講道與書信 第 190 章

The Manichaean heresy, so named chiefly from one man of this name, had three principal authors. But he who first of all laid the foundations of that impious sect and confirmed its cardinal errors was a certain Saracen, called Scythianus, of the Arab race, brought up on the borders of Palestine, who, when he had devoted his effort to Greek letters, mastered them indeed excellently. First, then, engaging in trade, he set out to the Indians, and in a short time procured for himself so great an abundance of riches that afterward, coming to Alexandria, he gave himself wholly to the study of philosophy and to the disciplines of the Egyptians, and, abandoning trade, wished to imitate the Aristotelian manner of life.

Abounding therefore in leisure and riches, and being at the same time endowed with a sharp intellect, he resolved within himself to introduce into the world new but paradoxical doctrines. For which desire's sake, following, they say, the opinion of Empedocles, he devised two co-eternal principles of things: the one good, the other evil; the former he called God and light, the latter matter and darkness — which error was one of the cardinal doctrines of the Valentinians and Marcionites, who in the second century of the Church harassed the Catholic religion of Christ. Other fictions also, derived from the principles of Pythagoras, he not only revolved in his mind and scattered among the common people, but even committed to writing.

For indeed, having composed four volumes, filled with mere fables and lies, he brought forth those eggs of wickedness and impiety, from which afterward, when Manes brooded upon them, so many and such great diabolical shoots came forth. To each of the volumes he composed he gave a name: the first he called the Gospel, the second the Chapters, the third the Mysteries, the fourth the Treasures. Aided therefore by these supports, he set out for Judaea, to dispute with the elders of the Mosaic law. But when he had been overcome by them with the aid of the divine Scriptures, he strove to blot out the mark of his shame and baseness by magical incantations, and attempted to delude the Jews of Jerusalem with tricks.

Therefore, using the magical arts which he had formerly learned in Egypt and India, he climbed onto the roof of a certain house, from which — whether struck by God, or driven out of his mind, as St. Cyril of Jerusalem writes — he threw himself headlong, and left his goods and his praised books to Terebinthus, his servant, whom he had made his heir. These things concerning the country, character, life, institutions, and books of Scythianus both the ancient and the more recent writers have handed down. Yet none of them exactly defined the time in which he lived. And although Epiphanius (Heresy

66) seems to indicate that he set out to Jerusalem around the times of the apostles, yet William Cave contends that his words are to be taken in a looser sense, affirming, namely, that they are to be explained thus: 'in the age nearest to the apostolic age of the century,' so that Scythianus may be reckoned to have met his fatal day toward the close of the second century. Yet Beausobre opposed both Epiphanius and Cave. He, discoursing on the origin of Scythianus and of the Manichaean doctrine, affirms with us indeed that Scythianus was born of the Arab, not the Scythian, race; but relying on various and uncertain conjectures, he draws out the day of his birth to the very third century, and feigns that he was a contemporary of Manes;

with only this difference admitted, that the former was of a more advanced age, while the latter was younger; and that even an interchange of letters passed between them. But whether this manner of reasoning determines with certainty the time in which the founder of this heresy flourished, and whether that interchange of letters be genuine or supposititious, the reader himself will judge. We meanwhile contend that the aforesaid conjectures of Beausobre are altogether tottering, observing this one thing: namely, that the ancient writers, in designating those Christian men who flourished in the second century of the Church, employed not dissimilar forms of speech;

and therefore Epiphanius cannot be brought into blame for having affirmed that Scythianus set out to Jerusalem around the times of the apostles. For while that century was drawing to a close, many hearers of the apostles were still surviving at Jerusalem, among whom was the celebrated Hegesippus; while in Asia there were Quadratus and Polycarp, whom we know to have been called either apostles or apostolic men, because they did not dare to depart even slightly from the institutions of the apostles. This Eusebius affirmed of well-nigh innumerable places, who also, speaking of St. Irenaeus, records that he had learned by heart the discourses of a certain apostolic man.

It is therefore no wonder that Epiphanius judged Scythianus to have set out to Jerusalem around the times of the apostles, since we find that, by divine dispensation, certain apostolic men, hearers of Christ's apostles, remained alive up to the beginning of the third century. Photius indeed, a man of the keener discernment — whom Beausobre himself very often praises, and who more than once perused the writings of Epiphanius — was wary of inveighing against him. Nay rather, writing against the Manichaeans, he appeals both to the books of Cyril of Jerusalem and to those of Epiphanius written against this heresy, without any slight suspicion of falsity, and calls Epiphanius himself 'great in miracles.'

Having therefore explained Epiphanius's manner of speaking, yet another fabrication of Beausobre must be wrested away (Book 1, ch. 11): namely, that Scythianus was a contemporary of Manes. And that he might gradually persuade his readers of this, he first reports the prejudiced opinion of the Greeks and Latins, by which they are wont to condemn the manners, culture, and philosophy of the Arabs, and who, because they inhabit desert places, were commonly called by the name of barbarians. But that the Arabs were devoted to the study and cultivation of the sciences and the good arts, he strives to prove by the example of the Queen of Sheba setting out to Jerusalem to Solomon;

then by the manner of study of Pythagoras, who, after the knowledge of the sciences acquired in Egypt, betook himself also to the peoples of the Arabs, that he might afterward be more fully instructed by their king. What more? Beausobre (ibid., p. 20) transferred into his own history certain various eulogies concerning the Arab nation described in the Life of Muhammad, so as thence to conclude that their native tongue is in all respects soft and sweet, adorned with great eloquence and poetic art; and that the men themselves excel all others in wit and in ease of thinking, whose mode of life he affirms to be established to be strong in much simplicity, handed down from the fathers of families to their boy sons.

Nor does the writer of the Manichaean history dwell little, or to no purpose, upon these matters which pertain little or nothing to our subject: but, speaking of the religion of the Arabs, he judged that a purer religion flourished among them longer than among the Jews; especially since the Israelites, on account of the various superstitions of the Egyptians, very often dared to recede from the true worship of God, weakening the Mosaic law by false rites. But, proceeding further, he first premises a certain comparison between Scythianus and Muhammad, both architects of heresies and depraved doctrines, both alike proceeding from Arabia. And lest readers should persuade themselves that evil demons and spirits of lies dominate the inhabitants of that land,

he objects to them Moses, taken up for the ministries of the most high God, when he had withdrawn himself into the solitude of the Midianites of Arabia — at that time, namely, when he was to be sent into Egypt to discharge the divine embassy for the destruction of idolatry. These things therefore, and others like them, being premised by Beausobre to display trifles rather than true erudition, he straightway appeals to the tables of the geographers, and divides Arabia into its parts, subjoining that he could easily judge Scythianus to have had his origin from mountainous Arabia. To which opinion the testimonies of Archelaus and Epiphanius seem to lend support, who at least obscurely indicate that Scythianus had an Egyptian wife, and had his origin in that part of Arabia which they call Deserta.

Led by these conjectures, Beausobre believed that Manichaeus had been distinguished with the presbyterate, and, discharging that office in the province of Ahwaz, taught there by scattering his depraved doctrines hither and thither. From such and so great an abundance of matters, Beausobre himself, rejecting the testimonies of others, judges that he can conclude that some commerce of letters passed between Scythianus and Manichaeus, which can serve as an argument that Scythianus flourished later and was a contemporary of Manes. In support of this conjecture he cites two fragments of letters:

the one of that letter which Scythianus had given to the Saracen Condatus, the other of a certain letter which Manes inscribed to Scythianus, which Photius preserved for us, as may be seen in Fabricius's Greek Library, book V, page 284. These, then, are those very grave considerations which could move Beausobre's mind so that, rejecting the testimonies of Cyril bishop of Jerusalem, of Epiphanius, of Titus bishop of Bostra, of Heraclian, and of others, he should devise a commerce of letters of this sort. But who ever affirmed that that Scythianus to whom Manes gave a letter (if indeed it be genuine) was that Saracen man of whom we are presently treating?

This indeed Photius passed over in silence — he who, following the histories of the preceding Fathers, gave no indication of these things smacking of falsity. Yet he would have indicated it, if he had encountered anything alien to truth in them. And indeed that there existed another man, who was commonly called Scythianus, and to whom Manes wrote the aforesaid letter, is attested by Tillemont, who indeed could by no means persuade himself that Scythianus, the first parent of the Manichaean sect, could still have been alive while the third century of the Church was running its course, that Manes should give him a letter of this kind;

especially since he of whom we are treating, before he perished by an evil death, had already withdrawn from the borders of Arabia and had betaken himself into Judaea, where he held various contentions with the elders of the Mosaic law, and where he attempted to delude the Jews of Jerusalem with magical incantations and tricks. Wherefore the aforesaid Tillemont was rightly bound to distinguish two men of the same name, lest he should bring into bad faith the holy Fathers who wrote the deeds of Scythianus. Whence Beausobre, on account of this distinction, wrongly reproaches Tillemont for envy (Book I, p. 26). Johann Christoph Wolf indeed not only attended to those two fragments of letters, but, speaking of the age of Scythianus, neither Archelaus nor St.

Epiphanius concerning the error of Scythianus, and expressly calls into doubt whether that Scythianus could have received letters from Manes, since Terebinthus must be placed between them. Rightly therefore does he suspect that Manes's letter was given to that other Scythianus; nay more, he asserts that Manes himself was at times called Scythianus — just as Beausobre too confesses, as we shall say to him in chapter 4 of this work. Not therefore did Wolf, who adorned with learned notes and brought to light the two books of the Manichaean history composed by Photius, dare to confound the Scythianus of whom we are treating with the other (perhaps more recent) one, since he does not gather this from Photius, and Photius himself supports Epiphanius:

but remaining in suspense and uncertain, lest he should bring the Fathers into odium, or himself be swept into error, he at least left the matter circumscribed by no reasonings; or rather judged that his mind ought to support our opinion. 2. Now let us make our step to Terebinthus, the successor of Scythianus, being about to say many things against Beausobre in chapter 3 of this work. Scythianus, then, having departed this life, his heresy by no means perished. But it emerged, as it were, sharper, through the ministry of Terebinthus, whom others indeed called his servant. That this man was the assiduous companion of Scythianus and a partaker of all his secrets has been proved by the common consent of the ancient Fathers.

He, after the death of his teacher, when he had lingered for some time in Palestine, fled into Persia, carrying off with him the riches and writings which Scythianus had left him by testament, and being received into hospitality by a certain widow, called himself Budda, that he might lie hidden the more safely. He first held disputations with the priests of Mithra. But when he had been most shamefully convicted and overcome by them, he then turned his mind to trickery and magical arts, after the example of his teacher, striving by them to bring it about that no one should thereafter dare to contradict him. Wherefore, climbing to the upper part of the house, he was struck by a demon and cast on high, and perished most miserably, the widow with whom he had lodged being made heir of his books and riches.

But as regards the inheritance of the books, Socrates asserts that these were written by Terebinthus in Persia, whom Tollius afterward followed. But since the ancients ascribe those books to Scythianus, I will not now linger on this question of small moment. 3. These books therefore, as we have received, the widow of Terebinthus, or Buddas, being his heir, kept with her until her death. She, when some years before she died she saw herself to be without children, bought for herself a certain Cubricus, a Persian by race, seven years old, as a slave. When she had afterward endowed him with liberty, she first took care that he should be instructed in the disciplines of the Persians. Then, not long after, departing from life, she left all her goods, together with the books deposited with her by Terebinthus, to Cubricus by testament.

Established therefore in so great and so lofty a state of prosperous fortune, he shuddered at the preceding condition of his servitude, and thereupon, fearing lest it should turn to his reproach, he cast off the name of Cubricus and assumed for himself that other name of Manes. But what this word signifies especially among the Greeks, Eusebius of Caesarea described in a few words, saying (Book VII of the Ecclesiastical History, ch. 27): 'At which time a certain Manes, raving in accordance with his name, and agitated by the instinct of a demon, teaches a heresy hateful and execrable to all.' For 'madness,' therefore, the Greeks — that from that name of Manes they might seize an occasion for mockery — interpreted it thus, as after Eusebius, Cyril of Jerusalem also attested (Catechesis 6), to whom afterward St.

Augustine gives support. This mark of infamy his disciples, wishing to avoid, called him Manichaeus by lengthening the word, with the letter N doubled, Manichaeus. 'His disciples,' says Augustine (Book on Heresies, ch. 46), 'preferred to call him Manichaeus, shunning the name of madness. Whence certain of them, as it were more learned, and for that very reason more mendacious, with the letter N doubled call him Manichaeus, as if 'pouring forth manna.'' But that among the Persians, Chaldaeans, and Syrians that word indicated something of honor, not of contumely, Cave shows from the same Cyril and Epiphanius. For the Persians used it for 'discourse,' since that impostor made a show of remarkable dialectic, and the Chaldaeans and Syrians interpreted it as 'vessel';

as if, forsooth, that sacrilegious and senseless man wished to signify that, after the manner of St. Paul, he was a vessel chosen by God. From these three sacrilegious impostors, then — namely, Scythianus, Terebinthus, and Manes — I judge it has been sufficiently explained that this diabolical sect drew its origin. But what Beausobre wrote copiously concerning these various names of Manes and their etymologies; concerning his country, his institutions, and his offices, it will be needful for us to call to examination in chapters 3 and 4 of this work; so that, namely, we may wrest away very many of this writer's trifling arguments and conjectures, and to the best of our powers may defend the tradition of the ancient Fathers,

the tradition of the Latins and Greeks, the ancient discipline of the Church, and the persuasion of the Catholic writers. Then indeed we shall more clearly disclose how greatly Beausobre indulged his own studies and the interests of the non-Catholic religion.