Against Adimantus, a Disciple of Mani 1–8

On the text: “In the beginning God made heaven and earth,” as far as the text: “And there was evening and there was morning, one day.” The utterly foolish Manichaeans think that this chapter of the law is opposed to the gospel. They say that in Genesis it is written that God made heaven and earth and light by himself, but in the gospel it is written that the world was fashioned through our Lord Jesus Christ, where it is said: “And the world was made through him, and the world did not know him.” They are refuted in three ways. First, because when it is said, “In the beginning God made heaven and earth,” the Christian understands the Trinity itself there, in which not the Father alone but also the Son and the Holy Spirit is understood. For we do not believe in three gods but in one God: Father and Son and Holy Spirit, although the Father is the Father, the Son is the Son, and the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit. It would take too long to discuss this unity of the Trinity here. Second, because where it is said, “God said, ‘Let it be,’ and it was made,” there it must be understood that he made what he made through the Word. But the Word of the Father is the Son. So this chapter of Genesis, where it is written, “And God said, ‘Let it be,’ and it was made,” is not in conflict with that passage of the gospel where it is said, “And the world was made through him,” that is, through our Lord, because he is the Word of the Father, through whom all things were made. Finally, if the Son is not to be understood in Genesis because it is not said that God made things through the Son, then neither in the gospel does God feed the birds and clothe the lilies through the Son, along with countless other things that the Lord himself says God the Father does, although he does not say that he does them through the Son. They also add the testimony of the apostle, where he says of our Lord Jesus Christ: “He is the firstborn of all creation, and all things were made through him in the heavens and on the earth, visible and invisible,” and they say that this chapter too is opposed to Genesis, where God is said to have made the world in such a way that the Son is not named there specifically. They are badly mistaken; they do not see that, if this were so, the apostle himself would contradict himself, since in another place he says of the One: “from whom are all things, through whom are all things, in whom are all things,” and does not name the Son. But just as the Son is not named here and yet is understood, so also in Genesis; and just as these two chapters of Paul are not opposed to each other, so neither is Genesis opposed to the gospel.

On the text: “And God finished on the sixth day all his works that he had made, and on the seventh he rested from all those works of his that he had made.” The Manichaeans also raise a false charge against this passage, and say that what is written in Genesis, that God rested on the seventh day from all his works that he made, is opposed to the New Testament, since the Lord says in the gospel: “My Father is working until now.” This is in no way contradictory. For the Lord was refuting the error of the Jews, who thought that God rested on the seventh day in such a way that from then on he did nothing at all. But he rested from all his works that he made, so that he would no longer make the world with all that is in it, yet not so as to rest also from governing the world. For it is not written, “God rested from all works,” so as not to work thereafter; rather it is written, “God rested from all his works that he made,” so that from then on he would work not in making the world, a work from which he had ceased after it was completed, but in governing it, the work in which the Lord made known that he is engaged. Nor does that rest mean that God sought a pause after labor, but that he ceased from establishing the natures of things once those things were complete, although he still works until now in governing them. The Jews did not understand the observance of the Sabbath; they thought that one must cease even from the works that serve people's well-being. That is why the Lord refuted them in other places too with a wonderful comparison: the sheep that fell into a pit, and the beast of burden that must be untied to be led to water. The Sabbath was not rejected but understood: among Christians it has ceased to be observed in a fleshly way, but it is kept spiritually by the saints, who understand the voice of the Lord calling them to rest and saying: “Come to me, you who labor, and I will refresh you; take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble of heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is gentle and my burden is light.” This Sabbath, that is, this rest, is what that Scripture signifies; the Jews did not understand it, and according to the arrangement of the times they followed in a fleshly way the shadow whose body, as it were, that is, the truth, was to be given to us. But just as that rest of God is presented after the world was fashioned, so we shall obtain the rest promised to us after the works we have in this world, if they have been just, namely in the seventh and also last part of the age, which would take too long to discuss. So the Lord does not annul the Scripture of the Old Testament but compels us to understand it; nor does he abolish the Sabbath so that what was prefigured perishes, but rather opens it, so that what was covered may appear.

On the text in Genesis: “And God said: ‘It is not good for the man to be alone; let us make him a helper.’ And God sent sleep upon Adam, and he fell asleep; and he took one of his ribs, from which he formed Eve, whom he brought to Adam, and he said: ‘Therefore a man will leave father and mother and cling to his wife.’” The Manichaeans again raise a false charge against this passage, saying that the statement in which God is written to have formed the woman and joined her to the man is contrary to the New Testament, because in the gospel the Lord says: “Everyone who leaves house or wife or parents or brothers or children for the sake of the kingdom of heaven will receive sevenfold in this time and in the age to come will possess eternal life.” In this false charge I wonder that they are so blinded, or rather I do not wonder; for, as it is written, “their malice has blinded them.” But who would not see how many commands there are in the New Testament about loving one's wife? Why do they say that the Old Testament opposes this saying of the Lord, in which he says that a wife must be left for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, rather than that the New Testament opposes itself? That would be impious to say. Things that seem contradictory to the unskilled must be understood, not rashly accused. For when the Lord was asked by the Jews whether he approved of dismissing a wife by giving a certificate of divorce, he answered them, saying: “Have you not read that he who made them at the beginning made male and female and said: ‘For this reason a man will leave father and mother and cling to his wife, and the two will be in one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined, let man not separate.” And they say to him: “Why then did Moses command that a certificate of divorce be given and that she be dismissed?” Jesus says to them: “Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses permitted you to dismiss your wives; but from the beginning it was not so. But I say to you: whoever dismisses his wife except for the cause of sexual immorality makes her commit adultery, and he himself, if he marries another, commits adultery.” See, they have the statement of the Old Testament confirmed by the Lord himself against the ignorance of the Jews. At the same time he also bore witness to Moses, that he permitted divorce to be given because of their hardness. Do they say that the gospel too is contrary to the gospel? And if they say that this chapter is false and was added by corrupters of the Scriptures (for that is what they usually say when they cannot find an answer), what if someone else says that the passage they themselves bring forward is the inserted and false one, where the Lord says: “Everyone who leaves house or wife or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of heaven,” and so on? The wretches do not understand how, when they say such things, they are trying to overturn the whole Christian faith. But the true faith and the teaching of the catholic Church confirm that both are true and were spoken by the Lord and are in no way contradictory, because both the union of husband and wife is from the Lord and the leaving of a wife for the sake of the kingdom of heaven is from the Lord. For it is not the case that, because Jesus Christ raised the dead and gave them life, that life itself must therefore not be left for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. So, although the Lord gave the wife to the husband, she must nevertheless be left, if need be, for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. For this is not always necessary, as the apostle says: “If any believer has an unbelieving wife and she consents to live with him, let him not dismiss her.” He certainly means that if she does not consent to live with him, that is, if she detests the faith of Christ in him and does not bear with him because he is a Christian, she must be left for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, as the same apostle says in what follows: “But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; for a brother or sister is not subject to bondage in such cases.” So if anyone leaves the kingdom of heaven because he will not leave a wife who does not tolerate a Christian husband, he is condemned by the Lord; and likewise if any man leaves his wife by giving a certificate of divorce when there is no cause either of sexual immorality or of gaining the kingdom of heaven, he is likewise condemned by the Lord. Thus neither are these two chapters of the gospel found to be contrary to each other, nor is the gospel contrary to the Old Testament, because there the wife is joined to the husband so that together they may be worthy to possess the kingdom of heaven; and so the wife is commanded to be left if she hinders the husband from possessing the kingdom of heaven. And so, when the apostle admonishes both Christians, that is, husbands and wives, does he not say: “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church and gave himself up for her”? and: “Let wives be subject to their husbands as to the Lord, because the church too is subject to Christ”? Does not the same apostle take that text of the Old Testament which these wretches mock, where it is written, “Therefore a man will leave father and mother and cling to his wife, and the two will be in one flesh,” as a great sacrament, when he says: “This sacrament is great; but I speak of Christ and the church”? Then he adds: “Nevertheless let each one love his wife as himself, and let the wife fear her husband.” Does he not show most plainly in another place that both the nature and the union of the two sexes stand from the Lord God, their creator and orderer, when he says: “Nevertheless neither is woman without man nor man without woman in the Lord; for as woman is from man, so also man is through woman; but all things are from God”? If they were willing to consider this, they would not create a fog for the unskilled with certain chapters torn out and set against each other with great deceit, but would perceive that everything, in the Old as in the New Testament, was written and commended by the one Holy Spirit. For in the Old Testament too they have, in the prophet Isaiah, how much is promised to eunuchs, so that they may not think that eunuchs are praised by the Lord only in the New, where he says that there are some who have castrated themselves for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, and added: “Whoever can accept it, let him accept it.” For Isaiah too speaks thus: “Thus says the Lord to the eunuchs, those who keep my commandments and choose for themselves what I will and hold fast my covenant: I will give them in my house and within my wall a most renowned place, much better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name, and it will never fail.” For before the Lord's coming, according to a wonderful and most orderly distribution of the times, that people which received the Old Testament was held under certain shadows and figures of things; yet in it there is so much proclamation and foretelling of the New Testament that no commands and promises, however demanding and divine, are found in the gospel and the apostolic teaching which are lacking even in those ancient books. But the holy Scriptures desire not rash and proud accusers, but diligent and devout readers.

On the text in Genesis: “And God said to Cain: What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood cries to me from the earth. Now you are cursed from the face of the earth, which has swallowed up and received your brother's blood from the slaughter of your hand; for you must work the earth, because it will give you barren fruits.” In raising a false charge against this chapter of Genesis, in which Cain received the curse of being punished by the barrenness of the earth, and in wishing to show it contrary to the gospel, the Manichaeans do not seem to me to think they are dealing with human beings, but with mere cattle, as if those who listened to them or read their writings were such: so have they abused their ignorance and slowness of wit, or rather their blindness of mind. For they said that this chapter is contradicted by what the Lord said to his disciples in the gospel: “Do not think about tomorrow; for tomorrow will think about itself. Look at the birds of the sky, for they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns.” As if Cain the fratricide were to be compared with the disciples of Christ, so that, since he deserved the punishment of a barren earth, it would follow that they too should suffer the same barrenness, who, having followed our Lord Jesus Christ, were being prepared to preach the gospel! On the contrary, in these two chapters, one from Genesis and the other from the gospel, which they have set side by side as enemies, so great a friendship and harmony is found that none greater could be desired. For what is more fitting, what more suitable, than that barrenness should follow him by whose crime a brother had been killed, even as he labored on the earth, but that for those through whose ministry brothers were being set free by the preaching of God's word, the earth should serve them fruitfully even while they took no thought at all for tomorrow? If in the Old Testament they shudder that the earth was made barren for a sinner by God's curse, why do they not shudder in the New Testament that a fig tree was made dry by the curse of our Lord Jesus Christ, with no sin on the part of its master? Likewise, if they delight in the Lord's saying in which he tells his disciples not to think about tomorrow, because God takes care of their food, why do they not also delight in the prophetic saying which sang: “Cast your care upon the Lord, and he will feed you”? Thus, if they can, the wretches may understand that the things they detest in the Old Testament as said of God are so right that they are found in the New as well, and that the things they praise and proclaim in the New are found in the Old too. From this the evident harmony of both Testaments will become clear to those who understand well.

On the text in Genesis: “Let us make man in our image and likeness.” The Manichaeans say that this passage, where it is written in Genesis that man was made in the image and likeness of God, is contrary to the New Testament because the Lord says to the Jews in the gospel: “You are from your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father; he was a murderer from the beginning and did not stand in the truth, because the truth is not in him”; and because in another place the Jews are called a brood of serpents and vipers. They do not understand that the former, that man was made in the image and likeness of God, was said of man before he sinned, whereas the latter, in the gospel, “You are from your father the devil,” is said to sinners and unbelievers. For in the holy Scriptures the name “sons” is taken in three ways: one by nature, as Isaac is Abraham's son, and also the rest of the Jews who come from the same origin; another by teaching, so that each is called the son of the one from whom he learned something, as the apostle calls his sons those who learned the gospel from him; the third by imitation, as the apostle calls us sons of Abraham because we imitate his faith. So in two ways the sinful, unbelieving Jews are called sons of the devil by the Lord: either because they learned ungodliness from him, as the apostle says of the devil himself, “who now works in the sons of unbelief”; or because they imitate him, which fits better with what was said of him, “and he did not stand in the truth,” because the Jews themselves too did not stand in the truth of the law that was given them, as the same Lord attests when he says: “If you believed Moses, you would believe me also; for he wrote of me.” By the venom of the same sins they are also called a brood of serpents and vipers. But not only Genesis but also the apostle proclaims that man was made in the image of God, when he says: “A man ought not to veil his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of the man.” And so that it may be clearly understood that man was made in the image of God not according to the oldness of sin, which is corrupted, but according to a spiritual formation, the apostle likewise admonishes us that, having stripped off the habit of sins, that is, the old man, we should put on the new life of Christ, which he calls the new man. And to teach that we once lost this, he calls it a renewal. For he speaks thus: “Stripping off the old man with his deeds, put on the new, who is renewed in the knowledge of God according to the image of him who created him.” So the sons of God are human beings renewed to his image and made like him, even to the love of an enemy, as the Lord says that we ought to love our enemies, so that we may be like our Father who is in heaven. Scripture teaches that this has been placed in our power by God himself when it says: “He gave them power to become sons of God.” But human beings are called sons of the devil when they imitate his ungodly pride, fall from the light and height of wisdom, and do not believe the truth, such as the Lord rebukes when he says, “You are from your father the devil,” and so on. With this passage of the gospel the prophet agrees, saying: “I said, you are gods and all sons of the Most High; but you will die like men and fall like one of the princes.”

On the text in Exodus: “Honor your father and your mother.” The Manichaeans say that this passage too, where God commanded honoring parents, is contradicted by that passage of the gospel where the Lord answered someone who said, “I will go first to bury my father”: “Let the dead bury their dead; but you come and proclaim the kingdom of God.” This is resolved in the same way as the earlier passage, where it was said that a wife must be left for the sake of the kingdom of heaven: because we ought to honor our parents, and yet, for the proclamation of the kingdom of God, we disregard them without any impiety. For if the gospel is contrary to the Old Testament because of this saying, it begins to be contrary to the apostle as well, who admonishes children to honor their parents and parents to love their children. And not only that, but the Lord too will seem to contradict himself (which it is impious to believe), because in another place he says to a man seeking eternal life: “If you wish to come to life, keep the commandments,” among which he also mentions this one: “Honor father and mother.” When these commandments are fulfilled, one grows also to the love of God, in which is all perfection. For love of neighbor is a sure step to the love of God. And so to the man who answered, “I have kept all those commandments,” he says that one thing is lacking to him, if he wishes to be perfect: to sell all that he has, give to the poor, and follow him. From this it is evident that honor of parents must be kept in its own rank, and yet that, in comparison with divine love, especially if they are a hindrance, they must without any hesitation be disregarded. For in the ancient Scriptures too you have it set down: “He who says to his father or mother, ‘I do not know you,’ and does not acknowledge his sons, he has known your covenant.” So if in the New Testament love of parents is commended, and in the Old disregard of parents is commended, the two Testaments agree with each other on both counts.

On the text in Exodus: “I am a jealous God, repaying the sins of the parents to the children of the third and fourth generation of those who hate me.” The Manichaeans say that this passage is contradicted by what the Lord says in the gospel: “Be kind, like your heavenly Father, who makes his sun rise on the good and the bad,” and also by what the Lord likewise says: that a brother who sins must be forgiven not only seven times but even seventy times seven. Yet if I ask them whether God does not punish his enemies, they will no doubt be thrown into confusion. For they themselves say that God is preparing an eternal prison for the race of darkness, which they say is God's enemy. And that is not all: they do not hesitate to say that he will also punish his own members together with that race. But when they come to the chapters of the Old and New Testament, in order to deceive the unskilled and accuse them of being opposed to each other, they pretend to be exceedingly good. But let them tell us to whom the Lord is going to say, “Go into the eternal fire, which is prepared for the devil and his angels,” if he spares everyone and condemns no one? So it must be understood that this too is rightly said, that God will repay the parents' sins to the children who hate him. For from his adding “who hate me” it is understood that those are punished for their parents' sins who have chosen to persist in the same perversity as their parents. Such people are punished not by God's cruelty but rather by his justice and their own iniquity, as the prophet says: “For the holy spirit of discipline will flee deceit and withdraw from thoughts that are without understanding, and he will be rebuked when iniquity comes upon him,” that is, a man will be rebuked when his own iniquity comes upon him, once the Holy Spirit has withdrawn from him. And in another place: “These things they thought, and they went astray; for their malice blinded them.” And in another place: “Each one is bound by the cords of his own sins.” With these testimonies of the Old Testament the apostle agrees from the New, saying: “God handed them over to the desires of their heart.” This agreement of both Testaments shows well enough that God is not cruel, but that each one is cruel to himself by sinning. As for its being written that punishment proceeds to the third and fourth generation, I think it signifies nothing else than that from Abraham himself, who begins to be the father of the people of the Jews, there are four ages including the present one, which the evangelist Matthew distinguishes. One is from Abraham to David, another from David to the deportation to Babylon, the third from the deportation to Babylon to the Lord's coming; from then until the end is reckoned the fourth, as the old age of the world, longer than the other ages. We believe that these ages are put for “generations,” although each consists of many generations. And since the third begins from the Babylonian deportation, when the captivity of the Jews took place, while in the fourth, that is, after the coming of our Lord, the nation of the Jews was utterly uprooted from its own soil, this gives us to understand what was said, that God would repay the sins of the parents in the third and fourth generation, lawfully and deservedly to those who preferred to hold persistently to their parents' sins rather than follow the justice of God. For the prophet Ezekiel shows most plainly that a father's sins do not pertain to a son who lives justly. But what is said in the gospel, “Be kind as your heavenly Father, who makes his sun rise on the good and the bad,” is not contrary to the Old Testament. For God does this to invite to repentance, as the apostle says: “Do you not know that God's patience invites you to repentance?” Yet we must not believe on that account that God will not punish those who, as the same apostle says, “store up wrath for themselves on the day of wrath and of the revelation of the just judgment of God, who will repay each one according to his works.” For the prophet too proclaims this patience and goodness of God, saying: “But you spare all, because all things are yours, you who love souls,” and countless other things, from which it is understood that both Testaments proclaim God's mercy and justice, in goodness and in severity. And if they are disturbed by its being said, “I am jealous,” let them be disturbed also by what the apostle Paul said: “I am jealous for you with the jealousy of God; for I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.” For holy Scripture, speaking in our words, shows even through these words that nothing worthy can be said of God. For why should not these words too be said of that majesty, of which whatever is said is said unworthily, because it surpasses all the riches of all languages by its inexpressible sublimity? Since husbands usually guard their wives' chastity by jealousy, the Scriptures have called God's power and discipline, by which he does not allow the soul to commit fornication with impunity, the jealousy of God. And the soul's fornication is a turning away from the fruitfulness of wisdom and a turning toward the conceiving of temporal allurements and corruptions. As for his saying that a brother must be forgiven not only seven times but seventy times seven, he certainly says this of one who repents. But God said that he repays sins to those who hate him, not to those who are reconciled to him by repentance. For in the prophet too the Lord says: “I do not desire the death of the sinner, so much as that he turn and live.” From this it is easily seen that in the patience that invites to repentance, in the indulgence that pardons the penitent, and in the justice that punishes those who refuse to be corrected, both Testaments agree and harmonize, as written by one God.

On the text written in Exodus: “Eye for eye, tooth for tooth,” and other such things. Against this passage, because in the old law equal retaliation is permitted and it is said that an eye must be destroyed for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, the Manichaeans raise a false charge, as if the Lord himself had shown these two things in the gospel to be opposed and contrary to each other. For he himself says: “You have heard that it was said to those of old: eye for eye and tooth for tooth; but I say to you, do not resist evil, but if anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer him the other as well, and whoever wishes to go to law with you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak too.” In these two sayings a difference between the two Testaments is indeed shown, yet between Testaments both established by one God. For since at first fleshly people burned to avenge themselves far more than the injury they complained of, a first step of gentleness was set for them: that the resentment of the one avenging himself should in no way exceed the measure of the injury received. For in this way one who had first learned not to exceed an injury might at some time also forgive it. Hence the Lord, now leading the people through the grace of the gospel to the highest peace, builds a second step upon this one, so that one who had already heard that he must not repay more than he had been harmed might rejoice, with a calm mind, to forgive the whole. The prophet proclaims this too in those ancient books, saying: “O Lord my God, if I have done this, if there is iniquity in my hands, if I have repaid evil to those who repaid me.” And another prophet says of such a man, who suffers injuries and bears them most gently: “He will give his cheek to the one who strikes him; he will be filled with reproaches.” From this it is understood both that a measure of retaliation was rightly set for fleshly people, and that complete forgiveness of injury was not only commanded in the New Testament but foretold long before in the Old.