Against the Epistle of Manichæus, Called Fundamental 35
35 Evil Alone is Corruption. Corruption is Not Nature, But Contrary to Nature. Corruption Implies Previous Good PL 42, 197
39. For who can doubt that the whole of that which is called evil is nothing else than corruption? Different evils may, indeed, be called by different names; but that which is the evil of all things in which any evil is perceptible is corruption. So the corruption of an educated mind is ignorance; the corruption of a prudent mind is imprudence; the corruption of a just mind, injustice; the corruption of a brave mind, cowardice; the corruption of a calm, peaceful mind, cupidity, fear, sorrow, pride. Again, in a living body, the corruption of health is pain and disease; the corruption of strength is exhaustion; the corruption of rest is toil. Again, in any corporeal thing, the corruption of beauty is ugliness; the corruption of straightness is crookedness; the corruption of order is confusion; the corruption of entireness is disseverance, or fracture, or diminution. It would be long and laborious to mention by name all the corruptions of the things here mentioned, and of countless other things; for in many cases the words may apply to the mind as well as to the body, and in innumerable cases the corruption has a distinct name of its own. But enough has been said to show that corruption does harm only as displacing the natural condition; and so, that corruption is not nature, but against nature. And if corruption is the only evil to be found anywhere, and if corruption is not nature, no nature is evil.
40. But if, perchance, you cannot follow this, consider again, that whatever is corrupted is deprived of some good: for if it were not corrupted, it would be incorrupt; or if it could not in any way be corrupted, it would be incorruptible. Now, if corruption is an evil, both incorruption and incorruptibility must be good things. We are not, however, speaking at present of incorruptible nature, but of things which admit of corruption, and which, while not corrupted, may be called incorrupt, but not incorruptible. That alone can be called incorruptible which not only is not corrupted, but also cannot in any part be corrupted. Whatever things, then, being incorrupt, but liable to corruption, begin to be corrupted, are deprived of the good which they had as incorrupt. Nor is this a slight good, for corruption is a great evil. And the continued increase of corruption implies the continued presence of good, of which they may be deprived. Accordingly, the natures supposed to exist in the region of darkness must have been either corruptible or incorruptible. If they were incorruptible, they were in possession of a good than which nothing is higher. If they were corruptible, they were either corrupted or not corrupted. If they were not corrupted, they were incorrupt, to say which of anything is to give it great praise. If they were corrupted, they were deprived of this great good of incorruption; but the deprivation implies the previous possession of the good they are deprived of; and if they possessed this good, they were not the perfection of evil, and consequently all the Manichæan story is a falsehood.
Manichaeus ex iis quae hic vidit, ordinavit sua phantasmata. Nam ille Manichaeus, sicut voluit naturas quas hic didicit ordinare in phantasmatibus suis, velut in gente tenebrarum, omnino falsus esse convincitur. Primo, quia tenebrae nihil possunt gignere, ut dictum est. Sed non tales, inquit, erant illae tenebrae, quales hic nosti. Unde ergo me de illis doces? An forte tam verbosus doctrinae pollicitator cogis ut credam? Sed fac me credere. Illud tamen scio, quod si non habebant aliquam speciem, sicut istae non habent, nihil generare potuerunt: si autem habebant, meliores erant. Tu autem cum dicis non fuisse tales, quasi pejores aliquas credi cupis. Posses dicere etiam silentium, quod sic est auribus ut tenebrae oculis, aliqua ibi surda vel muta animalia genuisse: ut cum tibi diceretur non esse aliquam naturam silentium, responderes, Sed non tale silentium, quale hic nosti; ut omnino quod velles diceres eis quos semel, ut tibi crederent, decepisses. Quanquam id quod eum induxit, ut in tenebris serpentia nata esse confingeret, in ipsis quidem primordiis nascentium potuit bene animadverti. Sed sunt serpentes qui tam acute vident, et sic praesentia lucis exsultant, ut gravissimum testimonium contra eum dicere videantur. Deinde in aquis natantia facile fuit hic discere, et ad illa transferre phantasmata; sic et in ventis volantia, quoniam hujus crassioris aeris impulsus in quo aves volitant, ventus dicitur: in igne vero quadrupedia unde illi fingere in mentem venerit nescio. Et tamen non frustra hoc dixit, sed parum attendit, et erravit nimis. Hanc enim rationem solent reddere, quod quadrupedes edaces sint, et in concubitum multum ferveant. Sed multi homines edacitate sua superant quemlibet quadrupedem, qui certe bipedes sunt, quos non ignis, sed fumi esse filios dicit. Anseribus vero non facile quidquam edacius invenitur: quos sive in fumo ponat, quia bipedes sunt; sive in aquis, quia natare amant; sive in ventis, quia pennati sunt, et interdum volant: ad ignem certe secundum ejus distinctionem non pertinent. Quod autem attinet ad fervorem concubitus, credo eum animadvertisse hinnientes equos, et saepe morsis frenis raptos in feminas: quod animadversum dum vult cito scribere, non attendit passerem parietinum, in cujus comparatione quivis admissarius frigidissimus invenitur. Bipedes vero in fumo cum ab eis quaeritur quare ordinaverit, respondent elatum et superbum esse bipedum genus: hinc enim homines originem trahere dicunt: et quoniam fumus globosus et quasi tumidus in auras erigitur, superbis esse similem non absurde attenderunt. Quae animadversio sufficere debuit ad aliquam similitudinem dandam de superbis hominibus, sive allegoriam vel formandam vel intelligendam: non tamen ut ideo bipedes animantes in fumo et de fumo nati esse credantur. Nam et in pulvere nasci debuerunt, quia saepe non minore ambitu et elatione surgit in coelum; et in nebulis, quia plerumque de terra ita exhalantur, ut longe intuentibus incertum etiam faciant, fumusne an nebulae sint. Postremo, cur in aquis et ventis de habitandi patientia ad habitatores ductum est argumentum, quia videmus et natantia in aquis, et volantia in ventis vivere: ignis vero et fumus non deterruit hominem mentientem, ut puderet eum tales ibi habitatores constituere, quibus nihil constitueretur absurdius? Nam quadrupedem ignis incendit atque corrumpit, et bipedes fumus offocat atque necat. Vel hic certe cogitur fateri, se meliores dicere in gente tenebrarum istas fuisse naturas, ubi vult omnia pejora credi. Siquidem ibi gignebat ignis quadrupedem et nutriebat, et continebat innoxie vel etiam commodissime. Similiter et fumus bipedes suos clementissimo sinu editos, non solum sine molestia, sed vitaliter atque indulgenter usque in illum principatum educaverat et continebat. Ita ostenduntur ista mendacia, animadversione rerum quae videntur in mundo, sed minus diligenti minusque solerti carnali sensu concepta, et phantasmatibus parturita, et temeritate edita atque conscripta haereticorum numerum auxisse.