55. On hearing this, the
multitude wished to seize Manes and hand him over to the power of those
foreigners who were their neighbours, and who dwelt beyond the river
Stranga,2136
| 2136 But
Codex Reg. Alex. Vat. reads “Stracum fluvium.” |
especially as
also some time before this certain parties had come to
seek him out;
who, however, had to take their leave again without finding any trace
of him, for at that time he was in flight. However, when
Archelaus made this declaration, Manes at once took to flight, and
succeeded in making his
escape good before any one followed in pursuit
of him. For the people were detained by the narrative which was
given by
Archelaus, whom they heard with great
pleasure;
2137
| 2137 The
text gives, “evadere potuit dum nemo eum insequeretur. Sed
populus, cum Archelai quem libenter audiebant relatione
teneretur,” etc. The Codex Reg. Alex. Vat. reads
“evadere potuit dum ne eum insequeretur is populus, et Archelai
quem libenter audiebant relatione tenerentur.” Routh
suggests, “dum eum nemo insequeretur, sed populus
Archelai,” etc. |
nevertheless
some of them did follow in close pursuit after him. But he made
again for the roads by which he had come, and crossed the
river, and
effected his return to the
castle of Arabion.
2138
| 2138
The same Codex Vat. reads Adrabion here. |
There, however, he was
afterwards
apprehended and brought before the king, who, being inflamed
with the strongest indignation against him, and fired with the desire
of avenging two
deaths upon him,—namely, the
death of his own
son, and the
death of the
keeper of the
prison,—gave orders that
he should be flayed and hung before the
gate of the city, and that his
skin should be dipped in certain medicaments and inflated; his
flesh,
too, he commanded to be given as a prey to the
birds.
2139
| 2139 The
Codex Reg. Alex. Vat. ends with these words. |
When these things came under the
knowledge of
Archelaus at a later period, he added
an account of
them to the former discussion, so that all the facts might be made
known to all, even as I, who have written
2140
| 2140 [See p.
177, supra. A fair discussion as to authenticity.] |
narrative of
2141
these matters, have explained the
circumstances in what precedes. And all the
Christians,
therefore, having
assembled,
resolved that the decision should be given
against him transmitting that as a sort of epilogue to his
death which
would be in proper consonance with the other circumstances of his
life. Besides that,
Archelaus added words to the following
effect:—My
brethren, let none of you be incredulous in regard to
the statements made by me: I refer to the assertion that Manes
was not himself the first
author of this impious dogma, but that it was
only made
public by him in certain
regions of the
earth. For
assuredly that man is not at once to be reckoned the
author of anything
who has simply been the bearer of it to some quarter or other, but only
he has a right to that credit who has been the discoverer of it.
For as the helmsman who receives the
ship which another has built, may convey
it to any
countries he pleases, and yet he remains one who has had
nothing to do with the construction of the
vessel, so also is this
man’s position to be understood. For he did not impart its
origin to this matter really from the beginning; but he was only the
means of transmitting to men what had been
discovered by another, as we
know on the evidence of trustworthy
testimonies, on the ground of which
it has been our purpose to
prove to you that the invention of this
wickedness did not come from Manes,
2142
| 2142 Codex
Casinensis reads, “non ex Manen originem mali hujus Manes
esse.” We adopt the conjecture, “non ex Mane originem
mali hujus manasse.” |
but that it originated with another, and
that other indeed a foreigner, who appeared a long time before
him. And further, that the dogma remained unpublished for a time,
until at length the
doctrines which had thus been
lying in obscurity
for a certain period were brought forward publicly by him as if they
were his own, the title of the writer having been deleted, as I have
shown above. Among the Persians there was also a certain
promulgator of similar tenets, one Basilides,
2143
| 2143
The following note on this Basilides may be given from
Migne:—“Although Eusebius (Hist. Eccles., iv. 7)
tells us that the Basilides who taught heresy shortly after the times
of the apostles was an Alexandrian, and opened schools of error in
Egypt, the Basilides mentioned here by Archelaus may still be one and
the same person with that Alexandrian, notwithstanding that it is said
that he taught his heresy among the Persians. For it may very
well be the case that Basilides left Alexandria, and made an attempt to
infect the Persians also with his heretical dogmas. At the same
time, there is no mention among ancient authorities, so far as I know,
of a Persian Basilides. The Alexandrian Basilides also wrote
twenty-four books on the Gospel, as the same Eusebius testifies; and
these do not appear to be different from those books of
Tractates which Archelaus cites, and from the Exegetics,
from the twenty-third book of which certain passages are given by
Clement of Alexandria in the fourth book of his
Stromateis.It is not clear however, whether that
Gospel on which Basilides wrote was the Gospel of the Apostles, or
another which he made up for himself, and of which mention is made in
Origen’s first Homily on Luke, in Jerome’s prologue to his
Commentary on Matthew, and in Ambrose’s prologue to the Gospel of
Luke.” We may add that Gieseler (Studien und
Kritiken, i. 1830, p. 397) denies that the person meant here is
Basilides the Gnostic, specially on account of the peculiar
designation, Basilides quidam antiquior.But
his objections are combated by Baur and Neander. See the
Church History of the latter, ii. p. 50, ed. Bohn. |
of more ancient date, who lived no long
time after the period of our
apostles. This man was of a shrewd
disposition himself, and as he observed that at that time all other
subjects were preoccupied, he determined to
affirm that same dualism
which was maintained also by Scythianus. And as, in fine, he had
nothing to advance which was properly his own, he brought the sayings
of others before his
adversaries.
2144
| 2144 The
text is, “aliis dictis proposuit adversariis.”
Perhaps we may read, “aliorum dicta,” etc. |
And all his books contain some
matters at once difficult and extremely harsh. The thirteenth
book of his
Tractates, however, is still extant, which begins in
the following manner: “In writing the thirteenth book of
our
Tractates, the wholesome word furnished us with the
necessary and
fruitful word.”
2145
| 2145 The
text is, “necessarium sermonem uberemque salutaris sermo
præstavit.” May it be = the word of salvation
furnished the word which was requisite, etc.? |
Then he illustrates how it,
the
antagonism between good and evil, is produced under the figures of
a
rich principle and a
poor principle, of which the latter is by
nature
without root and without place, and only supervenes upon
things.
2146
| 2146 The
text is, “per parvulam divitis et pauperis naturam sine
radice et sine loco rebus supervenientem unde pullulaverit
indicat.” The reading seems defective. But the
general intention of this very obscure and fragmentary sentence appears
to be as given above. So Neander understands it as conveying a
figurative description of the two principles of light and darkness,
expressed in the Zoroastrian doctrine immediately cited,—the rich
being the good principle, and the poor the evil. He also supposes
the phrase “without root and without place” to indicate the
“absoluteness of the principle, that springs up all at once, and
mixes itself up with the development of existence.”—See
Church History, ii. 51 (Bohn). Routh confesses his
inability to understand what can be meant by the term
parvulam, and suggests parabolam. |
This is
the only topic
2147
which the
book contains. Does it not then contain a
strange2148
word;
2149
| 2149 Routh
adopts the interrogative form here, so as to make the connection stand
thus: But is this the only topic which the book contains?
Does it not also contain another discussion, etc.? |
and, as certain
parties have been thus
minded, will ye not also all be offended with
the book itself, which has such a beginning as this?—But
Basilides, returning to the subject after an introduction of same five
hundred lines,
2150
more or less,
proceeds thus: “Give up this
vain and
curious
variation,
2151
and let us rather
find out what inquiries the foreigners
2152
| 2152 By the
barbari here are evidently meant the Persians. |
have instituted on the subject of good and
evil, and what opinions they have been led to
adopt on all these
subjects. For certain among them have maintained that there are
for all things two beginnings,
2153
to which they have referred good and
evil, holding that these
beginnings are without beginning and ungenerate; that is to say, that
in the origins of things there were
light and
darkness, which existed
of themselves, and which were not merely declared to exist.
2154
| 2154 The
text is, “non quæ esse dicebantur.” Routh
proposes, “non quæ factæ, or genitæ, esse
dicebantur,” = which were not declared to have been made. |
While these
subsisted by themselves, they led each its own proper mode of
life,
such as it was its will to lead, and such as was competent to it; for
in the case of all things, what is proper to any one is also in amity
with the same, and nothing seems
evil to itself. But after they
came to know each other, and after the darkness began to contemplate
the light, then, as if fired with a passion for something superior to
itself, the darkness pressed on to have intercourse with the
light.”
E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
