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. But consider, I pray you; be on your guard, 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. 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 conse3. Accordingly, when the Catholic Church quence seems plain. In that race which you declares that God is the author of all natures take for the chief evil, nothing can be liable and substances, those who understand this to be hurt, since there is no good in it. But understand at the same time that God is not if, as you assert, there are two natures, the the author of evil. For how can He who is kingdom of light and the kingdom of darkthe cause of the being of all things be at the ness; since you make the kingdom of light to same time the cause of their not being,-that be God, attributing to it an uncompounded is, of their falling off from essence and tend-nature, so that it has no part inferior to aning to non-existence? For this is what reason other, you must grant, however decidedly in plainly declares to be the definition of evil. opposition to yourselves, you must grant, Now, how can that race of evil of yours, which nevertheless, that this nature, which you not you make the supreme evil, be against na- only do not deny to be the chief good, but ture, that is, against substance, when it, ac- spend all your strength in trying to show that cording to you, is itself a nature and sub- it is so, is immutable, incorruptible, impenestance? For if it acts against itself, it des- trable, inviolable, for otherwise it would not troys its own existence; and when that is be the chief good; for the chief good is that completely done, it will come at last to be than which there is nothing better, and for the supreme evil. But this cannot be done, such a nature to be hurt is impossible. because you will have it not only to be, but Again, if, as has been shown, to hurt is to to be everlasting. That cannot then be the deprive of good, there can be no hurt to the chief evil which is spoken of as a substance. 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? T 2 GOOD IN ITSELF AND WHAT IS GOOD BY PAR- 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, CHAP. 4.—THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT IS 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 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. CHAP. 3.1 you -IF EVIL IS DEFINED AS THAT WHICH IS HURTFUL, THIS IMPLIES ANOTHER REFUTATION OF THE MANICHEANS. 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.] [On Augustin's view of negativity of evil and on the relation of this view to Neo-Platonism, see Introduction, chapter IX. Au 2 [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.] This 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? CHAP. 5.—IF EVIL IS DEFINED TO BE CORRUP- CHEAN HERESY. 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 selfcontained. 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, 7. I ask a third time, What is evil? Per- far as that is possible to a creature. and, attaining order they attain existence, as haps 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 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 CHAP. 7.-THE 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 WHAT IT IS. For or 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. 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 What do you suppose, but what is the say? 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 deed, you will answer in the childish way in lower grades of creation, where their proper which you generally speak to children, that place is. So they suffer misery by the divine evil is fire, poison, a wild beast, and so on. judgment, while they are ranked suitably to For one of the leaders of this heresy, whose their deserts. Hence we see the excellence instructions we attended with great familiarity of that saying which you are always inveigh- and frequency, used to say with reference to ing against so strongly, "I make good things, a person who held that evil was not a suband create evil things." To create is to stance, "I should like to put a scorpion in the form and arrange. So in some copies it is man's hand, and see whether he would not written, "I make good things and form evil withdraw his hand; and in so doing he would things.' To make is used of things pre- get a proof, not in words but in the thing itviously not in existence; but to form is to self, that evil is a substance, for he would not arrange what had some kind of existence, so deny that the animal is a substance." He as to improve and enlarge it. Such are the said this not in the presence of the person, things which God arranges when He says, but to us, when we repeated to him the re"I form evil things," meaning things which mark which had troubled us, giving, as I said, are falling off, and so tending to non-exist- a childish answer to children. For who with ence, not things which have reached that the least tincture of learning or science does to which they tend. For it has been said, not see that these things hurt by disagreeNothing is allowed in the providence of God ment with the bodily temperament, while at to go the length of non-existence.2 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 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. 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 CHAP. 8.—EVIL IS NOT A SUBSTANCE, BUT A for the condemned with little or no injury to DISAGREEMENT HOSTILE TO SUBSTANCE. 11. For what other answer will you give to the question, What is evil? but either that it is against nature, or that it is hurtful, or that it is corruption, or something similar? as Origen believed, but only those which do return. Those who shall be punished in everlasting fire do not return to God, from whom they fell away. Still they are in order as existing in punishment where their existence is most suitable.' [This does not really meet the difficulty suggested on a preceding page.-A. H. N.] i Isa. xlv. 7. [That is to say nothing is absolutely evil, and conversely what is absolutely evil is ipso facto non-existent.-A. H. N.] 3 Luke ii. 14. 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 about that disagreement should not hurt her? cease, if that is possible, giving the name of Why so? Because what is truly and properly evil to a region boundless in depth and length; an evil is hurtful both always and to all. Oil to a mind wandering through the region; to 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.' CHAP. 9. THE MANICHEAN FICTIONS ABOUT I 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 14. I have said these things to make you evil, and yet venture to call it the perfection [The reasoning here is admirably adapted to Augustin's pur pose, which is to refute the Manichæan notion of the evil nature of material substances.-A. H. N.] of evil? 16. Once more, if, as has never been de fectly pure light (as you represent it) of the kingdom of God? for, according to you, even these beings could see this light, and could gaze at it, and study it, and delight in it, and desire it; whereas our eyes, after mixture with light, with the chief good, yea, with God, have become so tender and weak, that we can neither see anything in the dark, nor bear to look at the sun, but, after looking, lose sight of what we could see before. nied, 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 18. The same remarks are applicable if we where no good exists; but if that is not so take corruption to be an evil, which no one clear, one thing at least is easily seen and doubts. The smoke did not corrupt that understood as following from the acknowl- race of animals, though it corrupts animals edged truth, that what is hurtful is an evil. now. Not to go over all the particulars, The smoke in that region did not hurt bipeds: which would be tedious, and is not necessary, it produced them, and nourished and sus- the living creatures of your imaginary detained them without injury in their birth, scription were so much less liable to corruptheir growth, and their rule. But now, when tion than animals are now, that their abortive 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. 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 per I 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? CHAP. 10.-THREE MORAL SYMBOLS DEVISED BY THE MANICHEANS 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 |