Against the Epistle of Manichæus, Called Fundamental 26
26 The Manichæans are Reduced to the Choice of a Tortuous, or Curved, or Straight Line of Junction. The Third Kind of Line Would Give Symmetry and Beauty Suitable to Both Regions PL 42, 190
What more is to be got? we have now heard what is on the border. Make what shape you please, draw any kind of lines you like, it is certain that the junction of this boundless mass of the region of darkness to the region of light must have been either by a straight line, or a curved, or a tortuous one. If the line of junction is tortuous the side of the region of light must also be tortuous; otherwise its straight side joined to a tortuous one would leave gaps of infinite depth, instead of having vacuity only above the land of darkness, as we were told before. And if there were such gaps, how much better it would have been for the region of light to have been still more distant, and to have had a greater vacuity between, so that the region of darkness might not touch it at all! Then there might have been such a gap of bottomless depth, that, on the rise of any mischief in that race, although the chiefs of darkness might have the foolhardy wish to cross over, they would fall headlong into the gap (for bodies cannot fly without air to support them); and as there is infinite space downwards, they could do no more harm, though they might live for ever, for they would be for ever falling. Again, if the line of junction was a curved one, the region of light must also have had the disfigurement of a curve to answer it. Or if the land of darkness were curved inwards like a theatre, there would be as much disfigurement in the corresponding line in the region of light. Or if the region of darkness had a curved line, and the region of light a straight one, they cannot have touched at all points. And certainly, as I said before, it would have been better if they had not touched, and if there was such a gap between that the regions might be kept distinctly separate, and that rash evildoers might fall headlong so as to be harmless. If, then, the line of junction was a straight one, there remain, of course, no more gaps or grooves, but, on the contrary, so perfect a junction as to make the greatest possible peace and harmony between the two regions. What more beautiful or more suitable than that one side should meet the other in a straight line, without bends or breaks to disturb the natural and permanent connection throughout endless space and endless duration? And even though there was a separation, the straight sides of both regions would be beautiful in themselves, as being straight; and besides, even in spite of an interval, their correspondence, as running parallel, though not meeting, would give a symmetry to both. With the addition of the junction, both regions become perfectly regular and harmonious; for nothing can be devised more beautiful in description or in conception than this junction of two straight lines.
De numero naturarum in phantasmate Manichaei. Deinde volo mihi dicatur, quando lego, Deum Patrem, et supra lucidam beatamque terram fundata regna ejus, utrum unius et ejusdem substantiae atque naturae sint, et Pater, et regna ejus, et terra. Quod si ita est, jam non quasi aliam naturam, quae quasi corpus sit Dei, cuneus ille gentis tenebrarum diffindit et penetrat; quod quidem ipsum esset ineffabili deformitate turpissimum: sed ipsam omnino naturam Dei cuneus ille terrae tenebrarum diffindit et penetrat. Rogo, cogitate ista: homines estis; rogo, cogitate ista et fugite, taliumque phantasmatum sacrilegia, dilaniatis, si fieri potest, pectoribus, de fide vestra eradicate atque propellite. An dicturi estis, non unius ejusdemque naturae illa tria esse, sed alterius Patrem, alterius regna, alterius terram, ut suas naturas atque substantias habeant singula diversas, et excellentiae gradibus ordinatas? Quod si verum est, non duas, sed quatuor naturas Manichaeus praedicare debuerat. Si autem unam naturam habet Pater et regna, terra vero sola diversam, tres naturae fuerant praedicandae. Aut si propterea duas dicere maluit, quia terra tenebrarum non pertinet ad Deum, quaero quomodo ad Deum lucis terra pertineat. Si enim et naturam habet diversam, et non eam genuit, neque fecit; non ad eum pertinet, et in alieno regna ejus locata sunt. Aut si propterea pertinet quia vicina est, pertineat et terra tenebrarum, quae terram lucis non modo vicinitate contingit, sed etiam penetratione dissulcat. Si autem genuit eam, non eam credi oportet diversam habere naturam. Quod enim genuit Deus, hoc oportet credi esse quod Deus est, sicut de unigenito Filio in Catholica creditur. Itaque ad illam fugiendam et detestandam turpitudinem vos necessitas revocat, ut non terram quasi aliam atque diversam, sed ipsam Dei naturam niger ille cuneus diffindat. Quod si non genuit, sed fecit eam Deus, quaero unde fecerit. Si de se ipso, quid aliud est quam genuisse? Si de aliena aliqua natura, quaero utrum bona an mala. Si bona, erat ergo aliqua natura bona, quae non pertinebat ad Deum: quod nullo modo dicere audebitis. Si autem mala, non ergo illa gens tenebrarum sola natura mala erat. An forte jam inde assumpserat partem aliquam Deus, quam in terram lucis converteret, et super illam sua regna stabiliret? De tota ergo id fecisset, ut jam olim mala natura nulla esset. Quod si non de aliena substantia fecit terram lucis, restat ut eam de nihilo fecerit.