« السابقةمتابعة »
C H A P. LXII.
ARCHELAUS, BISHOP IN MESOPOTAMIA.
1. The history and antiquity of a work ascribed to Archelaus. II. Extracts out of it, and the
author's testimony to the books of the New Testament.
1. Says Jerom: “ Archelaus,^ a bishop of Mesopotamia, wrote in the Syriac language a book of • his Conference (or Dispute] with Manichee at his coming out of Persia, which has been • translated into Greek. He flourished under the emperor Probus, who succeeded Aurelian * and Tacitus.'
This piece, as we now have it, contains two conferences with Mani, one at Caschar, or Carchar, à city in the Roman part of Mesopotamia, and another at Diodoris, a village, or a small town, in the same country: with an historical account of the life and death of Mani, and some other things.
The greatest part of it is now only in a Latin translation, not made from the supposed Syriac original, but from Greek. When this Latin translation was made is not certain. Zacagni, the editor, supposeth that it was not in being in Jerom's time, but that however it was made before the seventh century. Another learned writer argues, that this translation was not made sooner than the sixth, or the latter part of the fifth century, because the conference itself was unknown to Augustine, and likewise to pope Leo, who died in 461.
It is thought that this piece is not now entire and complete.
Archelaus is placed by Cave, and many others, as flourishing about the year 278, Beausobre's opinion of this book, entitled “The Acts of the Disputation of Archelaus with Mani, or ** Manichee,' is, that it is in general, a romance, published by some Greek, about the year of our • Lord 330, fifty or sixty years after Mani's death.' • There are in it,' he 6 says, some truths, .but not many; and those disguised and mixed with manifest falsehoods.' Again: . It is a • fiction of some Greek, who, having got some memoirs concerning the life and opinions of Mani, • resolved to write a history of him, and confute his errors.'
I fear that account of this book is too just, and that a large part of it is fiction: of which I may say more in the next chapter. At present I would chiefly consider the author and the time of his work.
As for the author of the book, Jerom supposed it to have been written in Syriac by Archelaus himself, and then translated into Greek: but he does not name the translator. Epiphanius k likewise' and Cyril of Jerusalem, and * Socrates, ascribe the book to Archelaus: but by Photius we are informed that " Heraclean, bishop of Chalcedon, in his book against the Manichees, said, Hegemonius wrote the Dispute of Archelaus. This has induced Cave, and others,
* Archelaus, episcopus Masopotamiæ, librum disputationis & Il y a quelque verités, mais en petit nombre; et le peu qu'il suæ, quam habuit adversum Manichæum, exeuntem ex per- y en a, est altéré, confus, mêlé de fables manifestes. side, Syro sermone composait, qui translatus in Græcum id, ib. habetur a multis. Claruit sub Imperatore Probo, qui Aure- Dès que j'eus lû cette pièce, que feu M. Zacagni, biblioJiano et Tacito successerat. De V. I. c. 72.
thécaire du Vatican, publia le premier toute entière, j'eus un 6 Porro Græcam versionem, non vero Syriacum textum, graud soupçon, que la Dispute de Cascar n'étoit qu'une fice præ manibus Latinum interpretem habuisse satis superque tion de quelque Gree, qui, ayant eu des mémoires touchant la demonstratur. Zacagn. Præf. sect. v. in. c Ib. n. iv. f. vie et les dogmes de Manichée, voulut écrire son histoire, et
d See Beausobr. Hist. de Manich. T. i. Diss. Prelim. p. 6. refuter ses erreurs. L'examen changea mes soupçons en cere Illud tamen dissimulare non possum, Acta ista disputa- titude. Id. in Preface. T. i. p. vi. tionis Archelai cum Manete, quæ ex Vaticano Casinensis See the first section in the next chapter, numb.i. 2. codicis apographo primi edimus, integra nequaquam videri, και απο το Αρχελας βιβλιο. Epiph. H. 66, n. 32, in Vid. et sed pluribus in locis a librario mutilata. Zac. ib. n. 14. in.
Cat. 6, n. 27, p. 104. * En général toute cette pièce, qu'on nomme les Actes de m H. E. 1, i. c. 22, p. 56, D. la Dispute d'Archélais, n'est qu'un roman fabriqué par un • Ηγεμονίαν τε τον τας] Αρχελας προς αυτον αντιλογιας Grec, et publié depuis l'an 330, soixante ans, ou environ, avaypavarta. Phot. Cod. 85, p. 204. après la mort de Manichée. Beaus. ib. p. 6.
• Unde conceptis pene verbis jurare ausim, non alium hu
to look upon Hegemonius as the translator. Zacagni says that · Hegemonius not only translated the Syriac, but made additions of his own. To the like purpose • Asseman. Both which last writers ascribe such additions and alterations to Hegemonius, an author whose age is unknown, as must greatly lessen the authority of this work: more, perhaps, than they imagined.
But Beausobre says that this piece was originally written in Greek, and that Hegemonius was the author, and that it was not written before the year 330. He argues in this manner: · Eusebius published his Ecclesiastical History about fifty years after the death of Mani. He
there speaks of this heresiarch, and his heresy: but he says not one word of his excursion into * the Roman Mesopotamia, nor of his disputes with Archelaus. Since Eusebius says nothing of * these matters, it may be concluded that he was entirely ignorant of them: but it is not to be
supposed that he should be ignorant of so public an event that had happened half a century before: “nor that he should omit to relate so memorable a thing if he knew it.' Beausobre thinks that Archelaus must have been entirely unknown to Eusebius: and therefore he concludes that these Acts of Archelaus did not appear until after Eusebius had published his Ecclesiastical History; that is, in the space of time between the year 326 or 330, and the year 348 or 350, when Cyril of Jerusalem wrote his Catechetical Discourses, who is the first author that has quoted this piece. Nor does it appear that St. Ephrem who was of Mesopotamia, and died in 373, has any where taken notice of this Disputation, though he often speaks of Mani. Moreover there is a particular in the book itself, which leads him to conclude it was composed between the years 330 and 340. This time, says Beausobre, is distinctly marked in some words, which the writer puts into the mouth of Archelaus, for convincing Mani that he could not be the promised Paraclete. * When you say you are the Paraclete, perhaps you little think that you charge Christ with • falsehood: who, though he promised to send him soon after his resurrection, has not sent him * till above three hundred years afterwards. These three hundred years come out in the year of our Lord 333 or 334. Zacagni says this! dropped from Archelaus in the heat of dispute: because from the death of Christ, to the conference at Caschar, there were not more than 249 years: but, says 3 Beausobre, I think otherwise. Nothing is more common than for im. postors, who make another speak, not to remember every thing that is agreeable to the character they have introduced, and to thrust in themselves without thinking of it
. Hegemonius, who in fact lived more than three hundred years after our Saviour's resurrection, thought of the time when he himself lived, not that of Archelaus, who was speaking. So that learned author.
I must be here indulged the liberty of making some remarks. I readily own I am inclined to think with Beausobre that this work was originally written in Greek, not in Syriac.
The argument from the silence of Eusebius is specious; and yet, possibly, not conclusive. It is indeed strange that he should never mention the name of Archelaus. "Nor do I pretend to confute this argument of Beausobre; for it is almost inconceivable, that Eusebius should be ignorant of Archelaus if these disputes were real. However, I would not omit any thoughts which offer, and may tend to bring truth to light; and therefore I observe, that though Archelaus, and these .conferences in Mesopotamia are never mentioned by Eusebius, some may suspect that he had seen this book called the Acts of Archelaus: for in his Ecclesiastical History, when he speaks of Mani, and so particularly insists upon the barbarism of his language and manners, he may be thought to refer to passages in the Acts, which i resemble his account. And in his Chronicle
jusce versionis auctorem fuisse quam Hegemonium nostrum, invenitur post trecentos, et eo amplius annos misisse hunc nec aliam eam, quam quâ Cyrillus, Epiphanius, aliique olim usi Arch. c. 27, p. 46. sunt. Cav. De Hegemonio, in Diss. de Scriptor. incert. æt. Contentionis æstu actus videtur hic dixisse Archelaus, post
:--Hegemoniuni vero, quæ ab Archelao jam edita fuc- trecentos et amplius annos a Christi morte Manetem emerrant, metiori non solum ordine digessisse verum ejiam exor- sisse; nam a Christe morte usque ad habitæ cum Manete disdio, epilogo, aliisque nonnullis locupletâsse, ut omnibus nu- putationis tempus, anni circiter 249 intercedunt. Zacag. in. meris absoluta celeberrimæ illius disputationis acta ad posteros not. ad Arch. p. 46. & Beaus. ubi supr. p. 153. transmitterentur. Zac. Præf. cap. 4, p. iv.
βαρβαρος δητα τον βιον αυτω λογω και τροπω.--Η. Ε. Quæ quum ita sint, ab eodem Hegemonio videntur quæ- 1. 7. c. 31. dam ex illis Actis mutilatá, quædam etiam addita. Assem. Bib. Persa barbare, non Græcorum linguæ, non Ægyptiorum, or. T. 3. P. 2. p. 47, in. Vid. quæ ibidem præeunt et sequun. non Romanorum, non ullius alterius linguæ seientiam habere tur. c B. Hist. de Manich. T. i. p. 5, 6, p. 145, 146. potuisti, sed Chaldæorum solum, quæ ne in numerum quidem 4 Ib. p. 146.
aliquem ducitur. Act. Arch. c. 36, p. 63. Et Confer. c. 12. e--dicens se esse paracletum, qui ab Jesu præsignatus p. 23. est mitti, in quo mendacem ignorans fortasse asserit Jesum: Secundo anno Probi. insana Manichaeorum hæresis in qui enim dixerat se non multo post missurum esse paracletum, commune humani generis malum exorta. Eus. Chr. p. 177. VOL. II.
the appearance of Mani is placed in the reign of Probus, agreeably to these · Acts. Indeed I do not lay much stress upon this last particular, because I think the article concerning Mani, in the Chronicle, may be entirely Jerom's, and not Eusebius's: but with Beausobre it should have some weight, because he allows that whole paragraph to be Eusebius's.
As for the space of three hundred years, mentioned in the Acts, it deserves little consideration. Arguments from numbers are oftentimes of small moment. Some mistakes are made by transcribers. Writers themselves are not seldom mistaken in their computations. St. Chrysostom ? reckoned it to have been five hundred years from the destruction of Jerusalem to his own time, though it was not much above three hundred years. It was to the purpose of the person, who managed the supposed dispute against Mani, to enhance the time. Moreover people delight in round numbers. And just before the time is said to be almost three hundred years. It is the less likely that the writer should forget himself, and put his own time instead of that of the speaker's, because he presently afterwards mentions the reign of Probus.
Having given these sentiments of others, and made remarks upon them, I now proceed to observe, that the antiquity of this piece is manifest from the use made of it by Cyril and Epiphanius in the fourth century, and from the notice taken of it by Jerom in his Catalogue, before the end of the same century.
There are other arguments of its early age: I shall mention several things, though not all of equal importance.
Archelaus, or whoever is the writer, naming several heretics, mentions none below' Sabellius: nor do there any where appear in this book any traces of that remarkable period in the church, the council of Nice. Moreover, the author allots but s one year to Christ's ministry, or at least to the most public part of it, after he had called his disciples to attend him. He allows that " men might attain to virtue by the light of nature, though a few only. He does not extol affected voluntary poverty, as some have done; but allows him, who well useth a good estate, to be equally virtuous with him who gives away all he has. Tillemont says: - In this work we • meet with some opinions more common in the primitive times than they have been since the • history and the doctrine of the church have been cleared up. The author seems not to under6 stand the union of the two natures in Christ.' Beausobre has an observation of the like kind, and says, that "the author speaks more like an unitarian than a catholic. I add, that he seems to have condemned all war as unlawful; for, "relating that some Roman soldiers, charmed with the piety and generosity of Marcellus were induced to embrace the Christian religion, he says that they immediately forsook the profession of arms.
These particulars may be reckoned evidences of great antiquity: but when the book was composed, I cannot certainly say; whether near the end of the third or at the beginning of the fourth century: nor am I able to determine who is the author.
II. My extracts out of it will contain chiefly the author's testimony to the books of the New Testament.
1. But I would just observe that " he speaks of divers of our Lord's miracles, and other historical facts, recorded in the gospels.
2. We do not find all the books of the New Testament quoted in this piece: it is likely that there was no particular occasion for it.
3. He mentions ° the New Testament, the gospels, and the apostle Paul's epistle: for which not only he, but Mani likewise, had a great regard. a C. 27, p. 46. • B. ib. p. 322.
justitiæ atque misericordiæ parem gratiam tribuit, (Jesus) ac și • Πεντακοσιοσον γαρ λοιπον εξ εκεινε εςιν ετος μεχρις ημων. universis pariter renuntietur. c. 42, p. 75. Chrys. adv. Jud. Hom. 6. T. i. p. 651, B.
k Mem. Ec. T. 4. P. 2. Les Manichéens. Art. 12. p. 796. eum qui post trecentos fere annos venerit. Arch. n. | Beaus. ib. 27. p. 45.
m At illi (milites) admirati, et amplexi tam immensam viri ---sub Probo demum Romano imperatori misisti. ib. pietatem, munificentiamque, --commorentur, ut plurimi ex ? Vid. cap. 37, et 38.
ipsis adderentur ad fidem domini nostri Jesu Christi, derelicto 8 Nec in aliquo remoratus Dominus noster Jesus intra unius militiae ciugulo. Arch. cap. 1. p. 2. Vid. ib. Zacagn. not anni spatium languentium multitudines reddidit sanitati, mor- [3.] et Conf. Beaus. Hist. Manich. T. 2. p. 797. tuos lúci. ib. c. 34, p. 58. Cum discipuli ejus per annum in- ! Vid. cap. 34, p. 58, C. 36, p. 63. tegrum manserunt cum eo. ib. c. 50, p. 93, m.
• Sunt etiam alia multa, quæ dici possent et de apostolo # Verum quia pauci per hunc modum poterant ad justitiæ Paulo, et de Evangeliis, ex quibus ostendere possumus, veteculmen adscendere, id est, per parentum traditiones, nulla in rem legem non esse alterius, quam Domini, cujus est novuni liçeris lege conscripta. c. 28, p. 49.
Testamentum. Arch. c. 45. p. 82. Vid. etiam cap. 40, p. Bonum, inquam, his qui possunt: sed abuti divitiis ad opus 69, m.
4. Quoting St. Matthew's gospel, he calls him ' an evangelist of the Spirit. 5. A passage of St. Mark's gospel is cited as the word of God.
6. Quoting John. i. 16, he calls him Saint John the greatest of the evangelists ; ' if that is not the style of the Latin translator.
7. Here is mention made of the book of the gospels.
9. Divers of St. Paul's epistles are expressly quoted. That to the Romans is called ' his first epistle, because, as I suppose, it was placed first in the collection.
10. There seems to be an expression, borrowed from the epistle to the Hebrews, in Mani's 5 letter to Marcellus, inserted in these Acts: and there appears to be a reference to Heb. iii. S, 5, 6, in some words of " Archelaus.
11. I do not see any of the Catholic epistles quoted, except the first epistle of St. John. Mani himself is here brought in arguing from 1 John v. 19: “ The whole world lies in wickedness,” or in the wicked one, as he understands it.
12. Antichrist is here often k spoken of: but there is scarce any clear reference to the book of the Revelation. However, it should be observed by us, that in the Revelation, ch. xii. 9, Satan is represented by the character of the 'great dragon. And in this dispute he is spoken of as the dragon, our perpetual enemy.'
13. The writer's respect for the scriptures now commonly received, is manifest from his very numerous and frequent quotations of them as decisive, and of authority in all disputed points of religion.
MANI, AND HIS FOLLOWERS
Sect. I. A general history of the Manichecs.
I. Passages of ancient writers concerning them. 1. Eusebius of Cæsarea; 2. Socrates; 3. Liba. • nius. II. Authors who wrote against them; 1. Heraclean; 2. Alexander of Lycopolis; 3.
Augustine; 4. Serapion; 5. Titus of Bostra; 6. Didymus; 7. Authors omitted by Fabricius; 8. Syrian authors against them. III. Though they were in many places, they wcre no where numerous. IV. Eminent men among the Manichees; 1. Alexander of Lycopolis; 2. Augustine. 3. Adimantus; 4. Agupius; 5. Apthonius; 6. Faustus; 7. Hierax; 8. Sebastian; 9. Secundinus. V.. Their ecclesiastical constitution. VI. Their manners vindicated from aspersions. VII. A
brief account of the persecutions which they suffered. I CHOOSE to begin this chapter with a general history of Mani, and the sect called after his name.
1. In the first place I would allege some passages of ancient writers who have mentioned them. 1. Eusebius's article concerning them in his Ecclesiastical History is to this purpose: “About”
a Sed et Spiritûs Evangelista Matthæus (cap. xxiv.] dili- 6. Αρχην γαρ, και τελος, και τον τοτων πατερα των κακων gentur significavit Domini nostri Jesu Christi sermonem. επι το θεσν αναφερεσιν, ων το τελος καταρας εγγυς. ib. c. 5. Act, Arch. c 35, p. 61.
p. 7. Vid. Hebr. vi. 8. Quid enim ait sermo divinus ? Quis enim potest introire Ita et si Dominus meus Jesus Christus præcellit in gloria in domum fortis, et diripere vasa ejus, nisi illo sit fortior ? Möysen, tamquam Dominus famulum, non propterea respu(Mar. iii. 27) ib. c. 16, p. 30.
enda est gloria Möysi. Arch. c. 43, p. 77. Sed et sanctus Joannes, maximus Evangelistarum, ait, i Malum vero esse tam mundum hunc, quam omnia quæ gratiam gratia præstare, &c. ib. c. 45, p. 82.
in éo sunt,
---sicut ait Joannes, Totus mundus in maligno est sicut scriptum est in Evangeliorum libro.c. 13, p 24. positus, et non in Deo. cap. 14, p.
26. • Quid enim dicit scriptura ? Quia unusquisque propriâ sua * Vid. c. 36, p. 62, 63. lingua audiebat per Paracletum spiritum loquentes apostolos? ' Credo, quod habeat adjutorem draconem illum, qui nobis ib. c. 36, p. 63. Vid. et cap. 34, p. 59.
semper inimicus est. c. 40, p. 69. 'Ipse quoque in prima epistola sua posuit, dicens. ib. m Εν τ8τω και ο μανεις τας φρενας, επωνυμος τε της δαιμοc. 34, p. 59.
νιωσης αιρεσεως.-Εus. Η. Ε. Ι. 7 c. 31.
the same time that madman, fitly named Manes, formed the wild heresy called after his name, • being set up for the ruin of many by Satan the adversary of God. This person · was a barba• rian in every respect, both in his speech, and in his manners. As for his disposition, it was • diabolical and furious; for he made an appearance of being Christ himself. Sometimes he gave ' out that he was the Comforter, and the Holy Ghost himself. To madness he added excessive * pride; and, as if he had been Christ, he chose twelve to be companions with him in his inno. vation. His scheme was patched up of many false and impious heresies, long since extinct. • This venemous principle was brought into our world, the Roman empire, from Persia. From
that time the impious doctrine of the Manichees has infected many. Such was the rise of that * science falsely so called.'
In this place Eusebius appears much out of humour: he is scarce master of himself: whether his expressions are just may perhaps be considered hereafter.
In his, or Jerom's Chronicle, the rise of this sect is with much particularity distinctly fixed at the second year of the emperor Probus, which is the year of Christ 277.
This would be a proper place for me to consider the time of the rise of Manichæism: but being unwilling to render this article, the general history of Manichæism, too prolix, I shall defer it until I come to give a succinct history of Mani himself.
However I would here observe, that I do not remember the Manichees to be any where else mentioned by Eusebius; which may be reckoned somewhat strange, if in his time they were numerous in any parts of the Roman empire: in his Commentaries upon the Psalms and Isaiah, and elsewhere, he might have had frequent occasions to confute them. A great number of heresies of various kinds, some resembling the Manichæan principle, are censured in the Apology for Origen, written jointly by Pamphilus and Eusebius. If the Manichees had been well known in the Roman empire, at the beginning of the fourth century, we might have expected to see them there particularly named, which they are not.
Since writing this, I have observed these words in Tillemont, whom nothing escapes. The article concerning the Manichees in the Chronicle he considers as Jerom's: it is only the passage in the History which he reckons Eusebius's; whereupon he says: · Eusebius, who speaks little of this heresy, does not precisely mark the time of it: he seems willing however to have it thought that it began in the time of pope Felix, who governed the church according to him, • from 276 to 281.'
2. In the next place I intend to transcribe a long passage of Socrates, the ecclesiastical historian, who flourished about the year of Christ 440.
• But & it is an usual thing for cockle to grow up among good grain. It is agreeable to envy i to lay snares for the righteous. Not long before the reign of Constantine there sprang up a kind • of heathenish Christianity, which mingled itself with the true Christian religion: as heretofore · false prophets arose together with the prophets, and false apostles with the apostles. For in • those days the doctrine of Empedocles, a heathen philosopher, was clandestinely introduced • into Christianity: of this Eusebius Pamphilus has made mention in the seventh book of his • Ecclesiastical History, but without any particularity; for which reason I have judged it not improper to supply his omissions; thereby it may be known who this Manichee was, and whence he came, who made this audacious attempt. One Scythian, a Saracen, married a captive woman, native of the Upper Thebais; upon her account he lived in Egypt. Having been in* structed in the learning of the Egyptians, he introduced the doctrine of Empedocles and
Pythagoras into Christianity; asserting two natures, one good, the other evil, as Empedocles • did; and calling the evil nature Discord, the good nature Friendship. Buddas, formerly
Βαρβαρος δητα τον βιον αυτω λογω και τροπο, την τε φυ
tamen hominem assumsisse, id est, animam corpusque terreσιν δαιμονικος τις ών και μανιωδης. Ακολgθα τετοις εγχειρων, num, qui sub specie quasi amplioris gloriæ Jesu Domino defeΧριςον αυτον μορφαζεσθαι επειρατο, τοτε μεν τον παρακλητον, rende, omnia que ab eo gesta sunt phantastice magis quam και αυτο το πνευμα το άγιον αυτος εαυτον ανακηρυττων κ.λ. ib. vere gesta esse testantur. Pro. Orig. Ap. ap. Hieron. Opp.
• Beausobre thinks that here Eusebius has done wrong to T. 5, p. 226. m. Mani, and that his picture of Mani has little resemblance. e Note v. sur les Manich. T. iv. P. 2, p. 936. Hist. de Manich. T. i. p. 108.
Vid. Eus. I. 7, cap. 30, 31, p. 283. C. « Secundo anno Probi, juxta Antiochenos cccxxv. anno
& Socrat. H. E. 1. i. c. 22, 55-57. juxta Tyrios ccccii,- insana Manichæorum hæresis in Η Δυο φυσεις ειπων, αγαθην τε και πονηραν, ως και Εμπεδοcommune humani generis malum exorta. Euseb. Chron. κλης, νεικός ονομαζων την πονηραν, φιλιαν δε την αγαθην. ib. p. 177.
vel secundum cos, qui Deum quidens fatentur, non
p. 55. C.