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

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
←
Chapter XXVIII
Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. VI, Acts of Disputation
by Archelaus, translated by Stewart Dingwall Fordyce Salmond
Chapter XXIX
Chapter XXX
→
158412Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. VI, Acts of Disputation — Chapter XXIXStewart Dingwall Fordyce SalmondArchelaus

29. Manes said: Is not that word also to the same effect which Jesus spake to the disciples, when He was demonstrating those men to be unbelieving: “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do?”[1] By this He means, in sooth, that whatever the wicked prince of this world desired, and whatever he lusted after, he committed to writing through Moses, and by that medium gave it to men for their doing. For “he was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.”[2] Archelaus said: Are you satisfied[3] with what you have already adduced, or have you other statements still to make? Manes said: I have, indeed, many things to say, and things of greater weight even than these. But with these I shall content myself. Archelaus said: By all means. Now let us select some instance from among those statements which you allege to be on your side; so that if these be once found to have been properly dealt with, other questions may also be held to rank with them; and if the case goes otherwise, I shall come under the condemnation of the judges, that is to say, I shall have to bear the shame of defeat.[4] You say, then, that the law is a ministration of death, and you admit that “death, the prince of this world, reigned from Adam even to Moses;”[5] for the word of Scripture is this: “even over them that did not sin.”[6] Manes said: Without doubt death did reign thus, for there is a duality, and these two antagonistic powers were nothing else than both unbegotten.[7] Archelaus said: Tell me this then,—how can an unbegotten death take a beginning at a certain time? For “from Adam” is the word of Scripture, and not “before Adam.” Manes said: But tell me, I ask you in turn, how it obtained its kingdom over both the righteous and the sinful. Archelaus said: When you have first admitted that it has had that kingdom from a determinate time and not from eternity, I shall tell you that. Manes said: It is written, that “death reigned from Adam to Moses.” Archelaus said: And consequently it has an end, because it has had a beginning in time.[8] And this saying is also true, that “death is swallowed up in victory.”[9] It is apparent, then, that death cannot be unbegotten, seeing that it is shown to have both a beginning and an end. Manes said: But in that way it would also follow that God was its maker. Archelaus said: By no means; away with such a supposition! “For God made not death; neither hath He pleasure in the destruction of the living.”[10] Manes said: God made it not; nevertheless it was made, as you admit. Tell us, therefore, from whom it received its empire, or by whom it was created. Archelaus said: If I give the most ample proof of the fact that death cannot have the substance of an unbegotten nature, will you not confess that there is but one God, and that an unbegotten God? Manes said: Continue your discourse, for your aim is to speak[11] with subtlety. Archelaus said: Nay, but you have put forward those allegations in such a manner, as if they were to serve you for a demonstration of an unbegotten root. Nevertheless the positions which we have discussed above may suffice us, for by these we have shown most fully that it is impossible for the substances of two unbegotten natures to exist together.


Footnotes

[edit]
  1. ↑ John viii. 44.
  2. ↑ John viii. 44.
  3. ↑ The text is “sufficit tibi hæc sunt an habes et alia.” Routh proposes “sufficientia tibi hæc sunt,” etc.
  4. ↑ Routh would make it = You will come under the condemnation…you will have to bear: he suggests eris ergo for ero ego, and feras for feram.
  5. ↑ Rom. v. 14.
  6. ↑ Rom. v. 14.
  7. ↑ Nec aliter nisi essent ingenita. Routh, however, would read esset for essent, making it = and that death could be nothing else than unbegotten.
  8. ↑ Reading ex tempore for the corrupt exemplo re of the codex.
  9. ↑ 1 Cor. xv. 54.
  10. ↑ Wisd. i. 13.
  11. ↑ The text gives discere, to learn; but dicere seems the probable reading.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Ante-Nicene_Fathers/Volume_VI/Archelaus/Acts_of_Disputation/Chapter_XXIX&oldid=11400863"