was found,—a man, as I know, very rude and unpolished, but somehow, from his very moroseness, the more inclined to strict observance of morality.  The follower eagerly lays hold of this man as the person he had long wished for and found at last, and relates his whole plan.  He approves and assents, and agrees to be the first to take up his abode in the house.  When this was done, all the elect who could be at Rome were assembled there.  The rule of life in the epistle of Manichæus was laid before them.  Many thought it intolerable, and left; not a few felt ashamed, and stayed.  They began to live as they had agreed, and as this high authority enjoined.  The follower all the time was zealously enforcing everything on everybody, though never, in any case, what he did not undertake himself.  Meanwhile quarrels constantly arose among the elect.  They charged one another with crimes, all which he lamented to hear, and managed to make them unintentionally expose one another in their altercations.  The revelations were vile beyond description.  Thus appeared the true character of those who were unlike the rest in being willing to bend to the yoke of the precepts.  What then is to be suspected, or rather, concluded, of the others?  To come to a close, they gathered together on one occasion and complained that they could not keep the regulations.  Then came rebellion.  The follower stated his case most concisely, that either all must be kept, or the man who had given such a sanction to such precepts, which no one could fulfill, must be thought a great fool.  But, as was inevitable, the wild clamor of the mob prevailed over the opinion of one man.  The bishop himself gave way at last, and took to flight with great disgrace; and he was said to have got in provisions by stealth, contrary to rule, which were often discovered.  He had a supply of money from his private purse, which he carefully kept concealed.

75.  If you say these things are false, you contradict what is too clear and public.  But you may say so if you like.  For, as the things are certain, and easily known by those who wish to know them, those who deny that they are true show what their habit of telling the truth is.  But you have other replies with which I do not find fault.  For you either say that some do keep your precepts, and that they should not be mixed up with the guilty in condemning the others; or that the whole inquiry into the character of the members of your sect is wrong, for the question is of the character of the profession.  Should I grant both of these (although you can neither point out those faithful observers of the precepts, nor clear your heresy of all those frivolities and iniquities), still I must insist on knowing why you heap reproaches on Christians of the Catholic name on seeing the immoral life of some, while you either have the effrontery to repel inquiry about your members, or the still greater effrontery not to repel it, wishing it to be understood that in your scanty membership there are some unknown individuals who keep the precepts they profess, but that among the multitudes in the Catholic Church there are none.

91

St. AUGUSTIN:

on two souls,

against the manichæans.

 [de duabus animabus contra manichæos].

A.D. 391.

translated by

albert h. newman, d.d., ll.d.,

professor of church history and comparative religion, in toronto baptist (theological) college, toronto, canada.

95

Concerning Two Souls, Against the Manichæans.

[De Duabus Animabus Contra Manichæos.] a.d. 391.¹⁹⁰¹⁹⁰     Scarcely any one of his earlier treatises was more unsatisfactory to Augustin in his later Anti-Pelagian years than that Concerning Two Souls.  In his Retractations, Book I., chapter xv., he recognizes the rashness of some of his statements and points out the sense in which they are tenable or the reverse.  As regards the occasion of the writing, the following may be quoted:  "After this book [De Utilitate Credendi] I wrote, while still a presbyter, against the Manichæans Concerning Two Souls, of which they say that one part is of God, the other from the race of darkness, which God did not found, and which is coeternal with God, and they rave about both these souls, the one good, the other evil, being in one man, saying forsooth that the evil soul on the one hand belongs to the flesh, which flesh also they say is of the race of darkness; but that the good soul is from the part of God that came forth, combated the race of darkness, and mingled with the latter; and they attribute all good things in man to that good soul, and all evil things to that evil soul."—A.H.N.]

___________

One Book.

___________

Chapter 1.—By What Course of Reasoning the Error of the Manichæans Concerning Two Souls, One of Which is Not from God, is Refuted.  Every Soul, Inasmuch as It is a Certain Life, Can Have Its Existence Only from God the Source of Life.

1.  Through the assisting mercy of God, the snares of the Manichæans having been broken to pieces and left behind, having been restored at length to the bosom of the Catholic Church, I am disposed now at least to consider and to deplore my recent wretchedness.  For there were many things that I ought to have done to prevent the seeds of the most true religion wholesomely implanted in me from boyhood, from being banished from my mind, having been uprooted by the error and fraud of false and deceitful men.  For, in the first place, if I had soberly and diligently considered, with prayerful and pious mind, those two kinds of souls to which they attributed natures and properties so distinct that they wished one to be regarded as of the very substance of God, but were not even willing that God should be accepted as the author of the other; perhaps it would have appeared to me, intent on learning, that there is no life whatsoever, which, by the very fact of its being life and in so far as it is life at all, does not pertain to the supreme source and beginning of life,¹⁹¹¹⁹¹     In his Retractations, Augustin explains this proposition as follows:  "I said this in the sense in which the creature is known to pertain to the Creator, but not in the sense that it is of Him, so as to be regarded as part of Him."—A.H.N. which we must acknowledge to be nothing else than the supreme and only and true God.  Wherefore there is no reason why we should not confess, that those souls which the Manichæans call evil are either devoid of life and so not souls, neither will anything positively or negatively, neither follow after nor flee from anything; or, if they live so that they can be souls, and act as the Manichæans suppose, in no way do they live unless by life, and if it be an established fact, as it is, that Christ has said:  "I am the life,"¹⁹²¹⁹²     John xiv. 6. that all souls seeing that they cannot be souls except by living were created and fashioned by Christ, that is, by the Life.

Chapter 2.—If the Light that is Perceived by Sense Has God for Its Author, as the Manichæans Acknowledge, Much More The Soul Which is Perceived by Intellect Alone.

2.  But if at that time¹⁹³¹⁹³     It will aid the reader in following the thread of Augustin’s argument, if he will bear in mind that throughout this treatise the writer considers the points of antagonism between Manichæism and Catholicism from the point of view of his early entanglement in Manichæan error.  Considering the opportunities that he had for knowing the truth, the helps to have been expected from God in answer to prayer, the capacities of the unperverted intellect to arrive at truth, he inquires how he should have guarded himself from the insinuation of Manichæan error, how he should have defended the truth, and how he should have been the means of liberating others.—A.H.N. my thought was not able to bear and sustain the question concern96ing life and partaking of life, which is truly a great question, and one that requires much calm discussion among the learned, I might perchance have had power to discover that which to every man considering himself, without a study of the individual parts, is perfectly evident, namely, that everything we are said to know and to understand, we comprehend either by bodily sense or by mental operation.  That the five bodily senses are commonly enumerated as sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch, than all of which intellect is immeasurably more noble and excellent, who would have been so ungrateful and impious as not to concede to me; which being established and confirmed, we should have seen how it follows, that whatsoever things are perceived by touch or sight or in any bodily manner at all, are by so much inferior to those things that we comprehend intellectually as the senses are inferior to the intellect.  Wherefore, since all life, and so every soul, can be perceived by no bodily sense, but by the intellect alone, whereas while yonder sun and moon and every luminary that is beheld by these mortal eyes, the Manichæans themselves also say must be attributed to the true and good God, it is the height of madness to claim that that belongs to God which we observe bodily; but, on the other hand, to think that what we receive not only by the mind, but by the highest form of mind,¹⁹⁴