Against the Epistle of Manichæus, Called…
Chapter 1.—To Heal Heretics is Better Than to Destroy Them.
Chapter 2.—Why the Manichæans Should Be More Gently Dealt with.
Chapter 3.—Augustin Once a Manichæan.
Chapter 4.—Proofs of the Catholic Faith.
Chapter 5.—Against the Title of the Epistle of Manichæus.
Chapter 6.—Why Manichæus Called Himself an Apostle of Christ.
Chapter 7.—In What Sense the Followers of Manichæus Believe Him to Be the Holy Spirit.
Chapter 8.—The Festival of the Birth-Day of Manichæus.
Chapter 9.—When the Holy Spirit Was Sent.
Chapter 10.—The Holy Spirit Twice Given.
Chapter 11.—Manichæus Promises Truth, But Does Not Make Good His Word.
Chapter 12.—The Wild Fancies of Manichæus. The Battle Before the Constitution of the World.
Chapter 17.—The Memory Contains the Ideas of Places of the Greatest Size.
Chapter 18.—The Understanding Judges of the Truth of Things, and of Its Own Action.
Chapter 19.—If the Mind Has No Material Extension, Much Less Has God.
Chapter 20.—Refutation of the Absurd Idea of Two Territories.
Chapter 22.—The Form of the Region of Light the Worse of the Two.
Chapter 23.—The Anthropomorphites Not So Bad as the Manichæans.
Chapter 24.—Of the Number of Natures in the Manichæan Fiction.
Chapter 28.—Manichæus Places Five Natures in the Region of Darkness.
Chapter 29.—The Refutation of This Absurdity.
Chapter 31.—The Same Subject Continued.
Chapter 32.—Manichæus Got the Arrangement of His Fanciful Notions from Visible Objects.
Chapter 33.—Every Nature, as Nature, is Good.
Chapter 34.—Nature Cannot Be Without Some Good. The Manichæans Dwell Upon the Evils.
Chapter 36.—The Source of Evil or of Corruption of Good.
Chapter 37.—God Alone Perfectly Good.
Chapter 38.—Nature Made by God Corruption Comes from Nothing.
Chapter 39.—In What Sense Evils are from God.
Chapter 40.—Corruption Tends to Non-Existence.
Chapter 41.—Corruption is by God’s Permission, and Comes from Us.
Chapter 40.—Corruption Tends to Non-Existence.
46. But if any one does not believe that corruption comes from nothing, let him place before himself existence and non-existence—one, as it were, on one side, and the other on the other (to speak so as not to outstrip the slow to understand); then let him set something, say the body of an animal, between them, and let him ask himself whether, while the body is being formed and produced, while its size is increasing, while it gains nourishment, health, strength, beauty, stability, it is tending, as regards its duration and permanence, to this side or that, to existence or non-existence. He will see without difficulty, that even in the rudimentary form there is an existence, and that the more the body is established and built up in form, and figure and strength, the more does it come to exist, and to tend to the side of existence. Then, again, let the body begin to be corrupted; let its whole condition be enfeebled, let its vigor languish, its strength decay, its beauty be defaced, its framework be sundered, the consistency of its parts give way and go to pieces; and let him ask now where the body is tending in this corruption, whether to existence or non-existence: he will not surely be so blind or stupid as to doubt how to answer himself, or as not to see that, in proportion as anything is corrupted, in that proportion it approaches decease. But whatever tends to decease tends to non-existence. Since, then, we must believe that God exists immutably and incorruptibly, while what is called nothing is clearly altogether nonexistent; and since, after setting before yourself existence and non-existence, you have observed that the more a visible object increases the more it tends towards existence, while the more it is corrupted the more it tends towards non-existence, why are you at a loss to tell regarding any nature what in it is from God, and what from nothing; seeing that visible form is natural, and corruption against nature? The increase of form leads to existence, and we acknowledge God as supreme existence; the increase of corruption leads to non-existence, and we know that what is non-existent is nothing. Why then, I say, are you at a loss to tell regarding a corruptible nature, when you have both the words nature and corruptible, what is from God, and what from nothing? And why do you inquire for a nature contrary to God, since, if you confess that He is the supreme existence, it follows that non-existence is contrary to Him?30 [We have already encountered in the treatise Concerning two Souls, substantially the same course of argumentation here pursued. The doctrine of the negativity of evil may be said to have been fundamental with Augustin, and he uses it very effectually against Manichæan dualism.—A.H.N.]