Against the Manichees

1No opposition of opposites can be absolute in every respect, because there must exist something common to the opposites. For example, white, though being the opposite of black, has its opposition only in the differences, since they share color and quality; and nothing of this kind has its opposition prior to these shared things, for all opposition is after the commonalities, and in the commonalities there is no opposition. For it is necessary that there be a common color and quality, so that white and black may be such; likewise, virtue and vice are opposites after the quality and disposition.

If, therefore, two ungenerated principles are themselves opposites, they either have opposition in every respect, or there exists something common to them. But they do not accept opposition in every respect; therefore, they too have commonalities: to be, to be in essence, and if anything else is found common to them. What, then, makes them such, the one being good and the other evil; and the one light and the other darkness? But it is pre-conceived that they are essences, or that good and evil exist. Thus, opposition is not according to the commonalities, but according to the particularity.

They are set down as being ungenerated; but nothing is prior to the ungenerated. What is prior to these? That which I said exists commonly to them; therefore, the principles are not ungenerated. For these opposites are ungenerated, but that which exists commonly to them is prior to them. Therefore, the principles are not ungenerated, for nothing is prior to the ungenerated. If they were to say that their opposition does not follow from the ungenerated, this too would be found common to them. But since the evil is ungenerated evil, and the good is ungenerated good, the ungenerated evil will be found common to both, and the ungenerated good to both. For if good cannot be found without the ungenerated, and the ungenerated is common, then that which follows by necessity from the ungenerated is also common; and this is the good. If they were to say that their ungenerated nature is not common, then as it exists in the one, it does not exist in the other; it will be...

Therefore, the unbegotten is either the good or the evil; it is not both good and evil. If the good were found to be unbegotten, the evil would be begotten.

Furthermore, every evil is to be punished; nothing to be punished is incorruptible; therefore nothing evil is incorruptible, because to exist without being incorruptible is to be corruptible. Nothing unbegotten is corruptible; but the evil is corruptible; so the evil is not unbegotten. Nothing is evil in essence, because the evil is a kind of thing; but nothing is a kind without essence; therefore the evil is not essence. All opposites are corruptible of one another; but the unbegotten things are incorruptible; therefore they are not opposites; for opposites are not incorruptible. Nothing unbegotten is changeable; but the good is changed when held by the evil; so the good is not unbegotten. The unbegotten is not desirous of any corruption, nor is it corrupting; but the evil is desirous of corruption; so the evil is not unbegotten.

The Divine Scriptures are said to be handed over for punishment, not only bad men, but also the devil himself, they say. And everything handed over for punishment is changeable; but nothing changeable is unbegotten; therefore nothing of the evils is unbegotten. Of those opposing through all things, nothing is common. So it is a necessity that what exists in the one, does not exist in the other; and to the good belongs being unbegotten; so to the evil neither of these belongs. Therefore the evil is not being.

Everyone who is reasonably desirous of something has a directed desire, if he desires reasonably. But God desires to destroy the evil; therefore of the corruptible is either evil or the desire for it. And since it exists among the corruptible, it shall be destroyed; and being destroyed, it is not unbegotten. If the evil were unbegotten, it would naturally belong to it to be evil. But no one sins by doing what is according to nature. Therefore the evil does not sin; and the one not sinning is not to blame. But Satan is to blame; therefore he is not unbegotten, for the Divine Scripture of the deeds and the habits which men perform, says they are sons and offspring. Those having anger and the other sin, as because of this...

3May your spirit, and the soul, and the body be preserved blamelessly in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ. For how can anyone have the body entirely sanctified and completely, if the body is not capable of being sanctified, it not being by nature evil? If indeed this is evil by nature, it is not receptive to sanctification; but if it receives the good, it is clear that it is not evil by nature, being receptive to the good. For that which is evil by nature is not receptive to the good, just as that which is good by nature is not receptive to evil.

The same Apostle writes to certain people in another Epistle: 'Let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of flesh and spirit, accomplishing holiness in the fear of God' (2 Cor 7:1), showing also by this word how the flesh is able to be cleansed of the defilements of sin that attach to it. But also the spirit and the soul; for if the flesh were evil in essence, and the spirit were good in essence, then neither would the spirit have defilement, nor would the flesh be cleansed from defilement. But he commands both to be cleansed from defilement, saying also the manner of the cleansing. For, he says, accomplishing holiness in the fear of God. And it is well said: 'In the fear of God,' showing that they have obedience, and not out of necessity. If, accomplishing holiness in the fear of God, we cleanse our own flesh from defilement and the spirit, it is clear that this happens when sanctification approaches us; for just as the soul of ignorance and of the unrighteous is cleansed by the presence of knowledge and righteousness—for the avoidance of evil works out the entrance of virtue from the opposite—so the flesh is cleansed of defilement and the spirit by the presence of sanctification.

And in these things, 'spirit' means the soul, just as in the Acts of the Apostles, Stephen the apostle, being stoned and about to die, said while praying: 'Lord Jesus, receive my spirit' (Acts 7:59). For he was not saying anything else as his spirit in these things, except the soul. If, therefore, through many things—sometimes of sin, sometimes of sanctification, and having them for the purpose of glorifying God—the flesh and the spirit are spoken of, none of these is evil or good by nature; but they are each, by their own will, receptive; or rather, according to the use of the one possessing them, they receive, at times, to be of sin, and at times, to be of sanctification. And if, even while being ignorant of the explicit meaning, from which is brought...

They think that flesh is the sin of sin; but we, having established the whole matter, will make the reasoning clear. It is thus: God, having sent His Son in a likeness of sinful flesh, condemned sin in the flesh, concerning sin.

What he says is such: The flesh of all men has its being from union, apart from the first-formed one whom the Savior took up. For no human body would come to be otherwise than if the male were joined to the female. Since, therefore, the Savior took a body from the Virgin alone, not having the beginning from union, He called the Lord's flesh a likeness of the flesh that comes from union. For He did not say at all that He has a likeness of flesh, but a likeness of sinful flesh. And the likeness of sinful flesh is flesh, lacking only in this compared with the other flesh: that it has had its existence without a man. For it was necessary that he coming for the salvation of men should not take a body from union. Nor should he take it from outside the succession of men, like the first man, so that his body might not be considered heterogeneous. For if he himself had also been joined from the earth, as the leader of the human race, those introducing the opinion through fantasy would have had the suspicion that he did not bring a human body according to truth. Again, if he had taken a body from union, not having the sin passed over, he himself would have been considered responsible for that sin, through which all those from Adam exist in succession. If they were to say: 'If the flesh born from the union of man and woman is the flesh of sin, then marriage is evil'; let them hear that before the arrival of the Savior, who took away the sin of the world, all men, just as they practiced all other things with wickedness, also had marriage sinfully. Because of this, the bodies born from marriage must be understood correctly. And so, since the conjunction of Adam and Eve happened after the sin, for this reason it is called the flesh of sin. For being incorruptible before the transgression, it became corruptible through transgression; and so the succession has the corruptible. The Savior, therefore, had a likeness of this flesh, even if His flesh did not see corruption. But, as the arrival of the Savior has occurred, as a removal of sin from other things has happened, so also from...

4Regarding marriage. Now indeed those living according to the Gospel are able to have an honorable marriage and an undefiled bed, as Paul writes to the believers: 'Marriage is honorable, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge' (Hebrews 13:4). For by distinguishing the honorable marriage and those using it from fornicators and adulterers, he does not want this to be fornication or adultery; therefore marriage is not even a sin.

And it will be said more naturally: Virginity turns out to be a divine thing, and exists in virtues. If anyone therefore, comparing marriage to this, says it is a sin, it is not a sin in an absolute sense. For the evil is not a sin by being a comparison to the good, but being such in itself. If ever indeed one were to say something evil as being toward a good, and that itself were good, it would be inferior to the good he is setting forth as prior.

Those then coming to the Gospel first come to it regarding godliness, and to become wise according to God. These therefore have the being fought against by some; for it is necessary for these to firmly take up Christianity. And firmness approaches from the training according to the trials. Therefore it is necessary for them to endure struggles.

And just as those competing, if they cared for the reasonable, do not combine this with that as it happens; not as an athlete, but with much precision, aiming at the proportion of each one's strength; so also our athlete, Christ, does not yoke together all with the same opponents. But according to the age and the strength of each, he gives the adversary.

To the Corinthians, being still infants, Paul writes that they are surrounded by the sufferings of the flesh: 'You have not suffered temptation except what is human' (1 Corinthians 10:13). For the temptations of these, and the struggles, have reference to human matters. And concerning himself and those nearby, both unstable and strong, writing he says: 'For our wrestling is not against blood and flesh, but against the rulers, and the authorities, and the cosmic powers of the darkness of this age' (Ephesians 6:12); saying this only once: 'For us who have ascended above, the wrestling is no longer against blood and flesh, that is, human things, but against the ranks having ascended above the adversaries'; and these are kinds of...

kinds of rational beings, having become evil by choice. But let no one suppose that, because we have spoken of kinds of evil rational beings, we are speaking of an evil essence. For there are kinds and genera of those things which are volitional.

For we say that there are kinds of being excellent, just, temperate, and wise. Since virtue is a genus, being divided into kinds, into justice, temperance, and the rest, it is necessary that one participating in the genus be called excellent, just as a genus is that of those participating in virtues according to kind; likewise, since science is a genus, of grammar, music, and the rest, we say that the one called knowledgeable from the genus is a genus of those called from the kinds of science.

So if then we speak of kinds of evil rational beings, we say that all those under these kinds are such by choice. Therefore, let it be manifest that the aforementioned names are not of essences, but of volitional matters. For the name 'devil' denotes not an essence, but a choice.

Immediately also, regarding Judas, a man, the Lord named him 'devil,' not because of his essence, but because of his choice, saying to all the disciples at once, counting Judas among them: 'Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?' (John 6:70). As the writer brings it forth: He said this concerning Judas, the one about to betray him. For if he was called a devil because of the coming betrayal, he was not a devil then, when he also shared the election with all. For he had become elect among all, because of the virtue present in him then; but he was called a devil when he performed the things of the betrayal.

If, therefore, the name 'devil' in the case of Judas is a sign of a volitional act, so if the voice were speaking concerning anyone else, it would signify something volitional. And custom also knows the use of this name. We call 'devils' those who accuse this one of that, and those, of these. Since also the devil accuses God to men, and men to God, and those men to one another, he has received this name. And if even the name 'Satan' were accusing this same devil, let them know that even this too is a sign of some volitional matter. For being a Hebrew word, it is not something else...

5It signifies an opponent in the Greek sense, or the object of opposition; and the opponent, when taken in relation to a human, is equal to the enemy, harmful. Just as the enemy is such by volition, so too is the opponent; just as the names of these two are opposites: for friend, well-wishing, concordant, and of one mind, are names signifying volition. For the same person is called friend and well-wisher, just as the enemy is called devil, Satan, and evil.

As the Savior teaches in the Gospel to say this to others in the prayer to the disciples: 'And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one' (Matt 6:13). For even the name of the evil one is indicative of volition. If, therefore, through all those whom it signifies, the original evil one and the first apostate from virtue is such by volition, he cannot be evil by essence; but if they were to say this, that he might have been evil by essence and also those things which are volitional, by which they are so named, let them know that in essential things volition is not taken up. For no one says that an animal or a stone is volitional; for these are essential. Therefore, nothing is volitional in them, for in those things volition exists where volition is.

But perhaps they will say: 'Why did the good God lead him to be such a harmful or miserable being in his becoming?' Let them know this, saying that this view does not apply to us alone, but also to all those to whom providence opposes. For many others, placing trust in providence, say that all rational animals, in whom evil also grows, are from God. If they say these things concerning the devil, they are compelled to say this concerning all rational beings. However, we do not imitate them; we say: The one who made the being capable of falling into evil by his own inclination is not the cause of evil. For he fashioned a rational animal which he willed to be good from its own volition.

..., having the power of self-agency to turn toward either side. For he wished himself to be good, choosing the good voluntarily. For no one born can be good by necessity; but all who are good are such voluntarily. Therefore, it was necessary that the one making his choice his own good should have the same power as the capacity for taking up the good.

And it was said that the receptive is receptive of both good and evil; thus, to the rational being so constructed, having power toward virtue and vice, a command is given so that he may have virtue by actuality, and vice only by disposition. For the law of the Creator encourages, and anoints, and cooperates toward virtue, repelling the nature of evil. And even if a power of evil exists within the rational being, this is not bad because of the power. For I say both the powers and the choices are of virtue and of vice. We choose to have the power of virtue so that we may be able to take it up by actuality; we also choose to have the power of vice. For we possess it when we have virtue in actuality. And this glory is not ours alone, but also of all who have philosophized correctly concerning rational animals.

And even if God made the essence called the devil, He did not create it as a devil, but as receptive of virtue, so that it might have it; and receptive of vice, so that it might avoid it. Since virtue is unjoined to vice, and virtue is a friend to God, having placed both powers in the rational being, He brought them about for this reason, so that we might take up the one into actuality, and avoid the other power from the end, which is actuality. So everything rational has become capable of being serious, and not trivial. If any of the rational beings has run contrary to the one who made and provides, the cause is not of the maker and lawgiver, but of the...

6They are opposing the laws that were given and the laws that are intended. We see this happening to us as well, in the way we instruct children, desiring to lead them up by way of knowledge so that they might practice this; but they do not always practice it as they were taught.

Rather, there are times when many sons, having been raised by doctors who were also fathers, do not use medicine properly, bringing disease-causing things instead of healthy ones to those who are suffering; and it is not the medicine, nor the one who trained it, who is the cause. For he did not teach so that they might act in this way. For they act not as they learned to act.

Again, we instruct certain laws so that they might establish the righteous and avoid injustice. But some of them, approaching the laws badly, do the opposite. And we blame neither the law nor the lawgiver. For if they themselves were the cause of injustice, they would not have punished the unjust. For this also is part of their will: that the unjust should be punished. And God punishes the devil, and those who have transgressed the laws set by God. For He says to certain evil ones: 'Go into the eternal fire, prepared for the devil and his angels' (Matt 25:41).

Therefore, let those who oppose these things know that they fight against themselves. For if the devil were essentially evil and a stranger to the good God, being able to be his equal in strength, he would not have prepared a punishment for himself, nor would he be able to be cast into the punishment; but He says that fire is prepared for the devil. And this must be said: If the good God is unchangeable, as...

If it indeed exists, and always possesses the same power, not to be strong one way and then another; yet after much harm and much loss, it was destined to hand over the devil to the eternal fire. Why did he not do this from the beginning, when he returned to him and took part in him? For then, rather, punishment was being decreed against him as for a greater transgression. Now indeed he harms men; but then, against them, he harmed the divinity, as they think.

For law and righteous indignation are more appropriate against those daring against the king than against those who are subjects. For if these things are so thought, they will attribute either ignorance to God then, regarding how he will punish and obstruct evil, or weakness. But neither of these applies to the good God; so the enemy would not have returned against him unprovoked. Rather, having become to be good, he kept the power of virtue incomplete, but led the readiness of evil into activity; for which reason he is also worthy of punishment, and appropriately, after much punishment, was cast down.

If they were to bring forward that also, which was said by John the Baptist to those coming to baptism with hypocrisy: 'O generation of vipers, who showed you to flee from the coming wrath? Therefore make fruit worthy of repentance, and do not think to yourselves that we have Abraham as father. For God is able from these stones to raise children to Abraham. Already the axe lies at the root of the trees. Every tree therefore not producing good fruit is cut down, and into fire' (Matthew 3:7-10).

7It is cast down. Let them hear that they are unable to bring forth fruit from those things which they do not accept. For they do not accept John the Baptist, who happens to be one of the Old Testament. However, it must even so be said to them: through all their opposition, he denies that things are good by nature and that things are evil by nature. For he says to them: 'Produce therefore fruit worthy of repentance' (Matt 3:8). But repentance and its fruit do not fall either toward the evil in essence or toward the good in nature. For how can the always-good need repentance? Or how can the evil by nature make use of the good of repentance? For he who is evil in essence is unable to turn away from sin; nor does repentance occur for the sake of the good.

Furthermore, concerning the stones, which are shown by him, he says children shall be raised up to Abraham (Matt 3:9); but by saying stones, he means the foolish, and still men remaining in wickedness. For if these were to repent and to believe in God, they would be children of Abraham, who because of this was counted a man of God, because he believed in God, as his faith was counted toward righteousness (Gen 15:6). And since we heard that also being said by them toward those born from Abraham and the other holy men, 'Serpents, offspring of vipers' (Matt 3:7), by 'vipers' he means those around Abraham; let them know they are fighting against the sequence of the chapter. For he reproves them, as not being of Abraham, but offspring of vipers, pretending and shouting to be of Abraham. For the Savior says in another chapter to them...

Abraham did not do this, though you lie, saying he is your father. For if you were children of Abraham, you would have done the works of Abraham. But you are from your own father, the devil, and you desire to do the desires of your own father. For he has been a manslayer from the beginning, and he does not stand in the truth (John 8:44). And it is well to say, 'He does not stand,' showing him previously standing in the truth.

He calls the devil their father, because of the similarity of manner and quality. Thus, he did not say that Abraham and the saints with him were vipers. For he had this change, to be sons of vipers, because they used evil men as teachers, according to their own choice. Thus John says to them: Since you desired to undergo a change from virtue to snakes—for such were not even less in essence—stop being offspring of vipers (Matt 3:7), whose quality you desired to have. For evil comes from evil, and you strove to be unrighteous from the unrighteous.

But since, because you are coming to baptism, you say you bring a sign of repentance, yet you do this hypocritically, I say to you: Who showed you to flee from the coming wrath (Matt 3:7)? For the one repenting, repents for this reason: so that he may no longer flee from the wrath that is coming against those who sin. And 'Who showed you?' is inquired, so that he might say the one truly showing how to withdraw from wickedness does not make this happen hypocritically. But you do this with hypocrisy, coming to be baptized. Therefore, you will not be cleansed.

8For one desiring to be truly purified turns away from sins, and such a repentance bears fruit, performing works contrary to sin. But you have not done this, judging yourselves, claiming to have Abraham as a father. But it will not benefit you to merely know that you are children of Abraham, but to be his children through faith and flight from idols. Even if you have become children of Abraham at some point, this will not save you. For God is able to make those who are not currently his children into his children. Thus, the one who is a child of Abraham according to virtue is saved, not the one who became his child according to the flesh only; and if he does become a child, let him not think much of it, for such a thing is transitory.

Indeed, those who do not have it will also be able to acquire it. For Paul, whom he did not beget according to the flesh, says: 'For in Christ I have begotten you through the Gospel' (1 Cor 4:15). But do not despise these things, as if the wrath against sinners were slow. For through this, the foolish man already has the punishment for sinning, being a subject to punishment. You know by this the axe already approaching the roots of the trees. He does not speak of actual trees, but of men composed of wickedness. The root of these trees is a corrupt disposition, from which the fruit becomes not edible, but poisonous. Therefore, he did not speak of a good fruit. If then the axe signifies the punishment, and the bad tree signifies the sinning man, these are not opposing natures; for the punishment threatens to fell the trees. For he who threatens the sinners intends to change them through that very threat.

If then, through the threat of the axe, which is about to cut down the rotten trees, he persuades them to stop bearing bad fruit and instead bear good, the tree is not naturally bad, nor is the punishment naturally bad. But perhaps they will say: 'If the punishment changes the foolish, it is good; but if the punishment is good, and the promise is contrary to it, and opposites cannot both be good, then the promise is bad.' But the punishment is not a bad thing, since the promise is good. If the punishment is bad, it is not God, but Satan who brings it. But Satan brings punishment not to his own; for they are, as he is, evil, and it is necessary even him to fall under punishment; so he would do it to good. But this is impossible; therefore, it is not the evil one who brings it, but God.

And everything brought by God is brought usefully, happening to be either a maker of good or a preventer of evil. Therefore, God, desiring to prevent evil, brings this; and he would not attempt to prevent evil if it were not possible to prevent evil. But this prevention cannot be something natural and ungenerated. And the ignorant have stumbled even here, thinking the punishment to be contrary to the promise; for each is a retribution: the one bringing reward to the good, and the other punishment against those who have voluntarily transgressed the divine laws.