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 Manichæus. 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,1643
| 1643
Reading utriusque majus. The Codex Casinensis has
utrunque majus. |
even as it is said
1644
| 1644 The
text is dicit, for which dicitur may be adopted. |
in the book of Genesis, that “
God
divided the
light from the
darkness.”
1645
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 falling 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.
E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
