Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VI/Archelaus/Acts of Disputation/Chapter LV

by Archelaus

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,^[1] 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;^[2] 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.^[3] 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.^[4] 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^[5] narrative of^[6] 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,^[7] 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,^[8] 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.^[9] 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.”^[10] 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.^[11] This is the only topic^[12] which the book contains. Does it not then contain a strange^[13] word;^[14] 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,^[15] more or less, proceeds thus: “Give up this vain and curious variation,^[16] and let us rather find out what inquiries the foreigners^[17] 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,^[18] 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.^[19] 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.”

Footnotes

1. But Codex Reg. Alex. Vat. reads “Stracum fluvium.”
2. 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.
3. The same Codex Vat. reads Adrabion here.
4. The Codex Reg. Alex. Vat. ends with these words.
5. [See p. 177, supra. A fair discussion as to authenticity.]
6. Inscripsi.
7. Codex Casinensis reads, “non ex Manen originem mali hujus Manes esse.” We adopt the conjecture, “non ex Mane originem mali hujus manasse.”
8. 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.
9. The text is, “aliis dictis proposuit adversariis.” Perhaps we may read, “aliorum dicta,” etc.
10. The text is, “necessarium sermonem uberemque salutaris sermo præstavit.” May it be = the word of salvation furnished the word which was requisite, etc.?
11. 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.
12. Caput.
13. Alium.
14. 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.?
15. Versibus.
16. Varietate.
17. By the barbari here are evidently meant the Persians.
18. Principles.
19. The text is, “non quæ esse dicebantur.” Routh proposes, “non quæ factæ, or genitæ, esse dicebantur,” = which were not declared to have been made.