A Discourse on the Albigensian Heresy

...than to have insisted upon it, which Beausobre despises, so that he remains in much greater uncertainty; likewise, he condemns the credulity of Theodoret, whose erudition he is forced to praise. Among the latter group, he dares to include St. Epiphanius, as if he did not know Syriac and as if, in the book titled The Treasure by Mani—which Epiphanius himself testifies to have read—he saw things entirely different from what was actually written. He praises Titus of Bostra immensely; but after he finds him saying certain things about the Economy of ChristIn early Christian theology, "Economy" (oeconomia) refers to God's administration of the world and the specific plan of salvation through the Incarnation of Jesus. which oppose his own system, he then denies that faith should be placed in him, claiming it is not credible that Titus found those things in the Treasure in which he found the rest. He condemns Leo the Great, John of Damascus, and the formulas of faith, even though they agree both with themselves and with the historians.

What of Augustine? Among the Manichaeans, Beausobre says, Augustine was a HearerThe "Hearers" (Auditores) were the lower rank of Manichaean followers who were allowed to marry and eat meat, unlike the ascetic elite., not an ElectThe "Elect" (Electi) were the inner circle of the Manichaean sect who practiced strict asceticism and were privy to the sect's deepest secrets.; therefore, he knew nothing of their secrets. But Augustine disputed with the Elect, such as Fortunatus. Moreover, Tyrbo was also among the Hearers. Here, Beausobre, when he believes he can be helped by Tyrbo, wants the Hearers to know all the Manichaean secrets just as well as the Elect (1). Thus, he who repeatedly boasts that he is not influenced by partisan zeal allows himself to be carried away by such a great love for his Manichaeans that he is inconsistent with himself.

And he seems to have erred for the same reason when he denies that what Augustine relates about the Manichaeans could be true, arguing it is not credible that Augustine would have embraced such The author uses "portenta" (monsters/portents) to describe the "bizarre and unnatural" doctrines of the sect. monstrous things when he joined the Manichaeans. Yet he admits monstrous errors and what he himself calls (2) a terrible paradox among the Church Fathers after the Council of Nicaea; regarding which Council of Nicaea, he follows monstrous ideas himself, since he denies there was such great consensus among the Fathers, and introduces so many original: "Hæreticos" heretical Bishops (3) into that most serious and holy agreement; and he dares either to deny or to cast suspicion upon those things which are supported by the common testimony of ancient writers.

But the nature of our undertaking does not allow us to proceed further: and we would have remained silent about these things altogether, had they not been necessary for establishing the authority of those writers whom we use; lest, being ignorant of what Beausobre had opposed to them, we might nevertheless seem to call upon them in this cause. I will, however, add another point that pertains to declaring the doctrines of the Manichaeans, and I will endeavor to illustrate those things which belong to the Christian faith, contrary to what Beausobre does. For in Book III, having set out to explain the Manichaean system and the nature of God as they believed it to be, he says that Mani made this nature a certain sincere and most pure light; that this had been handed down by others and even pleased the Christian Fathers; but that the Manichaeans established that this light was by no means corporeal.

(1) See Volume 1, page 251, number 8. (2) Ibid. page 521. (3) Volume 1, book 3, chapter 6.