Manes and the Manichaeans

But among the good wheat, weeds usually spring up, for envy loves to plot in secret against the good. So it was that a little before the time of Constantine a kind of pagan Christianity appeared alongside the real one, just as false prophets arose among the true, and false apostles among the true apostles. For at that time a doctrine of Empedocles, the pagan philosopher, took on the form of Christian teaching through Manichaeus. Eusebius Pamphilus does mention this man in the seventh book of his Church History, but he does not go into the details about him. So I think it my duty to supply some particulars he left out. In this way it will be known who this Manichaeus was, where he came from, and what his presumptuous daring was. [a]

A Saracen named Scythian married a captive from Upper Thebes. Because of her he lived in Egypt, and having made himself learned in the learning of the Egyptians, he cleverly brought the theory of Empedocles and Pythagoras in among the teachings of the Christian faith. He claimed that there were two natures, a good one and an evil one; and, as Empedocles had done, he called the evil one Discord and the good one Friendship. Buddas, who had earlier been called Terebinthus, became a disciple of this Scythian. He went to Babylon, which the Persians inhabit, and made many extravagant claims about himself, declaring that he had been born of a virgin and raised in the mountains. This same man later wrote four books. One he titled The Mysteries, another The Gospel, a third The Treasure, and the fourth Heads, that is, Summaries. But while pretending to perform some secret rites, he was hurled down a cliff by a spirit, and so died. A woman in whose house he had lodged buried him, took possession of his property, and bought a boy about seven years old whose name was Cubricus. She set the boy free and gave him a good education, and soon afterward she died, leaving him everything that had belonged to Terebinthus, including the books he had written on the principles taught by Scythian. Cubricus the freedman took these with him and withdrew into the regions of Persia. There he changed his name, calling himself Manes, and spread the books of Buddas, or Terebinthus, among his deluded followers as his own. [c]

Now the contents of these writings seem to agree with Christianity in their wording, but they are pagan in thought. For Manichaeus, being godless, urged his disciples to acknowledge many gods, and taught them to worship the sun. He also brought in the doctrine of Fate, denying human free will, and taught a passing over from one body into another, plainly following the opinions of Empedocles, Pythagoras and the Egyptians. He denied that Christ existed in the flesh, saying that he was an apparition. He also rejected the law and the prophets, and called himself the “Comforter.” All of these teachings are completely at odds with the orthodox faith of the church. In his letters he even dared to call himself an apostle.

But for so baseless a claim he brought on himself the punishment he deserved, in the following way. The son of the Persian king fell ill, and his father, anxious for his recovery, left nothing untried to bring it about. He had heard of the wonder-working of Manichaeus, and thinking these miracles were real, he sent for him as an apostle, trusting that through him his son might be restored. So Manichaeus came to court, and with his assumed manner undertook to treat the young prince. But when the king saw that the child died in his hands, he shut the deceiver up in prison, intending to put him to death. He managed to escape, however, and fled into Mesopotamia. But the king of Persia found out that he was living there and had him brought back by force; and after having him flayed alive, he stuffed his skin with chaff and hung it in front of the city gate. We report these things not as our own invention, but gathered from a book titled The Disputation of Archelaus, Bishop of Caschara, one of the cities of Mesopotamia. For Archelaus himself says that he debated with Manichaeus face to face, and he mentions the events of his life that we have just described.

Envy, then, as we said before, delights in working in secret in the midst of prosperity. But why the goodness of God allows this to happen — whether he wishes by it to bring the excellence of the church’s principles into action, and to break down completely the self-importance that tends to attach itself to faith, or for some other reason — is a difficult question, and not relevant to the present discussion. For our purpose is neither to examine the soundness of doctrines, nor to analyze the hidden reasons for God’s providences and judgments, but to set down as faithfully as possible the history of what has happened in the churches. So we have described how the superstition of the Manichaeans arose a little before the time of Constantine. Now let us return to the times and events that are the proper subject of this history.