Table of Contents

Title Page

Editor’s Preface.

Contents

Writings in Connection with the Manichæan Controversy.

Title Page.

Introductory Essay on the Manichæan Heresy.

Preface to the Anti-Manichæan Writings.

On the Morals of the Catholic Church.

Title Page.

Argument.

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

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

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.

Man—What?

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

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

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

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

Harmony of the Old and New Testament on the Precepts of Charity.

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

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.

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

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

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

The Christian Definition of the Four Virtues.

Harmony of the Old and New Testaments.

Appeal to the Manichæans, Calling on Them to Repent.

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

Description of the Duties of Temperance, According to the Sacred Scriptures.

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

Popular Renown and Inquisitiveness are Condemned in the Sacred Scriptures.

Fortitude Comes from the Love of God.

Scripture Precepts and Examples of Fortitude.

Of Justice and Prudence.

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

Love of Ourselves and of Our Neighbor.

On Doing Good to the Body of Our Neighbor.

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.

Of the Authority of the Scriptures.

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

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

Praise of the Clergy.

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

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

Marriage and Property Allowed to the Baptized by the Apostles.

On the Morals of the Manichæans.

On Two Souls, Against the Manichæans.

Title Page.

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.

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.

How It is Proved that Every Body Also is from God.  That the Soul Which is Called Evil by the Manichæans is Better Than Light.

Even the Soul of a Fly is More Excellent Than the Light.

How Vicious Souls, However Worthy of Condemnation They May Be, Excel the Light Which is Praiseworthy in Its Kind.

Whether Even Vices Themselves as Objects of Intellectual Apprehension are to Be Preferred to Light as an Object of Sense Perception, and are to Be Attributed to God as Their Author.  Vice of the Mind and Certain Defects are Not Rightly to Be Counted Among Intelligible Things.  Defects Themselves Even If They Should Be Counted Among Intelligible Things Should Never Be Put Before Sensible Things.  If Light is Visible by God, Much More is the Soul, Even If Vicious, Which in So Far as It Lives is an Intelligible Thing.  Passages of Scripture are Adduced by the Manichæans to the Contrary.

How Evil Men are of God, and Not of God.

The Manichæans Inquire Whence is Evil and by This Question Think They Have Triumphed.  Let Them First Know, Which is Most Easy to Do, that Nothing Can Live Without God.  Consummate Evil Cannot Be Known Except by the Knowledge of Consummate Good, Which is God.

Augustin Deceived by Familiarity with the Manichæans, and by the Succession of Victories Over Ignorant Christians Reported by Them.  The Manichæans are Likewise Easily Refuted from the Knowledge of Sin and the Will.

Sin is Only from the Will.  His Own Life and Will Best Known to Each Individual.  What Will is.

What Sin is.

From the Definitions Given of Sin and Will, He Overthrows the Entire Heresy of the Manichæans.  Likewise from the Just Condemnation of Evil Souls It Follows that They are Evil Not by Nature But by Will.  That Souls are Good By Nature, to Which the Pardon of Sins is Granted.

From Deliberation on the Evil and on the Good Part It Results that Two Classes of Souls are Not to Be Held to.  A Class of Souls Enticing to Shameful Deeds Having Been Conceded, It Does Not Follow that These are Evil by Nature, that the Others are Supreme Good.

Again It is Shown from the Utility of Repenting that Souls are Not by Nature Evil.  So Sure a Demonstration is Not Contradicted Except from the Habit of Erring.

He Prays for His Friends Whom He Has Had as Associates in Error.

Acts or Disputation Against Fortunatus the Manichæan.

Against the Epistle of Manichæus, Called Fundamental.

Title Page.

To Heal Heretics is Better Than to Destroy Them.

Why the Manichæans Should Be More Gently Dealt with.

Augustin Once a Manichæan.

Proofs of the Catholic Faith.

Against the Title of the Epistle of Manichæus.

Why Manichæus Called Himself an Apostle of Christ.

In What Sense the Followers of Manichæus Believe Him to Be the Holy Spirit.

The Festival of the Birth-Day of Manichæus.

When the Holy Spirit Was Sent.

The Holy Spirit Twice Given.

Manichæus Promises Truth, But Does Not Make Good His Word.

The Wild Fancies of Manichæus.  The Battle Before the Constitution of the World.

Two Opposite Substances.  The Kingdom of Light.  Manichæus Teaches Uncertainties Instead of Certainties.

Manichæus Promises the Knowledge of Undoubted Things, and Then Demands Faith in Doubtful Things.

The Doctrine of Manichæus Not Only Uncertain, But False.  His Absurd Fancy of a Land and Race of Darkness Bordering on the Holy Region and the Substance of God.  The Error, First of All, of Giving to the Nature of God Limits and Borders, as If God Were a Material Substance, Having Extension in Space.

The Soul, Though Mutable, Has No Material Form.  It is All Present in Every Part of the Body.

The Memory Contains the Ideas of Places of the Greatest Size.

The Understanding Judges of the Truth of Things, and of Its Own Action.

If the Mind Has No Material Extension, Much Less Has God.

Refutation of the Absurd Idea of Two Territories.

This Region of Light Must Be Material If It is Joined to the Region of Darkness.  The Shape of the Region of Darkness Joined to the Region of Light.

The Form of the Region of Light the Worse of the Two.

The Anthropomorphites Not So Bad as the Manichæans.

Of the Number of Natures in the Manichæan Fiction.

Omnipotence Creates Good Things Differing in Degree.  In Every Description Whatsoever of the Junction of the Two Regions There is Either Impropriety or Absurdity.

The Manichæans are Reduced to the Choice of a Tortuous, or Curved, or Straight Line of Junction.  The Third Kind of Line Would Give Symmetry and Beauty Suitable to Both Regions.

The Beauty of the Straight Line Might Be Taken from the Region of Darkness Without Taking Anything from Its Substance.  So Evil Neither Takes from Nor Adds to the Substance of the Soul.  The Straightness of Its Side Would Be So Far a Good Bestowed on the Region of Darkness by God the Creator.

Manichæus Places Five Natures in the Region of Darkness.

The Refutation of This Absurdity.

The Number of Good Things in Those Natures Which Manichæus Places in the Region of Darkness.

The Same Subject Continued.

Manichæus Got the Arrangement of His Fanciful Notions from Visible Objects.

Every Nature, as Nature, is Good.

Nature Cannot Be Without Some Good.  The Manichæans Dwell Upon the Evils.

Evil Alone is Corruption.  Corruption is Not Nature, But Contrary to Nature.  Corruption Implies Previous Good.

The Source of Evil or of Corruption of Good.

God Alone Perfectly Good.

Nature Made by God; Corruption Comes from Nothing.

In What Sense Evils are from God.

Corruption Tends to Non-Existence.

Corruption is by God’s Permission, and Comes from Us.

Exhortation to the Chief Good.

Conclusion.

Reply to Faustus the Manichæan.

Title Page.

Preface.

Who Faustus was.  Faustus’s object in writing the polemical treatise that forms the basis of Augustin’s reply.  Augustin’s remarks thereon.

Faustus claims to believe the Gospel, yet refuses to accept the genealogical tables on various grounds which Augustin seeks to set aside.

Faustus objects to the incarnation of God on the ground that the evangelists are at variance with each other, and that incarnation is unsuitable to deity.  Augustin attempts to remove the critical and theological difficulties.

Faustus’s reasons for rejecting the Old Testament, and Augustin’s animadversions thereon.

Faustus claims that the Manichæans and not the Catholics are consistent believers in the Gospel, and seeks to establish this claim by comparing Manichæan and Catholic obedience to the precepts of the Gospel.  Augustin exposes the hypocrisy of the Manichæans and praises the asceticism of Catholics.

Faustus avows his disbelief in the Old Testament and his disregard of its precepts, and accuses Catholics of inconsistency in neglecting its ordinances, while claiming to accept it as authoritative.  Augustin explains the Catholic view of the relation of the Old Testament to the New.

The genealogical question is again taken up and argued on both sides.

Faustus maintains that to hold to the Old Testament after the giving of the New is putting new cloth on an old garment.  Augustin further explains the relation of the Old Testament to the New, and reproaches the Manichæans with carnality.

Faustus argues that if the apostles born under the old covenant could lawfully depart from it, much more can he having been born a Gentile.  Augustin explains the relation of Jews and Gentiles alike to the Gospel.

Faustus insists that the Old Testament promises are radically different from those of the New.  Augustin admits a difference, but maintains that the moral precepts are the same in both.

Faustus quotes passages to show that the Apostle Paul abandoned belief in the incarnation, to which he earlier held.  Augustin shows that the apostle was consistent with himself in the utterances quoted.

Faustus denies that the prophets predicted Christ.  Augustin proves such prediction from the New Testament, and expounds at length the principal types of Christ in the Old Testament.

Faustus asserts that even if the Old Testament could be shown to contain predictions, it would be of interest only to the Jews, pagan literature subserving the same purpose for Gentiles.  Augustin shows the value of prophesy for Gentiles and Jews alike.

Faustus abhors Moses for the awful curse he has pronounced upon Christ.  Augustin expounds the Christian doctrine of the suffering Saviour by comparing Old and New Testament passages.

Faustus rejects the Old Testament because it leaves no room for Christ.  Christ the one Bridegroom suffices for His Bride the Church.  Augustin answers as well as he can, and reproves the Manichæans with presumption in claiming to be the Bride of Christ.

Faustus willing to believe not only that the Jewish but that all Gentile prophets wrote of Christ, if it should be proved; but he would none the less insist upon rejecting their superstitions.  Augustin maintains that all Moses wrote is of Christ, and that his writings must be either accepted or rejected as a whole.

Faustus rejects Christ’s declaration that He came not to destroy the law and the prophets but to fulfill them, on the ground that it is found only in Matthew, who was not present when the words purport to have been spoken.  Augustin rebukes the folly of refusing to believe Matthew and yet believing Manichæus, and shows what the passage of scripture really means.

The relation of Christ to prophecy, continued.

Faustus is willing to admit that Christ may have said that He came not to destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfill them; but if He did, it was to pacify the Jews and in a modified sense.  Augustin replies, and still further elaborates the Catholic view of prophecy and its fulfillment.

Faustus repels the charge of sun-worship, and maintains that while the Manichæans believe that God’s power dwells in the sun and his wisdom in the moon, they yet worship one deity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  They are not a schism of the Gentiles, nor a sect.  Augustin emphasizes the charge of polytheism, and goes into an elaborate comparison of Manichæan and pagan mythology.

Faustus denies that Manichæans believe in two gods.  Hyle no god.  Augustin discusses at large the doctrine of God and Hyle, and fixes the charge of dualism upon the Manichæans.

Faustus states his objections to the morality of the law and the prophets, and Augustin seeks by the application of the type and the allegory to explain away the moral difficulties of the Old Testament.

Faustus recurs to the genealogical difficulty and insists that even according to Matthew Jesus was not Son of God until His baptism.  Augustin sets forth the Catholic view of the relation of the divine and the human in the person of Christ.

Faustus explains the Manichæan denial that man was made by God as applying to the fleshly man not to the spiritual.  Augustin elucidates the Apostle Paul’s contrasts between flesh and spirit so as to exclude the Manichæan view.

Faustus seeks to bring into ridicule the orthodox claim to believe in the infinity of God by caricaturing the anthropomorphic representations of the Old Testament.  Augustin expresses his despair of being able to induce the Manichæans to adopt right views of the infinitude of God so long as they continue to regard the soul and God as extended in space.

Faustus insists that Jesus might have died though not born, by the exercise of divine power, yet he rejects birth and death alike.  Augustin maintains that there are some things that even God cannot do, one of which is to die.  He refutes the docetism of the Manichæans.

Faustus warns against pressing too far the argument, that if Jesus was not born He cannot have suffered.  Augustin accepts the birth and death alike on the testimony of the Gospel narrative, which is higher authority than the falsehood of Manichæus.

Faustus recurs to the genealogy and insists upon examining it as regards its consistency with itself.  Augustin takes his stand on Scripture authority and maintains that Matthew’s statements as to the birth of Christ must be accepted as final.

Faustus seeks to justify the docetism of the Manichæans.  Augustin insists that there is nothing disgraceful in being born.

Faustus repels the insinuation that the prophecy of Paul with reference to those that should forbid to marry, abstain from meats, etc., applies to the Manichæans more than to the Catholic ascetics, who are held in the highest esteem in the Church.  Augustin justifies this application of the prophecy, and shows the difference between Manichæan and Christian asceticism.

The scripture passage:  ‘To the pure all things are pure, but to the impure and defiled is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience are defiled,’ is discussed from both the Manichæan and the Catholic points of view, Faustus objecting to its application to his party and Augustin insisting on its application.

Faustus fails to understand why he should be required either to accept or reject the New Testament as a whole, while the Catholics accept or reject the various parts of the Old Testament at pleasure.  Augustin denies that the Catholics treat the Old Testament arbitrarily, and explains their attitude towards it.

Faustus does not think it would be a great honor to sit down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, whose moral characters as set forth in the Old Testament he detests.  He justifies his subjective criticism of Scripture.  Augustin sums up the argument, claims the victory, and exhorts the Manichæans to abandon their opposition to the Old Testament notwithstanding the difficulties that it presents, and to recognize the authority of the Catholic Church.

Concerning the Nature of Good, Against the Manichæans.

Title Page.

Preface.

God the Highest and Unchangeable Good, from Whom are All Other Good Things, Spiritual and Corporeal.

How This May Suffice for Correcting the Manichæans.

Measure, Form, and Order, Generic Goods in Things Made by God.

Evil is Corruption of Measure, Form, or Order.

The Corrupted Nature of a More Excellent Order Sometimes Better Than an Inferior Nature Even Uncorrupted.

Nature Which Cannot Be Corrupted is the Highest Good; That Which Can, is Some Good.

The Corruption of Rational Spirits is on the One Hand Voluntary, on the Other Penal.

From the Corruption and Destruction of Inferior Things is the Beauty of the Universe.

Punishment is Constituted for the Sinning Nature that It May Be Rightly Ordered.

Natures Corruptible, Because Made of Nothing.

God Cannot Suffer Harm, Nor Can Any Other Nature Except by His Permission.

All Good Things are from God Alone.

Individual Good Things, Whether Small or Great, are from God.

Small Good Things in Comparison with Greater are Called by Contrary Names.

In the Body of the Ape the Good of Beauty is Present, Though in a Less Degree.

Privations in Things are Fittingly Ordered by God.

Nature, in as Far as It is Nature, No Evil.

Hyle, Which Was Called by the Ancients the Formless Material of Things, is Not an Evil.

To Have True Existence is an Exclusive Prerogative of God.

Pain Only in Good Natures.

From Measure Things are Said to Be Moderate-Sized.

Measure in Some Sense is Suitable to God Himself.

Whence a Bad Measure, a Bad Form, a Bad Order May Sometimes Be Spoken of.

It is Proved by the Testimonies of Scripture that God is Unchangeable.  The Son of God Begotten, Not Made.

This Last Expression Misunderstood by Some.

That Creatures are Made of Nothing.

’From Him’ And ‘Of Him’ Do Not Mean The Same Thing.

Sin Not From God, But From The Will of Those Sinning.

That God is Not Defiled by Our Sins.

That Good Things, Even the Least, and Those that are Earthly, are by God.

To Punish and to Forgive Sins Belong Equally to God.

From God Also is the Very Power to Be Hurtful.

That Evil Angels Have Been Made Evil, Not by God, But by Sinning.

That Sin is Not the Striving for an Evil Nature, But the Desertion of a Better.

The Tree Was Forbidden to Adam Not Because It Was Evil, But Because It Was Good for Man to Be Subject to God.

No Creature of God is Evil, But to Abuse a Creature of God is Evil.

God Makes Good Use of the Evil Deeds of Sinners.

Eternal Fire Torturing the Wicked, Not Evil.

Fire is Called Eternal, Not as God Is, But Because Without End.

Neither Can God Suffer Hurt, Nor Any Other, Save by the Just Ordination of God.

How Great Good Things the Manichæans Put in the Nature of Evil, and How Great Evil Things in the Nature of Good.

Manichæan Blasphemies Concerning the Nature of God.

Many Evils Before His Commingling with Evil are Attributed to the Nature of God by the Manichæans.

Incredible Turpitudes in God Imagined by Manichæus.

Certain Unspeakable Turpitudes Believed, Not Without Reason, Concerning the Manichæans Themselves.

The Unspeakable Doctrine of the Fundamental Epistle.

He Compels to the Perpetration of Horrible Turpitudes.

Augustin Prays that the Manichæans May Be Restored to Their Senses.

Writings in Connection with the Donatist Controversy.

Title Page.

Introductory Essay.

Preface.

On Baptism, Against the Donatists.

Title Page.

Preface.

He proves that baptism can be conferred outside the Catholic communion by heretics or schismatics, but that it ought not to be received from them; and that it is of no avail to any while in a state of heresy or schism.

In which Augustin proves that it is to no purpose that the Donatists bring forward the authority of Cyprian, bishop and martyr, since it is really more opposed to them than to the Catholics.  For that he held that the view of his predecessor Agrippinus, on the subject of baptizing heretics in the Catholic Church when they join its communion, should only be received on condition that peace should be maintained with those who entertained the opposite view, and that the unity of the Church should never be broken by any kind of schism.

Augustin undertakes the refutation of the arguments which might be derived from the epistle of Cyprian to Jubaianus, to give color to the view that the baptism of Christ could not be conferred by heretics.

In which he treats of what follows in the same epistle of Cyprian to Jubaianus.

He examines the last part of the epistle of Cyprian to Jubaianus, together with his epistle to Quintus, the letter of the African synod to the Numidian bishops, and Cyprian’s epistle to Pompeius.

In which is considered the Council of Carthage, held under the authority and presidency of Cyprian, to determine the question of the baptism of heretics.

In which the remaining judgments of the Council of Carthage are examined.

Answer to the Letters of Petilian, the Donatist.

Title Page.

Preface.

Written in the form of a letter addressed to the Catholics, in which the first portion of the letter which Petilian had written to his adherents is examined and refuted.

In which Augustin replies to all the several statements in the letter of Petilianus, as though disputing with an adversary face to face.

In this book Augustin refutes the second letter which Petilianus wrote to him after having seen the first of Augustin’s earlier books.  This letter had been full of violent language; and Augustin rather shows that the arguments of Petilianus had been deficient and irrelevant, than brings forward arguments in support of his own statements.

The Correction of the Donatists.

Subject Indexes

Indexes

Please login or register to save highlights and make annotations
Corrections disabled for this book
Proofing disabled for this book





Advertisements