Letters & Polemics (CSEL) 22 part 3/4

Yet among all the things which you have cited — partly as they are truly written, partly otherwise than they are written — you have nowhere been able to show that God, wishing to repel a hostile nature threatening his realms, that he might have rest, mingled his own part, which is that which he himself is, with the contrary nature of the demons, and caused it to be bound by them and contaminated. But this is what is charged against you. Whence, not finding what to answer, you have cited chapters of the divine Scriptures, where it is said of sinners that they do not pertain to the blessed life which God grants to the good and faithful, and you have wished these to be taken as two natures, according to the ravings of Manichaeus.

But truth says that all those things which we see and which we do not see, which naturally subsist, were made by God; among which the rational creature also, whether in angels or in men, received free will: by which free will, if it should wish to serve God, according to the will and law of God it would have eternal felicity with him; but if it were unwilling to be subject to his law, but, using its own power, had acted against his command, according to his justice it would lie under the punishment due. This is the omnipotence of God in creating all things, this the justice in requiting sinners.

But behold, I prove free will, and that each one sins therefrom if he wills, does not sin if he does not will, not only in the divine Scriptures, which you do not understand, but even in the words of your own Manichaeus. For, hemmed in, he sees the power of truth, against which he had tried to bring in another nature, which God did not make, against God — not by solid truth, but by empty phantasm; yet, to confess the truth about free will, human nature, in which God made him, prevailed in him more than the sacrilegious fable which he himself devised for himself. Hear then about free will, first, the Lord himself, where he mentions the two trees, of which you yourself made mention; hear him saying:

Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad. When therefore he says "either do this or do that," he indicates power, not nature. For no one save God can make a tree; but each one has it in his will either to choose the things which are good and to be a good tree, or to choose the things which are evil and to be an evil tree — not because the evil things themselves which are chosen have any substance in themselves, but because God founded all the things which he established, founded them in their degrees and distinguished them by their kinds, heavenly and earthly, immortal and mortal, and founded all things good each in its own kind, and placed the soul having free will beneath himself and above the rest:

that if it should serve the higher, it might rule over the lower; but if it should offend the higher, it would feel punishment from the lower. This then the Lord, in saying "either do this or do that," showed that it was in their power what they should do, he himself being untroubled and certain in himself as God, and that if they chose the good, they would receive his reward, if they chose the evil, they would feel his punishment; but he is always just, either as rewarder or as condemner. Hear then now how Manichaeus himself — so perverse, so proud that, introducing another nature and making it equal to God, he would degrade God down to himself — nevertheless confessed that there is free will.

In your Treasure, to which you have given such a name to deceive men, he certainly speaks thus, as you yourself know: "But those who by their own negligence have by no means permitted themselves to be purged from the corruption of the aforesaid spirits, and have too little obeyed the divine commandments in their integrity, and have refused to keep more fully the law given to them by their liberator, and have not governed themselves as was fitting," and the rest. You see that in these words free will is confirmed even by one who did not know what he was saying. For he who is unwilling to keep the law, it is in his power to do so, if he will. For he did not say: they could not, but: they were unwilling. This surely, that they are unwilling to keep the law, they are not compelled by the race of darkness; for if they are compelled, they are not unwilling, but they are unable;

but if they are unwilling, they are surely not compelled not to do it, but by their own will they are unwilling. This then, which is in their will, that they are unwilling, is surely sin without any necessity of the race of darkness; recognize this to be sin without the necessity of the race of darkness. And thence you see whence come all faults, whence the deserts of faults, whence the distributions of punishments. You have this also in the apocryphal Scriptures, which the Catholic canon indeed does not admit, but which are so much the more pleasing to you as they are excluded from the Catholic canon. Let me also cite something thence, by whose authority I am not held, but you are convicted. In the Acts written by Leucius, which he writes as though the Acts of the Apostles, you have it thus set down:

For indeed specious fabrications and feigned ostentation and the compulsion of visible things do not proceed from their own nature, but from that man who through his own self was made worse through seduction. See how here he said both "through his own self" and "through seduction." For the devil was the seducer of man, not a sinner by nature, but a sinner first by will. But because it was in man's power not to consent to the seducer, therefore both "through his own self" and "through seduction" were set down, so that in what is set down "through his own self" you may understand free will, and in what is set down "through seduction" you may understand the devil, not the oppressor of the unwilling, but the tempter of the willing.

Accordingly, since I have answered and, as far as I could, proved that the things written in the holy books concerning sinners and the just pertain not to a diversity of natures, but to a distinction of deserts — in which deserts it is not nature that makes necessity, but will that makes the fault — do you answer to that which I have already asked: if nothing could harm God, why did he mingle his own part, his own substance, that which he himself is, with the demons to be polluted and bound — which you could not find in any canonical divine Scripture; but if it could harm him, you do not worship an incorruptible God, of whom the Apostle says: but to the King of the ages, immortal, invisible, incorruptible, to God alone, be honour and glory forever and ever.

Then likewise he says: God dwells in unapproachable light. Do the saints not approach that light, of whom it is written: "Come to him and be enlightened"? Do the saints not approach that light, of whom it is said: "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God"? But because none can approach it, save he to whom God himself has granted that he may approach, therefore in itself it is unapproachable. For no one can approach it whom God has not willed to approach; but to whom he has granted, that one will approach. How then could that race of darkness approach the dwelling of God, where the light is unapproachable, to which none approaches, save he to whom God has granted?

Or if he had received a gift from God enabling him to advance, he would not have surrendered to the assaulting of the kingdom of God, nor would he have been afraid. But if He had given no such gift by which he might advance, then, dwelling secure in His own kingdom, inhabiting light inaccessible, what could He fear from the race of darkness, that He should mingle with it His own portion, His own substance, that which He Himself is — to be bound, to be pressed down, to be defiled, where it would not only be held wretchedly, but even be purged shamefully?

For you say that it is purged there — a thing it is unlawful even to hear, yet for your confounding and perhaps your salvation we cannot keep silent — you say that God's portion is purged there, in the ship of light which you call the sun, thereby doing injury to the Creator of the sun and to the sun itself, which you say was made in such a way that so great a foulness should be enacted there. For you say that God, set there, turns His powers into males to inflame the lusts of the female demons, and turns those same powers again into females to inflame the lusts of the male demons; so that, when they cast lust upon the demons who are kindled toward the forms fashioned by God, the members of those demons are relaxed, and thus the portion of God which had been bound up there escapes.

So great a reproach, so great a sacrilege you have dared to believe, and you do not hesitate to preach it. These are the middle parts of your doctrine. But what is the end? What, except that God could not purge the whole? And because He could not, you say He will make it, as it were, a plastering over the race of darkness, so that there may be damned forever what could not be purged and committed no fault of its own accord. So it comes about that your God — not the true one, but a fabricated one, not established anywhere, but imagined in your own heart — mingles His portion unhappily, purges it shamefully, and damns it cruelly. Answer, then, to these things, and begin with what I have said: why did God mingle that portion of His, to which nothing could do harm? Or if it could be harmed, how can He be incorruptible? FELIX

He said: You assert that Mani is cruel for saying these things; but what do we say of Christ, who said, 'Go into the eternal fire'? AUGUSTINE said: He said this to sinners. FELIX said: Why were these sinners not purged? AUGUSTINE said: Because they were unwilling. FELIX said: 'Because they were unwilling' — did you say this? AUGUSTINE said: I did say it — because they were unwilling. FELIX said: Why were they unwilling? Is there anyone who does not wish to be healed? Is there anyone who does not wish to be purged? Is there anyone who does not wish to be enlightened? Is he weak who does not wish to come to health? If what Mani says is cruel — that some portion of God, which could not purge itself, has been bound in the mass — is this not cruel, that Christ, who said…

'I came for the sake of sinners' — and yet now sends them into eternal fire, though they bore His name? But, I suppose, they could not fulfill the commandments. If this is cruel, that too is more cruel; and if that is more cruel — namely, that God could not purge them and bound them in the mass — then this also seems more cruel: that Christ, being unable to purge them, sends them into eternal fire. Let your Holiness expound this to me concerning that very cruelty. AUGUSTINE said: If you had either understood what I have already said, or would admit that you understand it — for perhaps, having nothing to say, you have feigned not to understand what is plain — you would not say these things. For we have already said and proved through the divine Scriptures that there is free will;

and that God is the just judge of free will, the rewarder of the faithful and of those who submit to Him and are willing to be healed, but the condemner of the proud and the ungodly. Since, therefore, He came to heal sinners, He surely heals those who confess their sins, He heals the penitent; but no one repents when another has sinned — rather, if the repentance is just and true — whence the Lord Himself says: 'I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.' This very repentance shows that whatever we may sin belongs not to an alien nature, but to our own will. For if one man repents when another sins, that is not prudent but insane repentance. But according to you there are no sins at all; for the race of darkness does not sin, because it acts according to its own nature;

and the nature of light does not sin, because what it does, it is compelled to do. Therefore you find no sin which God may condemn, you find no sin which repentance can heal. But if there is repentance, there is also fault; if there is fault, there is also will; if there is will in sinning, there is no nature compelling it. Yet if those who cannot fulfill what they will suffer some infirmity — whence the Apostle says: 'I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members' — it is manifest that this has come from the transmitted stock of the first sin of Adam, and from evil habit.

For even today men form habits by free will, and once they have formed them, they cannot easily overcome them; they themselves, therefore, have brought it upon themselves that the law dwells against them in their members. But those who conceive the fear of God and through free will submit themselves to the best physician to be healed, and as to a good healer, so also to a merciful Creator, are healed through the humility of confession and of repentance. The proud, however, saying that they are righteous, or saying that it is not they themselves who sin, but something else in them and another nature that sins out of them — by their very pride become both incurable and experience the just judgment of God, who resists the proud but gives grace to the humble. It is not unfitting, therefore, that God should say:

'Go into the eternal fire' to those who have spurned His mercy through free will, and to say, 'Come, blessed of my Father, receive the kingdom' to those who through free will have received His faith, have confessed their sins, have done penance, have been displeased with themselves as they were, and have pleased Him as they were made to be through Him. You, therefore, now answer to what I asked — but let me obtain this from you, that we make no superfluous delays —: if nothing could harm God, why did He send us here? If it could harm Him, God is not incorruptible. FELIX said: If nothing could harm God, why did He send His Son here? AUGUSTINE said: See how you are always asking questions and are unwilling to answer what is asked.

Hear what you have asked — yet remember that you do not answer what I say, while I do answer. Nothing can harm God; but He sent His Son to be clothed in flesh and to appear to men, to heal sinners, and in that very flesh to suffer for us, which flesh He took from us. For in His own nature He could suffer nothing, because 'in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.' In this nature, since the Word was God, He could suffer nothing. But that He might be able to suffer for us, 'the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.' The Word was made flesh by taking flesh, not by being changed into flesh; for He assumed humanity, He did not lose divinity.

And so the same is God and the same is man: in the nature of God equal to the Father, in the nature of man made mortal; among us, for us, from us; remaining what He was, taking up what He was not, that He might free what He had made, not what He was. The passion of Christ, therefore, is not from need, but from mercy. For He offered us an example of patience out of ourselves — that is, to man out of man, to flesh out of flesh; yet He Himself was not made worse in that flesh, but the flesh was made better in Him. But the portion of your god, having taken up no flesh — for there was none in the race of darkness for whom He might suffer — descended in order to be held, to be bound, to be defiled, and to be purged more foully than it was bound. For I have already spoken of its purging.

All these things, the more unworthy they are, the easier they are certainly to understand, since they do not fall upon the nature of God. And far be it from a pious and faithful soul to believe such things about God — about the good God, the true God — as you believe: not the God you have found, but the one you have fabricated. Answer now: if nothing could harm God, since that pure substance of His, having taken up no flesh, was going to suffer nothing in itself — if it was going to suffer anything, not in the flesh which it had not taken up — why was it sent here according to your empty babblings? FELIX said: If nothing could be harmed in God by the adverse party, and nothing could be harmed in Christ by the adverse nature, to which Christ came to free it? For, as you say, He came for the sake of our liberty. Therefore we were in captivity.

If we were held in captivity, and Christ came for that reason, to free us — then he who held us in captivity was either a stranger to God, or a power of God. If it was a power of God who held us, why did that same one who held us send Christ? If it lay in his own choice to release us whenever he wished, why is Christ crucified? For it is hidden from no one that Christ was crucified. Why did they crucify Him? If it is a power of God, it did us no harm. If it was a power of God, we were not captives with him, but rather, as it were, we with our own prince, as a son with his parents, and not as Romans with barbarians. It was not fitting, therefore — since we were established with the power of God — for God to send His Son, so that it might be said that our liberator has come.

If, then, it appears that we were established with the power of God, the Apostle said: 'Christ has freed us from the curse of the law, for it is written: Cursed is everyone who hangs upon a tree.' For this the Apostle says. If this one who curses all who hang upon a tree is the power of God — for Christ hung upon a tree, and all His apostles, who were given over for His precept's sake — who then is this one who curses everyone who hangs upon a tree? AUGUSTINE said: Those whom Christ redeemed from the devil were held by the devil through their own consent, and had been placed under his condition by the just judgment of God, to whose seduction they had consented through free will.

But just as it lay in man's power to consent to the devil, so that he might be taken captive, so it lay in the devil's own power, when he was an angel, to sin, so that he might be changed into something worse. The angel, therefore, having become a sinner through free will, persuaded to sin the man who had free will; so that the devil, if he had not willed, would not have sinned, and the man, if he had not willed, would not have consented. But once he was now held by the one to whom he had consented, it was not because the devil had any power of his own, but because it was the just judgment of God to give into the devil's power the man who despised the power of God over himself and would not obey His law:

since, therefore, Christ thus found sinners under sin — sin being in the free will — finding sinners under sin, He redeemed those who confessed from the one who was exalting himself. But as to what is set down in the law, 'Cursed is everyone who hangs upon a tree,' whence the Apostle says, 'Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us; for it is written: Cursed is everyone who hangs upon a tree' — he does not reproach the law, but commends the mercy of the Lord. For because Adam had sinned, and all that mass and offspring of sin was accursed, but the Lord willed to take flesh from that same mass, so that by taking up mortality, which had come from punishment, He might loose death — a thing which came from grace — therefore the law says:

'Cursed is everyone who hangs upon a tree.' For death itself hung upon the tree, that death which came from the curse. As, therefore, by taking up death He slew death, so by taking up the curse He loosed the curse. Whence also the Apostle says: 'Knowing that our old man was crucified together with Him' — because from our old man, that is, from the lot of death which came by the desert of sin, He deigned to take up mortal flesh from the Virgin Mary, in which He might offer us an example both of passion and of resurrection — of passion to strengthen patience, of resurrection to arouse hope — that He might show us two lives in the flesh which He took up from our mortal life: the one toilsome, the other blessed;

the toilsome, which we must endure; the blessed, which we must hope for. But we endure the toilsome by the desert of our own sin; He, however, displayed it in His flesh, not by the desert of any iniquity of His own, but by the office of His mercy. For, that you may know the law to be good, which you wished to reproach, the Apostle Paul himself said in a certain place: 'The law entered in, that sin might abound.' Still he seems to reproach it; but hear what follows: 'But where,' he says, 'sin abounded, grace did much more abound.' For the law was given to proud men who attributed everything to their own strength, so that, since they could not fulfill the law that was given, they might be found transgressors, and having become guilty under the law, might beg mercy from the Author of the law.

Accordingly, a little later the same Apostle says: 'And so the law indeed is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.' But lest you say that he is speaking of some other commandment, in order to show that he is speaking of that of which he had said shortly before, 'The law entered in that sin might abound,' he at once posed a question to himself: 'Did then that which is good become death to me? God forbid; but sin, that it might appear sin, worked death in me through that which is good.' For there was sin, but sin did not appear; the law was given to the proud man, he acted against the law, and the sin which existed but did not appear became apparent. But sin becoming apparent humbled the proud man; the proud man being humbled became penitent; from penitence mercy was obtained.

You have heard, then, what you asked; now answer what I ask: Could the race of darkness do no harm to God? Why did He send His portion here to be mingled and defiled by the nature of demons? FELIX said: If we are in our own choice, let no one compel anyone; whenever I wish, I shall be a Christian. It lies subject to our will either to be a Christian or not to be. AUGUSTINE said: Since the will lies at hand for us, this too is manifest, and I have taught it from the divine Scriptures; a thing which even he who led you into this error was compelled to say, even against his will. But as to what you say — 'let no one be compelled; whenever I wish, I shall be a Christian' — plainly no one compels you; whenever you wish, so be it, since it was of your own will that you came here and of your own will that you disputed these things.

And woe to the evil will, if it is evil; peace to the good will, if it is good. For whether it be evil or good, it is will. A crown follows the good will, punishment follows the evil will. God is the judge of wills, but the Creator of natures. If, therefore, you think you are compelled to be a Christian, hear from us that you are by no means compelled. Rather consider what you hear, weigh it well; you are in your own will. Examine it as a prudent man — if indeed there is in you any prudence, even human — whether the things that have been said are supported by truth, whether you yourself have failed in the defense of your Mani, as appears; and whenever you wish, be what you are not yet, and cease to be what you are. FELIX said:

Behold, now briefly, as your Holiness said, lest we heap up pages: if it pleases you — the thing I asked for before — come here; show me the truth, so that what I hold may be shown not to be truth, and you have me ready to believe. AUGUSTINE said: Indeed, that what you hold is not truth is already sufficiently apparent. For far be it from the hearts of those who seek or hold truth to believe that God, compelled by necessity, plunged His own substance into the nature of demons to be bound and defiled; far be it from the faithful to believe that God, to free His own substance, turned Himself into males against females and into females against males, to provoke their lust;

far be it from the faithful to believe that God afterward damns forever His own substance, which He Himself plunged into the demons. Because this, then, is not truth, it is manifest. But since you wish the truth to be laid open to you in place of this falsehood, now expelled and refuted, if anything concerning the knowledge of the catholic faith still moves you, you can be instructed from the beginning of faith. For pious faith makes one fit for the perception of unchangeable truth; and whoever is unwilling to begin from this faith will remain outside in his pride, and cannot be led to that toward which he strives or wishes to arrive. But since that falsehood is now manifest, anathematize the falsehood, so that you may begin to be fit for knowing the truth. FELIX said: When it becomes apparent to me;

since it is not apparent to me, since the other has not been shown to me, I cannot anathematize. AUGUSTINE said: Is the error to be anathematized which says that God is corruptible, or is it not to be anathematized? FELIX said: Say it again. AUGUSTINE said: Is the error to be anathematized which says that God is corruptible, or is it not to be anathematized? FELIX said: Let it be inquired whether he says so. AUGUSTINE said: I asked this: whoever says that God is corruptible, is he to be anathematized, or not? FELIX said: Whoever says that God is corruptible is to be anathematized. Do you cast this at me? AUGUSTINE said: This I ask. FELIX said: You say that God is corruptible — not, however, what you first said, that He gave His portion to the adversaries? AUGUSTINE said: For the meantime, answer what I ask:

Whoever says that God is corruptible, is he to be anathematized, or not? FELIX said: Very much so. AUGUSTINE said: Whoever says that the nature and substance of God is corruptible, is he to be anathematized, or not? FELIX said: I did not understand what you said. AUGUSTINE said: I say this, which every man understands who does not pretend not to understand: whoever says that the nature and substance of God — that is, that very thing, whatever God is — is corruptible, is he to be anathematized, or not? FELIX said: He too is to be anathematized, if it shall have been proved to be true. AUGUSTINE said: I have not yet told you that Mani says the nature of God is corruptible; but I told you this, that whoever says this is to be anathematized. FELIX said: And I answered: yes, he too. AUGUSTINE said:

That portion which was mingled with the race of darkness — is it of the nature of God, or of some other nature? FELIX said: Of God. AUGUSTINE said: That which is of the nature of God — is it that which God is, or something else which is not God? FELIX said: So it is: that which is of God is God, according as it is also written: 'The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it'; for 'God is light, and in Him is no darkness.' AUGUSTINE said: You have answered well, that whatever is of the nature of God is God, and God is light, and in Him is no darkness; and such a light shone in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

Let us see, then, whether Mani does not say that a portion of God was comprehended by the darkness, and even held bound, and even stained and defiled, so as to need the mercy of a liberator and purger. But if he says these things, then according to you and according to your true confessions he is to be anathematized, because he says that a portion of God and the nature of God, which is God Himself, was comprehended by the darkness and bound and defiled — a thing which you yourself, speaking according to the Gospel, could not say; but you spoke truly, that the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. Mani, therefore, is to be anathematized, who said that the light was darkened in the darkness and the darkness comprehended it. FELIX said: