Against Adimantus, a Disciple of Mani 9–13

On the texts which say that God spoke with Adam and Eve, with the serpent, with Cain, and with others of old. Among these he is also written to have appeared to some and to have been seen by them, not in one but in many places of the Scriptures, in which God is found both to have spoken with human beings and to have appeared to some. So the Manichaeans lie in wait and say that all these are contrary to the New Testament, since the Lord says: “No one has ever seen God except the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father; he has told us of him”; and again, what he says to the Jews: “You have never heard his voice nor seen his face, nor do you have his word abiding in you, because you have not believed him whom he sent.” We reply that by that very text written in the gospel, “No one has ever seen God except the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father; he has told us of him,” the whole question can be resolved. For the Son himself, who is the Word of God, not only in the last times, when he deigned to appear in the flesh, but also earlier, from the foundation of the world, told of the Father to whom he willed, whether by speaking or by appearing, either through some angelic power or through any creature whatever. For he is the truth in all things, and all things hold together in him, and all things serve him at his nod and are subject to him, so that he may appear even to the eyes, through a visible creature, to whom he wills, when he deigns; while he himself, according to his divinity and according to what he is as the Word of the Father, coeternal with the Father and unchangeable, through whom all things were made, is seen only by a most purified and simple heart. And so in some places Scripture itself testifies that an angel was seen where it says that God was seen; as in that wrestling of Jacob the one who appeared was also called an angel. And when he appeared to Moses in the bush, and again in the desert after he had already led the people out of the land of Egypt, when he received the law, God spoke to him; but whether in the bush, when he sent him, or afterwards, when he gave him the law, Stephen in the Acts of the Apostles says that an angel appeared to him. We say this so that no one may think that the Word of God, through whom all things were made, can be bounded by places, as it were, and appear visibly to anyone except through some visible creature. For just as the word of God is in a prophet, and it is rightly said “the prophet said,” and it is likewise rightly said “the Lord said,” because the Word of God, which is Christ, speaks the truth in the prophet: so too he himself speaks in an angel when the angel announces the truth, and it is rightly said “God said” and “God appeared,” and likewise rightly said “the angel said” and “the angel appeared,” since the one is said in the person of the indwelling God, the other in the person of the serving creature. By this rule the apostle too says: “Or do you want proof of Christ, who speaks in me?” And if they are disturbed that in the Old Testament God speaks even to sinners, to Adam or to Eve or to the serpent, let them notice also what sort of example the Lord gave in the New about the foolish and greedy man, how the Lord spoke to him when he said: “Fool, this night your soul will be taken from you; the things you have prepared, whose will they be?” For when the truth is spoken even to sinners, through whatever creature it is spoken, it is spoken only by him who alone is true. And what he says to the Jews, “You have never heard his voice,” he says because they did not obey, at least those with whom he was speaking. To them he also says, “nor have you seen his face,” because it is not possible. And as to his saying, “nor do you have his word abiding in you”: because Christ abides in the one in whom the word of God abides, and they rejected him. For when the Lord himself had said, “Father, glorify me with the glory which I had with you before the world was made,” a voice sounded from heaven: “I have both glorified and will glorify.” Many of the Jews who were present heard that voice, and yet they are not therefore to be said to have heard it, because they did not obey so as to believe. Therefore, if it is not to be wondered at that the Word of God, that is, the only Son of God, who tells of the Father, does so to whom he wills by himself, to whom he wills through some creature, by sounding or appearing, while he himself is seen in himself by a pure heart, and through him the Father (for “blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God”), then it is not to be wondered at that all these testimonies from both Testaments are in harmony.

On the text which says that God spoke to Moses and said to him: “Speak to the children of Israel: take first-fruits from every person, which you are to set aside for me, that is, gold, silver, bronze, purple, fine linen, scarlet, goats' hair, red skins of lambs, sound wood, oil for lighting, incense, precious stones, that is, beryls, and set up a tabernacle in which I may dwell with you.” From this too the Manichaeans stir up a question, and they say that what the Lord says in the gospel is contrary to this passage of the Scriptures: “You shall not swear either by heaven, because it is God's throne, or by the earth, because it is the footstool of his feet.” They argue, and think they are saying something great, when they say: how does that God, whose throne is heaven and whose footstool is the earth, dwell in a tabernacle built of gold or silver and bronze and purple and the hair and skins of animals? They also bring in the apostle Paul as a witness, because he says that God dwells in unapproachable light. To them we put a matching question, and what they brought forward from the New Testament we bring forward from the Old. For there it is found written first: “Heaven is my throne, the earth the footstool of my feet; what house will you build for me, or what is the place of my rest? Did not my hand make all these things?” See, they have a place where the books of the Old Testament proclaim that God does not dwell in temples made by hands; and yet the Son of our God, with a whip made of cords, drove out of the temple those who were selling oxen and doves, overturned the tables of the money-changers, and said: “My Father's house shall be called a house of prayer, but you have made it a den of robbers.” So if someone wished to deceive the unskilled by setting these two chapters too against each other, and to say that in the Old Testament God is magnified, whose throne is said to be heaven and his footstool the earth, and it is denied that he dwells in a house made with hands, whereas in the New Testament a temple built by human beings is called his house: will not the Manichaeans admit, even if late, that in both Testaments a dwelling of God made by human hands is taken for some signification, and that in both Testaments it is proclaimed that God does not dwell in places fashioned by human beings?

On the texts written in Exodus: “Do not worship other gods,” and again: “Your God is called jealous; for in jealousy he was jealous.” When the Manichaeans raise a false charge against this chapter, in which it is written, “Do not worship other gods,” they show well enough that they are pleased that many gods be worshiped. No wonder, since in their sect they recount and commend a most numerous family of gods; indeed they have come even to these visible things, which they venerate and worship in place of the light of truth itself; and so they dislike what is written in Exodus: “Do not worship other gods.” They add that this was said for that reason: “Your God is called jealous; for in jealousy he was jealous,” so that we should not love, as a jealous God, him whose jealousy does not allow us to be devoted to other gods. And so they say that these things are contrary to the gospel, since the Lord says, “Righteous Father, the world has not known you,” as if God were not to be called righteous unless he allowed us to worship other gods. For they argue that a righteous God and a jealous God are contrary to each other, and they deceive wretched people who do not understand that the whole hope of our salvation is the jealousy of God. For by this name is signified that providence of his by which he allows no soul to commit fornication away from him with impunity, as the prophet says: “You will destroy all who commit fornication away from you.” For just as what is called the anger of God is not a disturbance of mind but the power of punishing, so the jealousy of God is not the torment of spirit by which a husband against his wife, or a wife against her husband, is usually tortured, but a most tranquil and pure justice, by which no soul is allowed to be happy that is corrupted and, in a manner, made pregnant by false opinions and perverse desires. Those shudder at these words who have not yet seen that no words fit the inexpressible majesty of God. For they think one should refrain from these words as if they themselves were saying something worthy of God when they do not say them. But the Holy Spirit, suggesting to people of understanding how inexpressible the highest divine things are, chose to use even these words which among human beings are usually counted as faults, so that people might be reminded thereby that even the things they think they say with some dignity befitting God are unworthy of his majesty, to which honoring silence would be more fitting than any human voice. I look for human jealousy and I find a disturbance that torments the heart. Yet when I look for its cause, I find nothing else than that it does not tolerate a spouse's adultery. For jealousy is most often and properly spoken of between spouses. So if a husband were happy in himself, almighty, and just, he would punish his spouse's sin without any torment, with complete ease, and with no injustice. Yet, in the human manner of speaking, I would call that action of his jealousy, even if not properly, still figuratively and rightly. For who has brought a false charge against Tullius, who certainly knew how to speak Latin, when he said to Caesar: “Of your virtues none is more admirable or more pleasing than your mercy”? And yet they say that misericordia (mercy) is so called because it makes the heart of one who grieves at another's misery miserable. Does virtue, then, make the heart miserable? What would Tullius answer to such false accusers, except that by the name of mercy he meant clemency? For we rightly speak by using not only proper words but also neighboring ones. I chose to mention this author because the question is not about the thing but about a word. For just as our authors, that is, the authors of the divine writings, have thought chiefly about things, so almost all the care of worldly authors is about words. But I have the gospel and all the books of the New Testament, in which God's mercy is commended very often. So if these wretches dare, let them make a question of that too, and deny that God is merciful, lest he be understood to have a miserable heart. Therefore, just as there can be mercy in God without misery of heart, so let us not disdain to accept the jealousy of God without decay or torment of spirit, and let us bear with the conditions of human speech so as to reach divine silence. But if they say that a jealous God and a righteous God are contraries, what will they say when I find in the New Testament too, “I am jealous for you with the jealousy of God,” and a testimony from the old books cited in the gospel, “Zeal for your house has consumed me”? Again, when they read in the Old, “The Lord is righteous and has loved righteousness; his face has seen equity,” will they not admit that in this way too the two Testaments can seem contrary to the unskilled, so that we find the jealousy of God in the New and the righteousness of God in the Old? But to those who understand well, both are in harmony in both, in the great unity and peace of the Holy Spirit.

On the text which says that blood must not be eaten, because the blood is the soul of the flesh. Against this saying of the old law the Manichaeans set what the Lord says in the gospel, that we should not fear those who can kill the body but cannot harm the soul, and they argue, saying: if the blood is the soul, how do human beings have no power over it, when they do many things with blood, whether catching it and putting it out as food for dogs and birds, or pouring it out, or mixing it with mud and filth? For human beings can do these and countless other things with blood without difficulty. So they ask mockingly how, if the soul is of the blood, a killer of a human being cannot harm the soul, when he has such power over its blood. They also add what the apostle Paul says, that flesh and blood will not possess the kingdom of God, and they say: if the blood is the soul, as Moses says, no soul will be found able to obtain the kingdom of God. To this false charge we must first reply by compelling them to show where in the books of the old law it is written that the human soul is blood. For they will never find this in that Scripture which the wretches, as long as they try to tear it to pieces, are in no way permitted to understand. And if nothing of the kind is said there about the human soul, what does it matter to us whether the soul of a beast can be harmed by a killer, or cannot possess the kingdom of God? But since they are excessively anxious about the souls of beasts (for though the souls of human beings are rational, they nonetheless think they are rolled back into beasts), they think the kingdom of heaven is shut against themselves if they agree that it is shut against the souls of beasts. What of the fact that Adimantus, one of the disciples of Mani, whom they recall as a great teacher of that sect, even dared to mock the people of Israel? He dared, then, to mock the people of the Jews because, according to their understanding, by which they think that blood is the soul, the souls of their forefathers were partly devoured by serpents, partly consumed by fire, partly dried up in deserts and in the roughest places of the mountains. If anyone granted that this is true, he would still prove that it happened without guilt on the part of those whom this man chose to mock. For they themselves did not in any way harm the souls of their forefathers, to whom, on this understanding, he said all those things happened; so they may have grief from it, but not guilt. But what will Adimantus himself do, by his own opinion, by which he believed that even rational souls, that is, the souls of human beings, can be thrust into the bodies of beasts? What will he do about so great a crime, if he ever wore out a slow beast of burden with blows or a spirited one with the bridle, in which perhaps his father's soul was? Not to mention that he could even have killed his parents among lice and fleas, from killing which they do not refrain. For what does it help them that they sometimes deny that human souls can be rolled back as far as these tiniest creatures? They deny this so as not to be held guilty of so many killings, or be forced to spare fleas and lice and bedbugs and endure such great annoyances from them without any license to kill them. For they are pressed hard to say why a human soul can be rolled back into a fox and not into a weasel, when a fox cub may even be smaller than a large weasel. Then, if into a weasel, why not into a mouse? And if into that, why not into a lizard? And if into that, why not into a locust? then into a bee, then into a fly, then into a bedbug, and from there down to a flea and to anything else much tinier? For they find no place to set a limit, and so, through this trifling cruelty, their consciences are buried under countless crimes of murder. Now, regarding what is written, that the blood of a beast is its soul: besides what I said above, that it does not concern me what becomes of the soul of a beast, I can also interpret that command as given as a sign. For the Lord did not hesitate to say, “This is my body,” when he gave the sign of his body. As for what the apostle says, “Flesh and blood will not possess the kingdom of God,” it is also said in the law: “My spirit will not remain in these, because they are flesh”; and yet so often in the ancient books a future reward is promised to the souls of the righteous. But the apostle wished to suggest what kind of body the righteous will have through transformation in the resurrection, since they will neither marry nor take wives but will be like the angels in heaven; wishing, then, to suggest this future transformation of the bodies of the saints, the apostle said: “For I tell you, brothers, that flesh and blood will not possess the kingdom of God.” This can be found not from a single saying torn out and cited for deceit, but by working through, or rather simply reading, the whole passage of the letter (for the matter is not obscure). For he says: “This corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.” That he says this of the body is plainly found from what precedes, when he says: “Not all flesh is the same flesh: there is one of human beings, another of beasts, another flesh of birds, another of fish; and there are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies; but the glory of the heavenly is one and that of the earthly another; one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead. The body is sown in corruption, it will rise in incorruption; it is sown in dishonor, it will rise in glory; it is sown in weakness, it will rise in power; it is sown an animal body, it will rise a spiritual body. If there is an animal body, there is also a spiritual one, as it is written: the first man Adam became a living soul, the last Adam a life-giving spirit. But it is not the spiritual that is first, but the animal, and afterwards the spiritual. The first man was from the earth, earthly; the second man from heaven, heavenly. As was the earthly, so are the earthly, and as is the heavenly, so are the heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthly, let us bear also the image of him who is from heaven. This I say, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor will corruption inherit incorruption.” Surely it is now clear why the apostle said this. Why then does this man, by so shameful a deceit, cite only this last sentence and keep silent about what precedes, by which what he wrongly interprets can be rightly understood? For since the body of our Lord after the resurrection was lifted into heaven in such a way that it received a heavenly transformation suited to that heavenly dwelling, and we have been commanded to hope for this on the last day, the apostle therefore said: “As was the earthly, so are the earthly,” that is, mortal, “and as is the heavenly, so are the heavenly,” that is, immortal not only in souls but also in bodies. Hence he had also said above that the glory of heavenly bodies is one and that of earthly bodies another. And when he says that there will be a spiritual body in the resurrection, it is not to be thought that it will not be a body but a spirit; rather, he calls spiritual a body wholly subject to the spirit, without any corruption or death. For it is not the case that, because you now call the body we have an animal body, it must be thought to be not a body but a soul. Therefore, just as it is now called an animal body because it is subject to the soul, but cannot yet be called spiritual, because it is not yet fully subject to the spirit as long as it can still be corrupted, so it will then be called spiritual when it can offer no resistance, through any corruption, to the spirit and to eternity. Or if it still seems insufficiently shown that the apostle said this sentence because of the transformation that is to come, when he says, “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor will corruption inherit incorruption,” notice what he at once adds and joins to it: “Behold, I tell you a mystery: we shall all rise, but we shall not all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will rise incorrupt, and we shall be changed.” Then he continues and says also what I mentioned a little before, to show what the transformation itself will be like. For he says immediately: “For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.” From this, then, it appears why flesh and blood will not possess the kingdom of God: because when it has put on incorruption and immortality, it will no longer be flesh and blood but will be changed into a heavenly body. We have treated this as the occasion arose, because those who deny the resurrection of bodies are accustomed to lay many traps around this saying too. For this question was raised not about the body but about the soul, which they think is taken in the law in such a way that it is held to be blood; which we in no way understand so. But although we do not concern ourselves with the souls of beasts, with which we have no fellowship of reason, nonetheless we say that what the law says, that blood must be poured out and not taken as food because the blood is the soul, was set down as a sign, as were many other things; indeed almost all the sacraments of those Scriptures are full of signs and figures of the future proclamation, which has now been made plain through our Lord Jesus Christ. For the blood is the soul in the way that the rock was Christ, as the apostle says: “For they drank from the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.” It is known that the children of Israel drank water from a rock that was struck in the desert, of whom the apostle was speaking when he said this. Yet he did not say, “the rock signified Christ,” but says, “the rock was Christ.” And lest this in turn be taken in a fleshly way, he calls it spiritual, that is, he teaches that it is to be understood spiritually. It would take long, and is not necessary now, to expound the sacraments of that law, except where they can be done briefly. It is enough that those who raise false charges about them should know that we do not understand them in the way they are accustomed to mock, but in the way the apostles, understanding everything, expounded a few things, so as to leave the rest to be understood by later generations according to the same rules.

On the text in Deuteronomy: “See that you do not forget the covenant of your God which he wrote down, and make for yourselves likenesses and images,” to which he added, saying: “Your God is a devouring fire and a jealous God.” That Adimantus set out these words from the Scriptures in this way, for we have undertaken to refute and rebut his false charges. But when he raised a false charge about God's jealousy earlier, I think a sufficient answer was given. Let us remember, however, that not only there but here too he accused the Scriptures about God's jealousy in such a way as to add also what the Lord our God commands in those books about not worshiping idols, as if he found fault with God's jealousy for no other reason than that by that very jealousy we are forbidden the worship of idols; so he wants to seem to favor idols. They do this in order to win for their most wretched and insane sect the goodwill of the pagans as well. Against this chapter of the law they also set the passage where someone came to the Lord and said to him, “Good teacher, what shall I do to possess eternal life?” and Jesus answered him, “Why do you ask me about the good? No one is good but the one God,” so that we should evidently think these things contrary, because in the law it is said, “God is a devouring fire,” and, “God is jealous,” but in the gospel, “No one is good but the one God.” As for jealousy, it has already been answered that these words are not set in the Scriptures to signify any disturbance or torment in God, but that, because nothing worthy can be said of God, Scripture went as far as these words, so that, when people judge them unworthy, they may be compelled to learn that even the things they think they say fittingly of the inexpressible divine excellence are unworthy of God's majesty. For when his Wisdom was about to descend as far as a human body, it first descended as far as human words. And when I begin to examine this word, I see that I have not spoken properly: for nothing can descend except what can also move from place to place. For one who descends is seen to leave a higher place and seek a lower one. But since the Wisdom of God is present whole everywhere, it can in no way move from place to place. John speaks better of it in the gospel, as one who shared the Lord's breast. For he says: “He was in this world, and the world was made through him, and the world did not know him”; and yet he himself adds and says: “He came to his own, and his own did not receive him.” How was he here, and how did he come, except that that inexpressible sublimity, in order to suit human beings, must be signified by human sounds, but, in order to make human beings gods, must be understood in divine silence? So a reason can be given why it was said thus; yet nothing can be said worthily of God, since it is already unworthy by the very fact that it could be said. Take away error and pain from jealousy: what else will remain but a will that guards chastity and punishes conjugal corruption? By what word, then, could it be better suggested than by “the jealousy of God” that we are called to marriage with God, and that he does not want us to be corrupted by shameful love, and punishes our unchastity, and loves chastity? For not for nothing is it commonly said: he who is not jealous does not love. To this also belongs what is said, “a devouring fire”: about which I need not argue, but rather ask them what fire the Lord said he had come to send into this world. For this is said in the gospel, which they cannot accuse, not because they honor Christ, but in order to deceive Christians. When it is pointed out to them that the Lord said, “I have come to send fire into this world,” the wretches say: “But that is something else.” To them we reply: “And this is something else too; do not be afraid.” For Christ himself speaks also in the Old Testament when he says, “I am a devouring fire,” he who speaks in the gospel of having come to send fire into this world, that is, the Word of God, which is himself. For after the resurrection he certainly expounded the old Scriptures to the disciples, beginning from Moses and all the prophets, when the disciples themselves confessed that they had received fire, saying: “Was not our heart burning on the way, while he opened the Scriptures to us?” He himself is the devouring fire: for divine love consumes the old life and renews the human being, so that by being a devouring fire God makes us love him, and by being jealous he himself loves us. So do not fear the fire which is God, but fear the fire which God has prepared for heretics. As for the passage Adimantus chose from the gospel to throw before the unskilled against this chapter of the law as if it were contrary, where the Lord says, “No one is good but the one God”: who could count how often the goodness of God is found in the Old Testament? Yet I will set down one, which is sung daily in the churches: “Give praise to the Lord, for he is good, for his mercy is forever.” Certainly this too seems contrary to a jealous God, as the Manichaeans think, and yet it is sung in the books of the Old Testament. Again, that king who was holding a wedding for his son found among the guests a man without a wedding garment and, first addressing him by the name of friend, ordered him to be bound hand and foot and thrown into the outer darkness; to those who understand with difficulty he does not seem good. And if anyone were to set out that very chapter of the gospel and accuse the gospel falsely, as Adimantus does the Old Testament, praising rather the books of the Old Testament where it is written, “Give praise to the Lord, for he is good, for his mercy is forever,” and finding fault in the New that an invited guest is sent to so great a punishment because of a garment; and if he did this continually with deceitful perversity, collecting all the passages of gentleness from the Old Testament and the passages of severity from the New and maintaining that they are opposed to each other, praising the old and finding fault with the new: he would likewise find unskilled people, wretchedly ignorant of the divine Scriptures, whom he could persuade that the Old Testament rather than the New should be kept. Since these people do this from the other side, that is, finding fault with the Old as if contrary to the New, I wonder that they do not think that someone may at some time read both, and by divine help understand and praise both, and either grieve over their deceit and malice as that of human beings, or guard against it as that of heretics, or laugh at it as that of ignorant and proud men.