Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Manichaean Controversy/On the Morals of the Manichaeans/Chapter 17

Chapter 17.—Description of the Symbol of the Hands Among the Manich&#230;ans.

54.&#160; We must now notice and discuss the symbol of the hands.&#160; And, in the first place, your abstaining from the slaughter of animals and from injuring plants is shown by Christ to be mere superstition; for, on the ground that there is no community of rights between us and brutes and trees, He both sent the devils into an herd of swine, and withered by His curse a tree in which He had found no fruit. &#160; The swine assuredly had not sinned, nor had the tree.&#160; We are not so insane as to think that a tree is fruitful or barren by its own choice.&#160; Nor is it any reply to say that our Lord wished in these actions to teach some other truths; for every one knows that.&#160; But assuredly the Son of God would not commit murder to illustrate truth, if you call the destruction of a tree or of an animal murder.&#160; The signs which Christ wrought in the case of men, with whom we certainly have a community of rights, were in healing, not in killing them.&#160; And it would have been the same in the case of beasts and trees, if we had that community with them which you imagine.

55.&#160; I think it right to refer here to the authority of Scripture, because we cannot here enter on a profound discussion about the soul of animals, or the kind of life in trees.&#160; But as you preserve the right to call the Scriptures corrupted, in case you should find them too strongly opposed to you,—although you have never affirmed the passages about the tree and the herd of swine to be spurious,—still, lest some day you should wish to say this of them too, when you find how much they are against you, I will adhere to my plan, and will ask you, who are so liberal in your promises of evidence and truth, to tell me first what harm is done to a tree, I say not by plucking a leaf or an apple,—for which, however, one of you would be condemned at once as having abused the symbol, if he did it intentionally, and not accidentally,—but if you tear it up by the root.&#160; For the soul in trees, which, according to you, is a rational soul, is, in your theory, freed from bondage when the tree is cut down,—a bondage, too, where it suffered great misery and got no profit.&#160; For it is well known that you, in the words of your founder, threaten as a great, though not the greatest punishment, the change from a man to a tree; and it is not probable that the soul in a tree can grow in wisdom as it does in a man.&#160; There is the best reason for not killing a man, in case you should kill one whose wisdom or virtue might be of use to many, or one who might have attained to wisdom, whether by the advice of another without himself, or by divine illumination in his own mind.&#160; And the more wisdom the soul has when it leaves the body, the more profitable is its departure, as we know both from well-grounded reasoning and from wide-spread belief.&#160; Thus to cut down a tree is to set free the soul from a body in which it makes no progress in wisdom.&#160; You—the holy men, I mean—ought to be mainly occupied in cutting down trees, and in leading the souls thus emancipated to better things by prayers and psalms.&#160; Or can this be done only with the souls which you take into your belly, instead of aiding them by your understanding?

56.&#160; And you cannot escape the admission that the souls in trees make no progress in wisdom while they are there, when you are asked why no apostle was sent to teach trees as well as men, or why the apostle sent to men did not preach the truth to trees also.&#160; Your reply must be, that the souls while in such bodies cannot understand the divine precepts.&#160; But this reply lands you in great difficulties; for you declare that these souls can hear your voices and understand what you say, and see bodies and their motions, and even discern thoughts.&#160; If this is true, why could they learn nothing from the apostle of light?&#160; Why could they not learn even much better than we, since they can see into the mind?&#160; Your master, who, as you say, has difficulty in teaching you by speech, might have taught these souls by thought; for they could see his ideas in his mind before he expressed them.&#160; But if this is untrue, consider into what errors you have fallen.

57.&#160; As for your not plucking fruits or pulling up vegetables yourselves, while you get your followers to pluck and pull and bring them to you, that you may confer benefits not only on those who bring the food but on the food which is brought, what thoughtful person can bear to hear this?&#160; For, first, it matters not whether you commit a crime yourself, or wish another to commit it for you.&#160; You deny that you wish this!&#160; How then can relief be given to the divine part contained in lettuce and leeks, unless some one pull them and bring them to the saints to be purified.&#160; And again, if you were passing through a field where the right of friendship permitted you to pluck anything you wished, what would you do if you saw a crow on the point of eating a fig?&#160; Does not, according to your ideas, the fig itself seem to address you and to beg of you piteously to pluck it yourself and give it burial in a holy belly, where it may be purified and restored, rather than that the crow should swallow it and make it part of his cursed body, and then hand it over to bondage and torture in other forms?&#160; If this is true, how cruel you are!&#160; If not, how silly!&#160; What can be more contrary to your opinions than to break the symbol?&#160; What can be more unkind to the member of God than to keep it?

58.&#160; This supposes the truth of your false and vain ideas.&#160; But you can be shown guilty of plain and positive cruelty flowing from the same error.&#160; For were any one lying on the road, his body wasted with disease, weary with journeying, and half-dead from his sufferings, and able only to utter some broken words, and if eating a pear would do him good as an astringent, and were he to beg you to help him as you passed by, and were he to implore you to bring the fruit from a neighboring tree, with no divine or human prohibition to prevent your doing so, while the man is sure to die for the want of it, you, a Christian man and a saint, will rather pass on and abandon a man thus suffering and entreating, lest the tree should lament the loss of its fruit, and you should be doomed to the punishment threatened by Manich&#230;us for breaking the symbol.&#160; Strange customs, and strange harmlessness!

59.&#160; Now, as regards killing animals, and the reasons for your opinion, much that has been said will apply also to this.&#160; For what harm will be done to the soul of a wolf by killing the wolf, since the wolf, as long as it lives, will be a wolf, and will not listen to any preacher, or give up, in the least, shedding the blood of sheep; and, by killing it, the rational soul, as you think, will be set free from its confinement in the body?&#160; But you make this slaughter unlawful even for your followers; for you think it worse than that of trees.&#160; And in this there is not much fault to be found with your senses,—that is, your bodily senses.&#160; For we see and hear by their cries that animals die with pain, although man disregards this in a beast, with which, as not having a rational soul, we have no community of rights.&#160; But as to your senses in the observation of trees, you must be entirely blind.&#160; For not to mention that there are no movements in the wood expressive of pain, what is clearer than that a tree is never better than when it is green and flourishing, gay with flowers, and rich in fruit?&#160; And this comes generally and chiefly from pruning.&#160; But if it felt the iron, as you suppose, it ought to die of wounds so many, so severe, instead of sprouting at the places, and reviving with such manifest delight.

60.&#160; But why do you think it a greater crime to destroy animals than plants, although you hold that plants have a purer soul than animals?&#160; There is a compensation, we are told, when part of what is taken from the fields is given to the elect and the saints to be purified.&#160; This has already been refuted; and it has, I think, been proved sufficiently that there is no reason for saying that more of the good part is found in vegetables than in flesh.&#160; But should any one support himself by selling butcher-meat, and spend the whole profit of his business in purchasing food for your elect, and bring larger supplies for those saints than any peasant or farmer, will he not plead this compensation as a warrant for his killing animals?&#160; But there is, we are told, some other mysterious reason; for a cunning man can always find some resource in the secrets of nature when addressing unlearned people.&#160; The story, then, is that the heavenly princes who were taken from the race of darkness and bound, and have a place assigned them in this region by the Creator of the world, have animals on the earth specially belonging to them, each having those coming from his own stock and class; and they hold the slaughterers of those animals guilty, and do not allow them to leave the earth, but harass them as much as they can with pains and torments.&#160; What simple man will not be frightened by this, and, seeing nothing in the darkness shrouding these things, will not think that the fact is as described?&#160; But I will hold to my purpose, with God&#8217;s help, to rebut mysterious falsehood by the plainest truth.

61.&#160; Tell me, then, if animals on land and in water come in regular succession by ordinary generation from this race of princes, since the origin of animal life is traced to the abortive births in that race;—tell me, I say, whether bees and frogs, and many other creatures not sprung from sexual intercourse, may be killed with impunity.&#160; We are told they cannot.&#160; So it is not on account of their relation to certain princes that you forbid your followers to kill animals.&#160; Or if you make a general relationship to all bodies, the princes would be equally concerned about trees, which you do not require your followers to spare.&#160; You are brought back to the weak reply, that the injuries done in the case of plants are atoned for by the fruits which your followers bring to your church.&#160; For this implies that those who slaughter animals, and sell their flesh in the market, if they are your followers, and if they bring to you vegetables bought with their gains, may think nothing of the daily slaughter, and are cleared of any sin that may be in it by your repasts.

62.&#160; But if you say that, in order to expiate the slaughter, the thing must be given as food, as in the case of fruits and vegetables,—which cannot be done, because the elect do not eat flesh, and so your followers must not slaughter animals,—what reply will you give in the case of thorns and weeds, which farmers destroy in clearing their fields, while they cannot bring any food to you from them?&#160; How can there be pardon for such destruction, which gives no nourishment to the saints?&#160; Perhaps you also put away any sin committed, for the benefit of the fruits and vegetables, by eating some of these.&#160; What then if the fields are plundered by locusts, mice, or rats, as we see often happen?&#160; Can your rustic follower kill these with impunity, because he sins for the good of his crops?&#160; Here you are at a loss; for you either allow your followers to kill animals, which your founder prohibited, or you forbid them to be cultivators, which he made lawful.&#160; Indeed, you sometimes go so far as to say that an usurer is more harmless than a cultivator,—you feel so much more for melons than for men.&#160; Rather than hurt the melons, you would have a man ruined as a debtor.&#160; Is this desirable and praiseworthy justice, or not rather atrocious and damnable error?&#160; Is this commendable compassion, or not rather detestable barbarity?

63.&#160; What, again, of your not abstaining yourselves from the slaughter of lice, bugs, and fleas?&#160; You think it a sufficient excuse for this to say that these are the dirt of our bodies.&#160; But this is clearly untrue of fleas and bugs; for every one knows that these animals do not come from our bodies.&#160; Besides, if you abhor sexual intercourse as much as you pretend to do, you should think those animals all the cleaner which come from our bodies without any other generation; for although they produce offspring of their own, they are not produced in ordinary generation from us.&#160; Again, if we must consider as most filthy the production of living bodies, still worse must be the production of dead bodies.&#160; There must be less harm, therefore, in killing a rat, a snake, or a scorpion, which you constantly say come from our dead bodies.&#160; But to pass over what is less plain and certain, it is a common opinion regarding bees that they come from the carcases of oxen; so there is no harm in killing them.&#160; Or if this too is doubted, every one allows that beetles, at least, are bred in the ball of mud which they make and bury. &#160; You ought therefore to consider these animals, and others that it would be tedious to specify, more unclean than your lice; and yet you think it sinful to kill them, though it would be foolish not to kill the lice.&#160; Perhaps you hold the lice cheap because they are small.&#160; But if an animal is to be valued by its size, you must prefer a camel to a man.

64.&#160; Here we may use the gradation which often perplexed us when we were your followers.&#160; For if a flea may be killed on account of its small size, so may the fly which is bred in beans.&#160; And if this, so also may one of a little larger size, for its size at birth is even less.&#160; Then again, a bee may be killed, for its young is no larger than a fly.&#160; So on to the young of a locust, and to a locust; and then to the young of a mouse, and to a mouse.&#160; And, to cut short, it is clear we may come at last to an elephant; so that one who thinks it no sin to kill a flea, because of its small size, must allow that it would be no sin in him to kill this huge creature.&#160; But I think enough has been said of these absurdities.