* * * * * * *
[ Moles akin to the Darkness are not anxious to cross the [P. 76, l. 5.] boundary ] of fishes, the sons of water. And how do they flee from this boundary and rank of the Sons of the Light; and (yet) the Darkness, their Father, made an Assault to enter within the boundaries of the Sons of the Light, and why are (the words) 'refined,' and 'first' (used to describe him)? But if their Father made an Assault, but they flee, it is found that these blind and dark moles do (in reality) come from the nature and abode of the Good (World of Light). For, behold, they flee from their opposite. Nor (even) like these blind |lxvi moles is the perception of Souls which see and hear and speak and perceive that they may flee from the vile boundary of the Darkness.
How could Darkness swallow Light?
Again, let us turn and ask the advocates of Error, that is, its Preachers--how were the Sons of the Light cast into the mouths of the Sons of the Darkness? And how did the Darkness swallow the Light--a thing which is not natural to it? But the nature of both is that the Light swallows and the Darkness is swallowed. And if here (in our world) the [P. 76.] Light swallows the Darkness as experience shows, but there the Light is swallowed, as the Heretics say, it is clear that this Darkness which is swallowed here is not akin to that Darkness which swallows there ; just as also the Light which swallows the Darkness is not akin to that which is swallowed by the Darkness. And if they strive to make a stand, again they fall. For one fall is not sufficient for them. For really it is not a case of falling at all. For this takes place (only) where there has been standing ; they are always prostrate-- they do not wish to stand.
Again, let them understand (?) that as regards this Light which swallows the Darkness here with us, and this Darkness which here amongst us is swallowed by the Light, it it is the nature of that which swallows to swallow, and of that which is swallowed to disappear. Or has the Creator's own will changed their natures? And if it is due to (His) Will, where was their (unchangeable) Nature? If he is one who submitted (?) himself there, and is the Light-God who did not [P. 77.] aid himself, whose Light was swallowed by the Darkness, how has he to-day changed the nature of the Darkness that it should be swallowed by the Light? For they say that he is the Maker. And, if the Darkness changed its nature, it is unlikely that it would bring itself to the weakness, so that he who swallowed them is swallowed to-day. Since that true saying demands that natures essentially fixed cannot be changed; but that Freewill, because He created it to say |lxvii everything, proclaims by name those Entities whose true nature it cannot declare. But, because those names belong to the Entities, the Entities of the substances (?) are changed. For if the substances (?) of the Entities had been like the names of the Entities, and were fixed natures, they could not be changed ; because a thing which exists in the natural condition of its original Essence, so exists as it is, and so remains for ever and ever.
But let us inquire about the nature of this Darkness, whether this is natural to it, (namely), that it should be swallowed by the Light, just as our sight proves . . . that [P. 78.] it (i.e., the Darkness), too, is swallowed here so that both here and there it has an essential Nature. For one Entity cannot be divided into two Entities, even though the Heretics speak absurdities. And if the nature of the Light around us, as it proves about itself, is such that it swallows and is not swallowed, and there is no means whereby Light is swallowed by Darkness, at any time and for all time to come, it is clear . . . that as it swallows the Darkness here, so it swallows there, and was not swallowed (by the Darkness).
Refutatory Summary.
Also the perverse ones do perversely proclaim the Teaching --but here [ we have correctly refuted what ] they say concerning the Light and the Darkness . . . we hear that it was done there in quite a contrary and opposite way. On which (opinion), therefore, is it right that we should stand--on the cunning tale which is proclaimed preposterously, or on true evidence, whereof the correctness is seen by practice? . . . For not a little . . . because it was not right that they should [P. 79, l. 2, Ll. 7, 8, 9.] be a little ashamed. For . . . to speak . . . against . . . that rightly . . . but also those who believe. (?) For according [Ll. 10, 14.] to the great falsehood and untruth . . . difficult . . . he [Ll. 17, 24.] gives them a preposterous account of a thing which we see in practice correctly every day. For it seems that he made them drunk first, and then he told them a tale. For he was afraid of the truth of Nature, lest it should refute him. But, if not, how (?) was the perverse tale not disgraced in their ears, |lxviii that, while they see that the Light swallows the Darkness here, they think that there it (i.e., the Light) is swallowed by the Darkness?
The Light and Darkness have no bodies.
And the Darkness when it is swallowed here by the Light has not even a body ; for nothing is separated from itself (i.e., the Darkness), seeing that it vanishes altogether. But a house full of darkness shows that if a man opens the doors [P. 80, 11.] and windows in the daytime, whither can that darkness, which is in it, go up [ to hide ]? There is no room for it to go outside, for the Light which is from outside absorbs it. If we say that it stays within, it does not remain there. For the rays of the Sun entering pursue it. And if it does not exist within, and goes out, it is clear that it has all come to an end ; and with it has come to an end all that Teaching which says that it ( i.e., Darkness) has a kind of body in reality. For in this manner it ( i.e., the Teaching) says that it has a body, in that "it verily ate those brilliant Shining Ones (ZIWANE) who were cast into its mouth." So Darkness and Light have become composite bodies--a thing which nature does not teach. For a man never eats Light nor ever swallows Darkness.
The Body has not the same Nature as Darkness, nor has the Soul the same, Nature as Light.
And if this Body with which we are clothed is of the same nature as the Darkness, as they say, and this Soul which is in us is of the same nature as the Light, when we look at these two natures which are in us, and at the two (natures) of Light and Darkness which are outside of us, they are refuted (and shown) that these are not from those, neither these from those. For how can the bright Soul which is within be over[P. 81, l. 13.] come by the Body which is akin to the Darkness? For the outer Light which is akin to it (i.e., the Soul) overcomes the Darkness. Moreover, how does this Body overwhelm the bright Soul, seeing that this outer Darkness which is akin to it is consumed and swallowed by the Light?
The Sons of Light were not used as bait (?) to catch the Sons of Darkness.
And as for these things which are obvious even to simpletons and madmen, how do they who will not distinguish between statements which are correct, and those which |lxix are self contradictory, applaud them when they hear them? For how dost thou receive (this) into thy mind, O wise Hearer, and how is there a (healthy) ear . . . that thou shouldst hear [L. 32. L. 37. Ll. 38, 39.] . . . when . . . and explains with explanations which are worthy of ridicule?. . . [ for he says ] that the Primal Man(?) cast(?) "the Sons of the Light into the mouths of the Sons of the Darkness as (into the mouths) of hunters, and that the Light was pleasant and agreeable and sweet to those Sons of the Darkness; and thus they were found to eat them [P. 82.] greedily, and they were cast in and entered into their midst and were mixed with them." O how exceedingly ridiculous that a man . . . O what vile blasphemy! . . . wolves eat lambs and lions eat calves, and the eater and the [L. 11.] eaten are quite content with one another! And these are bodies, and these are composite things, and both of them . . . if ... the Sons of the Darkness are bodies because (they [Ll. 21, 22.] have) bodies as they say (but) the nature of the Sons of the Light is spiritual, as they say ; for this Light, too, is akin to them, how is it fitting (that) this thing which is mingled (with the Darkness) should be held fast? And the Soul which dwells in the Body [ would not be held fast ] since it is akin to it ... so that if the Soul was akin to the Darkness . . . this [Ll. 38, 41.] [ perturbed ] Body . . . lo, they are akin to its nature as they say [L. 46.] [ for ] that Darkness . . . and as the wise ones profess. . . .
* * * * * * *
Darkness by the Primal [Man] who bore it, he would have [P. 83, l. 9.] died ; since it is difficult . . . which (is) in its Essence . . and also the Parts . . . which he slew . . because they [Ll. 16, 18,19.] teach that the Darkness has a nature . . . and goes into anything which he catches.[L. 22.]
The Sons of Light had a composite Nature.
And, therefore; if the Sons of the Light were eaten and entered into the belly and were digested in the stomach, it must be that they were dissolved in the excrement and waste |lxx refuse. For these are plausible statements to be made by their own about their own! And, therefore, those Sons of the Light are natures which can be dissolved and destroyed. And it is proper to ask concerning this nature, as to how it existed from all eternity. For if they were compounded they are also dissolved . . . and also destroyed; they are not the thing [P. 84.] which they were before they were destroyed ; and besides this, it is clear that if he collects and compounds them, . . . has compounded them from the beginning. And if from all eternity they have not been compounded, but are natures which are not composite (they spring) from an Existence which is not composite. So that by plain things they have been refuted who speak much falsehood about secret things . . . [L. 18.] akin to the body, as they say, that body is found not only [ unable ] to eat or to destroy or to torture . . . but, also, it [L. 30.] is unable to understand their plain things . . . as they say, [L. 37.] [ that as ] the Darkness ate the Light . . . which was in it, [L. 40.] and it was all inside the Darkness . . . how did it eternally and from the beginning both seize it and feel it . . . into [P. 85, l. 7] its midst . . . and how . . .?
Judge judged and the tormenting Fire.
But they say these things in addition to those other things, (namely), "that the Souls came to the Judge." For if that nature is one, how can part of it judge and part of it be judged? And also the Souls are part of the Essence (?), how (does [L. 16.] there spring) from it one who torments and one who is tormented? And if, too, the fire which torments is akin to him who torments, and to those who are tormented, what ear is there which can endure this blasphemy that the judge and the judged and the tormentor are from one good Essence, as they say? And how are there in it these three opposites? For He also who judges the judged came hither in his entirety and was mixed with the Body ; thus he sinned and offended just as those Souls who are from him offended. And if these Souls. had stayed in their (native) Domain and had not come hither, |lxxi these would have possessed it, after he had gone thither. And how are they true natures, those natures which did not [P. 86.] preserve their Essence?
The Body can be pure and righteous.
For, consider the pure and righteous Body, how it is not such as the apostates state (when they say), "that the Body is a covering which is from the evil Nature." nor is the Soul as they say, from a pure Root. For the eyes of the glorious body clothe themselves with chastity, its ears with purity, its limbs with glory, its senses with holiness, in its mouth is praise and on its tongue is thanksgiving, and in its lips is blessing, in its feet is the habit of visiting the sick, in its hands alms for the needy, in its heart is true faith, and in its . . . love (?). And that wall was built by God and [ He made it to be ] a pure shrine for Him, and a temple . . . for its architect when . . . in (?) the body . . . he (i.e., Mani) says . . . that it (i.e., the Body) is from a nature so that it sins . . . it is a shame to them since it shows that the Body . . . And if they are not [L. 39.] persuaded to secret sin, they will be persuaded by a devil. How did he(?) force . . .
The Soul is not necessarily pure.
Consider again the refined Soul about which they say [P. 87.] that its nature is from the Good (Being), it shows concerning its nature . . . the Body is . . . (a nature) which is evil. Also . . . the refined Soul which they say is the Daughter of the Light puts on that Darkness in its deeds and . . . in its conduct. . . . And if (it is) from God [ how does it revile [L. 23.] Him ?] . . . and if (it is) from [ the Holy One, how is it impure ] . . . and if (it is) from . . . behold it puts on ... and if it is from the Good (Being), how has it become a den and nest of unmixed Evil?
How can Light which formerly pleased finally torture Darkness?