Acts of Archelaus (Latin version) 20–29

The judges said: "We want to know this from you, Manichaeus: from when do you affirm that he was evil? From the time men were made, or before? For be sure that you must show the work of his wickedness from the time from which you assert that he was evil; since the quality of wine is not known unless someone first tastes it, just as every tree is known by its fruit. What do you say, then? From what time is he evil? For this account seems necessary to us."

Manes said: "Always."

Archelaus said: "I will show this too before you, most excellent men and most prudent hearers, that his argument does not hold at all. For iron too is not always evil, but only from the time man exists and his craft is turned to evil by using it perversely; and every sin has existed from the time man has existed. Nor was that great serpent himself evil before man, but after man, in whom he showed the fruit of his wickedness because he himself willed it. If, then, according to the Scriptures, the father of wickedness appears to us after man, how will he be unbegotten who became evil after man, who is something made? And why should he be shown to be evil from the time of the man created by himself? What did he desire in him, if the whole body was his own making? Of what was he jealous? For one who is jealous or desires, desires better things that belong to another. If, then, his evil nature is shown from the time man has existed, how was man his own, as I have often shown? For if man was his own, he too was evil, as the fruit of such a tree; for an evil tree, as you say, makes evil fruits. For since all were evil, what did he desire, or from where did he show the beginning of wickedness, if from the time man was formed man is the cause of his wickedness? By the law and commandment given to him, man was able not to obey the serpent at all, or the things that were said by him; and if man had not obeyed him, for what cause would he have been evil? And if evil is unbegotten, how is man sometimes found stronger than it? For by obeying the commandment of God he often conquers every root of wickedness; and it is ridiculous if this one, who is something made, should be found stronger than the unbegotten.

"Whose, then, are the law and commandment? I mean the one given to man. Without doubt he will confess that it is God's. And how can a law be given to a stranger? Or who can give a command to an enemy? Or how can the one who receives the command fight against the devil, that is, against his own creator, as if a son, though indebted to his father for his benefits, were to wish to heap injuries on him? So in this part you make man's position absurd, if by law and commandment he fights against the one who formed him and tries to conquer him. For shall we think the devil himself to have come to such a degree of stupidity that he did not perceive that he had made man against himself, nor noticed what would happen, nor foresaw what was to follow, when even in us, who are something made, there is some knowledge, however small, and there is also some foresight and judgment, sometimes sure? And how shall we believe that the unbegotten had not even a little foresight, or judgment, or understanding? According to your assertion, plainly, he is found most brutish in sense, of most obtuse heart, and of the nature of a beast. If that is so, how could man, who is strong in no small measure in wit and knowledge, have received his substance from one who is ignorant of everything and dull in sense? How will anyone dare to confess that man is the work of such an author?"

"And if man is soul and body, and not body alone without soul, and these cannot subsist without each other, why will you call them hostile and contrary to each other? For our Lord Jesus Christ seems to me to have spoken of these things in parables: 'No one can put new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the skins will burst and the wine be spilled; but new wine must be put into new skins,' since indeed the same lord is master of the skin and of the wine. For even though the substance is different, yet by rule, care, and use one person subsists from these two. For we do not say that the soul is of one substance with the body, but that each has its own quality; and as the skin and the wine are compared to one kind and one species of men, so the reason of truth demands that man was founded by the one God, who created all things both in heaven and on earth. For the soul rejoices in the body, and loves and tends it; and the body no less rejoices that it is given life by the soul.

"But if anyone says that the body is the work of the evil one, since it is corruptible, old, and very bad, then it cannot bear the power of the spirit, nor the movement of the soul and its most splendid creation. For as, if someone sews a patch of new cloth on an old garment, a worse tear results, so too the body, if it were joined to that most glorious work, the soul, would perish. Likewise, if someone brings the light of a lamp into a dark place, the darkness is at once put to flight and does not appear; so we must understand that when the soul is put into the body, the darkness is at once driven away, and one nature is now made, and one man constituted in one species. And so it will agree harmoniously that new wine has been put into new skins, and that the patch of new cloth has been sewn not on an old garment but on a new one. And from this too we can show that there is a harmony of powers in both substances, that is, of the body and the soul, of which Paul, the greatest teacher of the Scriptures, says that God has set each member in the body as he willed."

"But if this seems difficult for you to understand, and you do not accept these words, I will at least confirm it to you by examples. Consider that man is a kind of temple, as it is also written; and the spirit that is in him, compare to the form of the one who dwells in the temple. A temple cannot be built unless the one who is to dwell in it is first known, nor is the dweller set in place unless the temple has been built. Since, then, both are dedicated together at the same time, how can anything hostile or contrary be found in them, and does it not rather seem that both were made by friends who wish the same thing? And so that you may know that they are joined both in friendship and in kind, the one who knows and hears answered, 'Let us make man,' and the rest. For the one who builds the temple asks the one who forms the statue, and inquires into the measurements of its height, breadth, and size, so as to lay out the extent of the foundations accordingly; for no one builds a temple in vain unless he has learned the measurements for placing the statue. In the same way, then, the manner and measure of the body are inquired into, so that the soul may be fittingly placed in it by God, the maker of all.

"But if anyone says that the one who formed the body is an enemy of the Lord who is the creator of my soul, how, while envying the one, would he not have brought disgrace on the work of the other, so that either the one who builds the temple made it narrow, so that it could not hold what was placed in it; or the one who made the statue, how would he not have produced something heavy and weighty, so that when it was brought in, the temple would at once collapse? In accordance with what we know to be the ways of enemies, let us consider these things, whether they are not so. But if all things must be arranged with the same measures, with the same fairness, and brought out with like glory, why do we still doubt about this?

"Let us add, if you please, this example too: man seems to be like a ship, which has been fitted out by a craftsman and launched into the sea, and which cannot sail without rudders, by which it may be steered and turned to whatever places its helmsman wishes. And no one doubts that the body of the ship needs the rudders from the same craftsman as the whole ship; for without rudders the whole work of the ship, that huge body, will be idle. So we say that the soul is the rudder of the body; and both are steered by the freedom of the will and of the soul, which we use as a helmsman. When these have been made one by their joining, they keep the harmony of their function for every work, and whatever they accomplish from themselves bears witness to one author and founder."

When they heard this, the crowds that were present rejoiced greatly, so that they almost laid hands on Manes; Archelaus, restraining and holding them back, could barely quiet them.

The judges said: "Archelaus has sufficiently shown that both the body and the soul of man are of one maker, since the work of one could not agree in its joining if the purpose of the other craftsman disagreed with him. And if it is said that one was not able to complete both, that shows the weakness of the craftsman; for if one says that the soul is of the good God, the work of man is found idle unless it has also received a body. And again, if the body is said to be the fashioning of the evil god, it will be no less idle if it has not received a soul; and unless that soul is mixed and inserted into the body, there will be no man, nor will he be called one. So Archelaus has proved by many examples that the maker of the whole man is one and the same."

Archelaus said: "I do not doubt, Manes, that you know this: that one who is born or created is called the son of the one who begets or creates. If, then, the evil one fashioned man, he must be his father by nature. And to whom, then, was the Lord Jesus speaking when, teaching men to pray, he said, 'When you pray, say thus: Our Father, who are in heaven'? And again: 'Pray to your Father who is in secret'? But of Satan he said that he had seen him falling like lightning from heaven, so that no one might dare to say that he was teaching us to pray to him; for Jesus had not come down to join men to Satan and reconcile them with him; rather, he handed him over to be crushed under the feet of his faithful. But I would now call those pagans more blessed, who bring in many gods yet confess them to be of one mind and friends; whereas this man, bringing in two, is not ashamed to set up enmities and discordant purpose between them. And if he brought in many gods on a condition of this kind, one would now see a gladiatorial show among them, having countless natures and different purposes."

"And what need is there for me to speak of the inner and outer man, when it is said by the Saviour's voice to those who swallow a camel and are hypocrites outwardly, surrounded by flatteries and fawning? To them Jesus says: 'Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you wash what is outside the dish and the cup, but what is inside is full of uncleanness. Or do you not know that he who made what is outside also made what is inside?' Was he speaking of a dish and a cup? Was the one who said this a glassmaker, or a potter shaping vessels out of clay? Was he not speaking most evidently of the body and the soul? For the Pharisees, demanding tithes of dill and cumin, neglected the weightier matters of the law, and, giving their diligence to the things that were outward, despised the things that belonged to the salvation of the soul; they also sought greetings in the marketplace and the first places at dinners. Knowing this, the Lord Jesus said they were lost, because they gave diligence only to the things that were outside and despised the things that were inside as if they were someone else's, not knowing that he who had made the body himself made the soul too. And who is so stony and stupid that this word is not enough for him in everything? In harmony with this word Paul says, interpreting what is written in the law in this way: 'You shall not muzzle the mouth of the ox that is threshing.' Is it for oxen that God cares? Or does he not speak entirely for our sake?

"But why do we delay further? I will add a few things out of many. If there are two unbegotten things, and we assign them fixed places, God is divided. If he is within a fixed place and not spread everywhere, he will be much inferior to the place in which he is (for what contains is always greater than what it contains), and God becomes of the size of the place in which he is contained, like a man who is in a house. Then reason asks who it is that divided between them, or who set fixed boundaries for them; and each of them is found to be much inferior to human power. For Lysimachus and Alexander held the rule of the whole world and were able to subdue all the barbarian nations and every race of men, so that at that time there was no other ruler under heaven besides them. And how will anyone dare to say that God is not everywhere, who is the true, unfailing light, whose kingdom is holy and everlasting? Alas for the impiety of this most wicked man, who does not grant almighty God even a power equal to that of men!"

The judges said: "We know that light shines in the whole world and not in some one part; as Jesus also says that no one lighting a lamp puts it under a bushel, but on a lampstand, so that it may give light to all who are in the house. If, then, it is light, it must (if Jesus is believed) shine on the whole world and not in parts. And if it holds the whole world, where then is unbegotten darkness, unless perhaps it is understood as something that befalls?"

Archelaus said: "Since the word of the Gospel is understood much better by you than by this man who professes to be the Paraclete, whom I would rather call a parasite than a Paraclete, I will tell how darkness came about. When light was spread everywhere, God began to found the world, taking his beginning from heaven and earth. In this it came about by reason that the middle, which is the place of the earth, covered with shadow, that is, by the interposition of the creatures that had been made, was found dark, so that the situation required light to be brought into this very place set in the middle. That is why Moses, in Genesis, narrating the making of the world, makes no mention at all of darkness, either as made or as not made; but he was silent himself, leaving the reasoning of this understanding to those who can perceive it; and it is not very hard or difficult. For to whom is it not plain that this visible sun, when it has risen from the east and held its course toward the west, when it has gone under the earth and come to be inside what the Greeks call the sphere, does not appear because it is now shadowed by the interposition of bodies? When it is covered, with the body of the earth standing in the way, shadow is drawn over, which of itself produces darkness, until, having completed its course through the lower space during the night, it turns back to the east and appears, rising in its usual places. So the cause of shadow and night is the solidity of the body of the earth, as a man can understand even from his own shadow. For before heaven and earth and all these bodily creatures, unfailing light remained, since no body existed to produce a shadow by its interposition; and so it must be confessed that there was no darkness anywhere, no night anywhere. For if, for example, it should please him who has power over all things to remove from the midst the region that lies to the west, so that the sun did not run its course to that part, there would be no evening or darkness anywhere; but the sun would always be on its course and never set, and would nearly always hold the middle of the axis of heaven and never cease to appear; and by this the whole circle of the earth would be shone on with the clearest light, so that no part of it would be shaded, but one equal light would remain everywhere.

"But as the western region keeps its position, and the sun serves its course to three parts of the world, those who are under the sun are seen to be more brightly lit; so that, I might almost say, while those who live in the opposite region are still asleep, these begin the day first. And as light rises for them before those who lie in the western part, so it is darkened more quickly for them; and only those who live in the middle of the world always feel an equality of light. For when the sun holds the middle of the heaven, there is no place that seems either brighter or darker, but all parts of the world are lit equally and fairly by the sun's brightness. If, then, as we said above, the part of the western region were removed from the midst, the part next to it would no longer be darkened. Let these things be said by me rather simply, though I could describe the circle of the zodiac too; but I thought it not safe to do so now, and therefore I will be silent about these things and return to the point that my adversary raised, when he affirmed with every effort that darkness is unbegotten, which itself has already been refuted as far as we were able."

The judges said: "If we consider that light existed before the founding of creatures, and that nothing had been set in the way to produce a shadow from itself, light must have been spread everywhere and all places lit with the brightness of light, as has been shown from what you said just now. Seeing that the reasoning in this is true, we give the palm to Archelaus's arguments. For if the whole world admitted of a division, as if by a wall built through the middle, and darkness dwelt on one side and light on the other, it is understood no less that darkness came about from the building that was put up, from the shadow it produced. And again we must ask who built the wall between the two, if indeed you confess that it was built, Manichaeus. But if the reasoning is considered as though no wall had been built, then the whole is again understood to be one place without any exception, set under one power; and so, since darkness has been shown on every side to come from what befalls, it cannot have an unbegotten nature."

Archelaus said: "Let him tell me this too, in answer to what has been proposed. With God set in his kingdom, and the evil one likewise in his, who built a wall between them? For nothing can divide two substances unless it is greater than both, as he says in the book of Genesis that God divided between the light and the darkness. Such must also be the builder of this wall; for a wall shows the boundaries of each, as among those who till the fields a stone usually divides the portion of each. Yet this matter gives rather the understanding that such a division is the arrangement of a brothers' inheritance. But I need not speak of these things now, though it seems necessary; for this is what we ask: who is it that built the wall to mark the boundary of each kingdom? Let him not put it off; I do not want this faithless man to delay, but let him now confess that the substance of his duality has flowed back into one. Come, tell me anyone who built the wall in the middle. What was the one doing while the other was building? Was he asleep, or unaware, or unable to resist, or did he give way for a price? Tell what he was doing, or who at all it was that built it. I beg you, judges, whom God has sent filled most fully with understanding: let him tell you which of the two built it, and what the one was doing when the other built it."

The judges said: "Tell us, Manes, who marked out the boundaries of each kingdom, who made the wall in the middle? For Archelaus asks that this question be held to be of great weight."

Manes said: "The good God, who has nothing in common with the evil one, set the firmament in the middle, to make the evil one alien to him and separated from him."

Archelaus said: "How long will you lie about the dignity of the name? You call him God in name only, and compare his deity to human weaknesses. Sometimes you assert that he built out of things that did not exist, sometimes out of an underlying matter which existed before him, as human builders usually do. At times you even call him fearful, at times changeable. For it belongs to God to do the things of God, and to man the things of man. If, then, as you say, God built a wall, he shows himself fearful and having no strength. For we know that those who suspect that plots are being laid against them by strangers and fear the snares of enemies usually surround their cities with walls; and in this they show their ignorance and their weakness alike. But not even this must be kept silent by us; rather it must be brought into the open, so that by a great abundance of statements the various contrivances of the adversary may be overthrown, with the truth bringing us help.

"Let us grant that the building of the wall was made to separate each kingdom; for it is impossible for each to have his own kingdom without this one thing. In the same way, it is impossible for the evil one to go out of his own boundaries and invade the regions of the good while the barrier of the wall stands, unless it is first thrown down, as we have heard is done by enemies and have lately seen with our own eyes. When a king attacks a tower surrounded by a strong wall, he first brings up ballistae and javelins, then tries to cut down the gates with axes and overturn the walls with rams; and when he has prevailed, then at last he goes in and does what he pleases, whether he chooses to lead the citizens away as captives, or to overturn everything, or even, if he pleases, being entreated, to show mercy. What, then, does this man say? Who threw down the barrier that had been set between them, being an adversary not in substance but, that is, in purpose? For in what went before he professed that the darkness came from its own boundaries upon the kingdom of the good God. Who first threw down the fortification? For it was impossible for evil to enter while the fortification stood. Why are you silent? Why do you delay, Manichaeus? Even if you put it off, I will go on of my own accord.

"If you say that God destroyed it, I will ask what moved him to destroy what he himself had built before because of the troublesomeness of the evil one and for the sake of separation. What anger, or what loss suffered, drove him to fight against himself? Or did he covet something of the evil one's possessions? But if none of these is the reason for God to destroy what he himself had long ago built to keep evil apart and separate from himself, it must not be thought strange that God took pleasure in his fellowship and partnership; for the fortification which had been set up for this purpose, so that he should not suffer annoyance from him, will be seen to have been destroyed because he will now be thought not troublesome but a friend. But if you say that the wall was destroyed by the evil one, how can the works of the good God be overcome by the evil one? Otherwise the evil nature will be found stronger than God. And how did he, who is wholly darkness, come upon the light and seize it, when the evangelist bears witness that the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it? How is a blind man armed? How does darkness fight against the kingdom of light? For as weak eyes cannot receive into themselves the rays of the sun, so he cannot bear the sight of the kingdom of light, but remains always a stranger and alien."

Manes said: "Not all receive the word of God, but only those to whom it has been given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven. And I already know who are ours; for 'My sheep,' he says, 'hear my voice.' For the sake of ours, then, to whom the understanding of the truth has been given, I will speak in similitudes. The evil one is like a lion who wants to creep into the flock of the good shepherd. When the shepherd saw this, he dug a huge pit, took one kid from the flock, and threw it into the pit. The lion, longing to attack it, wanted with great fury to swallow it, and, running to the pit, fell into it, having no strength to climb up out of it. The shepherd, in his prudence, caught him and shut him in a cage, and he will keep safe the kid that was with him in the pit. From this, then, the evil one has been weakened, the lion no longer having power to do anything, and the whole race of souls will be saved, and what had perished will be restored to his own flock."

Archelaus said: "If you compare the lion to the evil one, and God to the shepherd, tell me, to what shall we compare the sheep and the kid?"

Manes said: "The sheep and the kid seem to me to be of one nature; they are set as a likeness of souls."

Archelaus said: "So God gave up a soul to perdition, throwing it to the lion in the pit?"

Manes said: "Not at all, far from it; but the lion was caught by this device, and in the future he will save it."

Archelaus said: "This is now ridiculous, my hearers: if the shepherd, fearing the lion's entry, threw out to be devoured the lamb he held in his bosom, and it is said that in the future he will save it. How is this not wholly full of absurdity? For in this the judgment too is taken away. For God handed the soul over to Satan for perdition, to be taken by him. For when can a shepherd bring out of the lion's mouth or belly what he has already devoured? But you will say to me: he is God, and can do all things. Hear, then, in answer: why, if he is able, do you not rather assert that he will be able to conquer the lion by his own power, if the power of God is pure, and never by certain devices and a pit, with a kid or lamb handed over? Tell me this too: if the lion had come upon the shepherd when he had no sheep, what would happen? For the one called shepherd is unbegotten, and the lion is unbegotten too. When, then, there was not yet man, before the shepherd had a flock, if the lion had come upon him, what would have happened, since there was no food for the lion before there was a kid?"

Manes said: "The lion ate nothing; yet he exercised his wickedness through whatever he could find, running about over the tops of the mountains; and if at any time he needed food, he took it from the beasts that were under his kingdom."

Archelaus said: "Then the beasts that are in the kingdom of the evil one and the kids that are in the kingdom of the good God are of one substance."

Manes said: "Far from it, not at all; they have nothing in common, either with each other or with what is theirs."

Archelaus said: "The use of them as the lion's food is one and the same. For if he took his food sometimes from his own beasts and sometimes from the kids of the good God, there is no difference between them as far as food is concerned; and from this it appears that they are of one substance. But that one differs greatly from the other, we attribute to the shepherd's ignorance, because he offered or threw to the lion food that was not suitable but rather foreign. Or perhaps, again wishing to evade, you will tell me that the lion ate nothing? Did he, then, himself provoke the one who did not know how to eat to eat a soul, and not wish to use the pit alone to deceive him? If indeed it is worthy of God to do this and to seek out tricks. It is like some king, when war is brought on him, who, not trusting in his own strength but terrified by fear of his own weakness, shuts himself inside the walls of the city and surrounds himself with ramparts and other fortifications and prepares them, trusting nothing to his hand and strength; whereas if he is a brave man, he even goes out far from his own borders to meet the enemy, and does everything until he conquers and overcomes his adversary."

The judges said: "If you say that the shepherd threw the kid or lamb to the lion when it was rushing against the unbegotten one, it is all over. For whom can the shepherd of the kids and lambs judge, when he himself is found to be the cause of their offences? For the lamb, handed over through the shepherd's weakness, could not resist the lion, and it follows that it does whatever the lion pleases; as if a master, out of fear, were to hand over one of his chosen servants to his adversary, whom he cannot recover again by his own strength. And if by some chance it should come about that he is recovered, by what reason, pray, will he be able to inflict torments on him, if he obeyed the enemy in everything he commanded, when he himself handed him over to the enemy, as the kid to the lion? For you assert that the shepherd foreknows. For the lamb, when it is beaten and the shepherd asks why it obeyed the lion in these things, answers: 'You handed me over to the lion and did not resist him, knowing and foreseeing what I would have to do, since I had to obey his commands.' Not to say much, neither is God shown to be a perfect shepherd, nor is the lion shown to have taken food foreign to him; and so, as truth itself teaches, we must award the palm to what has been said by Archelaus."