The Anti-manichæan Writings (part 1 of 2)

Notes

1. 1

   Baur discredits this claim on internal grounds (Das Manich. Religionssystem, p. 7).

2. 2

   Indian Wisdom, 3rd ed. (1876), p. 49.

3. 3

   Lenormant, Chaldean Magic (1877), p. 144-145.

4. 4

   Ibid. p. 146-147.

5. 5

   Ibid. p. 148.

6. 6

   Ante-Nicene Library, Am. ed. vol. vi. pp. 182 and 188.

7. 7

   Ibid. p. 241.

8. 8

   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."

9. 9

   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.

10. 10

    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.

11. 11

    Das Manichäische Religionssystem, p. 433 sq.

12. 12

    Church Hist. vol. I.

13. 13

    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.

14. 14

    Encyclopædia Britannica, art. Manichæism.

15. 15

    Confessions, Book. VII. ch. 9, vol. 1. p. 108, of the present series.

16. 16

    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.

17. 17

    See J. B. Mozley's Ruling Ideas in Early Ages, art. The Manichæans and the Jewish Fathers. The sentence quoted above is Mozley's.

18. 18

    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.

19. 19

    Compare Professor George T. Stokes' excellent article Manichæans, in Smith and Wace: Dict. of Chr. Biography, vol. III. p. 798 sq.

20. 20

    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).

21. 21

    [For the Oriental accounts of Mani's parentage and youth, see the Introductory Essay, and the works there referred to.—A.H.N.]

22. 22

    See also Eusebius: Hist. Eccl. vii. 31, with Heinichen's note.

23. 23

    2 Kings xv. 14.

24. 24

    "Peut-être cherchons nous du mystere, ou il n'y en a point."—Beausobre, i. 79.

25. 25

    [This is in the highest degree improbable.—A.H.N.]

26. 26

    Called Erteng or Arzeng, i.e., according to Renaudot, an illustrated book.

27. 27

    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).

28. 28

    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 "

29. 29

    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.]

30. 30

    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.

31. 31

    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.

32. 32

    Histoire, i. 91.

33. 33

    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.

34. 34

    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).

35. 35

    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.

36. 36

    See the interesting account of Faustus in the Confessions, v. 10.

37. 37

    [This estimate of Faustus is somewhat too disparaging. For fuller bibliography, see Introductory Essay.—A.H.N.]

38. 38

    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.

39. 39

    Possidius. Vita Aug. vi.

40. 40

    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.

41. 41

    Retract. ii. 8.

42. 42

    Epist. August. xxv.

43. 43

    Retract. ii. 10: "quod, mea sententia, omnibus quoe adversus illam pestem scribere potui, facile præpono." The reason of this preference is explained by Bindemann, Der heilige Augstinus, iii. 168.

44. 44

    "Wo Entwickelungen, dialektische Begriffe sein sollten, stellt sich ein Bild, ein Mythus ein."—Böhringer, p. 390.

45. 45

    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).

46. 46

    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."

47. 47

    [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.]

48. 48

    [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.]

49. 49

    Matt. xxii. 37.

50. 50

    Rom. viii. 28, 35.

51. 51

    [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.]

52. 52

    Deut. vi. 5.

53. 53

    Rom. viii. 36; cf. Ps. xliv. 22.

54. 54

    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."

55. 55

    [Augustin's virtus takes the place of the Greek duuameis 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.]

56. 56

    Rom. viii. 38, 39.

57. 57

    [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.]

58. 58

    1 Cor. i. 23, 24.

59. 59

    John xiv. 6.

60. 60

    Rom. viii. 29.

61. 61

    Rom. v. 5.

62. 62

    Rom. viii. 20.

63. 63

    Rom. xi. 36.

64. 64

    [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.]

65. 65

    Ps. lxxiii. 28.

66. 66

    John i. 3, 4.

67. 67

    [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.]

68. 68

    Wisd. viii. 1, 4, 7.

69. 69

    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."

70. 70

    Wisd. viii. 3.

71. 71

    1 Cor. i. 24.

72. 72

    Matt. xi. 27.

73. 73

    Wisd. ix. 9.

74. 74

    Heb. i. 3.

75. 75

    Ps. lxxxix. 8.

76. 76

    John xiv. 6.

77. 77

    Wisd. ix. 17-19.

78. 78

    Rom. v. 5.

79. 79

    Wisd. i. 5.

80. 80

    Rom. viii. 29.

81. 81

    Ps. iv. 6.

82. 82

    Wisd. ix. 17.

83. 83

    Rom. xi. 36.

84. 84

    Deut. vi. 4.

85. 85

    [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.]

86. 86

    1 Cor. xi. 19.

87. 87

    Matt. vii. 7.

88. 88

    Matt. x. 26.

89. 89

    Wisd. vi. 12-20.

90. 90

    Matt. vii. 6.

91. 91

    Eph. iii. 14-19.

92. 92

    Matt. vii. 7.

93. 93

    Eph. iii. 7.

94. 94

    [Animi not mentis.—A.H.N.]

95. 95

    From his 19th to his 28th year.

96. 96

    1 Tim. vi. 10.

97. 97

    1 Cor. xv. 22.

98. 98

    Col. iii. 9, 10.

99. 99

    1 Cor. xv. 47-49.

100. 100

     2 Cor. iv. 16.

101. 101

     Ps. li. 10.

102. 102

     2 Cor. iv. 18.

103. 103

     Gal. i. 10.

104. 104

     Col. ii. 8.

105. 105

     1 John ii. 15.

106. 106

     Rom. xii. 2.

107. 107

     Eccles. i. 2, 3.

108. 108

     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."

109. 109

     Rom. v. 3, 4.

110. 110

     Job. i. 2.

111. 111

     [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.]

112. 112

     2 Mac. vii.

113. 113

     Ps. cxvi. 15.

114. 114

     Prov. xvi. 32.

115. 115

     Ecclus. ii. 4, 5.

116. 116

     Ecclus. xxvii. 6.

117. 117

     Matt. vi. 24.

118. 118

     Rom. i. 25.

119. 119

     Deut. vi. 13.

120. 120

     A name given by Augustin to the Holy Spirit, v. xxx.

121. 121

     Matt. xxiv. 42.

122. 122

     John xii. 35.

123. 123

     1 Cor. v. 6.

124. 124

     Ecclus. xix. 1.

125. 125

     John xvii. 3.

126. 126

     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."

127. 127

     [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.]

128. 128

     Matt. xxii. 39.

129. 129

     Rom. xiii. 10.

130. 130

     Rom. viii. 28.

131. 131

     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.]

132. 132

     Deut. vi. 5; Lev. xix. 18; Matt. xxii. 37, 39.

133. 133

     Matt. xxii. 40.

134. 134

     [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.]

135. 135

     [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.]

136. 136

     [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.]

137. 137

     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."

138. 138

     Luke xii. 49.

139. 139

     Hos. xiii. 14; 1 Cor. xv. 54, 55.

140. 140

     1 Cor. xv. 56.

141. 141

     [This picture of coenobitic 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.]

142. 142

     [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.]

143. 143

     Tit. i. 15.

144. 144

     Matt. xv. 11.

145. 145

     1 Cor. vi. 13.

146. 146

     1 Cor. viii. 8.

147. 147

     Rom. xiv. 2-21.

148. 148

     See title of the Epistle of Manichæus, Contra Faust. xiii. 4.

149. 149

     1 Cor. vi. 12.

150. 150

     1 Tim. v. 23.

151. 151

     1 Tim. iv. 8.

152. 152

     ^ [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.]

153. 153

     [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.]

154. 154

     Matt. iii. 13, and xiii. 24-43.

155. 155

     1 Cor. vii. 31.

156. 156

     1 Cor. vi. 11-20.

157. 157

     1 Cor. vii. 1-7.

158. 158

     1 Cor. vii. 14.

159. 159

     2 Cor. iv. 16.

160. 160

     This statement has a complete parallel in Clement of Alexandria, and along with what follows, is Neo-Platonic.—A.H.N.]

161. 161

     [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.]

162. 162

     [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.]

163. 163

     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.]

164. 164

     Isa. xlv. 7.

165. 165

     [That is to say nothing is absolutely evil, and conversely what is absolutely evil is ipso facto non-existent.—A.H.N.]

166. 166

     Luke ii. 14.

167. 167

     [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.]

168. 168

     ^ [The text has asinum in this sentence but aspidem in the next. The former is a mistake.—A.H.N.]

169. 169

     John viii. 36.

170. 170

     Gal. v. 13.

171. 171

     Sallust, in prolog. Catilin. § 3.

172. 172

     Rom. xiv. 21.

173. 173

     Rom. xiii. 14.

174. 174

     Matt. xv. 2.

175. 175

     Isa. xlv. 23, 24.

176. 176

     Rom. xiv. and xv. 1-3.

177. 177

     1 Cor. viii. 4, etc.

178. 178

     1 Cor. x. 19-25 and 28, xi. 1.

179. 179

     [Augustin's comparison of Manichæan with Christian asceticism is thoroughly just and admirable.—A.H.N.]

180. 180

     [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.]

181. 181

     Matt. viii. 32.

182. 182

     Matt. xxi. 19.

183. 183

     [This is, of course, a physiological blunder, but Augustin doubtless states what was the common view at the time.—A.H.N.]

184. 184

     V. Retract. i. 7. § 6, where Augustin allows that this is doubtful, and that many have not even heard of it.

185. 185

     [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.]

186. 186

     John xv. 18.

187. 187

     John xiv. 17.

188. 188

     Doubtless Augustin exaggerates the immorality of the Manichæans; but there must have been a considerable basis of fact for his charges.—A.H.N.]

189. 189

     Compare the account from the Fihrist, in our Introduction, Chapter III.—A.H.N.]

190. 190

     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.]

191. 191

     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.

192. 192

     John xiv. 6.

193. 193

     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.

194. 194

     Sublimitate animi.

195. 195

     Mente atque intelligentia.

196. 196

     Matt. viii. 22.

197. 197

     1 Tim. v. 6.

198. 198

     Neither Augustin nor the Manichæans seem to have recognized the distinction in kind between the human soul and animal life.—A.H.N.

199. 199

     John viii. 47 and 44.

200. 200

     John i. 3.

201. 201

     1 Cor. viii. 6.

202. 202

     Rom. xi. 36.

203. 203

     1 Cor. xi. 12.

204. 204

     1 Cor. ii. 15.

205. 205

     1 Tim. v. 6.

206. 206

     John i. 11.

207. 207

     John xvii. 3.

208. 208

     2 Cor. iv. 18.

209. 209

     Nothing is more certain than that Christianity has suffered more at the hands of injudicious and ignorant defenders than from its most astute and determined foes. Little attention would be paid to the blatant infidels of the present day were it not for the interest aroused and sustained by weak attempts to refute their arguments. And as the youthful, ardent Augustin was encouraged and confirmed in his errors by the inability of his opponents, so are errors confirmed at the present day. The philosophical defence of Christianity is a matter of the utmost delicacy, and should be undertaken with fear and trembling.—A.H.N.

210. 210

     The Pelagians used this statement with considerable effect in their polemics against its author. In his Retractations Augustin has this to say by way of explanation: "The Pelagians may think that thus was said in their interest, on account of young children whose sin which is remitted to them in baptism they deny on the ground that they do not yet use the power of will. As if indeed the sin, which we say they derive originally from Adam, that is, that they are implicated in his guilt and on this account are held obnoxious to punishment, could ever be otherwise than in will, by which will it was committed when the transgression of the divine precept was accomplished. Our statement, that there is never sin but in will,' may be thought false for the reason that the apostle says: If what I will not this I do, it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.' For this sin is to such an extent involuntary, that he says: What I will not this I do.' How, therefore, is there never sin but in the will? But this sin concerning which the apostle has spoken is called sin, because by sin it was done, and it is the penalty of sin; since this is said concerning carnal concupiscence, which he discloses in what follows saying: I know that in me, that is in my flesh, dwelleth no good; for to will is present to me, but to accomplish that which is good, is not.' (Rom. vii. 16-18). Since the perfection of good is, that not even the concupiscence of sin should be in man, to which indeed when one lives well the will does not consent; nevertheless man does not accomplish the good because as yet concupiscence is in him, to which the will is antagonistic, the guilt of which concupiscence is loosed by baptism, but the infirmity remains, against which until it is healed every believer who advances well most earnestly struggles. But sin, which is never but in will, must especially be known as that which is followed by just condemnation. For this through one man entered into the world; although that sin also by which consent is yielded to concupiscence is not committed but by will. Wherefore also in another place I have said: Not therefore except by will is sin committed.'"—A.H.N. On this matter Augustin's still earlier treatise De Libero Arbitrio, and his interesting Retractations on the same, should be compared. The reader of these earlier treatises in comparison with the Anti-Pelagian treatises can hardly fail to recognize a marked change of base on Augustin's part. His efforts to show the consistency of his earlier with his later modes of thought are to be pronounced only partially successful. The fact is, that in the Anti-Manichæan time he went too far in maintaining the absolute freedom of the will and the impossibility of sin apart from personal will in the sinner; while in the Anti-Pelagian time he ventured too near to the fatalism that he so earnestly combated in the Manichæans.—A.H.N.

211. 211

     This dictum also Augustin thought it needful to explain: "This was said that by this definition a willing person might be distinguished from one not willing, and so the intention might be referred to those who first in Paradise were the origin of evil to the human race, by sinning no one compelling, that is by sinning with free will, because also knowingly they sinned against the command, and the tempters persuaded, did not compel, that this should be done. For he who ignorantly sinned may not incongruously be said to have sinned unwillingly, although not knowing what he did, yet willingly he did it. So not even the sin of such a one could be without will, which will assuredly, as it has been defined, was a movement of the mind, no one compelling, either for not losing or for obtaining something.' For he was not compelled to do what if he had been unwilling he would not have done. Because he willed, therefore he did it, even if he did not sin because he willed, being ignorant that what he did is sin. So not even such a sin could be without will, but by will of deed not by will of sin, which deed was yet sin; for this deed is what ought not to have taken place. But whoever knowingly sins, if he can without sin resist the one compelling him to sin, yet resists not, assuredly sins willingly. For he who can resist is not compelled to yield. But he who cannot by good will resist cogent covetousness, and therefore does what is contrary to the precepts of righteousness, this now is sin in the sense of being the penalty of sin. Wherefore it is most true that sin cannot be apart from will." It is needless to say that such reasoning would not have answered Augustin's purpose in writing against the Manichæans.—A.H.N.

212. 212

     Here also Augustin guards himself in his Retractations: "The definition is true, inasmuch as that is defined which is only sin, and not also that which is the penalty of sin."—A.H.N.

213. 213

     In his Retractations, Augustin replies to the Pelagian denial of the sinfulness of infants, in support of which they had quoted the above sentence. "They [infants] are held guilty not by propriety of will but by origin. For what is every earthly man in origin but Adam?" The will of the whole human race was in Adam, and when Adam sinned the whole race voluntarily sinned, seems to be his meaning.—A.H.N.

214. 214

     In his Retractations, Augustin explains that by nature is to be understood the state in which we were created without vice. He transfers the entire argument from the actual condition of man to the primitive Adamic condition. It is evident, however, that this was not his meaning when he combated the Manichæans. The question of infant sinfulness arises here also, and is discussed in the usual Anti-Pelagian way.—A.H.N.

215. 215

     Augustin's carefulness to explain that he is only indulging in personification is doubtless due to the fact that with the Manichæans the sun and the moon were objects of worship.—A.H.N.

216. 216

     In his Retractations, Augustin explains that he did not really regard this as an open question, but speaks of it as such only so far as this particular discussion is concerned. He simply declines to enter upon a consideration of it in this connection.—A.H.N.

217. 217

     Here also the use of the word "nature" gave Augustin trouble in his later years. He claims in the Retractations that he uses the word in the sense of "nature that has been healed" and that "cannot be vitiated," and seeks to show that he did not mean to exclude divine grace.—A.H.N.

218. 218

     Bicipiti.

219. 219

     Præcipiti.

220. 220

     This purpose Augustin accomplished in several works. See especially Contra Adimantum, and Contra Faustum Manichæum. On Augustin's defense of the Old Testament Scriptures, see Mozley's Ruling Ideas in Early Ages, last chapter.—A.H.N.

221. 221

     This Disputation seems to have occurred shortly after the writing of the preceding treatise. It appears from the Retractations that Fortunatus had lived for a considerable time at Hippo, and had secured so large a number of followers that it was a delight to him to dwell there. The Disputation is supposed to be a verbatim report of what Augustin and Fortunatus said during a two days' discussion. The subject is the origin of evil. Augustin maintains that evil, so far as man is concerned, has arisen from a free exercise of the will on man's part; Fortunatus, on the other hand, maintains that the nature of evil is co-eternal with God. Fortunatus shows considerable knowledge of the New Testament, but no remarkable dialectic powers. He appears at great disadvantage beside his great antagonist. In fact, he is far from saying the best that can be said in favor of dualism. We may say that he was fairly vanquished in the argument, and at the close confessed himself at a loss what to say, and expressed an intention of more carefully examining the problems discussed, in view of what Augustin had said. Augustin is more guarded in this treatise than in the preceding in his statements about free will. He found little occasion here, therefore, to retract or explain. Fortunatus often expresses himself vaguely and obscurely. If some sentences are difficult to understand in the translation, they will be found equally so in the Latin.—A.H.N.

222. 222

     The word used is oratio, by which is evidently meant the religious services to which Auditors were admitted, prayer (oratio) being the prominent feature.—A.H.N.

223. 223

     The allusion here is doubtless to the probably slanderous charge that the Manichæans were accustomed to partake of human semen as a Eucharist. The Manichæan view of the relation of the substance mentioned to the light, and their well-known opposition to procreation, give a slight plausibility to the charge. Compare the Morals of the Manichæans, ch. xviii., where Augustin expresses his suspicions of Manichæan shamelessness. See also further references in the Introduction.—A.H.N.

224. 224

     This is, of course, a mixture of two passages of Scripture.—A.H.N.

225. 225

     John xiv. 8, 9.

226. 226

     John v. 24.

227. 227

     As remarked in the Introduction, the Manichæans of the West, in Augustin's time, sustained a far more intimate relation to Christianity than did Mani and his immediate followers. Far as Fortunatus may have been from using the above language in the ordinary Christian sense, yet he held, by profession at least, enough of Christian truth to beguile the unwary.—A.H.N.

228. 228

     Philipp. ii. 5-8.

229. 229

     Fortunatus could not surely have used this language with any proper conception of its meaning. He seems, against Mani, to have identified in some sense the Jesus that suffered with Christ. Yet even in this statement his docetism is manifest.—A.H.N.

230. 230

     1 Cor. i. 24.

231. 231

     John i. 3.

232. 232

     Ps. cxlviii. 5.

233. 233

     Matt. xv. 13, and iii. 10.

234. 234

     Eph. ii. 1-18. There are several somewhat important variations from the Greek text in this long extract. The attentive reader can get a good idea of the nature of the variations by comparing this literal translation with the revised English version.—A.H.N.

235. 235

     There are three readings here, "wearied out," "deceived," and "worn out." The latter is preferred by the Benedictine editors.—A.H.N.

236. 236

     Rom. xi. 1.

237. 237

     Rom. i. 1-4.

238. 238

     Isa. vii. 14.

239. 239

     John iii. 6.

240. 240

     1 Cor. xv. 50.

241. 241

     This little side remark lends reality to the discussion, and enables us to form a vivid conception of what doctrinal debates were in the age of Augustin.—A.H.N.

242. 242

     Liberum voluntatis arbitrium.

243. 243

     1 Tim. vi. 10.

244. 244

     Matt. xv. 13, and iii. 10.

245. 245

     John xv. 22.

246. 246

     Rom. viii. 7.

247. 247

     Gal. v. 17.

248. 248

     Rom. vii. 23-25.

249. 249

     Gal. v. 14.

250. 250

     Matt. xii. 35.

251. 251

     Eph. v. 6.

252. 252

     1 Tim. iv. 4.

253. 253

     Rom. v. 19.

254. 254

     1 Cor. xv. 21, 49.

255. 255

     Gal. v. 13.

256. 256

     Rom. viii. 2.

257. 257

     Gen. iii. 19.

258. 258

     Matt. x. 16.

259. 259

     Eph. v. 12.

260. 260

     Rom. ix. 20.

261. 261

     Eph. i. 5.

262. 262

     John x. 18.

263. 263

     Written about the year 397. In his Retractations (ii. 2) Augustin says: "The book against the Epistle of Manichæus, called Fundamental, refutes only its commencement; but on the other parts of the epistle I have made notes, as required, refuting the whole, and sufficient to recall the argument, had I ever had leisure to write against the whole." [The Fundamental Epistle seems to have been a sort of hand-book for Manichæan catechumens or Auditors. In making this document the basis of his attack, Augustin felt that he had selected the best-known and most generally accepted standard of the Manichæan faith. The tone of the work is conciliatory, yet some very sharp thrusts are made at Manichæan error. The claims of Mani to be the Paraclete are set aside, and the absurd cosmological fancies of Mani are ruthlessly exposed. Dualism is combated with substantially the same weapons as in the treatise Concerning Two Souls. We could wish that the author had found time to finish the treatise, and had thus preserved for us more of the Fundamental Epistle itself. This work was written after the author had become Bishop of Hippo.—A.H.N.]

264. 264

     2 Tim. ii. 24, 25.

265. 265

     Mal. iv. 2.

266. 266

     John i. 9.

267. 267

     [This is one of the earliest distinct assertions of the dependence of the Scriptures for authority on the Church.—A.H.N.]

268. 268

     Matt. x. 2-4; Mark iii. 13-19; Luke vi. 13-18.

269. 269

     Acts i. 26.

270. 270

     Acts ix.

271. 271

     John xiv. 16.

272. 272

     John x. 30.

273. 273

     Acts i. 1-8.

274. 274

     Acts ii. 1-13.

275. 275

     John vii. 39.

276. 276

     John xx. 22.

277. 277

     [This is, of course, fanciful; but is quite in accordance with the exegetical methods of the time.—A.H.N.]

278. 278

     [The Manichæans assumed the role of rationalists, and scorned the credulity of ordinary believers. Yet they required in their followers an amount of credulity which only persons of a peculiar turn of mind could furnish. The same thing applies to modern rationalistic anti-Christian systems. The fact is, that it requires infinitely less credulity to believe in historical Christianity than to disbelieve in it.—A.H.N.]

279. 279

     [Compare the fuller account from the Fihrist in the Introduction.—A.H.N.]

280. 280

     [This exalted view of God Augustin held in common with the Neo-Platonists.—A.H.N.]

281. 281

     [Modern mental physiologists differ among themselves as regards the presence of the mind throughout the entire nervous system; some maintaining the view here presented, and others making the brain to be the seat of sensation, and the nerves telegraphic lines, so to speak, for the communication of impressions from the various parts of the body to the brain. Compare Carpenter: Mental Physiology, and Calderwood: Mind and Brain.—A.H.N.]

282. 282

     [There is sufficient reason to think that Mani identified God with the kingdom and the region of light. See Introduction.—A.H.N.]

283. 283

     [This discussion of the lines bounding the Kingdom of Light and the Kingdom of Darkness seems very much like trifling, but Augustin's aim was to bring the Manichæan representations into ridicule.—A.H.N.]

284. 284

     [This portion of the argument is conducted with great adroitness. Augustin takes the inhabitants of the region of darkness, as Mani describes them, and proves that they possess so much of good that they can have no other author than God.—A.H.N.]

285. 285

     John i. 14.

286. 286

     Rom. viii. 29.

287. 287

     [Augustin still addresses himself to the "nature of the rational soul."—A.H.N.]

288. 288

     Ps. lxxiii. 28.

289. 289

     Ps. xlv. 7.

290. 290

     Matt. x. 28, and Luke xii. 4.

291. 291

     1 Cor. iii. 17.

292. 292

     [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.]

293. 293

     Matt. v. 8.

294. 294

     [The Neo-Platonic quality of this section cannot escape the attention of the philosophical student.—A.H.N.]

295. 295

     Vide Preface.

296. 296

     Confessions, v. 3, 6.

297. 297

     Ps. xxxvii. 23.

298. 298

     Col. ii. 5; cf. 1 Thess. iii. 10.

299. 299

     1 Cor. iii. 9.

300. 300

     Matt. i. 1.

301. 301

     2 Tim. ii. 8.

302. 302

     1 Cor. xv. 11.

303. 303

     Gal. i. 8, 9.

304. 304

     1 Cor. xv. 47-49.

305. 305

     2 Tim. iv. 4.

306. 306

     [This mixture of the substance of Primordial Man, with the kingdom of darkness, and the formation of stars out of portions thereof, was probably a part of primitive Manichæan teaching.—A.H.N.]

307. 307

     [Compare Book xx. 2, where Faustus states the Manichæan doctrine of the Jesus patabilis. Beausobre, Mosheim and Baur agree in thinking that Augustin has not distinguished accurately in these two passages between names Christ and Jesus, as used by the Manichæans. See Baur: Das Manichäische Religionssystem, p. 72.—A.H.N.]

308. 308

     Rom. ix. 4, 5.

309. 309

     Rom. viii. 23.

310. 310

     Gal. iv. 4, 5.

311. 311

     Phil. ii. 6.

312. 312

     John i. 12.

313. 313

     [It cannot be said that Augustin adequately meets the difficulty that Faustus finds in the genealogies of our Lord. Cf. Hervey: The Genealogies of Our Lord, and the recent commentaries, such as Meyer's, Lange's, The International Revision, and especially Broadus on Matthew.—A.H.N.]

314. 314

     1 Cor. x. 6, 11.

315. 315

     Luke xxiv. 44.

316. 316

     Isa. vii. 9.

317. 317

     Matt. xiii. 52.

318. 318

     2 Tim. ii. 16-18.

319. 319

     [A good argumentum ad hominem, a species of argument which Augustin is fond of using.—A.H.N.]

320. 320

     Matt. xix. 29.

321. 321

     Matt. v. 3-11.

322. 322

     Matt. xi. 2-6.

323. 323

     [This is a good description of ideal Manichæan religious life. Whether Faustus lived up to the claims here set forth is another question.—A.H.N.]

324. 324

     Matt. vii. 21.

325. 325

     Matt. xxviii. 19, 20.

326. 326

     John xv. 14.

327. 327

     John xv. 10.

328. 328

     Matt v. 3-10.

329. 329

     Matt. xxv. 35.

330. 330

     Matt. xix. 21.

331. 331

     Matt. xvi. 7.

332. 332

     1 Cor. xv. 47.

333. 333

     Gal. i. 8, 9.

334. 334

     2 Tim. ii. 8.

335. 335

     Rom. iv. 25.

336. 336

     John v. 25-27.

337. 337

     Acts. i. 14.

338. 338

     John iii. 14, 15.

339. 339

     1 John v. 20, iv. 3.

340. 340

     1 Cor. xiii. 3.

341. 341

     1 Tim. i. 5.

342. 342

     [Augustin confounds saving faith with orthodox doctrine, as has been too commonly done since.—A.H.N.]

343. 343

     1 Cor. vii. 5, 6.

344. 344

     1 Cor. vi. 7, 4.

345. 345

     Matt. x. 38-42.

346. 346

     Book iv.

347. 347

     1 Cor. x. 6.

348. 348

     Col. ii. 16, 17.

349. 349

     Tit. i. 15.

350. 350

     Wisd. vii. 24, 25.

351. 351

     [In bringing to notice the absurdities of the Manichæan moral system, Augustin may seem to be trifling, but he is in reality striking at the root of the heresy.—A.H.N.]

352. 352

     1 Cor. x. 11.

353. 353

     Matt. viii. 32.

354. 354

     Luke v. 14.

355. 355

     Phil. iii. 19.

356. 356

     Tit. i. 15.

357. 357

     Matt. xvi. 11.

358. 358

     Tit. i. 15.

359. 359

     Prov. xxi. 20.

360. 360

     [Compare the Introduction, where an abstract is given of the Fihrist's account of the creation.—A.H.N.]

361. 361

     [These biological blunders belong to the age, and are not Augustin's peculiar fancies. Of course, the argumentative value of them depends on their general acceptance.—A.H.N.]

362. 362

     1 Cor. x. 11.

363. 363

     Rom. xv. 4.

364. 364

     [It will be seen in subsequent portions of this treatise that Augustin carries the typological idea to an absurd extreme.—A.H.N.]

365. 365

     1 Cor. ix. 9, 10.

366. 366

     Cf. Lev. xxi. 18.

367. 367

     Matt. xii. 48.

368. 368

     Matt. xxiii. 9.

369. 369

     John i. 1-5.

370. 370

     Matt. ix. 16.

371. 371

     Gal. iv. 9.

372. 372

     1 Cor. x. 11.