It is patent that this view of the beauty of God and His creation is diametrically opposed to the crude conceptions of Mani, with reference to the disorder of the universe, a disorder not confined even to the Kingdom of Darkness, but invading the Realm of Light itself. So also Augustin's Platonizing views of the creation must be taken into consideration in judg- ing of his attitude towards Manichseism. It goes without saying that from Augustin's theological point of view, to account for creation is a matter of grave difficulty. How can there be a relation between the infinite and the finite? Any substantial connection is un- thinkable. The only thing left is a relation of causality. The finite, according to Plotinus, is an accident, an image and shadow of God. It is constituted, established, sustained, and nourished by the Divine potency, and is therefore absolutely dependent upon God, The power that flows from God permeates each and every finite thing. God as one, whole, and indivisible, is perpetually present with his eternal process, to everything, everywhere. When Augustin teaches that God of his own free will, subject to no necessity, by His own Word created the world out of nothing, this statement might be taken in connection with his view of the absolute simplicity of God and the consequent denial of distinction between being,willing, doing, etc. The easiest way to get over the difficulty involved in creation was to maintain the simultaneous creation of all things. The six days of creation in Genesis are an accom- modation to human modes of thinking. In some expressions Augustin approaches the Platonic doctrine of the ideal or archetypal world. Finite things, so far as they exist, are essence, i.e., God; so far as they are not essence they do not exist at all. Thus the distinc- tion between God and the world is almost obliterated. Again, whatever is finite and deriva- tive is subject to negation or nothingness. Thus he goes along with Plato and Plotinus to the verge of denying the reality of derived existence, and so narrowly escapes pantheism. It is easy to see how effectively this conception of creation might be employed against the Manichsean notion of the creation as something forced upon God by the powers of evil, and as a mere expedient for the gradual liberation of his imprisoned elements. The Manichaean limitation of God and his domain by the bordering Kingdom of Darkness, was in sheer opposition to Augustin's view of the indivisibility of God and his presence as a whole everywhere and always. Augustin's theory that nature or essence, as far as it has exist- ence is God, is quite the antithesis of Mani's dualism, especially of.his supposition that the Kingdom of Darkness is essentially and wholly evil. Augustin argued that even the in- habitants of the Kingdom of Darkness, and the King of Darkness himself, according to iviani's own representations, are good so far as they have essence or nature, and evil only so far as they are non-existent.
30 THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
With Augustin's Platonizing view of creation is closely connected his theory of evil and his doctrine of divine providence. Evil with him, as with the Platonists, has no substantial existence. It is only privation of good. It is wanting in essence, substance, trutli — is in short mere negation, and so cannot have God for its efficient cause or author, or be referred to God. God would not have permitted evil unless by His own supreme power he had been able to make good use of it. He attempts, with some success, to show the advantages of the permission of evil in the world. God made all things good from the angels of heaven to the lowest beasts and herbs of the earth. Augustin delighted, with the Platonists, in dwelling upon the goodness of nature as shown in the animal and vegetable worlds, as well as in the great cosmical phenomena. Each creature of God has its place, some a higher, some a lower, but all so far as they conform to the idea of their creation, or to their nature, are good. So far as they fall short of this idea they are evil.
This principle Augustin applied with great force to the confutation of the Manichsean view of the substantiality and permanence of evil. This may be regarded as the central point in Augustin's controversies with the Manichseans. He evidently felt that the Mani- chsean view of evil was the citadel of their system, and he never wearied of assailing it. It would be beyond the scope of the present essay to inquire whether and how far Augustin himself became involved in error, in his efforts to dislodge the Manichaeans. Far less satis- factory than his confutation of the fundamental principles of the Manichsean system were his answers to the Manich^an cavils against the Old Testament. If we may judge from the prominence given in the extant literature to the Old Testament question, this must have been the favorite point of attack with the Manichasans. The importance of the questions raised afid the necessity of answering them was fully recognized by Augustin. His principal reliance is the allegorical or typological method of interpretation. It would be hard to find examples of more perverse allegorizing than Augustin's Anti-Manichaean treatises furnish. It will not be needful to adduce instances here, as readers of the treatises will discover them in abundance. Nothing more wearisome and disgusting in Biblical interpretation can well be conceived of than certain sections of The Reply io Faustus, the Manichcean. Yet Augustin did not fail entirely to recognize the distinction between Old Testament times and New, and he even suggests the theory "that God could in a former age and to a people of a lower moral standard, give commands to do actions, which we should think it wrong to do now...There was a certain inward want, an unenlightenment, a rude- ness of moral conception, in those to whom such commands were given; otherwise they would not have been given. God would not have given a command to slaughter a whole nation to an enlightened people. ''' Yet with all the defects of Augustin's polemics against the Manichsans, they seem to have been adapted to the needs of the time. Well does Canon Mozley declare Augustin to have been " the most marvellous controversial phenomenon which the whole history of the Church from first to last presents...Armed with superabundant facility of ex- pression,— so that he himself observes that one who had written so much must have a good deal to answer for, — he was able to hammer any point of view which he wanted, and which was desirable as a counteracting one to a pervading heresy, with endless repetition upon the ear of the Church; at the same time varying the forms of speech sufficiently to please and enliven.'' Certainly he was one of the greatest debaters of any age. He doubtless deserves the credit of completely checking the progress of Manichieism in the West, and of causing its gradual but almost complete overthrow. His arguments were probably more effective in guarding Christians against perversion by Manichsean proselytizers, than in converting I See J. R. Mozley's Ruling Ideas ifi Early Ages, art. The Manichseans and the Jewish Fathers. The sentence quoted above is Mozley 's.
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
31 those that were already ensnared by Manichaean error. Other controversies of a com- pletely different character, especially the Pelagian, caused Augustin to look to other aspects of truth and so led to certain modifications in his own statements, nay led him on some occasions to the verge of Manichsean error itself. But we are chiefly interested at present in knowing that his earnest efforts against the Manichaeans from a.d. 388, the year of his baptism, to a.d. 405, were not in vain.'
CHAPTER X.— OUTLINE OF MANICHAEAN HISTORY.^ In the East Mani's followers were involved in the persecution that resulted in his death, and many of them fled to Transoxiania. Their headquarters and the residence of the chief of the sect continued to be Babylon. They returned to Persia in 661, but were driven back, 908-32. They seem to have become very numerous in the Transoxiania. Albirun?, 973-1048, speaks of the Manichaeans as still existing in large numbers throughout all Mohammedan lands, and especially in the region of Samarkand, where they were known as Sabeans. He also relates that they were prevalent among the Eastern Turks, in China, Thibet and India. In Armenia and Cappadocia they gained many followers, and thence made their way into Europe. The Paulicians are commonly represented as a Manicliaean party, but the descriptions that have come down to us would seem to indicate Marcionitic rather than Manichaean elements. Yet contemporary Catholic writers such as Peter Siculus and Photius constantly assail them as Manichaeans.
In the JJ^es/we have traces of their existence from 287 onwards. Diocletian, according to a somewhat doubtful tradition, condemned its leaders to the stake, and its adherents to decapitation with confiscation of goods. The edict is supposed to have been directed to the pro-consul of Africa where Manichaeans were making great progress. According to an early account, Mani sent a special envoy to Africa. Valentinian (372) and Theodosius (381) issued bloody edicts against them, yet we find them still aggressive in the time of Augustin. From Africa Manichaeism spread into Spain, Gaul and Aquitaine. Leo the Great and Valentinian III. took measures against them in Italy (440 sq.) They appear, however, to have continued their work, for Gregory the Great mentions them (590 sq.). From this time onwards their influence is to be traced in such parties as the Euchites, Enthusiasts, Bogo- miles, Catharists, Beghards, etc. But it is not safe to attach too much importance to the mere fact that these parties were stigmatized as Manichaeans by their enemies. Even in the Reformation time and since, individuals and small parties have appeared which in some features strongly resembled the ancient Manichaeans. Manichaeism was a product of the East, and in the East it met with most acceptance. To the spirit of the West it was altogether foreign, and only in a greatly modified form could it ever have flourished there. It might persist for centuries as a secret society, but it could not endure the light.
I For an account of the controversies in which Augustin was engaged with the Manichjeans, and for the chronological order of the Anti-.Manichsean treatises, see the Preface of the Edinburgh editor. Cf. Bindemann, on the various controversies, in his Der h. Atii;iistinus, passim. See also, a good chronological list of St. Auguslin's works in Cunningham; St. Austin, p. 277 sq.
- Compare Professor George T. Stokes' excellent article MuKicAeeaits, in Smith and Wale: Vict, of Liu. ijwgraphy, vol. III. p. 798 sq.
PREFACE TO THE ANTI-MANICH.MN WRITIXGS.
No reader of the accompanying volume can be expected to take a very lively interest in its contents, unless he has before his mind some facts regarding the extraordinary genius to whom the heresy of Manichseism owes its origin and its name. His history is involved in considerable obscurity, owing to the suspicious nature of the documents from which it is derived, and the difiiculty of constructing a consistent and probable account out of the contradictory statements of the Asiatics and the Greeks. The ascertained facts, therefore, are few, and may be briefly stated.'
According to the Chronicle of Edessa, Mani was born a.d. 240.^ From his original name, Corbicius or Carcubius, Beausobre conjectures that he was born in Carcub, a town of Chaldrea. He belonged to a Magian family, and while still a youth won a distinguished place among the sages of Persia. He was master of all the lore peculiar to his class, and was, besides, so proficient a mathematician and geographer, that he was able to construct a globe. He was a skilled musician, and had some knowledge of the Greek language, — an accom- plishment rare among his countrymen. But his fame, and even his ultimate success as a teacher, was due in great measure to his skill in painting, which was so considerable as to earn for him among the Persians the distinctive title, Mani the painter. His disposition was ardent and lively but patient and self-restrained. His appearance was striking, as he wore the usual dress of a Persian sage: the high-soled shoes, the one red, the other green; the mantle of azure blue, that changed color as he moved; the ebony staff in his right hand, and the Babylonish book under his left arm.
The meaning of his name, Mani, Manes, or Manichceus, has been the subject of endless conjectures. Epiphanius supposes that he was providentially so named, that men might be warned against the mania of his heresy.3 Hyde, whose opinion on any Oriental subject must have weight, tells us that in Persian viani means painter, and that he was so called from his profession. Archbishop Usher conjectured that it was a form of Manaein or Menahcm^ which means Paraclete or Comforter; founding this conjecture on the fact that Sulpicius Severus calls the Israelitish king Menahem,"* Mane. Gataker supplements this idea by the conjecture that Mani took this name at his own instance, and in pursuance of his claim to be the Paraclete. It is more probable that, if his name was really given on account of this meaning, he received it from the wiilow who seems to have adopted him when a boy, and may have called him her Consolation. But it is also possible that Mani was not an uncommon Persian name, and that he adopted it for some reason too trifling to discover.s While still a young man he was ordained as a Christian priest, and distinguished himself in that capacity by his knowledge of Scripture, and the zeal with which he discharged his sacred functions.^ His heretical tendencies, however, were very soon manifested, stimulated, we may suppose, by his anxiety to make the Chris- tian religion more acceptable to those who adhered to the Eastern systems. Excommunicated from the Chris- tian Church, Mani found asylum with Sapor, and won his confidence by presenting only the Magian side of his system. But no sooner did he permit the Christian element to appear, and call himself the apostle of the Lord, and show a desire to reform Magianism, than his sovereign determined to put him to death as a revolutionist. Forced to flee, he took refuge in Turkestan, and gained influence there, partly by decorating the temples with paintings. To lend his doctrines the appearance of divine authority, he adopted the same device as Zoroaster ' Beausobre (Histoire Critique de Manichec et du Manicheisme^ Amst. 1734, 2 vols.) has collected everything that is known of Mani. The original sources are here sifted with unusual acuteness, and with great and solid learning, though the author's strong ' bias in favor of a heretic " frequently leads him to make unwarranted statements. Burton's estimate of this entertaining and indis- pensable work (Heresies of Apostol. Age, p. xxi.), is much fairer than Pusey's (Aug. Con/, p. 314). A brief account of Mani and his doctrines is given by Milman with his usual accuracy, impartiality and lucidity {Hist. 0/ Christianity, \\. 2$c), ed. 1867). For any one who wishes to investigate the subject further, ample references are there given. A specimen of the confusion that involves the history of Mani will be found in the account given by Socrates (///\r/. i. 22).
- [For the Oriental accounts of Mani's parentage and youth, see the Introductory Essay, and the works there referred to.— A.H.N. ].
3 See also Eusebius: Hist. Eccl. vii. 31, with Heinichen's note.
4 Kings XV. 14.
5 ^'■Pcut-etre cherchons nous du mystere, ou il n'y en a /o/«/."— Beausobre, i. 79. • * [This is in the highest degree improbable.— A.H.N. ] 34 THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
and Mohammed. Having discovered a cave through which there ran a rill of water, he laid up in it a store of provisions, and retired there for a year, giving out that he was on a visit to heaven. In this retirement he pro- duced his Gospel,^ — a work illustrated with symbolical drawings the ingenuity of which has been greatly praised. This book Mani presented to Hormizdas, the son and successor of Sapor, who professed himself favorable to his doctrine, and even built him a castle as a place of shelter and retirement. Unfortunately for Mani, Hormiz- das died in the second year of his reign; and though his successor, Varanes, was at first willing to shield him from persecution, yet, finding that the Magians were alarmed for their religion, he appointed a disputation to be held between the opposing parties. Such trials of dialectic in Eastern courts have not unfrequently resulted in very serious consequences to the parties engaged in them. In this instance the result was fatal to Mani. Worsted in argument, he was condemned to die, and thus perished in some sense as a martyr. The mode of his death is uncertain, = but it seems that his skin was stuffed with chaff, and hung up in public in terroreni. This occurred in the year 277, and the anniversary was commemorated as the great religious festival of the Manichjeans.
This is not the place to attempt any account or criticism of the strange eclecticism of Mani. 3 An adequate idea of the system may be gathered from the accompanying treatises. It may, however, be desirable to give some account of the original sources of information regarding it.
We study the systems of heresiarchs at a disadvantage when our only means of ascertaining their opinions is from the fragmentary quotations and hostile criticism which occur in the writings of their adversaries. Such, however, is our only source of information regarding the'teaching of Mani. Originally, indeed, this heresy was specially active in a literary direction, assailing the Christian Scriptures with an ingenuity of unbelief worthy of a later age, and apparently ambitious of promulgating a rival canon. Certainly the writings of its early sup- porters were numerous;* and from the care and elegance with which they were transcribed, the sumptuous character of the manuscripts, and the mysterious emblems with which they were adorned, we should fancy it was intended to inspire the people with respect for an authoritative though as yet undefined code. It is, indeed, nowhere said or implied that the sacred books of the Manichceans were reserved for the eye only of the initiated or elect; and their reception of the New Testament Scriptures (subject to their own revision and emendation) would make it difficult for them to establish any secret code apart from these writing;?. They were certainly, however, doctrines of an esoteric kind, which were not divulged to the catechumens or hearers; and many of their books, being written in Persian, Syriac, or Greek, were practically unavailable for the instruction of the Latin speaking population. It was not always easy, therefore, to obtain an accurate knowledge of their opinions. Commentaries on the whole of the Old and New Testaments were written by Hierax;S a Theosophy by Aristo- critus; a book of memoirs, or rather Memorabilia^ of Mani, and other works, by Heraclides, Aphthonius, Adas, and Agapius. Unfortunately all of these books have perished, whether in the flames to which the Christian authorities commanded that all Manichsean books should be consigned, or by the slower if not more critical and impartial processes of time.
Mani himself was the author of several works: a Gospel, the Treasury ofLife{a.r\6. probably an abridgment of the same), the Mysteries, the Foundation Epistle^ a book of Articles or heads of doctrine, one or two works on astronomy or astrology, and a collection of letters so dangerous, that Manichceans who sought restoration to the Church were required to anathematize them.
Probably the most important of these writings was the Foundation Epistle^ so called because it contained the leading articles of doctrine on which the new system was built. This letter was written in Greek or Syriac; but a Tatin version of it was current in Africa, and came into the hands of Augustin, who undertook its refutation. To accomplish this with the greater precision and effect, he quotes the entire text of each passage of the Epistle before proceeding to criticise it. Had Augustin accomplished the whole of his task, we should accordingly have been in possession of the whole of this important document. Unfortunately, for reasons unknown, Augustin stops short at an early point in the Epistle; and though he tells us he had notes on the remainder, and would some day expand and publish them, this promise lay unredeemed for thirty years till the day of his death. Extracts from the same Epistle and from the Freastuy are also given by Augustin in the treatise De iVatura Boni.^ ' Called Erteng or Arzeng, i. e., according to Renaudot, an illustrated book.
2 Bohringer adopts the more horrible tradition. '^ Sein Schicksal war, dass er von den Christen, von den Magiern ver/olgt, nach inajtnig/achcin Wechsel unter Bahratn lebendig geschunden wurde''' (p. 386).
3 Eohringer characterizes it briefly in the words: "Es ist der alte heidnische Dualisiiius mit seiner Naturtheologie, der in Ma7ii s Systeme seine Ictzten Kriifte satninelt vnd unter der gleissenden Hiilte christticher Worte und Formen an den reinen Monotheismus des Chrisletithums und dessen reine Ethik sick heran-Magt."
4 Aug. c. Faustum,,\iii. 6 and 18. [See full list of Mani's writings in Kessler's art. in Herzog, R. E. — A.H.N.]
5 Lardner, however, seems to prove that Hierax was not a IManichaean, though some of his opinions approximated to this heresy. The whole subject of the Manichse*» literature is treated by Lardner {Works, iii. p. 374), with the learning of Beausobre and more than Beausobre's impartiality.
6 The De Natura Boni, written in the year 405, is necessarily very much a reproduction of what is elsewhere affirmed, that all natures are good, and created by God, who alone is immutable and incorruptible. It presents concisely the leading positions of Augus- j PREFACE TO THE ANTI-MANICH.>EAX WRITINGS. 35 Next, we have in the Optis l7nperfectitm of Angustin some extracts from a letter of Mani to Menoch, which Julian had unearthed and republished to convict Augustin of being still tainted with Manichjean sentiments. Th«se extracts give us some insight into the heresiarch's opinions regarding the corruption of nature and the evils of sexual love.
Again, we have Mani's letter to Marcel, preserved by Epiphanius, and given in full by Beausobre;' which, however, merely reiterates two of the doctrines most certainly identified with Mani, — the assertion of two prin- ciples, and the tenet that the Son of (iod was man only in appearance.
Finally, Fabricius has inserted in the fifth volume of his Bibliotkeca Grccca the fragments, such as they are, collected by Grabe.
Such is the fragmentary character of the literary remains of Mani: for fuller information regarding his opinions we must depend on Theodoret, Epiphanius, Alexander of Lycopolis, Titus of Bostra, and Augustin. Beausobre is of opinion that the Fathers derived all that they knew of Manichreus from the Acts of Archelaus.'^ This professes to be a report of a disputation held between Manes and Archelaus, bishop of Caschar in INIesopota- mia. Grave doubts have been cast on the authenticity of this document, and Burton and IMilman seem inclined to consider it an imaginary dialogue, and use it on the understanding that while some of its statements are manifestly untrustworthy, a discriminating reader may gather from it some reliable material. ^ In the works of Augustin there are some other pieces which may well be reckoned among the orifTinal sources. In the reply to Faustus, which is translated in this volume, the book of Faustus ia not indeed repro- duced; but there is no reason for doubting that his arguments are fairly represented, and we think there is evi- dence that even the original expression of them is preserved.'* Augustin had been acquainted with Faustus for many years. He first met him at Carthage in 383, and found him nothing more than a clever and agreeable talker, making no pretension to science or philosophy, and with only slender reading. 5 His cleverness is suffi- ciently apparent in his debate with Augustin; the objections he leads are plausible, and put with acuteness, but at the same time with a flippancy which betrays a want of earnestness and real interest in the questions. In his reply to Faustus. Augustin is very much on the defensive, and his statements are apologetic rather than systematic.^ But in an age when the ability to read was by no means commensurate with the interest taken in theological questions, written discussions were necessarily supplemented by public disputations. These theological contests seem to have been a popular entertainment in North Africa; the people attending in immense crowds, while reporters took down what was said on either side for the sake of appeal as well as for the information of the absent. In tw such disputations Augustin engaged in connection with Manichaeism.^ The first was held on the 28th and 29th of August, 392, with a Manichrean priest, Fortunatus. To this encounter Augustin was invited I by a deputation of Donatists and Catholics,^ who were alike alarmed at the progress which this heresy was iking in the district of Hippo. Fortunatus at first showed some reluctance to meet so formidable an antago- ■.-t, but was prevailed upon by his own sectaries, and shows no nervousness during the debate. His incompe- tence, however, was manifest to the Manicha^ans themselves; and so hopeless was it to think of any further proselytizing in Hippo, that he left that city, and was too much ashamed of himself ever to return. The char- acter of his reasoning is shifty; he evades Augustin's questions and starts fresh ones. Augustin pushes his ii-ual and fundamental objection to the Manichcean system. If God is impassable and incorruptible, how could lie be injured by the assaults of the kinirdom of darkness? In opposition to the statement of Fortunatus, that liie Almighty produces no evil, he explains that God made no nature evil, but made man free, and that voluntary lin in this controversy, and concludes with an eloquent prayer that his efforts may be blessed to the conversion of the heretics, — not the only passage which demonstrates that he wrote not for the glory of victory so much as for the deliverance of men from fatal error. ' Hisioire, i. 91.
2 Published by Zaccagni in his Collectanea Momiiiientorum Veterittn, Romse, 1698; and by Routhin his Reliquia Sacm, vol.
■, in which all the material for forming an opinion regarding it is collected.
3 Any one vvhoconsults Beausobre on this point will find that historical criticism is not of so recent an origin as some persons seem : hink. It is worth transcribing his own account of the spirit in which he means to do his work: ^'Je traiterai iiton sv.jet en Critique, -ant la Regie de S. Paul, Examinez t antes c/ioses, et 7ie rctencz gue ce qui est ban. L^Histoire en general, et l' Histoire Ecclesi- •qtie en particulier, 7i^est bien souvent qiiun vic'lange con/iis de _faux et de vrai, cntasse par des Ecrivaiiis nial instruits, i/utes on passionez. Cela convient surtout a r Histoire des Herctiqucs et des Heresies. C'est au Lecteur attenti/ et judicieujc n /aire le discernement, a I' aide d^ line critique, qui ne soit trop tiinide, ni teiiieraire. Sans le secours de cet art, on erre dans I / I listoirecomine un Pilate sur les iners. lorsqu'il n^a ni boussole, ni carte marine^' (i. 7).