Saint Archelaus, Bishop of Mesopotamia

on the contrary, having assumed a propensity toward evil as it were a carnal garment: so that the condition of men is now to be deplored, who have received their existence from the impure propagation of the flesh, as Job teaches (ch. XIV, 4) and David (Ps. LI, 7). This sentiment of our author is evident from the comparison he institutes with the following words between angels and mortal men: "Wishing to show the blessedness of those who have obtained the right to inhabit the heavenly region, and to lament those living in the corruption of the earth, who have taken [flesh] upon themselves, are born and give birth, and fall away quickly like leaves," he says, etc. Christ, about to indicate the blessedness of those to whom it has fallen to inhabit the heavenly region, but about to lament the lot of those who live in this earthly mortality and have received their substance from the impure germination of bodies, born and giving birth, and falling away quickly like leaves, said this (which, indeed, had been adduced in the preceding [text] from Luke XX, 35, 36), etc.

CIRCA A.D. 278

SAINT ARCHELAUS, BISHOP OF MESOPOTAMIA

HISTORICAL-LITERARY NOTICE

I. The disagreement among ancient writers concerning the authorship of the Acts of the disputation with Manes is easily reconciled. These Acts were first written in Syriac by Archelaus: then perhaps rendered into Greek by Hegemonius, bishop of Chalcedon. What is to be thought of the Latin version? II. The use of the Greek version of the Acts is confirmed. III. It is inquired whether Archelaus wrote other books against Manes besides the Acts of the disputation. The error of Epiphanius. IV. Archelaus was the bishop not of the Caschari or Carchari, but of Charrha in Mesopotamia. V. At what time the disputation of Archelaus with Manes was held. VI. In the second year of the Emperor Probus, according to Eusebius. VII. Truth, however, it is determined that this occurred in the current year 277. VIII. The antiquity and integrity of the Acts of the disputation are demonstrated. ^B IX. And this is again substantiated. X. The authenticity of the same Acts is still further confirmed. XI. Whether such Acts have reached us intact. XII. From which manuscripts they were transcribed. XIII. A great safeguard and ornament for the Catholic faith arises from these Acts. Hence, likewise, some benefit is obtained for students of antiquity. XIV. To what has been observed thus far, some animadversions are added concerning the episcopal see of Archelaus, and the integrity of the Acts of the disputation held by him with Manes. XV. Whether that fragment of the Acts, which is transcribed from the sixth catechesis of Cyril of Jerusalem and placed under those same Acts, is to be attributed to Archelaus in its entirety. A few things further on our edition of these Acts.

From the Preface of the V.C. Laurentius Zacagnius to the *Collectanea monumentorum Ecclesiæ Græcæ*, p. III seqq.

I. The edition of the Acts of this disputation between Archelaus, bishop of Mesopotamia, and Manes, the author of the nefarious heresy, held first at Carrhae, then in the village of Diodoris, is very acceptable, both for the excellence of the material and for the antiquity of the event, as I judge, to those who are intent upon the study of sacred literature. It is not agreed among Epiphanius, Jerome, and Heraclianus, bishop of Chalcedon, who recorded these Acts in writing. For Saint Epiphanius (a) and Saint Jerome (b) think that Archelaus himself set down in writing what he discussed before chosen judges against Manes. Heraclianus, bishop of Chalcedon, however, ^C judged that a certain Hegemonius was their author. Indeed, Photius (c), in reporting excerpts from these books of Heraclianus, says that the same Heraclianus, in order to refute the errors of the Manichaeans, used the Acts of the disputation of Archelaus with Manes, which were written by Hegemonius. And the Acts of the disputation themselves seem to confirm the opinion of Heraclianus, where we read the following (d): "But since it pleased Marcellus that this disputation be taken down and described, I could not disagree, trusting in the kindness of the readers, that they will grant pardon if the speech should sound in any way unskilled or rustic; for this..."

much is what we strive for, that the knowledge of the event might not escape any studious person. ^A And more clearly elsewhere (a): "After these things were acknowledged, Archelaus added them to the prior disputation, so that it might be known to all, just as I, who have inscribed this, have set forth in the prior parts." For it is not likely that Archelaus would have spoken thus if he himself had committed to writing the Acts of this disputation as we now have them; especially since, instead of "I have inscribed," it seems that "I have excerpted" should rather be read. But nevertheless, since in the final place of those same Acts, in the manner mentioned, it is plainly said that Archelaus himself subsequently added some things to his prior disputation, I willingly come to the opinion that Epiphanius and Jerome can be reconciled, if we say that Archelaus first divulged in the Syriac language all that he had brought forth against Manes before the chosen judges; but that Hegemonius, not only having arranged in a better order what had already been published by Archelaus, but also having enriched it with a prologue, an epilogue, and some other things, transmitted the Acts of that most celebrated disputation to posterity, perfect in all their parts. Furthermore, that those Acts were first written in the Syriac language is proven not only by Jerome, who clearly testifies to this in the place just cited, but also by the argument that Archelaus, while discoursing on the space of the solar course, says that a sphere is called by that name by the Greeks (b). Who translated it into the Greek language cannot be affirmed for certain, although I have a strong suspicion that Hegemonius, who composed the second edition of Archelaus's disputation, himself also labored to translate their version from Syriac into Greek discourse, so that, translated into a better-known language, all the faithful throughout the world could have the fullest knowledge of them. That this was done in very ancient times is evident from Epiphanius, who reports notable excerpts from them in Greek in his *Heresy of the Manichaeans*: nor can it be said that Epiphanius himself made the Greek from the Syriac exemplar, since all the things that are brought forward by him from the Acts of the disputation of Archelaus against Manes are found word for word in the Latin version which we edit. Regarding the Latin translator, it is clear to us only that he was later than Jerome—who, it would have been fitting, would have made mention of the Latin version if it had existed in his own times. Yet it is gathered that he lived before the seventh century of the Christian era from the fact that, in citing places of the Holy Scriptures, he does not follow the Vulgate edition, which was widely accepted throughout the West in that century.

II. Furthermore, that the Latin translator had the Greek version before him, and not the Syriac text, is demonstrated enough and more than enough, not only from his entire diction—which savors of the character and genius of the Greek, and not of the Syriac, language—but it is also most strongly proven by many other arguments. Indeed, in chapter 8 of this disputation, he speaks thus: "When, therefore, the moon bears the burden of the souls, ^B they abide in the column of glory, which is called the perfect air. But this air is the column of light." These words are read in the Greek version apud Epiphanius: *Τῆς οὖν σελήνης μεταδιδοούσης τὸν γόμον τῶν ψυχῶν τοῖς αἰῶσι τοῦ πατρός, παραμένουσιν ἐν τῷ στύλῳ τῆς δόξης, ὃς καλεῖται ἀὴρ ὁ τέλειος· ὁ δὲ ἀὴρ οὗτος στύλος ἐστὶ φωτός.* From which it is evident that the Latin translator, deceived by the similarity of the Greek words, read *ἀνήρ* for *ἀήρ*, as Epiphanius has it; and when he ought to have translated: "They abide in the column of glory which is called the perfect air; but this air is the column of light"; he wrongly interpreted it as: "Which is called the perfect man: but this man is the column of light." A mistake into which he would certainly not have fallen if he had elaborated his version according to the faith of the Syriac text, in which there is a great difference between the two words. There are also other hallucinations of the same translator, from which that same thing is most evidently gathered. For instance, in chapter 7, speaking of the living spirit fashioned by Manes, he says: "Again the living spirit himself created the luminaries, which are the remains of the soul, and made them circle the firmament; and again he created the earth, and they are eight." But from this it is clear that he used a Greek exemplar in which had been written *εἰσὶ δὲ ὀκτώ* or *εἰσὶ δ’ ὀκτώ*, when nevertheless in Epiphanius it is read *εἰς εἴδη ὀκτώ*, "in eight species"; which equivocation could certainly only arise from the Greek, and not from the Syriac, language. Thus, in chapter 8, he translated "he will pour forth hunger," when he ought to have translated "pestilence," ^C deceived by the similarity of the Greek words *λιμός* (hunger) and *λοιμός* (pestilence), as we observed in our notes to that place. Thus, in chapter 9, for *πήσσει*, "congeals," or "constricts with cold," as it is in Epiphanius, he seems to have read *παίσει*, "strikes," as we taught in those same notes. He also retains some Greek words in his version; and sometimes absolutely, sometimes adding an explanation of them; which certainly he would not have done if he had donated to the Latin world a work written in Syriac. Hence, in chapter 53, he uses the word *talenti* for weight, in which sense the word *τάλαντον* is sometimes accepted among the Greeks. So, a little before, he uses the word *cybi*, and immediately adds, by our emendation, "which name is *tali*"; or, as it is read in a certain Royal-Alexandrian codex, "which name is *aleæ*"; that is, from *κύβος*, a word which signifies both a die and a game of dice, as we have observed in our notes to that place. So, finally, in chapter 8, he translates the moon *apocrusin*, "to suffer detriment," that everyone sees that the latter word is an interpretation of the former.

III. Epiphanius reports in chapter 11 that Archelaus, after Manes had been put to flight from Carrhae, being informed by Diodorus, the presbyter of that place, about his arrival at the Diodoride citadel, sent two *λόγοι*, that is, books, to the same Diodorus, so that, instructed by reading them, he might himself be able to infringe upon the attempts of the impious heretic. But William Cave, in his *Historia litteraria scriptorum ecclesiasticorum*, wisely notices that Epiphanius lapsed in that matter, and from the Acts themselves disc-

- erned the locations, in which *Kaschara* or *Kascharon* is mistakenly read. Moreover, an anonymous writer of the *Geography* of Ravenna (e) reports that a city called Carcha was located in Arabia Felix. Ammianus Marcellinus (f) also mentions another Carcha. But Bishop Archelaus was not the bishop of either of these cities; for his dispute with Manes was held in a city of Mesopotamia, situated under Roman rule, the bishopric of which Archelaus held, as is explicitly stated in Epiphanius and in the Acts of the dispute itself. Carcha, however, as mentioned by Marcellinus, was located outside Mesopotamia, across the Tigris, in Persian territory, as the same Ammianus testifies in the cited passages. Furthermore, Archelaus could by no means have been the bishop of the city of Carcha in Arabia, which is mentioned by the anonymous Ravennas; since all ancient writers report that he was the bishop not of Arabia, but of Mesopotamia. Besides Peter Siculus and Photius, the Acts of the dispute between Archelaus and Manes themselves seem to further prove the latter reading in Epiphanius, in the beginning of which the *True Treasury*, or the dispute held in the city of Carchar in Mesopotamia, is mentioned. But since they refer infra (g) to Charræ, and call it a city of Mesopotamia; from this it is clearly established that the same Acts, as well as Epiphanius and others, should be understood as speaking of Charræ, the most celebrated city of Mesopotamia, whence, according to Marcellinus (h), two royal roads leading into Persia are distinguished, which city is also written as Charra in Paul the Deacon (i). However, *Carchar* or *Carchara* appears to have been written in the same Acts and in Epiphanius, perhaps through an error of the scribes, or because it was so named in the common language of the natives.

IV. Now Socrates (a), following Epiphanius (b), teaches that Archelaus was bishop of the Cascharians, *Kascháron*. But that author is inconsistent with himself, seeing that he elsewhere (c) names the city of which Archelaus was bishop *Karchēdon* in the Petavian edition, although in another, the Basle edition, it is corruptly held as *Kalcháron*. It seems that Epiphanius expressed this latter reading from the very Acts of the dispute of Bishop Archelaus with Manes, at the beginning of which it is said: *The True Treasury, or the dispute held in the city of Carchar in Mesopotamia*; and this reading is followed by Peter Siculus (d) and Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, in his work still unpublished against the Manichaeans springing up in his own time, book 1, who, while reducing the narratives of Epiphanius into an abridgment, call Archelaus not bishop of *Kascháron* or *Kalcháron*, but of *Karcháron*: from which it is also evident that the other [readings] of Epiphanius and Socrates are to be amended, in which *Kaschara* or *Kascharon* is incorrectly read.

V. Furthermore, Epiphanius does not at all report the time of the dispute held by Archelaus consistently with himself; for in his book *On Weights and Measures*, no. 20, he reports that Manes, fleeing from Persia on account of the death of the son of the king of the Persians, came into Mesopotamia in the ninth year of the Emperors Valerian and Gallienus, which is the year 262 of the Christian era, and at the same time held a dispute with Archelaus, the bishop of the same region. But in the *Heresy of the Manichaeans*, at the very beginning of the work, and in no. 20, he writes that the Manichaeans, or rather the ancient heresy of the good and evil God, first originated from Manes and were spread again through various parts of the world around the fourth year of the Emperor Aurelian; and later he intimates that this was done by Manes under Aurelian and Probus, as is seen in nos. 19, 20, 59, and 77 of the same heresy. Now, Archelaus could not have refuted Manes by word of mouth in the year 9 of Valerian and Gallienus, as Epiphanius says in the book *On Weights and Measures*, if after not a few years, either in the fourth year of Aurelian, or around the end

of the same empire, and the beginning of the reign of Probus, he procured the growth of the ancient and wicked dogma of Manes. The former calculation of Epiphanius in the book *On Weights and Measures* is followed by Petrus Siculus, l. c., and Photius in his praised book 1 against the Manichaeans who were springing up again, although Valerian Augustus had already been captured by Sapor, king of the Persians, from the seventh year of his reign. But the latter is proven by the very Acts of the disputation of Archelaus with Manes, from whose 37th chapter it clearly appears that Archelaus had debated with Manes—of whose heresy he had previously known nothing—under the reign of Probus, and not Gallienus. Cyril of Jerusalem, too, who testifies (a) that he is writing only seventy years after the discovery of the Manichaean heresy, explicitly writes that Manes began to spread his heresy while Probus was emperor. Therefore, it must be said that Epiphanius erred in his book *On Weights and Measures*, and that he handed down to us much more certain information concerning the rise of the Manichaean heresy in his books *Against Heresies*, although even in those same books he is found to be inconsistent with himself: for when he said that Manes emerged in the 4th year of Aurelian, which comprises part of the years 273 and 274, and furthermore asserted that this happened in the times of Aurelian and Probus, that is, in the year of Christ 276 according to some who had been accustomed to count the years from his birth—although Epiphanius asserts that they are to be calculated from Christ's ascension into heaven—or in the year 246 according to others, who calculated the years from the death of Christ; later he adds that from the times of Manes up to the 13th year of the Emperor Valens, and the 9th of Gratian, and the first of Valentinian the Younger, in which he himself was writing, that is, up to the year 576 of the vulgar era, 107 years had elapsed, which surely cannot be true; for from the year 276, or 273, or 274 to the year 376, not one hundred and seven years are counted, but only one hundred, or 103, or 104 years, according to the various calculations just mentioned.

VI. Furthermore, in which year of Probus this happened can be gathered from Eusebius, who writes thus in the *Chronicle* regarding the beginnings of the Manichaeans (b): In the second year of Probus, it was the year 325 according to the Antiochenes, according to the Tyrians 402 or 403 according to some; according to the Laodiceans 324, according to the Edessenes (c) 388 (for it must be corrected thus, as the edition of Pontacus wrongly reads 389); according to the Ascalonites 380, the insane heresy of the Manichaeans arose as an evil for the human race. However, these words of Eusebius are to be understood in such a way that the heresy of the Manichaeans did not arise ^B at that time for the first time; for already from almost the times of the apostles that wicked error had invaded the minds of some, as is clear from our Archelaus and Epiphanius; but that then, for the first time, as Manes was spreading the old heresy through various regions of the East, and happened to fall upon Archelaus, who by debating with him exposed all his arts and errors, it thus came to the notice of all the faithful throughout the world, so that it could be said to have begun in some manner at that time. For it seems that Archelaus, after Manes had been refuted ^C in the presence of the judges, made the whole matter known to all the bishops throughout the world, so that they might render assistance to the wavering catholic faith with as much diligence as they could: and in this way it is right that it happened that those who were ignorant of the crafty progress of the Manichaeans then believed their heresy to have arisen when they first obtained knowledge of it from the letters of Archelaus.

VII. But the time of the disputation held by Archelaus can be designated more precisely from St. Leo the Great, who in his second sermon on Pentecost says that the Manichaean became known in the consulship of the Emperor Probus and Paulinus, in the year 250 after the resurrection of Christ, as Quesnel testifies that it is read more appropriately to historical truth in the Oxford codex. But this consulship of Probus and Paulinus contains part of the first and second year of the reign of Probus, who, as is agreed, obtained the Roman empire upon the death of Tacitus on April 13, and his brother Florian being killed ^D after two months. Wherefore, if the Manichaean heresy was made manifest according to Eusebius in the year of Probus II and according to Leo the Great during the consulship of Probus and Paulinus, it must necessarily be said that the disputation of Archelaus with Manes, through which the error of Manes became known to the universal Church, happened between July and December of the year 277. But the words of our Archelaus must be interpreted kindly, who in chapter 27 of his disputation asserts that Manes arrived after almost three hundred years from the death of Christ, nay, after three hundred and more years from the same death of Christ. For it must be said that Archelaus, in order to exaggerate the stupidity of Manes, who rashly affirmed that he himself was the Paraclete Spirit promised by Christ, increased the number of years in the heat of the disputation, so that he might show more clearly that he, emerging so long after the death of Christ, could not be the Paraclete whom Jesus had affirmed that He would immediately send to the apostles after His ascension into heaven; and in truth, the Acts of the Apostles clearly testify that He was sent by Him fifty days after His resurrection.

VIII. With these things briefly mentioned [1412_col_c] concerning the time and versions of the disputation of Archelaus with Manes, and concerning the episcopal see of the same Archelaus, we must now proceed to the sincerity and excellence of the same work; and what is more, we must see whether it is mutilated in any part; finally, we must indicate which fragments of the Acts, which we now edit whole for the first time, had once been brought to light, and from whose library codex our edition flowed. And, firstly, no suspicion can arise regarding the sincerity of these Acts: for Epiphanius, writing against heresies in the year of Christ 376, brought forward a notable fragment from the disputation of Archelaus in his *Heresy of the Manichaeans*, chapter 25, which corresponds entirely to the Acts of the same published by us from the Latin version; and furthermore, if the [words of] Archelaus

be compared with the refutations of Epiphanius, it will appear most evident that he followed Archelaus in everything to such a degree that he brought forward few things of his own against the errors of Manes. Socrates also mentions the Acts of this disputation; he, who completed his Ecclesiastical History in the sixteenth consulship of Theodosius the Younger—that is, in the year of the Christian era 439—candidly confesses (a) that he drew everything he narrated concerning the heresy of the Manichaeans from these same Acts. Moreover, Heraclianus, bishop of Chalcedon, makes mention of them, as if they were by a certain Hegemonius, as was said above. Finally, Lambecius (b) is witness that ^A a fragment of the works of our Archelaus is contained in the ancient Catenas of the Greek Fathers on the Gospel of John, which is held in the manuscript of the Caesarean library: which, truthfully, I have no doubt was taken from the Acts of this disputation.

^B IX. Furthermore, various arguments can be drawn from the text of these same Acts by which their antiquity and sincerity are demonstrated. For in chapters 27 and 38, Archelaus, enumerating various heretics, calls none of them more recent than Sabellius, who, it is established from Eusebius (c), was accused of heresy by Dionysius of Alexandria during the times of Sixtus II, who ruled the Roman Church in the years of Christ 257 and 258. He also mentions the siege of Carrhae, at which he testifies in chapter 24 he was present, which appears to be none other than that which happened under Emperor Valerian, when it was notably taken by the Persians; or another under Gallienus, when it was snatched from the Persians by Odenathus, king of the East, and brought back under the dominion of the Roman Empire, as Trebellius Pollio testifies in *Gallienus*, chapters 10 and 12. Mention of them is also made in chapter 52, where those who had knowledge of Scythianus the heretic, who lived in the time of the apostles, had narrated to them some things about his heresy according to the tradition of their parents. Indeed, various ancient customs mentioned in these Acts do not allow us to doubt their sincerity. For in the very beginning of the Acts, it is said that some of the soldiers of the Roman legions, moved by the example of Marcellus’s mercy, having laid aside their military belts, gave their name to the Christian faith: a fact testified to by Tertullian (d) and others, cited in our notes to that passage, as having occurred in ^C the most ancient times of the Church by Christian soldiers, so that they would not be defiled by pagan commerce and superstitions. He also says that Marcellus constructed hostels for the use of Christian pilgrims along the royal roads that led from Carrhae into Persia: that this was done by ancient Christians who gave diligent effort to hospitality is openly inferred from the first invective of Gregory Nazianzen against Julian the Apostate; where he testifies that this emperor commanded hostels and inns to be built throughout the Roman world by the example of the Christians, so that he might procure greater praise and veneration for pagan superstitions. Furthermore, Archelaus narrates in chapter 34 that [Manes], having been placed in prison, sent his disciples to places where the books of the Christians were being copied, and that an abundance of sacred codices was made for them, as they were pretending to be messengers of the Christians. But it was only necessary to do this under pagan emperors, in whose times the faithful of Christ were taking the utmost religious care that books of the sacred law might not fall into the hands of the pagans; and for this reason, the sacred codices were not sold everywhere, but only in certain specified places. But Epiphanius should be corrected, who in *Heresy of the Manichaeans*, chapter 5, says that Manes sent his disciples to inquire for the sacred books before he was cast into prison; for in the aforementioned passage of the disputation of Archelaus, it is clearly said that this was done by Manes at the time when he was being held in prison.

X. Nor is the credibility of these [Acts] bolstered only by sacred matters, but also by certain profane things of which mention is made in these Acts. For in them we read that Manes, when he came to Carrhae, summoned by letters from Marcellus, carried a staff of ebony in his hands; which J. Malalas (e) testifies was a practice of the Alytarchs in times past. Callisthenes, also, a spurious writer lauded by the most learned Ducange in his *Glossary of Mediaeval and Low Greek* under the word *Ἐβελλῖνος*, thus writes of Psammetichus: *Καὶ ἐστολίσεν ἑαυτὸν στολὴν προφήτου, κατέχων ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ ῥάβδον ἑβελλίνην*, where Aesopus, the interpreter of this same Callisthenes, who dedicated his version to Constantius, son of Constantine the Great, wrongly translates it as a rod of tamarisk; whence it is clear that those who were adorned with some public dignity and who laid claim to the praise of learning were accustomed to use a staff of this kind. In chapter 37, he also accurately describes the procession of emperors while they entered some city publicly with guards, standards, dragons, labarums, generals, princes, and prefects. Finally, he hands down not a few things about the manifold use of seals and keys among the ancients in chapters 14 and 26, to which things entirely similar occur in the monuments of pagan writers, as we have shown in our notes on these items. From all of which it is demonstrated clearly enough that these Acts are genuine and most ancient, and that their credibility does not waver in any part.

XI. Yet I cannot hide this: that these Acts of the disputation of Archelaus with Manes, which we publish from the apograph of the Vatican-Casinensis codex, do not appear to be intact in any way, but in many places were mutilated by an old scribe. For Cyril of Jerusalem (f) recites certain arguments of Manes with the responses of Archelaus which are not found in our edition; nor does it seem possible to say that Cyril was citing the sense of Archelaus’s words, but not the very words of Archelaus himself, since something similar is read in no place of our edition; and furthermore, those words which Cyril cites are so conceived…

as if they appeared to have been uttered by Archelaus himself. But several conjectures can also be drawn from our edition of these same Acts, by which this very thing is further confirmed. For in chapter 12 of the same, these things are contained: "Archelaus, however, had a concern for the people, as a shepherd for his sheep, when the snares of wolves were being prepared. Therefore, Marcellus filled Turbo with many gifts, and ordered him to reside in the house of Archelaus. On that very same day, Manes arrived," and what follows. But in what precedes, nothing is narrated that happened on the day that Manes arrived. Furthermore, in chapter 25 of this disputation, Archelaus says: "Did not David rescue a sheep from the mouth of the lion or the bear?" We say this on account of "from the mouth of the lion," which he says; from the mouth of the lion, or from his belly, he can draw out that which he has already devoured. But in what precedes we do not read that these things were ever said by Manes. Indeed, also in chapter 38, those words: "Which indeed I do not construct from my own words," and what follows up to the end of the chapter, seem to have no connection with what precedes. Finally, in the last chapter of these Acts, after the death of Manes has been narrated, we read these things: "These things having been known afterwards, Archelaus added to the previous disputation, so that it might be known to all, as I who have inscribed it explained in the previous section." These words seem to be of that Hegemonius who, as we said above, compiled these same Acts and translated them into the Greek language. But in our edition, I do not find the place where a discourse is held about this matter; because perhaps in the Casinensian codex the preface is lacking, in which Hegemonius rendered the account of his compilation: unless someone should judge that those words "I explained in the previous section" refer to those things which he narrated shortly before concerning the death of Manes. Therefore it can be rightfully and deservedly suspected that he who copied the Casinensian codex five hundred and more years ago, wearied by the length of this great disputation of the Acts, omitted many things and abbreviated many others, an epitome of which, however, I believe is held in Epiphanius; and that he drew his own refutation of the Manichæan heresy mostly from the complete Acts of the disputation of Archelaus will be clearly evident to anyone comparing our edition with his writings.

XII. Regarding their edition, Emericus Bigotius, a most diligent searcher of the Italian libraries, found a part of such an ancient monument in the very ancient Bobbio codex, which is now preserved in the Ambrosian library, and communicated it to the most illustrious Valesius, who published those fragments at the end of his notes on Socrates and Sozomen. They contain both all those things which Epiphanius inserted from the same disputation into his own writings, and some other things omitted by the same, which, however, do not complete even a tenth part of the entire work. And that part of the disputation of Archelaus was of such value to Bigotius that he thought to reprint it with Palladius, with the Greek text of Epiphanius appended, so that from the comparison of both, the genuine reading of those fragments having been restored, anyone might be able to gather how much the ancient Latin versions are to be valued, and how much utility redounds from them, as he himself says in the preface to the dialogue of Palladius on the life of St. John Chrysostom near the end: but afterwards he thought it better to leave this concern to those who were about to set out to undertake a new edition of the works of St. Epiphanius, or who would undertake the work of re-editing the History of Socrates with the notes of the most learned Valesius. And thus far, indeed, nothing else from the disputation of Archelaus has looked upon public light. But when, led by the reverence of the sacred place, I had come to Casino, and had perused the library established there from most ancient times by the most learned and holy monastic superiors, among other not few as yet unpublished ancient monuments, I found the entire disputation of Archelaus with Manes in a codex of six hundred and more years, which, by the favor of the most reverend formerly abbot, but now archbishop of Rossano, Andrea Deodati, a most kind and friendly man, together with some other writings of the ancients, I had transcribed for the adornment of the Vatican library, with the kindness and favor of Dom Augustino Collicello of Naples, then at that time the prefect of that library, most kindly providing help. I cannot, however, pass over in silence here how much I owe to the kindness of the most diligent librarian, Erasmus Gattola of Gaeta, who never failed in my wishes, and who voluntarily undertook many labors for the advancement of my studies, especially in cleaning up this disputation of Archelaus, whose many places in the copy were burdened with mistakes, which he compared with the archetypal codex. But to return to Archelaus: having found this most ancient work against the Manichæans, I moved to write the history of their nefarious heresy, and I had decreed to append, in the place of an appendix, not only the entire disputation of Archelaus to it, but also the four books of Photius, patriarch of Constantinople, against the Manichæans, which arose again in his own time, and many other as yet unpublished writings of ancient authors, which are to be esteemed of great value: but by the advice of most learned men, it was brought about that these Acts should be published in advance in the first volume of our collection. You have, therefore, learned reader, the entire disputation of Archelaus with Manes, published in good faith from the copy of the Casinensian codex which is preserved in the Vatican library, illustrated with brief critical notes, and, where it could safely be done according to my ability, amended; for there are in that codex very many errors of the scribe, which those who are occupied in publishing ancient writings well know to be a dangerous endeavor to attempt to correct without the aid of another codex. But perhaps this work, God granting, will be permitted to be restored more correctly with other lucubrations of the ancients against the Manichæans at the end of our history of the Manichæans, if some other exemplar should occur while clearing out the shelves of our libraries, or if it should be found in other libraries of Europe, it would not weary learned men to communicate it to me.

XIII. Furthermore, as for the great [value] of our Archelaus...

he comes forward as a twofold bulwark and ornament of the Catholic faith. For while ^A he opposes the heresy of Manes with most powerful arguments, and pursues its origin and growth, he not only undermines it from the bottom up, and shows how impious were its authors, but also illustrates and confirms most of the dogmas of the Catholics. Among other things, there is an elegant passage concerning the Church hierarchy instituted by the apostles, which we preserve to this day, expressed in chapter 51 with these words: "But also the best architect of it has placed our foundation, that is, of the Church, namely Paul, and has handed down the law, with ministers, presbyters, and bishops ordained in it; describing through individual places how and in what manner the ministers of God ought to be, what kind [they should be], and how presbyters ought to be made, and what kind those ought to be who desire the episcopacy; all of which, being well and rightly disposed for us, preserve their status even to this day, and the discipline of this rule remains among us." There are also preeminent passages in these Acts in which the freedom of the human will is asserted against more recent heretics, as can be seen in chapter 15 and 13. Very beautiful and mostworthy of note are those words in chapter 32, where he says thus: "For God made all things which He made very good; He gave to each one a sense of free will, by which reasoning He also set the law of judgment. It is our own [doing] to sin; however, that we do not sin is a gift of God, from that which is constituted in our own will, to sin or not to sin; etc. And certainly those who wish it, observe the commandments; but those who have despised them and turned to the perverse, without doubt will bear the law of judgment." Students of Roman antiquities will also find in this work many things not unworthy of knowing, most of which we mentioned earlier where we treated its sincerity. Finally, from this we are also able to learn how far the limits of the Roman empire extended at that time towards the dominion of the Parthians or Persians; and other things concerning the locations situated on their border, and concerning the number of Roman soldiers who guarded the camps at Carrhae: for these matters are treated sporadically in the first five chapters of this work, and besides that, in chapters 52, 54, and 55 of the same. More will be observed by the learned reader. Thus far the illustrious Zacagni.

XIV. But so that we might not appear to be entirely wanting in our duty, we think it appropriate to add something to those things which Zacagni has hitherto discussed with sufficient diligence. ^D And first, indeed, as far as concerns the episcopal see of Archelaus, we prefer to depart from the opinion of Zacagni and side with the illustrious Lequien (a). For that Archelaus presided over the Church of the Cascharenses, not the Charrans, is taught not only by the Acts of the disputation which that holy prelate held with Manes (b); ^A but Epiphanius (c), Socrates (d), and Photius (e) also attest to this: so that the most learned Assemanus (f) rightly argues that it must be established that "Charram" was written in the only place of the Acts (g) by an error of the scribes rather than thinking that the reading "Caschar" at the beginning of the same Acts, and among the illustrious authors just praised, Epiphanius, Socrates, and Photius, is corrupt. And this is clearly different from Charris or Haran, the other city of the province of Osrhoene, posited not far from the Euphrates: and it is not far from Babylon and Seleucia, not subject to the metropolitan of Amida, but very close to the Seleucian catholicus, as is evident from the Pontifical of the Chaldeans in Morinus (h) and Assemanus (i); where it is commanded that immediately after the death of the catholicus, one should be sent to the bishop of Caschar, if he is among the living, as being the prince or primary prelate of the patriarchal province, who holds the right hand of the patriarch, and is the guardian of that see after his death. Which, of course, must be accepted from the time when Caschar came under the power of the Persians under King Sapor. For under the Emperor Probus it was under Roman rule, at which time Manes, fleeing from the borders of Persis, in the district of the Caschareni which they called Diodoris (j), had that meeting concerning religion with Archelaus. This is almost what Lequien says.

Moreover, the illustrious Augustinian hermit Augustine Anthony Giorgi has recently confirmed the same opinion concerning the Cascharense see of Archelaus at length in the ^C excellent work which he inscribed *Alphabetum Tibetanum*; where he also, which is the head of the matter, has clearly vindicated the sincerity of the Acts of the same Archelaus against Beausobre, concluding his disputation with these words (k): "Let us hold to Caschar in Mesopotamia Kathaja, and behold the bond, provided Beausobre is willing to be mindful of his pledged faith, by which he is strictly bound to embrace the Acts of the holy bishop Archelaus as precious monuments of Christian antiquity; which, however, he was tearing to pieces a little earlier." To which the author undoubtedly refers, which Beausobre has in these words (l): "I have well proved that the dispute did not take place in Mesopotamia. But if we place it in Turkestan, it will be able to sustain itself. It is there that the heresiarch retires, according to the Orientals; that there is a Cascar which is not subject to the Persians, and where he will be able to plead his case in total safety. It is there that there are Christians, bishops, who cannot fail to rise up against a heretic who destroys the principal articles of the Christian faith... I had not thought of this. This dispute must be re-established which I have attacked so much. One only has to place it well... Let us give the reader the edification of seeing that a history so ancient is true in its foundation." But in that very year

^A there appeared the *Alphabetum Tibetanum*, by another most learned man, who had vigorously defended the integrity of those same Acts against the aforementioned Beausobre.

XV. Furthermore, it is worth observing with this learned man that § 3 of that fragment of the Acts of the Disputation of Archelaus, which is subjoined to those same Acts as having been taken from the sixth catechesis of Cyril of Jerusalem, should perhaps be attributed to the Bishop of Jerusalem rather than to the Bishop of Carchar. For he says as follows (b): "Although these things," he says, "from the beginning of paragraph 3 to the end, appear to be spoken by Cyril in the words of Archelaus; since he appends there: 'By these and many other such sayings the dragon was overthrown: by such disputations Archelaus laid Manes low'; from which Zacagni drew all these things to the end of the disputation of Archelaus as if it were a true part of it: nevertheless, we believe that here the words of Archelaus cease, and the rest, from these words: 'If, however,' etc., to the end, are added by Cyril in the form of a parenthesis to the arguments of Archelaus." At least it cannot be doubted that the words *taūta tà mystēria* (these mysteries) placed below are Cyril's, ^B and not Archelaus', for two reasons which strike at every point. First, he says that the mysteries which he is now expounding to one who is listening—having departed from the rank of the catechumens—it is not lawful to open to Gentiles; and in these mysteries, he names the doctrine of the Most Holy Trinity. But just as these things apply extremely well to Cyril's hearers, who have been transferred from the state of catechumens to the name and rank of the faithful, catech. v, § 1, to whom he had most plainly opened the mystery of the Trinity in catech. v; so they do not apply to Manes, who, as Cyril testifies in catech. vi, § 21, had never been a Christian, nor had he been rejected by the Church, nor had he even reached the rank of catechumen or passed beyond it, and had thus become a son of the Church, Procatech., § 13. For that catechumens are truly rejected by the Church is proven by Lucifer, who in his book *De non conveniendo*, etc., calls the Emperor Constantius a man cut off from the body of the holy Church.

Ait 2°, the mysteries which he now expounds without veils, it is a sin to speak of in the presence of Gentiles. Yet Archelaus was speaking in an audience of Gentiles, as gathered from § 1 of the Cyrillian fragment. Therefore, one would be attributing a contradictory speech to him, in which he denies that he is speaking before ethnikoi (Gentiles)—whom, however, he has as judges of the disputation—and affirms that he is explaining those mysteries about which there was no question. ^C Since, therefore, the words, *taūta tà mystēria*, are most certainly Cyril’s, and are bound to the preceding things by a necessary connection; necessarily I have placed the beginning of the parenthesis in this place. Nor should the length of the parenthesis delay us: for long digressions and parentheses are not unusual for Cyril. See catech. xvi, § 14, hom. in Paral., § 8 to 11. Moreover, these explanations of a single passage of Scripture according to different interpretations are of his nature, as can be seen in catech. xvii, §§ 9 and 10, catech. xii, § 21, etc. Finally, the interpretation of this passage which he provides in the last place, namely that the eyes of the weak are dazzled by the brilliance of truths which they cannot grasp, is contained in that reasoning which he rendered in Procatech. § 12, why the mysteries are hidden from catechumens; because, namely, the knowledge of things which they cannot yet grasp would harm them. Thus far that learned man.

Furthermore, we have collated our edition of these Acts against that which the very distinguished Laurentius Alexander Zacagni published at Rome in the year 1698 in the *Collectanea monumentorum veterum Ecclesiae Graecae ac Latinae*. In their proper places, we have restored both the prologue with additions and, above all, the various readings which the same learned man had relegated to the end of his edition, having transcribed them from the Regio-Alexandrine codex regarding chapters 51–55 of the Disputation of Archelaus, using this little preface (c): "After I had published," he says, "the disputation of Archelaus among the Regio-Alexandrine codices of the Vatican library, I had found a copy of a certain ancient codex, which formerly belonged to the monastery of Saint Salvius, perhaps bishop and martyr of Amiens; and in that codex, together with the *Commonitorium* of Saint Augustine against the Manichaeans, edited among his letters, there were held certain excerpts from the Acts of the disputation of Archelaus from chapter 51 to chapter 55, I considered it worth the effort to publish the various readings from the same copy, since with their help certain passages of Archelaus are restored." So he. But Fabricius, a man otherwise diligent, while doing something else, passed over such various readings, which are certainly not to be despised, in his *Spicilegium sanctorum Patrum saeculi III*, annexed to the Works of Hippolytus: but the very learned author of the *Supplementum ad concilia Veneto-Labbeana* (d) skillfully wove them into the remaining notes of the editor. Furthermore, we have compared the fragment of the Disputation of Archelaus taken from the sixth catechesis of Cyril of Jerusalem and added to the same Acts at the end, with the latest Parisian Cyrillian edition of the Benedictines, and we have reviewed the translation, and we have subjoined the notes of the distinguished editor. Finally, we have added some observations, pertaining especially to the text of the Acts, as opportunity offered; indeed, in that manner which we have been accustomed to use everywhere in other monuments of the ancient Fathers hitherto published.

TESTIMONIES OF THE ANCIENTS.

ON THE DISPUTATION OF ST. ARCHELAUS THE BISHOP WITH MANES THE HERESIARCH.

I. Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus, Cateches. vi, § 27, pag. 104, edit. BB. Paris. 1720.

^A (Manes) flees from prison and comes into Mesopotamia; but the shield of justice, Bishop Archelaus, opposes him, and having refuted him before philosophical judges, after setting up a gathering of Gentiles—so that the judges might not seem to show favor if they were Christians—he says: "Come, make it known," says Archelaus, etc. ... ut infra ad calcem disputationis; quibus absolutis, statim subdit § 30:

The dragon was overthrown by these and many other such words; with such contests Archelaus threw Manes. He who had fled from prison flees again from there; and having escaped his adversary, he comes to a most lowly village, like the serpent which, having left Adam in paradise, approached Eve. But the good shepherd Archelaus, providing for his sheep, having heard of his flight, immediately hastened at a run in search of the wolf. Manes, however, as soon as he saw his adversary, leaped up and fled.

II. S. Epiphanius, Hær. lxvi, § 7.

And it so happened by chance that on the same day the servant of God received that letter from the Manichæan, Archelaus, the bishop of the city, was at home with him. When he had examined everything, gnashing his teeth like a roaring lion and stirred by a certain divine zeal, he desired rather to set out towards Manichæus and to seize that man coming from the barbarians—the place whence he had originated—[and] rising up for the destruction of the human race.

Idem, ibid., § 8.

^C But Bishop Archelaus, endowed with zeal for the faith in addition to his learning, was of the opinion that, if it were possible, that man should be intercepted like a leopard or a wolf or any other beast and handed over to death, lest the flock be harmed by the incursion of such a wild animal, as he knew of his entry.

Idem, ibid., § 10.

When these things were as they were, and Archelaus had fully grasped everything so that he could dispute about that question—and since he was most thoroughly prepared for it, partly because he was very ready by reason of his manifold knowledge of divine matters, and partly because he had been thoroughly taught the [truth] by Tyrbon.

^A And so, because he was thoroughly acquainted with all the impostures of the wicked man, behold, Manes arrives with the company of men he had with him. Therefore, immediately and without any delay, they set up a public debate in the town of Caschara itself, in order to settle that controversy before all else. For this purpose, they chose as arbiters of the contest a certain Marsipus, and Claudius, and Aegialeus, and Cleobulus; the first of whom was a professor of ethnic philosophy, the second of medicine, the third a grammarian, and the last a sophist. ^B Many words were tossed back and forth in that disputation, with Manes on one side putting forward the fables of his teaching, and Archelaus, like an excellent soldier, defending his ground with his own strength and virtue, and shattering the weapons of his adversary. In the end, Manes was defeated, and by the verdict of the judges, he yielded to the truth. Idem, ibid., § 11. Departing thence, therefore, Manes betook himself to Diodoridem (which is a village in the territory of Carcharis), where there was a certain Tryphon, a very good man and at that time the presbyter of that place. Turning to him, Manes again tried to throw everything into confusion and to exalt himself arrogantly, having found a man who was otherwise good and endowed with excellent piety, but destitute of the defense of eloquence. Yet, not even in this way, as he had hoped, could he mock the servant of Christ. Shortly after: But when Manes wished to meet again with the presbyter Tryphon, who had contradicted him on many points, he (Tryphon) signified the whole matter by letter to Archelaus. ^C And after a few things: Archelaus, having received these letters, sent him two books, written against Manes, which he could easily and readily understand. Moreover, he warned him to wait for his arrival. Meanwhile, Manes, going out into the middle of the village at the crack of dawn, challenged Tryphon to a disputation. And when he (Tryphon) had appeared, and had answered one by one to all things which he had inquired of him, according to the wisdom he had received from God, and treated the impostor with greater gentleness—wavering somewhat in his own mind—suddenly Archelaus was seen unexpectedly, who, like an intense head of a household, most zealous for his own, boldly rushed upon the brigand, roaring. When Manes saw him, with feigned flattery he said: "Let me contend with Tryphon; for you, since you are a bishop, surpass me in dignity." ^D Archelaus, however, since that man's dogma had already been confuted, showed him to be more cunning in deceit than could be expressed in words, and stopped his mouth completely. Then, dissolving those points which had been proposed by him, he struck him with a new shame, so that he dared not even open his mouth any further. Under this, the people, their spirits burning again, attempted to overcome that wicked man. Escaping their hands, he returned to the fort of Arabion.

^A Idem, ibid., § 21. Already, however, admirable refutations against his errors have been produced by great men, such as by Bishop Archelaus, as was stated previously. And § 25. But now, as is appropriate, I shall add his doctrine word for word from the work of Archelaus which he published against that same man, from the things [Archelaus] had received from Tyrbon, a disciple of his, whom I mentioned above. For when Bishop Archelaus and Marcellus had questioned Tyrbon about the teaching of Manes, the latter answered exactly as I have transcribed from that book, and they are of this sort.

Follow excerpts from the Acts of the disputation of Archelaus with Manes, which are found in our edition as Chapter VII.

III. S. Hieronymus, lib. de Vir. illustr., cap. 72. Archelaus, bishop of Mesopotamia, composed in the Syriac tongue the book of that disputation which he held against the Manichaean who was coming out of Persia; which ^B is extant in a Greek translation by many. He flourished under the Emperor Probus, who had succeeded Aurelian and Tacitus.

IV. Heraclianus, Bishop of Chalcedon, in his books against the Manichaeans. In Photius, Biblioth. cod. xcv. He truly overturns that which the Manichaeans call the Gospel, and the Gigantic Book, and the Treasuries. He furthermore recounts those who before him took up the pen against the impiety of the Manichaeans, namely Hegemonius, who wrote out the disputation of Archelaus against Manes himself, etc.

V. Socrates, Hist. eccles., lib. 1, cap. 22. These things, however, we do not say as inventions; but we have gathered them having met with the discourse of Archelaus, the bishop of Carchar, one of the cities in Mesopotamia; for Archelaus himself says that he disputed with him, and he sets forth the things written above concerning his life. ^C

VI. PETRUS SICULUS in his History of the Manichaeans, page 25, 35, and 37, reports all these things word for word, which we have just related above from Cyril of Jerusalem, S. Epiphanius (On weights and measures), and from the Ecclesiastical History of Socrates, concerning Archelaus and his disputation with Manes.

VII. Photius, lib. 1, adversus Manichæos. Exstat editus in Biblioth. Coislin. v. cl. Montfauc. p. 356. Fleeing from prison, (Manes) arrives in Mesopotamia, and begins again to sow the tares of his apostasy. But the bishop of Carchar, Archelaus by name, a holy man and ^D skilled in both divine and human discourses, having assembled a pagan audience—lest, if Christians were to be the judges, the truth might seem to have received victory by the favor of the judges—so shamed and refuted that thrice-accursed man that he straightway took flight from there, and the seeds of his apostasy were oppressed before they could even take root. But having fled from there, he arrives at a certain village of the most lowly, and there again plots to foster and spread his impiety.

^A But the fervent champion of piety and true shepherd, Archelaus, who took no common care of his sheep, did not slacken in pursuing him who, more savage than a wolf, had risen up to scatter the flock.

^B This Manes then, the ringleader of such a great apostasy, in the ninth year of the reign of Valerian and Gallienus, who held the imperial power of Rome, having escaped from prison in Persia (for nothing prevents us from going through what the course of history has passed over above), and after having come into Mesopotamia, was confuted in his impiety, both egregiously and abundantly, by the divine Archelaus (for this holy man was bishop of Carchar, a city of the same region). And then, steeped in unexpected shame, fleeing, he secretly came to Dioris, a town of the Carchar region, where, falling in with a certain Trypho—a holy and proven man, serving in the rank of presbyter—he suffered no less ignominy. But Archelaus himself, too, learning of the interloping of the deceiver into that place (for he was a man sharp and kindled with a godly zeal), arrives at the town; and having reduced that deceiver to a lack of counsel, and having drenched him in the confusion he most avoided, he compelled him again, by the same arguments by which he had overthrown his hateful dogmas and set them forth as something to be laughed at and detested by all, to take to flight.

VIII.

Anonymous author of the Synodal Book, ch. 27

IX.

Anonymous author of the History of the Manichæan heresy, from the royal Taurinian manuscript