Anatolius and Minor Writers. (Cont.)Alexander of Cappadocia.

Translator’s Biographical Notice.

[A.D. 170-233-251.] Alexander was at first bishop of a church in Cappadocia, but on his visiting Jerusalem he was appointed to the bishopric of the church there, while the previous bishop Narcissus was alive, in consequence of a vision which was believed to be divine.1 During the Decian persecution he was thrown into prison at Caesarea, and died there,2 A.D. 251. The only writings of his which we know are those from which the extracts are made.3 

 

 

FOOTNOTES

 

1 Euseb., Hist. Eccles., vi. 11. [Narcissus must have been born about A.D. 121. Might have known Polycarp.]

2 Euseb., Hist. Eccles., vi. 46. [Narcissus lived till A.D. 237, and died a martyr, aged 116.]

3 [He was a pupil of Pantaenus, continued under Clement, and defended Origen against the severity of Demetrius. Two dates which are conjectural are adjusted to these facts. I find it difficult to reconcile them with those implied by Eusebius.]

 

From the Epistles of Alexander.

I. An Epistle to the People of Antioch.1

Alexander, a servant and prisoner of Jesus Christ, sends greeting in the Lord to the blessed church of Antioch. Easy and light has the Lord made my bonds to me during the time of my imprisonment since I have learned that in the providence of God, Asclepiades – who, in regard to the right faith, is most eminently qualified for the office – has undertaken the episcopate of your holy church of Antioch. And this epistle, my brethren and masters, I have sent by the hand of the blessed presbyter Clement,2 a man virtuous and well tried, whom ye know already, and will know yet better; who also, coming here by the providence and supervision of the Master, has strengthened and increased the Church of the Lord.

 

II. From an Epistle to the Antinoites.3

Narcissus salutes you, who held the episcopate in this district before me, who is now also my colleague and competitor in prayer for you,4 and who, having now attained to5 his hundred and tenth year, unites with me in exhorting you to be of one mind.6

 

III. From an Epistle to Origen.7

For this, as thou knowest, was the will of God, that the friendship subsisting between us from our forefathers should be maintained unbroken, yea rather, that it should increase in fervency and strength. For we are well acquainted with those blessed fathers who have trodden the course before us, and to whom we too shall soon go: Pantaenus, namely, that man verily blessed, my master; and also the holy Clement, who was once my, master and my benefactor; and all the rest who may be like them, by whose means also I have come to know thee, my lord and brother, who excellest all.8

 

IV. From an Epistle to Demetrius, Bishop of Alexandria.9

And he10 – i.e., Demetrius – has added to his letter that this is a matter that was never heard of before, and has never been done now, – namely, that laymen should take part in public speaking,11 when there are bishops present. But in this assertion he has departed evidently far from the truth by some means. For, indeed, wherever there are found persons capable of profiling the brethren, such persons are exhorted by the holy bishops to address the people. Such was the case at Laranda, where Evelpis was thus exhorted by Neon; and at Iconium, Paulinus was thus exhorted by Celsus; and at Synada, Theodorus also by Atticus, our blessed brethren. And it is probable that this is done in other places also, although we know not the fact.12

 

Note by the American Editor.

If Alexander died in the Decian persecution, it is noteworthy how far the sub-apostolic age extended. This contemporary of Cyprian was coadjutor to Narcissus, who may have seen those who knew St. John. See vol. 1. p. 416, note 5, this series; also vol 1. p. 568, Fragment ii. 

 

 

FOOTNOTES

 

1 A fragment. In Eusebius, Hist. Eccles., book vi. ch. xi.

2 It was the opinion of Jerome in his Catalogus that the Clement spoken of by Alexander was Clement of Alexandria. This Clement, at any rate, did live up to the time of the Emperor Severus, and sojourned in these parts, as he tells us himself in the first book of his Stromateis. And he was also the friend of bishop Alexander, to whom he dedicated his book On the Ecclesiastical Canon, or Against the Jews, as Eusebius states in his Eccles. Hist., book vi. ch. xiii. (Migne). [But from the third of these epistles one would certainly draw another inference. How could he, a pupil of Clement, describe and introduce his master in such terms as he uses here?]

3 In Euseb., Hist. Eccles., book vi. ch. xi.

4 συνεχεταιζομενός μοι διὰ τῶν εὐχῶν. Jerome renders it: Salutat vos Narcissus, qui ante me hic tenuit episcopalem locum et nunc mecum eundem orationibus regit.

5 ηνυκώς.

6 The text gives ὀμοιως ἐμοὶ φρονῆσαι. Several of the codices and also Nicephorus give the better reading, ὁμοιως ἐμοὶ ὁμοφρονῆσαι, which is confirmed by the interpretations of Rufinus and Jerome.

7 In Euseb., Hist. Eccles., ch. xiv.

8 [This contemporary tribute confirms the enthusiastic eulogy of the youthful Gregory. See p. 38, supra.]

9 In Euseb., Hist. Eccles., ch. xix.

10 Demetrius is, for honour’s sake, addressed in the third person. Perhaps ἡ σὴ ἁγιότης or some such form preceded.

11 ὁμιλεῖν.

12 [This precise and definite testimony is not to be controverted. It follows the traditions of the Synagogue (Act_13:15), and agrees with the Pauline prescription as to the use of the charismata in 1Co_14:1-40. The chiefs of the Synagogue retained the power of giving this liberty, and this passed to the Christian authorities.]



Anatolius and Minor Writers. (Cont.)Theognostus of Alexandria.

Translator’s Biographical Notice.

[A.D. 260. I can add nothing but conjectures to the following :] Of this Theognostus we have no account by either Eusebius or Jerome. Athanasius, however, mentions him more than once with honour. Thus he speaks of him as ἀνὴρ λόγιος, an eloquent or learned man.1 And again as Θεόγνωστος ὁ θαυμάσιος καὶ σπουδαῖος, the admirable and zealous Theognostus.2 He seems to have belonged to the Catechetical school of Alexandria, and to have flourished there in the latter half of the third century, probably about A.D. 260. That he was a disciple of Origen, or at least a devoted student of his works, is clear from Photius.3 He wrote a work in seven books, the title of which is thus given by Photius:4 The Outlines of the blessed Theognostus, the exegete of Alexandria. Dodwell and others are of opinion that by this term exegete,5 is meant the presidency of the Catechetical school and the privilege of public teaching; and that the title, Outlines,6 was taken from Clement, his predecessor in office. According to Photius, the work was on this plan. The first book treated of God the Father, as the maker of the universe; the second, of the necessary existence of the Son; the third, of the Holy Spirit; the fourth, of angels and demons; the fifth and sixth, of the incarnation of God; while the seventh bore the title, On God’s Creation.7 Photius has much to say in condemnation of Thegnostus, who, however, has been vindicated by Bull8 and Prudentius Maranus.9 Gregory of Nyssa has also charged him with holding the same error as Eunomius on the subject of the Son’s relation to the work of creation.10 He is adduced, however, by Athanasius as a defender of the Homousian doctrine.

 

 

FOOTNOTES

 

1 De Decret. Nic. Syn., 25, Works, vol. i. part i. p. 230.

2 Epist. 4, to Serapion, sec. 9, vol. i. part ii. p. 702

3 Bibl., cod. 106.

4 τοῦ μακαρίου Θεογνώστου Ἀλεξανδρέως καὶ ἐξ ηγητοῦ ὑποτυπώσες.

5 ἐξηγητοῦ.

6 ὑποτυπώσεις.

7 De Dei Creatione.

8 Defens. fid. Nic., sec. ii. 1Co_10:1-33. [Bull always vindicates where he can do so, on the principle of justice, for which I have contended on p. v. (prefatory) of vol. 4.]

9 Divinit I. C., iv. 24.

10 Book iii., against Eunomius.

 

From His Seven Books of Hypotyposes or Outlines.

I.1

The substance2 of the Son is not a substance devised extraneously,3 nor is it one introduced out of nothing;4 but it was born of the substance of the Father, as the reflection of light or as the steam of water. For the reflection is not the sun itself, and the steam is not the water itself, nor yet again is it anything alien; neither He Himself the Father, nor is He alien, but He is5 an emanation6 from the substance of the Father, this substance of the Father suffering the while no partition. For as the sun remains the same and suffers no diminution from the rays that are poured out by it, so neither did the substance of the Father undergo any change in having the Son as an image of itself.

 

II.7

Theognostus, moreover, himself adds words to this effect: He who has offended against the first term8 and the second, may be judged to deserve smaller punishment; but he who has also despised the third, can no longer find pardon. For by the first term and the second, he says, is meant the teaching concerning the Father and the Son; but by the third is meant the doctrine committed to us with respect to the perfection9 and the partaking of the Spirit. And with the view of confirming this, he adduces the word spoken by the Saviour to the disciples: “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. But when the Holy Spirit is come, He will teach you.” (Joh_16:12, Joh_16:13)

 

III.10

Then he says again: As the Saviour converses with those not yet able to receive what is perfect,11 condescending to their littleness, while the Holy Spirit communes with the perfected, and yet we could never say on that account that the teaching of the Spirit is superior to the teaching of the Son, but only that the Son condescends to the imperfect, while the Spirit is the seal of the perfected; even so it is not on account of the superiority of the Spirit over the Son that the blasphemy against the Spirit is a sin excluding impunity and pardon, but because for the imperfect there is pardon, while for those who have tasted the heavenly gift, (Heb_6:4. [Compare Mat_12:31.]) and been made perfect, there remains no plea or prayer for pardon.

 

 

FOOTNOTES

 

1 From book ii. In Athanasius, On the Decrees of the Nicene Council, sec. xxv. From the edition BB., Paris, 1698, vol. i. part i. p. 230. Athanasius introduces this fragment in the following terms: – Learn then, ye Christ-opposing Arians, that Theognostus, a man of learning, did not decline to use the expression “of the substance” (ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας). For, writing of the Son in the second book of his Outlines, he has spoken thus: The substance of the Son. – Tr.

2 οὐσία.

3 ἔξωθεν ἐφευρεθεῖσα.

4 ἐκ μὴ ὄντων ἐπεισήχθη.

5 The words in italics were inserted by Routh from a Catena on the Epistle to the Hebrews, where they are ascribed to Theognostus: “He Himself” is the Son.

6 ἀπόῤῥοια.

7 In Athanasius, Epist. 4, to Serapion, sec. 11, vol. i. part ii. p. 703.

8 ορον.

9 τελειώσει. [i.e., making the disciples τέλειοι. Jam_1:4.]

10 From Athanasius, as above, p. 155.

11 τὰ τέλεια.



Anatolius and Minor Writers. (Cont.)Pierius of Alexandria.

Pierius of Alexandria.1

Translator’s Biographical Notice.

[A.D. 275.] Among the very eminent men who flourished near his own time, Eusebius mentions Pierius, a presbyter of Alexandria, and speaks of him as greatly renowned for his voluntary poverty, his philosophical erudition and his skill in the exposition of Scripture and in discoursing to the public assemblies of the Church.2 He lived in the latter part of the third century, and seems to have been for a considerable period president of the Catechetical school at Alexandria. Jerome says that he was called Origenes, junior; and according to Photius, he shared in some of the errors of Origen, on such subjects especially as the doctrine of the Holy Ghost and the pre-existence of souls.3 In his manner of life he was an ascetic. After the persecution under Galerius or Maximus he lived at Rome. He appears to have devoted himself largely to sacred criticism and the study of the text of Scripture; and among several treatises written by him, and extant in the time of Photius, we find mention made of one on the prophet Hosea. And, in addition to the Commentary an the First Epistle to the Corinthians,4 Photius notices twelve books of his, and praises both their composition and their matter.5 

 

 

FOOTNOTES

 

1 [See Introductory Note, p. 143, supra; also p. 99, note 160, supra.]

2 Hist. Eccl., vii. 32.

3 [Perhaps only speculatively (see Frag. II. infra), not dogmatically. Compare Wordsworth’s Platonic Ode on Immorality.]

4 Lardner (part ii. book i. chap. xxiv.) does not think that there was a commentary written by Pierius on this epistle, but only that the word of Paul, mentioned below, was expounded at length in some work or other by Pierius. Fabricius holds the opposite opinion. – Tr.

5 See Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., vii. 32, Jerome in the preface to Hosea, Photius, cod. 118, 119; Epiphanius, 69, 2; Lardner, part ii. book i. chap. 24; &c.

 

I. – A Fragment of a Work of Pierius on the First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians.1

Origen, Dionysius, Pierius, Eusebius of Caesareia, Didymus, and Apollinaris, have interpreted this epistle most copiously;2 of whom Pierius, when he was expounding and unfolding the meaning of the apostle, and purposed to explain the words. For I would that all men were even as I myself, (1Co_7:7) added this remark: In saying this, Paul, without disguise, preaches celibacy.3

 

II. – A Section on the Writings of Pierius.4

 

Different Discourses of the Presbyter Pierius.

There was read a book by Pierius the presbyter, who, they say, endured the conflict5 for Christ, along with his brother Isidorus. And he is reputed to have been the teacher of the martyr Pamphilus in ecclesiastical studies, and to have been president of the school at Alexandria. The work contained twelve books.6 And in style he is perspicuous and clear, with the easy flow, as it were, of a spoken address, displaying no signs of laboured art,7 but bearing us quietly along, smoothly and gently, like off-hand speaking. And in argument he is most fertile, if any one is so. And he expresses his opinion on many things outside what is now established in the Church, perhaps in an antique manner;8 but with respect to the Father and the Son, he sets forth his sentiments piously, except that he speaks of two substances and two natures; using, however, the terms substance and nature, as is apparent from what follows, and from what precedes this passage, in the sense of person9 and not in the sense put on it by the adherents of Arius. With respect to the Spirit, however, he lays down his opinion in a very dangerous and far from pious manner. For he affirms that He is inferior to the Father and the Son in glory.10 He has a passage also in the book11 entitled, On the Gospel according to Luke, from which it is possible to show that the honour or dishonour of the image is also the honour or dishonour of the original. And, again, he indulges in some obscure speculations, after the manner of the nonsense of Origen, on the subject of the “pre-existence of souls.” And also in the book on the Passover (Easter) and on Hosea, he treats both of the cherubim made by Moses, and of the pillar of Jacob, in which passages he admits the actual construction of those things, but propounds the foolish theory that they were given economically, and that they were in no respect like other things which are made; inasmuch as they bore the likeness of no other form, but had only, as he foolishly says, the appearance of wings.12 

 

 

FOOTNOTES

 

1 This very brief quotation is preserved in Jerome’s Second Epistle to Pammachius.

2 Latissime.

3 Vol. iv. p. 243, edit. Benedictin. [No doubt he does, as did his Master, Christ, before him, and under the same limitations. Mat_19:12.]

4 From the Bibliotheca of Photius, cod. 119, p. 300, ed. Hoeschel.

5 Of martyrdom.

6 λόγους.

7 ἐπιμελὲς ἐνδεικνύμενος.

8 [e.g., his Platonic ideas, as explained in note 3, p. 156, supra.]

9 ὑπόστασις. [See my remarks, vol. 4. p. v., introductory.]

10 [Photius must often be received with a grain of salt.]

11 εἰς τον λόγον. [On images, etc., Photius is no authority.]

12 The text here is evidently corrupt. It runs thus: οἰκονομίας δὲ λόγῳ συγχωρηθῆναι ματαιολογεῖ ὡς οὐδέν ἦσαν ὼς ετερα τὰ γεγενημένα. ὡς οὑδὲ τυπον ἄλλον ἔφερε μορφῆς, ἀλλὰ μόνον πτερυγων κενολογεῖ φερειν αὐτὰ σχῆμα. Hoeschelius proposes ὡς οὐδὲν ἦσαν, ὡς ετερον ἦσαν, ὡς ετερα, &c., and he rejects the ὡς in ὡς οὐδὲν τύπον on the authority of four codices. – Tr.



Anatolius and Minor Writers. (Cont.)Theonas of Alexandria.

Translator’s Biographical Notice.

[A.D. 300.] Of this Theonas we know extremely little. Eusebius1 tells us that Maximus, who had held the episcopal office at Alexandria for eighteen years after the death of Dionysius, was succeeded by Theonas. That bishopric, we also learn, he held for nineteen years. His date is fixed as from about 282 to 300 A.D. The only thing of his that has come down to our time is his letter to Lucianus, the chief chamberlain,2 and a person in high favour with the emperor. This epistle, which is a letter of advice to that individual on the duties of his office, was first published in the Spicilegium of Dacherius, and again in Gallandi’s Bibliotheca. The name of the emperor is not given, neither does the letter itself tell us who the Bishop Theonas was who wrote it. Hence some have, without much reason, supposed another Theonas, bishop of Cyzicus, as the author. And some, such as Cave, have thought the emperor in question was Constantius Chlorus. But the whole circumstances suit Diocletian best.3 Some infer from the diction of the epistle, as we have it, that it is a translation from a Greek original.

 

 

FOOTNOTES

 

1 Hist. Eccl., vii. 32.

2 Praepositus cubiculariorum.

3 See Neander’s Church History, vol. i. p. 197 (Bohn). [Christians began to be preferred for their probity. Diocletian’s reign at first gave the Church a long peace (see vol. 4. p. 126) of well-nigh ten years.]

 

The Epistle of Theonas, Bishop of Alexandria, to Lucianus, the Chief Chamberlain.1

Bishop Theonas to Lucianus, the Chief Chamberlain of Our Most Invincible Emperor.

I.

I give thanks to Almighty God and our Lord Jesus Christ, who has not given over the manifesting of His faith throughout the whole world, as the sole specific for our salvation,2 and the extending of it even in the course of the persecutions of despots. Yea, like gold reduced in the furnace, it has only been made to shine the more under the storms of persecution, and its truth and grandeur have only become always the more and more illustrious, so that now, peace being granted to the churches by our gracious prince, the works of Christians are shining even in sight of the unbelieving, and God your Father, who is in heaven, is glorified thereby; (Mat_5:16) a thing which, if we desire to be Christians in deed rather than in word, we ought to seek and aspire after as our first object on account of our salvation. For if we seek our own glory, we set our desire upon a vain and perishing object, and one which leads ourselves on to death. But the glory of the Father and of the Son, who for our salvation was nailed to the cross, makes us safe for the everlasting redemption; and that is the greatest hope of Christians.

Wherefore, my Lucianus, I neither suppose nor desire that yon should make it a matter of boasting, that by your means many persons belonging to the palace of the emperor have been brought to the knowledge of the truth; but rather does it become us to give the thanks to our God who has made thee a good instrument for a good work, and has raised thee to great honour with the emperor, that you might diffuse the sweet savour of the Christian name to His own glory and to the salvation of many. For just the more completely that the emperor himself. though not yet attached3 to the Christian religion, has entrusted the care of his life and person to these same Christians as his more faithful servants, so much the more careful ought ye to be, and the more diligent and watchful in seeing to his safety and in attending upon him, so that the name of Christ may be greatly glorified thereby, and His faith extended daily through you who wait upon the emperor. For in old times some former princes thought us malevolent and filled with all manner of crime; but now, seeing your good works, they should not be able to avoid glorifying Christ Himself.4

 

II.

Therefore you ought to strive to the utmost of your power not to fall into a base or dishonourable, not to say an absolutely flagitious way of thinking, lest the name of Christ be thus blasphemed even by you. Be it far from you that you should sell the privilege of access to the emperor to any one for money, or that you should by any means place a dishonest account of any affair before your prince, won over either by prayers or by bribes. Let all the lust of avarice be put from you, which serves the cause of idolatry rather than the religion of Christ. (Eph_5:4, Eph_5:5) No filthy lucre, no duplicity, can befit the Christian who embraces the simple and unadorned5 Christ. Let no scurrilous or base talk have place among you. Let all things be done with modesty, courteousness, affability, and uprightness, so that the name of our God and Lord Jesus Christ may be glorified in all.

Discharge the official duties to which yon are severally appointed with the utmost fear of God and affection to your prince, and perfect carefulness. Consider that every command of the emperor which does not offend God has proceeded from God Himself;6 and execute it in love as well as in fear, and with all cheerfulness. For there is nothing which so well refreshes a man who is wearied out with weighty cares as the seasonable cheerfulness and benign patience of an intimate servant; nor, again, on the other hand, does anything so much annoy and vex him as the moroseness and impatience and grumbling of his servant. Be such things far from you Christians, whose walk is in zeal for the faith.7 But in order that God may be honoured (1Pe_4:11) in yourselves, suppress ye and tread down all your vices of mind and body. Be clothed with patience and courtesy; be replenished with the virtues and the hope of Christ. Bear all things for the sake of your Creator Himself; endure all things; overcome and get above all things, that ye may win Christ the Lord. Great are these duties, and full of painstaking. But he that striveth for the mastery (1Co_9:25) is temperate in all things; and they do it to obtain a corruptible crown, but we an incorruptible.

 

III.

But because, as I apprehend it, ye are assigned to different offices, and you, Lucianus, are styled the head of them all, whom, also, by the grace of Christ given you, you are able to direct and dispose in their different spheres, I am certain that it will not displease you if I also bring before your notice, in a particular and summary manner, some of my sentiments on the subject of these offices. For I hear that one of you keeps the private moneys of the emperor; another the imperial robes and ornaments; another the precious vessels; another the books, who, I understand, does not as yet belong to the believers; and others the different parts of the household goods. And in what manner, therefore, these charges ought, in my judgment, to be executed, I shall indicate in a few words.

 

IV.

He who has charge of the private moneys of the emperor ought to keep every thing in an exact reckoning. He should be ready at any time to give an accurate account of all things. He should note down every thing in writing, if it is at all possible, before giving money to another. He should never trust such things to his memory, which, being drawn off day by day to other matters, readily fails us, so that, without writing, we sometimes honestly certify things which have never existed; neither should this kind of writing be of a commonplace order, but such as easily and clearly unfolds all things, and leaves the mind of the inquirer without any scruple or doubt on the subject; a thing which will easily he effected if a distinct and separate account is kept in writing of all receipts, and of the time when, and the person by whom, and the place at which they were made.8 And, in like manner, all that is paid out to others, or expended by order of the emperor, should be entered in its own place by itself in the reckoning; and that servant should be faithful and prudent, so that his lord may rejoice that he has set him over his goods (Mat_24:45, Mat_24:47) and may glorify Christ in him.

 

V.

Nor will the diligence and care of that servant be less who has the custody of the robes and imperial ornaments. All these he should enter in a most exact catalogue, and he should keep a note of what they are and of what sort, and in what places stored, and when he received them, and from whom, and whether they are soiled or unsoiled. All these things he should keep in his diligence; he should often review again, and he should often go over them that they may be the more readily known again. All these he should have at hand, and all in readiness; and he should always give the clearest information on every matter on which it is sought, to his prince or his superior, whenever they ask about any thing; and all this at the same time in such wise that every thing may be done in humility and cheerful patience, and that the name of Christ may be praised even in a small matter.

 

VI.

In a similar manner should he conduct himself to whose fidelity are entrusted the vessels of silver and gold, and crystal or murrha,9 for eating or for drinking. All these he should arrange suitably, of them all he should keep an account, and with all diligence he should make an inventory of how many and which sort of precious stones are in them. He should examine them all with great prudence; he should produce them in their proper places and on their proper occasions. And he should observe most carefully to whom he gives them, and at what time, and from whom he receives them again, lest there should occur any mistake or injurious suspicion, or perhaps some considerable loss in things of value.

 

VII.

The most responsible person. however, among you, and also the most careful, will be he who may be entrusted by the emperor with the custody of his library. He will himself select for this office a person of proved knowledge, a man grave and adapted to great affairs, and ready to reply to all applications for information, such a one as Philadelphus chose for this charge, and appointed to the superintendence of his most noble library — I mean Aristeus, his confidential chamberlain, whom he sent also as his legate to Eleazar, with most magnificent gifts, in recognition of the translation of the Sacred Scriptures; and this person also wrote the full history of the Seventy Interpreters. If, therefore, it should happen that a believer in Christ is called to this same office, he should not despise that secular literature and those Gentile intellects which please the emperor.10 To be praised are the poets for the greatness of their genius, the acuteness of their inventions, the aptness and lofty eloquence of their style. To be praised are the orators; to be praised also are the philosophers in their own class. To be praised, too, are the historians, who unfold to us the order of exploits, and the manners and institutions of our ancestors, and show us the rule of life from the proceedings of the ancients. On occasion also he will endeavour to laud the divine Scriptures, which, with marvellous care and most liberal expenditure, Ptolemy Philadelphus caused to be translated into our language;11 and sometimes, too, the Gospel and the Apostle will be landed for their divine oracles; and there will be an opportunity for introducing the mention of Christ; and, little by little, His exclusive divinity will be explained; and all these things may happily come to pass by the help of Christ.

He ought, therefore, to know all the books which the emperor possesses; he should often turn them over, and arrange them neatly in their proper order by catalogue; if, however, he shall have to get new books, or old ones transcribed, he should be careful to obtain the most accurate copyists; and if that cannot be done, he should appoint learned men to the work of correction, and recompense them justly for their labours. He should also cause all manuscripts to be restored according to their need, and should embellish them, not so much with mere superstitious extravagance, as with useful adornment; and therefore he should not aim at having the whole manuscripts written on purple skins and in letters of gold, unless the emperor has specially required that. With the utmost, most submission, however, he should do every thing that is agreeable to Caesar. As he is able, he should, with all modesty, suggest to the emperor that he should read, or hear read, those books which suit his rank and honour, and minister to good use rather than to mere pleasure. He should himself first be thoroughly familiar with those books, and he should often commend them in presence of the emperor, and set forth, in an appropriate fashion, the testimony and the weight of those who approve them, that he may not seem to lean to his own understanding only.

 

VIII.

Those, moreover, who have the care of the emperor’s person should be in all things as prompt as possible; always, as we have said, cheerful in countenance, sometimes merry, but ever with such perfect modesty as that he may commend it above all else in you all, and perceive that it is the true product of the religion of Christ. You should also all be elegant and tidy in person and attire, yet, at the same time, not in such wise as to attract notice by extravagance or affectation, lest Christian modesty be scandalised.12 Let every thing be ready at its proper time, and disposed as well as possible in its own order. There should also be due arrangement among you, and carefulness that no confusion appear in your work, nor any loss of property in any way; and appropriate places should be settled and suitably prepared, in accordance with the capacity (captu) and importance of the places.

Besides this, your servants should be the most thoroughly honest, and circumspect, and modest, and as serviceable to you as possible. And see that you instruct and teach them in true doctrine with all the patience and charity of Christ; but if they despise and lightly esteem your instructions, then dismiss them, lest their wickedness by any hap recoil upon yourselves. For sometimes we have seen, and often we have heard, how masters have been held in ill-repute in consequence of the wickedness of their servants.

If the emperor visits her imperial majesty, or she him, then should ye also be most circumspect in eye and demeanour, and in all your words. Let her mark your mastery of yourselves and your modesty;13 and let her followers and attendants mark your demeanour; let them mark it and admire it, and by reason thereof praise Jesus Christ our Lord in you. Let your conversation always be temperate and modest, and seasoned with religion as with salt. (Col_4:6) And, further, let there be no jealousy among you or contentiousness, which might bring you into all manner of confusion and division, and thus also make you objects of aversion to Christ and to the emperor, and lead you into the deepest abomination, so that not one stone of your building could stand upon another.

 

IX.

And do thou, my dearest Lucianus, since thou art wise, bear with good-will the unwise; (2Co_11:19) and they too may perchance become wise. Do no one an injury at any time, and provoke no one to anger. If an injury is done to you, look to Jesus Christ; and even as ye desire that He may remit your transgressions, do ye also forgive them theirs; (Mar_11:25) and then also shall ye do away with all ill-will, and bruise the head of that ancient serpent, (Rom_16:20) who is ever on the watch with all subtlety to undo your good works and your prosperous attainments. Let no day pass by without reading some portion of the Sacred Scriptures, at such convenient hour as offers, and giving some space to meditation.14 And never cast off the habit of reading in the Holy Scriptures; for nothing feeds the soul and enriches the mind so well as those sacred studies do. But look to this as the chief gain you are to make by them, that, in all due patience, ye may discharge the duties of your office religiously and piously — that is, in the love of Christ — and despise all transitory objects for the sake of His eternal promises, which in truth surpass all human comprehension and understanding15 and shall conduct you into everlasting felicity.

A happy adieu to you in Christ, my Lord Lucianus.

 

 

FOOTNOTES

 

1 In Dacherii Spicilegium, iii. pp. 297-299.

2 In salutis nostrae unicum remedium.

3 Ascriptus.

4 [A beautiful concern of our author for the honour of the Master seems to have dictated this noble letter. Mat_5:16.]

5 Nudum.

6 [See note 249, p. 108, supra.]

7 Qui zelo fidei inceditis.

8 [A most important hint to the clergy in their accounts with the Church.]

9 Murrhine vessels were first introduced into Rome by Pompey. They were valued chiefly for their variegated colours, and were extremely costly. Some think they were made of onyx stone, others of variegated glass; but most modern writers suppose that what is meant was some sort of porcelain.

10 [A lofty spirit of liberal love for literature is here exemplified.]

11 It is from these words that the inference is drawn that this epistle was written by a Greek.

12 [The teachings of Clement had formed the minor morals of Christians. See vol. 2. book ii. pp. 237, 284.]

13 [Thus is reflected the teaching of St. Paul, 1Ti_5:2. All women to be honoured, and “all purity” to characterize society with them.]

14 [Blessed spirit of primitive piety! Is not this rule too much relaxed in our own Laodicean age?]

15 Phi_4:7. [How much there is in this letter which ought to prick the consciences of wealthy and “fashionable” Christians of our day!]



Anatolius and Minor Writers. (Cont.)Phileas.

Translator’s Biographical Notice.

[A.D. 307.] From Jerome1 we learn that this Phileas belonged to Thmuis, a town of Lower Egypt, the modern Tmai, which was situated between the Tanite and Mendesian branches of the Nile, an episcopal seat, and in the time of Valentinian and Theodosius the Great a place of considerable consequence, enjoying a separate government of its own. Eusebius2 speaks of him as a man not less distinguished for his services to his country than for his eminence in philosophical studies and his proficiency in foreign literature and science. He tells us further, that, along with another person of considerable importance, by name Philoromus, being brought to trial for his faith, he withstood the threats and insults of the judge, and all the entreaties of relatives and friends, to compromise his Christian belief, and was condemned to lose his head. Jerome also, in the passage already referred to, names him a true philosopher, and, at the same time, a godly martyr; and states, that on assuming the bishopric of his native district, he wrote a very, elegant book in praise of the martyrs. Of this book certain fragments are preserved for us in Eusebius. In addition to these we have also an epistle which the same Phileas seems to have written in the name of three other bishops, as well as himself, to Meletius, the bishop of Lycopolis, and founder of the Meletian schism. This epistle appears to have been written in Greek; but we possess only a Latin version, which, however, from its abrupt style, is believed to be very ancient. The four bishops whose names stand at the head of the Epistle – viz., Hesychius, Pachomius, Theodorus, and Phileas, are also mentioned by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., viii. 13) as distinguished martyrs. This epistle was written evidently when those bishops were in prison, and its date is determined by the mention of Peter as the then bishop of Alexandria. The martyrdom of Phileas is fixed with much probability as happening at Alexandria, under Maximus, about the year 307 A.D.3 [But see Neale, Patriarchate of Alex., i. pp. 97-101, for his view of two bearing this name.]

 

 

FOOTNOTES

 

1 De vir. illustr., chap. 78.

2 Hist. Eccles., viii. 9 and 10.

3 [His diocese belonged to the region over which Alexandria had the primacy by the “ancient usages.”]

 

Fragments of the Epistle of Phileas to the People of Thmuis.1

I.

Having before them all these examples and signs and illustrious tokens which are given us in the divine and holy Scriptures, the blessed martyrs who lived with us did not hesitate. but, directing the eye of their soul in sincerity to that God who is over all, and embracing with willing mind the death which their piety cost them, they adhered steadfastly to their vocation. For they learned that our Lord Jesus Christ endured man’s estate on our behalf, that He might destroy all sin, and furnish us with the provision needful for our entrance into eternal life. “For He thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made Himself of no reputation, taking upon Him the form of a servant: and being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself unto death, even the death of the cross.” (Phi_2:6-8) For which reason also these Christ-bearing2 martyrs sought zealously the greater gifts, and endured, some of them, every kind of pain and all the varied contrivances of torture not merely once, bat once and again; and though the guards showed their fury against them not only by threatenings in word, but also by deeds of violence, they did not swerve from their resolution, because perfect love casteth out fear. (1Jo_4:18)

 

II.

And to narrate their virtue and their manly endurance under every torment, what language would suffice? For as every one who chose was at liberty to abuse them, some beat them with wooden clubs,3 and others with rods, and others with scourges, and others again with thongs, land others with ropes. And the spectacle of these modes of torture had great variety in it, and exhibited vast malignity. For some had their hands bound behind them, and were suspended on the rack and bad every, limb in their body stretched with a certain kind of pulleys.4 Then after all this the torturers, according to their orders, lacerated with the sharp iron claws5 the whole body, not merely, as in the case of murderers, the sides only, but also the stomach and the knees and the cheeks. And others were hung up in mid-air, suspended by one hand from the portico, and their sufferings were fiercer than any other kind of agony by reason of the distention of their joints and limbs. And others were bound to pillars, face to face, not touching the ground with their feet, but hanging with all the weight of the body, so that their chains were drawn all the more tightly by reason of the tension. And this they endured not simply as long as the governor6 spoke with them, or had leisure to hear them, but well-nigh through the whole day. For when he passed on to others he left some of those under his authority to keep watch over these former, and to observe whether any of them, being overcome by the torture, seemed likely to yield. But he gave them orders at the same time to cast them into chains without sparing, and thereafter, when they were expiring, to throw them on the ground and drag them along. For they said that they would not give themselves the slightest concern about us, but would look upon us and deal with us as if we were nothing at all. This second mode of torture our enemies devised then over and above the scourging.

 

III.

And there were also some who, after the tortures, were placed upon the stocks and had both their feet stretched through all the four holes, so that they were compelled to lie on their back on the stocks, as they were unable (to stand) in, consequence of the fresh wounds they had over the whole body from the scourging. And others being thrown upon the ground lay prostrated there by the excessively frequent application of the tortures; in which condition they exhibited to the onlookers a still more dreadful spectacle than they did when actually undergoing their torments, bearing, as they did, on their bodies the varied and manifold tokens of the cruel ingenuity of their tortures. While this state of matters went on some died under their tortures putting the adversary to shame by their constancy. And others were thrust half-dead into the prison, where in a few days, worn out with their agonies, they met their end. But the rest, getting sure recovery under the application of remedies, through time and their lengthened detention in prison, became more confident. And thus then, when they were commanded to make their choice between these alternatives, namely, either to put their hand to the unholy sacrifice and thus secure exemption from further trouble, and obtain from them their abominable sentence of absolution and liberation,7 or else to refuse to sacrifice, and thus expect the judgment of death to be executed on them, they never hesitated, but went cheerfully to death.8 For they knew the sentence declared for us of old by the Holy Scriptures: “He that sacrificeth to other gods,” it is said, “shall be utterly destroyed.” (Exo_22:20) And again (Exo_20:3) “Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.”9

 

The Epistle of the Same Phileas of Thmuis to Meletius, Bishop of Lycopolis.

The Beginning of the Epistle of the Bishops.10

Hesychius, Pachomius, Theodorus, and Phileas, to Meletius, our friend and fellow-minister in the Lord, greeting. Some reports having reached us concerning thee, which, on the testimony of certain individuals who came to us, spake of certain things foreign to divine order and ecclesiastical rule which are being attempted, yea, rather which are being done by thee, we, in an ingenuous manner held them to be untrustworthy, regarding them to be such as we would not willingly credit, when we thought of the audacity implied in their magnitude and their uncertain attempts. But since many who are visiting us at the present time have lent some credibility to these reports, and have not hesitated to attest them as facts, we, to our exceeding surprise, have been compelled to indite this letter to thee. And what agitation and sadness have been caused to us all in common and to each of us individually by (the report of) the ordination carried through by thee in parishes having no manner of connection with thee, we are unable sufficiently to express. We have not delayed, however, by a short statement to prove your practice wrong. There is the law of our fathers and forefathers, of which neither art thou thyself ignorant, established according to divine and ecclesiastical order; for it is all for the good pleasure of God and the zealous regard. of better things.11 By them it has been established and settled that it is not lawful for any bishop to celebrate ordinations in other parishes12 than his own; a law which is exceedingly important13 and wisely devised. For, in the first place, it is but right that the conversation and life of those who are ordained should be examined with great care; and in the second place, that all confusion and turbulence should be done away with. For every one shall have enough to do in managing his own parish, and in finding with great care and many anxieties suitable subordinates among these with whom he has passed his whole life, and who have been trained under his hands. But thou, neither making any account of these things, nor regarding the future, nor considering the law of our sainted fathers and those who have been taken to Christ time after time. nor the honour of our great bishop and father,14 Peter15 on whom we all depend in the hope which we have in the Lord Jesus Christ, nor softened by our imprisonments and trials, and daily and multiplied reproach, hast ventured on subverting all things at once. And what means will be left thee for justifying thyself with respect to these things? But perhaps thou wilt say: I did this to prevent many being drawn away with the unbelief of many, because the flocks were in need and forsaken, there being no pastor with them. Well, but it is most certain that they are not in such destitution: in the first place, because there are many going about them and in a position to act as visitors; and in the second place, even if there was some measure of neglect on their side, then the proper way would have been for the representation to be made promptly by the people, and for us to take account of them according to their desert.16 But they knew that they were in no want of ministers, and therefore they did not come to seek them. They knew that we were wont to discharge them with an admonition from such inquisition for matter of complaint, or that everything was done with all carefulness which seemed to be for their profit; for all was done under correction,17 and all was considered with well-approved honesty. Thou, however, giving such strenuous attention to the deceits of certain parties and their vain words, hast made a stealthy leap to the celebrating of ordinations. For if, indeed, those with thee were constraining thee to this, and in their ignorance were doing violence to ecclesiastical order, thou oughtest to have followed the common rule and have informed us by letter; and in that way what seemed expedient would have been done. And if perchance some persuaded you to credit their story that it was all over with us, – a thing of which thou couldest not have been ignorant, because there were many passing and repassing by us who might visit you, – even although, I say, this had been the case, yet thou oughtest to have waited for the judgment of the superior father and for his allowance of this practice. But without giving any heed to these matters, I but indulging a different expectation, yea rather, indeed, denying all respect to us, thou hast provided certain rulers for the people. For now we have learned, too, that there were also divisions,18 because thy unwarrantable exercise of the right of ordination displeased many. And thou wert not persuaded to delay such procedure or restrain thy purpose readily even by the word of the Apostle Paul, the most blessed seer,19 and the man who put on Christ, who is the Christ of all of us no less; for he, in writing to his dearly-beloved son Timothy, says: “Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins.” (1Ti_5:22) And thus he at once shows his own anxious consideration for him,20 and gives him his example and exhibits the law according to which, with all carefulness and caution, parties are to be chosen for the honour of ordination.21 We make this declaration to thee, that in future thou mayest study22 to keep within the safe and salutary limits of the law.

 

The Conclusion of the Epistle of the Bishops.

After receiving and perusing this epistle, he neither wrote any reply nor repaired to them in the prison, nor went to the blessed Peter. But when all these bishops and presbyters and deacons had suffered martyrdom in the prison at Alexandria, be at once entered Alexandria. Now in that city there was a certain person, by name Isidorus, turbulent in character, and possessed with the ambition of being a teacher. And there was also a certain Arius, who wore the habit of piety, and was in like manner possessed with the ambition to be a teacher. And when they discovered the object of Meletius’s passion23 and what it was that he sought, hastening to him, and looking with an evil eye on the episcopal authority of the blessed Peter, that the aim and desire of Meletius might be made patent,24 they discovered to Meletius certain presbyters, then in hiding, to whom the blessed Peter had given power to act as parish-visitors. And Meletius recommending them to improve the opportunity given them for rectifying their error, suspended them for the time, and by his own authority ordained two persons in their place,25 namely, one in prison and another in the mines. On learning these things the blessed Peter, with much endurance, wrote to the people of Alexandria an epistle in the following terms.26 

 

 

FOOTNOTES

 

1 In Eusebius, Hist. Eccles., viii. 10.

2 χριστοφόροι. So Ignatius of Antioch was called θεοφόρος, God-bearer. [Vol. 1. pp. 45, 49, this series.]

3 ξύλοις. What is mean, however, may be the instrument called by the Romans equuleus, a kind of rack in the shape of a horse, commonly used in taking the evidence of slaves.

4 μαγγάνοις τισί.

5 The text gives ἀμυντηριοις ἐκόλαζον, for which Nicephorus reads ἀμυντηριους τὰς κολάσεις. The ἀμυντηρια were probably the Latin ungulae, an instrument of torture like claws. So Rufinus understand the phrase.

6 ἡγεμών. That is probably the Roman Praefectus Augustalis.

7 τῆς ἐπαράτου ἑλευθεριάς.

8 [It is impossible to accept modern theories of the inconsiderable number of the primitive martyrs, in view of the abounding evidences of a chronic and continuous persecution always evidenced by even these fragments of authentic history. See vol. 4. p. 125.]

9 Eusebius, after quoting these passages, adds: – “These are the words of a true philosopher, and one who was no less a lover of God than of wisdom, which, before the final sentence of his judge, and while he lay yet in prison, he addressed to the brethren in his church, at once to represent to them in what condition he was himself, and to exhort them to maintain steadfastly, even after his speedy death, their piety towards Christ.” – Tr.

10 This epistle was first edited by Scipio Maffeius from an ancient Verona manuscript in the Osserv. Letter, vol. iii. pp. 11-17, where is given the Fragment of a History of the Meletian Schism. See Neander’s important remarks on this whole document, Church History, iii. p. 310 (Bohn). – Tr.

11 Zelo meliorum.

12 [Parishes = dioceses (so called now); but they were very small territorially, and every city had its “bishop.” See Bingham, book ix. cap. 2, and Euseb., book v. cap. 23. Comp. note 218, p. 106, supra.]

13 Bene nimis magna.

14 [The bishops of Alexandria are called popes to this day, and were so from the beginning. See vol. 5. p. 154.]

15 [Peter succeeded Theonas as sixteenth bishop and primate of Alexandria. See vol. 4. p. 384; also Neale, Pat of Alex., i. p. 90.]

16 Oportuerat ex populo properare ac nos exigere pro merito.

17 Sub arguente.

18 The manuscript reads chrismata, for which schismata is proposed.

19 Provisoris – perhaps rather, the provider – the saint who with careful forethought has mapped out our proper course in such matters.

20 Erga illum providentiam.

21 The manuscript gives ordinando adnuntias, for which is proposed ordinandi. Adnuntiamus.

22 Reading studeas for studetur.

23 Cupiditatem.

24 Ut cogniscatur concupiscentia Meletii.

25 The text is – Commendans ei occaionem Meletius, separavit eos, &c.; on which see especially Neander, iii. p. 311 (Bohn).

26 This epistle is given elsewhere. [This volume, infra.]



Anatolius and Minor Writers. (Cont.)Pamphilus.

Translator’s Biographical Notice.

[A.D. 309.] According to the common account Pamphilus was a native of Berytus, the modern Beirut, and a member of a distinguished Phoenician family. Leaving Berytus, however, at an early period, he repaired to Alexandria and studied under Pierius, the well-known head of the Catechetical school there. At a subsequent period he went to the Palestinian Caesareia, and was made a presbyter of the Church there under Bishop Agapius. In course of the persecutions of Diocletian he was thrown into prison by Urbanus, the governor of Palestine. This took place towards the end of the year 307 A.D., and his confinement lasted till the beginning of the year 309, when he suffered martyrdom by order of Firmilianus, who had succeeded Urbanus in the governorship of the country. During his imprisonment he enjoyed the affectionate attendance of Eusebius, the Church historian, and the tender friendship which subsisted long between the two is well known. It was as a memorial of that intimacy that Eusebius took the surname of Pamphili. Pamphilus appears to have given himself up with great enthusiasm to the promotion of Biblical studies, and is spoken of as the founder of a theological school in which special importance was attached to exposition. He busied himself also with the transcription and dissemination of the Scriptures and other writings, such as those of Origen, of whom he was a devoted follower. At Caesareia he established a great public library,1 consisting mainly of ecclesiastical writers; and among the treasures of that library are mentioned the Tetrapla and Hexapla of Origen, from which, with the help of Eusebius, he produced a new and revised edition of the Septuagint. There is a statement in Jerome2 to the effect that, though he was so great a student of the writings of others, Pamphilus, through an excess of modesty, wrote no work of his own, with exception of some letters to his friends.3 But there is a work bearing the title of An Exposition of the Chapters of the Acts of the Apostles, which is attributed by many to him, although others ascribe it to Euthalius, bishop of Sulce. And besides this there is also the Apology for Origen, of which, according to the statement of Photius,4 the first five books were compiled by Pamphilus, in conjunction with Eusebius, during the period of his imprisonment, the sixth book being added by Eusebius after his friend’s martyrdom. Of this Apology we possess now only the first book, and that, too, only in the faulty Latin version of Rufinus. There are repeated and warmly eulogistic references to Pamphilus in the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius. Thus he speaks of him as that holy martyr of our day;5 and as that most eloquent man, and that philosopher truly such in his life;6 and again, as that most admirable man of our times, that glory of the church of Caesareia.7 He devotes the eleventh chapter of the eighth book also to a notice of Pamphilus and other martyrs. And besides all this he wrote a separate life of his friend, in three books, of which, however, all has perished, with exception of a few disputed fragments.8 

 

 

FOOTNOTES

 

1 [Another glorious product of the school of Alexandria.]

2 Apol. contr. Ruf., book i. num. 9, Works, ii. p. 465.

3 Proprii operis nihil omnino scripsit, exceptis epistolis quas ad amicos forte mittebat; in tantum se humilitate dejecerat.

4 Bibl. Cod., cxviii. p. 295.

5 Bibl. Cod., vi. 32.

6 Bibl. Cod., vii. 32.

7 Bibl. Cod., viii. 13.

8 [Evidently he impressed Eusebius as an extraordinary man in an age of colossal minds, and we must lament the loss of his writings.]

 

An Exposition of the Chapters of the Acts of the Apostles.1

Having had ourselves the advantage of the method and model received from our fathers and teachers, we attempt, in a modest way, to give these in this exposition of the chapters, entreating your forgiveness for the rashness of such an endeavour in us who are young in point both of years and of study,2 and looking to have the indulgence3 of every one who reads this writing in prayer on our behalf. We make this exposition, therefore, after the history of Luke, the evangelist and historian. And, accordingly, we have indicated whole chapters by the letters of the alphabet,4 and their subdivisions into parts we have noted by means of the asterisk.5

A. Of Christ’s teaching after His resurrection, and of His appearing to the disciples, and of the promise of the gift of the Holy Ghost, and of the spectacle and manner of Christ’s assumption.6

B. Peter’s discourse to those who were made disciples, on the subject of the death and reprobation7 of Judas;8 * in this chapter we have also the section on the substitution of Matthias, who was elected by lot through the grace of God with prayer.

C. Of the divine descent9 of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost which lighted on them who believed. In this we have also the instruction delivered by Peter, and * passages from the prophets on the subject, and * on the passion and resurrection and assumption of Christ, and the gift of the Holy Ghost; also * of the faith of those present, and their salvation by baptism; and, further,* of the unity of spirit pervading the believers and promoting the common good, and of the addition made to their number. 

D. Of the healing in (the name of) Christ of the man lame from his birth; and of the discourse10 of Peter, in which he reasons and sympathizes and counsels with respect to his11 salvation. And here we have * the interposition 12 of the chief priests through jealousy of what had taken place, and their judgment on the miracle, and Peter’s confession13 of the power and grace of Christ. Also the section on* the unbelieving chief priests, commanding that they should not speak boldly in the name of Christ,14 and of the dismissal15of the apostles. Then * the thanksgivings offered up by the Church for the faithful constancy of the apostles.

E. Of the harmonious and universal fellowship of the believers; and also * of Ananias and Sapphira and their miserable end.

F. Of the apostles being cast into prison, and led out of it by night by the angel of the Lord, who enjoined them to preach Jesus without restraint; and * of the fact that, on the following day, the chief priests apprehended them again, and, after scourging them, sent them away with the charge not to teach any longer. Then * the trusty opinion of Gamaliel touching the apostles, together with certain examples and proofs.

G. Of the election of the seven deacons.

H. The rising and slanderous information of the Jews against Stephen, and his address concerning the covenant of God with Abraham, and concerning the twelve patriarchs. Also the account of the famine and the buying of corn, and the mutual recognition of the sons of Jacob, and of the birth of Moses and the appearance of God16 to Moses, which took place at Mount Sinai. * Also of the exodus and calf-making of Israel (and other matters), up to the times of Solomon and the building of the temple. * Then the acknowledgment of the supercelestial glory of Jesus Christ which was revealed to Stephen himself, on account of which Stephen was himself stoned, and fell asleep piously.

I. Of the persecution of the Church and the burial of Stephen; also * of the healing of many in Samaria by Philip the apostle. 

J. Of Simon Magus, who believed and was baptized with many others; also* of the sending of Peter and John to them, and their praying for the descent of the Holy Ghost upon the baptized.

K. That the participation of the Holy Ghost was not given17 for money,18 nor to hypocrites, but to saints by faith; also* of the hypocrisy and the reproof of Simon.

L. That the Lord helps the good and the believing on the way to salvation, as is shown from the instance of the eunuch.

M. Of the divine call that came from heaven for Paul to the apostleship of Christ; also* of the healing and the baptism of Paul by the hand of Ananias, in accordance with the revelation from God, and of his boldness of speech and his association with the apostles by the instrumentality of Barnabas.19

N. Of the paralytic Aeneas who was cured by Peter at Lydda. Also* the account of Tabitha, the friend of widows, whom Peter raised from the dead by means of prayer in Joppa.

O. Of Cornelius, and what the angel said to him. Also what was spoken20 to Peter from heaven with respect to the calling of the Gentiles. Then* that Peter, on being summoned, came to Cornelius. *The repetition by Cornelius of the things which the angel hid21 to Cornelius himself. *Peter’s instruction of them in Christ, and the gift of the Holy Ghost upon those who heard him, and how those who believed from among the Gentiles were baptized there.

P. That Peter recounts to the apostles who contended with him22 all the things that had happened in order and separately. Then the sending of Barnabas to the brethren in Antioch.

Q. The prophecy of Agabus respecting the famine in the world,23 and the liberal relief sent to the brethren in Jerusalem.

R. The slaying of the Apostle James. *Also the apprehension of Peter by Herod, and the account of the manner in which the angel by divine command delivered him from his bonds, and how Peter, after showing himself to the disciples by night, quietly withdrew. Also of the punishment of the keepers, and then of the miserable and fatal overthrow24 of the impious Herod.

S. The sending of Barnabas and Paul by the Holy Ghost to Cyprus. * The things which he did25 there in the name of Christ on Elymas the sorcerer.

T. Paul’s admirable26 exposition of the truth concerning Christ, both from the law and from the prophets in their order, both historical and evangelical;* his use both of the confuting and the argumentative mode of discourse on the subject of the transference of the word of preaching to the Gentiles, and of their persecution and their arrival at Iconium.

U. How, when they had preached Christ in Iconium, and many had believed, the apostles were persecuted.

V. Of the man lame from his birth in Lystra who was healed by the apostles; on account of which they were taken by the people of the place for gods who had appeared on earth. After that, however, Paul is stoned there by the neighbouring people.

W. That according to the decree and judgment of the apostles, the Gentiles who believe ought not to be circumcised. Here, also, is the epistle of the apostles themselves to those from among the Gentiles, on the subject of the things from which they should keep themselves.27* The dissension of Paul with Barnabas on account of Mark.

X. Of the teaching of Timothy, and of the coming of Paul into Macedonia according to revelation. *Of the faith and salvation of a certain woman Lydia, and* of the cure of the damsel having a spirit of divination, on account of which the masters of the damsel cast Paul into prison; and* of the earthquake and miracle which happened there; and how the jailer believed and was baptized forthwith that same night with all his house.28* That the apostles on being besought went out from the prison.

Y. Of the tumult that arose in Thessalonica on account of their preaching, and of the flight of Paul to Berea, and thence to Athens.

Z. Of the inscription on the altar at Athens, and of the philosophic preaching and piety of Paul. 

AA. Of Aquila and Priscilla, and, the unbelief of the Corinthians, and of the good-will of God towards them according to fore-knowledge revealed to Paul. Also* of Priscus,29 the chief ruler of the synagogue, who believed with certain others and was baptized. And* that a tumult being stirred up in Corinth, Paul departed; and coming to Ephesus, and having discoursed there, he left it. * And concerning Apollos, an eloquent man and a believer.]

BB. Of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost conferred by means of the prayer of Paul on those who believed in Ephesus, and of the healing of the people. *Of the sons of Sceva, and as to its not being meet to approach30 those who have become unbelieving and unworthy of the faith; and of the confession of those who believed;* and of the tumult that was stirred up in Ephesus by Demetrius, the silversmith, against the apostles.

CC. Of the circuit of Paul, in which also we have the account of the death of Eutychus and his restoration by prayer in Troas; also Paul’s own pastoral exhortations31 to the presbyters at Ephesus; also Paul’s voyage from Ephesus to Caesareia in Palestine.

DD. The prophecy of Agabus as to what should befall Paul in Jerusalem.

EE. The address of James to Paul touching the matter that he should not offer to keep the Hebrews back from the practice of circumcision.

FF. Of the tumult that was excited against Paul in Jerusalem, and how the chief-captain rescues him from the mob. *Also Paul’s speech32 concerning himself and his vocation to be an apostle;* and of what Ananias said to Paul in Damascus, and of the vision and the voice of God that befell him once in the temple. *And that when Paul was about to be beaten for these words, on declaring that he was a Roman, he was let go.

GG. What Paul endured, and what he said, and what he did exactly33 when he came down into the council.

HH. Of the ambush planned by the Jews against Paul, and its discovery to Lysias;* and that Paul was sent to Caesareia to the governor with soldiers and with a letter.

II. Of the accusation laid by Tertullus in Paul’s case, and of his defence of himself before the governor.

JJ. Of the removal of Felix and the arrival of Festus as his successor, and of Paul’s pleading before them,34 and his dismissal.

KK. The coming of Agrippa and Bernice, and their inquiry into the case of Paul.35* Paul’s defence of himself before Agrippa and Bernice, respecting his nurture in the law, and his vocation to the Gospel. That Paul does no wrong to the Jews, Agrippa said to Festus.

LL. Paul’s voyage to Rome, abounding in very many and very great perils. *Paul’s exhortation to those with him as to his hope of deliverance. The shipwreck of Paul, and how they effected their safety on the island of Melita, and what marvellous things he did on it.

MM. How Paul reached Rome from Melita.

NN. Of Paul’s discourse with the Jews in Rome.

There are in all forty chapters; and the sections following these, and marked with the asterisk,36 are forty-eight.

 

 

FOOTNOTES

 

1 This ἔκθεσις was edited, under the name of Euthalius, Bishop of Sulce, towards the end of the preceding century, by Laurentius Zacagnius, in the collection of Monumenta Vetera, p. 428, published at Rome. Fabricius also compared the edition of Montfaucon with the Roman. This collation is added here. – Migne.

2 The text is νέοι χρόνῳ τε καὶ μαθημάτων, ἑκάστου, &c.; for with Euthal., χρόνων τε καὶ μαθημάτων παρ ̓ ὑμῶν ἑκάστου.

3 συμπεριφορὰν κομιζόμενοι.

4 But Euthal., διὰ μὲν τοῦ μέλανος … διὰ δὲ τοῦ κινναβάρεως, i.e., by the different colours of black and vermilion.

5 These marks are wholly wanting in the Coislin Codex, from with Montfaucon edited the piece. But they are found in the Vatican Codex. – Tr.

6 Euthal. adds, καὶ περι τῆς ἐνδόξου καὶ δευτέρας αὐτοῦ παρουσίας, i.e., and of His glorious and second coming.

7 ἀποβολῆς.

8 But Euthal. ἀποστολῆς, apostleship.

9 ἐπιφοιτήσεως.

10 κατηχήσεως.

11 But Euthal., αὐτῶν, their.

12 ἐπιστασία.

13 Euthal. inserts περὶ ἀπειλῆς, and of the threatening of the chief priests.

14 ἐπὶ τῶ ὀνόματι; but Euthal., ἐπὶ τὸ ὄνομα.

15 Reading ἀνέσεως with Euthal., instead of ἀνανεώσεως.

16 θεοφανεία.

17 ἐδίδοτο; Euthal., δίδοται is given.

18 οτι οὐκ ἀργυρίου; Euthal., οὐ δι ̓ ἀργυρίου.

19 Euthal., διὰ Βαρνάβαν, on Barnabas’s account.

20 Euthal. inserts πάλιν, again.

21 The text is ὧν εἶπεν ὁ ἄγγελος, &c. But Euthal., ὧν ὁ ἄγγελος ἐπεμαρτύρησε καὶ ὑφηγήσατο, which the angel testified and showed.

22 διακριθεῖσι πρὸς αὐτόν.

23 The text gives οἰκουμενικῆς; Euthal., οἰκουμένης.

24 The text gives κατασφαγῆς; Euthal., καταστροφῆς.

25 Euthal., εἰργάσαντο, they did.

26 εὐθαλής.

27 Reading φυλακτέων with Euthal., instead of φυλακέων.

28 The text gives πανεύτιος; Euthal., πανέστιος. Montfaucon reads πανοικί.

29 But Euthal., Κρίσπου, Crispus.

30 προσχωρεῖν; Euthal., ἐγχειρεῖν.

31 Euthal., παραίνεσις ποιμαντική, pastoral exhortation.

32 κατάστασις.

33 εὐθυβόλως, perhaps here, as Montfaucon makes it, sagaciously.

34 Euthal., ἐπ ̓ αὐτου, before him.

35 Euthal., κατὰ Παῦλον, against Paul.

36 Euthal., διὰ κινναβάρεως, with the vermilion.



Anatolius and Minor Writers. (Cont.)Malchion.

Translator’s Biographical Notice.

[A.D. 270.] Eusebius1 speaks of Malchion as a man accomplished in other branches of learning2 and well-versed in Greek letters in particular, and as holding the presidency of the Sophists’ school at Antioch. Jerome3 says that he taught rhetoric most successfully in the same city. Nor was it only that he excelled in secular erudition; but for the earnest sincerity of his Christian faith he obtained the dignity of presbyter in the church of that place, as Eusebius also tells us. He took part in the Synod of Antioch, which Eusebius calls the final council, and which Gallandi and others call the second, in opposition to Pearson, who holds that there was but one council at Antioch. This synod met apparently about A.D. 269, and dealt with Paul of Samosata, who had introduced the heresy of Artemon into the church of Antioch; and Eusebius says that Malchion was the only one who, in the discussion which took place there with the arch-heretic, and which was taken down by stenographers who were present, was able to detect the subtle and crafty sentiments of the man. Paul’s real opinions being thus unveiled, after he had baffled the acuteness of his ecclesiastical judges for some time, he was at length convicted; and the discussion was published, and a synodical epistle was sent on the subject to Dionysius, bishop of Rome, and to Maximus of Alexandria, and to all the provinces, which, according to Jerome (De vir. illustr., ch. 71), was written by Malchion, and of which we have extracts in Eusebius.4

 

 

FOOTNOTES

 

1 Hist. Eccl., vii. 29.

2 ἀνὴρ τά τε ἄλλα λόγοις.

3 De viris illustr., ch. 71.

4 In Eusebius, vii. 30. [Elucidation I., p. 172.]

 

I. – The Epistle Written by Malchion, in Name of the Synod of Antioch, Against Paul of Samosata.4

To Dionysius and Maximus, and to all our fellows in the ministry throughout the world, both bishops and presbyters and deacons, and to the whole Catholic Church under heaven, Helenus and Hymenaeus and Theophilus and Theotecnus and Maximus, Proclus, Nicomas, and Aelianus, and Paul and Bolanus and Protogenes and Hierax and Eutychius and Theodorus and Malchion and Lucius, and all the others who are with us, dwelling in the neighbouring cities and nations, both bishops and presbyters and deacons, together with the churches of God, send greeting to our brethren beloved in the Lord.

 

1. After some few introductory words, they proceed thus: – We wrote to many of the bishops, even those who live at a distance, and exhorted them to give their help in relieving us from this deadly doctrine; among these, we addressed, for instance, Dionysius, the bishop of Alexandria, and Firmilian of Cappadocia, those men of blessed name. Of these, the one wrote to Antioch without even deigning to honour the leader in this error by addressing him; nor did he write to him in his own name, but to the whole district1 of which letter we have also subjoined a copy. And Firmilian, who came twice in person, condemned the innovations in doctrine, as we who were present know and bear witness, and as many others know as well as we. But when he (Paul) promised to give up these opinions, he believed him; and hoping that, without any reproach to the Word, the matter would be rightly settled, he postponed his decision; in which action, however, he was deceived by that denier of his God and Lord, and betrayer of the faith which he formerly held. And now Firmilian was minded to cross to Antioch; and he came as far as Tarsus, as having already made trial of the man’s infidel2 iniquity. But when we had just assembled, and were calling for him and waiting for his arrival, his end came upon him.

 

2. After other matters again, they tell us in the following terms of what manner of life he was: – But there is no need of judging his actions when he was outside (the Church), when he revolted from the faith and turned aside to spurious and illegitimate doctrines. Nor need we say any thing of such matters as this, that, whereas he was formerly poor and beggarly, having neither inherited a single possession from his fathers, nor acquired any property by art or by any trade, he has now come to have excessive wealth by his deeds of iniquity and sacrilege, and by those means by which he despoils and concusses the brethren, casting the injured unfairly in their suit,3 and promising to help them for a price, yet deceiving them all the while and to their loss, taking advantage of the readiness of those in difficulties to give in order to get deliverance from what troubled them, and thus supposing that gain is godliness. (1Ti_6:5) Neither need I say any thing about his pride and the haughtiness with which he assumed worldly dignities, and his wishing to be styled procurator4 rather than bishop, and his strutting through the market-places, and reading letters and reciting them5 as he walked in public, and his being escorted by multitudes of people going before him and following him; so that he brought ill-will and hatred on the faith by his haughty demeanour and by the arrogance of his heart. Nor shall I say any thing of the quackery which he practises in the ecclesiastical assemblies, in the way of courting popularity and making a great parade, and astounding by such arts the minds of the less sophisticated; nor of his setting up for himself a lofty tribunal and throne, so unlike a disciple of Christ; nor of his having a secretum6 and calling it by that name, after the manner of the rulers of this world; nor of his striking his thigh with his hand and beating the tribunal with his feet; nor of his censuring and insulting those who did not applaud him nor shake their handkerchiefs,7 as is done in the theatres, nor bawl out and leap about after the manner of his partisans, both male and female, who were such disorderly listeners to him, but chose to hear reverently and modestly as in the house of God; nor of his unseemly and violent attacks in the congregation upon the expounders of the Word who have already departed this life, and his magnifying of himself, not like a bishop, but like a sophist and juggler; nor of his putting a stop to the psalms sung in honour of our Lord Jesus Christ, as the recent compositions of recent men, and preparing women to sing psalms in honour of himself in the midst of the Church. in the great day of the Paschal festival, which choristers one might shudder to hear. And besides, he acted on those bishops and presbyters, who fawned upon him in the neighbouring districts and cities, to advance the like opinions in their discourses to their people.

 

3. For we may say, to anticipate a little what we intend to write below, that he does not wish to acknowledge that the Son of God came down from heaven. And this is a statement which shall not be made to depend on simple assertion; for it is proved abundantly by those memoranda which we sent you, and not least by that passage in which he says that Jesus Christ is from below. And they who sing his praise and eulogise him among the people, declare that their impious teacher has come down as an angel from heaven. And such utterances the haughty man does not check, but is present even when they are made. And then again there are these women – these adopted sisters,8 as the people of Antioch call them – who are kept by him and by the presbyters and deacons with him, whose incurable sins in this and other matters, though he is cognisant of them, and has convicted them, he connives at concealing, with the view of keeping the men subservient to himself, and preventing them, by fear for their own position, from daring to accuse him in the matter of his impious words and deeds. Besides this, he has made his followers rich, and for that he is loved and admired by those who set their hearts on these things. But why should we write of these things? For, beloved, we know that the bishop and all the clergy9 ought to be an example in all good works to the people. Nor are we ignorant of the fact that many have fallen away through introducing these women into their houses, while others have fallen under suspicion. So that, even although one should admit that he has been doing nothing disgrace fill in this matter, yet he ought at least to have avoided the suspicion that springs out of such a course of conduct. lest perchance some might be offended, or find inducement to imitate him. For how, then, should any one censure another, or warn him to beware of yielding to greater familiarity with a woman, lest perchance he might slip, as it is written:10 if, although he has dismissed one, he has still retained two with him, and these in the bloom of their youth, and of fair countenance; and if when he goes away he takes them with him; and all this, too, while he indulges in luxury and surfeiting?

 

4. And on account of these things all are groaning and lamenting with themselves; yet they have such a dread of his tyranny and power that they cannot venture on accusing him. And of these things, as we have said already, one might take account in the case of a man who held Catholic sentiments and belonged to our own number; but as to one who has betrayed11 the mystery (of the faith), and who swaggers12 with the abominable heresy of Artemas, – for why should we hesitate to disclose his father? – we consider it unnecessary to exact of him an account for these things.

 

5. Then at the close of the epistle they add the following words: – We have been compelled, therefore, to excommunicate this man, who thus opposeth God Himself, and refuses submission, and to appoint in his place another bishop for the Church Catholic, and that, as we trust, by the providence of God – namely, the son of Demetrianus, a man of blessed memory, and one who presided over the same Church with distinction in former times, Domnus by name, a man endowed with all the noble qualities which become a bishop. And this fact we have communicated to you in order that ye may write him, and receive letters of communion13 from him. And that other may write to Artemas, if it please him; and those who think with Artemas may hold communion with him, if they are so minded.

 

II. – Fragments Apparently of the Same Epistle of the Synod of Antioch; to Wit, of That Part of It Which It Is Agreed That Eusebius Left Unnoticed.14

He says, therefore, in the commentaries (they speak of Paul), that he maintains the dignity of wisdom.

And thereafter:

If, however, he had been united15 according to formation and generation, this is what befalls the man. And again: For that wisdom, as we believe, was not congenerate16 with humanity substantially, but qualitatively.17

And thereafter:

In what respect, moreover, does he mean to allege that the formation18 of Christ is different and diverse from ours, when we hold that, in this one thing of prime consequence, His constitution differs from ours, to wit, that what in us is the interior man, is in Him the Word.19

And thereafter:

If he means to allege that Wisdom dwells in Him as in no other, this expresses indeed the same mode of inhabitation, though it makes it excel in respect of measure and multitude; He being supposed to derive a superior knowledge from the Wisdom, say for example, twice as large as others, or any other number of times as large; or, again, it may be less than twice as large a knowledge as others have. This, however, the catholic and ecclesiastical canons disallow, and hold rather that other men indeed received of Wisdom as an inspiration from without, which, though with them, is distinct from them;20 but that Wisdom in verity came of itself substantially into His body by Mary.

And after other matters:

And they hold that there are not two Sons. But if Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and if Wisdom also is the Son of God; and if the Wisdom is one thing and Jesus Christ another, there are two Sons.

And thereafter:

Moreover understand (Paul would say) the union with Wisdom in a different sense, namely as being one according to instruction and participation;21 but not as if it were formed according to the substance in the body.

And after other matters:

Neither was the God who bore the human body and had assumed it, without knowledge22 of human affections23 in the first instance; 24 nor was the human body without knowledge, in the first instance, of divine operations in him in whom He (the God) was, and by whom He wrought these operations. He was formed, in the first instance, as man in the womb; and, in the second instance,25 the God also was in the womb, united essentially with the human,26 that is to say, His substance being wedded with the man. 

 

III. – From the Acts of the Disputation Conducted by Malchion Against Paul of Samosata.27

The compound is surely made tip of the simple elements,28 even as in the instance of Jesus Christ, who was made one (person), constituted by God the Word, and a human body which is of the seed of David, and who subsists without having any manner of division between the two, but in unity. You, however, appear to me to decline to admit a constitution29 after this fashion: to the effect that there is not in this person, the Son of God according to substance, but only the Wisdom according to participation. For you made this assertion, that the Wisdom bears dispensing, and therefore cannot be compounded;30 and you do not consider that the divine Wisdom remained undiminished, even as it was before it evacuated itself;31 and thus in this self-evacuation, which it took upon itself in compassion (for us), it continued undiminished and unchangeable. And this assertion you also make, that the Wisdom dwelt in Him, just as we also dwell in houses, the one in the other,32 and yet not as if we formed a part of the house, or the house a part of us.

 

IV. – A Point in the Same Disputation.33

Did I not say before that you do not admit that the only-begotten Son, who is from all eternity before every creature, was made substantially existent34 in the whole person of the Saviour;35 that is to say, was united with Him according to substance?

 

Elucidations.

I.

(The epistle written by Malchion)

Malchion, though a presbyter of Antioch, reflects the teaching of Alexandria, and illustrates its far-reaching influence. Firmilian, presiding at the Council of Antioch, was a pupil of Origen; and Dionysius was felt in the council, though unable to be present. Malchion and Firmilian, therefore, vindicate the real mind of Origen, though speaking in language matured and guarded. This council was, providentially, a rehearsal for Nicaea.

 

II.

(Putting a stop to psalms, etc.)

Coleridge notes this, with an amusing comment on Paulus Samosatenus,36 and refers to Pliny’s letter, of which see vol. v. p. 604, this series. Jeremy Taylor, from whom Coleridge quotes, gives the passage of our author as follows: “Psalmos et cantus qui ad Dom. nostri J. C. honorem decantari solent, tanquam recentiores eta viris recentioris memoriae editos, exploserit” (Works, ii. p. 281, ed. Bohn, 1844). Observe what Coleridge says elsewhere37 on errors attributed to Origen: “Never was a great man so misunderstood as Origen.” He adds: “The caro noumenon was what Origen meant by Christ’s ‘flesh consubstantial with His Godhead.’” 

 

 

FOOTNOTES

 

4 In Eusebius, vii. 30. [Elucidation I., p. 172.]

1 παροικίᾳ [= jurisdiction. See p. 163, note 12, supra.]

2 ἀρνησιθέου.

3 καταβραβεύων, perhaps = receiving bribes from.

4 δουκηναίριος, the name given under the Emperors to those procurators who received 200 sestertia of annual salary.

5 ὑπαγορεύων. [Letters, e.g., from Zenobia.]

6 σήκρητον (from the Latin secerno, to separate) was the name given to the elevated place, railed in and curtained, where the magistrate sat to decide cases.

7 κατασείουσι ταῖς ὀθόναις, alluding to the custom of shaking the oraria or linen handkerchiefs as a token of applause. [Elucid. II.]

8 συνεισάκτους γυναῖκας, priests’-housekeepers. See Lange on Nicephorus, vi. 30, and B. Rhenanus on Rufinus, vii. The third canon of the Nicene Council in the Codex Corbeiensis has this title, De subintorductis id est adoptivis sororibus, Of the subintroduced, that is, the adopted sisters. See also on the abuse, Jerome, in the Epistle to Eustochius. They appear also to have been called commanentes and agapetae. See the note of Valesius in Migne. [Vol. ii. p. 47, and (same vol.) Elucidation II. p. 57.]

9 ἱερατεῖον.

10 Referring either to Pro_6:1-35 or to Ecclesiasticus 25.

11 ἐξορχησάμενον, danced away.

12 ἐμπομπεύοντα.

13 κοινωνικὰ γράμματα. On this Valesius gives the following note: – The Latins call these litterae communicatoriae, the use of which is of very ancient date in the Church. They called the same also formatae, as Augustine witnesses in Epistle 163. There were, moreover, two kinds of them. For there were some which were given to the clergy and laity when about to travel, that they might be admitted to communion by foreign bishops. And there were others which bishops were in the way of sending to other bishops, and which they in turn received from others, for the purpose of attesting their intercommunion; of which sort the Synod speaks here. These were usually sent by recently-ordained bishops soon after their ordination. Augustine, Epistle 162; Cyprian, in the Epistle to Cornelius, p. 320; and the Synodical Epistle of the Council of Sardica, appear to refer to these, though they may refer also to the formatae. [Vol. i. p. 12, n. 9.]

14 In Leontius of Byzantium, contra Nestor., book iii., towards the end.

15 Copulatus erat.

16 Congeneratam.

17 Secundum qualitatem.

18 Formationem.

19 We say, that as the exterior and the interior man are one person, so God the Word and humanity have been assumed as one person, a thing which Paul denies. – Can.

20 Alia est apud ipsos.

21 Secundum disciplinam et participationem. Paul of Samosata usd to say that the humanity was united with the Wisdom as instruction (disciplina) is united with the learner by participation. – Can. [See Hooker, book v. cap. 52, sec. 4.]

22 Expers.

23 Passionum, sufferings.

24 Principaliter.

25 Secundario, i.e., κατὰ δεύτερον λόγον. – Turrian.

26 συνουσιωμένος τῷ ἀνθρωπίνῳ.

27 In Petrus Diaconus, De Incarnat. ad Fulgentium, ch. 6. Among the works of Fulgentius, Epistle 16.

28 Ex simplicibus fit certe compositum.

29 Compositionem.

30 Quia sapientia dispendium patiatur et ideo composita esse non possit – the sense intended being perhaps just that Paul alleged that the divine Wisdom admitted of being dispensed or imparted to another, but not of being substantially united with him. – Tr.

31 Exinanisset.

32 Some read alter in altero, others alter in altera.

33 From the same Acts in Leontius in Petrus Diaconus, De Incarnat. ad Fulgentium, Act_6:1-15.

34 οὐσιῶσθαι.

35 In toto Salvatore.

36 Notes on English Divines, vol. i. p. 199.

37 Notes on English Divines, vol. i. p. 313.



Archelaus. Introductory Notice to Archelaus.

[A.D. 277.] The Manichaean heresy, which was destined to operate so terribly against the Church and the purity of the Gospel, encountered its earliest successful antagonism in the Thebaid; and I have not doubted the wisdom of prefixing this Disputation to the veritable name and work of Alexander of Lycopolis, as important to the complete history of the great Alexandrian school. The Edinburgh translator of this work regards it as an “authentic relic of antiquity,” in spite of Beausobre, who treats is as a romance. I have forced myself, in this republication, to reject no theory of the Edinburgh collaborators to which I have not been able to give as much critical attention, at least, as they have evidently bestowed upon their work. It seems to me a well-sustained presumption that the work is fundamentally real, and Dr. Neander admits its base of fact. It is useful, at any rate, in its form and place, as here presented, and so much may be inferred from the following: – 

Translator’s Introductory Notice.

A certain memorable Disputation, which was conducted by a bishop of the name of Archelaus with the heretic Manes, is mentioned by various writers of an early date.1 What professes to be an account of that Disputation has come down to us in a form mainly Latin, but with parts in Greek. A considerable portion of this Latin version was published by Valesius in his edition of Socrates and Sozomen, and subsequently by others in greater completeness, and with the addition of the Greek fragments.2 There seems to be a difference among the ancient authorities cited above as to the person who committed these Acts to writing. Epiphanius and Jerome take it to have been Archelaus himself, while Heraclianus, bishop of Chalcedon, represents it to have been a certain person named Hegemonius. In Photius3 there is a statement to the effect that this Heraclianus, in confuting the errors of the Manichaeans, made use of certain Acts of the Disputation of Bishop Archelaus with Manes which were written by Hegemonius. And there are various passages in the Acts themselves which appear to confirm the opinion of Heraclianus.4 Zacagnius, however, thinks that this is but an apparent discrepancy, which is easily reconciled on the supposition that the book was first composed by Archelaus himself in Syriac, and afterwards edited, with certain amendments and additions, by Hegemonius. That the work was written originally in Syriac is clear, not only from the express testimony of Jerome,5 but also from internal evidence, and specially from the explanations offered now and again of the use of Greek equivalents. It is uncertain who was the author of the Greek version; and we can only conjecture that Hegemonius, in publishing a new edition, may also have undertaken a translation into the tongue which would secure a much larger audience than the original Syriac. But that this Greek version, by whomsoever accomplished, dates from the very earliest period, is proved by the excerpts given in Epiphanius. As to the Latin interpretation itself, all that we can allege is, that it must in all probability have been published after Jerome’s time, who might reasonably be expected to have made some allusion to it if it was extant in his day; and before the seventh century, because, in quoting the Scriptures, it does not follow the Vulgate edition, which was received generally throughout the West by that period. That the Latin translator must have had before him, not the Syriac, but the Greek copy, is also manifest, not only from the general idiomatic character of the rendering, but also from many nicer indications.6

The precise designation of the seat of the bishopric of Archelaus has been the subject of considerable diversity of opinion. Socrates7 and Ephiphanus8 record that Archelaus was bishop of Caschar, or Caschara.9 Epiphanius, however, does not keep consistently by that scription.10 In the opening sentence of the Acts themselves it appears as Carchar.11 Now we know that there were at least two towns of the name of Carcha: for the anonymous Ravenna geographer12 tells us that there was a place of that name in Arabia Felix; and Ammianus Marcellinus13 mentions another beyond the Tigris, within the Persian dominion. The clear statements, however, to the effect that the locality of the bishopric of Archelaus was in Mesopotamia, make it impossible that either of these two towns could have been the seat of his rule. Besides this, in the third chapter of the Acts themselves we find the name Charra occurring; and hence Zacagnius and others have concluded that the place actually intended is the scriptural Charran, or Haran, in Mesopotamia, which is also written Charra in Paulus Diaconus,14 and that the form Carchar or Carchara was either a mere error of the transcribers, or the vulgar provincial designation. It must be added, however, that Neander15 allows this to be only a very uncertain conjecture, while others hold that Caschar is the most probable scription, and that the town is one altogether different from the ancient Haran.

That date of the Disputation itself admits of tolerably exact settlement. Epiphanius, indeed,16 says that Manes fled into Mesopotamia in the ninth year of the reign of Valerianus and Gallienus, and that the discussion with Archelaus took place about the same time. This would carry the date back to about 262 A.D. But this statement, although he is followed in it by Petrus Siculus and Photius, is inconsistent with the specification of times which he makes in dealing with the error of the Manichaeans in his book On the Heresies. From the 37th chapter of the Acts, however, we find that the Disputation took place, not when Gallienus, but when Probus held the empire, and that is confirmed by Cyril of Jerusalem.17 The exact year becomes also clearer from Eusebius, who18 seems to indicate the second year of the reign of Probus as the time when the Manichaean heresy attained general publicity – Secundo anno Probi … insana Manichaeorum haeresis in commune humani generis malum exorta; and from Leo Magnus, who in his second Discourse on Pentecost also avers that Manichaeus became notorious in the consulship of Probus and Paulinus. And as this consulship embraced part of the first and part of the second years of the empire of Probus, the Disputation itself would thus be fixed as occurring in the end of A.D. 277 or the beginning of 278, or, according to the precise calculation of Zacagnius, between July and December of the year 277.

That the Acts of his Disputation constitute an authentic relic of antiquity, seems well established by a variety of considerations. Epiphanius, for instance, writing about the year A.D. 376, makes certain excerpts from them which correspond satisfactorily with the extant Latin version. Socrates, again, whose Ecclesiastical History dates about 439, mentions these Acts, and acknowledges that he drew the materials for his account of the Manichaean heresy from them. The book itself, too, offers not a few evidences of its own antiquity and authenticity. The enumeration given of the various heretics who had appeared up to the time of Archelaus, the mention of his presence at the siege of the city,19 and the allusions to various customs, have all been pressed into that service, as may be seen in detail in the elaborate dissertation prefixed by Zacagnius in his Collectanea Monumentorum Ecclesiae Graecae. At the same time, it is very evident that the work has come down to us in a decidedly imperfect form. There are, for example, arguments by Manes and answers by Archelaus recorded in Cyril20 which are not contained in our Latin version at all. And there are not a few notes of discrepancy and broken connections in the composition itself,21 which show that the manuscripts must have been defective, or that the Latin translator took great liberties with the Greek text, or that the Greek version itself did not faithfully reproduce the original Syriac. On the historical character of the work Neander22 expresses himself thus:23 “These Acts manifestly contain an ill-connected narrative, savouring in no small degree of the romantic. Although there is some truth at the bottom of it – as, for instance, in the statement of doctrine there is much that wears the appearance of truth, and is confirmed also by its agreement with other representations: still the Greek author seems, from ignorance of Eastern languages and customs, to have introduced a good deal that is untrue, by bringing in and and confounding together discordant stories through an uncritical judgment and exaggeration.”

 

 

FOOTNOTES

 

1 Thus Cyril of Jerusalem, in the sixth book of his Catecheses, §§ 27 and 30, tells us how Manes fled into Mesopotamia, and was met there by that shield of righteousness (οπλον δικαιοσύνης) Bishop Archelaus, and was refuted by him in the presence of a number of Greek philosophers, who had been brought together as judges of the discussion. Epiphanius, in his Heresies, lxvi., and again in his work De Mensuris et Poderibus, § 20, makes reference to the same occasion, and gives some excerpts from the Acts of the Disputation. And there are also passages of greater or less importance in Jerome (De vir. illustr., ch. 72), Socrates (Hist. Eccles., i. 22), Heraclianus bishop of Chalcedon (as found in Photius, Bibliotheca, Cod. xcv.), Petrus Siculus (Historia Manichaeorum, pp. 25, 35, 37), Photius, (Adversus Manichaeos, book i., edited in the Biblioth. Coislin., Montfaucon, pp. 356, 358), and the anonymous authors of the Libellus Synodicus, Act_27:1-44, and the Historia Haereseos Manichaeorum in the Codex Regius of Turin. [See Cyril’s text in Routh, R. S., vol. v. pp. 198-205.]

2 As by Zacagnius at Rome, in 1698, in his Collectanea Monumentorum Veterum Ecclesiae Graecae ac Latinae; by Fabricius, in the Spicilegium Sanctorum Patrum Saeculi, iii., in his edition of Hippolytus, etc.

3 Biblioth., Cod. lxxxv. [Coleridge thinks “Manes” himself a myth, “a doubtful Ens.”]

4 See especially ch. 39 and 55. [Note reference to John de Soyres, vol. 5. p. 604, this series.]

5 De vir. illustr., ch. 72.

6 Such as the apparent confusion between ἀήρ and ἀνήρ in Joh_8:1-59, and again between λοιμός and λιμός in the same chapter, and between πήσσει and πλήσσει in Joh_9:1-41, and the retention of certain Greek words, sometimes absolutely, and at other times with an explanation, as cybi, apocrusis, etc.

7 Hist. Eccles., i. 22.

8 Haeres., lxvi. Ecc_5:1-20 and Ecc_7:1-29, and De Mens. et Pond., Deu_20:1-20.

9 Κασχάρων.

10 For elsewhere (Haeres., lxvi. 11) he writes Κασχάρην, or, according to another reading, which is held by Zacagnius to be corrupt Καλχάρων.

11 And that form is followed by Petrus Siculus (Hist. Manich., p. 37) and Photius (lib. i., Adv. Manich.), who, in epitomizing the statements of Epiphanus, write neither Κασχάρων nor Καλχάρων, but Καρχάρων.

12 Geogr., book ii. Deu_7:1-26.

13 Book xviii. 23, xxv. 20, 21.

14 Hist. Misc., xxii. 20.

15 Church History, ii. p. 165, ed. Bohn.

16 De Mensur. et Pond., Deu_20:1-20.

17 Cateches., vi. p. 140.

18 Chronicon, lib. post., p. 177.

19 In Deu_24:1-22.

20 Catech., vi. p. m. 147.

21 As in the 12th, 25th, and 28th chapters.

22 [Compare Routh, Reliquiae Sacrae, vol. v. pp. 4-206, and his everywhere learned notes.]

23 Church History, ii. pp. 165, 166, ed. Bohn. [Compare Robertson, vol. i. pp. 136-144.]



Archelaus (Cont.)The Acts of the Disputation with the Heresiarch Manes.

The Acts of the Disputation1 with the Heresiarch Manes.

1. The true Thesaurus;2 to wit, the Disputation conducted in Carchar, a city of Mesopotamia, before Manippus3 and Aegialeus and Claudius and Cleobolus, who acted as judges. In this city of Mesopotamia there was a certain man, Marcellus by name, who was esteemed as a person worthy of the highest honour for his manner of life, his pursuits, and his lineage, and not less so for his discretion and his nobility of character: he was possessed also of abundant means; and, what is most important of all, he feared God with the deepest piety, and gave ear always with due reverence to the things which were spoken of Christ. In short, there was no good quality lacking in that man, and hence it came to pass that he was held in the greatest regard by the whole city; while, on the other hand, he also made an ample return for the good-will of his city by his munificent and oft-repeated acts of liberality in bestowing on the poor, relieving the afflicted, and giving help to the distressed. But let it suffice us to have said thus much, lest by the weakness of our words we rather take from the man’s virtues than adduce what is worthy of their splendour. I shall come, therefore, to the task which forms my subject. On a certain occasion, when a large; body of captives were offered to the bishop Archelaus by the soldiers who held the camp in that place, their numbers being some seven thousand seven hundred, he was harassed with the keenest anxiety on account of the large sum of money which was demanded by the soldiers as the price of the prisoners’ deliverance. And as he could not conceal his solicitude, all aflame for the religion and the fear of God, he at length hastened to Marcellus, and explained to him the importance and difficulty of the case. And when that pattern of piety, Marcellus, heard his narration, without the least delay he went into his house, and provided the price demanded for the prisoners, according to the value set upon them by those who had led them captive; and unlocking the treasures of his goods, he at once distributed the gifts of piety4 among the soldiers, without any severe consideration of number or distinction,5 so that they seemed to be presents rather than purchase-moneys. And those soldiers were filled with wonder and admiration at the grandeur of the man’s piety and munificence, and were struck with amazement, and felt the force6 of this example of pity; so that very many of them were added to the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, and threw off the belt of military service,7 while others withdrew to their camp, taking scarcely a fourth part of the ransom, and the rest made their departure without receiving even so much as would defray the expenses of the way.

 

2. Marcellus, as might well be expected, was exceedingly gratified by these incidents; and summoning one of the prisoners, by name Cortynius, he inquired of him the cause of the war, and by what chance it was that they were overcome and bound with the chains of captivity. And the person addressed, on obtaining liberty to speak, began to express himself in these terms: “My lord Marcellus, we believe in the living God alone. And we have a custom of such a nature as I shall now describe, which has descended to us by the tradition of our brethren in the faith, and has been regularly observed by us up to the present day. The practice is, that every year we go out beyond the bounds of the city, in company with our wives and children, and offer up supplications to the only and invisible God, praying Him to send us rains for our fields and crops.8 Now, when we were celebrating this observance at the usual time and in the wonted manner, evening surprised us as we lingered there, and were still fasting. Thus we were feeling the pressure of two of the most trying things men have to endure, – namely, fasting and want of sleep. But about midnight sleep enviously and inopportunely crept upon us, and with necks drooping and unstrung, and heads hanging down, it made our faces strike against our knees.9 Now this took place because the time was at hand when by the judgment of God we were to pay the penalty proper to our deserts, whether it might he that we were offenders in ignorance, or whether it might be that with the consciousness of wrong we nevertheless had not given up our sin. Accordingly at that hour a multitude of soldiers suddenly surrounded us, supposing us, as I judge, to have lodged ourselves in ambush there, and to be persons with full experience and skill in fighting battles; and without making any exact inquiry into the cause of our gathering there, they threatened us with war, not in word, but at once by the sword. And though we were men who had never learned to do injury to any one, they wounded us pitilessly with their missiles, and thrust us through with their spears, and cut our throats with their swords. Thus they slew, indeed, about one thousand and three hundred men of our number, and wounded other five hundred. And when the day broke clearly, they carried off the survivors amongst us as prisoners here, and that, too, in a way showing their utter want of pity for us. For they drove us before their horses, spurring us on by blows from their spears, and impelling us forward by making the horses’ heads press upon us. And those who had sufficient powers of endurance did indeed hold out; but very many fell down before the face of their cruel masters, and breathed out their life there; and mothers, with arms wearied, and utterly powerless with their burdens, and distracted by the threats of those behind them, suffered the little ones that were hanging on their breasts to fall to the ground; while all those on whom old age had come were sinking, one after the other, to the earth, overcome with their toils, and exhausted by want of food. The proud soldiers nevertheless enjoyed this bloody spectacle of men continually perishing, as if it had been a kind of entertainment, while they saw some stretched on the soil in hopeless prostration, and beheld others, worn out by the fierce fires of thirst and with the bands of their tongues utterly parched, lose the power of speech, and beheld others with eyes ever glancing backwards, groaning over the fate of their dying little ones, while these, again, were constantly appealing to their most unhappy mothers with their cries, and the mothers themselves, driven frantic by the severities of the robbers, responded with their lamentations, which indeed was the only thing they could do freely. And those of them whose hearts were most tenderly bound up with their offspring chose voluntarily to meet the same premature fate of death with their children; while those, on the other hand, who had some capacity of endurance were carried off prisoners here with us. Thus, after the lapse of three days, during which time we had never been allowed to take any rest, even in the night, we were conveyed to this place, in which what has now taken place after these occurrences is better known to yourself.”

 

3. When Marcellus, the man of consummate piety, had heard this recital, he burst into a flood of tears, touched with pity for misfortunes so great and so various. But making no delay, he at once prepared victuals for the sufferers, and did service with his own hand for the wearied; in this imitating our father Abraham the patriarch, who, when he entertained the angels hospitably on a certain occasion, did not content himself with merely giving the order to his slaves to bring a calf from the herd, but did himself, though advanced in years, go and place it on his shoulders and fetch it in, and did with his own hand prepare food, and set it before the angels. So Marcellus, in discharge of a similar office, directed them to be seated as his guests in companies of ten; and when the seven hundred tables were all provided, he refreshed the whole body of the captives with great delight, so that those who had strength to survive what they had been called to endure, forgot their toils, and became oblivious of all their ills. When, however, they had reached the fifteenth day, and while Marcellus was still liberally supplying all things needful for the prisoners, it seemed good to him that they should all be put in possession of the means of returning to their own parts, with the exception of those who were detained by the attention which their wounds demanded; and providing the proper remedies for these, he instructed the rest to depart to their own country and friends. And even to all these charities Marcellus added yet larger deeds of piety. For with a numerous band of his own dependants he went to look after the burying of the bodies of those who had perished on the march; and for as many of these as he could discover, of whatsoever condition, he secured the sepulture which was meet for them. And when this service was completed he returned to Charra, and gave permission to the wounded to return thence to their native country when their health was sufficiently restored, providing also most liberal supplies for their use on their journey. And truly the estimate of this deed made a magnificent addition to the repute of the other noble actions of Marcellus; for through that whole territory the fame of the piety of Marcellus spread so grandly, that large numbers of men belonging to various cities were inflamed with the intensest desire to see and become acquainted with the man, and most especially those persons who had not had occasion to bear penury before, – to all of whom this remarkable man, following the example of a Marcellus of old, furnished aid most indulgently, so that they all declared that there was no one of more illustrious piety than this man. Yea, all the widows, too, who were believers in the Lord had recourse to him, while the imbecile also could reckon on obtaining at his hand most certain help to meet their circumstances; and the orphaned, in like manner, were all supported by him, so that his house was declared to be the hospice for the stranger and the indigent. And above all this, he retained in a remarkable and singular measure his devotion to the faith, building up his own heart upon the rock that shall not be moved.

 

4. Accordingly,10 as this man’s fame was becoming always the more extensively diffused throughout different localities, and when it had now penetrated even beyond the river Stranga, the honourable report of his name was carried into the territory of Persia. In this country dwelt a person called Manes, who, when this man’s repute had reached him, deliberated largely with himself as to how he might entangle him in the snares of his doctrine, hoping that Marcellus might he made an upholder of his dogma. For he reckoned that he might make himself master of the whole province, if he could only first attach such a man to himself. In this project, however, his mind was agitated with the doubt whether he should at once repair in person to the man, or first attempt to get at him by letter for he was afraid lest, by any sudden and unexpected introduction of himself upon the scene some mischance might possibly befall him. At last, in obedience to a subtler policy, he resolved to write; and calling to him one of his disciples, by name Turbo,11 who had been instructed by Addas, he handed to him an epistle, and bade him depart and convey it to Marcellus. This adherent accordingly received the letter, and carried it to the person to whom he had been commissioned by Manes to deliver it, overtaking the whole journey within five days. The above-mentioned Turbo, indeed, used great expedition on this journey, in the course of which he also underwent very considerable exertion and trouble. For whenever he arrived,12 as13 a traveller in foreign parts, at a hospice, – and these were inns which Marcellus himself had supplied in his large hospitality,14 – on his being asked by the keepers of these hostels whence he came, and who he was, or by whom he had been sent, he used to reply: “I belong to the district of Mesopotamia, but I come at present from Persis, having been sent by Manichaeus, a master among the Christians.” But they were by no means ready to welcome a name unknown15 to them, and were wont sometimes to thrust Turbo out of their inns, refusing him even the means of getting water for drinking purposes. And as he had to bear daily things like these, and things even worse than these, at the hands of those persons in the several localities who had charge of the mansions and hospices, unless he had at last shown that he was conveying letters to Marcellus, Turbo would have met the doom of death in his travels.

 

5. On receiving the epistle, then, Marcellus opened it, and read it in the presence of Archelaus, the bishop of the place. And the following is a copy of what it contained:16 – 

Manichaeus, an apostle of Jesus Christ, and all the saints who are with me, and the virgins, to Marcellus, my beloved son: Grace, mercy, and peace be with you from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ; and may the right hand of light preserve you safe from this present evil world, and from its calamities, and from the snares of the wicked one. Amen.

I was exceedingly delighted to observe the love cherished by you, which truly is of the largest measure. But I was distressed at your faith, which is not in accordance with the right standard. Wherefore, deputed as I am to seek the elevation of the race of men, and sparing,17 as I do, those who have given themselves over to deceit and error, I have considered it needful to despatch this letter to you, with a view, in the first place, to the salvation of your own soul, and in the second place also to that of the souls of those who are with you, so as to secure you against18 dubious opinions, and specially against notions like those in which the guides of the simpler class of minds indoctrinate their subjects, when they allege that good and evil have the same original subsistence,19 and when they posit the same beginning for them, without making any distinction or discrimination between light and darkness, and between the good and the evil or worthless, and between the inner man and the outer, as we have stated before, and without ceasing to mix up and confound together the one with the other. But, O my son, refuse thou thus thoughtlessly to identify these two things in the irrational and foolish fashion common to the mass of men, and ascribe no such confusion to the God of goodness. For these men refer the beginning and the end and the paternity of these ills to God Himself, – “whose end is near a curse.”20 For they do not believe the word spoken by our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ Himself in the Gospels,21 namely, that “a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.” (Mat_7:18) And how they can be bold enough to call God the maker and contriver of Satan and his wicked deeds, is a matter of great amazement to me. Yea, would that even this had been all the length to which they had gone with their silly efforts, and that they had not declared that the only-begotten Christ, who has descended from the bosom of the Father, (Joh_1:18) is the son of a certain woman, Mary, and born of blood and flesh and the varied impurities proper to women!22 Howbeit, neither to write too much in this epistle, nor to trespass at too great length upon your good nature, – and all the more so that I have no natural gift of eloquence, – I shall content myself with what I have said. But you will have full knowledge of the whole subject when I am present with yon, if indeed you still continue to care for23 your own salvation. For I do not “cast a snare upon any one,” (1Co_7:35) as is done by the less thoughtful among the mass of men. Think of what I say, most honourable son.

 

6. On reading this epistle, Marcellus, with the kindest consideration, attended hospitably to the needs of the bearer of the letter. Archelaus, on the other hand, did not receive very pleasantly the matters which were read, but “gnashed24 with his teeth like a chained lion,” impatient to have the author of the epistle given over to him. Marcellus, however, counselled him to be at peace; promising that he would himself take care to secure the man’s presence: And accordingly Marcellus resolved to send an answer to what had been written to him, and indited an epistle containing the following statements: – 

Marcellus, a man of distinction, to Manichaeus, who has made himself known to me by his epistle, greeting.

An epistle written by you has come to my hand, and I have received Turbo with my wonted kindness; but the meaning of your letter I have by no means apprehended, and may not do so unless you give us your presence, and explain its contents in detail in the way of conversation, as you have offered to do in the epistle itself. Farewell.

This letter he sealed and handed to Turbo, with instructions to deliver it to the person from whom he had already conveyed a similar document. The messenger, however, was extremely reluctant to return to his master, being mindful of what he had to endure on the journey, and begged that another person should be despatched in his stead, refusing to go back to Manes, or to have any intercourse whatever with him again. But Marcellus summoned one of his young men,25 Callistus by name, and directed him to proceed to the place. Without any loss of time this young man set out promptly on his journey thither; and after the lapse of three days he came to Manes, whom he found in a certain fort, that of Arabion26 to wit. and to whom he presented the epistle. On perusing it, he was glad to see that he had been invited by Marcellus; and without delay he undertook the journey; yet he had a presentiment that Turbo’s failure to return boded no good, and proceeded on his way to Marcellus, not, as it were, without serious reflections. Turbo, for his part, was not at all thinking of leaving the house of Marcellus; neither did he omit any opportunity of conversing with Archelaus the bishop. For both these parties were very diligently engaged in investigating the practices of Manichaeus, being desirous of knowing who he was and whence he came, and what was his manner of discourse. And he, Turbo, accordingly gave a lucid account of the whole position, narrating and expounding the terms of his faith in the following manner:27 – 

If you are desirous of being instructed in the faith of Manes by me, attend to me for a short space. That man worships two deities, unoriginated, self-existent, eternal, opposed the one to the other. Of these he represents the one as good, and the other as evil, and assigns the name of Light to the former, and that of Darkness to the latter. He alleges also that the soul in men is a portion of the light, but that the body and the formation of matter are parts of the darkness. He maintains, further, that a certain commingling or blending28 has been effected between the two in the manner about to be stated, the following analogy being used as an illustration of the same; to wit, that their relations may be likened to those of two kings in conflict with each other, who are antagonists from the beginning, and have their own positions, each in his due order. And so he holds that the darkness passed without its own boundaries, and engaged in a similar contention with the light; but that the good Father then, perceiving that the darkness had come to sojourn on His earth, put forth from Himself a power29 which is called the Mother of Life; and that this power thereupon put forth from itself the first man, and the five elements.30 And these five elements are wind,31 light, water, fire, and matter. Now this primitive man, being endued with these, and thereby equipped, as it were, for war, descended to these lower parts, and made war against the darkness. But the princes of the darkness, waging war in turn against him, consumed that portion of his panoply which is the soul. Then was that first man grievously injured there underneath by the darkness; and had it not been that the Father heard his prayers, and sent a second power, which was also put forth from Himself and was called the living Spirit, and came down and gave him the right hand, and brought him up again out of the grasp of the darkness, that first man would, in those ancient times, have been in peril of absolute overthrow. From that time, consequently, he left the soul beneath. And for this reason the Manichaeans, if they meet each other, give the right hand, in token of their having been saved from darkness; for he holds that the heresies have their seat all in the darkness. Then the living Spirit created the world; and bearing in himself three other powers, he came down and brought off the princes, and settled32 them in the firmament, which is their body, (though it is called) the sphere. Then, again, the living Spirit created the luminaries, which are fragments of the soul, and he made them thus to move round and round the firmament; and again he created the earth in its eight species.33 And the Omophorus34 sustains the burden thereof beneath; and when he is wearied with bearing it he trembles, and in that manner becomes the cause of a quaking of the earth in contravention of its determinate times. On account of this the good Father sent His Son forth from His own bosom35 into the heart of the earth, and into these lowest parts of it, in order to secure for him the correction befitting him.36 And whenever an earthquake occurs, he is either trembling under his weariness, or is shifting his burden from one shoulder to the other. Thereafter, again, the matter also of itself produced growths;37 and when these were carried off as spoil on the part of some of the princes, he summoned together all the foremost of the princes, and took from all of them individually power after power, and made up the man who is after the image of that first man, and united38 the soul (with these powers) in him. This is the account of the manner in which his constitution was planned.

 

8. But when the living Father perceived that the soul was in tribulation in the body, being full of mercy and compassion, He sent His own beloved Son for the salvation of the soul. For this, together with the matter of Omophorus, was the reason of His sending Him. And the Son came and transformed Himself into the likeness of man, and manifested39 Himself to men as a man, while yet He was not a man, and men supposed that He was begotten. Thus He came and prepared the work which was to effect the salvation of the souls, and with that object constructed an instrument with twelve urns,40 which is made to revolve by the sphere, and draws up with it the souls of the dying. And the greater luminary receives these souls, and purifies them with its rays, and then passes them over to the moon; and in this manner the moon’s disc, as it is designated by us, is filled up. For he says that these two luminaries are ships or passage-boats.41 Then, if the moon becomes full, it ferries its passengers across toward the east wind, and thereby effects its own waning42 in getting itself delivered of its freight. And in this manner it goes on making the passage across, and again discharging its freight of souls drawn up by the urns, until it saves its own proper portion of the souls.43 Moreover, he maintains that every soul, yea, every living creature that moves, partakes of the substance of the good Father. And accordingly, when the moon delivers over its freight of souls to the aeons of the Father, they abide there in that pillar of glory, which is called the perfect air.44 And this air is a pillar of light, for it is filled with the souls that are being purified. Such, moreover, is the agency by which the souls are saved. But the following, again, is the cause of men’s dying: A certain virgin, fair in person, and beautiful in attire, and of most persuasive address, aims at making spoil of the princes that have been borne up and crucified on the firmament by the living Spirit; and she appears as a comely female to the princes, but as a handsome and attractive young man to the princesses. And the princes, when they look on her in her splendid figure, are smitten with love’s sting; and as they are unable to get possession of her, they burn fiercely with the flame of amorous desire, and lose all power of reason. While they thus pursue the virgin, she disappears from view. Then the great prince sends forth from himself the clouds, with the purpose of bringing darkness on the whole world, in his anger. And then, if he feels grievously oppressed, his exhaustion expresses itself in perspiration, just as a man sweats under toil; and this sweat of his forms the rain. At the same time also the harvest-prince,45 if he too chances to be captivated by the virgin, scatters pestilence46 on the whole earth, with the view of putting men to death. Now this body (of man) is also called a cosmos, i.e., a microcosm, in relation to the great cosmos, i.e., the macrocosm of the universe; and all men have roots which are linked beneath with those above. Accordingly, when this prince is captivated by the virgin’s charms, he then begins to cut the roots of men; and when their roots are cut, then pestilence commences to break forth, and in that manner they die. And if he shakes the upper parts of the root mightily,47 an earthquake bursts, and follows as the consequence of the commotion to which the Omophorus is subjected. This is the explanation of (the phenomenon of) death.

 

9. I shall explain to you also how it is that the soul is transfused into five bodies.48 First of all, in this process some small portion of it is purified; and then it is transfused into the body of a dog, or a camel, or some other animal. But if the soul has been guilty of homicide, it is translated into the body of the celephi;49 and if it has been found to have engaged in cutting;50 it is made to pass into the body of the dumb. Now these are the designations of the soul, – namely, intelligence, reflection, prudence, consideration, reasoning.51 Moreover, the reapers who reap are likened to the princes who have been in darkness from the beginning,52 since they consumed somewhat of the panoply of the first man. On this account there is a necessity for these to be translated into hay, or beans, or barley, or corn, or vegetables, in order that in these forms they, in like manner, may be reaped and cut. And again, if any one eats bread, he must needs also become bread and be eaten. If one kills a chicken,53 he will be a chicken himself. If one kills a mouse, he will also become a mouse himself. If, again, one is wealthy in this world, it is necessary that, on quitting the tabernacle of his body, he should be made to pass into the body of a beggar, so as to go about asking alms, and thereafter he shall depart into everlasting punishment. Moreover, as this body pertains to the princes and to matter, it is necessary that he who plants a persea54 should pass though many bodies until that persea is prostrated. And if one builds a house for himself, he will be divided and scattered among all the bodies.55 If one bathes in water, he freezes56 his soul; and if one refuses to give pious regard57 to his elect, he will be punished through the generations,58 and will be translated into the bodies of catechumens, until he render many tributes of piety; and for this reason they offer to the elect whatever is best in their meats. And when they are about to eat bread, they offer up prayer first of all, addressing themselves in these terms to the bread: “I have neither reaped thee, nor ground thee, nor pressed thee, nor cast thee into the baking-vessel; but another has done these things, and brought thee to me, and I have eaten thee without fault.” And when he has uttered these things to himself, he says to the catechumen,59 “I have prayed for thee;” and in this manner that person then takes his departure. For, as I remarked to you a little before, if any one reaps, he will be reaped; and so, too, if one casts grain into the mill, he will be cast in himself in like manner, or if he kneads he will be kneaded, or if he bakes he will be baked; and for this reason they are interdicted from doing any such work. Moreover, there are certain other worlds on which the luminaries rise when they have set on our world.60 And if a person walks upon the ground here, he injures the earth; and if he moves his hand, he injures the air; for the air is the soul (life) of men and living creatures, both fowl, and fish, and creeping thing. And as to every one61 existing in this world, I have told you that this body of his does not pertain to God, but to matter, and is itself darkness, and consequently it must needs be cast in darkness.

 

10. Now, with respect to paradise, it is not called a cosmos.62 The trees that are in it are lust and other seductions, which corrupt the rational powers of those men. And that tree in paradise, by which men know the good, is Jesus Himself, or63 the knowledge of Him in the world. He who partakes thereof discerns the good and the evil. The world itself, however, is not God’s work; but it was the structure of a portion of matter, and consequently all things perish in it. And what the princes took as spoil from the first man, that is what makes the moon full, and what is being purged day by day of the world. And if the soul makes its exit without having gained the knowledge of the truth, it is given over to the demons, in order that they may subdue it in the Gehennas of fire; and after that discipline it is made to pass into bodies with the purpose of being brought into subjection, and in this manner it is cast into the mighty fire until the consummation. Again, regarding the prophets amongst you,64 he speaks thus: Their spirit is one of impiety, or of the lawlessness of the darkness which arose at the beginning. And being deceived by this spirit, they have not spoken truth; for the prince blinded their mind. And if any one follows their words, he dies for ever, bound to the clods of earth, because he has not learned the knowledge of the Paraclete. He also gave injunctions to his elect alone, who are not more than seven in number. And the charge was this: “When ye cease eating, pray, and put upon your head an olive, sworn with the invocation of many names for the confirmation of this faith.” The names, however, were not made known to me; for only these seven make use of them. And again, the name Sabaoth, which is honourable and mighty with you, he declares to be the nature of man, and the parent of desire; for which reason the simple65 worship desire, and hold it to be a deity. Furthermore, as regards the manner of the creation of Adam, he tells us that he who said, “Come and let us make man in our image, after our likeness,” or “after the form which we have seen,” is the prince who addressed the other princes in terms which may be thus interpreted: “Come, give me of the light which we have received, and let us make man after the form of us princes, even after that form which we have seen, that is to say,66 the first man.” And in that manner he67 created the man They created Eve also after the like fashion, imparting to her of their own lust, with a view to the deceiving of Adam. And by these means the construction of the world proceeded from the operations of the prince.

 

11. He holds also that God has no part with the world itself, and finds no pleasure in it, by reason of its having been made a spoil of from the first by the princes, and on account of the ill that rose on it. Wherefore He sends and takes away from them day by day the soul belonging to Him, through the medium of these luminaries, the sun and the moon, by which the whole world and all creation are dominated. Him, again, who spake with Moses, and the Jews, and the priests, he declares to be the prince of the darkness; so that the Christians, and the Jews, and the Gentiles are one and the same body, worshipping the same God: for He seduces them in His own passions, being no God of truth. For this reason all those who hope in that God who spake with Moses and the prophets have to be bound together with the said deity,68 because they have not hoped in the God of truth; for that deity spake with him in accordance with their own passions. Moreover, after all these things, he speaks in the following terms with regard to the end,69 as he has also written: When the elder has displayed his image,70 the Omophorus then lets the earth go from him, and so the mighty fire gets free, and consumes the whole world. Then, again, he lets the soil go with the new aeon,71 in order that all the souls of sinners may be bound for ever. These things will take place at the time when the man’s image72 has come.73 And all these powers put forth by God,74 – namely, Jesus, who is in the smaller ship,75 and the Mother of Life, and the twelve helmsmen,76 and the virgin of the light, and the third elder, who is in the greater ship, and the living spirit, and the wall77 of the mighty fire, and the wall of the wind, and the air, and the water, and the interior living fire, – have their seat in the lesser luminary, until the fire shall have consumed the whole world: and that is to happen within so many years, the exact number of which, however, I have not ascertained. And after these things there will be a restitution of the two natures;78 and the princes will occupy the lower parts proper to them, and the Father the higher parts, receiving again what is His own due possession. – All this doctrine he delivered to his three disciples, and charged each to journey to a separate clime.79 The Eastern parts fell thus to the lot of Addas; Thomas80 obtained the Syrian territories as his heritage; and another, to wit, Hermeias, directed his course towards Egypt. And to this day they, sojourn there, with the purpose of establishing the propositions contained in this doctrine.81

 

12. When Turbo had made this statement, Archelaus was intensely excited; but Marcellus remained unmoved, for he expected that God would come to the help of His truth. Archelaus, however, had additional cares in his anxiety about the people, like the shepherd who becomes concerned for his sheep when secret perils threaten them from the wolves. Accordingly Marcellus loaded Turbo with the most liberal gifts, and instructed him to remain in the house of Archelaus the bishop.82 But on that selfsame day Manes arrived, bringing along with him certain chosen youths and virgins to the number of twenty-two.83 And first of all he sought for Turbo at the door of the house of Marcellus; and on failing to find him there, he went in to salute Marcellus. On seeing him, Marcellus at first was struck with astonishment at the costume in which he presented himself. For he wore a kind of shoe which is usually called in common speech the quadrisole;84 he had also a party-coloured cloak, of a somewhat airy85 appearance; in his hand he grasped a very sturdy staff of ebony-wood;86 he carried a Babylonian book under his left arm; his legs were swathed in trousers of different colours, the one being red, and the other green as a leek; and his whole mien was like that of some old Persian master and commandant.87 Thereupon Marcellus sent forthwith for Archelaus, who arrived so quickly as almost to outstrip the word, and on entering was greatly tempted at once to break out against him, being provoked to that instantly by the very sight of his costume and his appearance, though more especially also by the fact that he had himself been turning over in his mind in his retirement88 the various matters which he had learned from the recital of Turbo, and had thus come carefully prepared. But Marcellus, in his great thoughtfulness, repressed all zeal for mere wrangling, and decided to hear both parties. With that view he invited the leading men of the city; and from among them he selected as judges of the discussion certain adherents of the Gentile religion, four in number. The names of these umpires were as follows: Manippus, a person deeply versed in the art of grammar and the practice of rhetoric; Aegialeus,89 a very eminent physician, and a man of the highest reputation for learning; and Claudius and Cleobolus,90 two brothers famed as rhetoricians.91 A splendid assemblage was thus convened; so large, indeed, that the house of Marcellus, which was of immense size, was filled with those who had been called to be hearers. And when the parties who proposed to speak in opposition to each other had taken their places in view of all, then those who had been elected as judges took their seats in a position elevated above all others: and the task of commencing the disputation was assigned to Manes. Accordingly, when silence was secured, he began92 the discussion in the following terms:93 – 

 

13. My brethren, I indeed am a disciple of Christ, and, moreover, an apostle of Jesus; and it is owing to the exceeding kindness of Marcellus that I have hastened hither, with the view of showing him clearly in what manner he ought to keep the system of divine religion, so that the said Marcellus verily, who at present has put himself, like one who has surrendered himself prisoner, under the doctrine of Archelaus, may not, like the dumb animals, which are destitute of intellect and understand not what they do, be fatally smitten to the ruin of his soul, in consequence of any failure in the possession of further facilities for setting about the right observance of divine worship. I know, furthermore, and am certain, that if Marcellus is once set right,94 it will be quite possible that all of you may also have your salvation effected; for your city hangs suspended upon his judgment. If vain presumption is rejected by every one of you, and if those things which are to be declared by me be heard with a real love for the truth, ye will receive the inheritance of the age to come, and the kingdom of heaven. I, in sooth, am the Paraclete, whose mission was announced of old time by Jesus, and who was to come to “convince the world of sin and unrighteousness.”95 And even as Paul, who was sent before me, said of himself, that “he knew in part, and prophesied in part,” (1Co_13:9) so I reserve the perfect for myself, in order that I may do away with that which is in part. Therefore receive ye this third testimony, that I am an elect apostle of Christ; and if ye choose to accept my words, ye will find salvation; but if ye refuse them, eternal fire will have you to consume you. For as Hymenaeus and Alexander were delivered unto Satan, that they might learn not to blaspheme,” (1Ti_1:20) so will all ye also be delivered unto the prince of punishments, because ye have done injury to the Father of Christ, in so far as ye declare Him to be the cause of all evils, and the founder of unrighteousness, and the creator of all iniquity. By such doctrine ye do, indeed, bring forth from the same fountain both sweet water and bitter, – a thing which can in no possible way be either done or apprehended. For who ought to be believed? Should it be those masters of yours whose enjoyment is in the flesh, and who pamper themselves with the richest delights; or our Saviour Jesus Christ, who says, as it is written in the book of the Gospels, “A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit,” (Mat_7:18) and who in another place assures us that the “father of the devil96 is a liar and a murderer from the beginning,” (Joh_8:44) and tells us again that men’s desire was for the darkness,97 so that they would not follow that Word that had been sent forth in the beginning from the light,98 and (once more shows us) the man who is the enemy of the same, the sower of tares, (Mat_13:25) and the god and prince of the age of this world, who blinds the minds of men that they may not be obedient to the truth in the Gospel of Christ? (Eph_6:12; 2Co_4:4) Is that God good who has no wish that the men who are his own should be saved? And, not to go over a multitude of other matters, and waste much time, I may defer99 till another opportunity the exposition of the true doctrine; and taking it for granted that I have said enough on this subject for the present, I may revert to the matter immediately before me, and endeavour satisfactorily to demonstrate the absurdity of these men’s teaching, and show that none of these things can be attributed to the God and Father of our Lord and Saviour, but that we must take Satan to be the cause of all our ills. To him, certainly, these must be carried back, for all ills of this kind are generated by him. But those things also which are written in the prophets and the law are none the less to be ascribed to him; for he it is who spake then in the prophets, introducing into their minds very many ignorant notions of God, as well as temptations and passions. They, too, set forth that devourer of blood and flesh; and to that Satan and to his prophets all these things properly pertain which he wished to transfer100 to the Father of Christ, prepared as he was to write a few things in the way of truth, that by means of these he might also gain credence for those other statements of his which are false. Hence it is well for us to receive nothing at all of all those things which have been written of old even down to John, and indeed to embrace only the kingdom of heaven, which has been preached in the Gospel since his days; for they verily but made a mockery of themselves, introducing as they did things ridiculous and ludicrous, keeping some small words given in obscure outline in the law, but not understanding that, if good things are mixed up with evil, the result is, that by the corruption of these evil things, even those others which are good are destroyed. And if, indeed, there is any one who may prove himself able to demonstrate that the law upholds the right, that law ought to be kept; but if we can show it to be evil, then it ought to be done away with and rejected, inasmuch as it contains the ministration of death, which was graven,101 which also covered and destroyed the glory on the countenance of Moses. (1Co_3:7) It is a thing not without peril, therefore, for any one of you to teach the New Testament along with the law and the prophets, as if they were of one and the same origin; for the knowledge of our Saviour renews the one from day to day, while the other grows old and infirm, and passes almost into utter destruction. (Cf. Heb_8:13) And this is a fact manifest to those who are capable of exercising discernment. For just as, when the branches of a tree become aged, or when the trunk ceases to bear fruit any more, they are cut down; and just as, when the members of the body suffer mortification, they are amputated, for the poison of the mortification diffuses itself from these members through the whole body, and unless some remedy be found for the disease by the skill of the physician, the whole body will be vitiated; so, too, if ye receive the law without understanding its origin, ye will ruin your souls, and lose your salvation. For “the law and the prophets were until John;” (Luk_16:16) but since John the law of truth, the law of the promises, the law of heaven, the new law, is made known to the race of man. And, in sooth, as long as there was no one to exhibit to you this most true knowledge of our Lord Jesus, ye had not sin. Now, however, ye both see and hear, and yet ye desire to walk in ignorance,102 in order that ye may keep103 that law which has been destroyed and abandoned. And Paul, too, who is held to be the most approved apostle with us, expresses himself to the same effect in one of his epistles, when he says: “For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a prevaricator.”104 And in saying this he pronounces on them as Gentiles, because they were under the elements of the world, (Gal_4:3) before the fulness of faith came, believing then as they did in the law and the prophets.

 

14. The judges said: If you have any clearer statement yet to make, give us some explanation of the nature105 of your doctrine and the designation106 of your faith. Manes replied: I hold that there are two natures, one good and another evil; and that the one which is good dwells indeed in certain parts proper to it, but that the evil one is this world, as well as all things in it, which are placed there like objects imprisoned107 in the portion of the wicked one, as John says, that “the whole world lieth in wickedness,”108 and not in God. Wherefore we have maintained that there are two localities, – one good, and another which lies outside of this,109 so that, having space therein in his, it might he capable of receiving into itself the creature, i.e., creation, of the world. For if we say that there is but a monarchy of one nature, and that God fills all things, and that there is no location outside of Him, what will be the sustainer of the creature, i.e., creation? where will be the Gehenna of fire? where the outer darkness? where the weeping? Shall I say in Himself? God forbid; else He Himself will also be made to stiffer in and with these. Entertain no such fancies, whosoever of you have any care for your salvation; for I shall give you an example, in order that you may have fuller understanding of the truth. The world is one vessel;110 and if111 the substance of God has already filled this entire vessel, how is it possible now that anything more can be placed in this same vessel? If it is full, how shall it receive what is placed in it, unless a certain portion of the vessel is emptied? Or whither shall that which is to be emptied out make its way, seeing that there is no locality for it? Where then is the earth? where the heavens? where the abyss? where the stars? where the settlements?112 where the powers? where the princes? where the outer darkness? Who is he that has laid the foundations of these, and where? No one is able to tell us that without stumbling on blasphemy. And in what way, again, has He been able to make the creatures, if there is no subsistent matter? For if He has made them out of the non-existent, it will follow that these visible creatures should be superior, and full of all virtues. But if in these there are wickedness, and death, and corruption, and whatever is opposed to the good, how say we that they owe their formation to a nature different from themselves? Howbeit if you consider the way in which the sons of men are begotten, you will find that the creator of man is not the Lord, but another being, who is also himself of an unbegotten113 nature, who has neither founder, nor creator, nor maker, but who, such as he is, has been produced by his own malice alone. In accordance with this, you men have a commerce with your wives, which comes to you by an occasion of the following nature. When any one of you has satiated himself with carnal meats, and meats of other kinds, then the impulse of concupiscence rises in him, and in this way the enjoyment114 of begetting a son is increased; and this happens not as if that had its spring in any virtue, or in philosophy, or in any other gift of mind, but in fulness of meats only, and in lust and fornication. And how shall any one tell me that our father Adam was made after the image of God, and in His likeness, and that he is like Him who made him? How can it be said that all of Us who have been begotten of him are like him? Yea, rather, on the contrary, have we not a great variety of forms, and do we not bear the impress of different countenances? And how true this is, I shall exhibit to you in parables. Look, for instance, at a person who wishes to seal up a treasure, or some other object, and you will observe how, when he has got a little wax or clay, he seeks to stamp it with an impression of his own countenance from the ring which he wears;115 but if another countenance also stamps the figure of itself on the object in a similar manner, will the impression seem like? By no means, although you may be reluctant to acknowledge what is true. But if we are not like in the common impression, and if, instead of that, there are differences in us, how can it fail to be proved thereby that we are the workmanship of the princes, and of matter? For in due accordance with their form, and likeness, and image, we also exist as diverse forms. But if you wish to be, fully instructed as to that commerce which took place at the beginning, and as to the manner in which it occurred, I shall explain the matter to you.

 

 

FOOTNOTES

 

1 Of Archelaus, bishop of Caschar in Mesopotamia.

2 Treasury.

3 In Epiphanus, Haeres., lxvi. 10, it is Marsipus.

4 Pietatis pretia.

5 Nec numero aliquo nec discretione ulla distinguit. For distinguit, some propose distribuit.

6 Reading commonentur, as in the text. Commoventur is also suggested, = “were deeply moved.”

7 On the attitude of the Christians of the primitive Church towards warfare, see Tertullian’s De Corona Militis, ch. 11, and the twelfth canon of the Nicene Council.

8 [The similar institution of the Rogation fasts in the West is referred to the fifth century. Pellicia, p. 372; Hooker, book v. cap. xli. 2.]

9 Reading cervicibus degravatis et laxis, demisso capite, frontem genibus elidit. The text gives demerso.

10 At this point begins the portion of the work edited by Valesius from the Codex Bobiensis, which is preserved now in the Ambrosian Library.

11 The Codex Bobiensis reads, Adda Turbonem. This Adda, or Addas, as the Greek gives it below in ch. xi., was one of those disciples of Manes whom he charged with the dissemination of this heretical opinions in the East, as we see from ch. xi.

12 Codex Bobiensis adds, ad vesperam, towards evening.

13 The text gives veluti peregrinans. The Codex Bobiensis has quippe peregrinans.

14 On the attention paid by the primitive Church to the duties of hospitality, see Tertullian, De Praescriptionibus, ch. 20; Gregory Nazianzenus, in his First Invective against Julian; also Priorius, De literis canonicis, Deu_5:1-33, etc.; and Thomassin, De Tesseris hospitalitatis, Deu_26:1-19.

15 In the text, ignotum; in the Codex Bobiensis, ignoratum.

16 This letter, along with the reply of Marcellus, is given by Epiphanus in his Heresies, n. 6, from which the Greek text is taken.

17 φειδόμενος. The Latin gives subveniens, relieving.

18 The Greek text of Epiphanius gave πρὸς τὸ ἀδιάκριτον. Petavius substituted πρὸς τὸ μὴ ἀδιάκριτον; and that reading is confirmed by the Latin, uti ne indiscretos animos geras.

19 ἀπὸ τοῦ αὐτοῦ φέρεσθαι.

20 ὧν τὸ τέλος κατάρας ἐγγύς. Cf. Heb_6:8.

21 The text gives ἐν τοῖς εἰρημένοις εὐαγγελίοις, for which τοῖς εἰρημένοις ἐν τοῖς εὐαγγελίοις may be proposed.

22 τῆς ἄλλης δυσωδίας τῶν γυναικῶν.

23 φείδῃ.

24 The text gives infrendebat; the Codex Bobiensis has infringebat. [It seems to be a proverb, and I have so marked it. We should say, “he chafed like a lion,” etc.]

25 Ex pueris suis.

26 Epiphanus, under this Heresy, num. 7, says that this was a fort situated on the other side of the river Stranga, between Persia and Mesopotamia.

27 The section extending from this point on to ch. xii. is found word for word in the Greek of Epiphanius, num. 25.

28 μιξιν δὲ ητοι σύγκρασιν.

29 προβάλλειν ἐξ αὐτοῦ δύναμιν. But the Codex Bobiensis gives produxit ex virtute, put forth from His power one, etc. The Codex Casinensis has produxerit et esse virtutem, etc.

30 The text is simply καὶ αὐτὴν προβεβληκέναι τὸν πρῶτον ἄνθρωπον, τὰ πέντε στοιχεῖα. The Latin, with emendations from the Codex Bobiensis and Epiphanius, gives quâ virtute circumdedit primum hominem, quae sunt quinque elementa, etc., = with which power He begirt the first man, with is the same as the five elements, etc. With slights differences the Codex Bobiensis reads quâ circumdedit, and the Codex Casinensis, quae virtute. Petavius pointed out that there is probably an omission in the text here. And from a passage in Epiphanius, Haer., lxvi. n. 45, it has been proposed to fill out the sentence thus: προβάλλειν ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ δύναμιν μητέρα τῆς ζωῆς, καὶ αύτἡν προβεβληκέναι τὸν πρῶτον ἄνθρωπον, αὐτὴν δὲ τὴν μητέρα τῆς ζωῆς τόν τε πρῶτον ἄνθρωπον τὰ πέντε στοιχεῖα. The sense might then be, that the good Father put forth from Himself a power called the Mother of Life, that this Mother of Life put forth the first man, and that the said Mother of Life and the first man put forth (or constituted) the five elements. See the note in Routh’s Reliquiae Sacrae, v. p. 49.

31 The Codex Bobiensis omits the ventus, wind.

32 The Greek gives ἐστερέωσεν ἐν τῷ στερεώματι. The Latin version has, “crucifixit eos in firmamento.” And Routh apparently favours the reading ἐσταύρωσεν = crucified them, etc. Valesius and the Codex Bobiensis have, “descendens eduxit principes Jesu, exiens in firmamentum quod est,” etc.

33 εἰς εἴδη ὀκτώ. The Latin, however, gives et sunt octo, “and they are eight;” thus apparently having read εἰσὶ δὲ ὀκτώ, instead of είς εἴδη ὀκτώ.

34 i.e., one who bears on his shoulders, the upholder.

35 Reading ἐκ τῶν κόλπων, de sinibus suis. But the Codex Bobiensis gives de finibus, from His own territories.

36 The Greek text is, οπως αὐτῷ τὴν προσήκουσαν ἐπιτιμίαν δῷ. The Latin gives, “quo illum, ut par erat, coerceret.” The Codex Bobiensis reads, “quod illum, et pareret, coerceret.” It is clear also that Petavius read correctly ἐπιτιμίαν for ἐπιθυμίαν in Epiphanius.

37 τὰ φυτά.

38 ἔδησεν. The Codex Bobiensis gives, “vexit animam in eo.”

39 But certain codices read et parebat, “and was obedient,” instead of apparebat.

40 κάδους.

41 πορθμεῖα.

42 ἀπόκρουσιν. The Codex Casinensis has apocrisin; but the Codex Bobiensis gives apocrusin.

43 The text gives τῆς ψυχῆς. But from the old Latin version, which has animarum, we may conjecture that τῶν ψυχῶν was read.

44 The Latin version has “vir perfectus,” – a reading which is due apparently to the fact that the author had mistaken the ἀήρ of the Greek for ἀνήρ. [See note 6, p. 176, supra.]

45 ὁ θερισμὸς ἄρχων. The version of Petavius has, “Sic et princeps alter, messor appellatus.” Perhaps the reading should be ὁ θερισμοῦ ἄρχων.

46 λοιμόν. Other codices have famem, as reading λιμόν, famine.

47 ἐὰν δὲ τὰ ἄνω τῆς ῥίζης πόνῳ σαλεύσῃ. It may be also = And if the upper parts of the root shake under the exertion.

48 πῶς μεταγγίζεται ἡ ψυχὴ εἰς πέντε σώματα. But the Codex Bobiensis reads transferuntur; and the Latin version gives, “quomodo et animae in alia quoque corpora transfunduntur” = how the souls are also transfused into other bodies.

49 The text gives κελεφῶν, which is spoken of in Migne as an unknown animal, though κέλεφος (thus accentuated) occurs in ecclesiastical writers in the sense of a leper. It is proposed to read ἐλεφαντιῶν, “of elephants;” and so the Codex Bobiensis gives “elephantorum corpora,” and Codex Casinensis has “in elefantia eorum corpora,” which is probably an error for “in elephantiacorum corpora.” Routh suggest ἐλεφαντειων. [Reliqu. Sac., vol. v. p. 58.]

50 θερίσασα, reaping.

51 νοῦς, ἔννοια, φρόνησις, ἐνθύμησις, λογισμός. The Latin version renders, mens, sensus, prudentia, intellectus, cogitatio. Petavius gives, mens, notio, intelligentia, cogitatio, ratiocinatio.

52 τοῖς ἀπαρχῆς οἶσιν εἰς σκότος. But the Latin version gives “qui ex materia orti,” etc. – who, having sprung from matter, are in darkness.

53 ὀρνίθιον.

54 Explained as a species of Egyptian tree, in which the fruit grows from the stem. The Codex Casinensis has the strange reading, per se ad illam, for perseam, etc. See also Ephiphanius, num. 9.

55 εἰς τὰ ολα σώματα.

56 πήσσει. But the Latin version gives vulnerat, “wounds,” from the reading πλήσσει. [Note 6, p. 176, supra.]

57 εὐσέβειαν. But the Latin version gives alimenta.

58 εἰς τὰς γενεάς. But the Latin version has “poenis subdetur gehennae” = will suffer the pains of hell. [Compare p. 185, infra, “Gehen.”]

59 But the Latin version gives, “respondet ad eum qui ei detulit” = he makes answer to the person who brought it to him.

60 The text is, καὶ πάλιν εἰσὶν ετεροι κόσμοι τινὲς, τῶν φωστήρων δυνάντων ἀπὸ τούτου τοῦ κόσμου, ἐξ ὧν ἀνατέλλουσι. Routh suggests οῖς τινὲς, deleting ἐξ ὧν.

61 Reading εἴ τις, as in the text. Routh suggests εἴ τι, = As to everything existing in this world, I have told you that the body thereof does, etc.

62 But the Latin has “qui vocatur,” etc. = which is called, etc. And Routh thereof proposes ὂς καλεῖται for οὐ καλεῖται.

63 The text gives simply ἡ γνῶσις. The Codex Bobiensis has et scientia. Hence Routh would read καὶ ἡ γνῶσις, and the knowledge.

64 Retaining the reading ὑμῖν, though Petavius would substitute ἡμῖν, us. [Routh corrects Petav., R. S., vol. v. pp. 63, 64]

65 ἁπλάριοι, in the Latin version Simpliciores, a name apparently given to the Catholics by the Manichaeans. See Ducangii Glossarium mediae et infimae Graecitatis. [Routh, v. p. 65, worth noting.]

66 The text gives ὁ ἐστὶ πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος. Routh proposes ὃ ἐστὶ, etc.

67 Or, they.

68 μετ ̓ αὐτοῦ ἔχουσι δεθῆναι.

69 ἐπὶ τέλει.

70 The text is, κάθες αὐτὸς ἔγραψεν · Ὁ πρεσβύτης, etc. The Codex Bobiensis gives, “Sicut ipse senior scripsit: Cum manifestam feceris,” etc., = As the elder himself wrote: When thou hast, etc. The elder here is probably the same as the third elder farther on.

71 The Greek is, ἀφίηις τὸν βῶλον μετὰ τοῦ νέου αἰῶνος; but the Latin version has the strangely diverse rendering, “dimittunt animam quae objicitur inter medium novi saeculi” = they let go the soul that is placed in the midst of the new age. [Routh has τὴν βῶλον.]

72 ἀνδριάς.

73 But the Latin gives “cum statua venerit dies” = when the appointed day has come.

74 αὶ δὲ προβολαὶ πᾶσαι.

75 πλοίῳ. [See Routh, p. 68, on this locus mire depravatus.]

76 κυβερνῆται.

77 τεῖχος.

78 τῶν δύο φύσεων. But the Latin version gives duorum luminarium, and the Codex Casinensis has luminariorum, the two luminaries.

79 Reading κλίματα, with Petavius, for κλήματα.

80 The Codex Casinensis makes no mention of Thomas.

81 Here ends the Greek of Epiphanius.

82 The words, the bishop, are omitted in the Codex Bobiensis.

83 But Codex Bobiensis gives duodecim, twelve.

84 But the Codex Bobiensis gives trisolium, the trisole. Strabo, book xv., tells us that the Persians wore high shoes.

85 Aërina, sky-like. [This portrait seems from life.]

86 Ducange in his Glossary, under the word Εβέλλινος, shows from Callisthenes that the prophets or interpreters of sacred things carried an ebony staff. [Eze_27:15; Routh, p. 71.]

87 The text is, “vultus vero ut senis Persae artificis et bellorum ducis videbatur.” Philippus Buonarruotius, in the Osservazioni sopra alcuni frammenti di vasi antichi di Vetro, Florence, 1716, p. 69, thinks that this rendering has arisen from the Latin translator’s having erroneously read ὡς δημιουργοῦ καὶ στρατηγοῦ instead of ὡς δημάρχου δαὶ στρατηγοῦ. Taking στρατηγοῦ, therefore, in the civil sense which it bears in various passages, he would interpret the sentence thus: “His whole mien was like that of an old Persian tribune and magistrate.” See Gallandi’s note [in Routh, p. 71].

88 The text is secretius factum, etc. Routh suggests secretius factus, etc.

89 The Codex Bobiensis reads “Aegidius.”

90 Epiphanius gives Κλείβουλος.

91 Codex Casinensis reads rectores, governors. And Epiphanius, num. 10, makes the first a professor of Gentile philosophy, the second and physician, the third a grammarian, and the fourth a rhetorician.

92 For primum the Codex Casinensis reads plurima, = he began a lengthened statement, etc.

93 Thus far Valesius edited the piece from the Codex Bobiensis.

94 Reading emendato. Codex Casinensis gives enim dato.

95 Joh_16:8. Injustitia. This reading, de injustitia, may be due to an error on the part of the scribe, but is more probably to be referred to the practice pursued by Manes in altering and corrupting the sacred text to suit his own tenets. See Epiphanius on this heresy, num. 53, and cap. 53, infra. [“He introduced much new matter.”]

96 Patrem diaboli.

97 Referring, perhaps, to Joh_1:5.

98 The text gives, “ut insequerentur … Verbum, et inimicum,” etc. The sense seems to be as above, supposing either that the verb insequerentur is used with the meaning of assailing, persecuting, or that the ut is put for ut ne, as is the case with the excaecat ut at the close of the sentence.

99 Reading differens. but Codex Casinensis gives disserens.

100 Transformare.

101 Informatum.

102 In inscitias ire vultis. It is proposed to read inficias = and yet ye desire to deny the truth. Routh suggests, et odistis et in inscitiam ire vultis = and ye hate it, and choose to take your way into ignorance.

103 Supplying observetis in the clause ut legem, etc.

104 Praevaricatorem. Gal_2:18 [Vulgate. But see p. 176].

105 Or, standard.

106 Titulo.

107 Ergastula.

108 Or, in the wicked one. 1Jo_5:19.

109 The text gives “extra eum.” Routh suggests Deum, outside of God.

110 Vas.

111 The text gives simply “quod Dei substantia,” etc. We may perhaps adopt, with Routh, “quod si Dei,” etc.

112 Sedes. [“Thrones,” as in Milton.] Routh suggests sidera, luminaries.

113 Ingenitae.

114 Fructus.

115 The reference is to the ancient custom of using wax and certain earths and clays for the purpose of affixing, by means of the ring, a seal with an impression on any object which it was desired to secure. Thus Herodotus, ii. 38, tell us how the Egyptians marked the pure victim by wrapping it round the horns with papyrus, and then smearing some sealing earth (γῆν σημαντρίδα) on it, and stamping it with a ring. See also Cicero, Pro Flacco, where he speaks of the laudatio obsignata cretâ illa Asiatica; and Plautus, Pseudolus, Scene i., where he mentions the expressam in cera ex annulo suam imaginem, etc. [Compare vol. 5. p. 466, note 133, this series.]



Archelaus (Cont.)The Acts of the Disputation with the Heresiarch Manes. (Cont.)

15. The judges said: We need not inquire as to the manner in which that primitive commerce took place until we have first seen it proved that there are two natural principles. For when once it is made clear that there are two unbegotten natures, then others of your averments may also gain our assent, even although something in them may not seem to fit in very readily with what is credible. For as the power of pronouncing judgment has been committed to us, we shall declare what may make itself clear to our mind. We may, however, also grant to Archelaus the liberty of speaking to these statements of yours, so that, by comparing what is said by each of you, we may be able to give our decision in accordance with the truth. Archelaus said: Notwithstanding, the adversary’s intent is replete with gross audacity and blasphemy. Manes said: Hear, O judges, what he has said of the adversary.116 He admits, then, that there are two objects. Archelaus said: It seems to me that this man is full of madness rather than of prudence, who would stir up a controversy with me to-day because I chance to speak of the adversary. But this objection of yours may be removed with few words, notwithstanding that you have supposed from this expression of mine that I shall allow that there are these two natures.117 You have come forward with a most extravagant118 doctrine; for neither of the assertions made by you holds good. For it is quite possible that one who is an adversary, not by nature, but by determination, may be made a friend, and cease to be an adversary; and thus, when the one of us has come to acquiesce with the other, we twain shall appear to be, as it were, one and the same object. This account also indicates that rational creatures have been entrusted with free-will,119 in virtue of which they also admit of conversions. And consequently there cannot be two unbegotten natures.120 What do you say, then? Are these two natures inconvertible? or are they convertible? or is one of them converted? Manes, however, held back, because he did not find a suitable reply; for he was pondering the conclusion which might be drawn from either of two answers which he might make, tutoring the matter over thus in his thoughts: If I say that they are converted, he will meet me with that statement which is recorded in the Gospel about the trees; ([Mat_7:15-20]) but if I say that they are not convertible, he will necessarily ask me to explain the condition and cause of their intermingling. In the meantime, after a little delay, Manes replied: They are indeed both inconvertible in so far as contraries are concerned; but they are convertible as far as properties121 are concerned. Archelaus then said: You seem to me to be out of your mind, and oblivious of your own propositions; yea, you do not appear even to recognise the powers or qualities of the very words which you have been learning.122 For you do not understand either what conversion is, or what is meant by unbegotten, or what duality implies, or what is past, or what is present, or what is future, as I have gathered from the opinions to which you have just now given expression. For you have affirmed, indeed, that each of these two natures is inconvertible so far as regards contraries, but convertible so far as regards properties. But I maintain that one who moves in properties does not pass out of himself, but subsists in these same properties, in which he is ever inconvertible; while in the case of one who is susceptible of conversion, the effect is that he is placed outside the pale of properties, and passes within the sphere of accidents.123

 

16. The judges said: Convertibility translates the person whom it befalls into another; as, for example, we might say that if a Jew were to make up his mind to become a Christian, or, on the other hand, if a Christian were to decide to be a Gentile, this would be a species of convertibility, and a cause of the same.124 But, again, if we suppose a Gentile to keep by all his own heathen properties, and to offer sacrifices to his gods, and to do service to the temples as usual, surely you would not be of opinion that he could be said to be converted, while he yet holds by his properties, and goes on in them? What, then, do you say? Do they sustain convertibility or not? And as Manes hesitated, Archelaus proceeded thus: If, indeed, he says that both natures are convertible,125 what is there to prevent our thinking them to be one and the same object? For if they are inconvertible, then surely in natures which are similarly inconvertible and similarly unbegotten there is no, distinction, neither can the one of them be recognised as good or as evil. But if they are both convertible, then, forsooth, the possible result may be both that the good is made evil, and that the evil is made good. If, however, this is the possible result, why should we not speak of one only as unbegotten,126 which would be a conception in worthier accordance with the reckoning of truth? For we have to consider how that evil one became so at first, or against what objects he exercised his wickedness before the formation of the world. When the heavens had not yet appeared, when the earth did not yet subsist, and when there was neither man nor animal, against whom did he put his wickedness in operation? whom did he oppress unjustly? whom did he rob and kill? But if you say that he first appeared in his evil nature to his own kin,127 then without doubt you give the proof that he comes of a good nature. And if, again, all these are also evil, how can Satan then cast out Satan? (Mar_3:23) But while thus reduced to a dilemma on this point, you may change your position in the discussion, and say that the good suffered violence from the evil. But none the more is it without peril for you to make such a statement, to the effect of affirming the vanquishing of the light; for what is vanquished has destruction near it.128 For what says the divine word? “Who can enter into a strong man’s house, and spoil his goods, except he be stronger than he?” (Mar_3:27) But if you allege that he first appeared in his evil nature to men, and only from that time showed openly the marks of his wickedness, then it follows that before this time he was good, and that he took on this quality of conversion because the creation of man 129 was found to have emerged as the cause of his wickedness. But, in fine, let him tell us what he understands by evil, lest perchance he may be defending or setting up a mere name. And if it is not the name but the substance of evil that he speaks of, then let him set before us the fruits of this wickedness and iniquity, since the nature of a tree can never be known but by its fruit.

 

17. Manes said: Let it first be allowed on your side that there is an alien root of wickedness, which God has not planted, and then I shall tell you its fruits. Archelaus said: Truth’s reckoning does not make any such requirement; and I shall not admit to you that there is a root of any such evil tree, of the fruit whereof no one has ever tasted. But just as, when a man desires to make any purchase, he does not produce the money unless he first ascertains by tasting the object whether it is of a dry or a moist species, so I shall not admit to you that the tree is evil and utterly corrupt, unless the quality of its fruit is first exhibited; for it is written, that “the tree is known by its fruits.” (Mat_7:16) Tell us, therefore, O Manes, what fruit is yielded by that tree which is called evil, or of what nature it is, and what virtue it is, that we may also believe with you that the root of that same tree is of that character which you ascribe to it. Manes said: The root indeed is evil, and the tree is most corrupt, but the increase is not from God. Moreover, fornications, adulteries, murders, avarice, and all evil deeds, are the fruits of that evil root. Archelaus said: That we may credit you when you say that these are the fruits of that evil root, give us a taste of these things; for you have pronounced the substance of this tree to be ungenerate,130 the fruits of which are produced after its own likeness. Manes said: The very unrighteousness which subsists in men offers the proof itself, and in avarice too you may taste that evil root. Archelaus said: Well, then, as you have stated the question, those iniquities which prevail among men are fruits of this tree. Manes said: Quite so. Archelaus proceeded: If these, then, are the fruits, that is to say, the wicked deeds of men, it will follow that the men themselves will hold the place of the root and of the tree; for you have declared that they, produce fruits of this nature. Manes said: That is my statement. Archelaus answered: Not well say you, That is my statement: for surely that cannot be your statement; otherwise, when men cease from sinning, this tree of wickedness will appear to be unfruitful. Manes said: What you say is an impossibility; for even though one or another, or several, were to cease sinning, there would yet be others doing evil still. Archelaus said: If it is at all possible for one or another, or several, as you admit, not to sin, it is also possible for all to do the same; for they are all of one parent, and are all men of one lump. And, not to follow at my ease those affirmations which you have so confusedly made through all their absurdities, I shall conclude their refutation by certain unmistakeable counter-arguments. Do you allege that the fruits of the evil root and the evil tree are the deeds of men, that is to say, fornications, adulteries, perjuries, murders, and other similar things? Manes said: I do. Archelaus said: Well, then, if it happened that the race of men was to die off the face of the earth, so that they should not be able to sin any more, the substance of that tree would then perish, and it would bear fruit no more. Manes said: And when will that take place of which you speak? Archelaus said: What131 is in the future I know not, for I am but a man; nevertheless I shall not leave these words of yours unexamined. What say you of the race of men? Is it unbegotten, or is it a production? Manes said: It is a production. Archelaus said: If man is a production, who is the parent of adultery and fornication, and such other things? Whose fruit is this? Before man was made, who was there to be a fornicator, or an adulterer, or a murderer? Manes said: But if the man is fashioned of the evil nature, it is manifest that he is such a fruit,132 albeit he may sin, albeit he may not sin; whence also the name and race of men are once for all and absolutely of this character, whether they may do what is righteous or what is unrighteous. Archelaus said: Well, we may also take notice of that matter. If, as you aver the wicked one himself made man, why is it that he practises his malignity on him?

 

18. The judges said: We desire to have information from you on this point, Manichaeus, to wit, to what effect you have affirmed him to be evil. Do you mean that he has been so from the time when men were made, or before that period? For it is necessary that you should give some proof of his wickedness from the very time from which you declare him to have been evil, Be assured133 that the quality of a wine cannot be ascertained unless one first tastes it; and understand that, in like manner, every tree is known by its fruit. What say you, then? From what time has this personality been evil? For an explanation of this problem seems to us to be necessary. Manes said: He has always been so. Archelaus said: Well, then, I shall also show from this, most excellent friends, and most judicious auditors, that his statement is by no means correct. For iron, to take an example, has not been an evil thing always, but only from the period of man’s existence, and since his art turned it to evil by applying it to false uses; and every sin has come into existence since the period of man’s being. Even that great serpent himself was not evil previous to man, but only after man, in whom he displayed the fruit of his wickedness, because he willed it himself. If, then, the father of wickedness makes his appearance to us after man has come into being, according to the Scriptures, how can he be unbegotten who has thus been constituted evil subsequently to man, who is himself a production? But, again, why should he exhibit himself as evil just from the period when, on your supposition, he did himself create man?134 What did he desire in him? If man’s whole body was his own workmanship, what did he ardently affect in him? For one who ardently affects or desires, desires something which is different and better. If, indeed, man takes his origin from him in respect of the evil nature, we see how man was his own, as I have frequently shown.135 For if man was his own, he was also evil himself, just as it holds with our illustration of the like tree and the like fruit; for an evil tree, as you say, produces evil fruit. And seeing that all were evil, what did be desiderate, or in what could he show the beginning of his wickedness, if from the time of man’s formation man was the cause of his wickedness? Moreover, the law and precept having been given to the man himself, the man had not by any means the power to yield obedience to the serpent, and to the statements which were made, by him; and had the man then yielded no obedience to him, what occasion would there have been for him to be evil? But, again, if evil is unbegotten, how does it happen that man is sometimes found to be stronger than it? For, by obeying the law of God, he will often overcome every root of wickedness; and it would be a ridiculous thing if he, who is but the production, should be found to be stronger than the unbegotten. Moreover, whose is that law with its commandment – that commandment, I mean, which has been given to man? Without doubt it will be acknowledged to be God’s. And how, then, can the law be given to an alien? or who can give his commandment to an enemy? Or, to speak of him who receives the commandment, how can he contend against the devil? that is to say, on this supposition, how can he contend against his own creator, as if the son, while he is a debtor to him for deeds of kindness, were to choose to inflict injuries on the father? Thus you but mark out the profitlessness136 of man on this side, if you suppose him to be contradicting by the law and commandment him who has made him, and to be making the effort to get the better of him. Yea, we shall have to fancy the devil himself to have gone to such an excess of folly, as not to have perceived that in making man he made an adversary for himself, and neither to have considered what might be his future, nor to have foreseen the actual consequence of his act; whereas even in ourselves. who are but productions, there are at least some small gifts of knowledge, and a measure of prudence, and a moderate degree of consideration, which is sometimes of a very trustworthy nature. And how, then, can we believe that in the unbegotten there is not some little portion of prudence, or consideration, or intelligence? Or how can we make the contrary supposition, according to your assertion, namely, that he is discovered to be of the most senseless apprehension, and the dullest heart and in short rather like the brutes in his natural constitution? But if the case stands thus, again, how is it that man, who is possessed of no insignificant power in mental capacity and knowledge, could have received his substance from one who thus is, of all beings, the most ignorant and the bluntest in apprehension? How shall any one be rash enough to profess that man is the workmanship of an author of this character? But, again, if man consists both of soul and of body, and not merely of body without soul, and if the one cannot subsist apart from the other, why will you assert that these two are antagonistic and contrary to each other? For our Lord Jesus Christ, indeed, seems to me to have spoken of these in His parables, when He said: “No man can put new wine into old bottles, else the bottles will break, and the wine run out.” (Mat_9:17) But new wine is to be put into new bottles, as there is indeed one and the same Lord for the bottle and for the wine. For although the substance may be different, yet by these two substances, in their due powers, and in the maintenance of their proper mutual relations.137 the one person of man subsists. We do not say, indeed, that the soul is of one substance with the body, but we aver that they have each their own characteristic qualities; and as the bottle and the wine are applied in the similitude to one race and one species of men, so truth’s reckoning requires us to grant that man was produced complete by the one God: for the soul rejoices in the body, and loves and cherishes it; and none the less does the body rejoice that it is quickened by the soul. But if, on the other hand, a person maintains that the body is the work of the wicked one, inasmuch as it is so corruptible, and antiquated, and worthless, it would follow then that it is incapable of sustainting the virtue of the spirit or the movement of the soul, and the most splendid creation of the same. For just as, when a person puts a piece of new cloth into an old garment, the rent is made worse; (Mat_9:16) so also the body would perish if it were to be associated, under such conditions, with that most brilliant production the soul. Or, to use another illustration: just as, when a man carries the light of a lamp into a dark place the darkness is forthwith put to flight and makes no appearance; so we ought to understand that, on the soul’s introduction into the body the darkness is straightway banished, and one nature at once effected, and one man constituted in one species. And thus, agreeably therewith, it will be allowed that the new wine is put into new bottles, and that the piece of new cloth is not put into the old garment. But from this we are able to show that there is a unison of powers in these two substances, that is to say, in that of the body and in that of the soul; of which unison that greatest teacher in the Scriptures, Paul, speaks, when he tells us, that “God hath set the members every one of them in the body as it hath pleased Him.” (1Co_12:18)

 

19. But if it seems difficult for you to understand this, and if you do not acquiesce in these statements, I may at all events try to make them good by adducing illustrations. Contemplate man as a kind of temple, according to the similitude of Scripture: (1Co_3:17; 2Co_6:16) the spirit that is in man may thus be likened to the image that dwells in the temple. Well, then, a temple cannot be constituted unless first an occupant is acknowledged for the temple; and, on the other hand, an occupant cannot be settled in the temple unless the structure has been erected. Now, since these two objects, the occupant and the structure, are both consecrated together, how can any antagonism or contrariety be found between them, and how should it not rather appear that they have both been the products of subjects that are in amity and of one mind? And that you may know that this is the case, and that these subjects are truly at one both in fellowship and in lineage, He who knows and hears138 all has made this response, “Let us make man,” and so forth. For he who constructs139 the temple interrogates him who fashions the image, and I inquires carefully about the measurements of magnitude, and breadth, and bulk, in order that he may mark off the space for the foundations in accordance with these dimensions; and no one sets about the vain task of building a temple without first making himself acquainted with the measurement needed for the placing of the image. In like manner, therefore, the mode and the measure of the body are made the subject of inquiry, in order that the soul may be appropriately lodged in it by God, the Artificer of all things. But if any one say that he who has moulded the body is an enemy to the God who is the Creator of my soul,140 then how is it that, while regarding each other with a hostile eye, these two parties have not brought disrepute upon the work, by bringing it about either that he who constructs the temple should make it of such narrow dimensions as to render it incapable of accommodating what is placed within it, or that he who fashions the image should come with something so massive and ponderous, that, on its introduction into the temple, the edifice would at once collapse? If such is not the case, then, with these things, let us contemplate them in the light of what we know to be the objects and intents of antagonists. But if it is right for all to be disposed with the same measures and the same equity, and to be d splayed with like glory, what doubt should we still entertain on this subject? We add, if it please you, this one illustration more. Man appears to resemble a ship which has been constructed by the builder and launched into the deep, which, however, it is impossible to navigate without the rudder, by which it can be kept under command, and turned in whatsoever direction its steersman may wish to sail. Also, that the rudder and the whole body of the ship require the same artificer, is a matter admitting no doubt; for without the rudder the whole structure of the ship, that huge body, will be an inert mass. And thins, then, we say that the soul is the rudder of the body; that both these, moreover, are ruled by that liberty of judgment and sentiment which we possess, and which corresponds to the steersman; and that when these two are made one by, union,141 and thus possess a unison of function applicable to all kinds of work, whatever may be the products of their own operation, they bear a testimony to the fact that they have both one and the same author and maker.

 

20. On hearing these argumentations, the multitudes who were present were exceedingly delighted; so much so, indeed, that they were almost laying hands on Manes; and it was with difficulty that Archelaus restrained them, and kept them back, and made them quiet again. The judges said: Archelaus has given us proof sufficient of the fact that the body and soul of man are the works of one hand; because an object cannot subsist in any proper consonance and unison as the work of one hand, if there is any want of harmony in the design and plan. But if it is alleged that one could not possibly have sufficed to develop both these objects, namely, body and soul, this is simply to exhibit the incapacity of the artificer. For thus, even though one should grant that the soul is the creation of a good deity, it will be found to be but an idle work so far as the man is concerned, unless it also takes to itself the body. And if, again, the body is held to be the formation of an evil deity, the work will also none the less be idle unless it receives the soul; and, in truth, unless the soul be in unison with the body by commixture and due introduction, so that the two are in mutual connections, the man will not exist, neither can we speak of him. Hence we are of opinion that Archelaus has proved by a variety of illustrations that there is but one and the same maker for the whole man. Archelaus said: I doubt not, Manes, that you understand this, namely, that one who is born and created142 is called the son of him who begets or creates. But if the wicked one made man, then he ought to be his father, according to nature. And to whom, then, did the Lord Jesus address Himself, when in these terms He taught men to pray: “When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven;” (Mat_6:9; Luk_11:2) and again, “Pray to your Father which is in secret?” (Mat_6:6) But it was of Satan that He spoke when He said, that He “beheld him as lightning fall from heaven;” (Luk_10:18) so that no one dare say that He taught us to pray to him. And surely Jesus did not come down from heaven with the purpose of bringing men together, and reconciling them to Satan; but, on the contrary, He gave him over to be bruised beneath the feet of His faithful ones. However, for my part, I would say that those Gentiles are the more blessed who do indeed bring in a multitude of deities, but at least hold them all to be of one mind, and in amity with each other; whereas this man, though he brings in but two gods, does not blush to posit enmities and discordant sentiments between them. And, in sooth, if these Gentiles were to bring in143 their counterfeit deities under conditions of that kind, we would verily have it in our power to witness something like a gladiatorial contest proceeding between them, with their innumerable natures and diverse sentiments.

 

21. But now, what it is necessary for me to say on the subject of the inner and the outer man, may be expressed in the words of the Saviour to those who swallow a camel, and wear the outward garb of the hypocrite, begirt with blandishments and flatteries. It is to them that Jesus addresses Himself when He says: “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of uncleanness. Or know you not, that He that made that which is without, made that which is within also?” (Mat_23:25; Luk_11:39) Now why did He speak of the cup and of the platter? Was He who uttered these words a glassworker, or a potter who made vessels of clay? Did He not speak most manifestly of the body and the soul? For the Pharisees truly looked to the “tithing of anise and cummin, and left undone the weightier matters of the law;” (Luk_11:42) and while devoting great care to the things which were external, they overlooked those which bore upon the salvation of the soul. For they also had respect to “greetings in the market-place,” (Mat_23:6; Mar_12:38; Luk_20:46) and “to the uppermost seats at feasts:”144 and to them the Lord Jesus, knowing their perdition, made this declaration, that they attended to those things only which were without, and despised as strange things those which were within, and understood not that He who made the body made also the soul. And who is so unimpressible and stolid in intellect, as not to see that those sayings of our Lord may suffice him for all cases? Moreover, it is in perfect harmony with these sayings that Paul speaks, when he interprets to the following intent certain things written in the law: “Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith He it altogether for our sakes?” (1Co_9:9) But why should we waste further time upon this subject? Nevertheless I shall add a few things out of many that might be offered. Suppose now that there are two unbegotten principles, and that we determine fixed localities for these: it follows then that God is separated,145 if He is supposed to be within a certain location, and not diffused everywhere; and He will consequently be represented as much inferior to the locality in which He is understood to be for the object which contains is always greater146 than the object which is contained in it: and thus God is made to be of that magnitude which corresponds with the magnitude of the locality in which He is contained, just as is the case with a man in a house.147 Then, further, reason asks who it is that has divided between them, or who has appointed for them their determinate limits; and thus both would be made out to be the decided inferiors of man’s own power.148 For Lysimachus and Alexander held the empire of the whole world, and were able to subdue all foreign nations, and the whole race of then; so that throughout that period there was no other in possession of empire besides themselves under heaven. And how will any one be rash enough to say that God, who is the true light that never suffers eclipse, and whose is also the kingdom that is holy and everlasting, is not everywhere present, as149 is the way with this most depraved man, who, in his impiety, refuses to ascribe to the Omnipotent God even equal power with men?150

 

22. The judges said: We know that a light shines through the whole house, and not in some single part of it; as Jesus also intimates when He says, that “no man lighting a candle puts it under a bushel, but on a candlestick, that it may give light unto all that are in the house.” (Mat_5:16) If, then, God is a light, it must needs be that light (if Jesus is to be credited) shall shine on the whole world, and not on any portions of it merely. And if,151 then, that light holds possession of the whole world, where now can there be any ungenerated darkness? or how can darkness be understood to exist at all, unless it is something simply accidental? Archelaus said: Forasmuch, indeed, as the word of the Gospel is understood much better by you than by this person who puts himself forward as the Paraclete, although I could call him rather parasite than paraclete, I shall tell you how it has happened that there is darkness. When the light had been diffused everywhere, God began to constitute the universe, and commenced with the heaven and the earth; in which process this issue appeared, to wit, that the midst,152 which is the locality of earth covered with shadow, as a consequence of the interposition153 of the creatures which were called into being, was found to be obscure, in such wise that circumstances required light to be introduced into that place, which was thus situated in the midst. Hence in Genesis, where Moses gives an account of the construction of the world, he makes no mention of the darkness either as made or as not made. But he keeps silence on that subject, and leaves the explanation of it to be discovered by those who may be able to give proper attention to it. Neither, indeed, is that a very arduous and difficult task. For to whom may it not he made plain that this sun of ours is visible, when it has risen in the east, and taken its course toward the west, but that when it has gone beneath the earth, and been carried farther within that formation which among the Greeks is called the sphere, it then ceases to appear, being overshadowed in darkness in consequence of the interposition of the bodies?154 When it is thus covered, and when the body of the earth stands opposite it, a shadow is superinduced, which produces from itself the darkness; and it continues so until again, after the course of the inferior space has been traversed in the night, it rolls towards the east, and is seen to rise once more in its wonted seats. Thus, then, the cause of the shadow and the night is discovered in the solidity of the body of the earth, – a thing, indeed, which a man may understand from the fact of the shadow cast by his own body155 For before the heaven and the earth and all those corporeal creatures appeared, the light remained always constant, without waning or eclipse, as there existed no body which might produce shadow by its opposition or intervention; and consequently one must say that nowhere was there darkness then, and nowhere night. For if, to take an illustration, it should please Him who has the power of all things to do away with the quarter156 which lies to the west, then, as the sun would not direct its course toward that region, there would nowhere emerge either evening or darkness, but the sun would be on its course always, and would never set, but would almost always hold the centre tract of heaven, and would never cease to appear; and by this the whole world would be illumined with the clearest light, in virtue of which no part of it would suffer obscuration, but the equal power of one light would remain everywhere. But on the other hand, while the western quarter keeps its position, and the sun executes157 its course in three parts of the world, then those who are under the sun will be seen to be illuminated more brightly; so that I might almost say, that while the people who belong to the diverse tract are still asleep, those former are in possession of the day’s beginning. But just158 as those Orientals have the light rising on them earlier than the people who live in the west, so they have it also more quickly obscured, and they only who are settled in the middle of the globe see always an equality of light. For when the sun occupies the middle of the heavens, there is no place that can appear to be either brighter or darker (than another), but all parts of the world are illuminated equally and impartially by the sun’s effulgence.159 If, then, as we have said above, that portion of the western tract were done away with, the part which is adjacent to it would now no more suffer obscuration. And these things I could indeed set forth somewhat more simply, as I might also describe the zodiacal circle; but I have not thought of looking into these matters at present.160 I shall therefore say nothing of these, but shall revert to that capital objection urged by my adversary, in his affirming so strenuously161 that the darkness is ungenerated; which position, however, has also been confuted already, as far as that could have been done by us.

 

23. The judges said: If we consider that the light existed before the estate of the creatures was introduced, and that there was no object in an opposite position which might generate shadow, it must follow that the light was then diffused everywhere, and that all places were illuminated with its effulgence, as has been shown by what you have stated just now; and as we perceive that the true explanation is given in that, we assign the palm to the affirmations of Archelaus. For if the universe is clearly divided, as if some wall had been drawn through the centre of it, and if on the one side the light dwells, and on the other side the darkness, it is yet to be understood that this darkness has been brought accidentally about through the shadow generated in consequence of the objects which have been set up in the world; and hence again we must ask who it is that has built this wall between the two divisions, provided you indeed admit the existence of such a construction, O Manichaeus. But if we have to take account of this matter on the supposition that no such wall has been built, then again it comes to be understood that the universe forms but one locality, without any exception, and is placed under one power; and if so, then the darkness can in no way have an ungenerated nature. Archelaus said: Let him also explain the following subject with a view to what has been propounded. If God is seated in His kingdom, and if the wicked one in like manner is seated in his kingdom, who can have constructed the wall between them? For no object can divide two substances except one that is greater than either,162 even as it is said163 in the book of Genesis, that “God divided the light from the darkness.” (Gen_1:4) Consequently the constructor of this wall must also be some one of a capacity like that: for the wall marks the boundaries of these two parties, just as among people who dwell in the rural parts a stone is usually taken to mark off the portion of each several party; which custom, however, would afford a better apprehension of the case were we to take the division to refer specially to the marking out of an inheritance failing to brothers. But for the present I have not to speak of matters like these, however essential they may appear. For what we are in quest of is an answer to the question, Who can have constructed the wall required for the designation of the limits of the kingdom of each of these twain? No answer has been given. Let not this perfidious fellow hesitate, but let him now acknowledge that the substance of his duality has been reduced again to a unity. Let him mention any one who can have constructed that middle wall. What could the one of these two parties have been engaged in when the other was building? Was he asleep? or was he ignorant of the fact? or was he unable to withstand the attempt? or was he bought over with a price? Tell us what he was about, or tell us who in all the universe was the person that raised the construction. I address my appeal to you, O judges, whom God has sent to us with the fullest plenitude of intelligence; judge ye which of these two could have erected the structure, or what the one could have been doing all the while that the other was engaged in the building.

 

24. The judges said: Tell us, O Manes, who designated the boundaries for the kingdom of each, and who made the middle wall? For Archelaus begs that due importance be attached, to the practice of interrogation in this discussion. Manes said: The God who is good, and who has nothing in common with evil, placed the firmament in the midst, in order to make it plain164 that the wicked one is an alien to Him. Archelaus said: How fearfully you belie the dignity of that name! You do indeed call Him God, but you do so in name only, and you make His deity resemble man’s infirmities. At one time out of the non-existent, and at another time out of underlying matter, which indeed thus existed before Himself, you assert that He did build the structure, as builders among men are wont to do. Sometimes also you speak of Him as apprehensive, and sometimes as variable. It is, however, the part of God to do what is proper to God, and it is the part of man to do what is proper to man. If, then, God, as you say, has constructed a wall, this is a God who marks Himself out as apprehensive, and as possessed of no fortitude. For we know that it is always the case that those who are suspicious of the preparation of secret perils against them by strangers, and who are afraid of the plots of enemies, are accustomed to surround their cities with walls, by which procedure they at once secure themselves in their ignorance, and display their feeble capacity. But here, too, we have something which ought not to be passed over by us in silence, but rather brought prominently forward; so that even by the great abundance of our declarations on the subject our adversary’s manifold craftiness may be brought to nought, with the help of the truth on our side. We may grant, then, that the structure of the wall has been made with the purpose of serving to distinguish between the two kingdoms; for without this one division165 it is impossible for either of them to have his own proper kingdom. But granting this, then it follows further that in the same manner it will also be impossible for the wicked one to pass without his own proper limits and invade the territories of the good King, inasmuch as the wall stands there as an obstacle, unless it should chance first to be cast down, for we have heard that such things have been done by enemies, and indeed with our own eyes we have quite recently seen an achievement of that nature successfully carried out.166 And when a king attacks a citadel surrounded by a strong wall, he uses first of all the ballista167 and projectiles; then he endeavours to cut through the gates with axes, and to demolish the walls by the battering-rams; and when he at last obtains an entrance, and gains possession of the place, he does whatever he listeth, whether it be his pleasure to carry off the citizens into captivity, or to make a complete destruction of the fortress and its contents, or whether, on the. other hand, it may be his will to grant indulgence to the captured stronghold on the humble suit of the conquered. What, then, does my opponent here say to this analogy? Did no adversary substantially – which is as much as to say, designedly – overthrow the muniment cast up between the two?168 For in his former statements he has avouched that the darkness passed without its own limits, and supervened upon the kingdom of the good God. Who, then, overthrew that munition before the one could thus? have crossed over to the other? For it was impossible for the evil one to find any entrance while the munition stood fast. Why are you silent? Why do you hesitate, Manichaeus? Yet, although you may hold back, I shall proceed with the task of my own accord. For if we suppose you to say that God destroyed it, then I have to ask what moved Him in this way to demolish the very thing which He had Himself previously constructed on account of the importunity of the wicked one, and for the purpose of preserving the separation between them? In what fit of passion, or under what sense of injury, did He thus set about contending against Himself? Or was it that He lusted after some of the possessions of the wicked one? But if none of these things formed the real cause that led God to destroy those very things which He had constructed a long time before with the view of estranging and separating the wicked one from Him, then it must needs be considered no matter of surprise if God should also have become delighted with his society;169 for, on your supposition, the munition which had been set up with the purpose of securing God against trouble from him, will appear to have been removed just because now he is to be regarded no more as an enemy, but as a friend. And, on the other hand, if you aver that the wall was destroyed by the wicked one, tell us then how it can be possible for the works of the good God to be mastered by the wicked one. For if that is possible, then the evil nature will be proved to be stronger than God. Furthermore, how can that being, seeing that he is pure and total darkness, surprise the light and apprehend it, while the evangelist gives us the testimony that “the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not?” (Joh_1:5) How is this blind one armed? How does the darkness fight against the kingdom of light? For even as the creatures of God170 here cannot take in the rays of the sun with uninjured eye,171 so neither can that being bear the clear vision of the kingdom of light, but he remains for ever a stranger to it, and an alien.

 

25. Manes said: Not all receive the word of God, but only those to whom it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven. (Mat_19:11) And even now172 I know who are ours; for “my sheep,” He says, “hear my voice.” (Joh_10:27) For the sake of those who belong to us, and to whom is given the understanding of the truth, I shall speak in similitudes. The wicked one is like a lion that sought to steal upon the flock of the good shepherd; and when the shepherd saw this, he dug a huge pit, and took one kid out of the flock and cast it into the pit. Then the lion, hungering to get at it, and bursting with passion to devour it, ran up to the pit and fell in, and discovered no strength sufficient to bring him out again. And thereupon the shepherd seized him and shut him up carefully in a den, and at the same time secured the safety of the kid which had been with him in the pit. And it is in this way that the wicked one has been enfeebled, – the lion, so to speak, possessing no more capacity for doing aught injurious; and so all the race of souls will be saved, and what once perished will yet be restored to its proper flock. Archelaus said: If you compare the wicked one to the lion, and God to the true shepherd, tell us, whereunto shall we liken the sheep and the kid? Manes said: The sheep and the kid seem to me to be of one nature: and they are taken as figures of souls. Archelaus said: Well, then, God gave a soul over to perdition when He set it before the lion in the pit. Manes said: By no means; far from it. But He was moved by a particular disposition,173 and in the future He will save that other, the soul. Archelaus said: Now, surely it would be an absurd procedure, my hearers, if a shepherd who dreaded the inroad of a lion were to expose to the beast’s devouring fury a lamb that he was wont to carry in his bosom, and if it were then to be said that he meant to save the creature hereafter. Is not this something supremely ridiculous? Yea, there is no kind of sense in this. For on the supposition implied in your similitude God thus handed over to Satan a soul that he might seize and ruin. But when did the shepherd ever do anything like that?174 Did not David deliver a sheep out of the mouth of a lion or of a bear? And we mention this on account of the expression, out of the mouth of the lion; for, on your theory, this would imply that the shepherd can bring forth out of the mouth of the lion, or out of the belly of the same, the very object which it has devoured.175 But you will perhaps make this answer, that it is of God we speak, and that He is able to do all things. Hear, however, what I have to say to that: Why then do you not rather assert His real capacity, and affirm simply His ability to overcome the lion in His own might, or with the pure power of God, and without the help of any sort of cunning devices, or by consigning a kid or a lamb to a pit?176 Tell me this, too, if the lion were to be supposed to come upon the shepherd at a time when he has no sheep, what would the consequence be? For he who is here called the shepherd is supposed to be unbegotten, and he who is here the lion is also unbegotten. Wherefore, when man did not yet exist – in other words, before the shepherd had a flock – if the lion had then come upon the shepherd, what would have followed, seeing that there could have been nothing for the lion to eat before the kid was in existence? Manes said: The lion certainly had nothing to devour, but yet he exercised his wickedness on whatever he was able to light upon as he coursed over the peaks of the mountains; and if at any time food was a matter of necessity with him, he seized some of the beasts which were under his own kingdom. Archelaus said: Are these two objects, then, of one substance – the beasts which are under the kingdom of the wicked one, and the kids which are in the kingdom of the good God?177 Manes said: Far from it; not at all: they have nothing in common either between themselves or between the properties which pertain to them severally. Archelaus said: There is but one and the same use made of the food in the lion’s eating. And though he sometimes got that food from the beasts belonging to himself, and sometimes from those belonging to the good God, there is still no difference between them as far as regards the meats furnished; and from this it is apparent that those are of but one substance. On the other hand, if we say that there is a great difference between the two, we do but ascribe ignorance to the shepherd,178 in so far as he did not present or set before the lion food adapted to his use, but rather alien meats. Or perchance again, in your desire to dissemble your real position, you will say to me that lion ate nothing. Well, supposing that to be the case, did God then in this way challenge that being to devour a soul while he knew not how to devour aught? and was the pit not the only thing which God sought to employ with the view of cheating him? – if indeed it is at all worthy of God to do that sort of thing, or to contrive deceitful schemes. And that would be to act like a king who, when war is made upon him, puts no kind of confidence in his own strength, but gets paralyzed with the fears of his own feebleness, and shuts himself up within the walls of his city, and erects around him a rampart and other fortifications, and gets them all equipped, and trusts nothing to his own hand and prowess; whereas, if he is a brave man, the king so placed will march a great distance from his own territories to meet the enemy there, and will put forth every possible exertion until he conquers and brings his adversary into his power.

 

26. The judges said: If you allege that the shepherd exposed the kid or the lamb to the lion, when the said lion was meditating an assault179 on the unbegotten, the case is closed. For seeing that the shepherd of the kids and lambs is himself proved to be in fault to them, on what creature can he pronounce judgment, if it happens that the lamb which has been given up180 through the shepherd’s weakness has proved unable to withstand the lion, and if the consequence is that the lamb has had to do whatever has been the lion’s pleasure? Or, to take another instance, that would be just as if a master were to drive out of his house, or deliver over in terror to his adversary, one of his slaves, whom he is unable afterwards to recover by his own strength. Or supposing that by any chance it were to come about that the slave was recovered, on what reasonable ground could the master inflict the torture on him, if it should turn out that the man yielded obedience to all that the enemy laid upon him, seeing that it was the master himself181 who gave him up to the enemy, just as the kid was given up to the lion? You affirm, too, that the shepherd understood the whole case beforehand. Surely, then, the lamb, when under the lash, and interrogated by the shepherd as to the reason why it had submitted to the lion in these matters, would make some such answer as this: “Thou didst thyself deliver me over to the lion, and thou didst offer no resistance to him, although thou didst know and foresee what would be my lot, when it was necessary for me to yield myself to his commandments.” And, not to dilate on this at greater length, we may say that by such an illustration neither is God exhibited as a perfect shepherd, nor is the lion shown to have tasted alien meats; and consequently, under the instruction of the truth itself, it has been made clear that we ought to give the palm to the reasonings adduced by Archelaus. Archelaus said: Considering that, on all the points which we have hitherto discussed, the thoughtfulness of the judges has assigned us the amplest scope, it will be well for us to pass over other subjects in silence, and reserve them for another period. For just as, if182 a person once crushes the head of a serpent, he will not need to lop off any of the other members of its body; so, if we once dispose183 of this question of the duality, as we have endeavoured to do to the best of our ability, other matters which have been maintained in connection with it may be held to be exploded along with it. Nevertheless I shall yet address myself, at least in a few sentences, to the assertor of these opinions himself, who is now in our presence; so that it may be thoroughly understood by all who he is, and whence he comes, and what manner of person he proves himself to be. For he has given out that he is that Paraclete whom Jesus on His departure promised to send to the race of man for the salvation of the souls of the faithful; and this profession he makes as if he were somewhat superior even to Paul184 who was an elect vessel and a called apostle, and who on that ground, while preaching the true doctrine, said:185 “Or seek yea proof of that Christ who speaks in me?”186 What I have to say, however, may become clearer by such an illustration as the following:187 – A certain man gathered into his store a very large quantity of corn, so that the place was perfectly full. This place he shut and sealed in a thoroughly satisfactory fashion, and gave directions to keep careful watch over it. And the master himself then departed. However, after a lengthened lapse of time another person came to the store, and affirmed that he had been despatched by the individual who had locked up and sealed the place with a commission also to collect and lay up a quantity of wheat in the same. And when the keepers of the store saw him, they demanded of him his credentials, in the production of the signet, in order that they might assure themselves of their liberty to open the store to him and to render their obedience to him as to one sent by the person who had sealed the place. And when he could188 neither exhibit the keys nor produce the credentials of the signet, for indeed he had no right, he was thrust out by the keepers, and compelled to flee. For instead of being what he professed to be, he was detected to be a thief and a robber by them, and was convicted and found out189 through the circumstance that, although, as it seemed, he had taken it into his head to make his appearance a long time after the period that had been determined on beforehand, he yet could neither produce keys, or signet, or any token whatsoever to the keepers, nor display any knowledge of the quantity of corn that was in store: all which things were so many unmistakeable proofs that he had not been sent across by the proper owner; and accordingly, as was matter of course,190 he was forbidden admittance by the keepers. 

 

 

FOOTNOTES

 

133 Routh, however, points differently, so that the sense is: Be assured that is it necessary to give some proof, etc. … For the quality of a wine, etc.

134 The text is, “ex hominis tempore a se creati cur malus ostendatur,” which is taken to be equivalent to, “ex tempore quo hominem ipse creavit,” etc.

135 The reading adopted by Migne is, “si ergo ex eo homo est, mala natura, demonstratur quomodo suus fuit, ut frequenter ostendi.” Others put the sentence interrogatively = If man takes his origin from him, (and) the evil nature is thus demonstrated, in what sense was man his own, etc.? Routh suggests ex quo for ex eo = If the evil nature is demonstrated just from the time of man’s existence, how was man, etc.?

136 The reading is inutilitatem. But Routh points out that this is probably the translation of τὴν εὐτέλειαν, vilitatem, meanness.

137 Dominatione et observantiae usu.

138 The reading is scit et audit. Routh somewhat needlessly suggests scite audit = he who hears intelligently.

139 The codex gives “hic enim qui exstruis.” It is proposed to read “sic enim qui exstruit” = For in this very way he who constructs.

140 The text gives “quod si dicat quis inimicum esse eum qui plasmaverit corpus; Deus qui Creator,” etc. The Codex Casinensis reads Deum. We adopt the emendation Deo and the altered punctuation, thus: “quod si dicat quis inimicum esse eum qui plasmaverit corpus Deo qui creator est animae,” etc.

141 Reading “per conjunctionem” for the simple conjunctionem.

142 Reading “natus est et creatus.” The Codex Casinensis has “natus est creatus.”

143 Codex Casinensis gives introduceret; but, retaining the reference to the Gentiles, we read introducerent.

144 The Codex Casinensis gives a strangely corrupt reading here: “primos discipulos subitos in coenis, quod scientes Dominus.” It is restored thus: “primos discubitus in coenis, quos sciens Dominus,” etc.

145 Dividitur.

146 Reading majus for the inept malus of the Codex Casinensis.

147 Routh refers us here to Maximus, De Natura, § 2. See Reliquiae Sacrae, ii. 89-91.

148 The text is “multo inferior vertutis humanae,” which is probably a Graecism.

149 Reading ceu for the eu of the Codex Casinensis.

150 The Codex Casinensis gives “nec quae vellem quidem,” for which “nec aequalem quidem,” etc., is suggested, as in the translation.

151 The text gives a quo si, etc. Routh suggests atqui si, etc.

152 Medietas.

153 Reading objectu … creaturarum, instead of obtectu, etc., in Codex Casinensis.

154 The text of this sentence stands thus in Migne and Routh: “cui enim non fiat manifestum, solem istum visibilem, cum ab oriente fuerit exortus, et tetenderit iter suum ad occidentem, cum sub terram ierit, et interior effectus fuerit ea quae apud Graecos aphaera vocatur, quod tunc objectu corporum obumbratus non appareat?” The Codex Casinensis reads quod nunc oblectu, etc. We should add that it was held by Anaximander and others that there was a species of globe or sphere (σφαῖρα) which surrounded the universe. [Vol. 2. p. 136, n. 39.]

155 Reading ex suimet ipsius umbra for exuet ipsius umbra, which is given in the Codex Casinensis.

156 Plagam.

157 Ministrante.

158 The text is “Sicut autem ante,” etc. Routh suggests, Sole adeunte, etc.

159 Reading “ex aequo et justo, solis fulgore,” etc. The Codex Casinensis has “ex ea quo solis fulgure.”

160 The text is altogether corrupt – sed non intui hunc fieri ratus sum; so that the sense can only be guessed at. Routh suggests istud for intui.

161 Codex Casinensis gives “omni nisi,” for which we adopt “omni nisu.”

162 Reading utriusque majus. The Codex Casinensis has utrunque majus.

163 The text is dicit, for which dicitur may be adopted.

164 Reading “patefaceret” for the “partum faceret” of Codex Casinensis.

165 The text gives sine hoc uno. But perhaps Routh is right in suggesting muro for uno = without this wall.

166 Some suppose that Archelaus refers here to the taking of Charrae by the Persians in the time of Valerianus Augustus, or to its recapture and restoration to the Roman power by the Eastern king Odenathus during the empire of Gallienus.

167 The ballista was a large engine fitted with cords somewhat like a bow, by which large masses of stone and other missiles were hurled to a great distance.

168 The sense is obscure here. The text gives, “non substantia id est proposito adversarius quis dejecit,” etc. Migne edits the sentence without an interrogation. We adopt the interrogative form with Routh. The idea perhaps is, Did no adversary with materials such as the kings of earth use, and that is as much as to say also with a determinate plan, overthrow, etc.?

169 The Codex Casinensis has “nec mirum putandum est consortio,” etc. We read with Routh and others, si ejus consortio, or quod ejus consortio, etc.

170 The text gives simply, sicut enim haec. Routh suggests hae.

171 Reading illaesis oculis for the illius oculis of Codex Casinensis.

172 The text gives et jam quidem for the etiam quidem of the Codex Casinensis.

173 Apprehensus est hoc ingenio. For hoc here, Routh suggests hic in reference to the leo; so that the sense might be = But by this plan the lion was caught, and hereafter He will save the soul.

174 The text is, “Quando enim pastor, nonne David de ore leonis,” etc. We adopt the amended reading, “Quando enim pastor hoc fecit? Nonne David,” etc.

175 Routh would put this interrogatively = Can he bring out of the mouth or the belly of the lion what it has once devoured?

176 This seems to be the sense intended. The text in the Codex Casinensis runs thus: “Cur igitur quod possit non illud potius asseris quod poterit propria virtute vincere leonem, si et pura Dei potentia,” etc. For si et pura we may read sive pura, or si est pura, etc.

177 Routh takes it as a direct assertion = It follows, then, that these two objects are of one substance, etc.

178 The text runs, “sed aliud longe differre ignorantiam pastori ascribimus;” for which we adopt the emendation, “sed alium ab alio longe differre si dicamus, ignorantiam pastori ascribimus.”

179 Migne reads irrueret. Routh gives irruerat, had made an assault.

180 The text gives si causa traditus, etc. Routh suggests sive causa. Traditus, etc.: so that the sense would be, For on what creature can the shepherd of the kids and lambs pronounce judgment, seeing that he is himself proved to be in fault to them, or to be the cause of their position? For the lamb, having been given up, etc.

181 Reading eum ipse for eum ipsum.

182 Reading si quis for the simple quis of the Codex Casinensis.

183 Reading “quaestione rejecta” for the relecta of Codex Casinensis.

184 This seems to be the general sense of the corrupt text here, et non longe possit ei Paulus, etc., in which we must either suppose something to have been lost, or correct it in some such way as this: “ut non longe post sit ei Paulus.” Compare what Manes says also of Paul and himself in ch. xiii. above. It should be added, however, that another idea of the passage is thrown out in Routh. According to this, the ei refers to Jesus, and the text being emended thus, etsi non longe post sit ei, the sense would be: although not long after His departure He had Paul as an elect vessel, etc. The allusion thus would be to the circumstance that Manes made such a claim as he did, in spite of the fact that after Christ’s departure Paul was gifted with the Spirit in so eminent a measure for the building up of the faithful.

185 Reading aiebat for the agebat of Codex Casinensis.

186 2Co_13:3. The reading here is, “Aut documentum quaeritis,” etc. The Vulgate also gives An experimentum, for the Greek ἐπεί, etc.

187 The text is, “et quidem quod dico tali exemplo sed clarius.” For sed it is proposed to read fit, or sit, or est.

188 Codex Casinensis has quicunque. We adopt the correction qui cum nec.

189 Reading confutatus for confugatus.

190 The text gives “et ideo ut consequenter erat,” etc. Codex Casinensis omits the ut. Routh proposes, “et ideo consequenter thesaurus,” etc. = and thus, of course, the treasure was preserved, etc. Comp. ch. xxvii. and xxxiv.