장음표시 사용
311쪽
although you may be reluctant to achnowledge What is true. But is .e ars not lita in the common) impression, and i instead os that, there ars differences in us, hoW can it fati tobo proved thereis that we are the Workmanship of the princes, and of mattor For in duo accordance With their form, and likonMs, and image, me also exist as diverse forms. But dyou Wisti in be sully instrueted as to that commerce whichtooh place at the beginning, and as to the manner in Whichil occurria, I shali explain the matter to Fou. 15. The is es actia: We need not inquire as to the mannis in .hich that primitive commerce Moh place untii We havsfiret Men it proved that there Me two natural principies.
Tho texi is quid dixerit adversarii mo pro ae quod V or in dixerit,' etc. 3 Tho manuscript reading is, tam si quidem ex hoc arbitratus eat se maturum.' For thia it is pro sed in re , as in the translation, A tametsi quidem ex hoc arbitratus ea me ammaturum. Tho tori ovea ingentem. Muth suggesta inscientem, stupid.
312쪽
300 THE REMA INS OF BISHOP ARCHELAUS of the assertions made by you holds good. For it is quite
possibie that one Who is an adversary, not by nature, but is determination, may be made a friend, and cerae to be an ad-Versary ; and thus, When the one of us has come to acquiescomith the other, we twain Shali appear to be, as it Were, oneand the fame objeci. This account also indicates that rational creatures have been entrusted with free-will, in virtve of which they also admit os conversions. Αnd cons quently there cannot be two unbegotion natur .in What do you say, then Τ Are these two naturos inconvertibie Τ orare they convertibie ' or is one of them converted i Manes,
sor he was pondering the conclusion whicli might be drawnfrom et ther of two ansmers which he might mahe, turning the matter over thus in his thoughts : Is I say that they are converted, he will meet me mitti that statoment whicli is recorded in tho Gospei about the treos ; but ii I say that thyare not conVertibie, he Will necessarily ash me to explain thecondition and cause of their intermingling. In the mean- time, aiter a litile delay, Manes replied: They are indeod
λ Mopting the proposed reading, et ideo duae ingenitae naturae esse non possunt.' The texi omita the duae, hoWever; and in inat case thesense Would be simply, Αnd consequently there cannot M unbegotiennatures; or perhaps, And so they the creatureast cannot be of au un-
313쪽
INE DISPUTATION MITH MANES. 301
inconvertibio so sar as rogards contraries, but convertibio sofar as regards properties. But I maintain that ono whomoves in properties does not pras out os himself, but subsista in these fame properties, in Which ho is ever in- eonvertibie ; While in the case of Ono who is susceptibio ofconversion, the effect is that he is placed oulside the pals of properties, and passes Within the sphere os accidenis aliena, of what is alien).16. The ju es suid: Convertibility translates the personwhom it besalis into another; as, for example, me might saythat is a Jew mere to malis up his mind to becomo a Christian, or, on the other hand, is a Christian were to decido in bo a Gentilo, this Would be a species of convertibility, and a cause of the fame.y But, again, ii We suppose a Gentile to keep byali his o- heathen) properties, and to offer sacrificos to hisgods, and to do servico to the temples as usual, surely you.ould not bo os opinion that he could be said to be converted,
while he yet holds by his properties, and goes on in them
to prevent our thinhing them to be one and tho fame objecti For is they aro inconvertibie, then surely in natures Whicli are similarly inconvertibio and similarly unbegotten there is nodistinction, netther can the one of them be recognised as goodor as erit. But it they are both convertibie, then, forsooth, the possibie result may bs both that the good is mado erit, and that the evit is made good. Is, hoWever, this is the possibie result, Why should we not speak of one only as unbe tien,' which Would bo a conception in Worthier accordancemith the rechoning of truth For Wo have to consider lio
3 Tho texi runs thus: ut si dicamus, Judaeus, si velit fieri Christianus, auι at Christianus velit easo gentilis, haec species est convertibilitatis et
314쪽
not yet subsist, and when there Was Deither man nor animal,
you say that he first appeared in his evit nature in his omkin,- then without doubt you give the prooi that he com sol a good nature. And is again, ait these are also evit, hoWcan Satan then cast out Satan But while thus reduced in adilemma on this potnt, you may change your position in thediscussion, and say that the good suffered violence fram the erit. But none the more is it Mithout perit for Fou is mine auch astatement, to the effect of amrming the vanquishing of thelight; for What is vanquished has destruction near it 0r, hinto it, visinum habet interitumin. For What says the divine mordi Who ean enter into a strong man's house, and spoli hisgoods, except he be stronger than he ' But ii you allogothat ho fini appeared in his evit nature to men, and onbhom that time showed openly the maris of his Michedness, then it tollows that besors this time ho was Mod, and thatho took on this quali of conversion causa the creationos man ' Was found to . have emerged as tho cause of his Michedness. But, in fine, let him teli us What he undem stands is evit, test perchance he may be defending or festingup a mere name. Αnd ii ii is not tho namo but tho su, stance of evit that ho spealis os, then let him set fore ustho fruits of this Michodness and iniquitri since the nature ofa tree can never be known but by iis fruit. 17. Manes sata: Let it first be allo ed on Dur side that there is an alien root oi Wichedness, which God has not plant ,
315쪽
money unlem he fidit ascertains by tasting the object Whetherit is of a My or a molat species, so I shali not admit is youthat tho tree is erit and ulterly corrupi, uniess the quali otiis fruit is fidit oxhibited; for it is written, that the treeis known is iis fruits.' in Toli us, theresore, o Manes, What fruit is felded by that tres Whicli is called erit, or of what
natum it is, and What virine it is, that ws may also bellevemith you that the Dot of that samo tres is of that character .hich you ascribe to it. Manes sata: Tho root indoed is suil, and the tree is most corrupi, but the increaso is nothom God. Μ eouer, fornications, adulteries, murdera, avarice, and ait Evil deeds, are the fruits of that erit root. Arehelaus sata: That κε may credit you When you saythat theso are the fruits of that evit root, ove us a insteos these inings; for you have pronounced the substanco ofinis tres to be ungenerale ingenitam), the fruits of whichare producia aster ita o- likenem. Manes said: The very unrighteo nem Whicli subsisis in men offers the prooi itself, and in avarim too you may taste that ovil root. Arehelaus arid: Weli, then, as you havs stated the question, those iniquities Which prevali among men are fruits of this tree. Manes arid: Quito so. Arehelaus proeeeded: Ii these, then, are thes ita, that is in sari ius inched deeds of men, it mill folio that tho mon thomsolves Will hold tho place of the mot and of the tris; for Du have declared that they produce fruits
fruitsul. Manes satae What you say is an impossibility; for
316쪽
Is it is at ali possibie for one or another, or SeVeral, M FOuadmit, not to sin, it is also possibie sor ali to do the fame; for they are ali os one parent, and are ali men os one lump. And, not to sollow at my easo those amrmations Which youliave so confusedly made through ali their absurdities, I shali concludo their resutation by certain unmistakeabie counte arguments. Do you allege that tho fruits of the ovil rootand tho evit tree are the deeds of men, that is to say, fornications, adulteries, perjuries, murders, and other similarthings' Manes auid: I do. Archelaus said: Weli, then, it it happoned that the race of men was to die off tho face of the oarth, so that they should not be able to Sin any more, the substance of that tree Would then peristi, and it Would bear fruit no more. Manes avid: And Rhen utili that taho place of Which you speah Τ Arehelaus sata: What is intho futuro I know not, for I am but a man; neveriheless Ishali not leave these Words of yours uneXam ined. What sayyou of the race os menΤ Is it unbegotien, or is it a productioni Manes sata: It is a production. Archelaus εaid: It man is a production, Who is the parent of adultery and fornication, and such other thingst Whoso fruit is this
Besore man was made, Who Was there tO be a fornicator, oran adulterer, or a murdereri Manes said: But ii tho manis fasitioned of tho evit nature, it is manifest that ho is sucha fruit, albeit ho may sin, albeit he may not sin; Whence also the name and race of men are onco sor ali and absolutolyof this character, Whether they may do What is righteous or hat is uitrighteous. Archelaus 8aid: Woli, we may also talis notice of that matter. Ii, as you aver, the wiched ono himselfmade man, Why is it that he practises his malignisy on him l18. The jui es sata: We destre to have information homyou on this poliat, Manichaeus, to Wit, to What effect youhavo assi ed him to be evit. Do you mean that his has
The texi gives quoniam quod futurum est nescio, homo enim sum, non tamen,' etc. Routh auggesta quonam ' quod suturum,' etc. What has that to do with the matter Τ The future I know not, etc.' Tha texi is, sed homo a- mala natura plasmatus manifestum eα quia ipse ait fructus,' etc. Disjtjgod by OO le
317쪽
been so fram the timo When men Were made, or besore
that period Τ For it is necessary that you fhould give sonae proos of his michednem fram tho very time from whichyou declaro him to have been evit. Be assuredy that thoquali of a Wine cannot bo ascertained unless one si stlastes it; and underatand that, in like manner, every treeis known by iis fruit. What say you, theni From what time has this personali ty been evili For an explanationos this problem seems to us to be necessary. Manes gaid: Ho has always been so. Arehelaus suid: Weli, then, I shalliaso shoW hom this, most excellent friends, and most judiciolis auditor' that his statement is by no means correct. Foriron, to tahe an example, has not been an evit thing alWays, but only from tho period of man's existence, and since hisari inmed it to evil by applying it to falso uses; and everysin has coma into existenco sitico tho period of man's being. Even that great serpent himself Was not eVil previous to
him in respect of the evit nature, M see hoW man was his o n, as I have frequently sho n.' For ii man was
a The texi is, ex hominis tempore a se creati cur malus ostendatur, .hieh is tinen to bo equivalent is, Mox tempore quo hominem ipse
318쪽
natura, demonstratur quomodo suus fuit, ut frequenter ostendi ' ostris πιι tho sentenoe interrogatively - ΙΤ man taes his orion iram his, and) the evit naturo ia thus demonstrated, in What senso πω man hisom, etc. 8 Muth auggesta eae quo for eae eo in II ine eviI naturo is demonstratin just iram tho time os inan's existence, ho man, etc. 8δ The reining is inutilitatem. But Muth potata out that thia is pro b ly tho translation ol την εὐτέλειαν, vilitatem, meanness.
319쪽
Hly, as not to havo perceived that in mahing man ho madean adversary for himself, and netther to have considered.hat might bo his future, nor to have foreseen the actual
but productions, there are at least somo smali insis of knowledge, and a measura. of prudence, and a moderato degreeos consideration, Which is somelimes os a very trustWorthynatum. And hori then, can me bellove that in tho ob geston there is not some littis portion os prudenc or eo sideration, or intelligence or hoW can me mahe the comisary supposition, according to Four assertion, namely, statho is discoverin to bo of the most sensetess apprehension, and the dialest heari, and, in stiori, rather liho the brutes in his natural constitutioni But it the case stands thus, again, hoW is it that man, Who is possessed of no insignuseant poWer in mental capacity and knowledge, could have received his substance from ons Who thus is, of ali beings, tho most ignorant and tha bluntest in apprehension Τ ΗΟWahail any ono be rash enouo in profess that man is inowoamanship of an author of this characteri But, again, ii man consista both of mul and of body, and not merelyM dy mithoni Mul, and is the ono cannot subsist aparthom tho other, Why mill you assert stat theso tWo areantagonistic and contrisy to each other For onr Lord Jesus Christ, indeed, seems to mo to havs spolien of theso in His parabies, When He said: No man can put neW minointo old botiles, elso the botiles mill breah, and the mino runoni.' But neW mino is to bo put into nem botiles, as thereis indeta one and tho fame Lord for tho Mulo and for thomine. For although the substance may be disserent, yet bytheso tWo substances, in their duo poWers, and in the maim tenance of their proper mutuat relations dominatione et obae vantis usu , the one person os man subsista. We do notaan indeed, that the wut is of one substance With the bod' hut mo mer that they havs Each their oWn characteristic qualities; and as tho Mitis and the wino are applied in theaimilitudo in ono raco and one species of men, so truthys
320쪽
308 THE REMA INS OF BI OP ARCHELAUS
rechoning requiros us to grant that man was producod completo by the one God : for the foui rejoices in the bo in and loves and cherishes it; and nono the less does the bodyrejoico that it is quichened by the foui. But is, on the other hand, a person maintains that the body is the work of tho iched one, inasmuch as it is so corruptibie, and antiquated, and worthless, it would sollo then that it is incapable os sus-taining the virtve of tho spirit or the movement of the foui, and the most splendid creation of the fame. For just as, when a person puis a plece os neW cloth into an old garment, the rent is made morae ; so also the body Would peristi i it were to bo associaled, under such conditions, With that most brilliant production the foui. Or, to use another illustration : just as, When a man carries the light os a lamp into
soul's introduction into the body, the da rhness is strat twaybanished, and one nature at once effected, and one man
ment. But from this Wo aro able to fhow that there is avnison os poKers in these two substances, that is in sanin that os tho body and in that of the foui; of which unisonthat greatost teacher in the Scriptures, Paul, Speahs, Whentio telis us, that God hath set the membere every one of
them in tho body as it hath pleased Him. 19. But is it seems difficuli sor 1ou to underatand this, and is you do not acquiesce in these statemenis, I may at allovenis try to mahe them good by adducing illustrations. Contemplate man as a hind of temple, according to thosimilitudo of Scripture : the spirit that is in man may thus be likened to tho imago that dWelis in tho temple. Well,
then, a temple cannot be constituted unless first an occupantis achnowledged sor the temple ; anil, on the other hand, an occupant cannot be settied in the temple unless the structuro