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 plain1646
| 1646
Reading “patefaceret” for the “partum faceret”
of Codex Casinensis. |
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
division1647
| 1647 The
text gives sine hoc uno. But perhaps Routh is right in
suggesting muro for uno = without this wall. |
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.
1648
| 1648
Some suppose that Archelaus refers here to the taking of Charræ 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. |
And when a king attacks a citadel
surrounded by a
strong wall, he uses first of all the ballista
1649
| 1649 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. |
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?
1650
| 1650 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.? |
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, Manichæus? 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;
1651
| 1651 The
Codex Casinensis has “nec mirum putandum est consortio,”
etc. We read with Routh and others, si ejus consortio, or
quod ejus consortio, etc. |
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?”
1652
How is this
blind one armed? How does the
darkness fight against the
kingdom
of
light? For even as the creatures of
God1653
| 1653 The
text gives simply, sicut enim hæc. Routh suggests
hæ. |
here cannot take in the rays of the sun
with uninjured
eye,
1654
| 1654
Reading illæsis oculis for the illius oculis of
Codex Casinensis. |
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.
E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
