Panarion (Against Heresies) 1 part 51/82

But since he did not come to destroy the Law—for he himself had given the Law—nor the Prophets, but to fulfill them, so that he himself might show forth the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets, and the unwavering consistency of the Gospel: that the prophets worshiped this same God, and the Law was given by him; but now worship is rendered to this same God not through the same offerings, but through prayers and thanksgivings and the rest of its devout practice.

For to those under the Law he enjoined heavy burdens, as upon slaves, because in that way they could be persuaded; but to those under the Gospel he gave lighter commands, as befits free men, because of the abundance of his love for mankind.

Since there is one and the same God ranking equally over both the Law and the Gospel, neither service belonging to either era having been abrogated, it is the same one God who reigns over the whole age, being served by his servants, in each generation as befits his love for mankind.

And thus his error has been refuted from every side: the Savior permitted the requirements of the Law to be fulfilled, and after permitting them to be fulfilled, dissolved the requirements of the Law—not abolishing them, but fulfilling them—permitting other offerings to be brought to God in place of those under the Law, namely, offerings of piety and goodness, of purity and right conduct.

He asserts again that the Elder will come and show his image in the last days, and then the Shoulder-Bearer, upon seeing his face, will let go of the earth, and thus the eternal fire will consume the earth.

And the brutish man forgot again, representing it—the earth—as material, that which he himself had earlier said was created by the Living Spirit.

For he supposes that the whole world together will again be consumed by fire.

And then, he says, after these things the restoration of the two natures will come together into the archetype.

O what great labor—and after all that labor, nothing at all brought about for correction!

For if, after being created and coming into being, it will be consumed and destroyed, so that the archetypes may remain again in the identity of the two natures, good and evil, then the wicked one will again grind against the good in order to turn back once more, wage war, and again seize another power, so that yet another world may come to be.

But if this no longer happens, then evil will have come to its senses, no longer grinding against goodness, and the evil god likewise, no longer raising war against the good.

But if it will ever be brought to its senses, it will no longer be evil, once it has been changed and transformed away from its ancient nature of evil.

And if the nature of evil is indeed mutable, it necessarily follows that it changes from evil into good; and the nature which possesses the capacity for a turning toward goodness will no longer be evil.

For it is possible even today for evil to turn, and, while the world still endures, to be changed into good.

...having wished, before the appointed time, to accomplish the things belonging to that time.

But if evil is altogether immutable, it will never cease making war and being warred against, and there will never at all be a settling of the two natures, since evil remains immutable, and, though ground down by conflict, continues to display wickedness toward the good and to raise war against goodness.

And if, out of longing for the good, evil is always grinding against it, then it will no longer be evil at all—since, yearning for the good, it wishes to draw the good to itself, so that, having through the nature of the good and its full armor drawn power to itself, it may thereby seem to honor and glorify itself, and to embolden and strengthen itself.

For in everyone who wills the good, there is altogether—from a good † intention—a mind set upon it; and evil will no longer be evil at all, once it is found to be longing for the good.

For everything evil bears enmity toward the good, just as the good, too, does not will evil.

But if the power of both is mixed together, and the good one knows how to plunder back what is its own, to wage war, and to strip the principalities and authorities in battle—at one time destroying and annihilating the matter produced by the evil one, at another time forming something out of it, and at yet another annihilating it—then the account of the idle chatter foisted upon us by this accursed man will itself be found wicked and incoherent.

Come now, let us take up again the discourse concerning the nature of evil as well. Tell us, you there—having appeared from the time of the emperor Aurelian down to the present, and relating things from before all the ages, though this was declared neither by any of the prophets, nor taught by the Savior himself, nor by any of the apostles—unless you should babble on about certain fabricated books which you set up for yourself and put forward under the name of 'saints'—whence then do you come, you there, bringing forth this hoary principle of evil? And when questioned by us whether he declares it to be in some sense mutable or immutable, we have already heard reported to us that he presents it as immutable—and also at one time as mutable, at another as immutable: immutable with regard to evil, but capable of turning with regard to good—so that from these two contrary definitions he may bring disgrace upon his own doctrine.

For if, throughout many and boundless ages, evil was immutable, possessing this name alone and nothing else besides evil, who then, after so many ages, turned the immutable nature of evil to turn toward what did not belong to it? For if it had not yet seized power nor made war, nor taken up full armor for its own strength and for food, but remained through many ages without nourishment, not even needing food—who turned that which once had no need of food to come to need food, and to seek what it never before sought, and to require what it never before required? But if indeed it changed its nature, how then will your doctrine of the immutability of evil be established? And if it should again come to its own original condition, no longer having the means to find what it might eat, how can that which has once become accustomed to being evil or wicked in devouring and using food endure thereafter, continuing without food for the time to come? For if, not having been accustomed to food, it was unable to hold out, but turned to coming to feed, and by plundering the soul procured food for itself, then, having become all the more habituated to food, it will be uncontrollable in its nature, and nothing could ever persuade it—having grown gluttonous and experienced in eating—to continue without these things, as your incoherent argument would have it.

But I will pass over this point, and extend my account once more to other portions of his idle babbling.

For again he says that the archons will then be confined within their own portions, and the Father will receive back what is properly his own.

...that its portions were altogether plundered from it? And how will the two be in the same place, each possessing his own portion separately? For if God has portions at all, and the other portions are not his, then the Almighty will no longer be called Almighty, no longer God of all; nor will the evil one become subject to the good, but each of them will possess his own separate dominion.

And of whom, then, will the evil master be lord, once the world no longer exists, and the animals and men ruled by it no longer exist? And if it is wholly evil, and is matter and corruption, how has it not the more been corrupted itself? For if evil, being from the beginning a thing of corruption, corrupts other things but does not corrupt itself, then that which corrupts other things while itself remaining eternal and never vanishing is not subject to corruption at all.

But since it remains in a solid substance, corrupting other things but not itself, it leaves nothing untouched; rather, the corruption utterly corrupts all the other things that are not itself.

And since its own substance persists, it will no longer leave anything among existing things untouched; rather, it alone will remain, while the things corrupted by it are annihilated.

But if it is also evil to itself and corruption to itself, then its own substance will no longer stand.

I would say this not only of the future, but also that, from the very time it came into being, it would already have vanished—having, within itself, both corrupted and annihilated itself.

But all these are the tales of a fool's empty talk—which, having discerned them, you, the sensible sons of the holy Church of God and of the faith of the Lord,

discern this charlatan and hold his idle babbling in scornful laughter.

But he will return again to the pretexts he has wickedly devised for himself, and to his comparisons drawn from the divine Scriptures—

—though these are not in fact so, but are so understood by him only in a wicked sense.

Come then, let us set forth, word for word, the very passages which, as I have said, he pilfers from the divine Scriptures,

and expounds according to his own mind, even though we have already, on many occasions, thoroughly and most rigorously refuted these very same points.

First of all, then: having found in the divine Scriptures mention of the name 'Paraclete,' and being ignorant of the power of the Holy Spirit, he insinuated himself in its place, supposing this to be himself.

And he claims that the words spoken by the holy Paul have given way to him, since the holy apostle said, 'We know in part, and we prophesy in part;'

'but when that which is perfect has come, that which is in part will be done away.'

But the holy apostle—who was himself counted worthy of the Holy Spirit, along with his fellow apostles—does not set forth this teaching about the Paraclete at all; rather, he was speaking about the two ages, the present and the one to come, just as he said to those who wished to anticipate the times: 'Let nothing disturb you, whether by word or by letter, suggesting that the day of the Lord is at hand.'

'For that day will not come unless the son of lawlessness be revealed, the man of unrighteousness,' and so on.

And again, when the disciples had gathered together to the Savior, they asked him about the consummation of the age, and he said to them, 'It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father has set within his own authority; but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you.'

And again he said, 'Do not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Spirit which you have heard'—that is, the Spirit, the Paraclete—just as he had said, 'If I go away, he will come, and he will declare to you all things.'

Now 'he will declare to you all things' refers to the gift with which they were about to be honored: that the Holy Spirit would dwell in them, so as to explain to them clearly all things, as many as they were able to receive in this age.

And thus, having received the Spirit, the Paraclete, in this age, they prophesied—as it is recorded that Agabus prophesied concerning a famine that was to come, and that prophets came down from Jerusalem, and that Philip had four daughters who prophesied.

...immortality †, when then we shall see face to face...

For at present the realities are shown by way of a riddle, but there is prepared what eye has not seen here below;

there perfection is revealed—what ear has not heard here below;

there is the great gift for the saints, which has not entered into the heart of man here below.

And you see that it was not to Mani that the knowledge of things beyond the ordinary was reserved.

For how could Mani have known such things—he who fell short of his own goal? For he undertook to overcome Marcellus,

he went to Archelaus in order to defeat him, and was not able.

How then, being ignorant of what is recent, can he know about greater things? And how did he not escape the hands of the king of the Persians—seeing that, once captured, he paid the penalty—so that it might be made plain to those possessed of understanding that he lies in every respect?

Again he wishes to bring forward testimony in order to establish his so-called 'dyad,' and to divide the world between the two principles—vainly citing the Savior's saying: 'A good tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit;'

'for the tree is known by its fruit.'

And observe, I ask you, the shallowness of his mind, understanding nothing of the things of divine Scripture in any depth.

For if they are trees, then they also have a farmer, and, being plants, have certainly been planted by someone.

And everything that has been planted is not without a beginning, but has a beginning.

And having a beginning, it will also come to an end.

Therefore the rotten tree did not exist eternally, but was planted; and this good tree likewise is not spoken of with reference to the goodness above in its entirety—for there, goodness is without falsehood, having no change, and existing in inexpressible honor—but rather refers to the intention of the true and holy God.

But let us look at the matter concerning the working of plants, whether it is so, and let us proceed to speak of it.

For if the argument concerns the devil, we have already shown many times that he was not made evil;

for God made nothing base, and this is quite evident to those who have understanding.

For if we are proceeding upon the same points, it will do no harm to demonstrate, even at present, the argument concerning the truth.

In the beginning, then, he was not base, but he became base.

Behold, in this respect the argument concerning the plant will not stand.

For we see that Saul too became a persecutor, but afterward was persecuted for the sake of the very name he once persecuted.

We see Judas, chosen along with the twelve apostles, and afterward becoming base and being ranked in an evil portion.

We see Rahab the harlot, who was a stranger to the race of Israel, but afterward repented and received the mercy of God.

We see the robber, caught for his wrongdoing and hanged upon the wood, who confessed and entered paradise together with the Lord.

We see Nicolaus, who was good and chosen, but afterward became evil and was ranked among the heresiarchs.

And why should I speak of the multitudes? What then is this evil plant from which no good comes? But again, these are the deeds of men.

For goodness cannot come from fornication;

righteousness cannot come from the evil of envy, praise cannot come from adultery.

For the tree of sin itself cannot come to be through goodness; that is, an evil tree does not produce good fruits, nor is it possible for a good tree to produce evil fruits;

the good tree, which does not produce evil fruits. As for hospitality being practiced — even if certain evils result from that hospitality, it is not on this account that mercy possesses the character of baseness; chastity is practiced for God's sake, self-control for the Master's sake, righteousness for the sake of the Law.

These two trees, concerning righteousness and concerning sin, are in this manner:

But as this barbarian Manes conceives it, he wishes to speak concerning God and concerning the devil,

and it is clear that no one can dare to say concerning God that he will ever do evil — far from it — nor concerning the devil that he works good.

But it is through God that all good things come to be,

and nothing base has been created from him, nor does it come to be.

But if certain evil things are worked by the devil, behold, we have found that even through him a crown is woven for the saints, and a prize is given to those who have conquered.

And so his argument has collapsed.

For the rotten tree and the good tree pertain to good works and to base works, and the argument does not concern the Old and the New Covenant, as Manes' argument would have it.

Moreover, this same man, wishing to set forth pretexts concerning the two principles, hunting for them, distorts certain sayings that seem to him to be so, though they are not so; for he says that the Lord said to the Jews, 'You are sons of the devil;'

'that one was a murderer, because his father was a liar.'

But he wishes to blaspheme and say that the Maker of heaven and earth is the father of the devil, though this saying can in no way at all be applied to that purpose.

For if they are altogether sons of the devil, then his own argument collapses, and Manes, without realizing it, contradicts himself.

For then their souls would henceforth be set apart, having come to be from the devil, and would no longer be from the power from above according to his myth, nor would they be a part of the light, or of his panoply, or of the pillar of light, or of the Mother of Life.

But if they are altogether of the devil, then Abraham too, their father, whose seed these very Jews are, must also be of the devil, according to Manes' argument.

How then does the Savior say to them reprovingly, 'You are not children of Abraham, but of your father the devil'?

'For if you were children of Abraham, you would do the works of Abraham.'

'For you seek to kill me, a man who has spoken the truth to you.'

And you see that this expression is used loosely, by extension; for although they were sons of Abraham, they alienated themselves from the Lord through their deeds, not through their formation or their nature — and indeed we have already related this above;

how then can a part of the same seed be at one time alien and belonging to the devil, and at another time a part belonging to God? But this is spoken in the manner of a reproach.

For whomever a man submits himself to, of that one he becomes a slave in respect of action and teaching, just as Paul also says: 'For even if you have ten thousand tutors in Christ, yet you do not have many fathers.'

'For in Christ Jesus, through the gospel, I have begotten you.'

And do you see that he is speaking of teaching? Now if Manes accepted Abraham, we would say that Abraham indeed belonged to the God of light, but those begotten by him belonged to another.

But the matter stands in this way:

They imitated the murderer, they imitated the betrayal of Judas; they took up the slander of the traitor, and became sons of his denial of God. He himself became a liar, holding the money-box and stealing from it, and saying to Him, 'Hail, Rabbi,' and being reproved and hearing, 'Friend, why have you come?' This Judas imitated Cain, since Cain became a murderer, lying before the Lord and saying, 'Am I my brother's keeper? I do not know where he is.'

And he himself, by way of imitation, became a son of the devil, also in view of that deceitful voice which spoke in the serpent, saying, 'You shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.'

This is what was said in the gospel by the Savior: 'You are sons of the devil;'

for He says, 'Did I not choose you, the twelve? Yet one of you is a devil,' since he is a liar from the beginning and a murderer, because his father was a liar.

And thus the question concerning this has been resolved.

For the Jews were not children of the devil — far from it.

For the Samaritan woman says to the Savior, 'Our fathers worshiped here on this mountain, yet you say that in Jerusalem is the place where one must worship.'

Then, after many words, the Savior said to her, 'We speak what we know, for salvation is from the Jews.'

And again the apostle says — it is clear — that the Lord has arisen out of Judah,

in order to speak and to refute this man's error.

Again he seizes upon this saying, 'the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it,' claiming, as he says, that the darkness was pursuing the light, as though the evil rulers were pursuing and warring against the Godhead.

But if, being warred against, the light is pursued by the darkness, then the darkness is more powerful than the light, since it flees from before the darkness and, though appearing, does not endure to stand its ground, because the darkness is more powerful.

For the light does not flee from before the darkness; rather, the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.

But if the darkness did not overcome the light, this differs greatly from the notion of Manes, who says that it not only overcame it, but also snatched away its armor.

How then did that which, according to his own proclamation, snatched away its armor, not overcome the light at all? And how, if the light is pursued, does it shine in the darkness by its own free choice? But since the minds of men were darkened by the murkiness of sin, God first sent the Law, giving light as by a lamp shining alongside, as Peter says in his epistle: 'giving heed to the prophetic word as to a lamp shining in a dismal place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.'

For from that point the light shines in the darkness, the Law having been given by the hand of a mediator, through Moses, the faithful servant of God.

For this reason, since from the earliest times the light first shone like a spark in the law according to nature — by which Enoch, beholding it, was well-pleasing to the Lord; by which, being guided, Abel was well-pleasing to the Lord; by which Noah found grace before God, having understood the way; by which Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him for righteousness — then the light, passing on from its spark-like manner, added to itself the brightness of a lamp appearing in a dismal place;

that is, the light shines in the darkness: the commandment of God and the understanding that accords with goodness, giving light in the hearts of the faithful, in the midst of a mind darkened through the base and evil things that have occurred among men — idolatry and denial of God, murders and adultery, and the rest.

But when the great luminary came, the true light, which enlightens every man coming into the world;

he was in the world, and the world was made through him, and the world did not know him;

he came unto his own, and his own did not receive him;

but as many as received him, to them he gave the right to become children of God.

And do you see in what darkness this light shines, and what darkness did not overcome it? It is that the good, ever being sent from God into the mind of men and shining in the world, is not overcome by sin.

And in like manner again, this same Manes seizes upon the Savior's having said, 'The kingdom of heaven is like a man, a householder, who sowed good seed in his field.'

'But while men slept, an enemy came and sowed tares.'

'Then his servants said to him:'

'Did you not sow good seed in your field?' And he said, 'Yes.'

'Whence then are the tares?' And he answered and said, 'An enemy has done this.'

And the servants said to him:

'Do you want us then to go and root out the tares?' And he said to them:

'No, lest while gathering up the tares you root up the wheat along with them.'

But let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will say to the reapers,

'Gather the tares and bind them into bundles, but store the wheat in the barn, and make the tares ready to be burned up with unquenchable fire.'

And when his disciples, in the house, said,

'Tell us the parable of the tares'—he explains it and does not hide it, so as not to allow the deceiver to have a handle against the truth.

The Lord therefore answers clearly, saying: 'He who sowed the good seed is God.'

...are the wicked men; the enemy man is the devil; the reapers are the angels; the harvest is the end of the age; the wheat is the good men.

when the Lord sends forth his angels, and they gather the sinners out of his kingdom and deliver them up to be burned.

And observe, sons of truth, that this man—renewed for us in place of Jannes and Jambres—puts forward, against himself, the very things he means to say.

For he himself denies that the world belongs to God;

but here the Savior said that the world is the field, and that the master and lord of the field is God, that is, his own Father, and that he himself sowed his good seed.

And he did not at all divide souls from bodies, or bodies from souls; rather he said that the enemy man sowed the tares, which are the wicked men. He does not speak of men as bodies alone, nor as souls alone, but together he said 'wicked men.'

And again, likewise, the good seed which the master of the house sowed in his own field—these, he says, are the good men.

And he did not say 'their souls,' but 'good men'—together with body and soul.

Is it not then that God sows the good in men through teaching, while the devil, through evil scheming, secretly sows evil works in men?

From this side and that we shall find no root of evil, but only deeds accomplished through us;

and God is not in any way the cause of the tares that were sown.

For he states plainly at once, saying, 'while men slept,' and he did not say, 'while the master of the house slept.'

For whenever we fall asleep to good works, whenever we neglect righteousness, whenever we fail to keep our mind watchful toward the commandment of God, then sins are sown in us.

Do you see that the reapers prepare the bundles for the eternal fire? Tell me, O Mani: do they bind souls there, or do they burn bodies apart from souls, or the souls as well? For your teaching about the purification of souls can no longer stand, since they will be handed over to punishment and judgment.

But let this suffice concerning these matters, up to this point.

For to the discerning, the words of the truth are plain.

Again he takes up another saying, bringing it forward without understanding what lies within it, and misinterprets in yet another way the force of the saving teaching—namely, that the Savior said: 'the ruler of this world is coming, and he finds nothing of his own in me'; and again:

'the ruler of the world will be cast down'; and again, in the apostle: 'the god of this age has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, so that the light of the gospel of glory should not shine upon them.'

Let us then consider who the ruler of this world is, concerning whom the Lord says that he will be cast down;

for he adds: 'and if I am lifted up, I will draw all men to myself;'

Whom then does he mean by 'the ruler of this world'? And if he means the devil, how is it that John, in the Gospel, says of the Savior that 'he came unto his own'? For we see these two statements set in opposition to one another;

for the apostle says, 'the whole world lies in the evil one,' and yet 'the Savior was in the world.'

How then shall both be reconciled? If the whole world lies in the evil one, what place is there for the Savior in the world, for him to be in it? And if the things of the world happen to belong to the Son of God, what ruler lords it over what belongs to God? But if the things in the world are not the Son of God's own, what ruler of the world allowed the things in the world to belong to the Savior? And if the world belongs to the Son of God, how did he allow a ruler to hold possession of his own world? Now all the words of divine Scripture are spoken in wisdom, just as the Lord himself says: 'John came in the way of righteousness, neither eating nor drinking,' and they say,

'the Son of man came eating and drinking,' and they say,

'a glutton and a winebibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners;'

'and wisdom was justified by her children.'

But how was wisdom justified by her children? By those who understand the words of wisdom, just as it is also said in the prophet: 'Who is wise, that he may understand these things? For the ways of the Lord are right, and he who has the word of wisdom will know them, but the impious will stumble in them.'

For Mani truly stumbled and acted impiously, together with the impious, in matters concerning divine and heavenly words.

For the Savior said a little before, 'I was beholding Satan fall like lightning from heaven,' and here again, 'the ruler of this world will be cast down.'

And if the saying concerned Satan, who had already fallen, what need was there for him to be cast down again? But no doubt you will say, 'into the abyss.'

Where then was the Lord about to be lifted up from? For if he were to be lifted up from the abyss—for like set alongside like produces a balanced correspondence in the phrasing.