|
Augustine Ligon Duncan
Manichaeism was, in the words of Peter Brown, "a small sect with a sinister reputation (Augustine, London: Faber and Faber, 1967, 46)." The founder of the movement, Mani, was born on 14 April 216 in Babylonia. He was of Persian stock and his father Patek was loyal to a baptizing Gnostic sect. Mani tells us that in his youth he was the recipient of divine revelations. By the year 240/241 he had received another such revelation commissioning him to ‘apostleship.’ After a journey to India, Mani returned to Babylonia and during his stay at Ctesiphon (9 April 243) he succeeded in obtaining an audience with the great King Shâhpuhr I. Manichaean tradition tells us that the king was very impressed with Mani and Manichaeism was officially recognized by the state. Shâhpuhr's successor Hôrmizd also recognized the religion, but he only reigned one year. Upon his death his brother Bahrâm I replaced him as ruler. Religious leaders persuaded the new king of the danger of the new teaching and so Bahrâm persecuted Mani and his followers. Mani was taken captive and weighed down with heavy chains. His imprisonment lasted from 31 January to 26 February 277. He died on the morning of 26 February, his body worn down by the burden of the fetters and weakened by fasting. "At eleven o'clock he ascended out of his body to the dwellings of his greatness on high (Widengren, Mani and Manichaeism, 41)." Three of his followers were present. The king had a fiery torch plunged through Mani's body to assure his demise. His head was then severed and displayed at the city gate. Mani's twenty-six days of suffering were called by his followers, his "crucifixion" (Bonner, Augustine, 160). Bonner notes that O'Meara mistakenly says that Mani was crucified at the end of the twenty-six day period (O'Meara, The Young Augustine, 62). Manichaeism, however, did not die with Mani. The movement was established in Africa within twenty years (by 297). By the fourth century it was overshadowing the Gnostic sects which were so prevalent in the second and third centuries. According to Bonner, Manichaeism was eclectic — a blend of dualism (borrowed from Zoroastrianism), reincarnation and a strict rule of life (possibly taken from Buddhism), and a regard for the name of Jesus (lifted from Christianity). Yet, contends Bonner, the real nature of Manichaeism is not so much its religious syncretism as it is the ultimate manifestation of Gnosticism. Frend has devoted time to establishing this link between Gnosticism and Manichaeism. This connection, in part, explains why many fathers of the Church regarded Manichaeism as a 'Christian heresy'. Frend notes that "there is the existence of historical continuity between the Gnostics and the Manichees in Africa. The Gnostics fade out at the time of the Great Persecution, and their place is immediately taken by the Manichees ("The Gnostic-Manichaean Tradition in Roman North Africa," Journal of Ecclesiastical History [JEH], 15)." Further, Frend observes that "the Manichees of Augustine's time were concerned with precisely the same problems as the Gnostics of two hundred years previously, and they answered in precisely the same way (The Gnostic-Manichaean Tradition in Roman North Africa," JEH, 17)." One example is the two group's preoccupation with the problem of evil. Frend continues: "both Gnosticism and Manichaeism promised the believer redemption from these powers [a 'savage Creator-God' and demons] and provided him with a logical explanation of events and physical phenomena based largely on astrology ("The Gnostic-Manichaean Tradition in Roman North Africa," JEH, 20)." Finally, Frend comments that "there are, in fact, two tendencies one can trace right through the Gnostic and Manichee writings as they have survived in Africa. First, there is the hostility inspired by the Old Testament and Jehovah, and secondly, the reliance of the heretics on the words of St. Paul to support their teaching ("The Gnostic-Manichaean Tradition in Roman North Africa," JEH, 20)." Bonner offers three traits of Manichaeism. First, it was a universal creed. It was the fulfillment of all the revelation that had gone before. Manichaeism was destined to inherit the earth. Second, it was a missionary religion, expanding along the trade routes of the fertile crescent. Third, it was a religion of the book ¾ Mani's book of course. To this, Brown correctly adds that Manichaeism was a form of crypto-Christianity and, as such, increasingly became a problem in North Africa. The Manichees felt that they were revealing the true teachings of Christianity and thus Frend can say "by becoming a Manichee Augustine had no thought of renouncing Christianity ("The Gnostic-Manichaean Tradition in Roman North Africa," JEH, 24)." Wherein lay the appeal for Manichaeism? In regard to Manichaeism's appeal in North Africa, Frend has suggested that "the basic religious needs which many North Africans felt were freedom from the thraldom of a savage Creator-God and salvation from tangible powers of evil ("The Gnostic-Manichaean Tradition in Roman North Africa," JEH, 20)." In the second century Gnostics had identified this brutal God of the Berbers (Saturn) with Jehovah of the Old Testament scriptures. Gnosticism's disdain for the Old Testament and its God, would then be a welcome teaching to the North Africans, if Frend is correct. The Manichees displayed the same contempt for the Old Testament scriptures and for Jehovah — which may be one area in which Manichaeism was appealing to North Africans. Stanley Romaine Hopper also comments on the reasons for Manichaeism's success in the early Christian centuries. Following Harnack he says "this may be explained by the fact that Mani offered spiritual benefits — revelation, salvation, moral virtue — on the basis of a religion of nature (Battenhouse, A Companion to the Study of St. Augustine, 154)." In addition Hopper quotes Harnack as pointing out that Manichaeism offered "a simple, apparently profound and yet convenient solution of the problem of good and evil (Battenhouse, A Companion to the Study of St. Augustine, 154)." Finally, Hopper himself suggests that Manichaeism constituted an appeal to the cultured and sophisticated, who wanted to be somewhat Christian and rational too. Concerning Manichaeism's appeal to Augustine, Hopper postulates that he was influenced by it because: (1) his acquaintance with the Manichaeans of Carthage; (2) the intellectual satisfaction he derived from defeating Christians in debate; and (3) the fact that the Manichaeans claimed to be able to demonstrate the truth of their system while their opponents, the Catholic Christians appealed only to authority. This appealed to the philosopher in Augustine, his love of free inquiry. Gerald Bonner offers a somewhat different
evaluation. He suggests that Manichaeism impressed Augustine, first, because of the sheer
massive structure of the system and, second, because of the Manichees successful (at least
in the eyes of the young Augustine) attacks on the Catholic scriptures, especially the Old
Testament. To these Peter Brown adds that "the Manichaean answer to the problem of
evil is the core of the Manichaeism of the young Augustine (Augustine,
46)." How broadly based was its success in Africa? Widengren estimates that Manichaeism had spread to Egypt before 261, through the work of Bishop Adda. By 300 there were enough Manichees in Egypt to warrant Alexander of Lycopolis writing a treatise against them (Widengren, Mani and Manichaeism, 117). "From Egypt Manichaeism spread to northern Africa and Spain, from Syria via Asia Minor to Greece, Illyria, Italy and Gaul. The two western provinces, Gaul and Spain, were probably penetrated from north and south (Widengren, Mani and Manichaeism, 117-118)." In evaluating the success of Manichaeism in Africa we are reminded that Brown can refer to them as "the 'Bolsheviks' of the fourth century: a 'fifth-column' of foreign origin bent on infiltrating the Christian church, the bearers of a uniquely radical solution to the religious problems of their age (Augustine, 46)." The Manichaeans were of enough reputation to warrant the opposition of the Catholic and Donatist churches in North Africa, to be declared an illegal religion and to become the object of persecution by the Roman government (Diocletian's rescript of 297). Furthermore, they remained enough of an annoyance to require suppression under the Arian Vandals. Frend classes the Manichaean movement as one of the "three principle tendencies at work in the African church," if that gives any indication of the success of the movement. One receives the impression from Frend that of these three groups (or 'tendencies') — the Donatists, Hanichees, and Catholics — he perceives the Donatists to be strongest with the populace and the Catholics the weakest up until the end of the fourth century. Thus he argues for Manichaeism being quite successful in Africa. He proposes that Manichaeism, like Gnosticism, was strongest "among the wealthy and comparatively secure landowners and merchants in Africa ("The Gnostic-Manichaean Tradition in Roman North Africa," JEH, 18)." Brown confirms that merchants were indeed characteristic lay-supporters of Manichaeism ("The Diffusion of Manichaeism in the Roman Empire," in Religion and Society in the Age of St. Augustine, 115). We have already noted that Manichaeism entered Africa at an early date. There were adherents in Carthage before 297 ("The Gnostic-Manichaean Tradition in Roman North Africa," JEH, 16). Furthermore, Frend adds:
How successful in turn were Augustine's polemics against it? What methods and arguments did he employ? In measuring the success of Augustine's polemics against the Manichaeans, Frend's comments may be helpful: "that Manichaeism failed to survive in the West as an organised religion may be due largely to Augustine's writings and controversies in the years 387-399 ("The Gnostic-Manichaean Tradition in Roman North Africa," JEH, 24)." With this assessment Bonner is in essential agreement when he suggests that Manichaeism died out due to the combination of Augustine's apologetic onslaughts and the hostility of the secular authorities. He continues, "of all Augustine's religious opponents, the Manichees were, perhaps, the easiest victims." "They were, moreover, at a disadvantage because, in a certain sense, their instincts were too Christian to permit them to defend their more specifically Manichaean formulas adequately." "Finally, the fact that the Manichees were a proscribed sect and one commonly supposed to be given to secret enormities, gave Augustine an excellent debating weapon, which the language of the Manichees did nothing to blunt." "It may be held then that, from the purely controversial point of view, Augustine's anti-Manichaean polemics were the most successful of all that he wrote. (Bonner, Augustine, 235-236)." Hopper provides us with a succinct statement on Augustine's method of argument. He says
In the realm of the theological, Augustine posed the question of the corruptibility or incorruptibility of God to his Manichaean opponents. Is God corruptible? If not, then how did the Kingdom of darkness fight against Him and partake of His nature? If so, then how can He be God — seeing that He is tarnished, violated by the Kingdom of darkness? This argument Augustine borrowed from his friend Nebridius (Battenhouse, A Companion to the Study of St. Augustine, 158). Augustine also criticized the cosmology of the Manichaeans as being at odds with astronomical fact, as well as absurd views of nature such as belief in trees which dripped with milk and felt pain when their fruit was picked. Augustine criticized the Manichaean view of man. There were not two kinds of souls, he argued, nor were there two wills within man. One is responsible for ones own actions. Finally, with the help of his modified Neo-Platonic views, he attacked the Manichaean solution to the problem of evil. Evil is not a substance, rather, it is a lack of good, a deficiency. This is the polemical element in Augustine that Bonner developes. Bonner sees three major areas in Augustine's polemical debates with the Manichees. First was the problem of evil. Second was the problem of the Scriptures. Could the Old Testament be defended against the attacks of the Manichees? How does the Old relate to the New? Thirdly, growing out of the second question, was the question of how one may understand the Bible (Bonner, Augustine, 193-194). After discussing Augustine's response to the Manichaean solution of the problem of evil, Bonner turns to the second question — the defense of the Old Testament. He points out that the most compelling reason for the Manichees to reject the Old Testament was that it contradicted the revelation given them by Mani (Bonner, Augustine, 215). They had two primary arguments against the Old Testament scriptures. First, they argued, to accept the Old Testament was to accept the ceremonial laws and since the Catholics did not do this they should not receive the Old Testament as part of their canon. Second, the Manichees pointed out that there were many scandals recorded in the Old Testament about the lives of the patriarchs. Hence, those men should not be venerated unless the stories are untrue. If the stories are untrue, then the men who wrote them were liars. In this case also the book should not be held in esteem. Augustine responded by appealing to the fourfold sense of Scripture: historical, aetio-logical, analogical, and allegorical. Further, he explained the typological character of many of the ceremonial requirements. He also demonstrated a division of the law into two classes: precepts relating to conduct and precepts with a sign (which point to the New Covenant). Furthermore, Augustine occasionally used ad hominem (abusive?) tactics against his opponents, as when he referred to the charges of gross immorality on the part of 'the elect' Manichaeans at their secret meals (not entirely different from the charges brought against the early Christians concerning their 'agape feasts') or simply pointing out the inconsistencies between words and practice in the Manichaean morality. What motivated his efforts — the interests of truth and righteousness, pastoral concern, or the need to exorcise his past? Augustine himself does offer a few hints toward an answer to this question. In Retractions he says, "When I was in Rome after my baptism, and could not bear in silence the vaunting of the Manichaeans about their pretended and misleading continence or abstinence, in which, to deceive the inexperienced, they claim superiority over true Christians, to whom they are not to be compared, I wrote two books, one on the morals of the Catholic Church, the other on the morals of the Manichaeans. (ANCL, Retractions, 1×7)." Elsewhere he says, "My prayer to the one true, almighty God, of whom, and through whom and in whom are all things, has been and is now, that in opposing and refuting the heresy of you Manichaeans, as you may after all be heretics more from thoughtlessness than from malice, He would give me a mind calm and composed, and aiming at your recovery rather than at your discomfiture. For while the Lord, by His servants, overthrows the kingdoms of error, His will concerning erring men, as far as they are men, is that they should be amended rather than destroyed (Against the Epistle of Manichaeus, ch. 1)." Finally, Augustine's words concerning his response to Faustus: "This man published a certain volume against the true Christian faith and the Catholic truth. A copy reached us, and was read by the brethren, who called for an answer from me, as part of the service of love which I owe to them" (Reply to Faustus, 1.1).
|
|