# Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental - Author: [Augustine of Hippo](https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/authors/augustine-of-hippo/) - Latin title: *Contra epistulam Manichaei quam vocant Fundamenti* - Date: ca. 396–397 (approximate) - Source: Joseph Zycha, ed., Sancti Aureli Augustini opera, sect. VI, pars 1, CSEL 25.1 (Vienna: Tempsky; Prague: Tempsky; Leipzig: Freytag, 1891) (Latin text: Joseph Zycha, Contra epistulam Manichaei quam vocant Fundamenti (CSEL 25.1, 1891), digitized by Open Greek and Latin (csel-dev, University of Leipzig), CC BY-SA 4.0) - Translation: Claude, from the original text, unless a passage says otherwise; each passage below gives the translator - Work page: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/ - Passages: 43 ## Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental 1 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/1/#p-1 - Source: CSEL 25:193–194 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine prays to refute the Manichaeans in a spirit that seeks their correction, not their destruction, by gentle persuasion rather than persecution. ### Latin text Unum uerum deum omnipotentem, ex quo omnia, per quem omnia. in quo omnia, et rogaui et rogo, ut in refellenda et reuincenda haeresi uestra, Manichaei. cui et uos fortasse inprudentius quam malitiosius adhaesistis, det mihi mentem pacatam atque tranquillam et magis de uestra correctione quam de subuersione cogitantem. quamquam enim dominus per suos seruos regna subuertat erroris, ipsos tamen homines, in quantum homines sunt, emendandos esse potius quam perdendos iubet. et quicquid diuinitus ante illud ultimum iudicium uindicatur, siue per inprobos siue per iustos siue per nescientes siue per scientes siue occulte siue palam: non ad interitum hominum, sed ad medicinam ualere credendum est; quam qui respuerint, extremo subplicio praeparantur. quapropter cum in hac uniuersitate rerum alia sint, quae ualent ad corporalem uindictam, sicut ignis et uenenum et morbus et cetera huiusmodi, alia, quibus apud se ipsum non molestiis corporis sui, sed cupiditatum suarum laqueis animus puniatur, sicut est damnum, exilium, orbitas, contumelia et his similia; quaedam uero non sint cruciamenta, sed quasi fomenta et lenimenta languentium, ut sunt consolationes, cohortationes, disputationes et quaecumque sunt alia: horum omnium quaedam etiam per malos nescientes operatur summa dei iustitia, quaedam autem per scientes bonos. nostrum igitur fuit eligere et optare meliora, ut ad uestram correctionem aditum haberemus, non in contentione et aemulatione et persecutionibus, sed mansuete consolando, beniuole cohortando, leniter disputando. sicut scriptum est: seruum autem domini non oportet litigare, sed mitem esse ad omnes, docibilem, patientem, in modestia corripientem diuersa sentientes. nostrum ergo fuit uelle has partes expetere; dei est uolentibus et petentibus donare, quod bonum est. ### English translation (Claude) I have prayed, and I still pray, to the one true God almighty, from whom are all things, through whom are all things, in whom are all things, that in refuting and overcoming your heresy, Manichaeans (to which you too have perhaps adhered more through imprudence than through malice), he may give me a peaceful and tranquil mind, intent more on your correction than on your overthrow. For although the Lord through his servants overthrows the kingdoms of error, yet he commands that the men themselves, insofar as they are men, be corrected rather than destroyed. And whatever punishment is inflicted by God before that last judgment, whether through the wicked or through the just, through those who do not know it or through those who know it, secretly or openly, must be believed to serve not for men’s destruction but for their healing; those who reject this healing are being prepared for the final punishment. Therefore, since in this universe of things some things serve for bodily punishment, such as fire and poison and disease and other things of this kind; others by which the soul is punished within itself, not by troubles of its body but by the snares of its own desires, such as loss, exile, bereavement, insult, and the like; while some are not torments at all but, as it were, poultices and soothing remedies for the sick, such as consolations, exhortations, discussions, and whatever else there is of this kind: of all these the supreme justice of God works some even through wicked men who do not know it, and some through good men who know it. It was ours, then, to choose and desire the better things, so that we might find a way to your correction not in strife and rivalry and persecutions, but by gentle consoling, kindly exhorting, and mild discussion, as it is written: “The servant of the Lord must not quarrel, but be gentle toward all, teachable, patient, correcting with modesty those who think otherwise.” It was ours, then, to wish to seek this part; it is God’s to give what is good to those who wish and ask. ### Scripture references - Rom 11:36: allusion, high confidence - 2 Tim 2:24: quotation, high confidence - 2 Tim 2:25: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - “From whom … in whom are all things” echoes Rom 11:36 (cf. 1 Cor 8:6). The quotation is 2 Tim 2:24–25 in Augustine’s Latin. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Ep. fund. 1 (CSEL 25:193–194; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/1/#p-1). ## Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental 2 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/1/#p-2 - Source: CSEL 25:194–195 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Only those who do not know how hard it is to find the truth and escape error should be harsh with the Manichaeans. ### Latin text Illi in uos saeuiant. qui nesciunt, cum quo labore uerum inueniatur et quam difficile caueantur errores; illi in uos saeuiant, qui nesciunt, quam rarum et arduum sit carnalia phantasmata piae mentis serenitate superare; illi in uos saeuiant, qui nesciunt, cum quanta difficultate sanetur oculus interioris hominis, ut possit intueri solem suum — non istum, quem colitis caelesti corpore, oculis carneis et hominum et pecorum fulgentem atque radiantem, sed illum, de quo dictum est per prophetam: ortus est mihi iustitiae sol, et de quo dictum est in euangelio: erat lumen uerum, quod inluminat omnem hominem uenientem in hunc mundum —: illi in uos saeuiant, qui nesciunt, quibus suspiriis et gemitibus fiat. ut ex quantulacumque parte possit intellegi deus; postremo illi in uos saeuiant, qui numquam tali errore decepti sunt, quali uos deceptos uident. ### English translation (Claude) Let those rage against you who do not know with what labor the truth is found and how hard it is to avoid errors; let those rage against you who do not know how rare and arduous it is to overcome carnal phantasms by the serenity of a godly mind; let those rage against you who do not know with what difficulty the eye of the inner man is healed so that it can gaze upon its own sun (not that sun which you worship as a heavenly body, shining and radiant to the fleshly eyes of men and beasts alike, but the one of whom it was said through the prophet, “The sun of righteousness has risen for me,” and of whom it was said in the Gospel, “He was the true light, which enlightens every man coming into this world”); let those rage against you who do not know with what sighs and groans it comes about that God can be understood in even the smallest part; finally, let those rage against you who have never been deceived by such an error as they see you deceived by. ### Scripture references - Mal 4:2 (3:20 LXX): quotation, medium confidence - John 1:9: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - The sun the Manichaeans worship is the visible sun. The prophetic quotation is Mal 4:2 (3:20 LXX), in a form adapted by Augustine (“has risen for me”); the Gospel quotation is John 1:9. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Ep. fund. 2 (CSEL 25:194–195; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/1/#p-2). ## Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental 3 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/1/#p-3 - Source: CSEL 25:195–196 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine, once a Manichaean himself, cannot be harsh with them and asks that both sides lay aside arrogance and seek the truth together. ### Latin text Ego autem. qui diu multumque iactatus tandem respicere potui, quid sit illa sinceritas, quae sine inanis fabulae narratione percipitur; qui uanas imaginationes animi mei uariis opinionibus erroribusque conlectas uix miser merui domino opitulante conuincere: qui me ad detergendam caliginem mentis tam tarde clementissimo medico uocanti blandientique subieci; qui diu fleui, ut incommutabilis et inmaculabilis substantia concinentibus diuinis libris sese mihi persuadere intrinsecus dignaretur; qui denique omnia illa figmenta, quae uos diuturna consuetudine inplicatos et constrictos tenent, et quaesiui curiose et adtente audiui et temere credidi et instanter, quibus potui, persuasi et aduersus alios pertinaciter animoseque defendi: saeuire in uos omnino non possum, quos sicut me ipsum illo tempore ita nunc debeo sustinere et tanta patientia uobiscum agere. quanta mecum egerunt proximi mei, cum in uestro dogmate rabiosus et caecus errarem. Ut autem facilius mitescatis et non inimico animo uobisque pernicioso mihi aduersemini, illud quouis iudice inpetrare me oportet a uobis, ut ex utraque parte omnis adrogantia deponatur. nemo nostrum dicat iam se inuenisse ueritatem; sic eam quaeramus, quasi ab utrisque nesciatur. ita enim diligenter et concorditer quaeri poterit, si nulla temeraria praesumptione inuenta et cognita esse credatur. aut si hoc a uobis inpetrare non possum, saltem illud concedite, ut uos tamquam incognitos nunc primum audiam, nunc primum discutiam. iustum puto esse, quod postulo, hac sane lege seruata, ut uobiscum non orem, non conuenticula celebrem. non Manichaei nomen accipiam. si non mihi de omnibus rebus ad salutem animae pertinentibus sine ulla caligine rationem perspicuam dederitis. ### English translation (Claude) But I, who after being long and greatly tossed about was at last able to see what that pure truth is which is perceived without the telling of an empty fable; who, wretched as I was, scarcely managed with the Lord’s help to refute the vain imaginings of my mind, gathered from various opinions and errors; who submitted so slowly to the most merciful physician as he called and coaxed me to wipe away the darkness of my mind; who wept long that the unchangeable and undefilable substance might deign to persuade me inwardly, with the divine books in harmony; who, finally, sought out with curiosity, listened to attentively, believed rashly, urged insistently on whomever I could, and defended stubbornly and spiritedly against others all those fictions which hold you entangled and bound by long habit: I cannot rage against you at all. I must now bear with you, who are as I myself was at that time, and deal with you with as much patience as my neighbors showed me when I wandered, raving and blind, in your doctrine. But so that you may grow gentler and not oppose me with a hostile spirit that harms yourselves, I must obtain this from you, with anyone at all as judge: that all arrogance be laid aside on both sides. Let none of us say that he has already found the truth; let us seek it as though it were unknown to both. For it can be sought diligently and in harmony only if it is not believed, by rash presumption, to have been already found and known. Or if I cannot obtain this from you, at least grant me this: that I may hear you as if I did not know you, and examine you now for the first time. I think what I ask is just, on this condition, of course: that I will not pray with you, will not attend your meetings, and will not take the name of Manichaean, unless you have given me a clear account, free of all obscurity, of everything that pertains to the salvation of the soul. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Ep. fund. 3 (CSEL 25:195–196; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/1/#p-3). ## Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental 4 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/1/#p-4 - Source: CSEL 25:196–197 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine lists what holds him in the Catholic Church (the consent of nations, its authority, the succession of bishops from Peter’s see, and its very name) unless the Manichaeans can show the truth plainly. ### Latin text In catholica enim ecclesia, ut omittam sincerissimam sapientiam, ad cuius cognitionem pauci spiritales in hac uita perueniunt, ut eam ex minima quidem parte, quia homines sunt, sed tamen sine dubitatione cognoscant — ceteram quippe turbam non intellegendi uiuacitas, sed credendi simplicitas tutissimam facit — ut ergo hanc omittam sapientiam, quam in ecclesia esse catholica non creditis. multa sunt alia, quae in eius gremio me iustissime teneant. tenet consensio populorum atque gentium; tenet auctoritas miraculis inchoata, spe nutrita, caritate aucta, uetustate firmata; tenet ab ipsa sede Petri apostoli, cui pascendas oues suas post resurrectionem dominus commendauit, usque ad praesentem episcopatum successio sacerdotum; tenet postremo ipsum catholicae nomen. quod non sine causa inter tam multas haereses sic ista ecclesia sola obtinuit. ut cum omnes haeretici se catholicos dici uelint, quaerenti tamen alicui peregrino, ubi ad catholicam conueniatur, nullus haereticorum uel basilicam suam uel domum audeat ostendere. ista ergo tot et tanta nominis christiani carissima uincula recte hominem tenent credentem in catholica ecclesia, etiamsi propter nostrae intellegentiae tarditatem uel uitae meritum ueritas nondum se apertissime ostendat. apud uos autem, ubi nihil horum est, quod me inuitet ac teneat, sola personat pollicitatio ueritatis: quae quidem si tam manifesta monstratur, ut in dubium uenire non possit, praeponenda est illis omnibus rebus, quibus in catholica teneor; si autem tantummodo promittitur et non exhibetur, nemo me mouebit ab ea fide, quae animum meum tot et tantis nexibus christianae religioni astringit. ### English translation (Claude) For in the Catholic Church (to pass over that most pure wisdom to the knowledge of which a few spiritual men attain in this life, so as to know it in the smallest part indeed, since they are men, but yet without doubt; for as to the rest of the multitude, it is not liveliness of understanding but simplicity of believing that makes them most safe), to pass over, then, this wisdom, which you do not believe to be in the Catholic Church, there are many other things that most justly keep me in her bosom. I am held by the agreement of peoples and nations; I am held by an authority begun with miracles, nourished by hope, increased by love, made firm by age; I am held by the succession of priests from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord after his resurrection entrusted the feeding of his sheep, down to the present episcopate; I am held, finally, by the very name of Catholic, which not without reason this Church alone has so kept among so many heresies that, although all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet if a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house. These, then, so many and so great, are the most precious bonds of the Christian name that rightly hold a man who believes in the Catholic Church, even if, because of the slowness of our understanding or the merit of our life, the truth does not yet show itself most clearly. With you, however, where there is none of these things to invite and hold me, only the promise of truth sounds. If indeed it is shown so plainly that it cannot be doubted, it is to be preferred to all those things by which I am held in the Catholic Church; but if it is only promised and not displayed, no one will move me from that faith which binds my mind to the Christian religion by so many and such strong ties. ### Scripture references - John 21:15–17: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - “Priests” (sacerdotum) here means bishops, as “episcopate” shows. The charge to Peter alludes to John 21:15–17. This is Augustine’s own statement of what holds him in the Catholic Church. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Ep. fund. 4 (CSEL 25:196–197; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/1/#p-4). ## Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental 5 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/1/#p-5 - Source: CSEL 25:197–199 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine refuses to accept Mani’s claim to be an apostle: he believed the Gospel on the authority of the Catholic Church, which forbids him to believe Mani, and the Gospel and Acts name no such apostle. ### Latin text Uideamus igitur, quid me doceat Manichaeus, et potissimum illum consideremus librum, quem Fundamenti epistulam dicitis, ubi totum paene, quod creditis, continetur. ipsa enim nobis illo tempore miseris quando lecta est, inluminati dicebamur a uobis. certe sic incipit: Manichaeus apostolus Iesu Christi prouidentia dei patris. haec sunt salubria uerba de perenni ac uiuo fonte. iam cum bona patientia, si placet, adtendite, quid quaeram. non credo esse istum apostolum Christi. quaeso, ne suscenseatis et male dicere incipiatis. nostis enim me statuisse nihil a uobis prolatum temere credere. quaero ergo, quis sit iste Manichaeus. respondebitis: apostolus Christi. non credo; quid iam dicas aut facias, non habebis. promittebas enim scientiam ueritatis, et nunc quod nescio cogis, ut credam. euangelium mihi fortasse lecturus es et inde Manichaei personam temptabis adserere. si ergo inuenires aliquem, qui euangelio nondum credit, quid faceres dicenti tibi: non credo? ego uero euangelio non crederem, nisi me catholicae ecclesiae conmoueret auctoritas. quibus ergo obtemperaui dicentibus: crede euangelio, cur eis non obtemperem dicentibus mihi: noli credere Manichaeis? elige, quid uelis. si dixeris: crede catholicis, ipsi me monent, ut nullam fidem adcommodem uobis; quapropter non possum illis credens nisi tibi non credere. si dixeris: noli catholicis credere, non recte facies per euangelium me cogere ad Manichaei fidem, quia ipsi euangelio catholicis praedicantibus credidi. si autem dixeris: recte credidisti catholicis laudantibus euangelium, sed non recte illis credidisti uituperantibus Manichaeum, usque adeo me stultum putas, ut nulla reddita ratione, quod uis credam, quod non uis. non credam? multo enim iustius atque cautius facio, si catholicis quoniam semel credidi, ad te non transeo, nisi me non credere iusseris, sed apertissime ac manifestissime scire aliquid feceris. quocirca si mihi rationem redditurus es. dimitte euangelium. si ad euangelium te tenes, ego me ad eos teneam, quibus praecipientibus euangelio credidi, et his iubentibus tibi omnino non credam. quodsi forte in euangelio aliquid apertissimum de Manichaei apostolatu inuenire potueris, infirmabis mihi catholicorum auctoritatem, qui iubent, ut tibi non credam: qua infirmata iam nec euangelio credere potero. quia per eos illi credideram. ita nihil apud me ualebit, quicquid inde protuleris. quapropter si nihil manifestum de Manichaei apostolatu in euangelio reperitur, catholicis potius credam quam tibi. si autem aliquid inde manifestum pro Manichaeo legeris, nec illis nec tibi: illis, quia de te mihi mentiti sunt; tibi autem. quia eam scripturam mihi profers, cui per illos credideram, qui mihi mentiti sunt. sed absit. ut euangelio ego non credam. illi enim credens non inuenio, quomodo possim etiam tibi credere; apostolorum enim nomina, quae ibi leguntur. non inter se continent nomen Manichaei. in locum autem traditoris Christi quis successerit, in apostolorum actibus legimus: cui libro necesse est me credere, si credo euangelio. quoniam utramque scripturam similiter mihi catholica commendat auctoritas. in eodem etiam libro de uocatione atque apostolatu Pauli uulgatissimam tenemus historiam. lege mihi iam, si potes, in euangelio, ubi Manichaeus apostolus dictus est, uel in aliquo alio libro, cui me iam credidisse confiteor. an illud lecturus es, ubi spiritum sanctum paracletum dominus promisit apostolis? de quo loco uide, quot et quanta sint, quae me reuocent et deterreant, ne Manichaeo credam. ### English translation (Claude) Let us see, then, what Mani teaches me, and above all let us consider that book which you call the Letter of the Foundation, in which nearly all that you believe is contained. For when it was read to us, wretched as we were at that time, you called us enlightened. It certainly begins thus: “Mani, apostle of Jesus Christ by the providence of God the Father. These are the words of salvation from the everlasting and living fountain.” Now, with good patience, if you please, attend to what I ask. I do not believe that this man is an apostle of Christ. Please do not be angry and begin to curse. For you know that I have resolved to believe nothing you put forward rashly. I ask, then, who this Mani is. You will answer: an apostle of Christ. I do not believe it. Now you will have nothing to say or do. For you promised knowledge of the truth, and now you force me to believe what I do not know. Perhaps you will read me the Gospel and try from it to establish the person of Mani. If, then, you were to meet someone who does not yet believe the Gospel, what would you do if he said to you, “I do not believe”? But I would not believe the Gospel unless the authority of the Catholic Church moved me. Since, then, I obeyed those who said, “Believe the Gospel,” why should I not obey them when they say to me, “Do not believe the Manichaeans”? Choose what you wish. If you say, “Believe the Catholics,” they themselves warn me to give no credence to you; so in believing them I cannot but disbelieve you. If you say, “Do not believe the Catholics,” you will not be right to use the Gospel to force me to faith in Mani, because it was at the Catholics’ preaching that I believed the Gospel itself. But if you say, “You were right to believe the Catholics when they praised the Gospel, but not right to believe them when they condemned Mani,” do you think me so foolish as to believe what you wish and not believe what you do not wish, without any reason given? For I act much more justly and cautiously if, having once believed the Catholics, I do not cross over to you, unless you stop bidding me to believe and instead make me know something most openly and clearly. Therefore, if you are going to give me a reason, leave the Gospel aside. If you hold to the Gospel, I will hold to those at whose bidding I believed the Gospel, and at their command I will not believe you at all. But if perhaps you could find in the Gospel something perfectly clear about the apostleship of Mani, you will weaken for me the authority of the Catholics, who bid me not to believe you; and once that is weakened, I shall no longer be able to believe even the Gospel, because it was through them that I had believed it. So nothing you bring forward from it will have any weight with me. Therefore, if nothing clear about the apostleship of Mani is found in the Gospel, I will believe the Catholics rather than you. But if you read from it something clear in favor of Mani, I will believe neither them nor you: not them, because they lied to me about you; and not you, because you bring me that Scripture which I had believed through those who lied to me. But far be it from me not to believe the Gospel. For believing it, I find no way in which I can believe you as well. For the names of the apostles that are read there do not include the name of Mani. And who succeeded to the place of Christ’s betrayer we read in the Acts of the Apostles, a book I must believe if I believe the Gospel, since Catholic authority commends both Scriptures to me alike. In the same book we also have the very well known account of Paul’s calling and apostleship. Read me now, if you can, where in the Gospel Mani is called an apostle, or in any other book that I have admitted I already believe. Or will you read the passage where the Lord promised the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, to the apostles? Concerning that passage, see how many and how great are the considerations that call me back and deter me from believing Mani. ### Scripture references - Matt 10:2–4: allusion, medium confidence - Acts 1:15–26: allusion, high confidence - Acts 9:1–19: allusion, high confidence - John 14:16: allusion, high confidence - John 14:26: allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - The quotation is the opening of Mani’s Letter of the Foundation (Epistula fundamenti), which survives mainly in Augustine’s quotations in this work. - “I would not believe the Gospel unless the authority of the Catholic Church moved me” is translated exactly as written; the argument is addressed to the Manichaeans, who appealed to the Gospel while rejecting the Church that handed it on. - The lists of the apostles (e.g. Matt 10:2–4), the choice of Matthias (Acts 1:15–26), Paul’s calling (Acts 9), and the promise of the Paraclete (John 14:16, 26) are alluded to. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Ep. fund. 5 (CSEL 25:197–199; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/1/#p-5). ## Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental 6 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/1/#p-6 - Source: CSEL 25:199–200 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Mani calls himself apostle of Jesus Christ rather than of the Paraclete because he wanted to be taken for the Paraclete himself, as the man Christ was taken up by the Son of God. ### Latin text Quaero enim, cur epistulae huius principium sit: Manichaeus apostolus Iesu Christi, et non sit: paracletus apostolus Iesu Christi. si autem missus a Christo paracletus Manichaeum misit, cur lego: Manichaeus apostolus Iesu Christi, et non potius: Manichaeus apostolus paracleti? si dicis ipsum esse Christum, qui est etiam spiritus sanctus, contradicis ipsi scripturae, ubi dominus ait: et alium paracletum mittam uobis. si autem ideo Christi nomen recte positum putas, non quia ipse est Christus, qui et paracletus, sed quia eiusdem sunt ambo substantiae, id est. non quia unus est, sed quia unum sunt, poterat et Paulus dicere: Paulus apostolus dei patris, quia dixit dominus: ego et pater unum sumus. nusquam hoc dicit, sed nec quisquam apostolorum patris se apostolum scribit. quid sibi ergo uult ista nouitas? nonne uobis uidetur nescio quam redolere fallaciam? certe si nihil interesse arbitratus est, cur non uarie in aliis epistulis apostolum Christi se nominat, in aliis paracleti? sed Christi semper audiui, quotienscumque audiui, paracleti autem nec semel. quid hoc esse causae arbitramur, nisi quia illa superbia, mater omnium haereticorum, inpulit hominem, ut non missum se ab paracleto uellet uideri, sed ita susceptum, ut ipse paracletus diceretur? sicut Iesus Christus homo non a filio dei, id est uirtute et sapientia dei. per quam facta sunt omnia, missus est, sed ita susceptus secundum catholicam fidem, ut ipse esset dei filius, id est in illo ipso dei sapientia sanandis peccatoribus adpareret: sic se ille uoluit ab spiritu sancto, quem Christus promisit. uideri esse susceptum. ut iam cum audimus Manichaeum spiritum sanctum, intellegamus apostolum Iesu Christi, id est missum a Iesu Christo, qui eum se missurum esse promisit. singularis audacia ista et ineffabile sacrilegium! ### English translation (Claude) For I ask why the beginning of this letter is “Mani, apostle of Jesus Christ,” and not “The Paraclete, apostle of Jesus Christ.” But if the Paraclete sent by Christ sent Mani, why do I read “Mani, apostle of Jesus Christ,” and not rather “Mani, apostle of the Paraclete”? If you say that Christ himself is the one who is also the Holy Spirit, you contradict Scripture itself, where the Lord says, “And I will send you another Paraclete.” But if you think the name of Christ is rightly put not because Christ is himself also the Paraclete but because both are of the same substance (that is, not because he is one, but because they are one), then Paul too could have said, “Paul, apostle of God the Father,” since the Lord said, “I and the Father are one.” He nowhere says this, nor does any of the apostles write that he is an apostle of the Father. What, then, does this novelty mean? Does it not seem to you to smell of some deceit? Certainly, if he thought it made no difference, why does he not vary, calling himself apostle of Christ in some letters and of the Paraclete in others? But I always heard “of Christ,” as often as I heard it, and “of the Paraclete” not even once. What do we think is the reason for this, unless that pride, the mother of all heretics, drove the man to wish to appear not as sent by the Paraclete but as so taken up by him that he himself would be called the Paraclete? Just as the man Jesus Christ was not sent by the Son of God, that is, by the power and wisdom of God, through whom all things were made, but was so taken up, according to the Catholic faith, that he himself was the Son of God, that is, that in him the very wisdom of God appeared for the healing of sinners: so Mani wished to seem to have been taken up by the Holy Spirit whom Christ promised, so that when we hear “Mani” we should understand the Holy Spirit, and by “apostle of Jesus Christ” understand one sent by Jesus Christ, who promised that he would send him. Singular audacity, and unspeakable sacrilege! ### Scripture references - John 14:16: quotation, high confidence - John 10:30: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 1:24: allusion, high confidence - John 1:3: allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - “Not because he is one, but because they are one”: Latin unus (masculine, one person) against unum (neuter, one thing), the usual Latin formula for distinct persons of one substance. Quotations: John 14:16; John 10:30. “Power and wisdom of God” alludes to 1 Cor 1:24; “through whom all things were made” to John 1:3. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Ep. fund. 6 (CSEL 25:199–200; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/1/#p-6). ## Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental 7 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/1/#p-7 - Source: CSEL 25:200–201 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: If the Holy Spirit was not defiled by taking up Mani, born of human intercourse, the Wisdom of God could not be defiled by birth from a virgin. ### Latin text Sed tamen quaero, cum pater et filius et spiritus sanctus nobis etiam confitentibus non dispari natura copulentur, cur hominem susceptum ab spiritu sancto Manichaeum non putatis turpe natum ex utroque sexu praedicare, hominem autem susceptum ab unigenita sapientia dei natum de uirgine credere formidatis? si caro humana, si concubitus uiri, si uterus mulieris non potuit inquinare spiritum sanctum, quomodo potuit uirginis uterus inquinare dei sapientiam? Manichaeus ergo iste, qui sancto spiritu et euangelica lectione gloriatur. necesse est uobis concedat aut missum se esse a sancto spiritu aut susceptum. si missus est, paracleti se apostolum dicat; si susceptus, concedat ei hominem matrem, quem suscepit unigenitus filius dei, si ei, quem suscepit spiritus sanctus, concedit et patrem. credat uirginitate Mariae uerbum dei non esse pollutum, si concubitu parentum suorum sanctum spiritum non potuisse pollui ut credamus hortatur. quodsi dixeritis non in utero uel ante uterum, sed iam natum Manichaeum ab spiritu sancto esse susceptum, sufficit, ut fateamini habuisse carnem de uiro et femina procreatam. cum enim uos non timeatis uiscera et sanguinem Manichaei de humano concubitu uenientem et intestina fimo plena, quae illa caro gestabat, et his omnibus non credatis contaminatum esse spiritum sanctum, a quo illum hominem susceptum esse creditis: cur ego uterum uirginalem et intacta genitalia reformidem et non potius credam sapientiam dei in ipsis maternis uisceribus homine suscepto inmaculatam sinceramque mansisse? quapropter quoniam siue missum siue susceptum a paracleto se Manichaeus uester adfirmet, nihil horum poterit obtinere, ego iam cautior neque missum eum credo neque susceptum. ### English translation (Claude) But still I ask: since, as we too confess, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are united in a nature that is not unequal, why do you not think it shameful to proclaim that Mani, a man taken up by the Holy Spirit, was born of both sexes, while you are afraid to believe that the man taken up by the only-begotten Wisdom of God was born of a virgin? If human flesh, if a man’s intercourse, if a woman’s womb could not defile the Holy Spirit, how could a virgin’s womb defile the Wisdom of God? This Mani, then, who boasts of the Holy Spirit and of the reading of the Gospel, must grant you that he was either sent by the Holy Spirit or taken up by him. If he was sent, let him call himself apostle of the Paraclete; if taken up, let him grant a human mother to the man whom the only-begotten Son of God took up, since he grants a father too to the man whom the Holy Spirit took up. Let him believe that the Word of God was not polluted by Mary’s virginity, if he urges us to believe that the Holy Spirit could not be polluted by his parents’ intercourse. But if you say that Mani was taken up by the Holy Spirit not in the womb or before the womb but after he was already born, it is enough that you admit that he had flesh begotten of a man and a woman. For since you are not afraid of Mani’s bowels and blood, which came from human intercourse, and the intestines full of dung that that flesh carried, and do not believe that the Holy Spirit, by whom you believe that man was taken up, was contaminated by all these things, why should I shrink from a virgin’s womb and untouched genitals, and not rather believe that the Wisdom of God, having taken up a man in his mother’s very womb, remained undefiled and pure? Therefore, since your Mani can establish neither, whether he claims to be sent or taken up by the Paraclete, I, now more cautious, believe him neither sent nor taken up. ### Translation notes - The Manichaeans denied that Christ was truly born; Augustine turns their claim about Mani against them. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Ep. fund. 7 (CSEL 25:200–201; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/1/#p-7). ## Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental 8 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/1/#p-8 - Source: CSEL 25:201–203 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: By leaving the Holy Spirit unnamed Mani implies that he is the Spirit, and the Manichaeans honor the Bema, the day of Mani’s death, far above the Pasch of Christ. ### Latin text Nam quod addidit dicens: prouidentia dei patris, quid aliud ambiuit Iesu Christo nominato. cuius se dicit apostolum, et deo patre, cuius prouidentia missum se dicit a filio, nisi ut spiritum sanctum ipsum esse tertium crederemus? sic enim scribit: Manichaeus apostolus Iesu Christi prouidentia dei patris. spiritus sanctus nominatus non est, qui maxime debuit ab eo nominari, qui nobis apostolatum suum paracleti promissione commendat, ut euangelica auctoritate inperitos premat. quod cum a uobis quaeritur, respondetis utique Manichaeo apostolo nominato sanctum spiritum paracletum nominari, quia in ipso uenire dignatus est. quaero ergo, sicut superius dicebam, quare exhorreatis, cum dicit catholica eum, in quo uenit diuina sapientia, natum esse de uirgine, cum uos eum, in quo spiritum sanctum uenisse praedicatis, natum de femina uiro mixta nihil horreatis. quid ergo aliud suspicer nescio, nisi quia iste Manichaeus, qui per Christi nomen ad inperitorum animos aditum quaerit, pro ipso Christo se coli uoluit. hoc unde coniciam, breuiter dicam. cum saepe. a uobis quaererem illo tempore. quo uos audiebam, quae causa. esset, quod pascha domini plerumque nulla, interdum a paucis tepidissima celebritate frequentaretis nullis uigiliis, nullo prolixiore ieiunio indicto auditoribus, nullo denique festiuiore adparatu, cum bema uestrum. id est diem, quo Manichaeus occisus est, quinque gradibus instructo tribunali et pretiosis linteis adornato atque in promptu posito et obiecto adorantibus magnis honoribus prosequamini: hoc ergo cum quaererem, respondebatur eius diem passionis celebrandum esse, qui uere passus esset; Christum autem, qui natus non esset, neque ueram, sed simulatam carnem humanis oculis ostendisset, non pertulisse, sed finxisse passionem. quis non gemescat homines. qui se christianos dici uolunt, timere, ne polluatur ueritas de uirginis utero, et de mendacio non timere? sed ut ad rem redeam, quis non suspicetur, cum diligenter adtenderit, ideo negari a Manichaeo Christum natum esse de femina et humanum corpus habuisse, ne passio eius, quod totius iam orbis festissimum tempus est. ab eis, qui sibi credidissent, celebraretur et non tanta deuotione diem mortis suae desiderata sollemnitas honoraret? hoc enim nobis erat in illa bematis celebritate gratissimum, quod pro pascha frequentabatur, quoniam uehementius desiderabamus illum diem festum subtracto alio, qui solebat esse dulcissimus. ### English translation (Claude) For as to his adding “by the providence of God the Father,” what else was he aiming at, having named Jesus Christ, whose apostle he says he is, and God the Father, by whose providence he says he was sent by the Son, but that we should believe that he himself is the Holy Spirit, the third? For he writes thus: “Mani, apostle of Jesus Christ by the providence of God the Father.” The Holy Spirit is not named, who above all should have been named by one who commends his apostleship to us by the promise of the Paraclete, so as to press the unlearned with the authority of the Gospel. When you are asked about this, you of course answer that in naming Mani the apostle the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, is named, because he deigned to come in him. I ask, then, as I said above, why you shudder when the Catholic Church says that the one in whom divine Wisdom came was born of a virgin, when you do not shudder at all that the one in whom you proclaim the Holy Spirit came was born of a woman joined to a man. I do not know what else to suspect, then, except that this Mani, who seeks access to the minds of the unlearned through the name of Christ, wished to be worshiped in place of Christ himself. I will say briefly how I infer this. At the time when I was one of your hearers, I often asked you what the reason was that you mostly kept the Lord’s Pasch with no celebration at all, or sometimes with a very lukewarm one among a few, with no vigils, no longer fast enjoined on the hearers, in short no more festive preparation, while you honor your Bema, that is, the day on which Mani was put to death, with great honors, with a platform of five steps set up, adorned with precious linen cloths, placed in full view and set before the worshipers. When I asked this, the answer was that the day of the passion of him who had truly suffered should be celebrated, but that Christ, who had not been born and had shown to human eyes not true but feigned flesh, had not endured but feigned his passion. Who would not groan that men who wish to be called Christians fear that the truth may be polluted by a virgin’s womb, and do not fear that it is polluted by a lie? But to return to the point: who would not suspect, if he pays close attention, that Mani denies that Christ was born of a woman and had a human body precisely so that Christ’s passion, which is now the most festive season of the whole world, should not be celebrated by those who had believed Mani, and so that the longed-for solemnity should not honor the day of Mani’s own death with less devotion? For what made that celebration of the Bema most pleasing to us was that it was kept in place of the Pasch, since we longed for that feast day all the more because the other, which used to be the sweetest, had been taken away. ### Translation notes - The Bema was the chief Manichaean feast, commemorating Mani’s death; “hearers” (auditores) were the lower grade of Manichaean adherents, to which Augustine belonged. The Pasch is Easter. The Manichaean view that Christ’s flesh and passion were only apparent is reported as Augustine gives it. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Ep. fund. 8 (CSEL 25:201–203; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/1/#p-8). ## Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental 9 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/1/#p-9 - Source: CSEL 25:203–205 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: The Acts of the Apostles, which carries the same authority as the Gospel, plainly records the coming of the promised Holy Spirit at Pentecost. ### Latin text Fortasse dicas mihi: quando ergo uenit a domino promissus paracletus? hic ego si non haberem aliud. quod crederem, facilius eum adhuc uenturum expectarem quam per Manichaeum uenisse concederem. nunc uero cum in actibus apostolorum manifestissime sancti spiritus praedicetur aduentus, quae me necessitas cogit haereticis tam periculose et tam facile credere? in libro enim memorato sic scriptum est: primum quidem sermonem fecimus de omnibus. o Theophile, quae coepit Iesus facere et docere in die, qua apostolos elegit per spiritum sanctum et praecepit praedicare euangelium. quibus praebuit se uiuum post passionem in multis argumentis dierum, uisus est eis per dies quadraginta et docens de regno dei, quomodo conuersatus sit cum illis et praeceperit eis, ne discederent ab Hierosolymis, sed sustinerent pollicitationem patris, quam audistis, inquit ex ore meo quoniam Iohannes quidem baptizauit aqua, uos autem spiritu sancto incipietis baptizari: quem et accepturi estis non post multos dies istos usque ad pentecosten. illi quidem cum uenissent, interrogabant eum dicentes: domine, si hoc in tempore repraesentaberis, et quando regnum Israhel. ille autem dixit: nemo potest cognoscere tempus, quod pater posuit in sua potestate; sed accipietis uirtutem spiritus sancti superuenientem in uos et eritis mihi testes apud Hierusalem et in tota Iudaea et Samaria et usque in totam terram. ecce habes, ubi commemorauit discipulos pollicitationis paternae, quam ex ore eius audierant de uenturo spiritu sancto. nunc uideamus, quando sit missus. paulo post enim sequitur et dicit: in illo tempore, quo subpletus est dies pentecostes, fuerunt omnes eadem animatione simul in unum; et factus est subito de caelo sonus, quasi ferretur flatus uehemens, et inpleuit totum illum locum, in quo erant sedentes; et uisae sunt illis linguae diuisae quasi ignis, qui et insedit super unumquemque illorum. et inpleti sunt omnes spiritu sancto et coeperunt loqui linguis, quomodo spiritus dabat eis pronuntiare. Hierosolymis autem fuerunt habitantes Iudaei, homines ex omni natione, quae est sub caelo. et cum facta esset uox, conlecta est turba et confusa est, quoniam audiebat unusquisque suo sermone et suis linguis loquentes eos. stupebant autem et admirabantur ad inuicem dicentes: nonne omnes, qui loquuntur, natione sunt Galilaei? et quomodo agnoscimus in illis sermonem, in quo nati sumus? Parthi, Medi, Elamitae et qui inhabitant Mesopotamiam. Armeniam et Cappadociam, Pontum. Asiam, Phrygiam et Pamphyliam, Aegyptum et regiones Africae, quae est ad Cyrenen; et qui aduenerant Romani et Iudaei incolae et Cretenses et Arabes audiebant loquentes illos suis linguis magnalia dei. stupebant autem et haesitabant ob id. quod factum est, dicentes: quidnam hoc uult esse? alii autem inridebant dicentes: hi musto omnes onerati sunt. ecce, ubi uenit spiritus sanctus. quid uultis amplius? si scripturis credendum est, cur non his potius credam, quae robustissima auctoritate firmatae sunt, quae cum ipso euangelio, ubi promissum sanctum spiritum pariter credimus, innotescere populis et commendari posteris praedicarique meruerunt? hos ergo actus apostolorum euangelio pari auctoritate coniunctos cum lego, inuenio non solum esse promissum illis ueris apostolis sanctum spiritum, sed etiam tam manifeste missum, ut nullus de hac re locus relinqueretur erroribus. ### English translation (Claude) Perhaps you will say to me: when, then, did the Paraclete promised by the Lord come? Here, if I had nothing else to believe, I would more easily wait for him as still to come than grant that he had come through Mani. But now, since the coming of the Holy Spirit is most plainly proclaimed in the Acts of the Apostles, what necessity forces me to believe heretics so dangerously and so easily? For in the book mentioned it is written thus: “The first account we gave of all things, O Theophilus, which Jesus began to do and to teach, on the day on which he chose the apostles through the Holy Spirit and commanded them to preach the gospel; to whom he showed himself alive after his passion by many proofs, being seen by them for forty days and teaching about the kingdom of God, how he had lived with them, and commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, ‘which you have heard,’ he said, ‘from my mouth; for John indeed baptized with water, but you will begin to be baptized with the Holy Spirit, whom you are also to receive not many days from now, at Pentecost.’ So when they had come together, they asked him, saying, ‘Lord, if at this time you will be made present, and when is the kingdom of Israel?’ But he said, ‘No one can know the time which the Father has put in his own power; but you will receive the power of the Holy Spirit coming upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the whole earth.’” See, you have here where he reminded the disciples of the Father’s promise, which they had heard from his mouth, about the Holy Spirit who was to come. Now let us see when he was sent. For shortly after, it follows and says: “At the time when the day of Pentecost was fulfilled, they were all together in one place with one spirit; and suddenly there came a sound from heaven as if a violent wind were rushing, and it filled the whole place where they were sitting; and there appeared to them tongues divided as of fire, which also sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in tongues, as the Spirit gave them to utter. Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, men from every nation that is under heaven. And when the sound occurred, the crowd gathered and was confounded, because each one heard them speaking in his own language and his own tongues. And they were amazed and marveled, saying to one another, ‘Are not all these who are speaking Galileans by nation? And how do we recognize in them the language in which we were born? Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and those who live in Mesopotamia, Armenia and Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the regions of Africa toward Cyrene, and the visitors from Rome, both Jews and residents, and Cretans and Arabs, hear them speaking in their own tongues the mighty works of God.’ And they were amazed and perplexed at what had happened, saying, ‘What does this mean?’ But others mocked, saying, ‘These men are all full of new wine.’” See where the Holy Spirit came. What more do you want? If the Scriptures are to be believed, why should I not rather believe these, which are made firm by the strongest authority, and which, together with the Gospel itself, in which we equally believe the Holy Spirit was promised, have earned the right to become known to the nations, to be commended to posterity, and to be preached? So when I read these Acts of the Apostles, joined to the Gospel with equal authority, I find that the Holy Spirit was not only promised to those true apostles but was also sent so manifestly that no room was left for errors on this matter. ### Scripture references - Acts 1:1–8: quotation, high confidence - Acts 2:1–13: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Augustine quotes Acts 1:1–8 and 2:1–13 in an Old Latin form that differs from the Greek at several points (e.g. “commanded them to preach the gospel,” “at Pentecost,” “Armenia” for “Judea”); it is translated as he gives it. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Ep. fund. 9 (CSEL 25:203–205; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/1/#p-9). ## Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental 10 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/1/#p-10 - Source: CSEL 25:205–206 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: The Spirit was given twice, after the resurrection and after the ascension, as Scripture says; Augustine will now examine whether Mani’s letter shows the truth or merely demands belief. ### Latin text Clarificatio enim domini nostri apud homines resurrectio est a mortuis et in caelum ascensio. scriptum est autem in ipso euangelio κατὰ Ἰωάννην: spiritus autem nondum erat datus, quia Iesus nondum erat clarificatus. si ergo propterea nondum erat datus, quia Iesus nondum erat clarificatus, clarificato Iesu necessario statim datus est. et propter ipsam geminam clarificationem, secundum hominem et secundum deum, bis datus est etiam spiritus sanctus: semel, postquam resurrexit a mortuis, cum insufflauit in faciem discipulorum dicens: accipite spiritum sanctum; et iterum, postquam ascendit in caelum decem diebus transactis: qui numerus perfectionem significat, cum septenario numero. quo condita uniuersa consistunt, additur trinitas conditoris. de quibus rebus inter spiritales uiros pie cauteque multa tractantur. sed ego a proposito non recedam; suscepi enim prius uobiscum sic agere, ut non uos ego doceam, quod superbum fortasse arbitramini. sed tamquam ipse a uobis discere studeam, quod nouem annis non potui. quapropter habeo, quibus litteris credam de aduentu spiritus sancti: quibus me credere si prohibetis, ne temere credam quod nescio — sic enim soletis monere —, multo minus uestris litteris credam. quare aut omnes libros auferte de medio et disputando pandite ueritatem, de qua dubitare non possim, aut tales proferte libros, quibus non mihi cum adrogantia inponatur, quod credam, sed exhibeatur sine fraude. quod discam. fortasse. inquis, et haec epistula talis est. nolo ergo in eius limine ulterius inmorari: interiora uideamus. ### English translation (Claude) For the glorification of our Lord among men is his resurrection from the dead and ascension into heaven. And it is written in the Gospel itself according to John: “The Spirit had not yet been given, because Jesus had not yet been glorified.” If, then, the Spirit had not yet been given for this reason, that Jesus had not yet been glorified, then once Jesus was glorified the Spirit was necessarily given at once. And because of this twofold glorification, according to his humanity and according to his divinity, the Holy Spirit was also given twice: once after he rose from the dead, when he breathed on the faces of the disciples, saying, “Receive the Holy Spirit”; and again after he ascended into heaven, when ten days had passed, a number that signifies perfection, since to the number seven, by which all created things subsist, is added the Trinity of the Creator. Many things are discussed about these matters, piously and carefully, among spiritual men. But I will not depart from my purpose; for I undertook at the outset to deal with you in such a way, not that I should teach you, which you might perhaps think arrogant, but as though I myself were eager to learn from you what I could not learn in nine years. Therefore I have writings to believe concerning the coming of the Holy Spirit; and if you forbid me to believe them, so that I may not rashly believe what I do not know (for that is how you usually warn people), much less will I believe your writings. So either take away all books altogether and lay open by argument a truth I cannot doubt, or produce such books as do not impose on me with arrogance something to believe, but display without deceit something to learn. Perhaps, you say, this letter too is such a book. I do not want, then, to linger any longer on its threshold; let us look at what is inside. ### Scripture references - John 7:39: quotation, high confidence - John 20:22: quotation, high confidence - Acts 2:1–4: allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - “According to John” is printed in Greek in the edition (κατὰ Ἰωάννην). Quotations: John 7:39; John 20:22. The ten days are counted from the ascension to Pentecost (Acts 1–2). “Nine years”: the time Augustine spent as a Manichaean hearer. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Ep. fund. 10 (CSEL 25:205–206; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/1/#p-10). ## Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental 11 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/1/#p-11 - Source: CSEL 25:206–207 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: The opening words of Mani’s letter only promise salvation; such words could cover any error, and Augustine passes over the greeting to the letter’s real claims. ### Latin text Haec sunt, inquit, salubria uerba ex perenni ac uiuo fonte; quae qui audierit et isdem primum crediderit, deinde, quae insinuant. custodierit, numquam erit morti obnoxius, uerum aeterna et gloriosa uita fruetur. nam profecto beatus est iudicandus, qui hac diuina instructus cognitione fuerit, per quam liberatus in sempiterna uita permanebit. et haec, ut uidetis, pollicitatio est, nondum exhibitio ueritatis: et uos quoque animaduertere facillime potestis isto uelamine quoslibet errores fucari posse, ut inperitorum animis per ornatam ianuam latenter inrepant. si enim diceret: haec sunt pestifera uerba ex uenenoso fonte; quae qui audierit et isdem primum crediderit, deinde. quae insinuant, custodierit, numquam erit uitae restituendus, uerum poenali et aerumnosa morte adficietur — nam profecto miser est iudicandus, qui hac inferna inplicatus inperitia fuerit. per quam demersus in sempiternis cruciatibus permanebit —: si ergo hoc diceret, uerum diceret, sed libro huic non solum nullum conciliaret lectorem, sed omnes, quorum in manus incidisset, in maxima odia concitaret. quamobrem ad consequentia transeamus nec nos ista decipiant, quae possunt esse bonis et malis, doctis et indoctis uerba communia. quid ergo sequitur? Pax. inquit, dei inuisibilis et ueritatis notitia sit cum fratribus sanctis et carissimis, qui mandatis caelestibus credunt pariter atque deseruiunt. ita sit, ut dicit. nam et ista benigna et acceptissima optatio est. tantum meminerimus haec et a bonis doctoribus et a deceptoribus posse dici. itaque si nulla nisi talia diceret, omnibus legendum et amplectendum esse concederem. nec illa, quae ad hoc sequuntur, inprobauerim; adiungit enim: sed et dextera luminis tueatur et eripiat uos ab omni incursione maligna et a laqueis mundi. et omnino quicquid in huius epistulae principio scriptum est, donec ueniatur ad causam, nolo reprehendere, ne in rebus minoribus multum operis consumatur. iam ergo euidentissimam pollicitationem hominis uideamus. ### English translation (Claude) “These,” he says, “are the words of salvation from the everlasting and living fountain; whoever hears them and first believes them, and then keeps what they teach, will never be subject to death, but will enjoy eternal and glorious life. For truly he must be judged blessed who has been instructed in this divine knowledge, through which, set free, he will abide in everlasting life.” And this too, as you see, is a promise, not yet a display of the truth. And you too can very easily see that any errors at all can be painted over with this veil, so as to creep secretly into the minds of the unlearned through an adorned doorway. For if he said, “These are words of pestilence from a poisonous fountain; whoever hears them and first believes them, and then keeps what they teach, will never be restored to life, but will suffer a penal and wretched death; for truly he must be judged wretched who has been entangled in this hellish ignorance, through which, sunk down, he will abide in everlasting torments”: if, then, he said this, he would be speaking the truth, but he would not only win no reader for this book but would stir up the greatest hatred in all into whose hands it fell. So let us pass on to what follows, and let us not be deceived by these words, which can be common to good and bad, learned and unlearned. What follows, then? “The peace,” he says, “of the invisible God and the knowledge of the truth be with the holy and most dear brothers, who both believe and serve the heavenly commandments.” So be it, as he says. For this too is a kind and most welcome wish. Only let us remember that such things can be said both by good teachers and by deceivers. So if he said nothing but such things, I would grant that it should be read and embraced by all. Nor would I disapprove of what follows next; for he adds: “But may the right hand of the light also protect you and rescue you from every evil assault and from the snares of the world.” And in general, whatever is written at the beginning of this letter, until the subject itself is reached, I do not wish to criticize, so as not to spend much labor on minor matters. Let us now look, then, at the man’s most evident promise. ### Translation notes - The quotations are from the opening of Mani’s Letter of the Foundation. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Ep. fund. 11 (CSEL 25:206–207; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/1/#p-11). ## Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental 12 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/1/#p-12 - Source: CSEL 25:207–209 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Mani’s letter promises certain knowledge about the origin of Adam and Eve but begins with an incredible story of a battle before the world was made. ### Latin text De eo igitur, inquit, frater dilectissime Pattici, quod mihi significasti dicens nosse te cupere, cuiusmodi sit natiuitas Adae et Euae, utrum uerbo sint idem prolati, an progeniti ei corpore, respondebitur tibi, ut congruit. namque de his a plerisque in uariis scripturis reuelationibusque dissimili modo insertum atque commemoratum est. quapropter ueritas istius rei ut sese habet. ab uniuersis fere gentibus ignoratur et ab omnibus. qui etiam de hoc diu multumque disputarunt. si enim illis super Adae et Euae generatione prouenisset manifesto cognoscere. numquam corruptioni et morti subiacerent. manifestam ergo cognitionem huius rei nobis pollicetur, ne corruptioni ac morti subiciamur. et si adhuc parum est, uide, quid sequatur. necessario ergo, inquit, plura sunt ante commemoranda ut ad istud mysterium sine ulla possit ambiguitate perueniri. hoc est, quod dicebam, sic mihi demonstrari debere ueritatem, ut ad eandem sine ulla ambiguitate perueniam. quod si ipse non polliceretur, me tamen hoc exigere et flagitare oportebat, ut tanta mercede cognitionis euidentissimae atque certissimae ex catholico christiano quibuslibet contradicentibus Manichaeum me fieri non puderet. iam igitur audiamus, quid adferat. Unde si tibi uidetur, inquit, ausculta prius, quae fuerint ante constitutionem mundi et quo pacto proelium sit agitatum, ut possis luminis seiungere naturam ac tenebrarum. iam incredibilia et omnino falsa proposuit. quis enim credat ante constitutionem mundi ullum proelium fuisse commissum? et tamen si esset credibile, modo nos non credere. sed cognoscere uelimus. nam qui dicit Persas et Scythas ante multos annos secum bellasse, rem dicit credibilem, eam tamen, quam uel auditam uel lectam possumus credere, non expertam conprehensamque cognoscere. cum ergo istum repudiarem, si tale aliquid diceret — non enim ea promisit, quae cogerer credere, sed quae possem sine ulla ambiguitate cognoscere —, quomodo eum non repudiabo, quando non modo incerta dicit, sed etiam incredibilia? sed quid? si aliquibus rationibus ea perspicua et cognita faciet? audiamus ergo, si possumus, cum tota patientia et lenitate. quod sequitur. ### English translation (Claude) “Concerning that matter, then,” he says, “most beloved brother Patticius, about which you informed me, saying that you wished to know what kind of birth Adam and Eve had, whether they were brought forth by a word or begotten from a body, you will be answered as is fitting. For about these things it has been inserted and recorded in different ways by many, in various writings and revelations. Therefore the truth of this matter, as it really is, is unknown to nearly all nations, and to all who have disputed long and much about it. For if it had fallen to them to know plainly about the generation of Adam and Eve, they would never be subject to corruption and death.” He promises us, then, a plain knowledge of this matter, so that we may not be subject to corruption and death. And if this is still too little, see what follows. “Necessarily, then,” he says, “many things must first be recounted, so that one may arrive at this mystery without any ambiguity.” This is what I was saying: that the truth ought to be shown to me in such a way that I may arrive at it without any ambiguity. And if he himself did not promise this, I should still have to demand and insist on it, so that, for so great a reward as most evident and certain knowledge, I might not be ashamed, whoever might object, to become a Manichaean instead of a Catholic Christian. Let us hear now, then, what he brings. “Hence, if you please,” he says, “listen first to what things were before the constitution of the world, and how the battle was waged, so that you may be able to separate the nature of light from that of darkness.” Now he has put forward things incredible and altogether false. For who would believe that any battle was fought before the constitution of the world? And yet, even if it were credible, we now want not to believe but to know. For one who says that the Persians and Scythians made war on each other many years ago says something credible, but something that we can believe because we have heard or read it, not know because we have experienced and grasped it. Since, then, I would reject him if he said anything of this kind (for he did not promise things I should be compelled to believe, but things I could know without any ambiguity), how shall I not reject him when he says things not merely uncertain but even incredible? But what if he makes them clear and known by some reasons? Let us hear, then, if we can, with all patience and gentleness, what follows. ### Translation notes - The quotations are from Mani’s Letter of the Foundation, addressed to one Patticius. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Ep. fund. 12 (CSEL 25:207–209; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/1/#p-12). ## Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental 13 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/1/#p-13 - Source: CSEL 25:209–210 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Mani describes the kingdom of light ruled by God the Father, and Augustine asks how Mani could prove or know any of it. ### Latin text Haec quippe, inquit, in exordio fuerunt duae substantiae a se diuisae. et luminis quidem imperium tenebat deus pater in sua sancta stirpe perpetuus, in uirtute magnificus, natura ipsa uerus, aeternitate propria semper exultans, continens apud se sapientiam et sensus uitales. per quos etiam duodecim membra luminis sui conprehendit; regni uidelicet proprii diuitias adfluentes. in unoquoque autem membrorum eius sunt recondita milia innumerabilium et inmensorum thesaurorum. ipse uero pater in sua laude praecipuus, magnitudine inconprehensibilis copulata sibi habet beata et gloriosa saecula neque numero neque prolixitate aestimanda, cum quibus idem sanctus atque inlustris pater et genitor degit nullo in regnis eius insignibus aut indigente aut in fimo constituto. ita autem fundata sunt eiusdem splendidissima regna supra lucidam et beatam terram. ut a nullo umquam aut moueri aut concuti possint. Haec mihi unde probaturus est, aut haec ipse unde cognouit? noli me terrere paracleti nomine. primo quia non credere incognita, sed certa cognoscere accessi a uobis ipsis factus timidior. uos enim nostis, temere credentibus quam uehementer insultare soleatis, praesertim cum ipse, qui iam coepit incerta narrare, plenam ac firmam scientiam paulo ante promiserit ### English translation (Claude) “For in the beginning,” he says, “there were these two substances, divided from each other. And the empire of light was held by God the Father, everlasting in his holy stock, magnificent in power, true by his very nature, ever rejoicing in his own eternity, holding with himself wisdom and the vital senses, through which he also embraces the twelve members of his light, namely the overflowing riches of his own kingdom. And in each of his members are hidden thousands of countless and immeasurable treasures. The Father himself, pre-eminent in his praise, incomprehensible in greatness, has joined to himself blessed and glorious ages, which cannot be reckoned either in number or in length, with which the same holy and illustrious Father and Begetter lives, no one in his glorious kingdoms being either in need or in a lowly state. And his most splendid kingdoms are so founded upon the bright and blessed land that they can never be moved or shaken by anyone.” Whence is he going to prove these things to me, or whence did he himself come to know them? Do not frighten me with the name of the Paraclete. First, because I came not to believe unknown things but to know certain ones, having been made more cautious by you yourselves. For you know how vehemently you usually mock those who believe rashly, especially since this very man, who has now begun to narrate uncertain things, promised full and firm knowledge a little earlier. ### Translation notes - Mani’s description of the two substances and the kingdom of light, quoted from the Letter of the Foundation. - “In a lowly state”: the digital text prints in fimo, probably for infimo (“lowly”) or infirmo (“infirm”). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Ep. fund. 13 (CSEL 25:209–210; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/1/#p-13). ## Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental 14 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/14/#p-14 - Source: CSEL 25:210–212 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Mani promises knowledge but demands belief; if belief is required, Augustine would rather believe what the Church, confirmed among all peoples, teaches, and then come to understanding through faith. ### Latin text Deinde quoniam, si mihi fides imperanda est, magis me terret illa scriptura, ubi lego uenisse spiritum sanctum et apostolos inspirasse, quibus eum dominus se missurum esse promiserat. quapropter aut ea, quae dicit, proba mihi uera esse, ut ostendas, quae non possum credere, aut eum, qui dicit, proba mihi spiritum sanctum esse, ut credam, quae non potes ostendere. ego namque catholicam fidem profiteor et per illam me ad certam scientiam peruenturum esse praesumo; tu uero, qui fidem meam labefactare conaris, certam scientiam trade, si potes, ut id, quod credidi, temere me credidisse conuincas. duo sunt, quae mihi profers: unum, cum dicis spiritum sanctum esse, qui loquitur, et alterum, cum dicis manifesta esse, quae loquitur. utrumque abs te sine ulla dubitatione cognoscere debui; sed non sum auarus, unum horum doce. ostende hunc esse spiritum sanctum, et credam uera esse, quae dicit, etiamsi nesciam; aut ostende uera esse, quae dicit, et credam spiritum sanctum esse, etiamsi nesciam. numquid aequius aut beniuolentius tecum agi potest? sed tu nec hoc nec illud uales ostendere. nihil aliud elegisti nisi laudare, quod credis, et inridere, quod credo. cum igitur etiam ego uicissim laudauero, quod credo et quod credis, inrisero, quid putas nobis esse iudicandum quidue faciendum, nisi ut eos relinquamus, qui nos inuitant certa cognoscere et postea imperant, ut incerta credamus et eos sequamur, qui nos inuitant prius credere, quod nondum ualemus intueri, ut ipsa fide ualentiores facti, quod credimus, intellegere mereamur, non iam hominibus, sed ipso deo intrinsecus mentem nostram inluminante atque firmante? Et quoniam quaesiui, unde mihi probet, nunc quaero, unde ipse cognouerit. si dicit sibi esse spiritu sancto reuelatum suamque mentem diuinitus inlustratam, ut ea, quae dicit, certa et manifesta cognosceret, ipse significat, quid intersit inter cognoscere et credere. ipse enim cognoscit, cui apertissime ista monstrantur; eis autem, quibus haec narrat, non cognitionem insinuat, sed credulitatem suadet. cui quisquis temere consenserit, Manichaeus efficitur, non certa cognoscendo, sed incerta credendo, quales nos inperitos adulescentulos aliquando decepit. debuit ergo non nobis polliceri scientiam neque manifestam cognitionem neque ad id. quod quaeritur, sine ulla ambiguitate peruentionem, sed dicere potius sibi esse ista monstrata, illos autem, quibus narrantur, credere sibi debere, quae nesciunt. sed si hoc diceret, quis non ei responderet: si ergo incognita crediturus sum, cur non ea potius credam, quae iam consensione doctorum indoctorumque celebrantur et per omnes populos grauissima auctoritate firmata sunt? hoc ille metuens ne sibi diceretur, offundit nebulas inperitis, primum pollicens rerum certarum cognitionem, postea et incertarum imperans fidem. cui tamen si hoc dicatur, ut saltem uel sibi haec doceat esse monstrata, similiter deficit et hoc quoque ut credamus iubet. quis ferat tantam fallaciam tantamque superbiam? ### English translation (Claude) Next, because, if faith is to be demanded of me, I am more awed by that Scripture where I read that the Holy Spirit came and inspired the apostles, to whom the Lord had promised that he would send him. Therefore either prove to me that what he says is true, so as to show me what I cannot believe, or prove to me that he who says it is the Holy Spirit, so that I may believe what you cannot show. For I profess the Catholic faith, and through it I trust that I shall attain certain knowledge; but you, who are trying to shake my faith, impart certain knowledge, if you can, so as to convict me of having believed rashly what I believed. There are two things you put before me: one, when you say that he who speaks is the Holy Spirit; the other, when you say that what he speaks is plain. I ought to have known both from you without any doubt; but I am not greedy: teach me one of them. Show that this man is the Holy Spirit, and I will believe that what he says is true, even if I do not know it; or show that what he says is true, and I will believe that he is the Holy Spirit, even if I do not know it. Can anyone deal with you more fairly or more kindly? But you can show neither the one nor the other. You have chosen nothing else but to praise what you believe and to mock what I believe. When, then, I in turn praise what I believe and mock what you believe, what do you think we should decide or do, except to abandon those who invite us to know certain things and afterwards command us to believe uncertain things, and to follow those who invite us first to believe what we are not yet able to see, so that, made stronger by faith itself, we may be found worthy to understand what we believe, no longer through men, but through God himself enlightening and strengthening our mind inwardly? And since I have asked whence he proves it to me, I now ask whence he himself knew it. If he says that it was revealed to him by the Holy Spirit and that his mind was divinely illumined so that he might know what he says as certain and plain, he himself indicates the difference between knowing and believing. For the one to whom these things are shown most plainly knows them; but to those to whom he narrates them he does not impart knowledge but urges belief. Whoever rashly consents to this becomes a Manichaean, not by knowing certain things but by believing uncertain ones, as he once deceived us when we were inexperienced youths. He ought, then, not to have promised us knowledge, nor plain cognition, nor arrival without any ambiguity at what is sought, but rather to have said that these things had been shown to him, and that those to whom they are narrated ought to believe him about things they do not know. But if he said this, who would not answer him: “If, then, I am to believe unknown things, why should I not rather believe those that are already celebrated by the agreement of learned and unlearned and have been confirmed among all peoples by the weightiest authority?” Fearing that this would be said to him, he pours mist over the unlearned, first promising knowledge of certain things, then demanding faith in uncertain ones. Yet if he is asked at least to show that these things were shown to him, he likewise fails, and bids us believe this too. Who could bear such deceit and such pride? ### Scripture references - Acts 2:1–4: allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Augustine contrasts the Manichaean promise of knowledge without faith with the Catholic order of believing first in order to understand. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Ep. fund. 14 (CSEL 25:210–212; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/14/#p-14). ## Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental 15 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/14/#p-15 - Source: CSEL 25:212–213 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Mani’s account of the land of darkness bordering the land of light treats God’s nature as a body in space, which is false. ### Latin text Quid? si non solum incerta, sed etiam falsa esse. quae dicit. deo et domino nostro mihi opitulante monstrauero. quid infelicius ista superstitione inueniri potest, quae non modo non exhibet scientiam, quam promittit, atque ueritatem, sed ea dicit, quae uehementer sunt scientiae ueritatique contraria? quod in sequentibus manifestius adparebit. ita enim dicit: iuxta unam uero partem ac latus inlustris illius ae sanctae terrae erat tenebrarum terra profunda et inmensa magnitudine. in qua habitabant ignea corpora. genera scilicet pestifera. hic infinitae tenebrae ex eadem manantes natura inaestimabiles cum propriis fetibus; ultra quas erant aquae caenosae ac turbidae cum suis inhabitatoribus; quarum interius uenti horribiles ac uehementes cum suo principe et genitoribus. rursum regio ignea et corruptibilis cum suis ducibus et nationibus. pari more introrsum gens caliginis ac fumi plena, in qua morabatur inmanis princeps omnium et dux habens circa se innumerabiles principes, quorum omnium ipse erat mens atque origo: haeque fuerunt naturae quinque terrae pestiferae. Si aerium uel etiam aetherium corpus diceret esse naturam dei, profecto inrideretur ab omnibus. qui sapientiae ueritatisque naturam per nulla spatia locorum distentam atque diffusam sine ulla mole magnam et magnificam nec in parte minorem et in parte maiorem, sed per omnia aequalem summo patri. nec aliud habentem hic et aliud alibi, sed ubique integram. ubique praesentem qualicumque acie iam serenioris mentis intueri ualent. ### English translation (Claude) What if, with the help of our God and Lord, I show that what he says is not only uncertain but even false? What can be found more unhappy than this superstition, which not only does not display the knowledge and truth that it promises, but says things that are vehemently contrary to knowledge and truth? This will appear more plainly in what follows. For he says: “Now beside one part and side of that illustrious and holy land was the land of darkness, deep and of immense size, in which dwelt fiery bodies, that is, pestilential kinds. Here were infinite darknesses, flowing from the same nature, beyond reckoning, with their own offspring; beyond these were muddy and turbid waters with their inhabitants; and further within them, horrible and violent winds with their prince and begetters; again a fiery and corruptible region with its leaders and nations; and in the same way, further within, a race full of gloom and smoke, in which dwelt the monstrous prince and leader of all, having around him innumerable princes, of all of whom he was the mind and origin. And these were the five natures of the pestilential land.” If he said that the nature of God was an airy or even an ethereal body, he would surely be mocked by all who are able, with whatever keenness of a mind now more serene, to behold the nature of wisdom and truth: not stretched out or spread through any spaces of place, great and magnificent without any bulk, not less in one part and greater in another, but in all things equal to the supreme Father, not having one thing here and another elsewhere, but everywhere whole, everywhere present. ### Translation notes - Mani’s description of the five natures of the land of darkness, quoted from the Letter of the Foundation. “Equal to the supreme Father” refers to the Wisdom and Truth of God, that is, the Son. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Ep. fund. 15 (CSEL 25:212–213; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/14/#p-15). ## Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental 16 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/14/#p-16 - Source: CSEL 25:213–214 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Even the soul, though changeable, has no bulk in space: it is present whole in every part of the body at once. ### Latin text Sed quid dicam de ueritate atque sapientia, quae omnes potentias animae superat. cum ipsius animae natura, quae mutabilis inuenitur, nullo modo locorum spatia quadam mole sua occupet? quicquid enim qualibet crassitudine est, non potest nisi minui per partes habendo aliud hic et aliud alibi. minor est enim digitus quam tota manus et minor est digitus unus quam duo et alibi est iste digitus. alibi ille, alibi cetera manus. quod non solum in molibus corporum articulatis uidemus, sed etiam terrae pars ista non est ibi, ubi illa, quia suum locum quaeque obtinet; et pars umoris minor minore et maior maiore loco est; et alia pars est circa fundum, alia circa oras poculi. similiter aeris partes suos quaeque inplent locos. nec fieri potest, ut aer, quo inpletur haec domus, simul secum in eadem domo habere possit etiam illum aerem, quem uicini habent. lucisque ipsius alia pars infunditur per hanc fenestram, alia per illam, et maior per maiorem, per minorem autem minor. nec omnino potest esse aliquod corpus siue caeleste siue terrestre siue aerium siue umidum, quod non minus sit in parte quam in toto: neque ullo modo possit in loco huius partis simul habere aliam partem, sed aliud hic et aliud alibi habens per quaelibet spatia locorum distanti et diuidua, uel potius, ut ita dicam, sectili mole distenditur. animae uero natura, etiamsi non illa eius potentia consideretur, qua intellegit ueritatem, sed illa inferior, qua continet corpus et sentit in corpore, nullo modo inuenitur locorum spatiis aliqua mole distendi. nam singulis sui corporis particulis tota praesto est, cum tota sentit in singulis; nec minor pars eius in digito est et maior in brachio, sicut ipse digitus brachio minor est, sed ubique tanta est, quia ubique tota est. cum enim tangitur digitus. non per totum corpus sentit, et tamen tota sentit. totam enim tactus ille non latet; quod non fieret. nisi tota praesto esset. nec sic tota praesto est, cum tangitur digitus et sentit in digito. ut ceterum deserat corpus et sese ad unum illum locum. in quo sentit, adglomeret. sed cum tota sentit in digito manus, si alius locus tangatur in pede. nec ibi desinit tota sentire. atque ita in singulis distantibus locis tota simul adest. non unum deserens. ut in altero tota sit, neque ita utrumque tenens. ut aliam partem hic habeat et alibi aliam. sed sufficiens exhibere se singulis locis simul totam, quoniam tota sentit in singulis satis ostendit se locorum spatiis non teneri. ### English translation (Claude) But what shall I say of truth and wisdom, which surpasses all the powers of the soul, when the nature of the soul itself, which is found to be changeable, in no way occupies spaces of place with any bulk of its own? For whatever has any thickness at all cannot but be diminished in its parts, having one thing here and another elsewhere. For a finger is less than the whole hand, and one finger is less than two; and this finger is in one place, that finger in another, the rest of the hand in another. And we see this not only in the jointed bulks of bodies; but also this part of the earth is not where that part is, because each holds its own place; and a smaller part of a liquid is in a smaller place and a larger in a larger, and one part is near the bottom of a cup, another near the rim. Likewise the parts of the air each fill their own places, and it cannot be that the air with which this house is filled can have together with itself in the same house the air that the neighbors have as well. And of light itself one part pours in through this window, another through that, a greater through a greater, a lesser through a lesser. Nor can there be any body at all, whether heavenly or earthly or airy or watery, that is not less in a part than in the whole, or that can in any way have another part at once in the place of this part; but, having one thing here and another elsewhere, it is extended through any spaces of place in a bulk that is separated and divided, or rather, so to speak, divisible. But the nature of the soul, even if we consider not that power of it by which it understands truth, but the lower one by which it holds the body together and perceives in the body, is in no way found to be extended through spaces of place in any bulk. For it is present whole to each of the small parts of its body, since it perceives whole in each; nor is a smaller part of it in the finger and a greater in the arm, as the finger itself is smaller than the arm, but it is everywhere as great, because it is everywhere whole. For when a finger is touched, the soul does not perceive throughout the whole body, and yet the whole soul perceives; for that touch does not escape the whole soul, which would not happen unless it were present whole. Nor, when a finger is touched and it perceives in the finger, is it present whole in such a way as to abandon the rest of the body and gather itself into that one place where it perceives; but while the whole soul perceives in a finger of the hand, if another place in the foot is touched, it does not cease to perceive whole there too. And so it is present whole at once in separate places, not abandoning one in order to be whole in the other, nor holding both in such a way as to have one part here and another part elsewhere, but able to present itself whole to each place at once; since it perceives whole in each, it shows clearly enough that it is not contained by spaces of place. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Ep. fund. 16 (CSEL 25:213–214; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/14/#p-16). ## Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental 17 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/14/#p-17 - Source: CSEL 25:214–215 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: The mind holds images of vast regions without being cramped, which shows that it is not spread out in space. ### Latin text Quid? si eius memoriam cogitemus non rerum intellegibilium, sed harum corporearum. quam et bestiae habere sentiuntur — nam et per loca nota sine errore iumenta pergunt et cubilia sua bestiae repetunt. et canes dominorum suorum corpora recognoscunt et dormientes plerumque inmurmurant et in latratum aliquando erumpunt. quod nullo modo possent, nisi in eorum memoria uisarum rerum uel per corpus utcumque sensarum uersarentur imagines — quis digne cogitet, ubi capiantur istae imagines. ubi gestentur uel ubi formentur? si enim non possent esse maiores quam nostri corporis quantitas teneret. diceret aliquis intra ipsa sui corporis spatia. quibus et illa concluditur. has imagines animam figurare atque seruare. nunc uero cum perexiguam terrae partem occupet corpus. inmensarum regionum et caeli ac terrae imagines animus uoluit. quibus cateruatim discedentibus et succedentibus non fit angustus, atque hinc se ostendit non diffusum esse per locos, quia maximorum locorum imaginibus non quasi capitur. sed potius eas capit, non sinu aliquo, sed ui potentiaque ineffabili, qua licet eis et addere quodlibet et detrahere et in angustum eas contrahere et per inmensa expandere et ordinare. ut uelit, et perturbare et multiplicare et ad paucitatem singularitatemue redigere. ### English translation (Claude) What if we think of its memory, not of intelligible things but of these bodily ones, which even beasts are observed to have? For beasts of burden go without straying through familiar places, and wild animals return to their lairs, and dogs recognize the bodies of their masters, and when asleep they often growl and sometimes break out into barking, which they could in no way do unless images of things seen, or in some way perceived through the body, were moving about in their memory. Who can worthily consider where these images are received, where they are carried, or where they are formed? For if they could not be larger than the size of our body, someone might say that the soul forms and keeps these images within the very spaces of its body, by which it too is enclosed. But as it is, though the body occupies a very small part of the earth, the mind turns over images of immense regions and of heaven and earth; and as they come and go in crowds it is not cramped. And so it shows that it is not spread out through places, since it is not, as it were, contained by the images of the greatest places, but rather contains them, not in some fold but by an ineffable force and power, by which it can add anything to them and take anything away, contract them into a narrow space and spread them out through immensity, arrange them as it wishes and throw them into disorder, multiply them and reduce them to a few or to one. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Ep. fund. 17 (CSEL 25:214–215; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/14/#p-17). ## Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental 18 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/14/#p-18 - Source: CSEL 25:215–216 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: The power of understanding, which tells real things from imagined ones such as Mani’s land of light, has no spatial extension at all. ### Latin text Quid iam de illa loquar potentia. qua intellegitur ueritas, qua istis ipsis, quae de corporis sensu haustae figurantur. imaginibus sese pro ueritate obponentibus magna uiuacitate resistitur? qua uidetur aliam uerbi gratia ueram esse Karthaginem, aliam, quam cogitans fingit et pro suo arbitrio tota facilitate conmutat, ex eadem uenire facilitate innumerabiles mundos, in quibus Epicuri cogitatio innumerabiliter peregrinata est, et, ne multa consecter, ex eadem uenire facilitate istam terram lucis per spatia infinita diffusam et quinque antra gentis tenebrarum cum habitatoribus suis. in quibus Manichaei phantasmata ueritatis sibi nomen ausa sunt usurpare. quid est ergo haec potentia. quae ista discernit? profecto quantacumque sit, et his omnibus maior est et sine ulla tali rerum imaginatione cogitatur. huic inueni spatia, si potes. hanc diffunde per locos, hanc infinitae molis tumore distende. profecto si bene cogitas, non potes. quicquid enim tale tibi occurrerit, iudicas ipsa cogitatione secari posse per partes facisque ibi aliam partem minorem, aliam maiorem. quantum placet; illud autem ipsum, quo ista iudicas, cernis esse supra ista, non loci altitudine, sed potentiae dignitate. ### English translation (Claude) What shall I now say of that power by which truth is understood, by which these very images, formed from what is drawn in through the bodily sense, are resisted with great vigor when they set themselves up in place of the truth? By it one sees that, for example, the true Carthage is one thing, and another is the one that the mind forms in thinking and changes at will with all ease; that from the same ease come innumerable worlds, among which the thought of Epicurus wandered innumerably; and, not to pursue many examples, that from the same ease come this land of light spread through infinite spaces and the five caves of the race of darkness with their inhabitants, in which the phantasms of Mani have dared to usurp for themselves the name of truth. What, then, is this power that distinguishes these things? Surely, however great it is, it is greater than all these, and it is conceived without any such imagining of things. Find spaces for it, if you can; spread it out through places; stretch it with the swelling of infinite bulk. Surely, if you think well, you cannot. For whatever of that kind occurs to you, you judge in that very thought that it can be cut into parts, and you make one part smaller there and another larger, as much as you please; but that very thing by which you judge these things you see to be above them, not by height of place but by dignity of power. ### Extrabiblical texts - Epicurus (Epicurus (sayings and fragments)): echo, medium confidence ### Translation notes - The innumerable worlds of Epicurus are mentioned without quotation. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Ep. fund. 18 (CSEL 25:215–216; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/14/#p-18). ## Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental 19 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/14/#p-19 - Source: CSEL 25:216 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: If even the changeable soul is not spread out in space, much less is the unchangeable God, whom the Manichaeans picture as measurable in parts. ### Latin text Quare si animam totiens mutabilem siue uariarum uoluntatum turba siue adfectibus pro rerum copia uel inopia sese flectentibus siue ipsis innumerabilibus ludis phantasmatum. siue obliuione et memoria siue doctrina et inperitia: si ergo animam, ut dixi, his atque huiusmodi motionibus totiens mutabilem sentis non diffundi extendique per locos, sed omnia talia spatia potentiae uiuacitate superare, quid de ipso deo cogitandum aut existimandum est. qui supra omnes rationales mentes inconcussus atque incommutabilis manens tribuit, quod cuique tribuendum est? quem facilius eloqui audet anima quam uidere, et quem tanto minus eloquitur, quanto sincerius uidere potuerit. qui tamen, si, ut Manichaeorum phantasmata perstrepunt, locorum ex una parte determinato, ex aliis inmenso spatio tenderetur, quantaelibet in eo particulae et innumerabilia frusta alia maiora, alia minora pro cogitantis arbitrio metirentur, ut bipedalis in eo uerbi gratia pars octo partibus minor esset quam decempedalis. id enim necesse est contingat omnibus naturis, quae per talia spatia diffusae ubique totae esse non possunt, quod in ipsa anima non inuenitur et ab eis, qui haec considerare non ualent, deformiter de illa et turpiter creditur. ### English translation (Claude) Therefore, if you perceive that the soul, so often changeable (whether by a throng of various wills, or by affections that bend it according to the abundance or lack of things, or by the countless plays of phantasms themselves, or by forgetfulness and memory, or by learning and ignorance), if, then, you perceive that the soul, so often changeable, as I have said, by these and similar movements, is not spread out and extended through places but surpasses all such spaces by the vigor of its power, what is to be thought or supposed about God himself, who, remaining unshaken and unchangeable above all rational minds, gives to each what is to be given? Of him the soul dares to speak more easily than to see him, and it speaks of him the less, the more purely it has been able to see him. Yet if, as the phantasms of the Manichaeans clamor, he were stretched out through space, bounded on one side and immense on the others, then particles of whatever size, and countless pieces, some larger and some smaller, could be measured off in him at the thinker’s will, so that, for example, a two-foot part of him would be smaller by eight parts than a ten-foot part. For this must happen to all natures that are spread out through such spaces and cannot be whole everywhere; it is not found even in the soul, and yet those who are unable to consider these things believe it of the soul in an unseemly and shameful way. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Ep. fund. 19 (CSEL 25:216; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/14/#p-19). ## Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental 20 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/14/#p-20 - Source: CSEL 25:216–218 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Mani’s phrase “beside one part and side” implies other sides and limits to the land of light, which the Manichaeans deny. ### Latin text Uerumtamen cum carnalibus animis fortasse non sic agendum est, sed descendendum est potius ad eorum cogitationes, qui naturam incorpoream et spiritalem cogitando persequi uel non audent uel nondum ualent, ita ut nec ipsam cogitationem suam eadem cogitatione considerent et inueniant eam nullo locorum spatio de ipsis locorum spatiis iudicantem. descendamus ergo ad eorum sensus et quaeramus ab eis, iuxta quam partem aut iuxta quod latus. sicut Manichaeus dicit. inlustris illius ac sanctae terrae erat tenebrarum terra. dicit enim: iuxta unam partem ac latus, nec dicit, quam partem uel quod latus. dextrum an sinistrum. sed quodlibet eligant, illud certe manifestum est non dici unum latus. nisi ubi est alterum latus. ubi autem uel tria uel plura sunt latera, aut figurae ambitus intellegitur undique terminatus aut, si ex aliqua parte in inmensum patet, ex iis tamen. quae latera dicuntur, necesse est finiatur. dicant ergo, ex alio latere uel ex aliis lateribus quid adiungebatur terrae lucis, si ex uno latere erat gens tenebrarum? non dicunt; sed cum premuntur, ut dicant, infinita esse dicunt alia latera terrae illius, quam lucis uocant. id est per infinita spatia distendi et nullo fine cohiberi. nec intellegunt iam non esse latera, quod quibusuis tardis ingeniis apertissimum est; tunc enim essent latera. si finibus suis terminarentur. quid ad me, inquit, si non sunt latera? sed cum diceres "iuxta unam partem ac latus," aliam quoque partem siue partes et aliud latus siue latera cogebas intellegi. nam si unum tantum latus erat, tantum iuxta latus dici debuit, non "iuxta unum latus." sicut in nostro corpore recte dicimus esse aliquid iuxta unum oculum, quia est alter oculus, aut iuxta unam mamillam, quia est altera. si autem dicamus iuxta unum nasum aut iuxta unum umbilicum, cum alius non sit, et a doctis et ab indoctis ridebimur. sed non te uerbis premo; fortassis enim unum quasi unicum appellare uoluisti. ### English translation (Claude) Yet perhaps carnal minds should not be dealt with in this way; rather we should come down to the thoughts of those who either do not dare or are not yet able to pursue an incorporeal and spiritual nature in thought, so that they do not even consider their own thought by that same thought and find that it judges of spaces of place while occupying no space of place itself. Let us come down, then, to their senses and ask them beside which part or beside which side, as Mani says, of that illustrious and holy land the land of darkness was. For he says “beside one part and side,” and he does not say which part or which side, right or left. But whichever they choose, this at least is clear: one side is not spoken of except where there is another side. And where there are three or more sides, either the outline of a figure bounded on all sides is understood, or, if it lies open into immensity in some direction, it must nevertheless be bounded on those that are called sides. Let them say, then, what bordered the land of light on the other side or sides, if on one side was the race of darkness. They do not say; but when they are pressed to say, they say that the other sides of that land which they call the land of light are infinite, that is, stretched through infinite spaces and confined by no limit. Nor do they understand that then they are no longer sides, which is perfectly obvious even to the slowest minds; for they would be sides only if they were bounded by their limits. “What is it to me,” he says, “if they are not sides?” But when you said “beside one part and side,” you compelled us to understand another part or parts and another side or sides. For if there was only one side, you should have said only “beside the side,” not “beside one side,” just as in our body we rightly say that something is beside one eye, because there is another eye, or beside one breast, because there is another. But if we said “beside one nose” or “beside one navel,” when there is no other, we would be laughed at by learned and unlearned alike. But I do not press you on words; for perhaps you meant “one” in the sense of “only.” ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Ep. fund. 20 (CSEL 25:216–218; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/14/#p-20). ## Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental 21 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/14/#p-21 - Source: CSEL 25:218–219 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Two lands joined at their sides must both be bodies, and Augustine describes the Manichaean picture of the land of darkness wedged into the land of light. ### Latin text Quid erat ergo iuxta illud latus terrae. quam inlustrem ac sanctam uocas? terra, inquit. tenebrarum. quid? de ista terra saltem concedis, quod corporea erat. necesse est te hoc dicere, quandoquidem omnia corpora inde adseris originem ducere. quid ergo? quaeso. quamuis tardi, quamuis carnales homines, ne hoc quidem aliquando animadueritis. quod lateribus sibi iungi utraque ista terra non posset. nisi esset utraque corporea? cur ergo nobis dicebatur nescio qua caecitate peruersis tenebrarum tantum terram fuisse uel esse corpoream, illam uero, quae terra luminis diceretur, incorpoream et spiritalem credi oportere? expergiscamur aliquando homines boni et saltem admoniti. quod facillimum est. adtendamus duas terras sibi lateribus non posse coniungi. nisi utrumque sit corpus. Aut si ad ista etiam crassi et tardi sumus. quaero. utrum et ipsa terra tenebrarum unum latus habuerit et cetera infinita sicut terra lucis. non ita credunt; timent enim. ne deo uideatur aequalis. dicunt ergo illam per profundum inmensam. et per longum. sursum uersus autem supra illam spatia infinitae inanitatis adfirmant. et ne ipsa uel simplum, terra autem luminis duplum tenere uideatur, angustant eam a duobus etiam lateribus. tamquam si unus panis — sic enim, quod dicitur, facilius uideri potest — in quadras quattuor decussatim formetur. in quibus tres sint candidae, una nigra; modo de tribus candidis tolle distinctionem et fac illas et sursum uersus et deorsum uersus et undique retro infinitas: sic ab eis esse creditur terra lucis. illam uero nigram quadram fac deorsum uersus et retro infinitam. supra se autem inmensam inanitatem habere: sic opinantur esse terram tenebrarum. sed haec nimis adtentis et studiose inquirentibus quasi secreta demonstrant. ### English translation (Claude) What, then, was beside that side of the land you call illustrious and holy? “The land,” he says, “of darkness.” What? Concerning this land at least, do you grant that it was corporeal? You must say so, since you assert that all bodies take their origin from it. What then? I ask: however slow, however carnal you may be, have you never even noticed this, that the two lands could not be joined to each other at their sides unless both were corporeal? Why, then, were we told, perverted by I know not what blindness, that only the land of darkness was or is corporeal, while that which was called the land of light must be believed incorporeal and spiritual? Let us wake up at last, good men, and, now that we are reminded, at least notice what is very easy: that two lands cannot be joined to each other at their sides unless both are bodies. Or if we are dense and slow even about this, I ask whether the land of darkness too had one side, and the rest infinite, like the land of light. They do not believe so; for they fear that it would seem equal to God. They say, then, that it is immense in depth and in length; but above it they affirm spaces of infinite emptiness. And so that it may not seem to hold a single share and the land of light a double one, they narrow it on two sides as well, as if one loaf (for so what is said can more easily be seen) were shaped crosswise into four quarters, of which three are white and one black. Now take away the division between the three white ones and make them infinite upward and downward and behind on all sides: so they believe the land of light to be. But make that black quarter infinite downward and behind, with an immense emptiness above it: so they think the land of darkness to be. But these things they show, as if they were secrets, to those who are very attentive and eager in inquiry. ### Translation notes - The digital text reads animadueritis, probably for animaduertistis (“have you noticed”); translated by sense. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Ep. fund. 21 (CSEL 25:218–219; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/14/#p-21). ## Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental 22 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/14/#p-22 - Source: CSEL 25:219 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: On the Manichaeans’ own picture the land of light is split and penetrated by the land of darkness, a shape worse than that of darkness itself. ### Latin text Uerumtamen si ita est, adparet terram tenebrarum a terra lucis duobus lateribus tangi; et utique si duobus tangitur, duobus etiam tangit. certe iuxta unum latus erat terra tenebrarum. Deinde quam foeda figura terrae lucis adparet. tamquam fissa ungula nigro quodam cuneo subter artato, illac tantum finita. qua finditur. hians etiam et patens desuper interposito inani, quicquid a superficie terrae tenebrarum sursum uersus inmensum est. quam deinde melior ipsius terrae tenebrarum figura ostenditur, si quidem illa findit. haec finditur; illa inseritur, haec interpatet: illa in se nulli inanitati dat locum. haec ab inferiore tantum parte laxa non est, qua hostili cuneo subinpletur. indocti ergo homines et auari cum maiorem honorem tribuunt multitudini partium quam unitati. ut sex partes darent terrae lucis, tres deorsum uersus. tres sursum uersus, maluerunt penetrari terram lucis quam penetrare. tali enim figura etsi conmixtam negant. penetratam tamen negare non possunt. ### English translation (Claude) Yet if this is so, it is clear that the land of darkness is touched by the land of light on two sides; and surely if it is touched on two, it also touches on two. So much, then, for “the land of darkness was beside one side.” Next, how ugly the shape of the land of light appears: like a cloven hoof with a black wedge driven in beneath it, bounded only where it is split, and gaping open above as well, with empty space between, as much as is immense above the surface of the land of darkness. And then how much better appears the shape of the land of darkness itself, since it splits and the other is split; it is inserted, the other gapes open; it gives place to no emptiness within itself, while the other is closed only on its lower part, where it is filled up below by the hostile wedge. So these ignorant and greedy men, giving greater honor to a multitude of parts than to unity, in order to give six parts to the land of light, three downward and three upward, preferred that the land of light be penetrated rather than penetrate. For with such a shape, even if they deny that it is mixed, they cannot deny that it is penetrated. ### Translation notes - “So much, then, for …”: the Latin (certe iuxta unum latus erat terra tenebrarum) repeats Mani’s phrase ironically. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Ep. fund. 22 (CSEL 25:219; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/14/#p-22). ## Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental 23 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/14/#p-23 - Source: CSEL 25:219–221 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Simple Catholics who picture God in human form think better of him than the Manichaeans, and can grow in the Church to understand Scripture’s bodily language spiritually; the Manichaeans claim Mani spoke without figures and so cannot reinterpret his picture. ### Latin text Confer nunc non spiritales catholicae fidei uiros. in quibus quantum in hac uita animus potest, cernit substantiam naturamque diuinam nullis locorum spatiis tendi, nullis liniamentorum dimensionibus figurari, sed confer carnales et paruulos nostros, qui solent auditis in allegoria membris quibusdam corporis nostri — uelut cum dicuntur oculi dei et aures dei, solent deum sibi libertate phantasmatis corporis humani specie figurare —: hos confer iam illis Manichaeis, qui solent istas nugas intentis et curiosis hominibus quasi magna secreta describere, et considera. qui tolerabilius et honestius de deo sentiant: utrum ii, qui eum forma humana summa dignitate in suo genere praedita cogitant, an ii. qui eum infinita mole diffusum, non tamen undique, sed tribus quadris infinitum atque condensum, ex una uero fissum. patentem. hiantem, laxum superius inanitate. cuneatum inferius terra tenebrarum, uel, si ita melius est dicere, apertum superius natura propria. intratum inferius aliena. ecce, ego tecum derideo carnales homines. qui nondum possunt spiritalia cogitare humana forma deum existimantes; deride et tu mecum, si potes, eos, qui tam deformem turpemque fissuram uel scissuram dei, tam inaniter supra hiulcam, tam inhoneste infra obturatam multum miserabili cogitatione imaginantur, cum hoc etiam intersit, quod isti carnales, qui humana forma deum cogitant. si ecclesiae catholicae gremio contenti cum lacte nutriendi sunt. non se in temerarias opiniones praecipitent. sed ibi studium pium quaerendi nutriant, ibi petant, ut accipiant, ibi pulsent, ut eis aperiatur, incipiunt spiritaliter allegorias parabolasque scripturarum intellegere et paulatim sapere diuinas potentias congruenter alibi aurium, alibi oculorum, alibi manuum uel pedum uel etiam alarum atque pennarum, scuti quoque et gladii et galeae ceterarumque talium innumerabilium rerum nomine enuntiari. qua intellegentia quanto magis proficiunt, tanto magis catholici esse firmantur; Manichaei uero quando figurae illius imaginationem reliquerint, Manichaei esse non poterunt. hoc enim quasi proprium atque praecelsum auctoris sui laudibus tribuunt, quod dicunt illa. quae ab antiquis figurate in libris diuina mysteria posita sunt. huic, qui ultimus uenturus erat, soluenda et demonstranda esse seruata, et propterea post istum iam neminem doctorem diuinitus esse uenturum, quia nihil iste per figuras et allegorias dixerit, cum et antiquorum, quae talia fuerant, aperiret et sua enodate manifesteque monstraret. non habent ergo isti, ad quas interpretationes reuertantur, cum illis de auctore suo legitur: iuxta unam uero partem ac latus inlustris illius ac sanctae terrae erat tenebrarum terra. quocumque se uerterint, necesse est, ut phantasmatum suorum miseria coartati in scissuras aut abruptas praecisiones et iuncturas. aut fulturas turpissimas incidant: quas non dicam de incommutabili natura dei, sed de omni natura incorporea quamuis mutabili, sicut est anima. miserrimum est credere. et tamen, si non possem me intendere ad superiora neque cogitationes meas a falsis imaginationibus. quas per sensus corporeos memoria fixas gero, in libertatem ac sinceritatem naturae spiritalis euoluere. quanto melius humani corporis forma deum cogitarem, quam illum nigrum cuneum scissurae inferiori eius adfigerem superioremque uastissimam laxitatem non inueniens. unde oppilarem, sic inmensa inanitate patentem et hiantem relinquerem? quid ista opinione foedius? quid tenebrosius hoc errore dici aut fingi potest? ### English translation (Claude) Compare now, not the spiritual men of the Catholic faith, in whom the mind, as far as it can in this life, perceives that the divine substance and nature is not extended through any spaces of place nor shaped by any dimensions of outline, but compare our carnal and little ones, who, when they hear certain members of our body spoken of allegorically (as when the eyes of God and the ears of God are mentioned), are accustomed, with the freedom of fantasy, to picture God to themselves in the form of a human body: compare these now with those Manichaeans, who are accustomed to describe these trifles to eager and curious men as if they were great secrets, and consider which of them think more tolerably and more honorably of God: those who think of him in a human form endowed with the highest dignity of its kind, or those who think of him as spread out in infinite bulk, yet not on all sides, but infinite and solid in three quarters, while in one he is split, open, gaping, loose above with emptiness, wedged below by the land of darkness, or, if it is better to say so, open above in his own nature and entered below by an alien one. See, I join you in laughing at carnal men who, not yet able to think of spiritual things, suppose that God has human form; you too laugh with me, if you can, at those who in a most wretched way imagine so ugly and shameful a fissure or split in God, so emptily gaping above, so dishonorably stopped up below. There is this difference too: these carnal people who think of God in human form, if they are content in the bosom of the Catholic Church to be nourished with milk, and do not throw themselves headlong into rash opinions, but there nourish a godly zeal for seeking, there ask that they may receive, there knock that it may be opened to them, begin to understand the allegories and parables of the Scriptures spiritually, and gradually to grasp that the divine powers are fittingly expressed in one place by the name of ears, in another of eyes, in another of hands or feet or even of wings and feathers, of shield too and sword and helmet and countless other such things. And the more they advance in this understanding, the more firmly they become Catholics. But the Manichaeans, once they abandon the imagining of that figure, cannot be Manichaeans. For they ascribe this, as something peculiar and pre-eminent, to the praises of their founder: they say that the divine mysteries set down figuratively in books by the ancients were reserved for him, who was to come last, to be solved and demonstrated, and that therefore after him no teacher will come from God any more, because he said nothing through figures and allegories, since he both opened the ancients’ sayings of that kind and set forth his own plainly and clearly. These men, therefore, have no interpretations to fall back on when they hear read from their founder: “Now beside one part and side of that illustrious and holy land was the land of darkness.” Wherever they turn, they must, hemmed in by the misery of their phantasms, fall into splits or abrupt cuttings-off and junctures or most shameful props, which it is most wretched to believe, I will not say of the unchangeable nature of God, but of any incorporeal nature, even a changeable one such as the soul. And yet, if I were unable to stretch myself toward higher things, or to unroll my thoughts from the false imaginings that I carry fixed in memory through the bodily senses into the freedom and purity of spiritual nature, how much better would I think of God in the form of a human body than fix that black wedge into his lower split and, finding nothing with which to stop up his vast openness above, leave him thus open and gaping with immense emptiness! What can be said or imagined more foul than this opinion, more dark than this error? ### Scripture references - 1 Cor 3:2: allusion, medium confidence - Matt 7:7: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - “Nourished with milk” alludes to 1 Cor 3:2; “ask … knock” to Matt 7:7. The Manichaean claim that Mani, the last teacher, spoke without figures is reported as Augustine gives it. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Ep. fund. 23 (CSEL 25:219–221; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/14/#p-23). ## Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental 24 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/14/#p-24 - Source: CSEL 25:221–223 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Whether the land of light is of God’s nature, begotten, alien, or made from another substance, the Manichaean account leads to absurdity unless God made it from nothing. ### Latin text Deinde uolo mihi dicatur, quoniam lego deum patrem et supra lucidam beatamque terram fundata regna eius, utrum unius et eiusdem substantiae atque naturae sint et pater et regna eius et terra. quod si ita est, iam non quasi aliam naturam, quod 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 uestra eradicate atque propellite. an dicturi estis non unius eiusdemque naturae illa tria esse, sed alterius patrem, alterius regna. alterius terram, ut suas naturas atque substantias habeant singula diuersas et excellentiae gradibus ordinatas? quod si uerum est, non duas, sed quattuor naturas Manichaeus praedicare debuerat. si autem unam naturam habet pater et regna, terra uero sola diuersam, 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 diuersam et non eam genuit neque fecit, non ad eum pertinet et in alieno regna eius locata sunt. aut si propterea pertinet, quia uicina est, pertineat et terra tenebrarum, quae terram lucis non modo uicinitate contingit, sed etiam penetratione dissulcat. si autem genuit eam, non eam credi oportet diuersam 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 uos necessitas reuocat, ut non terram quasi aliam et diuersam, sed ipsam dei naturam niger cuneus ille diffindat. quodsi non genuit, sed fecit eam deus, quaero, unde fecerit. si de se ipso, quid aliud est 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 gens illa tenebrarum sola natura mala erat. an forte iam inde adsumpserat partem aliquam deus, quam in terram lucis conuerteret et super illam sua regna stabiliret? de tota ergo id fecisset, ut iam olim mala natura nulla esset. quodsi non de aliena substantia fecit terram lucis. restat, ut eam de nihilo fecerit. ### English translation (Claude) Next I want to be told, since I read of God the Father and of his kingdoms founded upon the bright and blessed land, whether the Father and his kingdoms and the land are of one and the same substance and nature. If this is so, then that wedge of the race of darkness splits and penetrates not some other nature, as though it were God’s body (which would itself be most shameful in its unspeakable ugliness), but the very nature of God itself. I beg you, think of these things, you are men; I beg you, think of these things and flee, and, even if you must tear open your hearts, root out the sacrileges of such phantasms and drive them from your faith. Or will you say that those three are not of one and the same nature, but the Father of one, the kingdoms of another, the land of another, so that each has its own different nature and substance, arranged in degrees of excellence? If this is true, Mani should have proclaimed not two natures but four. But if the Father and the kingdoms have one nature and the land alone a different one, three natures should have been proclaimed. Or if he preferred to speak of two because the land of darkness does not belong to God, I ask how the land of light belongs to God. For if it both has a different nature and he neither begot nor made it, it does not belong to him, and his kingdoms are placed on another’s ground. Or if it belongs to him because it is neighboring, let the land of darkness belong to him too, which not only touches the land of light as a neighbor but even furrows through it by penetration. But if he begot it, it must not be believed to have a different nature. For what God begot must be believed to be what God is, as is believed in the Catholic Church concerning the only-begotten Son. So necessity brings you back to that shameful thing you must flee and detest: that the black wedge splits not a land as though other and different, but the very nature of God. But if God did not beget it but made it, I ask from what he made it. If from himself, what else is that but to have begotten it? If from some alien nature, I ask whether good or evil. If good, then there was some good nature that did not belong to God, which you will in no way dare to say. If evil, then the race of darkness was not the only evil nature. Or had God perhaps already taken some part from there to turn into the land of light and establish his kingdoms upon it? Then he would have done this with the whole of it, so that long ago there would have been no evil nature at all. But if he did not make the land of light from an alien substance, it remains that he made it from nothing. ### Translation notes - “What God begot must be believed to be what God is”: the Catholic doctrine of the only-begotten Son, used here as the premise of the argument. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Ep. fund. 24 (CSEL 25:221–223; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/14/#p-24). ## Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental 25 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/14/#p-25 - Source: CSEL 25:223–225 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: If God can make good things from nothing, the Manichaeans should learn in the Catholic Church that all natures are good in their degrees; whatever shape they give the two lands, Mani’s own words remain. ### Latin text Quare si uobis iam persuadetur posse aliquid boni omnipotentem deum de nihilo facere, uenite in catholicam et discite omnes naturas, quas fecit et condidit deus, excellentiae gradibus ordinatas a summis usque ad infimas, omnes bonas, sed alias aliis esse potiores, easque factas esse de nihilo, cum deus artifex per sapientiam suam potentialiter, ut ita dicam, operaretur, ut posset esse, quod non erat, et in quantum esset, bonum esset; in quantum autem deficeret, se non de deo genitum, sed ab ipso de nihilo factum ostenderet. quid enim uos teneat, si consideretis, non inuenitis, cum terram luminis, quam describitis, neque hoc esse, quod deus est, possitis dicere, ne in ipsam dei naturam foeditas quadrae illius inartetur; neque de illo genitam, ne nihilominus hoc, quod deus est, cogatur intellegi et ad eandem deformitatem redeat; nec alienam ab illo, ne in alieno regna eum posuisse et non duas, sed tres naturas dicere urgeamini; neque ab eodem de aliena factam substantia, ne aut bonum aliud fuerit. praeter deum, aut malum praeter gentem tenebrarum. remanet igitur uobis, ut de nihilo terram luminis deum fecisse fateamini, et non uultis credere. quodsi magnum aliquod bonum, quod tamen illo ipso esset inferius, deus ex nihilo facere potuit. potuit etiam, quia bonus est et nulli bono inuidet, facere alterum bonum, quod illo priore esset inferius; potuit et tertium, cui secundum praeponeretur, et deinde usque ad infimum bonum naturarum factarum ordinem ducere, donec uniuersitas earum non numero indefinito incerta difflueret. sed certo terminata consisteret. aut si nec de nihilo istam luminis terram deum fecisse uultis fateri, non erit exitus. quo tantas turpitudines et tam sacrilegas opiniones euadatis. Aut uidete certe, quoniam liberum est carnali cogitationi phantasmata qualia libuerit opinari, ne forte possitis aliam quamcumque formam huic coniunctioni duarum terrarum inuenire. ne tam detestabilis et auersanda rerum facies animo occurrat, terram scilicet dei, siue Sit eiusdem naturae, qua deus est, siue diuersae, in qua tamen dei regna fundata sint, ita ingenti mole per inmensum iacere, ut per infinitum porrectis et apertis membris iaceat. quibus foedissime atque turpissime ab inferiore parte recipiat etiam ipsum inmensae magnitudinis inartatum illum cuneum terrae tenebrarum. sed quicquid aliud inueneritis figurae. quo duae istae terrae sibi coniungantur, delere profecto Manichaei litteras non potestis: non dico alias, quibus expressius ista descripsit — fortassis enim quia paucioribus notae sunt. minus periculi habere uideantur istas ipsas, de quibus nunc agitur, epistulae fundamenti, quae fere omnibus, qui apud uos inluminati uocantur, solet esse notissima. hic quippe ita scribitur: iuxta unam uero partem ac latus illius inlustris ac sanctae terrae erat tenebrarum terra profunda et inmensa magnitudine. ### English translation (Claude) Therefore, if you are now persuaded that the almighty God can make something good from nothing, come into the Catholic Church and learn that all the natures which God has made and established are arranged in degrees of excellence from the highest to the lowest, all good, but some better than others, and that they were made from nothing, God the craftsman working powerfully, so to speak, through his wisdom, so that what was not could be, and insofar as it was, it would be good; but insofar as it fell short, it would show that it was not begotten of God but made by him from nothing. For if you consider it, you find nothing to hold you back: you cannot say that the land of light you describe is what God is, lest the ugliness of that quarter be driven into the very nature of God; nor that it was begotten of him, lest it still have to be understood as what God is and so come back to the same ugliness; nor that it is alien to him, lest you be forced to say that he placed his kingdoms on another’s ground and that there are not two but three natures; nor that it was made by him from an alien substance, lest there be either some good besides God or some evil besides the race of darkness. It remains, then, for you to confess that God made the land of light from nothing, and you do not want to believe it. But if God could make from nothing some great good which was yet inferior to himself, he could also, because he is good and begrudges no good, make another good inferior to that first one; he could also make a third, to which the second would be preferred, and so extend the order of made natures down to the lowest good, so that their totality would not flow away uncertain in an indefinite number but stand bounded by a fixed limit. Or if you will not confess that God made this land of light even from nothing, there will be no way out by which you can escape such great shamefulness and such sacrilegious opinions. Or at least see (since carnal thought is free to imagine whatever phantasms it pleases) whether you can perhaps find some other shape for this conjunction of the two lands, so that so detestable and repulsive a picture of things does not come to mind: namely, that the land of God, whether it is of the same nature as God or of a different one on which God’s kingdoms are nevertheless founded, lies with so huge a bulk through immensity that it lies with limbs stretched out and open into infinity, with which it most foully and shamefully receives from below that wedge of the land of darkness, itself of immense size, driven into it. But whatever other shape you find by which these two lands are joined, you certainly cannot blot out Mani’s writings. I do not mean the others, in which he described these things more expressly (for perhaps, because they are known to fewer people, they seem to carry less danger), but these very words of the Letter of the Foundation now under discussion, which is usually very well known to nearly all among you who are called enlightened. For here it is written thus: “Now beside one part and side of that illustrious and holy land was the land of darkness, deep and of immense size.” ### Translation notes - The closing quotation repeats Mani’s Letter of the Foundation (see ch. 15). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Ep. fund. 25 (CSEL 25:223–225; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/14/#p-25). ## Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental 26 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/14/#p-26 - Source: CSEL 25:225–226 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Whether the two lands met along a crooked, curved, or straight line, the result is either ugly or, if straight, a harmony that contradicts their supposed enmity. ### Latin text Quid expectamus amplius? tenemus enim, quod iuxta latus erat. quomodo libet iam fingite figuras et qualialibet liniamenta describite, moles certe illa inmensa terrae tenebrarum aut recto latere adiungebatur terrae lucis aut curuo aut tortuoso. sed si tortuoso, et illa sancta terra tortuosum habet latus; nam si ipsa rectum habet latus et tortuoso huius latere tangitur, interpatent cauernae quaedam profundae per infinitum inanes nec iam supra terram tantum tenebrarum inanitas erat, sicut audire solebamus. quod si ita est, quanto melius erat, ut se aliquanto longius terra luminis remoueret atque illa inanitas tanta interesset, ne omnino posset a tenebrarum terra ulla ex parte contingi! immo etiam tantum spatium pateret inanis profunditatis, ut si qua gentis illius oreretur inprobitas, etiamsi temere transilire in illam uellent principes tenebrarum — quoniam nec uolare possunt corpora, nisi aere corporeo subportentur —, per illud inane praecipitati et, quia infinitum deorsum uersus esset, ad nullum aliquando fundum peruenientes, etiamsi semper possent uiuere, numquam tamen, dum deorsum semper feruntur, possent nocere. si autem curuo latere adiungebatur, terra quoque lucis curuo eam sinu deformiter recipiebat. aut si introrsus ista quasi specie theatri curua erat, curuam terrae luminis partem tali sinu receptam non minus deformi copulatione amplectebatur. aut si ista curuum habebat latus et illa rectum, non ex toto eam latere adtingebat. et utique melius erat, sicut supra dixi, ut nulla ex parte contingeret tantumque inane interesset, ut et iusto interuallo utramque terram seiungeret et temerarios inprobos per infinitum praecipites nihil nocere permitteret. quodsi recto latere latus rectum adtingebat, non uideo quidem aliqua uel receptacula uel hiatus, sed plane uideo tantam pacem tantamque secum terrae utriusque concordiam, ut maior coniunctio esse non possit. quid enim speciosius, quid conuenientius quam rectum recto ita copulari, ut nulla ex parte sinus aliquis uel flexus disrumpat aut dirimat naturalem ac stabilem per infinitum spatium loci et ab infinita aeternitate iuncturam? quae recta latera utriusque terrae, etiamsi interposito inani separarentur, non solum per se ipsa pulchra essent, quia tam recta essent, sed interiecto quoque interuallo ita sibi congruerent, ut hinc atque illinc pariles rectitudines etiamsi nulla coniunctione, ipsa tamen similitudine in unam pulchritudinem conuenirent. cum autem accedit ista coniunctio, quid concordius et pacatius hac utraque terra, quid uero etiam ipsa copulatione duorum rectorum laterum pulchrius dici aut cogitari possit, non inuenio. ### English translation (Claude) What more are we waiting for? We have it, that it was beside a side. Now invent shapes as you please and draw outlines of whatever kind: certainly that immense bulk of the land of darkness was joined to the land of light by a straight side, or a curved one, or a crooked one. But if by a crooked one, then that holy land too has a crooked side; for if it has a straight side and is touched by the crooked side of the other, certain deep hollows gape between, empty to infinity, and the emptiness was no longer only above the land of darkness, as we used to hear. If so, how much better it would have been for the land of light to withdraw somewhat further and for so great an emptiness to lie between that it could not be touched by the land of darkness in any part at all! Indeed, so great a space of empty depth might have lain open that, if any wickedness of that race arose, even if the princes of darkness wished rashly to leap across into it (since bodies cannot fly unless supported by bodily air), they would be hurled headlong through that emptiness and, since it was infinite downward, would never reach any bottom; even if they could live forever, they could never do harm, since they would always be falling downward. But if it was joined by a curved side, the land of light too received it in a curved hollow in an ugly way. Or if the land of darkness was curved inward, like a theater, it embraced a curved part of the land of light received into such a hollow in a no less ugly union. Or if this land had a curved side and that one a straight side, it did not touch it along the whole side; and certainly it would have been better, as I said above, for it to touch at no part and for so great an emptiness to lie between that it would separate the two lands by a fitting interval and allow the rash and wicked to do no harm as they fell headlong into infinity. But if a straight side touched a straight side, I see indeed no receptacles or gaps, but I plainly see so great a peace and so great a harmony of the two lands with each other that there could be no closer union. For what is more beautiful, what more fitting, than for straight to be joined to straight in such a way that no hollow or bend at any point breaks or separates the natural and stable juncture, through infinite space and from infinite eternity? These straight sides of the two lands, even if they were separated by an intervening emptiness, would not only be beautiful in themselves, because so straight, but would also so match each other across the interval that the equal straightnesses on this side and that, even without any juncture, would come together by their very likeness into one beauty. And when that juncture is added, I cannot find what can be said or thought more harmonious and peaceful than these two lands, or indeed more beautiful than this very union of two straight sides. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Ep. fund. 26 (CSEL 25:225–226; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/14/#p-26). ## Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental 27 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/27/#p-27 - Source: CSEL 25:226–228 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Making a straight side crooked removes beauty but no substance, which shows that evil is not a substance but a loss of good; even the straightness of the dark land’s side is a good from God. ### Latin text Quid faciam cum errore peruersis et consuetudine inplicatis miserrimis animis? non enim sciunt isti homines. quid loquantur, cum haec loquuntur; non enim adtendunt. rogo, nemo uos urget, nemo in certamen premit, nemo praeteritis insultat erroribus, nisi qui diuinam misericordiam expertus non est. ut careret erroribus, tantum id agamus, ut aliquando finiantur. intuemini paululum sine animositate et amaritudine — omnes homines sumus, non nos, sed errores et falsitates oderimus — quaeso, intuemini paululum. deus misericordiarum, adiuua intuentes et uerum quaerentibus interius lumen accende. quid enim intellegimus, si non intellegimus rectum melius esse quam prauum? quaero ergo a uobis, si placide modesteque accipitis, rectum latus terrae tenebrarum, quod recto lateri terrae lucis adiungitur, si quispiam deprauaret, nullamne illi pulchritudinem adimeret. necesse est fateamini, si latrare nolitis, non solum ei, si deprauetur, pulchritudinem auferri, sed eam etiam pulchritudinem, quam cum recto latere terrae luminis potuit habere communem. hanc ergo auferens et de recto prauum faciens, ut discordaret, quod concordabat, et abhorreret, quod congruebat, numquid aliquam inde auferret substantiam? sic ergo discite non substantiam malum esse, sed sicut in corpore conmutatione formae in deterius amitti speciem uel potius minui et foedum dici, quod pulchrum antea dicebatur, et displicere corpus, quod ante placuerat: sic in animo rectae uoluntatis decus, quo pie iusteque uiuitur, conmutata in deterius uoluntate deprauari; quo peccato effici animam miseram, quae honestate rectae uoluntatis beatitatem obtinebat, nulla addita detractaue substantia. Deinde etiam illud cogitate, quia etsi concedamus aliis causis latus terrae tenebrarum malum esse, quod obscurum, quod tenebrosum uel si quid aliud dici potest, non tamen in eo, quod rectum est, malum est. sicut ergo concedo esse in eius colore aliquid mali, sic necesse est et uos concedatis esse in eius rectitudine aliquid boni. nefas est itaque hoc quantumcumque boni est alienare ab artifice deo, a quo esse omne bonum, quod in quacumque natura est, nisi credimus, perniciosissime erramus. quomodo ergo ille et summum malum esse dicit hanc terram, in cuius lateris rectitudine inuenio, quantum ad corpus adtinet, non paruae pulchritudinis bonum, et ab omnipotente atque optimo deo eam uult esse penitus alienam, cum id ipsum bonum, quod in illa inuenimus, cui alii tribuendum sit nisi auctori bonorum omnium. non inueniamus? sed malum erat, inquit, etiam illud latus. puta malum esse: deterius esset certe, si non rectum, sed distortum esset. quomodo est igitur summum malum, quo potest aliquid cogitari deterius? deinde necesse est aliquid boni sit. quo carendo fit res quaecumque deterior; carendo autem rectitudine fieret latus illud deterius: inest ergo illi boni aliquid, rectitudo. et numquam mihi dices, unde inest, nisi ad eum te contuleris. a quo siue magna siue parua, omnia tamen bona esse fateamur. sed iam a lateris huius consideratione transeamus ad alia. ### English translation (Claude) What am I to do with most wretched minds perverted by error and entangled by habit? For these men do not know what they are saying when they say these things; for they do not pay attention. I beg you: no one is pressing you, no one is forcing you into a contest, no one mocks past errors except one who has not experienced the divine mercy so as to be free of errors; let us only see to it that they come to an end at last. Look a little, without animosity and bitterness (we are all men; let us hate not one another but errors and falsehoods); I beg you, look a little. God of mercies, help those who look, and kindle the inner light for those who seek the truth. For what do we understand, if we do not understand that straight is better than crooked? I ask you, then, if you will take it calmly and modestly: if someone were to make crooked the straight side of the land of darkness which is joined to the straight side of the land of light, would he not take away some beauty from it? You must confess, unless you want to bark, that if it is made crooked, not only is its own beauty taken away, but also that beauty which it could have in common with the straight side of the land of light. In taking this away, then, and making crooked out of straight, so that what agreed would disagree and what fitted would clash, would he take away any substance from it? So learn, then, that evil is not a substance; but just as in a body, by a change of form for the worse, beauty is lost, or rather diminished, and what was before called beautiful is called ugly, and a body displeases that pleased before, so in the mind the grace of a right will, by which one lives godly and justly, is spoiled when the will changes for the worse; and by this sin the soul, which by the honor of a right will possessed happiness, is made wretched, no substance being added or taken away. Then consider this too: even if we grant that for other reasons the side of the land of darkness is evil, because it is obscure, because it is dark, or whatever else can be said, yet it is not evil insofar as it is straight. Just as I grant, then, that there is something evil in its color, so you must grant that there is something good in its straightness. And so it is wrong to separate this good, however much it is, from God the craftsman; unless we believe that every good that is in any nature comes from him, we err most ruinously. How, then, does he say that this land is the supreme evil, when in the straightness of its side I find a good of no small beauty, as far as a body is concerned, and why does he want it to be wholly alien from the almighty and best God, when we cannot find to whom else that very good which we find in it should be ascribed except to the author of all goods? “But that side too,” he says, “was evil.” Suppose it was evil: it would certainly be worse if it were not straight but twisted. How, then, is that the supreme evil than which something worse can be thought? Further, there must be some good by lacking which a thing becomes worse; and by lacking straightness that side would become worse; so there is something good in it, straightness. And you will never tell me whence it is in it unless you betake yourself to him from whom, let us confess, all things, great or small, are good. But let us now pass from the consideration of this side to other matters. ### Scripture references - 2 Cor 1:3: echo, medium confidence ### Translation notes - “God of mercies” echoes 2 Cor 1:3. The argument that evil is not a substance but a corruption of a good nature is Augustine’s own, stated against the Manichaean view of evil as a substance. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Ep. fund. 27 (CSEL 25:226–228; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/27/#p-27). ## Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental 28 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/27/#p-28 - Source: CSEL 25:228–229 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Mani divides the land of darkness into five natures (darkness, waters, winds, fire, smoke), each with its own kind of inhabitant. ### Latin text Habitabant, inquit, in illa terra ignea corpora, genera scilicet pestifera. cum dicit "habitabant," animata utique atque uiuentia uult intellegi. sed ne de uerbo calumniari uelle uideamur, adtendamus istos omnes habitatores terrae illius, quemadmodum in quinque genera uiua distribuat. hic infinitae, inquit, tenebrae ex eadem manantes natura inaestimabiles cum propriis fetibus; ultra quas erant aquae caenosae ac turbidae cum suis inhabitatoribus; quarum interius uenti horribiles et uehementes cum suo principe et genitoribus. rursum regio ignea et corruptibilis cum suis ducibus et nationibus. pari more introrsum gens caliginis ac fumi plena. in qua morabatur inmanis princeps omnium et dux habens circa se innumerabiles principes, quorum omnium ipse erat mens atque origo: haeque fuerunt naturae quinque terrae pestiferae. animaduertimus quinque naturas quasi partes unius naturae, quam uocat terram pestiferam. hae sunt autem: tenebrae, aquae, uenti, ignis. fumus; quas quinque naturas sic ordinat, ut exteriores ceteris sint tenebrae, a quibus numerare incipit. intra tenebras aquas constituit; intra aquas uentos; intra uentos ignem; intra ignem fumum. et habebant istae quinque naturae sua quaeque genera inhabitatorum suorum, quae nihilominus quinque sunt. quaero namque, utrum unum genus habitantium fuerit in omnibus quinque naturis, an diuersa genera, sicut naturae ipsae diuersae sunt. diuersa fuisse respondent et de aliis libris ita docent, quod tenebrae serpentes habuerunt; aquae natantes, sicut sunt pisces; uenti uolantes, sicut sunt aues; ignis quadrupedes, sicuti sunt equi, leones et cetera huiusmodi; fumus bipedes, sicuti sunt homines. ### English translation (Claude) “There dwelt,” he says, “in that land fiery bodies, that is, pestilential kinds.” When he says “dwelt,” he certainly wants them to be understood as animate and living. But so that we may not seem to want to cavil at a word, let us attend to how he distributes all these inhabitants of that land into five living kinds. “Here,” he says, “were infinite darknesses, flowing from the same nature, beyond reckoning, with their own offspring; beyond these were muddy and turbid waters with their inhabitants; further within them, horrible and violent winds with their prince and begetters; again a fiery and corruptible region with its leaders and nations; in the same way, further within, a race full of gloom and smoke, in which dwelt the monstrous prince and leader of all, having around him innumerable princes, of all of whom he was the mind and origin. And these were the five natures of the pestilential land.” We notice five natures, as parts of one nature, which he calls the pestilential land. They are these: darkness, waters, winds, fire, smoke. He arranges these five natures so that darkness is outermost, and from it he begins to count; within the darkness he places the waters; within the waters the winds; within the winds the fire; within the fire the smoke. And these five natures each had their own kinds of inhabitants, which are likewise five. For I ask whether there was one kind of inhabitant in all five natures, or different kinds, as the natures themselves are different. They answer that they were different, and from other books they teach that the darkness had creeping things; the waters swimming things, such as fish; the winds flying things, such as birds; the fire four-footed things, such as horses, lions, and others of this kind; the smoke two-footed things, such as men. ### Translation notes - The quotation is from Mani’s Letter of the Foundation (see ch. 15); the five kinds of inhabitants come, Augustine says, from other Manichaean books. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Ep. fund. 28 (CSEL 25:228–229; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/27/#p-28). ## Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental 29 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/27/#p-29 - Source: CSEL 25:229–230 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: The order, number, forms, and life that Mani gives to the land of darkness are goods that can come only from God. ### Latin text Quis igitur ista ordinauit? quis distribuit atque distinxit? quis numerum, qualitatem, formas, uitam dedit? haec enim omnia per se ipsa bona sunt nec inuenitur, unde cuique naturae nisi ab omnium bonorum deo auctore tribuantur. non enim sicut chaos describere, uel quo modo insinuare etiam poetae solent informem quandam materiem sine specie, sine qualitate, sine mensuris, sine numero et pondere, sine ordine ac distinctione confusum nescio quid atque omnino expers omni qualitate, — unde illud quidam doctores graeci ἄποιον uocant — non ergo sic isti hanc quam uocant terram tenebrarum insinuare conantur, sed omnino aliter longeque diuerse atque contrarie latus lateri adiungunt atque conliniant: naturas quinque numerant, distingunt, ordinant, qualitatibus propriis enuntiant nec eas desertas infecundasque esse permittunt, sed suis inhabitatoribus conplent eisque ipsis formas congruas et suis habitationibus adcommodatas adtribuunt et quod antecellit omnibus, uitam. haec tanta bona enumerare et ab auctore omnium bonorum deo aliena esse dicere, hoc est nec in rebus agnoscere tantum ordinis bonum nec in se tantum erroris malum. ### English translation (Claude) Who, then, arranged these things? Who distributed and distinguished them? Who gave them number, quality, forms, life? For all these things are good in themselves, and no source can be found from which they are given to each nature except from God, the author of all goods. For it is not as the poets are wont to describe chaos, or to suggest some formless matter without form, without quality, without measures, without number and weight, without order and distinction, some confused thing utterly devoid of every quality (which is why certain Greek teachers call it apoion, “without quality”): it is not in this way, then, that these men try to suggest what they call the land of darkness, but altogether otherwise, far differently and contrarily: they join side to side and line them up; they count five natures, distinguish them, arrange them, describe them by their proper qualities; nor do they allow them to be deserted and barren, but fill them with their inhabitants, and give these very inhabitants forms suited and fitted to their dwellings, and, what surpasses all, life. To enumerate such great goods and to say that they are alien from God, the author of all goods, is to recognize neither the great good of order in things nor the great evil of error in oneself. ### Extrabiblical texts - Wis 11:20 (Wisdom of Solomon): echo, medium confidence ### Translation notes - “Measures, number and weight” echoes Wis 11:20. The Greek word ἄποιον (“without quality”) is printed in Greek in the edition. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Ep. fund. 29 (CSEL 25:229–230; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/27/#p-29). ## Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental 30 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/27/#p-30 - Source: CSEL 25:230–232 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: In each of Mani’s five dark natures Augustine praises the goods (health, fruitfulness, form, harmony, life) that Mani’s own description implies. ### Latin text Sed ista, inquit, genera quinque illas naturas inhabitantia saeua erant atque pestifera. quasi ego in eis saeuitiam pestemque laudauerim. ecce, ego tecum uitupero, quae in illis mala esse criminaris, lauda tu mecum, quae in illis bona ipse commemoras: ita uidebis bona malis permixta te uelle constituere pro summo et extremo malo. uitupero ibi tecum pestem, lauda ibi mecum salutem; non enim genera illa uel gigni uel nutriri uel inhabitare illam terram sine aliqua salute potuissent. uitupero ibi tecum tenebras, lauda ibi mecum fecunditatem; tenebras enim dicis "inaestimabiles," et addis tamen "cum propriis fetibus," quamquam tenebrae non sunt corporeae totumque hoc nomen lucis absentia est, sicut nuditas carere uestitu et inanitas uacare corporis plenitudine; ac propterea tenebrae nihil gignere potuerunt, quamuis terra potuerit tenebrosa, id est carens luce aliquid gignere. sed interim hoc omittamus. fetus tamen ubi exoriuntur, et temperamentum est aptum saluti et quaedam concordia numerosa ordinat atque in unitatem coaedificat membra nascentium sibimet inuicem moderationis pace congruentia. quae omnia quis non intellegat maiore laude quam tenebras uituperatione dignanda? uitupero ibi tecum caenum turbidum aquarum, lauda ibi mecum et ipsam speciem qualitatemque aquarum et inhabitatorum natantium membra congruentia, uitam corpus continentem et regentem et omne temperamentum sui generis ualetudini adcommodatum. quantumuis enim aquas caenosas turbidasque reprehendas, eo tamen, quod tales aquas dicis, ut animantia sua possent et gignere et continere, speciem illis qualiscumque corporis et partium similitudinem, qua in unam formantur pacanturque qualitatem, auferre non potes, quia si abstuleris, nullum erit corpus: quae omnia, si es homo, sentis esse laudanda. et quantumuis illorum inhabitatorum saeuitiam et inter se impetus dilacerationis et uastationis exaggeres, non eis tamen adimis numerosos formarum terminos, quibus sibi singula eorum corpora membrorum parilitate pacata sunt, et temperamentum salutis, et moderamen animae partes sui corporis in unitatem amicitiae concordiaeque redigentis: quae si humano sensu intueris, uides plus esse laudanda quam illa uituperanda, quae displicent. uitupero ibi tecum horrorem uentorum, lauda ibi mecum eorundem uentorum spirabilem nutricemque naturam et speciem corporis conuenientia partium continuati atque diffusi: quibus rebus omnibus illos inhabitatores suos poterant et gignere et alere et salubriter continere eorumque inhabitatorum, cum cetera, quae in omnibus animantibus superiore ratione laudata sunt, tum proprie inpigros et faciles unde uelint et quo uelint transitus et alarum in uolatu concordem nisum et non inparem motum. uitupero ibi tecum corruptionem ignis, lauda ibi mecum genitabilem ignem et uigentem oportunamque eius temperationem nascentibus, et ut coalescerent et ut suis numeris liniamentisque perficerentur et ut uiuere atque habitare ibi possent: quae omnia non solum in ignis habitatione, sed in ipsis quoque habitantibus miranda et laudanda esse cognoscis. uitupero ibi tecum obscuritatem fumi et inmanitatem principis, qui in eo, sicut dicis, morabatur, lauda ibi mecum, quod uel in ipso fumo nullam partem inuenis dissimilem ceteris, ex quo in genere suo partium inter se suarum congruentiam modumque custodit. ut quadam unitate sit quod est: quae nemo sobrie considerat et non mirabiliter laudat. quid? quod etiam fumo addis uim potentiamque generandi, quando eidem quoque inhabitatores principes tribuis, ut quod hic numquam uidimus, ibi fumus fecundus sit et salubrem suis habitatoribus praebeat mansionem. ### English translation (Claude) “But these kinds,” he says, “that inhabited those five natures were savage and pestilential.” As if I had praised savagery and pestilence in them! See, I join you in condemning what you charge as evil in them; you join me in praising what you yourself mention as good in them: so you will see that you want to set up, as the supreme and ultimate evil, goods mixed with evils. I condemn with you the pestilence there; praise with me the health there; for those kinds could not have been born or nourished or inhabited that land without some health. I condemn with you the darkness there; praise with me the fruitfulness there; for you call the darknesses “beyond reckoning” and yet add “with their own offspring,” although darkness is not corporeal and this whole name means the absence of light, just as nakedness is lack of clothing and emptiness is want of bodily fullness; and so darkness could beget nothing, though a dark land, that is, one lacking light, could beget something. But let us pass over this for now. Yet where offspring arise, there is both a balance suited to health and a certain harmony of numbers that arranges the members of those being born and builds them together into a unity, members fitting one another in the peace of due measure. Who would not understand that all these things deserve more praise than darkness deserves blame? I condemn with you the turbid mud of the waters there; praise with me the very form and quality of the waters, and the fitting members of their swimming inhabitants, the life that holds together and rules the body, and every balance of its kind adapted to health. For however much you censure the waters as muddy and turbid, yet by calling them waters such as could both beget and sustain their living creatures, you cannot take away from them the form of some kind of body and the likeness of parts by which they are formed and brought to peace in one quality; for if you took it away, there would be no body; and all these things, if you are a man, you perceive to be praiseworthy. And however much you exaggerate the savagery of those inhabitants and their assaults on one another, tearing and laying waste, you do not take away from them the numbered boundaries of their forms, by which each of their bodies is brought to peace with itself by the equality of its members, nor the balance of health, nor the governance of a soul that brings the parts of its body into a unity of friendship and harmony; and if you look at these with human sense, you see that they are more to be praised than those things which displease are to be condemned. I condemn with you the dreadfulness of the winds there; praise with me the breathable and nourishing nature of those same winds, and the form of a body continuous and spread out with fitting parts, by all of which they could beget and feed and healthily sustain their inhabitants; and, in those inhabitants, besides the other things praised above in all living creatures, in particular their swift and easy passage from wherever and to wherever they wish, and the harmonious effort and even motion of their wings in flight. I condemn with you the corruption of the fire there; praise with me the generative fire and its vigorous temperature, suited to those being born, so that they might grow together, be perfected in their own numbers and outlines, and be able to live and dwell there; you know that all these things are to be admired and praised, not only in the fire as a dwelling but also in its very inhabitants. I condemn with you the obscurity of the smoke and the monstrousness of the prince who, as you say, dwelt in it; praise with me that even in the smoke itself you find no part unlike the rest, whereby in its own kind it keeps the agreement and measure of its parts with one another, so that it is what it is by a certain unity; no one considers these things soberly without marvelous praise. What more? You even add to smoke the force and power of generating, since you give it inhabitants, princes too, so that, what we have never seen here, smoke there is fruitful and provides a healthy dwelling for its inhabitants. ### Translation notes - The quoted phrases are from Mani’s Letter of the Foundation (see ch. 15). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Ep. fund. 30 (CSEL 25:230–232; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/27/#p-30). ## Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental 31 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/27/#p-31 - Source: CSEL 25:232–233 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Even the prince of smoke has the goods of an ordered soul and body; Mani’s dark natures are the lowest goods, and evil is the absence of good. ### Latin text Quod etiam in ipso fumi principe inmanitatem solam aduertisti, quam uituperares, nonne debuisti adtendere cetera, quae te in eius naturae laudem cogerent? habebat enim animam et corpus, illam uiuificantem, hoc uita inspiratum, cum illa regeret, hoc obtemperaret; illa praeiret, hoc subsequeretur; illa contineret, hoc non difflueret; illa moueret in numeros, hoc numerosa membrorum conpagine constabiliretur. nonne te ad laudem mouet in hoc uno principe uel pax ordinata uel ordo pacatus? quod autem de uno dictum est, hoc de ceteris intellegi licet. sed enim erat in alios ferus et inmanis. non hoc laudo, sed tanta illa, quae non uis adtendere. quae si uel admonitus intuetur atque considerat, quisquis Manichaeo temere credidit, sine dubitatione cognoscit, cum de istis naturis loquitur, de bonis quibusdam se loqui, sed non summis et infabricatis, sicuti est deus una trinitas, neque de his fabricatis, quae sublimiter ordinata sunt, sicuti sunt angeli sancti et beatissimae potestates, sed de infimis et pro sui generis modulo in imo rerum ordinatis bonis: quae dum conparantur superioribus, uituperandae ab inperitis existimantur, et dum consideratur, quantum his desit boni, quod illis adest, eiusdem boni absentia mali nomen tenet. et ego quidem propterea sic de istis naturis disputo, quoniam ea nominantur, quae in hoc mundo nota nobis sunt. nouimus enim tenebras, aquas, uentos, ignem, fumum; nouimus etiam animalia serpentia, natantia, uolantia, quadrupedia, bipedia: in quibus. omnibus exceptis tenebris, quae, ut dixi, nihil sunt aliud quam lucis absentia, quae oculis non uidendo discernuntur — sicut silentium auribus non audiendo — non quia tenebrae sunt aliquid, sed quia lux non est — sicut non quia silentium est aliquid, sed quia sonus non est — exceptis ergo tenebris in hac enumeratione ceterae naturae sunt et omnibus notae, quarum speciem, quia, in quantumcumque est, laudabilis et bona est, nemo prudens abalienat ab auctore omnium bonorum deo. ### English translation (Claude) And as for your noticing only monstrousness in the prince of smoke himself, to condemn it, ought you not to have attended to the other things that would compel you to praise his nature? For he had a soul and a body: the one giving life, the other breathed into by life; the one ruling, the other obeying; the one leading, the other following; the one holding together, the other not flowing apart; the one moving in rhythm, the other made stable by the rhythmic framework of its members. Does not the ordered peace, or the peaceful order, in this one prince move you to praise? And what has been said of one may be understood of the rest. “But he was fierce and monstrous toward others.” I do not praise this, but those great things which you will not attend to. If anyone who rashly believed Mani looks at them and considers them, even after being reminded, he recognizes without doubt that, when Mani speaks of these natures, he is speaking of certain goods: not the highest and unmade ones, such as God the one Trinity is, nor those made ones which are ordered on high, such as the holy angels and most blessed powers are, but of the lowest goods, ordered at the bottom of things according to the measure of their kind. When these are compared with higher ones, the unlearned think them blameworthy; and when one considers how much good they lack that the others have, the absence of that same good takes the name of evil. And I argue about these natures in this way because the things named are those known to us in this world. For we know darkness, waters, winds, fire, smoke; we know also creeping, swimming, flying, four-footed, and two-footed animals. Among all these, except darkness (which, as I said, is nothing but the absence of light, discerned by the eyes by not seeing, as silence is discerned by the ears by not hearing; not because darkness is something, but because light is not, just as silence is not something, but sound is not), except darkness, then, the others in this list are natures and known to all; and since their form, to whatever degree it exists, is praiseworthy and good, no prudent man separates them from God, the author of all goods. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Ep. fund. 31 (CSEL 25:232–233; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/27/#p-31). ## Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental 32 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/27/#p-32 - Source: CSEL 25:233–236 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Mani borrowed his five dark natures and their creatures from things seen in this world, but arranged them absurdly, as the examples of serpents, geese, sparrows, fire, and smoke show. ### Latin text Nam ille Manichaeus, sicut uoluit naturas, quas hic didicit, ordinare in phantasmatibus suis uelut in gente tenebrarum, omnino falsus esse conuincitur. primo quia tenebrae nihil possunt gignere, ut dictum est. sed non, inquit, tales erant illae tenebrae, quales hic nosti. unde ergo me de illis doces? an forte tam uerbosus 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 peiores aliquas credi cupis. posses dicere etiam silentium, quod sic est auribus ut tenebrae oculis, aliqua ibi surda uel muta animalia genuisse, ut, cum tibi diceretur non esse aliquam naturam silentium, responderes "sed non tale silentium, quale hic nosti," ut omnino quod uelles, diceres eis, quos semel, ut tibi crederent, decepisses. quamquam id, quod eum induxit, ut in tenebris serpentia nata esse confingeret, in ipsis quidem primordiis nascentium potuit bene animaduerti. sed sunt serpentes, qui tam acute uident et sic praesentia lucis exultant, ut grauissimum testimonium contra eum dicere uideantur. deinde in aquis natantia facile fuit hic discernere et ad illa transferre phantasmata; sic et in uentis uolantia, quoniam huius crassioris aeris inpulsus, in quo aues uolitant, uentus dicitur; in igni uero quadrupedia unde illi fingere in mentem uenerit, nescio. et tamen non frustra hoc dixit, sed parum adtendit et errauit nimis. hanc enim solent rationem reddere, quod quadrupedes edaces sint et in concubitum multum ferueant. sed multi homines edacitate sua superant quemlibet quadrupedem, qui certe bipedes sunt, quos non ignis, sed fumi esse filios dicit. anseribus uero non facile quicquam edacius inuenitur; quos siue in fumo ponat, quia bipedes sunt, siue in aquis, quia natare amant, siue in uentis, quia pennati sunt, et interdum uolant: ad ignem certe secundum eius distinctionem non pertinent. quod autem adtinet ad feruorem concubitus, credo eum animaduertisse hinnientes equos et saepe morsis frenis raptos in feminas: quod animaduersum dum uult cito scribere, non adtendit passerem parietinum, in cuius conparatione quiuis admissarius frigidissimus inuenitur. bipedes uero in fumo cum ab eis quaeritur quare ordinauerit, respondent elatum et superbum esse bipedum genus; hinc enim homines trahere originem dicunt; et quoniam fumus globosus et quasi tumidus in auras erigitur, superbis esse similem non absurde adtenderunt. quae animaduersio sufficere debuit ad aliquam similitudinem dandam de superbis hominibus, siue allegoriam uel formandam uel intellegendam; non tamen, ut ideo bipedes animantes in fumo et de fumo nati esse credantur. nam et in puluere nasci debuerunt, quia saepe non minore ambitu et elatione surgit in caelum; et in nebulis, quia plerumque de terra ita exhalantur, ut longe intuentibus incertum etiam faciant, fumusne an nebulae sint. postremo cur in aquis et uentis de habitandi patientia ad habitatores ductum est argumentum? quia uidemus et natantia in aquis et uolantia in uentis uiuere. ignis uero 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 et necat. uel hinc certe cogitur fateri se meliores dicere in gente tenebrarum istas fuisse naturas, ubi uult omnia peiora credi. siquidem ibi gignebat ignis quadrupedem et nutriebat et continebat innoxie uel etiam commodissime. similiter et fumus bipedes suos clementissimo sinu editos non solum sine molestia, sed uitaliter atque indulgenter usque in illum principatum educauerat et continebat. ita ostenduntur ista mendacia animaduersione rerum, quae uidentur in mundo, sed minus diligenti minusque sollerti carnali sensu concepta et phantasmatis parturita et temeritate edita atque conscripta haereticorum numerum auxisse. ### English translation (Claude) For Mani, insofar as he wished to arrange the natures he learned here in his phantasms as if in the race of darkness, is proved to be altogether wrong. First, because darkness can beget nothing, as has been said. “But,” he says, “that darkness was not such as you know here.” Whence, then, do you teach me about it? Or perhaps, wordy promiser of teaching that you are, you compel me to believe? But suppose I believe. This I know, at least: if it had no form, as this darkness has none, it could beget nothing; but if it had, it was better. Yet when you say it was not such, you want it believed to be somehow worse. You could also say that silence, which is to the ears what darkness is to the eyes, begot some deaf or dumb animals there, so that, when told that silence is not any nature, you might answer, “But not such silence as you know here,” and so say whatever you liked to those whom you had once deceived into believing you. Though what led him to invent that creeping things were born in darkness could well be observed in the very beginnings of those being born. But there are serpents that see so sharply and rejoice so much in the presence of light that they seem to bear the weightiest testimony against him. Next, it was easy to discern swimming things in waters here and transfer them to those phantasms; so too flying things in winds, since the movement of this thicker air in which birds fly is called wind; but whence it came into his mind to invent four-footed things in fire, I do not know. And yet he did not say this without reason, but he paid too little attention and erred greatly. For they usually give this reason: that four-footed animals are voracious and very hot in mating. But many men, who are certainly two-footed, surpass any four-footed animal in voracity, and he says they are children not of fire but of smoke. And nothing can easily be found more voracious than geese; whether he puts them in smoke because they are two-footed, or in the waters because they love to swim, or in the winds because they are feathered and sometimes fly, certainly according to his distinction they do not belong to fire. As for heat in mating, I suppose he had noticed horses neighing and often rushing at mares, champing the bit; and in wanting to write this observation down quickly, he did not notice the house sparrow, compared with which any stallion is found very cold. When they are asked why he placed two-footed things in smoke, they answer that the two-footed kind is proud and lofty, for they say men take their origin from it; and since smoke rises into the air in round and swelling clouds, they noticed, not absurdly, that it is like the proud. This observation should have sufficed to furnish some likeness for proud men, or to form or understand an allegory; but not so that two-footed animals should therefore be believed to have been born in smoke and of smoke. For then they ought to have been born in dust too, since it often rises to the sky with no less spreading and loftiness; and in mists, since these are often exhaled from the earth so that to those watching from afar it is uncertain whether they are smoke or mist. Finally, why in the case of waters and winds was the argument drawn from the dwelling’s being endurable for its inhabitants? Because we see swimming things living in waters and flying things in winds. But did fire and smoke not deter the lying man, so that he would be ashamed to place there inhabitants than whom nothing could be placed more absurdly? For fire burns and destroys a four-footed animal, and smoke chokes and kills two-footed ones. Here at least he is forced to admit that he says these natures were better in the race of darkness, where he wants everything believed to be worse; since there fire begot a four-footed animal and nourished and sustained it harmlessly or even most comfortably, and likewise smoke had brought up its two-footed creatures, born in its most gentle bosom, not only without harm but with life and indulgence, even to that princely rule, and sustained them. Thus these lies are shown to have arisen from observing things seen in the world, but conceived by a carnal sense that was not careful or shrewd enough, brought to birth by phantasms, and put forth and written down by rashness, and so to have increased the number of heretics. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Ep. fund. 32 (CSEL 25:233–236; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/27/#p-32). ## Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental 33 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/27/#p-33 - Source: CSEL 25:236–237 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Every nature, insofar as it is a nature, is good: remove the evils and the nature remains better, remove the goods and nothing remains. ### Latin text Sed illo genere magis urgendi sunt, ut intellegant, si possunt, quam uere in catholica dicatur omnium naturarum esse auctorem deum. quo de genere superius agebam, cum dicerem: uitupero tecum pestem, caecitatem, caenositatem turbidam, horribilem uehementiam, corruptibilitatem, inmanitatem principum et his similia; lauda tu mecum speciem, distinctionem, ordinationem, pacem, unitatem formarum, membrorum congruentias et numerosas parilitates, uitalia spiramenta et nutrimenta, temperamentum salutis, regimen et moderamen animae famulatusque corporum, similitudinem concordiamque partium in singulis naturis uel quae habitabant uel quae habitabantur et cetera huiusmodi. sic enim intellegunt, si tamen sine pertinacia uelint adtendere, iam et bona et mala se miscere, cum loquuntur de illa terra, ubi solum et summum malum fuisse crediderunt, itaque, si tollantur illa, quae mala enumerata sunt, bona illa, quae laudata sunt, sine ulla uituperatione remanere; si autem bona ipsa tollantur, nullam remanere naturam. ex quo iam uidet, qui potest uidere, omnem naturam, in quantum natura est, bonum esse, quia ex una eademque re, in qua et ego, quod laudarem, et ille, quod uituperaret, inuenit, si tollantur ea, quae bona sunt, natura nulla erit; si autem tollantur ea, quae displicent, incorrupta natura remanebit. tolle de aquis, ut sint caenosae et turbidae, remanent aquae purae atque tranquillae; tolle de aquis partium concordiam, non erunt aquae. si ergo malo illo adempto manet natura purgatior, bono autem detracto non manet ulla natura, hoc ibi facit naturam, quod bonum habet; quod autem malum, non natura, sed contra naturam est. tolle de uentis horrorem et nimium inpetum, qui tibi displicet, potes cogitare uentos lenes atque moderatos; tolle de uentis partium similitudinem, qua eorum corpus in unitatem continuatur et sibi pacatur, ut corpus sit, nulla suberit natura, quam cogites. longum est persequi cetera; sed manifestum est eis, qui nullo studio partium iudicant, cum istae naturae commemorantur, adiungi eis quaedam, quibus displiceant; quae cum detrahimus, naturae meliores manent. unde intellegitur eas, in quantum naturae sunt, bonas esse, quia cum eis uicissim omne, quod bonum habent, detraxeris. naturae nullae erunt. animaduertite etiam, qui recte uultis iudicare, illum quoque principem inmanem; cui si auferatur inmanitas, adtendite quanta laudabilia remanebunt: conpago corporis, membrorum hinc atque inde. congruentia, formae unitas et pax contextarum inter se partium, animae regentis et uegetantis famulantisque et uegetati corporis ordo et dispositio. quae omnia si auferantur, et si qua forte minus enumeraui, nulla prorsus natura subsistet. ### English translation (Claude) But they must rather be pressed by that kind of argument, so that they may understand, if they can, how truly it is said in the Catholic Church that God is the author of all natures. I was dealing with that kind of argument above when I said: I condemn with you the pestilence, the blindness, the turbid muddiness, the horrible violence, the corruptibility, the monstrousness of the princes, and the like; you praise with me the form, the distinction, the arrangement, the peace, the unity of forms, the fitting of members and their rhythmic equalities, the vital breathings and nourishments, the balance of health, the rule and governance of the soul and the service of bodies, the likeness and harmony of parts in each nature, whether of the inhabitants or of what was inhabited, and other things of this kind. For thus they understand, if only they will attend without obstinacy, that they are mixing good and evil when they speak of that land where they believed there was only the supreme evil; and so, if those things listed as evil are taken away, the goods that have been praised remain without any blame; but if the goods themselves are taken away, no nature remains. From this, whoever can see sees that every nature, insofar as it is a nature, is good; for in one and the same thing, in which both I found something to praise and he something to blame, if what is good is taken away, there will be no nature; but if what displeases is taken away, the nature will remain uncorrupted. Take from the waters their being muddy and turbid, and pure and calm waters remain; take from the waters the harmony of their parts, and there will be no waters. If, then, when that evil is removed the nature remains purer, but when the good is withdrawn no nature remains, it is what it has of good that makes it a nature there; what it has of evil is not nature but against nature. Take from the winds the dreadfulness and excessive force that displeases you, and you can think of gentle and moderate winds; take from the winds the likeness of parts by which their body is held together in unity and at peace with itself, so as to be a body, and no nature will remain for you to think of. It would be long to go through the rest; but it is clear to those who judge with no partisan zeal that, when these natures are mentioned, certain things are attached to them because of which they displease, and when we take these away, the natures remain better. From this it is understood that they are good insofar as they are natures, since if you take away from them in turn all the good they have, there will be no natures. Consider also, you who wish to judge rightly, that monstrous prince: if monstrousness is taken from him, see how many praiseworthy things will remain: the framework of the body, the fitting of the members on this side and that, the unity of form and the peace of the parts woven together, the order and arrangement of a soul that rules, quickens, and is served, and of a body that is quickened. If all these are taken away, and anything else perhaps that I have not listed, no nature at all will remain. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Ep. fund. 33 (CSEL 25:236–237; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/27/#p-33). ## Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental 34 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/27/#p-34 - Source: CSEL 25:237–239 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: The goods in natures can be thought of without their evils but not the reverse; Mani, like a man frightened by a lion, saw only what displeased him and missed the goods that come from God. ### Latin text Sed fortasse dicatis illa mala de talibus naturis non posse auferri et ideo naturalia debere accipi. non nunc quaeritur, quid possit uel non possit auferri, sed certe non paruum lumen est ad intellegendum omnes naturas, in quantum naturae sunt. bonas esse, quod sine illis malis cogitari bona illa possunt, sine bonis autem illis nulla natura cogitari potest. nam sine turbatione caeni possum aquas cogitare, sine pace autem continuatarum partium nulla species corporis animo occurrit, aut ullo modo sentiri potest. ac per hoc nec illae caenosae aquae sine isto bono esse potuerunt, quo bono fiebat, ut aliqua natura corporea posset esse. nam quod dicitis, quod illa mala de naturis talibus non possunt auferri, respondetur, quod et illa bona de naturis talibus non possunt auferri. cur ergo istas res propter mala, quae auferri non posse arbitramini, mala naturalia uocare uultis, propter ea bona uero, quae auferri non posse conuincimini, bona naturalia uocare non uultis? Restat, ut quaeratis — nam ipsa solet esse uox ultima — unde sint illa mala, quae mihi quoque displicere dicebam. respondebo fortasse. si uos prius dixeritis, unde sint illa bona, quae uos quoque laudare cogimini, si absurdissimi cordis esse non uultis. sed quid ego istud quaeram, cum utrique fateamur omnia, quaecumque et quantacumque bona sunt, ab uno esse deo, qui summe bonus est? resistite ergo uos ipsi Manichaeo, qui tot et tanta bona, quae commemorauimus iusteque laudauimus, pacem concordiamque partium in unaquaque natura, salutem ualentiamque animantium et cetera, quae repetere iam piget, ita in terra conmenticia tenebrarum esse arbitratus est, ut ab illo deo, quem bonorum omnium fatetur auctorem, alienare conaretur. non enim ea bona uidit, dum hoc solum adtendit, quod displiceret, tamquam si quispiam leonis fremitu exterritus et eum intuens trahentem ac dilaniantem pecorum aut hominum corpora, quaecumque adprehendisset, puerili quadam infirmitate animi tanto timore percelleretur, ut solam feritatem leonis intuens atque saeuitiam, cetera eius neglegens omnino atque praeteriens naturam illius animantis non tantum malum, sed magnum malum esse clamaret, tanto scilicet exaggeratius, quanto timidius; at si edomita feritate duci leonem mansuetum uideret, praesertim si numquam antea fuisset de illa bestia territus, tunc uacaret securo atque intrepido leonis pulchritudinem considerare atque laudare. de quo ego nihil dicam, nisi quod ad rem maxime pertinet, fieri posse, ut aliqua natura offendat ex aliquo et in totam nascatur odium, cum manifestum sit multo meliorem esse speciem uerae ac uiuae bestiae, etiam cum terret in siluis, quam imitatae atque simulatae, cum in pariete picta laudatur. hoc ergo errore ille nos non decipiat nec caecos faciat ad considerandas naturarum species, cum quaedam in eis ita reprehendit, ut omni ex parte cogat displicere, quod omni ex parte reprehendere non potest. atque hoc modo animum ad aequum iudicium conponentes quaeramus iam, unde sint cum illis bonis mala, quae me quoque inprobare dicebam. quod facilius uidebimus, si in unum nomen potuerimus cuncta conferre. ### English translation (Claude) But perhaps you will say that those evils cannot be taken away from such natures and are therefore to be accepted as natural. The question now is not what can or cannot be taken away; but it is certainly no small light for understanding that all natures, insofar as they are natures, are good, that those goods can be thought of without those evils, but no nature can be thought of without those goods. For I can think of waters without the disturbance of mud, but without the peace of continuous parts no form of body comes to mind or can in any way be perceived. And for this reason even those muddy waters could not have existed without this good, by which it came about that any bodily nature could exist. As for your saying that those evils cannot be taken away from such natures, the answer is that those goods cannot be taken away from such natures either. Why, then, do you want to call these things natural evils because of the evils which you think cannot be taken away, and do not want to call them natural goods because of the goods which you are shown cannot be taken away? It remains for you to ask (for this is usually the last word) whence come those evils which I said displease me too. I will answer, perhaps, if you first say whence come those goods which you too are compelled to praise, unless you want to be of a most absurd heart. But why should I ask this, since both of us confess that all goods, of whatever kind and however great, are from the one God, who is supremely good? Resist Mani yourselves, then, who thought that so many and such great goods as we have mentioned and justly praised (the peace and harmony of parts in each nature, the health and strength of living creatures, and the rest, which it is tiresome to repeat) were in his invented land of darkness in such a way that he tried to separate them from that God whom he confesses to be the author of all goods. For he did not see those goods while he attended only to what displeased him, as if someone, terrified by a lion’s roar and seeing it dragging and tearing the bodies of cattle or men, whatever it had seized, were struck with such fear by a childish weakness of mind that, looking only at the lion’s fierceness and savagery and wholly neglecting and passing over its other qualities, he cried out that the nature of that animal was not only an evil but a great evil, the more exaggeratedly the more fearfully; but if he saw a lion, its fierceness tamed, being led along gentle, especially if he had never before been frightened by that beast, then he would be at leisure, secure and fearless, to consider and praise the lion’s beauty. On this I will say nothing except what is most to the point: it can happen that some nature gives offense in some respect and hatred arises against the whole of it, although it is plain that the form of a real and living beast, even when it terrifies in the woods, is much better than that of an imitated and feigned one, when it is praised painted on a wall. Let him not deceive us, then, by this error, nor make us blind to considering the forms of natures, when he so censures certain things in them as to compel them to displease in every respect, though he cannot censure them in every respect. And composing our mind in this way to a fair judgment, let us now ask whence come, together with those goods, the evils which I said I too disapprove. We will see this more easily if we can bring them all under one name. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Ep. fund. 34 (CSEL 25:237–239; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/27/#p-34). ## Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental 35 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/27/#p-35 - Source: CSEL 25:239–241 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: All evil is corruption, which is not a nature but against nature; whatever is corrupted loses some good, so Mani’s dark natures cannot be the supreme evil. ### Latin text Quis enim dubitet totum illud quod dicitur malum nihil esse aliud quam corruptionem? possunt quidem aliis atque aliis uocabulis alia atque alia mala nominari, sed quod omnium rerum malum sit, in quibus mali aliquid animaduerti potest, corruptio est. sed corruptio peritae animae inperitia uocatur; corruptio prudentis inprudentia; corruptio iustae iniustitia; corruptio fortis ignauia; corruptio quietae atque tranquillae cupiditas uel metus uel tristitia uel iactantia; deinde in corpore animato corruptio sanitatis dolor et morbus; corruptio uirium lassitudo; corruptio quietis labor; deinde in ipso solo corpore corruptio pulchritudinis foeditas; corruptio rectitudinis prauitas; corruptio ordinis peruersitas; corruptio integritatis discissio aut fractura aut diminutio. longum est et difficile et harum rerum, quas commemoraui, et aliarum innumerabilium omnes corruptiones nominatim enuntiare, cum etiam multae, quae dicuntur in corpore, possint et in anima dici et innumerabilia sint, in quibus propria uocabula corruptio teneat. uerumtamen uidere iam facile est nihil nocere corruptionem, nisi quod labefacit naturalem statum, et ideo eam non esse naturam, sed contra naturam. quodsi non inuenitur in rebus malum nisi corruptio et corruptio non est natura, nulla utique natura malum est. Sed si hoc forte intellegere non ualetis, illud adtendite, quod omne, quod corrumpitur, bono aliquo minuitur, quia si non corrumperetur, incorruptum esset; si uero etiam non posset omnino corrumpi, incorruptibile esset. necesse est autem, ut siue incorruptio siue incorruptibilitas bonum sit, si malum est corruptio. sed nunc de incorruptibili natura nulla quaestio est; de his agitur, quae possunt corrumpi quae dum non corrumpuntur, incorrupta dici possunt, incorruptibilia non possunt. illud enim solum incorruptibile proprie dicitur, quod non tantum non corrumpitur, sed etiam nulla ex parte corrumpi potest. incorrupta ergo quaecumque sunt et tamen corrumpi possunt, cum corrumpi coeperint, eo ipso bono minuuntur, quo incorrupta erant, et magno quidem bono, quia magnum malum est corruptio; et quamdiu in eis augeri corruptio potest, tamdiu habent bonum, quo minuantur. quapropter naturae illae, quas in terra tenebrarum fuisse confingit. aut poterant corrumpi aut non poterant. si non poterant, incorruptibiles erant, quo bono superius nihil est. si poterant, aut corrumpebantur, aut non corrumpebantur; si non corrumpebantur, incorruptae erant, quod uidemus dici sine magna laude non posse; si autem corrumpebantur, minuebantur illo tam magno bono; si minuebantur quo bono, habebant bonum, quo minuerentur. quodsi habebant bonum, non erant naturae illae summum malum et omnis Manichaei fabula falsa est. ### English translation (Claude) For who would doubt that all that is called evil is nothing other than corruption? Different evils can indeed be named by different words, but what is the evil of all things in which any evil can be noticed is corruption. The corruption of a learned soul is called ignorance; the corruption of a prudent one, imprudence; of a just one, injustice; of a brave one, cowardice; of a calm and tranquil one, desire or fear or sadness or boastfulness. Then, in an animate body, the corruption of health is pain and disease; the corruption of strength, weariness; the corruption of rest, toil. Then, in the body alone, the corruption of beauty is ugliness; the corruption of straightness, crookedness; the corruption of order, disorder; the corruption of wholeness, splitting or breaking or diminishing. It would be long and difficult to name individually all the corruptions of the things I have mentioned and of countless others, since many that are spoken of in the body can also be spoken of in the soul, and there are countless cases in which corruption has its own names. Yet it is now easy to see that corruption does no harm except by undermining a natural state, and therefore that it is not a nature but against nature. But if no evil is found in things except corruption, and corruption is not a nature, then certainly no nature is evil. But if perhaps you cannot understand this, attend to this: everything that is corrupted is diminished in some good; for if it were not corrupted, it would be uncorrupted; and if it could not be corrupted at all, it would be incorruptible. Now if corruption is an evil, incorruption and incorruptibility must be goods. But there is no question now about an incorruptible nature; the discussion is about things that can be corrupted, which, while they are not corrupted, can be called uncorrupted, but not incorruptible. For only that is properly called incorruptible which not only is not corrupted but cannot be corrupted in any part. So whatever things are uncorrupted and yet can be corrupted, when they begin to be corrupted, are diminished in that very good by which they were uncorrupted, and a great good indeed, since corruption is a great evil; and as long as corruption can increase in them, so long they have a good in which to be diminished. Therefore those natures which he imagines to have been in the land of darkness either could be corrupted or could not. If they could not, they were incorruptible, and there is no good higher than that. If they could, either they were being corrupted or they were not. If they were not, they were uncorrupted, which we see cannot be said without great praise. But if they were being corrupted, they were being diminished in that so great good; if they were being diminished in a good, they had a good in which to be diminished. And if they had a good, those natures were not the supreme evil, and the whole fable of Mani is false. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Ep. fund. 35 (CSEL 25:239–241; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/27/#p-35). ## Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental 36 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/27/#p-36 - Source: CSEL 25:241–242 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Mani asked where evil comes from before asking what it is; corruption arises because creatures were made by God from nothing, not begotten of him. ### Latin text Sed quoniam quaesiuimus, quid esset malum, neque hoc naturam, sed contra naturam esse cognouimus, consequenter quaerendum est, unde sit: quod ille si fecisset, minus fortasse in has tanti erroris angustias laberetur. praepropere quippe ac praepostere quaesiuit, unde esset, quod primo non quaesierat, quid esset; et ideo nullo modo potuerunt quaerenti occurrere nisi uana phantasmata, quibus difficile animus carnalibus sensibus multum pastus exuitur. dicet ergo aliquis non iam certare, sed non errare desiderans: unde est ista corruptio, quod quasi generale malum rerum bonarum, sed tamen corruptibilium esse conperimus? qui talis quaerit, cito inuenit magno ardore uerum petens et constanti perseuerantia pulsans pie. per homines enim commemoratio aliqua signis uerborum fieri potest; docet autem unus uerus magister, ipsa incorruptibilis ueritas, solus magister interior: qui etiam exterior factus est, ut nos ab exterioribus ad interiora reuocaret, et formam serui accipiens, ut surgentibus eius sublimitas innotesceret, iacentibus humilis adparere dignatus est. in eius nomine subplices simus et per eum misericordiam patris inplorantes ista quaeramus. primo enim breuissime responderi potest quaerentibus, unde corruptio est, cum dicitur: ex eo, quod hae naturae, quae corrumpi possunt, non de deo genitae, sed ab illo de nihilo factae sunt: quas quoniam bonas superior ratio demonstrauit, nemo potest recte dicere "non fecisset deus bona"; si autem dixerit "summe bona ea fecisset" oportet intellegat summum bonum ipsum esse, qui fecit haec bona. ### English translation (Claude) But since we have asked what evil is, and have learned that it is not a nature but against nature, we must next ask whence it is; and if Mani had done this, he would perhaps have slipped less into these straits of so great an error. For he asked too hastily and in the wrong order whence it came, when he had not first asked what it was; and so nothing could present itself to him as he asked except vain phantasms, of which a mind much fed by the carnal senses is stripped only with difficulty. Someone, then, desiring now not to contend but not to err, will say: Whence is this corruption, which we have found to be, as it were, the general evil of things that are good but corruptible? One who asks in this way soon finds, seeking the truth with great ardor and knocking with constant and godly perseverance. For through men some reminding can be done by the signs of words; but the one who teaches is the one true teacher, incorruptible truth itself, the only inner teacher, who also became outward, to call us back from outward things to inward ones, and, taking the form of a servant, so that his sublimity might become known to those rising up, deigned to appear lowly to those lying down. Let us be suppliants in his name, and, imploring the Father’s mercy through him, let us seek these things. To those who ask whence corruption is, a very brief first answer can be given: it comes from this, that these natures which can be corrupted were not begotten of God but made by him from nothing. Since the reasoning above has shown them to be good, no one can rightly say, “God should not have made good things”; and if anyone says, “He should have made them supremely good,” he must understand that the supreme good is he himself who made these goods. ### Scripture references - Phil 2:7: allusion, high confidence - Matt 7:7–8: allusion, medium confidence - Matt 23:8: echo, low confidence ### Translation notes - “Taking the form of a servant” alludes to Phil 2:7; “knocking” to Matt 7:7–8. The “one inner teacher” is Christ (cf. Matt 23:8, 10). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Ep. fund. 36 (CSEL 25:241–242; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/27/#p-36). ## Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental 37 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/37/#p-37 - Source: CSEL 25:242–244 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Only the Son, begotten of the Father, is supremely good; creatures made from nothing are lesser goods, and the rational soul should accept its place below God, while earthly things that now trouble it are a just punishment and a call to return. ### Latin text Quid mali, inquis, fieret, si et ista fierent summe bona? et tamen si quis ex nobis quaereret accepto et credito deo patre summo bono, si esset aliud summe bonum, unde esse nobis pie uideretur, nullo modo recte responderemus nisi de deo patre, qui summe bonus est. quod ergo de illo est, meminerimus natum de illo esse, non ab eo factum de nihilo, et ideo et hoc summe, id est incorruptibiliter bonum esse, uidemusque iniuste flagitari, ut tam summe bona sint, quae fecit de nihilo, quam summe bonus est, quem de se genuit: quem nisi unum genuisset, non id, quod ipse est, genuisset, quia ipse unus est. quapropter unico quidem filio, per quem facta sunt a patre omnia bona de nihilo, inperite atque inpie fratres quaeruntur, nisi ex eo, quod in homine adparere dignatus est. nam ideo et unigenitus in scripturis et primogenitus dicitur: unigenitus a patre, primogenitus ex mortuis. et uidimus, inquit, gloriam eius tamquam unigeniti a patre, pleni gratia et ueritate, et Paulus dicit: ut sit ipse primogenitus in multis fratribus. Quodsi dixerimus "non iam essent ista bona, quae de nihilo facta sunt, sed tantummodo dei natura esset", inuidebimus tantis bonis et uox inpia est, iniuriam putare non hoc esse, quod deus est, et ideo nolle esse aliquod bonum, quoniam ei praeponitur deus. quaeso, patere, natura animae rationalis, aliquanto minus te esse quam deus est, et tanto minus, ut post ipsum te melius aliquid non sit, patere, inquam, et mitesce illi, ne te adhuc repellat in infima, ubi per angustias poenales etiam atque etiam bonum, quod es, uilescat tibi. superba es in deum, si indignaris, quod te antecedit, et nimis contumeliose de illo sentis, si non ineffabiliter gratularis tam magnum bonum esse te, ut solus sit ille praestantior. quo constituto atque firmato illud ne dixeris: me solam naturam deus facere debuit; nollem, ut post me aliquid boni fieret. non enim quod bonum est post deum, iam debuit esse nouissimum. et hinc maxime adparet, quantam tibi tribuerit dignitatem, quod deus, qui solus tibi naturaliter dominatur, fecit alia bona, quibus tu quoque dominareris. nec mireris, quod nunc tibi non omni modo seruiunt et te aliquando etiam cruciant, quia dominus tuus maiorem habet potestatem in ea, quae tibi seruiunt, quam tu ipsa, tamquam in seruos seruorum suorum. quid ergo mirum, si tibi peccanti, id est non obtemperanti domino tuo poenalia, quibus dominabaris, effecta sunt? quid enim tam iustum et quid iustius deo? hoc namque humana natura in Adam meruit, de quo nunc non est disputandi locus; sed tamen dominator iustus et iustis praemiis et iustis subpliciis adprobatur beatitate recte uiuentium poenaque peccantium. nec tamen sine misericordia derelicta es, quae certis rerum temporumque mensuris uocaris, ut redeas. ita recto moderamine altissimi conditoris usque ad bona terrena peruentum est, quae corrumpuntur et reformantur, ut haberes subplicio mixta solatia, ut et laudares deum delectata ordine bonorum, et refugeres in eum exercitata experimentis malorum. ita in quantum tibi terrena seruiunt, docent te esse dominam suam; in quantum autem molesta sunt, docent, ut seruias domino tuo. ### English translation (Claude) “What harm,” you say, “would there be if these too were made supremely good?” And yet, if any of us were asked, once God the Father has been accepted and believed to be the supreme good, whence another supreme good, if there were one, should piously be thought to be, we could in no way answer rightly except: from God the Father, who is supremely good. What is from him, then, let us remember, was born of him, not made by him from nothing, and therefore it too is supremely, that is, incorruptibly, good; and we see that it is unjust to demand that the things he made from nothing be as supremely good as he whom he begot from himself; and had he not begotten only one, he would not have begotten what he himself is, since he himself is one. Therefore it is ignorant and impious to seek brothers for the only Son, through whom all good things were made by the Father from nothing, except insofar as he deigned to appear in man. For that is why in the Scriptures he is called both only-begotten and firstborn: only-begotten from the Father, firstborn from the dead. “And we saw,” it says, “his glory, as of the only-begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth”; and Paul says, “that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.” But if we say, “Then these things made from nothing should not exist, but only the nature of God,” we will begrudge such great goods; and it is an impious voice that thinks it a wrong not to be what God is, and therefore does not want there to be any good because God is preferred to it. I beg you, nature of the rational soul, bear being somewhat less than God is, and so much less that after him there is nothing better than you; bear it, I say, and grow gentle toward him, lest he drive you back still further into the lowest things, where through penal straits the good that you are becomes cheaper to you again and again. You are proud against God if you are indignant that he goes before you, and you think too insultingly of him if you do not rejoice ineffably that you are so great a good that he alone is more excellent. This being established and confirmed, do not say: “God should have made me the only nature; I would not want anything good to be made after me.” For the good that comes next after God ought not to have been the last. And from this especially it appears how great a dignity he has given you: that God, who alone is by nature your master, made other goods over which you too would be master. Nor should you wonder that now they do not serve you in every way and sometimes even torment you, because your Lord has greater power over the things that serve you than you yourself have, as over the servants of his servants. What wonder, then, if, when you sin, that is, do not obey your Lord, the things over which you were master have been made penal for you? For what is so just, and what more just than God? For this is what human nature deserved in Adam, about which this is not the place to argue; but still the just ruler is shown to be such both by just rewards and by just punishments, by the happiness of those who live rightly and the punishment of sinners. Yet you have not been abandoned without mercy, for you are called to return by fixed measures of things and times. Thus by the right governance of the most high Creator the order reaches down to earthly goods, which are corrupted and restored, so that you might have consolations mixed with punishment, so that you might both praise God, delighted by the order of goods, and take refuge in him, trained by the experience of evils. Thus, insofar as earthly things serve you, they teach you that you are their mistress; insofar as they are troublesome, they teach you to serve your Lord. ### Scripture references - John 1:14: quotation, high confidence - Rom 8:29: quotation, high confidence - Col 1:18: allusion, high confidence - John 1:3: allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Quotations: John 1:14; Rom 8:29. “Firstborn from the dead” alludes to Col 1:18. The punishment deserved “in Adam” refers to the fall, which Augustine leaves aside here. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Ep. fund. 37 (CSEL 25:242–244; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/37/#p-37). ## Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental 38 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/37/#p-38 - Source: CSEL 25:244 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Natures are from God, their corruptibility from the nothing from which they were made; God orders corruption to punish sinners and train those returning to him. ### Latin text Quapropter quamuis sit malum corruptio et quamuis non sit a conditore naturarum, sed ex eo sit, quod de nihilo factae sunt, tamen etiam ipsa illo regente et gubernante omnia, quae fecit, sic ordinata est, ut non noceat nisi naturis infimis ad subplicium damnatorum et exercitationem admonitionemque redeuntium, ut inhaereant deo incorruptibili maneantque incorrupti, quod unum est bonum nostrum, sicut per prophetam dicitur: mihi autem inhaerere deo bonum est. neque illud dixeris: non faceret deus naturas corruptibiles. in quantum enim naturae sunt, deus fecit; in quantum autem corruptibiles, non deus fecit; non est enim ab illo corruptio, qui solus est incorruptibilis. si haec capis, gratias age deo; si non capis, quiesce et noli temere nondum intellecta damnare subplexque illi, qui lumen est mentis, adtende, ut intellegas. cum enim dicitur "natura corruptibilis," non unum, sed duo nomina dicuntur. item cum dicitur "deus fecit" de nihilo, non unum, sed duo nomina audimus. redde ergo istis singulis illa singula, ut cum audis naturam, ad deum pertineat, cum audis corruptibilem, ad nihilum, ita tamen, ut ipsae corruptiones, quamuis non sint ex dei arte, in eius tamen potestate sint disponendae pro rerum ordine et meritis animarum. ideo recte dicimus ab illo esse praemium atque subplicium. ita enim non fecit corruptionem, ut possit corruptioni eum dare, qui corrumpi meruerit, id est qui se ipse coeperit peccando corrumpere, ut cruciantem sentiat corruptionem inuitus, qui blandientem commisit uolens. ### English translation (Claude) Therefore, although corruption is an evil, and although it is not from the Creator of natures but comes from their having been made from nothing, yet it too, under his rule and governance of all that he made, is so ordered that it harms only the lowest natures, for the punishment of the condemned and for the training and admonition of those returning, so that they may cleave to the incorruptible God and remain uncorrupted, which is our one good, as is said through the prophet: “But for me it is good to cleave to God.” And do not say: God should not have made corruptible natures. For insofar as they are natures, God made them; but insofar as they are corruptible, God did not make them; for corruption is not from him who alone is incorruptible. If you grasp this, give thanks to God; if you do not grasp it, be quiet, and do not rashly condemn what you do not yet understand, but turn humbly to him who is the light of the mind, that you may understand. For when “corruptible nature” is said, not one word but two are said. Likewise, when it is said that God made from nothing, we hear not one name but two. Assign, then, each of the one pair to each of the other, so that when you hear “nature” it belongs to God, and when you hear “corruptible” it belongs to nothing; yet in such a way that the corruptions themselves, though they are not from God’s craft, are nevertheless in his power, to be disposed according to the order of things and the deserts of souls. So we rightly say that both reward and punishment are from him. For he did not make corruption, and yet he can hand over to corruption one who has deserved to be corrupted, that is, one who has begun to corrupt himself by sinning, so that he who willingly committed the corruption that flattered him may unwillingly feel the corruption that torments him. ### Scripture references - Ps 73:28 (72:28 LXX): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - The quotation is Ps 73:28 (72:28 LXX and Vulgate). ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Ep. fund. 38 (CSEL 25:244; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/37/#p-38). ## Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental 39 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/37/#p-39 - Source: CSEL 25:244–245 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Both Testaments speak of God punishing (Isaiah, the Lord’s warning about Gehenna, Paul on the temple), and the Manichaeans, who explain Paul charitably, should read the Old Testament in the same spirit. ### Latin text Non enim in uetere testamento tantum scriptum est: ego facio bona et condo mala, sed euidentius in nouo, ubi dominus dicit: nolite timere eos, qui corpus occidunt et amplius non habent, quid faciant, sed eum timete, qui cum corpus occiderit, habet potestatem animam mittere in gehennam. uoluntariae autem corruptioni addi iudicio diuino poenalem corruptionem manifestissime apostolus Paulus adtestatur, cum dicit: templum enim dei. sanctum est, quod estis uos; quisquis templum dei corruperit, corrumpet illum deus. quod si in uetere lege dictum esset, quibus inuectionibus isti inpetum facerent accusantes quasi corruptorem deum! quod uerbum metuentes multi latini interpretes noluerunt dicere "corrumpet," sed dixerunt "disperdet" illum deus, et non deuiantes a re ipsa offensionem uocabuli deuitarunt. quamquam isti non minus inueherentur in perditorem deum, si hoc in lege uetere aut prophetis inuenirent. sed graecis exemplaribus conuincuntur, in quibus apertissime scriptum est: quisquis templum dei corruperit. corrumpet illum deus. quod si quis ab eis quaerat quomodo dictum sit, ne corruptor putetur deus, exponunt statim "corrumpet" dictum esse: corruptioni tradet, uel si quo alio modo possunt. quo animo si essent in ueterem legem, et multa ibi miranda intellegerent et nondum intellecta non cum odio lacerarent, sed cum honore differrent. ### English translation (Claude) For it is not only written in the Old Testament, “I make good things and create evil things,” but more plainly in the New, where the Lord says: “Do not fear those who kill the body and after that have nothing more that they can do; but fear him who, when he has killed the body, has power to send the soul into Gehenna.” And that a penal corruption is added by divine judgment to voluntary corruption the apostle Paul testifies most plainly when he says: “For the temple of God is holy, which you are; whoever corrupts the temple of God, God will corrupt him.” If this had been said in the Old Law, with what invectives these men would attack it, accusing God of being a corrupter! Fearing this word, many Latin translators would not say “will corrupt” but said “God will destroy him,” and without departing from the thing itself they avoided offense at the word. Though these men would inveigh no less against God as a destroyer if they found this in the Old Law or the Prophets. But they are refuted by the Greek copies, in which it is written most plainly: “Whoever corrupts the temple of God, God will corrupt him.” And if anyone asks them how this was said, so that God may not be thought a corrupter, they at once explain that “will corrupt” means “will hand over to corruption,” or in some other way if they can. If they had this attitude toward the Old Law, they would both understand many wonderful things there and, instead of tearing with hatred what they do not yet understand, would put it off with reverence. ### Scripture references - Isa 45:7: quotation, high confidence - Luke 12:4–5: quotation, high confidence - Matt 10:28: allusion, medium confidence - 1 Cor 3:17: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Quotations: Isa 45:7 in Augustine’s Latin; Luke 12:4–5 (cf. Matt 10:28); 1 Cor 3:17, where the Greek uses the same verb (φθείρω) for the sinner’s act and God’s punishment. The Manichaeans rejected the Old Testament. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Ep. fund. 39 (CSEL 25:244–245; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/37/#p-39). ## Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental 40 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/37/#p-40 - Source: CSEL 25:245–247 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Growth in form moves a thing toward being and corruption toward not being; so form is from God, who supremely is, and corruption from nothing, and no nature is contrary to God. ### Latin text Si quis autem nondum credit ex nihilo esse corruptionem, proponat sibi haec duo "esse" et "non esse" quasi ex diuersis partibus intellegendi gratia, ut, cum tardis tardius ambulemus, deinde uelut in medio constituat aliquid, ut puta corpus animantis, et quaerat hoc secum, dum formatur illud corpus et nascitur, dum augetur eius species, nutritur, conualescit, roboratur, decoratur, firmatur, in quantum manet et in quantum stabilitur, in quam partem tendat, utrum esse, an non esse: non dubitabit esse quidem aliquid in ipsis etiam primordiis, sed quanto magis forma et specie et ualentia constabilitur atque firmatur, tanto magis fieri, ut sit, et in eam partem tendat, qua positum est esse. nunc ergo incipiat corrumpi; debilitetur omnis ille status, languescant uires, marcescat robur, forma foedetur, dissiliat conpago membrorum, contabescat et diffluat concordia partium. quaerat etiam nunc per istam corruptionem quo tendat, utrum esse, an non esse, non puto usque adeo caecum et tardum, ut dubitet, quid sibi ipse respondeat. et non sentiat, quanto magis quidque corrumpitur, tanto magis ad interitum tendere; omne autem quod ad interitum tendit, non esse tendere. cum ergo deum incommutabiliter et incorruptibiliter esse credendum sit, id autem, quod dicitur nihil, penitus non esse manifestum sit; et cum ista tibi proposueris esse et non esse, atque cognoueris, quanto magis augetur species, tanto quidque tendere. ut sit; quanto magis augetur corruptio, tanto magis tendere, ut non sit: quid dubitas dicere in unaquaque natura corruptibili, quid in ea sit ex deo, quid sit ex nihilo, cum species secundum naturam sit, corruptio contra naturam? quia species aucta cogit esse et deum fatemur summe esse; corruptio uero aucta cogit non esse, et constat, quod non est, nihil esse: quid, inquam, dubitas dicere, in natura corruptibili, quam et naturam dicis et corruptibilem dicis, quid sit ex deo. quid sit ex nihilo? et quid quaeris deo naturam contrariam. quem si confiteris summe esse, uides ei non esse contrarium? ### English translation (Claude) But if anyone does not yet believe that corruption is from nothing, let him set before himself these two, “being” and “not being,” as if on opposite sides, for the sake of understanding (since with the slow we must walk more slowly); then let him place something in the middle, say the body of a living creature, and ask himself this: while that body is being formed and born, while its form increases, while it is nourished, grows strong, is strengthened, adorned, made firm, insofar as it lasts and insofar as it is established, toward which side does it tend, toward being or toward not being? He will not doubt that there is indeed something even in its very beginnings, but that the more it is established and made firm in shape and form and strength, the more it comes to be, and tends toward the side where being has been placed. Now let it begin to be corrupted: let that whole condition be weakened, let the strength languish, the vigor wither, the shape be marred, the framework of the members fall apart, the harmony of the parts waste away and dissolve. Let him ask now too toward which side it tends through this corruption, toward being or toward not being: I do not think anyone so blind and slow that he would doubt what to answer himself, and would not perceive that the more anything is corrupted, the more it tends toward destruction, and that whatever tends toward destruction tends toward not being. Since, then, God must be believed to exist unchangeably and incorruptibly, and what is called nothing plainly does not exist at all; and since, having set before yourself being and not being, you have recognized that the more form increases, the more anything tends to be, and the more corruption increases, the more it tends not to be: why do you hesitate to say, of each corruptible nature, what in it is from God and what is from nothing, since form is according to nature and corruption against nature? Since increase of form compels being, and we confess that God exists supremely, while increase of corruption compels not being, and it is agreed that what does not exist is nothing: why, I say, do you hesitate to say, of a corruptible nature, which you call both a nature and corruptible, what is from God and what is from nothing? And why do you seek a nature contrary to God, when, if you confess that he exists supremely, you see that not being is what is contrary to him? ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Ep. fund. 40 (CSEL 25:245–247; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/37/#p-40). ## Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental 41 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/37/#p-41 - Source: CSEL 25:247 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Corruption takes away only what God permits; the passing of temporal things, like words in speech, makes up a lowest kind of beauty, and our loss of them is a penalty and a call to love eternal things. ### Latin text Cur ergo, inquis, quod naturae deus dedit, tollit corruptio? non tollit, nisi ubi permittit deus; ibi autem permittit, ubi ordinatissimum et iustissimum iudicat pro rerum gradibus et pro meritis animarum. nam et species uocis emissae praeterit et silentio perimitur; et tamen sermo noster et praetereuntium uerborum decessione ac successione peragitur et moderatis silentiorum interuallis decenter suauiterque distinguitur. ita sese habet etiam temporalium naturarum infima pulchritudo, ut rerum transitu peragatur et distinguatur morte nascentium. cuius pulchritudinis ordinem et modos si posset capere sensus noster atque memoria, ita nobis placeret, ut defectus, quibus distinguitur, nec corruptiones uocare auderemus; quod autem in eius pulchritudinis parte laboramus, dum nos fluentia deserunt temporalia, quae diligimus, peccatorum poenas luimus et sempiterna diligere commonemur. ### English translation (Claude) “Why, then,” you say, “does corruption take away what God gave to natures?” It does not take it away except where God permits; and he permits it where he judges it most orderly and most just, according to the ranks of things and the deserts of souls. For the form of an uttered sound also passes away and is destroyed by silence; and yet our speech is carried on by the departure and succession of passing words and is fittingly and pleasantly divided by measured intervals of silence. So it is also with the lowest beauty of temporal natures: it is carried on by the passing of things and divided by the death of those that are born. If our sense and memory could grasp the order and measures of this beauty, it would so please us that we would not dare to call the failings by which it is divided even corruptions; but the toil we undergo in our part of this beauty, while the flowing temporal things we love desert us, is our paying the penalty for sins and our being admonished to love eternal things. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Ep. fund. 41 (CSEL 25:247; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/37/#p-41). ## Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental 42 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/37/#p-42 - Source: CSEL 25:247–248 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: We should praise God for the beauty of lower things without clinging to them, and purify the heart by faith in Christ to see the unchanging good. ### Latin text Non ergo in hac pulchritudine quaeramus, quod non accepit; quae ideo infima est, quia quod quaerimus, non accepit; et in eo, quod accepit, laudemus deum, quia tantum speciei bonum etiam huic quamuis infimae dedit. nec ei tamen ut amatores eius inhaereamus, sed ut dei laudatores eam transgrediamur, ut supra eam conlocati de illa iudicemus, non ei conexi in illa iudicemur. festinemusque ad illud bonum. quod nec locis grassatur nec tempore uoluitur et unde speciem formamque accipiunt omnes locales temporalesque naturae. ad quod uidendum mundemus cor per fidem domini nostri Iesu Christi, qui ait: beati mundicordes, quoniam ipsi deum uidebunt. non enim eos oculos ad illud bonum cernendum praeparari oportet, quibus cernitur ista lux diffusa per locos, et non ubique integra, sed aliam partem hic habens et alibi aliam. uerum illum aspectum aciemque purgemus, qua cernitur, quantum in hac uita licet, quid sit iustum, quid pium; quae sit sapientiae pulchritudo: quae quisquis cernit, praeponit longe omnium localium spatiorum plenitudini et sentit, ut ista cernat, non per locorum spatia diffundi aciem mentis suae, sed incorporea potentia stabiliri. ### English translation (Claude) Let us not, then, seek in this beauty what it has not received; it is the lowest precisely because it has not received what we seek; and in what it has received, let us praise God, because he has given so great a good of form even to this beauty, though it is the lowest. Yet let us not cleave to it as its lovers, but pass beyond it as praisers of God, so that, placed above it, we may judge it, and not, bound to it, be judged in it. And let us hasten to that good which neither ranges through places nor rolls on in time, and from which all natures in place and time receive their form and shape. To see it, let us cleanse the heart through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, who says: “Blessed are the clean of heart, for they shall see God.” For the eyes that must be prepared to see that good are not those by which this light is seen spread through places, not whole everywhere, but having one part here and another elsewhere. Rather let us purify that sight and keenness by which is seen, as far as is allowed in this life, what is just, what is godly, what the beauty of wisdom is; whoever sees these things prefers them far above the fullness of all spaces of place, and perceives that, in order to see them, the keenness of his mind is not spread through spaces of place but is established by an incorporeal power. ### Scripture references - Matt 5:8: quotation, high confidence - Acts 15:9: echo, medium confidence ### Translation notes - The quotation is Matt 5:8; cleansing the heart by faith echoes Acts 15:9. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Ep. fund. 42 (CSEL 25:247–248; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/37/#p-42). ## Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental 43 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/37/#p-43 - Source: CSEL 25:248 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Augustine closes by rejecting the Manichaean heresy, which spreads God through space and gives evil a place, and promises to refute its other errors in further books. ### Latin text Cui aspectui quoniam multum sunt inimica phantasmata, quae de carnali sensu tracta imaginarie cogitatio nostra uersat et continet, detestemur istam haeresim, quae suorum phantasmatum fidem secuta et diuinam substantiam per locorum spatia quamuis infinita uelut informem molem disiecit atque diffudit et eam ex una parte truncauit, ut inueniret locum malo, quod uidere non potuit non esse naturam, sed contra naturam, et ipsum malum tanta specie et formis et pace partium in singulis naturis uigente decorauit, quia sine his bonis nullam poterat cogitare naturam, ut ea mala, quae ibi reprehendit, innumerabilium bonorum copia sepeliantur. sed huius uoluminis iste sit terminus; in ceteris cetera eius deliramenta deo permittente atque adiuuante arguentur. ### English translation (Claude) Since phantasms, which our thought draws from carnal sense and turns over and holds in imagination, are very hostile to this sight, let us detest this heresy, which, following belief in its own phantasms, scattered and spread the divine substance through spaces of place, however infinite, like a formless mass, and cut it off on one side to find a place for evil, which it could not see is not a nature but against nature; and which adorned evil itself with such beauty and forms and peace of parts flourishing in each nature (since without these goods it could conceive of no nature) that the evils it censures there are buried by an abundance of countless goods. But let this be the end of this volume; in the others, God permitting and helping, its other ravings will be refuted. ### Citation (SBL) Augustine, Ep. fund. 43 (CSEL 25:248; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-contra-epistulam-fundamenti/37/#p-43).