ON THE MORALS OF THE [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 MANICHEANS ARE MENTIONED. CHAP. 1.—THE SUPREME GOOD IS THAT WHICH | jects have their vision damaged and dulled IS POSSESSED OF SUPREME EXISTENCE. 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. CHAP. 2.—WHAT EVIL IS. 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 THAT EVIL IS THAT a clear intellectual perfection as might enable WHICH IS AGAINST NATURE. IN ALLOWING them to see the chief good, than which nothing is better or higher, next in order to which THIS, THE MANICHEANS REFUTE THEMSELVES. comes a rational soul in a state of purity and 2. You Manichæans often, if not in every perfection. If this were clearly understood, case, ask those whom you try to bring over it would also become evident that the chief to your heresy, Whence is evil? Suppose I good is that which is properly described as had now met you for the first time, I would having supreme and original existence. For ask you, if you please, to follow my example that exists in the highest sense of the word in putting aside for a little the explanation which continues always the same, which is you suppose yourselves to have got of these throughout like itself, which cannot in any subjects, and to commence this great inquiry part be corrupted or changed, which is not with me as if for the first time. You ask me, subject to time, which admits of no variation Whence is evil? I ask you in return, What in its present as compared with its former is evil? Which is the more reasonable quescondition. This is existence in its true sense. tion? Are those right who ask whence a For in this signification of the word existence thing is, when they do not know what it is; there is implied a nature which is self- or he who thinks it necessary to inquire first contained, and which continues immutably. what it is, in order to avoid the gross absurdSuch things can be said only of God, to whom ity of searching for the origin of a thing unthere is nothing contrary in the strict sense known? Your answer is quite correct, when of the word. For the contrary of existence is you say that evil is that which is contrary to non-existence. There is therefore no nature nature; for no one is so mentally blind as not contrary to God. But since the minds with to see that, in every kind, evil is that which which we approach the study of these sub-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, if it is contrary to nature. Now, according if possible, more plainly. I ask you again, to you, evil is a certain nature and substance. What is evil? If you say it is that which is Moreover, whatever is contrary to nature hurtful, here, too, you will not answer amiss. 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-exis tence. 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. T 4. But what am I to do? I know that many of you can understand nothing of all this. know, too, that there are some who have a good understanding and can see these things, and yet are so stubborn in their chcice 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 re gret having written either what one of you CHAP. 3.—IF EVIL IS DEFINED AS THAT WHICH 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, 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? 2 CHAP. 4.1 -THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT IS GOOD IN ITSELF AND WHAT IS GOOD BY PAR- 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. gustin's view seems to exclude the permanence of evil in the world, and so everlasting punishment and everlasting rebellion against 5. Let us then inquire more carefully, and, God.-A. H. N.] 2 [It is probable that Mani thought of the Kingdom of Light pantheistically, and that the principles personified in his mythological I [On Augustin's view of negativity of evil and on the relation system were the result of efforts on his part to connect the inof this view to Neo-Platonism, see Introduction, chapter IX. Au-finite with the finite.-A. H. N.] This second kind of good is called a creature, actual truth, that it is the created substance which is liable to hurt through falling away. which can be corrupted, for the uncreated, But of this falling away God is not the author, which is the chief good, is incorruptible; and for He is author of existence and of being. corruption, which is the chief evil, cannot be Here we see the proper use of the word evil; corrupted; besides, that it is not a substance? for it is correctly applied not to essence, but But if you ask what corruption is, consider to to negation or loss. We see, too, what na- what it seeks to bring the things which it ture it is which is liable to hurt. This nature corrupts; for it affects those things according is not the chief evil, for when it is hurt it to its own nature. Now all things by corloses good; nor is it the chief good, for its ruption fall away from what they were, and falling away from good is because it is good are brought to non-continuance, to non-existnot intrinsically, but by possessing the good. ence; for existence implies continuance. And a thing cannot be good by nature when Thus the supreme and chief existence is so it is spoken of as being made, which shows called because it continues in itself, or is selfthat the goodness was bestowed. Thus, on contained. In the case of a thing changing the one hand, God is the good, and all things for the better, the change is not from continwhich He has made are good, though not so uance, but from perversion to the worse, that good as He who made them. For what mad- is, from falling away from essence; the auman would venture to require that the works thor of which falling away is not He who should equal the workman, the creatures the is the author of the essence. So in some Creator? What more do you want? Could things there is change for the better, and so you wish for anything plainer than this? CHAP. 5.—IF EVIL IS DEFINED TO BE CORRUP- CHEAN HERESY. a tendency towards existence. And this For or 7. I ask a third time, What is evil? Perhaps you will reply, Corruption. Undeniably der reduces to a certain uniformity that which this is a general definition of evil; for cor- it arranges; and existence is nothing else ruption implies opposition to nature, and also than being one. Thus, so far as anything hurt. But corruption exists not by itself, acquires unity, so far it exists. For uniformbut in some substance which it corrupts; for ity and harmony are the effects of unity, and corruption itself is not a substance. So the by these compound things exist as far as thing which it corrupts is not corruption, is they have existence. For simple things exist not evil; for what is corrupted suffers the But things loss of integrity and purity. So that which by themselves, for they are one. has no purity to lose cannot be corrupted; their parts; and so far as they attain this, so not simple imitate unity by the agreement of and what has, is necessarily good by the far they exist. participation of purity. Again, what is cor- of existence, disorder of non-existence; and This arrangement is the cause rupted is perverted; and what is perverted perversion or corruption are the other names suffers the loss of order, and order is good. for disorder. So whatever is corrupted tends To be corrupted, then, does not imply the to non-existence. You may now be left to reabsence of good; for in corruption it can be flect upon the effect of corruption, that you deprived of good, which could not be if there was the absence of good. Therefore that may discover what is the chief evil; for it is that which corruption aims at accomplishing. 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 CHAP. 7.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. CHAP. 6.-WHAT CORRUPTION -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, AFFECTS AND till in the order of their movements they return to that from which they fell away.' 8. What further does the Catholic light say? What do you suppose, but what is the 1 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, Thus, when rational souls fall away from But I have shown that in these replies you God, although they possess the greatest make shipwreck of your cause, unless, inamount 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." 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." He deed, 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." 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 10. These things might be discussed more not to hurt, but to produce the best effects? fully and at greater length, but enough has For if this poison were evil in itself, the scorbeen said for our purpose in dealing with you. pion itself would suffer first and most. In We have only to show you the gate which fact, if the poison were quite taken from you despair of finding, and make the unin- the animal, it would die. So for its body it is structed despair of it too. You can be made evil to lose what it is evil for our body to reto enter only by good-will, on which the ceive; and it is good for it to have what it is divine mercy bestows peace, as the song in good for us to want. Is the same thing then the Gospel says, "Glory to God in the highest, both good and evil? By no means; but evil is and on earth peace to men of good-will."3 what is against nature, for this is evil both to It is enough, I say, to have shown you that the animal and to us. This evil is the disathere is no way of solving the religious ques-greement, w..ich certainly is not a substance, tion of good and evil, unless whatever is, as but hostile to substance. Whence then is it? far as it is, is from God; while as far as it See what it leads to, and you will learn, if any falls away from being it is not of God, and inner light lives in you. It leads all that it yet is always ordered by Divine Providence in destroys to non-existence. Now God is the agreement with the whole system. If you do author of existence; and there is no existence not yet see this, I know nothing else that I which, as far as it is existing, leads to non-excan do but to discuss the things already said istence. Thus we learn whence disagreement with greater particularity. For nothing save is not; as to whence it is, nothing can be said. piety and purity can lead the mind to greater things. 12. We read in history of a female criminal in Athens, who succeeded in drinking the quantity of poison allotted as a fatal draught ⚫CHAP. 8.—EVIL IS NOT A SUBSTANCE, BUT A 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 2 [That is to say nothing is absolutely evil, and conversely what process of habituation. For how could she is absolutely evil is ipso facto non-existent.-A. H. N.] 3 Luke ii. 14. by any amount of cunning have brought it |