Against the Manichees 2.63–74

But since it would seem drivel to speak and reply to each thing he prattles and fabricates, the one who has understanding must consider, even without argument, how all things have been fitted together by one reason, how one law of the Creator rules over all, and how nothing among existing things is at war, nor does any sign of war or discord appear in created things; rather they are at peace, since God weaves all things together with one another, as having received from one the watchword of peace and quiet, from whom also their being came at the beginning. For heaven breathes together with the things on earth, raining when the season requires, and again holding back the rain when plants must be brought to maturity by heat alone. And the sun, moving by its Maker’s law, produces the seasons, never interchanging them, but showing their one order inviolable. And the difference remains in nature, while one and the same harmony of things above and below appears with exactness. Night has remained without quarrel with day through the whole age, having its succession to the day not by irrational impulse but by the wisdom of the Creator, measured by additions and subtractions, and not even by these now one way and now another, but the time of addition and the time of subtraction are plain. And again the sun is not burdened by the succession of night, nor does it think its Creator’s law an insult; but like a good servant, having finished the course of the day without pausing for breath, it withdraws where its law directs, hiding itself in haste, so that the night may receive its own measure. What could you say of earth and sea, how each of them is bounded by a limit? One can see the sea curved by its waves but hindered by law from its onset, and driven against the land by violent winds but bent back by fear of the law; yet no adamantine wall helps it not to flow over the land and disobey its very Maker, but the word of its Maker suffices as a rampart for the land against the sea; and sand holds it back, or rather law restrains both the violence of the winds from outside and the flow of the waters, so that no part of the land is flooded, and created things are friendly as brothers to one another, truly claiming one Creator.

For who has ever recorded that in heaven one star rose up against another, or that on earth animals fought another kind so as to wipe it out or, on the contrary, to be wiped out? Even where one animal attacks another, this too has been legislated by the Creator’s wisdom to consume their excess, and both their existence and their being consumed are for the sake of men.

And if someone goes in thought to the very principles of bodies and considers the four elements, blended by their opposition into harmony, he would be still more amazed at the harmony of existing things, as having their being from one alone. For in them opposition is the occasion of friendship, and the fighting of their nature is the cause of the highest peace. They are four in number, but come together as one; or rather they need one another in order to exist, and by their very opposition help one another, hiding in one another and appearing through one another. It is a small thing to say that the hot was not chilled by the cold, nor quenched by the moist, nor was the dry burned up by fire or dissolved by the moist. For they are the subsistence of one another and dwell wonderfully in one another. And fire might seem to be alone, yet it is not without the moist and the dry, fed by which it shines; as the others too are in one another, showing their opposition only to touch, yet so fond of one another that they seem to have no discord. These things proclaim, even in silence, the ineffable wisdom of the one unbegotten, by whom they came into being and were blended. For a body could not come from one simple element; a body would subsist by mixture. And what mixture is there of the dry alone? What of the moist, if it is by itself? So variety is necessary for the mixture of one body, and the opposition of these, pressing toward unity, is necessary, for the wonder of the Creator. They did not first subsist by themselves and then come together, but received their coming into being together and, having come into being at once, were distinguished by the senses. For when a body had come to subsist, reason and mind distinguished by perception the things joined; so that their opposition was detected afterwards by perception of the body that had come into being, which was blended from them; they did not exist beforehand, but received their being concurrently with it.

Who could worthily admire the power of the Creator and the harmony of what has come to be, how all things are without war and peaceful, except for the injustice of men? The whole creation, then, stands firm, moving its own orderly motion but keeping unmoved the law its Maker set over it. And who, if the senses of his soul were healthy, would choose, when things are so, and with countless others that surpass every mind, to fabricate in his account another principle and raise it up in opposition to the only unbegotten God? To dream of a principle in agreement and identical is superfluous, since the one rules; and to suspect an opposite one is utterly mad, since the universe is in harmony, adorned with variety, and by the wisdom of its Maker shows kindness and serenity together with gravity. For all kindness unmixed is very harmful and irrational, while gravity and severity by itself, without a share of kindness, tends toward savagery and inhumanity; but both together train and please, delight and frighten, promise kindness and threaten fearful things, hold out the hope of gifts and display the danger of punishments, so that the reasoning of those who live on earth may neither be plunged by the slackness of pleasures into unmeasured ease nor be maimed by being stunned by unceasing dread, but may be trained moderately from both sides toward reverence and virtue.

What has been said above from the facts themselves and from the common notions might perhaps secure the minds of all, even of those outside the church, so that they would by no means accept the madman’s blasphemy against the Creator of all. But since he has devised another hunt, terrible and grievous, against those who belong to the church, wresting certain sayings of the holy Scriptures to serve his false account, it is time to bring against him the refutations from the divine Scriptures too, for the safety of believers, since some are sometimes led astray by the outlandish and very implausible interpretations of his followers. For pursuing by various methods the error he devised with the cooperation of the devil, he tries to prevail. Among the Greeks he does not overturn their teachings, but raises their lesser evils to a greater mass of impiety and leads them into a more malignant paganism, going along with them in almost every statement and inserting, by agreement in evil and dangerous teachings, the addition of his own fictions. Among Christians, he supposedly follows Christian things, and by the plausibility of the name of Christ and the appearance of decency in the words of Scripture, covering the wolf (which he is) within and putting the fleece on outside, he becomes a deceiving star to the flock, and so dazzles the less sensible. And having resolved to collect a most novel impiety from himself and from others, so that none of those who have come to know Christ should even try to examine the novelty of the evils he gathered, he called himself the Paraclete, covering his deceit by using a name not only above man but above angels, so that by the credibility of the title those who are otherwise foolish might accept what he says without discernment. And sometimes too, as an apostle of Jesus Christ, the barbarian, barbarian in both race and mind, sends his impiety to barbarians. But of these things later.

Of the Scriptures, he ascribes the older ones, the Law and the Prophets, to what he calls evil; the Gospels and the other teachings of the New Testament he says were given by the good (as he thinks). Yet the inventor of blasphemy does not insist that even these are wholly pure of the opposite God (as he says), but that there are present in them too (as by a kind of mixture) many things of what he calls matter, and that one must remove these and leave alone by themselves those things which he reckons to the portion of the good. So, taking in hand the correction of the holy Scriptures (as he thinks) by himself, and for this reason above all daring to seem to be the Paraclete, he cuts out most things, and leaving a few that lack the agreement of the related words of the New Testament, he thinks he has surrounded himself with complete safety, as having left only what can be drawn to his portents; yet these too clearly refute his unmeasured madness, as the discourse, God granting, will clearly show when it comes to them.

But first we must show how irrational his blasphemy against the older holy Scriptures is: in this he joins wicked men older than himself, cast out by the church, but he surpasses all of them in impiety. If, then, as the Greeks wholly disbelieve the histories of the Scriptures, he too in disbelief said that what is recorded there did not happen at all or happened by chance, we would not raise anything against him about these, nor would he incur a greater refutation through them. But since he admits that they truly happened, and says that their cause is the evil that does not exist, come, let us now show how he ascribes the great works and the greater wonders to the evil he slanders, not understanding (being blind in his reasoning) the extraordinary economies of God, the Creator of all, in the histories.

That man himself, or one of his followers, says word for word, heading the chapter “On the first fashioning of man”:

“For when the rulers knew that, from the taking away of the portion of light that had once fallen into them, death would quickly come upon them, they contrived the descent of the soul into bodies, seeking that it should not rise up again at all, and that, if it did go up, it should not be found worthy of the lot above, bearing the defilements of the flesh.” And a little after: “Therefore each of them,” he says (that is, of the rulers of matter), “in the way we described before, because of the movement that occurred and of the one who first appeared for the redemption of the soul, when the door was first opened in astonishment … unwillingly sent down the power within him, shaped himself as a lure for the soul, and fashioned an image of himself on the earth, to which he compelled the souls, bewitched, to cling inseparably. And the first fashioning of them is Adam, an instrument of desire, a bait for the souls from above, and a device for their falling into bodies.”

We must first consider how great a wisdom he attributes to the rulers (as he thinks) of matter, which he decries as wholly ignorant: so that, in order not to be deprived of the light mixed with them, they contrived through the flesh the descent of the soul into themselves, not allowing it to run back up again, and, if it did run up, showing it unworthy of things above, defiled by the flesh; so that it is wholly impossible for the good to keep his own soul entire, defeated by the devices of the rulers of matter.

And how is it not laughable still to speak about these things? But since he says that Adam is the first fashioning of the rulers of matter, an instrument of desire and a bait for the souls from above, we have so far learned that he clearly says man was fashioned by matter, which does not exist; he who everywhere assigns the greater share to matter and evil by pretence of slander now says that matter made man, the most royal and ruling of all the living beings in the bodily world, since he alone is rational and wonderful in the reasoning of his nature and in his pursuits.

Raising doubts about the whole world too, for what purpose it came to be, and trying to show about man that he is not God’s creation, he foolishly raises other questions too: “How did God give a commandment to Adam?” he says. “For it is one of two things: either he knew that Adam would transgress, and so he not only gave it in vain but is the cause of his transgression; or, if he did not know, one must say that God is clothed in ignorance.” So that the commandment was given, but (as he thinks) by evil and nothing else, as a plot against man; and man was benefited in the greatest way and set free by obeying the counsel of the serpent, which he defines as an angel of the good. “For he was blind,” he says, “but having tasted what was forbidden he saw himself, that he was naked, and used the covering he found, and knew good and evil.” So he was most benefited by transgressing the command of the one who had fashioned him treacherously. “And how,” he says, “would it befit God to say, ‘Behold, Adam has become like one of us, in knowing good and evil; and now, lest he stretch out his hand and take of the tree of life and eat and live for ever’? For if it was possible to receive immortality, he who drove the man out of paradise and shut him off from sharing in the tree of life, by sharing in which he could have had immortality for ever, was envious.” He also reproached the murder of Abel, and, going on, put forward the flood as one that would not have been brought …

… from the disciples … has come from the teaching. And if you wish to learn that the demons themselves too are not evil from the root, nor have a root of perversity, but that they too have come to this by choice, not being wicked by nature, not inscribed in ignorance, nor being night and darkness in substance, but having become such by habit and practices and by undertaking such things, let us examine the argument. A blind nature will not come to even the smallest and slightest sight, and ignorance itself

will not claim a drop of knowledge for itself, nor will night itself and darkness, being so by nature, be changed into even a brief brightness. Yet the demons are seen both knowing the Saviour and confessing him Lord, saying, “We know who you are, the Son of the living God.” But ignorance cannot know, and a blind nature has no strength to see. They know, and in knowing they speak truth, and they speak not as slanderers. For they speak the truth, even if not with a genuine disposition; they are no longer accused of a blind nature or of ignorance. For if they saw not even the least, they would not have been suppliants, nor yielded to what was said, nor distinguished the one who appeared as other than the many, but would have thought that he differed in nothing from themselves. For see, irrational animals cannot know, among wise and unwise men, which are wise and which unwise; but if the demons knew, and, knowing how to distinguish, are free of lack of discernment, having recognized such a one by discernment, then here too it is shown that not nature but choice rules. For whether choice understands or errs, it is still not freed from being rational, but has this undestroyed. So the demons too recognized him, besought him, implored him not to command them to go into the abyss. If they were children of the abyss, if they had kinship with the abyss, why do they flee what is akin to them? Why do they refuse their own root? They would rather have welcomed it, thinking kinship a rest for themselves; for recovery comes among kin, and ill-treatment among strangers. They ought rather to have refused Jesus, rather to have refused this place where the earnest and decent are, and to have welcomed the abyss, or arrival in the abyss. But by refusing and guarding themselves and not enduring to go there, but imploring for this reason, they have given sufficient evidence that they have no natural kinship with the places of punishment. For nothing ever harms itself, but everything harmed is harmed by another. For what harms must be the harming not of itself but of something else naturally able to suffer or be harmed. See, fire does not burn itself; it will consume something else, not itself. See, water does not flood itself; it knows how to flood other things, but cannot flood itself. See, the air does not know how to chill itself; since everything that acts and harms harms and grieves something else. But if the abyss is evil and the demons are harmed by the abyss, and the abyss is a place of torment,

and the demons are racked there, they are no longer tormented by what is like them, but, being other, they are tormented by another, no longer of this nature or substance; for the abyss has been shown to be of another substance. That the demons are of another kind and another substance than the abyss, what has been said is enough. And this abyss is a place of torment and punishment, but not eternal or unbegotten; it came into being later at some time, was made late, as a medicine and help for those who have sinned. For scourges are sacred, being medicine for those who have sinned; blows are sacred, being helps for those who have fallen. For blows have not come about so that people may be evil, but scourges have come about so that they may not be evil. For the wicked, pained by the blow, cut short their evils by the scourge. That is why we do not blame the abysses either, but know that they have come to be places of torment and punishment, being the chastening of those who have sinned. And if the abyss is a place of torment and racking, and the demons are racked and tormented and have a substance susceptible to torments, and can feel pain, are subject to punishment and perceive their chastisements, how are they unbegotten? How eternal? How did they never begin? How are they from themselves, who are not impassible, who can suffer and are able to be punished? For the unbegotten will never suffer anything, nor be punished by anyone; but having begun from itself it remains for itself, and not having received its beginning from another, it does not receive punishment from another; and not claiming a cause, it will not claim one who chastises, and will not be judged by another, not having begun from another; and it will fear no one, having received its being from no one. For what will it fear, if it has a perfect constitution, a perfect completion, if it was completed from itself and fitted to itself? For things whose harmony can be affected fear the one able to change their harmonies; what can suffer fears the one who acts. And if the demons fear and can suffer, they are not unbegotten. For the unbegotten is impassible and cannot suffer, being outside the nature of begotten things. And that they implore shows that they are in perception, and know what they are, and know that they can suffer. For they were not ignorant of themselves; they did not reckon themselves impassible. And for someone to know himself, and not to be ignorant, is a symbol and sign of perception. And if, because they are susceptible to suffering, they were afraid, and in fear implored, and implored the one who was able,

they were not ignorant of the one who was tracking them; for this supplication of theirs bears witness that they knew the one tracking them. That they were susceptible to suffering and passible they did not ignore; and that the one tracking them was the Lord and King of all things they plainly knew, as their supplication shows. We have set out these things about demons so that the argument about demons too may not be idle. For it is possible to add this too: that a nature is like itself and has no difference from itself. See, fire is wholly like itself, neither less hot than itself nor more; it does not have more and less. For in natures more and less are idle; and where there is more and less, it is no longer nature but progress of choice. And if it is written about demons too that one “goes and takes seven other spirits more wicked than itself,” and progress appears from the saying, that one is wicked and another more wicked, a difference of wickedness, where is there still a nature, since it is not like itself? A difference in wickedness is found, and the difference bears witness to choice and not to nature. Enough of such arguments; let us try, having first set out their first myth-making, to use arguments that overturn it. “There was evil,” he says, “and it was unbegotten; and there was also God, the good, and the places of dwelling were divided, and each by itself was free of the other. God was separated from evil, and the ruler of evil was separated from God, and each was by himself and ruled his own and managed as his nature was: the evil one evilly and the good one well; the evil one harming, and harming his own, and never ceasing to harm his own; the good one always good and beneficial, benefiting his own and never not benefiting. For all benefit came forth from the good.” Inconsistencies of teaching! They fought, they sought the last things, they could not find them, not having received the consequence from the beginning. These things are small and not many, but sufficient for the inquiry; for I have only set out the outline and have not gone down into a multitude of testimonies. The reader will seek things akin to what is said, and from these will go on to similar and kindred readings. But come, let us set out their account, putting forward their doctrines. Satan was wicked, and God was good. And so it was. I turn the myth round, so as to put the myth to shame; and unless I set out what they explain, to put to shame the …

… I have no myth-making. “God was good,” he says, “and Satan wicked. And he was wicked and there was never a time when he was not; for he always was, and was not from anyone. For he was, and was a root,” he says. “And He was Lord, and he himself was, and was a root, a good root, a root of good things, and everything good came forth from him. For there were two roots, and two processions came forth, the processions corresponding to the roots.” From that one come such things, and from this one such things, they keep repeating. Let us stop there; let us now attempt the examination, look at syllogisms and recall sayings, so that we may both draw conclusions by syllogisms and persuade by sayings. We shall say to them: since God was a root, and a good root, and good fruits were brought forth from good roots, and Satan was a root, and an evil root, and evil fruits were brought forth from an evil root, whose fruits are the apostles? So that from the fruits we may learn what is sought, which I do not take from the roots. For we shall say: the evil root knows how to bring forth nothing good, nor does the good root know how to bring forth anything evil; but the apostles appear sometimes good and sometimes bad, good at last but bad at first, having made a change from evil. If, then, we say that the apostles are fruits of Satan because of their old stumblings, they will be put to shame by their apostleship and the perfection of their virtues; and if of God, what will they say about the old stumblings and the old accusation? For the writing will put them to shame and refute their judgement. And if, at a loss and unable to answer, they ask in return, saying that the solution of the premises is difficult and the proof difficult, we too shall say that the apostles are not fruits of God but works and creatures. For they were not brought forth as fruits from a root, but became creatures and works of their Maker, as from a creator and maker, not as consubstantial with their Maker. For they are begotten from the unbegotten, once not existing, later made, receiving being from their Maker; not substances from a substance, but subsistent beings made by the goodness of the Creator, and made so as to have their principle in choice. So the Saviour is seen saying, “If anyone wishes to come after me,” “If you wish to be perfect,” “Do you wish to become well?” If the one who made these things, through whom the Father made all things, calls in this way, note the words of the Maker. He laid down the laws in willing; in willing he

stores up what is lawful; he knows the will of those who act as the ground of what is done. Honouring the partnership of deeds, the Word hung it on willing: “If you are willing and listen to me, you will eat the good things of the land; but if you are not willing and do not listen to me, the sword will devour you.” But it would be absurd to leave aside the account of the very worst, and to leave out the examination of those who lived most shamefully and dissolutely, lest our silence produce in them a most grievous folly. Do they not greatly slander Nebuchadnezzar? Do they not greatly blame Pharaoh? Have they not thought them the limit of shamefulness? For they repeat such things up and down about their conduct. If, then, no earnestness appeared in their minds, the account would be different; but if even in those so evil there are found parts of good, perceptions and apprehensions, repentance and supplications, what will they still say? For if this most shameful man should appear to have some parts of virtue and fitness of character, what will they say? Either they will say that Satan is mixed of virtue and vice, as having borne mixed fruits, or that these are not fruits of the devil. For mixed things would no longer be fruits of what is unmixed, nor will the unmixed appear a root of the mixed. And these appeared mixed, having in time received knowledge and been taken by wickedness. And by this argument it will appear a fiction of words and not a reality of truth. For see, Pharaoh under the rebukes gives way and softens; he gives way in his mind, and, struck in soul, does not persist in his harshness but does two things: he asks for prayer and condemns what has happened; and his soul is not seen maimed, but looking and moving to repentance, grasping at request and supplication, and pleading for the sake of prayer. But if he had been evil by nature, how did he know about prayer and repentance? For if repentance is good, prayer too is good; and if his nature was evil, how was evil mixed with good? How was good brought forth from evil? So they seem not to know what they say, but with an uninstructed mind bring forth spittle of words rather than words. And if Nebuchadnezzar too, though harsh in character, having prepared the furnace, made the image, frightened by his threat and compelled people to worship the statue, when the holy men were thrown inside and the flame drew back and did not touch their bodies, and the furnace became a place of assembly, and hymns were sung inside instead of laments,