Letters & Polemics (CSEL) 13 part 1/4

The one true God, almighty, from whom are all things, through whom are all things, in whom are all things—him I have prayed, and I pray, that in refuting and confuting your heresy, O Manicheans (to whom you have perhaps clung more imprudently than maliciously), he may give me a mind at peace and tranquil, and thinking more of your correction than of your ruin. 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 rather amended than destroyed. And whatever is divinely avenged before that last judgment—whether through the wicked or through the righteous, whether through the ignorant or the knowing, whether secretly or openly—must be believed to avail not for the destruction of men, but for their healing;

and those who spurn this healing are being prepared for the utmost punishment. Wherefore, since in this universe of things there are some which avail for bodily punishment—such as fire and poison and disease and other things of this kind—others by which within himself a man is punished not by the torments of his body but by the snares of his own desires, such as loss, exile, bereavement, insult, and the like; while certain others are not torments but as it were poultices and soothings for the ailing, such as consolations, exhortations, disputations, and whatever else there is: of all these, some things the supreme justice of God works even through the wicked who know not, but some through the good who know.

It was therefore ours to choose and desire the better things, that we might have an approach to your correction—not in strife and rivalry and persecutions, but by gently consoling, kindly exhorting, mildly disputing. As it is written: 'The servant of the Lord must not strive, but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness correcting those who think differently.' It was therefore ours to be willing to seek out these parts; it is God's to grant to those who will and ask that which is good. Let those rage against you who know not with what labor the truth is found and how difficult it is to guard against errors; let those rage against you who know not how rare and arduous it is to overcome carnal phantasms by the serenity of a devout mind;

let those rage against you who know not with how great difficulty the eye of the inward man is healed, that it may be able to behold its own sun—not that sun which you worship, shining and radiant with celestial body to fleshly eyes both of men and of beasts, but that of which it was said through the prophet: The sun of righteousness has risen for me, and of which it was said in the Gospel: There was the true light, which enlightens every man that comes into this world—: let those rage against you who know not with what sighings and groanings it comes to pass that God may be understood even in the very least degree; lastly, let those rage against you who have never been deceived by such an error as that by which they see you deceived. But I,

who, long and greatly tossed about, was at last able to look upon what that sincerity is which is perceived without the recounting of an empty fable; who scarcely, wretched man, deserved by the Lord's help to overcome the vain imaginations of my mind, gathered from various opinions and errors; who submitted myself, though so tardily, to the most merciful Physician calling and caressing me to wipe away the fog of the mind; who long wept that the unchangeable and unstainable substance might deign, in accord with the divine books, to persuade itself to me inwardly;

who, finally, both curiously sought and attentively heard and rashly believed all those fabrications which hold you entangled and bound by long habit, and urgently persuaded of them whomever I could, and against others pertinaciously and spiritedly defended them: I can by no means rage against you, whom I ought now to bear, just as I bore myself at that time, and to deal with you with as great patience as my neighbors dealt with me when I was raving and blind in your dogma. But that you may more easily grow gentle and not oppose me with a hostile spirit ruinous to yourselves, I must obtain this from you, whoever be the judge, that on both sides all arrogance be laid aside. Let none of us say that he has already found the truth;

let us so seek it as if it were unknown to both parties. For thus it can be sought diligently and harmoniously, if by no rash presumption it be believed to have been found and known. But if I cannot obtain this from you, grant me at least this: that I may hear you now for the first time as though unknown, and now for the first time examine you. I think what I ask is just, provided this condition indeed be observed: that I neither pray with you, nor hold assemblies, nor accept the name of Manichean, unless you shall have given me, concerning all things pertaining to the salvation of the soul, a clear reasoning without any fog.

For in the catholic Church—to say nothing of that most sincere wisdom, to the knowledge of which few spiritual men attain in this life, so as to know it, in the very least part indeed (because they are men), yet without doubt—for 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 which most justly hold me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations holds me; the authority holds me, begun by miracles, nourished by hope, increased by charity, made firm by antiquity;

the succession of priests holds me, from the very see of Peter the apostle—to whom the Lord after his resurrection entrusted the feeding of his sheep—down to the present episcopate; lastly, the very name of catholic holds me, which not without cause this Church alone, among so many heresies, has so obtained that, although all heretics wish to be called catholics, yet to any stranger asking where the meeting of the catholic Church is, no heretic would dare to point out his own basilica or house. Therefore these many and so great most dear bonds of the Christian name rightly hold a man believing in the catholic Church, even if, on account of the slowness of our understanding or the merit of our life, the truth does not yet show itself most openly.

But among you, where there is none of these things to invite and hold me, only the promise of truth resounds. If indeed it is shown so manifestly that it cannot come into doubt, 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 exhibited, no one shall move me from that faith which binds my mind by so many and so great ties to the Christian religion. Let us see, then, what Manichaeus teaches me, and let us above all consider that book which you call the Epistle of the Foundation, wherein almost the whole of what you believe is contained. For it was read to us wretches at that time, and we were said by you to be enlightened. It certainly begins thus:

'Manichaeus, apostle of Jesus Christ, by the providence of God the Father. These are wholesome words from a perennial and living fountain.' Now with good patience, if you please, attend to what I ask. I do not believe this man to be an apostle of Christ. I beg you, do not be angry and begin to revile. For you know that I have resolved to believe nothing rashly asserted by you. I ask therefore: who is this Manichaeus? You will answer: An apostle of Christ. I do not believe it; you will have nothing left to say or do. For you were promising the knowledge of the truth, and now you compel me to believe what I do not know. Perhaps you are about to read me the Gospel and thence attempt to establish the person of Manichaeus. But if you were to find someone who does not yet believe the Gospel, what would you do to him who said to you:

'I do not believe'? I indeed would not believe the Gospel, unless the authority of the catholic Church moved me. Those therefore whom I obeyed when they said: 'Believe the Gospel,' why should I not obey them when they say to me: 'Do not believe the Manicheans'? Choose what you will. If you say: 'Believe the catholics,' they warn me to accord no faith to you; wherefore, believing them, I cannot but disbelieve you. If you say: 'Do not believe the catholics,' you will not act rightly in compelling me by the Gospel to the faith of Manichaeus, since I believed the Gospel itself through the catholics preaching it. But if you say:

'You rightly believed the catholics when they praised the Gospel, but you did not rightly believe them when they blamed Manichaeus'—do you think me so foolish that, no reason being rendered, I should believe what you wish and not believe what you do not wish? Far more justly and cautiously do I act if, since I once believed the catholics, I do not pass over to you, unless you bid me not to believe but make me most openly and most manifestly to know something. Wherefore, if you are going to render me a reason, dismiss the Gospel. If you hold to the Gospel, let me hold to those at whose bidding I believed the Gospel, and at their command I shall by no means believe you.

But if perchance you were able to find in the Gospel something most manifest concerning the apostleship of Manichaeus, you would weaken for me the authority of the catholics, who bid me not to believe you; and that authority being weakened, I could then no longer believe even the Gospel, since it was through them that I had believed it. Thus nothing will avail with me, whatever you bring forth from there. Wherefore, if nothing manifest concerning the apostleship of Manichaeus is found in the Gospel, I shall believe the catholics rather than you. But if you read there something manifest in favor of Manichaeus, I shall believe neither them nor you: not them, because they lied to me about you; but not you either, because you offer me a Scripture which I had believed through them who lied to me. But far be it that I should not believe the Gospel.

For, believing in the Gospel, I do not find how I could also believe in you; for the names of the apostles which are read there do not include among themselves the name of Manichaeus. But who succeeded into the place of the betrayer of Christ, we read in the Acts of the Apostles; and I must of necessity believe that book, if I believe the Gospel, since the catholic authority commends both Scriptures to me alike. In the same book we also hold the most widely known account of the calling and apostleship of Paul. Read to me now, if you can, in the Gospel where Manichaeus is called an apostle, or in some other book to which I confess I already give credence. Or will you read to me that passage where the Lord promised the apostles the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete?

Concerning this passage, consider how many and how great are the things which call me back and deter me from believing Manichaeus. For I ask why the beginning of this epistle is 'Manichaeus, an apostle of Jesus Christ,' and not 'the Paraclete, an apostle of Jesus Christ.' But if the Paraclete, sent by Christ, sent Manichaeus, why do I read 'Manichaeus, an apostle of Jesus Christ,' and not rather 'Manichaeus, an apostle of the Paraclete'? If you say that he who is also the Holy Spirit is himself Christ, 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 placed not because he who is also the Paraclete is himself Christ, but because both are of the same substance, that is—

—not because he is one person, but because they are one thing, then Paul too could have said, 'Paul, an apostle of God the Father,' since the Lord said, 'I and the Father are one.' Yet nowhere does he say this, nor does any of the apostles write himself an apostle of the Father. What then does this novelty intend? Does it not seem to you to smell of some deceit or other? Certainly, if he judged it to make no difference, why does he not name himself in some epistles an apostle of Christ and in others of the Paraclete? But I have heard 'of Christ' always, as often as I have heard it, and 'of the Paraclete' not even once. What cause for this do we suppose there is, except that pride, the mother of all heretics, drove the man to wish to seem not sent by the Paraclete, but so taken up that he himself might be called the Paraclete?

Just as Jesus Christ the man was sent—not by the Son of God, that is, 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 to heal sinners: so this man wished it to seem that he was taken up by the Holy Spirit whom Christ promised, so that now, when we hear 'Manichaeus, the Holy Spirit,' we should understand 'an apostle of Jesus Christ,' that is, one sent by Jesus Christ who promised that he would send him. What singular audacity is this, and what unspeakable sacrilege!

But nevertheless I ask: since the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are, even by our own confession, joined together in no unequal nature, why is it that you do not think it shameful to proclaim that a man, Manichaeus, taken up by the Holy Spirit, was born from both sexes, yet you dread to believe that a man, taken up by the only-begotten Wisdom of God, was born of a virgin? If human flesh, if the intercourse of a man, if the womb of a woman could not defile the Holy Spirit, how could a virgin's womb defile the Wisdom of God? This Manichaeus, then, who glories in the Holy Spirit and in the reading of the Gospel, must of necessity concede to you either that he was sent by the Holy Spirit or that he was taken up by it. If he was sent, let him call himself an apostle of the Paraclete;

if he was taken up, let him concede a human mother to him whom the only-begotten Son of God took up, if he concedes a father to him whom the Holy Spirit took up. Let him believe that the Word of God was not polluted by the virginity of Mary, if he exhorts us to believe that the Holy Spirit could not be polluted by the intercourse of his parents. But if you say that Manichaeus was taken up by the Holy Spirit not in the womb nor before the womb, but when already born, it is enough that you confess he had flesh begotten of man and woman.

For since you do not fear the inward parts and blood of Manichaeus coming from human intercourse, and the entrails full of dung which that flesh carried, and yet 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 virginal womb and untouched genitals, and not rather believe that the Wisdom of God, having taken up a man in those very maternal inward parts, remained immaculate and pure? Wherefore, since whether your Manichaeus affirms himself sent or taken up by the Paraclete, he will be able to make good none of these claims, I am now more cautious and believe him neither sent nor taken up. For as to what he added, saying 'by the providence of God the Father,' what else did he aim at, once Jesus Christ had been named,

—of whom he says he is the apostle—and 'God the Father,' by whose providence he says he was sent by the Son, except that we should believe the Holy Spirit himself to be the third? For thus he writes: 'Manichaeus, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the providence of God the Father.' The Holy Spirit is not named, who most of all ought to have been named by him who commends his own apostleship to us by the promise of the Paraclete, so as to press the unlearned with Gospel authority. And when this is asked of you, you reply of course that, once Manichaeus the apostle is named, the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, is named, because he deigned to come in him.

I ask therefore, as I said above, why you shudder when the catholic Church says that he in whom the divine Wisdom came was born of a virgin, whereas you do not at all shudder that he in whom you proclaim the Holy Spirit to have come was born of a woman mingled with a man. What else, then, am I to suspect—I know not—except that this Manichaeus, who through the name of Christ seeks entry into the minds of the unlearned, wished to be worshipped in place of Christ himself? Whence I infer this, I shall say briefly. When I often asked you, in that time when I used to listen to you, what the reason was—

—that you for the most part celebrated the Lord's Pascha with no observance, or now and then with a very lukewarm celebration by a few, appointing no vigils, no more prolonged fast for the hearers, and no more festive preparation at all; whereas your Bema—that is, the day on which Manichaeus was killed—you would attend with great honours, its tribunal set up with five steps and adorned with costly cloths, set out in full view and offered to those who worshipped. When I asked this, the answer was given that the day of passion of him who had truly suffered ought to be celebrated; but that Christ, who had not been born, and had shown to human eyes not true but only feigned flesh, had not undergone but had feigned his passion. Who would not groan that men—

—who wish to be called Christians, that they fear lest truth be defiled by a virgin's womb, yet do not fear falsehood? But, to return to the matter, who would not suspect, upon careful attention, that Manichaeus denied that Christ was born of a woman and had a human body precisely for this reason: lest his passion—which is now the most festive season of the whole world—should be celebrated by those who believed in him, and lest so great a devotion should honour, with a longed-for solemnity, the day of his death? For this was what pleased us most in that celebration of the Bema, that it was observed in place of the Pascha, since we the more vehemently desired that festal day once the other—which used to be the sweetest—had been taken away. Perhaps you may say to me: When, then, did the Paraclete promised by the Lord come?

Here, if I had nothing else to believe, I would more readily wait for him as still to come than grant that he had come through Manichaeus. But as it is, since in the Acts of the Apostles the coming of the Holy Spirit is most manifestly proclaimed, what necessity compels me to believe heretics so perilously and so easily? For in the book mentioned it is thus written: 'The former discourse, O Theophilus, we made concerning all that Jesus began to do and to teach, on the day on which, through the Holy Spirit, he chose the apostles and commanded them to preach the Gospel,'

'to whom also, after his passion, he showed himself alive by many proofs, being seen by them over forty days and speaking of the kingdom of God'—how he conversed with them and commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to await the promise of the Father, 'which you have heard,' he says, 'from my mouth; for John indeed baptized with water, but you shall begin to be baptized with the Holy Spirit,' which also you shall receive not many days from now, up to Pentecost. They indeed, when they had come together, questioned him, saying: 'Lord, if at this time you will present yourself again, and when will the kingdom of Israel?' But he said: 'No one can know the time which the Father has placed in his own power;'

'but you shall receive the power of the Holy Spirit coming upon you, and you shall be my witnesses at Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the whole earth.' Behold, you have where he reminded the disciples of the paternal promise, which they had heard from his mouth concerning the Holy Spirit that was to come. Now let us see when he was sent. For a little after it follows and says: 'At that time, when the day of Pentecost was fulfilled, they were all with one accord together in one place; and suddenly there was made a sound from heaven, as of a violent rushing wind, and it filled the whole place in which they were sitting; and there appeared to them divided tongues, as it were of fire, which also sat upon each one 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 at Jerusalem Jews, men out of every nation which is under heaven. And when this voice was made, a crowd came together and was confounded, because each one heard them speaking in his own speech and in his own tongues. And they were astonished and marvelled, saying to one another: Are not all these who speak Galileans by nation? And how do we recognize in them the speech in which we were born? Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and those who inhabit Mesopotamia, Armenia and Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the regions of Africa which is toward Cyrene;'

'and those who had come as Romans and Jews, both native-born and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs—they heard them speaking in their own tongues the mighty works of God. And they were astonished and hesitated on account of what had happened, saying: What does this mean to be? But others mocked, saying: These are all full of new wine.' Behold where the Holy Spirit came. What more do you wish? If Scriptures are to be believed, why should I not rather believe these which are confirmed by the most robust authority, which, together with the Gospel itself—where we equally believe the Holy Spirit was promised—deserved to become known to the peoples, to be commended to posterity, and to be proclaimed?

When therefore I read these Acts of the Apostles, joined to the Gospel by equal authority, I find that the Holy Spirit was not only promised to those true apostles, but also so manifestly sent that no room was left on this matter for errors. For the glorification of our Lord among men is his resurrection from the dead and his ascension into heaven. And it is written in the Gospel according to John: 'But the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.' If, then, the Spirit was not yet given for this reason, that Jesus was not yet glorified, then, Jesus being glorified, of necessity he was at once given. And on account of that very twofold glorification—according to the man and according to God—the Holy Spirit too was given twice:

once after he had risen from the dead, when he breathed upon the face of the disciples, saying, 'Receive the Holy Spirit'; and again after he had ascended into heaven, ten days having passed—which number signifies perfection, since to the number seven, by which all created things stand established, is added the Trinity of the Creator. Concerning these matters many things are treated piously and cautiously among spiritual men. But I will not depart from my proposal; for I undertook first to deal with you in such a way that I should not teach you—which perhaps you deem arrogant—but as though I myself were eager to learn from you what for nine years I could not learn. Wherefore I have writings in which to believe concerning the coming of the Holy Spirit;

and if you forbid me to believe these, lest I rashly believe what I do not know—for so you are wont to admonish—then far less will I believe your writings. Wherefore, either take away all books from our midst and by argument lay open the truth about which I cannot doubt, or bring forth such books as impose upon me with no arrogance what I am to believe, but display without fraud what I am to learn. Perhaps, you say, this epistle too is such. I do not wish, then, to linger any longer on its threshold: let us look at the interior. 'These,' it says, 'are wholesome words from the perennial and living fountain; and whoever shall have heard them, and first believed them, and then shall have kept what they instill, shall never be subject to death, but shall enjoy eternal and glorious life.'

'For assuredly he is to be judged blessed, who shall have been instructed by this divine knowledge, being liberated through which he shall remain in life everlasting.' And this, as you see, is a promise, not yet an exhibition of the truth; and you too can most easily observe that under such a veil any errors whatever may be painted over, so that they may secretly creep into the minds of the unlearned through an adorned doorway. For if it said: 'These are pestilential words from a poisonous fountain; and whoever shall have heard them, and first believed them, and then shall have kept what they instill, shall never be restored to life, but shall be afflicted with a penal and wretched death—for assuredly he is to be judged wretched, who shall have been ensnared by this infernal ignorance,'

'—being drowned through which he shall remain in everlasting torments'—if, then, it said this, it would speak the truth, but it would not only win no reader for this book, but would stir up into the greatest hatred all into whose hands it might fall. Wherefore let us pass on to what follows, and let not those words deceive us which can be common to good and bad, learned and unlearned. What then follows? 'Peace,' it says, 'of the invisible God, and knowledge of the truth, be with the holy and dearest brethren, who alike believe and serve the heavenly commandments.' So be it, as it says. For this too is a kindly and most acceptable wish. Only let us remember that these things can be said both by good teachers and by deceivers.

And 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 those things which follow to this effect; for he adds: 'But may the right hand of light also protect you and rescue you from every malign incursion and from the snares of the world.' And in general, whatever is written in the beginning of this epistle, until the matter itself is reached, I do not wish to censure, lest much labour be consumed on lesser things. Now, then, let us look at the man's most evident promise. 'Concerning that, therefore,' he says, 'most beloved brother Patticius, which you signified to me, saying that you desired to know of what sort is the birth of Adam and Eve—whether they were brought forth by a word, or begotten in body—you shall be answered as is fitting.'

'For concerning these matters it has been inserted and recorded in various Scriptures and revelations by very many, in differing ways. Wherefore the truth of this matter, as it stands, is unknown to nearly all nations and to all who have even long and much disputed about it. For if it had fallen to them to know manifestly about the generation of Adam and Eve, they would never be subject to corruption and death.' He promises us, therefore, manifest knowledge of this matter, that we may not be subjected to corruption and death. And if that is still too little, see what follows. 'Of necessity, therefore,' he says, 'more things must first be recalled, so that this mystery may be reached without any ambiguity.'

This is what I was saying, that the truth ought thus to be demonstrated to me, so that I may reach it without any ambiguity. But if he himself did not promise this, I ought nevertheless to demand and insist upon it, that for so great a reward of most evident and most certain knowledge I should not be ashamed to become a Manichaean from a catholic Christian, whoever might contradict. Now, therefore, let us hear what he brings forward. 'Whence, if it seems good to you,' he says, 'listen first to what things existed before the constitution of the world, and in what manner the battle was waged, so that you may be able to separate the nature of light and of darkness.' Now he has set forth things incredible and altogether false. For who would believe that any battle was joined before the constitution of the world?