1.

2 Augustine and Manichaeism

In his pursuit of wisdom, Augustine found himself among the Manichees. According to him,
membership among the Manichees was not premeditated. Rather, in the course of the pursuit
for wisdom, and disappointed for failing to find it as he had envisaged after reading the
Hortensius, Augustine fell among the Manichees. In this part, this work will present the
doctrine of the Manichaeism, and how Augustine critiqued it.

1.2.1 Main Doctrinal Aspects of Manichaeism

Manichaeism was a gnostic dualistic movement founded by Mani1 who claimed to be the
“Apostle of Jesus Christ.”2 It appeared to Augustine that this religion contained the truth which
he had been searching. The Manichees were astute in preaching, they used persuasive language,
and promised to grant a wisdom and a purity free of guilt. This group borrowed heavily from
Christianity to a point that its followers held their religion to be the genuinely complete
Christianity.3 On the contrary, they were condemned as “apostates from faith”.4
As a dualist movement Manichaeism taught about “the Two Principles (the Good and the
Evil)”5 which live together in every human person. The Good comprised of spirit, while the
Evil comprised of matter.6 The Good part, which is the divine essence, consisted of one’s mind
and soul. This was considered as immune to defilement by the wicked part even though the
two remained opposed to each other. In the end, the Evil part would be separated from the Good
part and be imprisoned eternally.7 This teaching as Augustine confessed favoured him in his
misconduct. For although he was aware that his conducts were sinful, he attributed the sinning
to another nature so that he would feel free of guilt.8 In the same vein, the Manichees held that
of the two coexisting principles, the Good was inactive and innocent of the nature of Evil. The
Good was thus never vigilant of the Evil. On the contrary, the Evil was the active principle. It
invaded the Good which, owing to its goodness could not react in defence as this would be
against its nature. According to Augustine’s critique, this could only be possible if the Good
underwent an ontological change.9 For this reason the Manichees condemned the Good to
passivity10 thus seeming to find the reason for the persistence of evil in the world.

1
Cf. J. Kevin Coyle, “Mani, Manichaeism,” in Augustine through the Ages: An Encyclopaedia, ed. Allan D.
Fitzgerald (Michigan: William B. Eerdmans, 1999), 520-525. Mani had begun the religion to complete what was
incomplete in the religion founded by Jesus.
2
Brown, Augustine of Hippo, 33; Cf. Coyle, “Mani, Manichaeism,” in Augustine through the Ages, 522.
Manichaeism had several entities entitled Jesus or Christ. Among these, Augustine was aware of three: “Jesus the
Splendour, identified with light freed and deposited in the moon and sun […]; the suffering Jesus, who is the light
trapped in our material world; and Jesus, “Son of God,” who came to the earth in human appearance and who only
appeared to suffer and die at Pilate’s hands. None of these Christs is in fact a saviour, except in so far as one or
the other is the bearer of saving knowledge.”
3
Cf. Coyle, “Mani, Manichaeism,” in Augustine through the Ages, 521; Thomas F. Martin, and Allan Fitzgerald,
Augustine of Hippo: Faithful Servant, Spiritual Leader (New York: Pearson, 2011), 22.
4
Rea Matsangou, “The ‘Children’ of the Manichaeans: Wandering Extreme Ascetics in the Roman East
Compared,” in Manichean and Early Christianity, ed. Johannes van Oort, Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies
99 (Leiden: Brill, 2021), 379 and 380.
5
Brown, Augustine of Hippo, 37.
6
Cf. Allan Fitzgerald, “Evil,” in Augustine through the Ages, An Encyclopaedia, ed. Allan D. Fitzgerald
(Michigan: William B. Eerdmans, 1999), 340.
7
Cf. Brown, Augustine of Hippo, 39-40; Conf. 5.10,20.
8
Cf. Conf. 5.10,18; Brown, Augustine of Hippo, 40-41.
9
Cf. Brown, Augustine of Hippo, 41.
10
Cf. Brown, Augustine of Hippo, 41.
Manichaeism consisted of two categories of membership; the Elect and the Hearers. The Elect
were perceived as the real saviours. They achieved their saving mission through food
consumption. According to their belief, foods contained both dark and light particles at varying
degrees. In this regard, meat and wine contained high matter. Their consumption enhanced the
evil inherent in the human person. For this reason, the Elect did not partake of them. On the
contrary, foods such as pumpkins, vegetable and fruits, particular grains and juices were
believed to highly contain portions of light particles. These comprised the diet of the Elect. In
the saving mission, the Elect freed the light particles through the digestive workings of their
stomachs, which served as a microcosm of the macrocosmic mechanisms in place for the
liberation of light.11 In addition, the Elect had to practice great austerity as a way of
disassociating themselves with the evil material world, and by so doing shed light upon it. This
consisted their main duty. 12
The Elect were further not allowed to kill. According to their teaching, all living things have a
soul. Thus killing, which included harvesting and preparing their food, was seen as violent acts
against the divine substance. Here, one can see that the Elect contradicted their mission as
saviours. While they did not participate directly in what they termed as violence against the
divine,13 they subjected their Hearers to those very practices. Some scholars argue however
that the avoidance of the elect from killing living creatures was not because they did not want
to take away life, but rather because they perceived them as impure. 14 From a Manichean
perspective, this still served a good reason for avoidance. For having the liberation of the light
particles imprisoned in the material realities as their central duty, and by which they acted as
real saviours, would justify their omission of partaking of those foods or activities which
contradicted their duty. It is also in this regard that the elect observed frequent prayer, regular
fasting and abstinence from sexual relations.15 In line with the latter, marriage was forbidden
among the Elect.
The Hearers on the other hand, to which Augustine belonged, had less obligations. Their
fundamental task was to gather food for the Elect. As a result, the presence of the Hearers in
Manichaeism was fundamental. As it can be seen, while the Elect ranked higher in the religion,
their temporal living was dependent on the Hearers. The hope of the Hearers was that after their
death, they would be incarnated as Elect, and after their death as Elect their good part would
journey back to the realm of light.16 Additionally, the Hearers were also expected to distance
themselves totally with “lying, murder, theft and adultery”17. Unlike their counterparts, they

11
Cf. Jason BeDuhn, The Manichaean Body: In Discipline and Ritual (London: The Johns Hopkins University
Press, 2000), 212.
12
Cf. Therese Fuhrer, “Thing and Argument: On the Function of the Scenario in Augustine’s De beata vita,” in
Manichean and Early Christianity, ed. Johannes van Oort, Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 99 (Leiden:
Brill, 2021), 294; J Coyle, “Mani, Manichaeism,” 523.
13
Cf. Matsangou, “The ‘Children’ of the Manicheans,” 382. The Manichees held that consumption of foods filled
with matter, which they identified as evil, especially meat and wine, would enhance the evil part of the self. This
would result in carnality and ignorance.
14
Cf. Matsangou, “The ‘Children’ of the Manichaeans,” 378.
15
Cf. Coyle “Mani, Manichaeism,” in Augustine through the Ages, 523. According to Coyle, the ascetical code of
the Elect comprised of five commandments namely: “not to lie, not to kill, to eat no meat, to remain pure
(essentially from sexual relations), and to own nothing”.
16
Cf. Coyle, “Mani, Manichaeism,” in Augustine through the Ages, 523.
17
Coyle, “Mani, Manichaeism,” in Augustine through the Ages, 523.
could possess property, partake of food forbidden to the Elect and could marry but bearing
children was discouraged.18
So far, it is observable that having been a member among the Manichees for about a decade,
Augustine had known their faith as much as being a Hearer could allow him.19 Of this faith, he
had much to refute. Next, this work will explore those aspects which he rejected, both as a
member and after dissociating with the group.

1.2.2 Augustine’s Critique on Manichaeism

While a Manichaean, Augustine began to find fault with the Manichees. As he narrates in conf.
5, he began to see discrepancies between the teachings of the philosophers and those of Mani
particularly concerning natural phenomena.20 Finding further disappointment in the
Manichaean bishop Faustus’ inability to provide satisfactory answers to his questions, and
realizing that the Christianity of his childhood was not as the Manichaeans made it out to be
through the sermons of Ambrose,21 Augustine decided to break away from the Manichaeism.
Later Augustine would write numerous works against Manichaean doctrine and practices. Four
major points comprise his critique against Manichaeism: monotheism, the Scriptures, the
perception of food, and the understanding of marriage.
In conf. 3, Augustine characterises the Manichaean doctrine as platters on which he was served
with the sun and moon. He was indignant that instead of leading him to the for God whom he
yearned, the Manichees directed him to celestial bodies which did not serve to satisfy his
hunger for God. They were only creatures and according to Augustine, not even the highest of
creatures. For he argued that spiritual creatures were nobler than matter. 22 Kotzé evaluates
Augustine’s argument as meant to dishonour the beliefs of the Manichees about the divinity of
sun and moon.23 Kotzé’s argument can be found agreeable. Augustine, having been a Hearer
and conversant with the faith of the Manichees declared that he had nothing against their
prayers except that they prayed facing the sun.24 This may not be used to discredit them since
according to their belief, the Son resides both in the Father and in the “second and visible
light.”25 As such, one can surmise that the Manichaeans were not worshipping the sun and the
moon in themselves but the divine Son in them.
As opposed to the Christian doctrine of one God both merciful and just, Augustine observed
that the Manichees had two gods. According to him, the Manichaeans invented an evil God
who they accused for their unbecoming conduct and sufferings that arose from their human
weakness. To this allegation however, Faustus did not consent except that he acknowledged

18
Cf. Coyle, “Mani, Manichaeism,” in Augustine through the Ages, 522. Manichaeism attributed the origin of
humanity to demons. Procreation was thus seen as perpetuating the evil of the demons and so delaying the
termination of the material world. See also, Matsangou, “The ‘Children’ of the Manichean,” 383.
19
Cf. C. Fort. 1,3.
20
Cf. Conf. 5.4,7-5.5,9.
21
Cf. Conf. 5.6,11-5.7,12; 5.14,24.
22
Cf. Conf. 7.14,20. Augustine’s disregard for matter changed later through realisation that such dualism falls
short of the dignity of all creatures in having their source in the Creator.
23
Cf. Annemaré Kotzé, “The ‘Anti-Manichaean’ Passage in Confessions 3 and its ‘Manichaean Audience’,”
Vigiliae Christianae 62 (2008): 187-200.
24
Cf. C. Fort. 1,3; C. Faust. 20, 2. Trans. Teske, Answer to Faustus, 262: “We worship, then the divinity of God
the almighty Father and of Christ his Son and of the Holy Spirit, one and the same God under their three names.
But we believe that the Father himself inhabits the highest and principal light, … but that the Son resides in this
and the second and visible light. […] we believe that his [Son] power dwell in the sun but his wisdom in the
moon.”
25
C. Faust. 20, 2. Trans. Teske, Answer to Faustus, 262.
that the rebellious are termed as god. This according to Faustus is in line with Paul’s “god of
this world” (2 Cor 4:4). Augustine pointed out that such a treatment of deity denies God His
Justice and also contradicts the Scriptures which acknowledge God as impartial, shining the
sun and showering the rain to both the good and the evil (cf. Mt 5:45). Similarly, Augustine
argued that while the Manichees spoke of God and Hyle (demon), they treated Hyle as God. In
this regard, they attributed to Hyle the creation of matter. They not only thus gave the attributes
of the Creator to Hyle, and by so doing treated him as God, but they also accorded the good
creation to an evil God. As a consequence they both condemned the creation and the Creator
as evil. In refutation of this conception by the Manichees, Augustine noted that the holiness of
the Creator is not dependent on the kind of creatures He made for He is constantly perfect.
Concerning the perception of matter and the body as evil, Augustine argued that creation
reflects the Creator in its uniqueness. Thus, the material world is an aid towards understanding
the spiritual reality concealed to the physical eyes. Referring to Paul, Augustine stated that
those who deny God as the Creator of human body declare an opposition and are condemnable.
Aware however that the evil one tempts the flesh, Augustine pointed out the need for
chastisement of the body. This practice was however not to be understood as flowing from the
contempt for the body but rather just as each creature loves and preserves itself, the flesh is,
according to Augustine subjected to the submission of the soul for the same love and
preservation of the soul. For in humans consenting to the devil who tempts them, they expose
themselves to the abandonment of God.26
Regarding the Scriptures, the Manichees disregarded the Old Testament and accused the God
of the Old Testament of various vices including anger, jealousy and vengeance. In response,
Augustine compared the criticism of the Manichees upon the God of the Old Testament to that
of a pagan criticising the New Testament. He noted that it was rather the Manicheans who
deserved the criticism they were erroneously putting upon the True God. According to him,
they condemned God to have dwelt in darkness because they could not differentiate God as
Light and the light which God created.27
Additionally, the Manichees refuted the genealogy as gospel. According to Faustus the Gospel
consisted of the preaching of Christ who never acknowledged himself as being born of human
parents. In this regard, Matthew the evangelist had avoided calling his book ‘Gospel’ but rather
“The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, The son of David”28 contrary to Mark’s who
identified his as “The Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.”29 Matthew’s thus is simply a
book of the birth of Jesus which was confirmed by a star30 and does not consist of the Good
News preached by Jesus Christ. In the same vein, Faustus argued that in accordance with
Matthew, Jesus only commenced the preaching of the Gospel after the beheading of John the
Baptist. In this case then according to Faustus, what Matthew recorded prior to the beheading
of John the Baptist was the narrative of Jesus’ birth and not the Gospel.31
In response, Augustine pointed to Faustus that according to Paul Jesus Christ is a descendant
of David and for Paul this consists his Gospel (cf. 2 Tim 2:8). In this regard, Augustine
admonished Faustus of three errors; Firstly, he pretended of not knowing the meaning of
‘Gospel’, secondly he used ‘Gospel’ erroneously by deviating from Apostle Paul’s own usage,
and thirdly, that if he used ‘Gospel’ in line with Paul, he deviated from the same Gospel if he

26
Cf. C. Faust. 21,1-21,9.
27
Cf. C. Faust. 32,4-32,5.
28
C. Faust. 2,1. Trans. Teske, Answer to Faustus, 71.
29
C. Faust. 2,1. Trans. Teske, Answer to Faustus, 71.
30
Cf. C. Faust. 2,5. The Manichees held that the fate of human life is determined by stars.
31
Cf. C. Faust. 2,1.
still would refuse to acknowledge Jesus as the son of David, since Christ always termed himself
as the Son of Man. On the contrary, it is the Manicheans’ own Scriptures that could be said to
not contain Good News since they had condemned their God to limitation, contamination by
the evil, and inability to care for his own kingdom.32 Further, Christ was not subordinate to
creation as to have to serve the dictates of the star. As opposed to Manichaeism’s doctrine of
human life and the stars, Augustine pointed out that in its appearance, the star seen by the Magi
served Christ by witnessing to him. Christ as the Word of God by which the creation came to
existence is the cause of the existence of the star and not vice versa.33
Regarding foods, Augustine was dissatisfied with the Manichees. According to their teaching,
particular foods could be consumed while others were considered unworthy of consumption.
He admitted that according to the Old Testament, the patriarchs too had abstained from certain
foods34 and noted further that even in his contemporary time, Catholics still observed food
abstinence. He contrasted that sort of fasting from the abstinence of the Manichees in that the
seasonal fasting of the Catholic faithful was in view of enhancing their spiritual aspect to
overcome the physical weakness. Additionally, the directive to the patriarchs did not serve to
conceive as evil those animals in whose categories are the unclean. For their lack of chewing
cud and the cleft on their hooves does not defile them. Indeed this is in accordance with their
nature. The ground of abstinence for the patriarchs was rather on account of the symbolism of
contemporary prophesies regarding the said animals. In this regard, animals are not termed as
clean or unclean because of their nature. Basing his argument on the letters of Paul (cf. Ti 1:15
and 1 Tm 4:4), Augustine emphasised that every creature is clean and that all that God has
created is good.35 Moreover, Jesus as the fulfilment of the law and the prophets declared to his
listeners that all foods are clean (cf. Mk 7:19) and that by the fact of consumption, no food has
capacity to defile an individual. Those conducts that are symbolised by the uncleanliness are
to be abstained from. Symbolically thus, Augustine pointed out to the Manichees that they, by
refusing to “chew the cud of wisdom”36 and by adamantly refusing to conceive of the unity of
the two Testaments as symbolised in the cloven hoof and thereby refuting the Old one, had
identified themselves with the unclean animals.37
Additionally, Augustine questioned the Manichees’ grounds for condemnation of wine as
unworthy of consumption. In his argument, Jesus consumed wine. This he deduced from Jesus’
reference to the obstinance of authorities regarding John the Baptist and Jesus. The authorities
had condemned John as being possessed on account of his fasting and Jesus as gluttonous and
a drunkard on account of eating and drinking. According to Augustine, Matthew’s ‘eating and
drinking’ must have pointed to Jesus’ partaking of wine in contrast to John who was ordered to
the abstinence of wine and all strong drinks and who at the time of his mission would access
only honey and locusts in the desert (cf. Mt 3:3-5). Augustine argued that the reason for non-
consumption was due to Manichees’ deceptive doctrine that wine was unclean. Augustine
further expressed his indignance with those who claimed that Jesus had given two contradicting
orders to the crowds and to his disciples regarding the food consumption. According to them,
Jesus allowed the crowds to eat all foods but to his disciples, he instructed to abstain from the
profane foods. Here Augustine clarified that Jesus, at Peter’s request to explain the parable,

32
Cf. C. Faust. 2,2-2,6; Cf. Brown, Augustine of Hippo, 36; Cf. Coyle, “Mani, Manichaeism,” in Augustine
through the Ages, 522.
33
Cf. C. Faust. 2,5.
34
Here, Augustine refers to the law on foods that defile according to Deuteronomy 14:3-21.
35
Cf. Gen 1:4,12,18,21,25,31; Cf. Conf. 7.12,18.
36
C. Faust. 16,30. Trans. Teske, Answer to Faustus, 223.
37
Cf. C. Faust. 16,30.
repeated the same teaching which he had given to the crowd and alluded in his emphasis that
the Scriptures do not contain such a contradiction as the Manichees claimed.38
It is observable then according to Augustine that the core reason for forbidding their members
from the consumption of particular foods was because such were conceived as evil in nature.
Ironically, their Hearers were allowed to contaminate themselves with those foods. According
to Augustine, due to the services which the Elect were receiving from their Hearers, they had
allowed them the consumption of meat even though their doctrine conceived it to be evil. Since
sins only are allowed by indulgence, so the Elect consented to the sin of the Hearers which they
claimed to thereafter pardon. Augustine pointed to the Manichees that dismissing certain foods
as evil in nature is a sin against their Creator who “created [them] to be received with
thanksgiving, for every creature of God is good and nothing is to be rejected that is received
with thanksgiving”.39
On the avoidance from killing animals, Augustine objected the Manichees. To them, sacrificing
animals as was commonly practiced in the Old Testament, was a form of idol worship. Against
this, Augustine pointed out that the Manichees were not justified to criticize Christianity on
this practice since the latter did not inherit the practise after the ultimate sacrifice of Christ on
the cross which fulfilled what the sacrifices in the Old Testament signified. Nonetheless,
Augustine noted that sacrifices were symbolic of divine mysteries which were already fulfilled
in Christ. Based on these mysteries, the Christians looked at them with reverence and as a
significant aid to the interpretation of the Scriptures. Additionally, according to Augustine, the
Elect avoided the killing of animals and the preparation of vegetables so as to avoid to inflict
pain on them while they were alive. In their mission of salvation however, Augustine argued
that even though they did not consume the animals, the Elect ought to have sacrificed them to
their divine so that the sacrifices would serve towards the salvation of those souls entangled in
the bodies of those animals, except if the Manichees thought they “help[ed] them more by
[their] belly than […] by [their] prayers”40. He further questioned how reliable the Manichees
found their thought that the vegetables “though they were picked by hands, cut by knives,
tortured by fire, masticated by teeth were still allowed to arrive alive at the altars of their
intestines”.41
According to the Manichees, Jesus declaration of all foods as clean would then be a deviation
from the directives in the Old testament. In answer to this, Augustine emphasised that as Jesus
said, he fulfilled the laws and the prophets as opposed to abolishing them (cf. Mt 5:17). In line
with the spirit of the laws and the prophets, Jesus had perfectly fulfilled them, for he did not
admit to eternity what was unworthy of it and what by the symbolism of the animals was termed
as unclean.42
Augustine further refuted the Manichees on their teaching on marriage. This is because while
they exalted virginity on the one hand, they held marriage to be evil on the other hand and so
prohibited it.43 For him, the Manichees had in this way prohibited the only lawful and moral
conjugal act. He furthered this view by pointing out that the purpose of the conjugal act in
marriage is not the satisfaction of lust but the generation of offspring. In this regard, Augustine
pointed out that the error of the Manichees was that while they allowed their Hearers to marry,
they strongly forbade procreation. The reason Augustine attached to the Manicheans

38
Cf. C. Faust. 16,31.
39
C. Faust. 30,5. Trans. Teske, Answer to Faustus, 404.
40
C. Faust. 6,6. Trans. Teske, Answer to Faustus, 98.
41
C. Faust. 6,6. Trans. Teske, Answer to Faustus, 98.
42
Cf. C. Faust. 19,10.
43
Cf. C. Faust. 30,6.
intolerance of procreation was that according to them birth meant imprisonment of the soul
while death the liberation of it. From this perception, Augustine questioned whether it was on
this account that the Manichees denied the birth of Christ while they admitted his imaginary
death.44
At this point, one can observe that having engaged with Manichaeism Augustine was better
placed to question more practically their doctrine. As argued by Coyle, although as a Hearer he
was not exposed to all of the books of Mani45, his being part of them exposed him to their
doctrine in a reasonably deeper way to substantially critique them. Coyle’s view differs from
van Oort’s, according to whom Augustine’s knowledge of Manichaeism was complete.46 In this
regard, Augustine’s critique is here found to be characterised with authority for he not only had
an idea of their doctrine from without but had indeed been one of them. He however seems to
too quickly conclude that the immediate reaction of God following an individual’s fall into
temptation is abandonment and punishment. He seems to overlook biblical pericopes which
depict God as readily awaiting to welcome a sinner who has strayed. Examples include Ez
18:23: “Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, says the Lord God, and not rather that
they should turn from their ways and live?”47, Lk 15:7: “Just so, I tell you, there will be more
joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need
no repentance” and the loving Father from Lk 15:11-32, as well as Jesus response to the
Pharisees in Lk 5:30-32:
“The Pharisees and their scribes were complaining to his disciples, saying, “Why do you eat and drink with
tax collectors and sinners?” Jesus answered them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician but
those who are sick; I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.”

In spite of the dissatisfying experience among the Manichees, Augustine did neither condemn
Manichaeism immediately, nor embrace the Catholic faith at once. Apparently, he argued on
the possibilities of each faith being able to defend itself of the objections brought against each.48
Nonetheless having lost hope of finding the truth in Manichaeism,49 and having realised other
greater philosophers, Augustine eventually resolved to leave the Manichees and to register as
a catechumen in the Catholic Church.50 His breaking with Manichaeism forms a crucial point
in his path to conversion and reveals his commitment to the truth and faith in God. His anti-
Manichaean polemics that came later in his life seem to be aimed at persuading the
Manichaeans to undergo the same conversion.51

44
Cf. C. Faust. 30,6.
45
Cf. Kelvin J. Coyle, Manichaeism and its Legacy (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 251; Cf. Conf. 5.7,13.
46
Cf. Johannes van Oort, “The Young Augustine’s Knowledge of Manichaeism: An Analysis of the Confessions
and Some Other Relevant Texts,” Vigiliae Christianae 62 (2008): 441-466.
47
All Bible verses by the author have been taken from New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition
48
Cf. Conf. 5.14,24.
49
Cf. Conf. 5.7,12-5.7,13; 5.10,18.
50
Cf. Conf. 5.14,25.
51
Cf. Annemaré Kotzé, “The ‘Anti-Manichaean’ Passage in Confessions 3,” Passim.