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.1590
| 1590 The text
runs thus: “ut si dicamus, Judæus, si velit fieri
Christianus, aut si Christianus velit esse gentilis, hæc species
est convertibilitatis et causa.” |
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,
1591
| 1591 The
text gives convertibiles. Routh suggests
inconvertibiles, inconvertible. |
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,
1592
| 1592 The
text is unum dicamus ingenitum. Routh suggests unum
bonum, etc. = Why should we not speak of only one unbegotten
good? |
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,
1593
| 1593 The
text is, “quod si suis eum dicas extitisse malum, sine dubio ergo
ostenditur illum bonæ esse naturæ.” Routh
suggests, “quia istis suis adversatur qui mali sunt,” etc.
= The fact that he is adverse to those who are of his own kin, and who
are evil, would be a proof that he comes of a good nature. |
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?
1594
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.
1595
| 1595 Or, kin
to it, vicinum habet interitum. |
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?”
1596
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
1597
| 1597 The
text is, “creati hominis causa invenitur exstitisse
malitiæ,” for which we read “creatio hominis,”
etc. |
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.
E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
