A Fragment of the Same Disputation

The fragment is introduced by Cyril in the following terms:—He, i.e., Manes, fled from prison and came into Mesopotamia; but there he was met by that buckler of righteousness, Bishop Archelaus. And in order to bring him to the test in the presence of philosophical judges, this person convened an assembly of Grecian auditors, so as to preclude the possibility of its being alleged that the judges were partial, as might have been the case had they been Christians. Then the matter proceeded as we shall now indicate:—

1. Archelaus said to Manes: Give us a statement now of the doctrines you promulgate.—Thereupon the man, whose mouth was like an open sepulchre, began at once with a word of blasphemy against the Maker of all things, saying: The God of the Old Testament is the inventor of evil, who speaks thus of Himself: “I am a consuming fire.”—But the sagacious Archelaus completely undid this blasphemy. For he said: If the God of the Old Testament, according to your allegation, calls Himself a fire, whose son is He who says, “I am come to send fire upon the earth?” If you find fault with one who says, “The Lord killeth and maketh alive,” why do you honour Peter, who raised Tabitha to life, but also put Sapphira to death? And if again, you find fault with the one because He has prepared a fire, why do you not find fault with the other, who says, “Depart from me into everlasting fire?” If you find fault with Him who says, “I, God, make peace, and create evil,” explain to us how Jesus says, “I came not to send peace, but a sword.” Since both persons speak in the same terms, one or other of these two things must follow: namely, either they are both good because they use the same language; or, if Jesus passes without censure though He speaks in such terms, you must tell us why you reprehend Him who employs a similar mode of address in the Old Testament.

2. Then Manes made the following reply to him: And what manner of God now is it that blinds one? For it is Paul who uses these words: “In whom the God of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the Gospel should shine in them.” But Archelaus broke in and refuted this very well, saying: Read, however, a word or two of what precedes that sentence, namely, “But if our Gospel be hid, it is hid in them that are lost.” You see that it is hid in them that are lost. “For it is not meet to give the holy things to dogs.” And furthermore, is it only the God of the Old Testament that has blinded the minds of them who believe not? Nay, has not Jesus Himself also said: “Therefore speak I to them in parables: that seeing, they may not see?” Is it then because He hated them that He desired them not to see? Or is it not on account of their unworthiness, since they closed their own eyes? For wherever wickedness is a matter self-chosen, there too there is the absence of grace. “For unto him that hath shall be given, but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he seemeth to have.”

3. But even although we should be under the necessity of accepting the exegesis advocated by some,—for the subject is not altogether unworthy of notice,—and of saying thus, that He hath actually blinded the minds of them that believe not, we should still have to affirm that He hath blinded them for good, in order that they may recover their sight to behold things that are holy. For it is not said that He hath blinded their soul, but only that He hath blinded the minds of them that believe not. And that mode of expression means something like this: Blind the whorish mind of the whore-monger, and the man is saved; blind the rapacious and thievish mind of the thief and the man is saved. But do you decline to understand the sentence thus? Well, there is still another interpretation. For the sun blinds those who have bad sight; and those who have watery eyes are also blinded when they are smitten by the light: not, however, because it is of the nature of the sun to blind, but because the eye’s own constitution is not one of correct vision. And in like manner, those whose hearts are afflicted with the ailment of unbelief are not capable of looking upon the rays of the glory of the Godhead. And again, it is not said, “He hath blinded their minds lest they should hear the Gospel,” but rather “lest the light of the glory of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ should shine unto them.” For to hear the Gospel is a thing committed to all; but the glory of the Gospel of Christ is imparted only to the sincere and genuine. For this reason the Lord spake in parables to those who were incapable of hearing, but to His disciples He explained these parables in private. For the illumination of the glory is for those who have been enlightened, while the blinding is for them who believe not. These mysteries, which the Church now declares to you who are transferred from the lists of the catechumens, it is not her custom to declare to the Gentiles. For we do not declare the mysteries touching the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit to a Gentile; neither do we speak of the mysteries plainly in presence of the catechumens; but many a time we express ourselves in an occult manner, so that the faithful who have intelligence may apprehend the truths referred to, while those who have not that intelligence may receive no hurt.