45. On receipt of this letter, Diodorus made himself master of its contents, and then entered the lists against Manes. This he did too with such spirit, that he was commended greatly by all for the careful and satisfactory demonstration which he gave of the fact that there is a mutual relationship between the two testaments, and also between the two laws.374 Discovering also more arguments for himself he was able to bring forward many points of great pertinency and power against the man, and in defence of the truth. He also reasoned in a conclusive manner against his opponent on verbal grounds.375 For example, he argued with him in the following manner: – Did you say that the testaments are two? Well, then, say either that there are two old testaments, or that there are two new testaments. For you assert that there are two unbegottens376 belonging to the same time, or rather eternity: and if there are in this way two, there should be either two old testaments or two new testaments. If, however, you do not allow this, but affirm, on the contrary, that there is one old testament and that there is also another new restatement, that will only prove again that there is but one author for both; and the very sequence will show that the Old Testament belongs to Him to whom also the New Testament pertains. We may illustrate this by the case of a man who says to some other individual,377 Lease me your old house. For by such a mode of address does he not pronounce the man to be also the owner of a new house? Or, on the other hand, if he says to him, Show me378 your new house; does he not by that very word designate him also as the possessor of an old house? Then, again, this also is to be considered, that since there are two beings, having an unbegotten nature, it is also necessary from that to suppose each of them to have (what must be called) an old testament, and thus there will appear to be two old testaments; if indeed you affirm that both these beings are ancient, and both indeed without a beginning.379 But I have not learned doctrine like that; neither do the Scriptures contain it. You, however, who allege that the law of Moses comes from the prince of evil, and not from the good God, tell me who those were who withstood Moses to the face – I mean Jamnes and Mambres?380 For, every object that withstands, withstands not itself, but some other one, either better or worse; as Paul also gives us to understand when he writes in the following terms in his second Epistle to Timothy: “As Jamnes and Mambres withstood Moses, so have these also resisted the truth: men of corrupt mind, reprobate concerning the faith. But they shall proceed no further: for their folly is manifest unto all men, as theirs also was.” (2Ti_3:8, 2Ti_3:9) Do you observe how he compares Jamnes and Mambres to men of corrupt mind, and reprobate concerning the faith.; while he likens Moses, on the other hand, to the truth? But the holy John, the greatest of the evangelists, also tells us of the giving and diffusing of grace for grace;381 for he indicates, indeed, that we have received the law of Moses out of the fulness of Christ, and he means that for that one grace this other grace has been made perfect in us through Jesus Christ. It was also to show this to be the case that our Lord Jesus Christ Himself spake in these terms: “Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye hope. For had ye believed Moses, ye would indeed have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words? (Joh_5:45-47) And besides all these words, there are still many other passages that might be adduced both from the Apostle Paul and from the Gospels, by which we are able to prove that the old law belongs to no other one than that Lord to whom also the new testament appertains, and which it would suit us very well to set forth, and to make use of in a satisfactory manner.382 Now, however, the evening prevents us from doing so; for the day is drawing to its close, and it is right that we should now bring our disputation to an end. But an opportunity will be given you to-morrow to put questions to us on any points you are pleased to take up. And after these words they went their way.383
46. Next morning, however, Archelaus suddenly made his appearance at this residence384 in which Diodorus was staying, before any one was yet stirring abroad. Manes accordingly, all unconscious of the fact that Archelaus was now on the spot again, challenged Diodorus publicly to engage in a disputation with him; his intention being to crush him with a verbal display, because he perceived that he was a man of a simple nature, and not very deeply learned in questions concerning the Scriptures. For he had now had a taste of the doctrine of Archelaus. When, therefore, the multitudes had again collected in the place usually set apart for the disputation, and when Manes had just begun to reason, all on a sudden Archelaus appeared among them, and embraced Diodorus, and saluted him with an holy kiss. Then truly were Diodorus, and all those who were present, filled with wonder at the dispensation of divine providence which thus provided that Archelaus should arrive among them at the very time when the question was just raised; for in reality, as must be confessed, Diodorus, with all his religiousness, had been somewhat afraid of the conflict. But when Manes caught sight of Archelaus, he at once drew back from his insulting attitude; and with his pride cast down not a little, he made it quite plain that he would gladly flee from the contest. The multitude of hearers, however, looked upon the arrival of Archelaus as something like the advent of an apostle, because he had shown himself so thoroughly furnished, and so prompt and ready for a defence of the truth by speech. Accordingly, after demanding silence from the people by a wave of his right hand, – for no inconsiderable tumult had arisen, – Archelaus began an address in the following terms: – Although some amongst us have gained the honour of wisdom and the meed of glory, yet this I beg of you, that you retain in your minds the testimony of those things which have been said before my arrival.385 For I know and am certain, brethren, that I now take the place of Diodorus, not on account of any impossibilities attaching to him,386 but because I came to know this person here at a previous time, when he made his way with his wicked designs into the parts where I reside, by the favour of Marcellus,387 that man of illustrious name, whom he endeavoured to turn aside from our doctrine and faith, with the object, to wit, of making him an effective supporter of this impious teaching. Nevertheless, in spite of all his plausible addresses, he failed to move him or turn him aside from the faith in any one particular. For this most devout Marcellus was only found to be like the rock on which the house was built with the most solid foundations; and when the rain descended, and the floods and the winds burst in and beat upon that house, it stood firm: for it had been built on the most solid and immoveable foundations. (Mat_7:24) And the attempt thus made by this person who is now before you, brought dishonour rather than glory upon himself. Moreover, it does not seem to me that he can be very excusable if he proves to be ignorant of what is in the future; for surely he ought to know beforehand those who are on his own side: certainly he should have this measure of knowledge, if it be true indeed that the Spirit of the Paraclete dwells in him. But inasmuch as he is really a person blinded with the darkness of ignorance, he ran in vain when he journeyed to Marcellus, and he did but show himself to be like the stargazer,388 who busies himself with describing things celestial, while all the time he is ignorant of what is passing in his own home. But lest it should appear as if I were setting aside the question in hand by speaking in this strain, I shall now refrain from such discourse. And I shall also give this man the privilege of taking up any point which may suit him best as a commencement to any treatment of the subject and the question. And to you, as I have said already, I only address the request that ye be impartial judges, so as to give to him who speaks the truth the proper honour and the palm.’
47. Then Manes, after silence had been secured among all, thus began his address: Like others, Archelaus, you too smite me with the most injurious words, notwithstanding that my sentiments on the subject of God are correct, and that I hold also a proper conception of Christ; and yet the family of the apostles is rather of the character that bears all things and endures all things, even although a man may assail them with revilings and curses. If it is your intention to persecute me, I am prepared for it: and if you wish to involve me in punishment, I shall not shrink from it; yea, if you mean even to put me to death, I am not afraid: “For we ought to fear Him only who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” (Mat_10:28) Archelaus said: Far be that from me! Not such is my intention. For what have you ever had to suffer at my hands, or at the hands of those who think with us, even when you were disparaging us and doing us injury, and when you were speaking in detraction of the traditions of our fathers, and when it was your aim to work the death of the souls of men that were well established in the truth, and that were kept with the most conscientious carefulness; for which, in truth, the whole wealth of the world would not sere as a sufficient compensation?389 Nevertheless, what ground have you for assuming this position? What have you to show? Tell us this, – what signs of salvation have you to bring before us? For the bare bravado of words will not avail to satisfy the multitude here present, neither will it be enough to qualify them for recognising which of us holds the knowledge of the truth the more correctly. Wherefore, as you have got the opportunity of speaking first, tell us first to what particular head of the subject you wish us to direct the disputation. Manes said: If you do not offer a second time an unfair resistance to the positions which shall be stated with all due propriety by us, I shall speak with you; but if you mean to show yourself still in the character which on a former occasion I perceived you to take up, I shall address myself to Diodorus, and shall keep clear of your turbulence. Archelaus said: I have already expressed my opinion that we shall be simply abusing the occasion by the mere bandying of empty words. If any one on one side is formal to offer an unfair resistance, leave that to the decision of the judges. But now, tell us what you have got to advance. Manes said: If you do not mean a second time merely to gainsay the positions which are stated with all due correctness by me, I shall begin. Archelaus said: “If not this,” and “if not that,” are ways of speaking which mark out an ignorant man. You are ignorant, therefore, of what is in the future. But as to this particular thing which you do declare to be still future, to gainsay or not to gainsay is a matter in my own power. How, then, will that argument about the two trees stand, in which you place your trust as in a buckler of the most approved strength? For if I am of the contrary side, how do you require my obedience? And if, on the other hand, there is in me the disposition of obedience, how are you so greatly alarmed lest I should gainsay you? For you maintain that evil remains evil always, and that good remains good always, in utter ignorance of the force of your words. Manes said: Have I employed you as the advocate of my words, so that you may determine also the intelligence that may suit my knowledge? And how will you be able to explain what belongs to another person, when you cannot make what pertains to yourself clear? But if Diodorus now admits himself to be vanquished, my reasonings will then be addressed to you. If, however, he still stands out, and is prepared to speak, I beg you to give over and cease from interfering with the substantiating of the truth. For you are a strange sheep; nevertheless hereafter you will be introduced into the number of the same flock, as the voice of Jesus390 also intimates, – that Jesus, namely, who appeared in the form of man indeed, and yet was not a man. Archelaus said: Are you not, then, of opinion that He was born of the Virgin Mary? Manes said: God forbid that I should admit that our Lord Jesus Christ came down to us through the natural womb of a woman! For He gives us His own testimony that He came down from the Father’s bosom; (Joh_1:18, Joh_3:13) and again He says, “He that receiveth me, receiveth Him that sent me;” (Mat_10:40) and. “I came not to do mine own will, but the will of Him that sent me;” (Joh_6:38) and once more, “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Mat_15:24) And there are also innumerable other passages of a similar import, which point Him out as one that came, and not as one that was born. But if you are greater than He, and if you know better than He what is true, how do we yet believe Him? Archelaus said: Neither am I greater than He, for I am His servant nor can I be even the equal of my Lord, for I am His unprofitable servant; I am a disciple of His words, and I believe those things which have been spoken by Him, and I affirm that they are unchangeable. Manes said: A certain person somewhat like you once said to Him, “Mary Thy mother, and Thy brethren, stand without;” (Mat_12:47) and He took not the word kindly, but rebuked the person who had uttered it, saying, “Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?” And He showed that those who did His will were both His mothers and His brethren. If you, however, mean to say that Mary was actually His mother, you place yourself in a position of considerable peril. For, without any doubt, it would be proved on the same principles that He had brethren also by her. Now tell me whether these brethren were begotten by Joseph or by the same Holy Spirit. For if you say that they were begotten by the same Holy Spirit, it will follow that we have had many Christs. And if you say that these were not begotten by the same Holy Spirit, and yet aver that He had brethren, then without doubt we shall be under the necessity of understanding that, in succession to the Spirit and after Gabriel, the most pure and spotless virgin391 formed an actual marriage connection with Joseph. But if this is also a thing altogether absurd – I mean the supposition that she had any manner of intercourse with Joseph – tell me whether then He had brethren. Are you thus to fix the crime of adultery also on her, most sagacious Marcellus?392 But if none of these suppositions suits the position of the Virgin undefiled, how will you make it out that He had brothers? And if you are unable to prove clearly to us that He had brethren, will it be any the easier for you to prove Mary to be His mother, in accordance with the saying of him who ventured to write,393 “Behold, Thy mother and Thy brethren stand without?” Yet, although that man was bold enough to address Him thus, no one can be mightier or greater than this same person Himself who shows us His mother or His brethren. Nay, He does not deign even to hear it said that He is David’s son.394 The Apostle Peter, however, the most eminent of all the disciples, was able to acknowledge Him on that occasion, when all were putting forth the several opinions which they entertained respecting Him: for he said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God;” (Mat_16:16) and immediately He names him blessed, addressing him thus: “For my heavenly Father hath revealed it unto thee.” Observe what a difference there is between these two words which were spoken by Jesus. For to him who had said, “Behold, Thy mother stands without,” He replied, “Who is my mother, or who are my brethren?” But to him who said, “Thou art the Christ the Son of the living, God,” He makes the return of a beatitude and benediction. Consequently, if you will have it that He was born of Mary, then it follows that no less than Peter, He is Himself thus proved to have spoken falsely. But if, on the other hand, Peter states what is true, then without doubt that former person was in error. And if the former was in error, the matter is to be referred back to the writer.395 We know, therefore, that there is one Christ, according to the Apostle Paul, whose words, as in consonance at least396 with His advent, we believe.
48. On hearing these statements, the multitudes assembled were greatly moved, as if they felt that these reasonings gave the correct account of the truth, and that Archelaus could have nothing to urge against them; for this was indicated by the commotion which arose among them. But when the crowd of auditors became quiet again, Archelaus made answer in the following manner: No one, truly, shall ever be able to prove himself mightier than the voice of our Lord Jesus Christ, neither is there found any name equal to His, as it is written: “Wherefore God hath exalted Him, and given Him a name which is above every name.” (Phi_2:9) Nor, again, in the matter of testimony can any one ever be equal to Him; and accordingly I shall simply adduce the testimonies of His own voice in answer to you, – first of all, indeed, with the view of solving those difficulties which have been enunciated by you, so that you may not say, as is your wont to do, that these are matters which are not in harmony with the Person Himself.397 Now, you maintain that the man who brought the word to Jesus about His mother and His brethren was rebuked by Him as if he was in error, as the writer was in error.398 Well, I affirm that neither was this person rebuked who brought Him the message about His mother and His brethren, nor was Peter only named blessed above him; but each of these two parties received from Him the answer that was properly called forth by their several utterances, as the discourse will demonstrate in what follows. When one is a child, he thinks as a child, he speaks as a child; but when he becomes a mature man, those things are to be done away which are proper for a child: (1Co_13:11) in other words, when one reaches forth unto those things which are before, he will forget those which are behind. (Phi_3:13) Hence, when our Lord Jesus Christ was engaged in teaching and healing the race of men, so that all pertaining to it might not utterly perish together, and when the minds of all those who were listening to Him were intently occupied with these interests, it made an interruption altogether inopportune when this messenger came in and put Him in mind of His mother and His brethren. What then? Ought He, now,399 yourself being judge,400 to have left those whom He was healing and instructing, and gone to speak with His mother and His brethren? Would you not by such a supposition at once lower the character of the Person Himself? When, again, He chose certain men who were laden and burdened with sins for the honour of discipleship,401 to the number of twelve, whom He also named His apostles, He gave them this injunction, Leave father and mother, that you may be made worthy of me; (Mat_10:37) intending by this that thenceforward the memory of father or mother should no more impair the stedfastness of their heart. And on another occasion, when a different individual chose to say to Him, “I will go and bury my father,” He answered, “Let the dead bury their dead.” (Luk_9:59, Luk_9:60) Behold, then, how my Lord Jesus Christ edifies His disciples unto all things necessary, and delivers His sacred words to every one, in due accordance with what is meet for him. And just in the same way, too, on this other occasion, when a certain person came in with the inconsiderate message about His mother, He did not embrace the occurrence as an opportunity for leaving His Father’s commission unattended to even for the sake of having His mother with Him. But in order to show you still more clearly that this is the real account of the matter, let me remind you that Peter, on a certain season, subsequent to the time of his receiving that declaration of blessedness from Him, said to Jesus, “Be it far from Thee, Lord:402 this shall not be unto Thee.”403 This he said after Jesus had announced to him that the Son of man must go up to Jerusalem, and be killed, and rise again the third day. (Mat_16:21) And in answer then to Peter He said: “Get thee behind me, Satan; for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.”404 Now, since it is your opinion that the man who brought the message about His mother and His brethren was rebuked by Jesus, and that he who said a little before, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” obtained the word of blessing, mark you that Jesus (may be said to have) rather preferred that person to whom He condescended to give the more gracious and indulgent answer; whereas Peter, even after that benediction, now got no appellation expressive of indulgence addressed to him, by reason of his having failed carefully to observe the nature of the announcement that was made to him. For the error of that messenger was at once corrected by the tenor of the reply; but the dulness of this apostle’s apprehension was condemned with a severer rebuke. And from this you may perceive that the Lord Jesus, observing what was proper and opportune with regard to the interrogations thus addressed to Him, gave to each the reply that was worthy of it, and suited to it. But supposing that, as you say, Peter was pronounced blessed on the ground of his having said what was true, and that that messenger was reproved on account of the error he committed, tell me then why it is, that when the devils confessed Him, and said, “We know Thee, who Thou art, the holy God,”405 He rebuked them, and commanded them to be silent?406 Why was it not the case, if He does indeed take pleasure in the testimonies borne to Him by those who confess Him, that He recompensed them also with benedictions, as He did to Peter when he gave utterance to the truth? But if that would be an absurd supposition, it only remains that we must understand the words spoken by Him always in accordance with the place, the time, the persons, the subjects, and the due consideration of the circumstances.407 For only this method will save us from falling into the error of pronouncing rashly on His sayings, and thus making ourselves liable to merited chastisement: and this will also help me to make it more and more intelligible to you, that the man who brought the tidings of His mother was much rather the person honoured.408 However, in forgetfulness of the subject which was proposed to us for discussion, you have turned off to a different theme. Nevertheless listen to me for a brief space. For if you choose, indeed, to consider those words somewhat more carefully, we shall find that the Lord Jesus displayed great clemency in the case of the former of these two parties; and this I shall prove to you by illustrations stilted to your capacity. A certain king who had taken up arms, and gone forth to meet an enemy, was earnestly considering and planning how he might subdue those hostile and foreign forces. And when his mind was occupied with many cares and anxieties, after he had forced his way among his adversaries, and when, further, as he began afterwards to make captives of them, the anxious thought was now also pressing upon him as to how he might secure the safety and interests of those who had toiled with him, and borne the burden of the war,409 a certain messenger broke inopportunely in upon him, and began to remind him of domestic matters. But he was astonished at the man’s boldness, and at his unseasonable suggestions, and thought of delivering such a fellow over to death. And had that messenger not been one who was able to appeal to his tenderest affections in bringing the news that it was well with those at home, and that all went on prosperously and successfully there, that punishment might have been his instant and well-merited doom. For what else should be a king’s care, so long as the time of war endures, than to provide for the safety of the people of his province, and to look after military matters? And even thus it also was that that messenger came inopportunely in upon my Lord Jesus Christ, and brought the report about His mother and His brethren unseasonably, just when He was fighting against ills which had assailed the very citadel of the heart, and when He was healing those who for a long time had been under the power of diverse infirmities, and when He had now put forth His utmost effort to secure the salvation of all. And truly that man might have met with a sentence like that pronounced on Peter, or even one severer still. But the hearing of the name of His mother and His brethren drew forth His clemency.
49. But in addition to all that has been said already, I wish to adduce still further proof, so that all may understand what impiety is contained in this assertion of yours. For if your allegation is true, that He was not born, then it will follow undoubtedly that He did not suffer; for it is not possible for one to suffer who was not also born. But if He did not suffer, then the name of the cross is done away with. And if the cross was not endured, then Jesus did not rise from the dead. And if Jesus rose not from the dead, then no other person will rise again. And if no one shall rise again, then there will be no judgment. For it is certain that, if I am not to rise again, I cannot be judged. But if there is to be no judgment, then the keeping of God’s commandments will be to no purpose, and there will be no occasion for abstinence: nay, we may say, “Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we shall die.” (1Co_15:32) For all these consequences follow when you deny that He was born of Mary. But if you acknowledge that He was born of Mary, then His passion will necessarily follow, and His resurrection will be consequent on His passion, and the judgment on His resurrection: and thus the injunctions of Scripture will have their proper value410 for us. This is not therefore an idle question, but there are the mightiest issues involved in this word. For just as all the law and the prophets are summed up in two words, so also all our hope is made to depend on the birth by the blessed Mary. Give me therefore an answer to these several questions which I shall address to you. How shall we get rid of these many words of the apostle, so important and so precise, which are expressed in terms like the following: “But when the good pleasure of God was with us, He sent His Son, made of a woman;”411 and again, “Christ our passover is sacrificed for us;” (1Co_5:7) and once more, “God hath both raised up the Lord, and will raise up us together with Him by His own power?”412 And there are many other passages of a similar import; as, for example, this which follows: “How say some among you,413 that there is no resurrection of the dead? For if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is not Christ risen: and if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain. Yea, and we shall be found false witnesses of God; who have testified against God that He raised up Christ: whom He raised not up. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ risen: and if Christ be not raised, your414 faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins: Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are more miserable than all men. But now is Christ risen from the dead, the beginning415 of them that sleep;” (1Co_15:12-20) and so on. Who, then, I ask, can be found so rash and audacious as not to make his faith fit in with these sacred words, in which there is no qualification416 nor any dubiety? Who, I ask you, O foolish Galatian, has bewitched you, as those were bewitched “before whose eyes Jesus Christ was evidently set forth, crucified?”417 From all this I think that these testimonies should suffice in proof of the judgment, and the resurrection, and the passion; and the birth by Mary is also shown to be involved naturally and at once in these facts. And what matters it though you refuse to acquiesce in this, when the Scripture proclaims the fact most unmistakeably? Nevertheless I shall again put a question to you, and let it please you to give me an answer. When Jesus gave His testimony concerning John, and said, “Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding, he that is less418 in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he,” (Mat_11:11) tell me what is meant by there being a greater than he in the kingdom of heaven. Was Jesus less in the kingdom of heaven than John? I say, God forbid! Tell me, then, how this is to be explained, and you will certainly surpass yourself. Without doubt the meaning is, that Jesus was less than John among those that are born of woman; but in the kingdom of heaven He is greater than he.419 Wherefore tell me this too, O Manichaeus: If you say that Christ was not born of Mary, but that He only appeared like a man, while yet He was not really a man, the appearance being effected and produced by the power that is in Him, tell me, I repeat, on whom then was it that the Spirit descended like a dove? Who is this that was baptized by John? If He was perfect, if He was the Son, if He was the Power, the Spirit could not have entered into Him;420 just as a kingdom cannot enter within a kingdom. And whose, too, was that voice which was sent forth out of heaven, and which gave Him this testimony, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased?” (Mat_3:17) Come, tell me; make no delay; who is this that acquires421 all these things, that does all these things? Answer me: Will you thus audaciously adduce blasphemy for reason, and will you attempt to find a place for it?422
50. Manes said: No one, certainly, who may be able to give a reply to what has just been alleged by you need fear incurring the guilt of blasphemy, but should rather be deemed thoroughly worthy of all commendation. For a true master of his art,423 when any matters are brought under his notice, ought to prepare his reply with due care, and make all clearly to understand the points that are in question or under doubt; and most especially ought he to do so to uninstructed persons. Now since the account of our doctrine does not satisfy you, be pleased, like a thorough master of your art, to solve this question also for me in a reasonable manner. For to me it seems but pious to say that the Son of God stood in need of nothing whatsoever in the way of making good His advent upon earth; and that He in no sense required either the dove, or baptism, or mother, or brethren, or even mayhap a father, – which father, however, according to your view, was Joseph; but that He descended altogether by Himself alone, and transformed Himself, according to His own good pleasure, into the semblance of a man, in accordance with that word of Paul which tells us that “He was found in fashion as a man.” (Phi_2:7) Show me, therefore, what thing He could possibly need who was able to transform Himself into all manner of appearances. For when He chose to do so, He again transformed this human fashion424 and mien into the likeness of the sun. But if you gainsay me once more, and decline to acknowledge that I state the faith correctly, listen to my definition of the position in which you stand. For if you say that He was only man as born of Mary,425 and that He received the Spirit at His baptism, it will follow that He will be made out to be Son by increase426 and not by nature. If, however, I grant you to say that He is Son according to increase,427 and that He was made as a man, your opinion is that He is really a man, that is to say, one who is flesh and blood.428 But then it will necessarily follow that the Spirit also who appeared like a dove was nothing else than a natural dove. For the two expressions are the same, – namely, “as a man” and “like429 a dove;” and consequently whatever may be the view you take of the one passage which uses the phrase “as a man,” you ought to hold that same view430 also of this other passage in which the expression “like a dove” is used. It is a clear matter of necessity to take these things in the same way, for only thus can we find out the real sense of what is written concerning Him in the Scriptures. Archelaus said: As you cannot do so much for yourself, like a thorough master of your art, so neither should I care to put this question right and with all patience to make it clear, and to give the evident solution of the difficulty,431 were it not for the sake of those who are present with us, and who listen to us. For this reason, therefore, I shall also explain the answer that ought to be given to this question as it may be done most appropriately. It does not seem to you, then, to be a pious thing to say that Jesus had a mother in Mary; and you hold a similar view on certain other positions which you have now been discussing in terms which I, for my part, altogether shrink from repeating.432 Now, sometimes a master of any art happens to be compelled by the ignorance of an opponent both to say and to do things which time would make him decline;433 and accordingly, because the necessity is laid upon me, by consideration for the multitude present, I may give a brief answer to those statements which have been made so erroneously by you. Let us suppose, now, your allegation to be that if we understand Jesus to be a man made of Mary after the course of nature, and regard him consequently as having flesh and blood, it will be necessary also to hold that the Holy Spirit was a real dove, and not a spirit. Well, then, how can a real dove enter into a real man, and abide in him? For flesh cannot enter into flesh. Nay rather, it is only when we acknowledge Jesus to be a true man, and also hold him who is there said to be like a dove to be the Holy Spirit, that we shall give the correct account according to reason on both sides. For, according to right reason, it may be said that the Spirit dwells in a man, and descends upon him, and abides in him; and these, indeed, are things which have happened already in all due competence, and the occurrence of which is always possible still, as even you yourself admit, inasmuch as you did aforetime profess to be the Paraclete of God, you flint,434 as I may call you, and no man, so often forgetful of the very things which you assert. For you declared that the Spirit whom Jesus promised to send has come upon you; and whence can He come but by descending from Heaven? And if the Spirit descends thus on the man worthy of Him, then verily must we fancy that real doves descended upon you? Then truly should we rather discover in you the thieving dove-merchant,435 who lays snares and lines for the birds. For surely you well deserve to be made a jest of with words of ridicule. However, I spare you, lest perchance I appear to offend the auditors by such expressions, and also most especially because it is beside my purpose to throw out against you all that you deserve to hear said about you. But let me return to the proper subject. For I am mindful of that transformation of thine,436 in virtue of which you say that God has transformed Himself into the fashion of a man or into that of the sun, by which position you think to prove that our Jesus was made man only in fashion and in appearance; which assertion may God save: any of the faithful from making. Now, for the rest, that opinion of yours would reduce the whole matter to a dream, so far as we are concerned, and to mere figures; and not that only,437 but the very name of an advent would be done away: for He might have done what He desired to do, though still seated in heaven, if He is, as you say, a spirit, and not a true man. But it is not thus that “He humbled Himself, and took the form of a servant;” (Phi_2:7) and I say this of Him who was made man of Mary. For what? Might not we, too, have set forth things like those with which you have been dealing, and that, too, all the more easily and the more broadly? But far be it from us to swerve one jot or one tittle from the truth. For He who was born of Mary is the Son, who chose of His own accord to sustain this438 mighty conflict, – namely, Jesus. This is the Christ of God, who descended upon him who is of Mary. If, however, you refuse to believe even the voice that was heard from heaven, all that you can bring forward in place of the same is but some rashness of your own; and though you were to declare yourself on that, no one would believe you. For forthwith Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil; and as the devil had no correct knowledge of Him, he said to Him, “If thou be the Son of God.” (Mat_4:3) Besides, he did not understand the reason of this bearing of the Son of God by Mary, who preached the kingdom of heaven, whose was also indeed a great tabernacle,439 and one that could not have been prepared by any other:440 whence, too, He who was nailed to the cross, on rising again from the dead, was taken up thither where Christ the Son of God reigned; so that when He begins to conduct His judgment, those who have been ignorant of Him shall look on Him whom they pierced. (Joh_19:37) But in order to secure your credence, I propose this question to you: Why was it, that although His disciples sojourned a whole year with Him, not one of them fell prostrate on his face before Him, as you were saying a little ago, save only in that one hour when His countenance shone like the sun? Was it not by reason of that tabernacle which had been made for Him of Mary? For just as no other had the capacity sufficient for sustaining the burden of the Paraclete except only the disciples and the blessed Paul, so also no other was able to bear the Spirit who descended from heaven, and through whom that voice of the Father gave its testimony in these terms, “This is my beloved Son,” (Mat_3:17) save only He who was born of Mary, and who is above all the saints, – namely, Jesus. But now give us your answer to those matters which I bring forward against you. If you hold that He is than only in mien and form, how could He have been laid hold of and dragged off to judgment by those who were born of man and woman – to wit, the Pharisees – seeing that a spiritual body cannot be grasped by bodies of grosser capacities? But if you, who as yet have made no reply to the arguments brought before you, have now any kind of answer to offer to the word and proposition I have adduced, proceed, I pray you, and fetch me at least a handful or some fair modicum of your sunlight.441 But that very sun, indeed, inasmuch as it is possessed of a more subtle body, is capable of covering and enveloping you; while you, on the other hand, can do it no injury, even although you were to trample it under foot. My Lord Jesus, however, if He was laid hold of, was laid hold of as a man by men. If He is not a man, neither was He laid hold of. If He was not laid hold of, neither did He suffer, nor was He baptized. If He was not baptized, neither is any of us baptized. But if there is no baptism, neither will there be any remission of sins, but every man will die in his own sins. Manes said: Is baptism, then, given on account of the remission of sins? Archelaus said: Certainly. Manes said: Does it not follow, then, that Christ has sinned, seeing that He has been baptized? Archelaus said: God forbid! Nay, rather, He was made sin for us, taking on Him our sins. (2Co_5:21) For this reason He was born of a woman, and for this reason also He approached the rite of baptism, in order that He might receive the purification of this part,442 and that thus the body which He had taken to Himself might be capable of bearing the Spirit, who had descended in the form of a dove.
51. When Archelaus had finished this speech, the crowds of people marvelled at the truth of his doctrine, and expressed their vehement commendations of the man with loud outcries, so that they exerted themselves most energetically, and would have kept him from his return.443 Thereafter, however, they withdrew. After some time, again, when they were gathered together, Archelaus persuaded them to accede to his desire, and listen quietly to the word. And among his auditors were not only those who were with Diodorus, but also all who were present from his province and from the neighbouring districts. When silence, then, was secured, Archelaus proceeded to speak to them of Manes in the following manner: You have heard, indeed, what is the character of the doctrine which we teach, and you have got some proof of our faith; for I have expounded the Scriptures before you all, precisely in accordance with the views which I myself have been able to reach in studying them. But I entreat you now to listen to me in all silence, while I speak with the utmost possible brevity, with the view of giving you to understand who this person is who has made his appearance among us, and whence he comes, and what character he has, exactly as a certain man of the name of Sisinius, one444 of his comrades, has indicated the facts to me; which individual445 I am also prepared, if it please you, to summon in evidence of the statements I am about to make. And, in truth, this person did not decline to affirm the very same facts which we now adduce,446 even when Manes was present; for the above-mentioned individual became a believer of our doctrine, as did also another person who was with me, named Turbo. Accordingly, all that these parties have conveyed in their testimony to me. and also all that we ourselves have discovered in the man, I shall not suffer to be kept back from your cognizance.
Then, indeed, the multitudes became all the more excited, and crowded together to listen to Archelaus; for, in good sooth, the statements which were made by him offered them the greatest enjoyment. Accordingly, they earnestly urged him to tell them all that he pleased, and all that he had on his mind; and they declared themselves ready to listen to him there and then, and engaged to stay on even to the evening, and until the lights should be lit.
Stimulated therefore by their heartiness, Archelaus began his address with all confidence in the following terms: – My brethren, you have heard, indeed, the primary causes447 relating to my Lord Jesus, – I mean those which are decided out of he law and the prophets; and of the subsidiary causes also relating to my Lord Jesus Christ, our Saviour, you are not ignorant. And why should I say more? From the loving desire for the Saviour we have been called Christians, as the, whole world itself attests, and as the apostles also plainly declare. Yea, further, that best master-builder of His, Paul himself,448 has laid our foundation,449 that is, the foundation of the Church and has put us in trust of the law, ordaining ministers, and presbyters, (Cf. Act_14:23) and bishops in the same, and describing in the places severally assigned to that purpose, in what manner and with what character the ministers of God ought to conduct themselves, of what repute the presbyters ought to be possessed, and how they should be constituted, and what manner of persons those also ought to be who desire the office of bishop.450 And all these institutions, which were once settled well and rightly for us, preserve their prosper standing and order with us to this day, and the regular administration of these rules abides amongst us still. But as to this fellow, Manes by name, who has at present burst boastfully forth upon us from the province of Persia, and between whom and me disputation has now for the second time been stirred, I shall tell you about his lineage, and that, too, in all fulness; and I shall also show you most lucidly the source from width his doctrine has descended. This man is neither the first nor the only originator of this type of doctrine. But a certain person belonging to Scythia, bearing the name Scythianus,451 and living in the thee of the apostles, was the founder and leader of this sect, just as many other apostates have constituted themselves founders and leaders, who from time to time, through the ambitious desire of arrogating positions of superior importance to themselves, have given out falsehoods for the truth, and have perverted the simpler class of people to their own lustful appetencies, on whose names and treacheries, however, thee does not permit us at present to descant. This Scythianus, then, was the person who introduced this self-contradictory dualism; and for that, too, he was himself indebted to Pythagoras, as also all the other followers of this dogma have been, who all uphold the notion of a dualism, and turn aside from the direct course of Scripture: but they shall not gain any further success therein.
52. No one, however, has ever made such an unblushing advance in the promulgation of these tenets as this Scythianus. For he introduced the notion of a feud between the two unbegottens, and all those other fancies which are the consequences of a position of that kind. This Scythianus himself belonged to the stock of the Saracens, and took as his wife a certain captive from the Upper Thebaid, who persuaded him to dwell in Egypt rather than in the deserts. And would that he had never been received by that province, in which, as he dwelt in it for a period, he found the opportunity for learning the wisdom of the Egyptians!452 for, to speak truth, he was a person of very decided talent, and also of very liberal means, as those who knew him, have likewise testified in accounts transmitted to us. Moreover, he had a certain disciple named Terebinthus,453 who wrote four books for him. To the first of these books he gave the title of the Mysteries, to the second that of the Heads,454 to the third that of the Gospel, and to the last of all that of the Treasury.455 He had these four books, and this one disciple whose name was Terebinthus. As, then, these two persons had determined to reside alone by themselves for a considerable period, Scythianus thought of making an excursion into Judea, with the purpose of meeting with all those who had a reputation there as teachers; but it came to pass that he suddenly departed this life soon after that, without having been able to accomplish anything. That disciple, moreover, who had sojourned with him had to flee,456 and made his way toward Babylonia, a province which at present is held457 by the Persians, and which is distant now a journey of about six days and nights from our parts. On arriving there, Terebinthus succeeded in giving currency to a wonderful account of himself, declaring that he was replete with all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and that he was really named now, not Terebinthus, but another Buddas,458 and that this designation had been put upon him. He asserted further that he was the son of a certain virgin, and that he had been brought up by an angel459 on the mountains. A certain prophet, however, of the name of Parcus, and Labdacus the son of Mithras,460 charged461 him with falsehood, and day after day unceasingly they had keen and elevated contentions462 on this subject. But why should I speak of that at length? Although he was often reproved, he continued, nevertheless, to make declarations to them on matters which were antecedent to the world,463 and on the sphere, and the two luminaries; and also on the question whither and in what manner the souls depart, and in what mode they return again into the bodies; and he made many other assertions of this nature, and others even worse than these, – as, for instance, that war was raised with God among the elements,464 that the prophet himself might be believed. However, as he was hard pressed for assertions like these, he betook himself to a certain widow, along with his four books: for he had attached to himself no disciple in that same locality, with the single exception of an old woman who became an intimate of his.465 Then,466 on a subsequent occasion, at the earliest dawn one morning, he went up to the top467 of a certain house, and there began to invoke certain names, which Turbo has told us only the seven elect have learned. He ascended to the housetop, then, with the purpose of engaging in some religious ceremony, or some art of his own; and he went up alone, so as not to be detected by any one:468 for he considered that, if he was convicted of playing false with, or holding of little account, the religious beliefs of the people, he would be liable to be punished by the real princes of the country. And as he was revolving these things then in his mind, God in His perfect justice decreed that he should be thrust beneath earth by a spirit;469 and forthwith he was cast down from the roof of the house; and his body, being precipitated lifeless to the ground, was taken up in pity by the old woman mentioned above, and was buried in the wonted place of sepulture.
FOOTNOTES
374 [See p. 215, supra.]
375 Ex nominibus. The Codex Bobiensis offers the extraordinary reading, ex navibus.
376 Ingenita.
377 We read, with the Codex Bobiensis, “dicat homini, Loca mihi,” etc. The Codex Casinensis has the meaningless reading, “homini diviti,” etc.
378 Praesta.
379 The text of this obscure passage runs thus: “Quia ex quo duo sunt, ingenitam habentes naturam, ex eo necesse est etiam habere unumquemque ipsortum vetus Testamentum, et fient dua vetera Testamenta; si tamen ambos antiquos et sine initio esse decis.” The Codex Bobiensis gives a briefer but evidently corrupt reading: “ex quo duo sunt ingenita habentes naturam ipsorum Testamentum, et fient,” etc.
380 Jamnem dico et Mambrem. [So in Vulg., except “Jamnes.”]
381 Gratiam gratia praestare et differre. Joh_1:16
382 The Codex Bobiensis gives, “exponere et a Patre ut convenit.” For these meaningless words Valesius proposed to read, “exponere et aperire ut convenit.” The Codex Casinensis, however, offers the satisfactory reading, “exponere et aptare convenit.”
383 Here ends the section edited by Valesius.
384 Castellum. [Note, infra, the “holy kiss.”]
385 The text runs: “tametsi prudentiam, gloriam etiam, nostrorum nonnulli assecuti sunt, tamen hoc vos deprecor ut eorum quae ante me dicta sunt, testimonium reservetis.” Routh suggests prudentia = Although by their prudence some have gained glory, etc.
386 Pro ipsius impossibilitate. But Routh suggests that the impossibilitate is just an inexact translation of the ἀδυνατία = impotentia, incapacity, which may have stood in the Greek text.
387 Reading “Marcelli viri illustris gratia.” The Codex Casinensis has, “viri in legis gratia.”
388 The text gives “similis facere astrologo,” for which Routh proposes “similis factus est,” etc.
389 The text is, “quibus utique repensari non possunt,” etc. Routh proposes repensare.
390 Reading “sicut vox Jesu.” The Codex Casinensis gives, “sicut vos Jesu.” Routh suggests servator.
391 The text gives, “Virgo castissima et immaculata ecclesia,” = the most pure virgin and spotless church. But the word “ecclesia” is probably an erroneous addition by the hand of the scribe. Or, as Routh hints, there may be an allusion, in the word ecclesia, to the beginning of the twelfth chapter of the Apocalypse. [See Pearson, On the Creed, art. iii. p. 290.]
392 From this it may perhaps be gathered that Marcellus had now come along with Archelaus to the residence of Diodorus.
393 Scribere ausus est. Compare (note 395) p. 224, infra.
394 Mat_22:42. We read Davidis esse for David Jesse.
395 The text gives, “Quod si prior fefellit, causa ad scriptorem rejicienda est.” [i.e., to the copyist; in this case the corrupter.]
396 Consonantibus duntaxat.
397 Sibi ipsi.
398 Secundum id quod scriptorem fefellit. [i.e., on that supposition.]
399 Reading “debuitne etiam” for the bad version of the Codex Casinensis, “debuit et etiam.”
400 The text gives, “se ipso judicante,” for which “te ipso,” etc., may be substituted.
401 In the Codex Casinensis the sentence stands in this evidently corrupt form: “cum enim peccatis bonus et gravatus ad discipulatum diligit.” We adopt the emendation given in Migne: “cum enim peccatis onustos et gravatos ad discipulatum delegit.”
402 Propitius esto, Domine.
403 Mat_16:22. [Possibly the first words by which Satan fell.]
404 Mat_16:23. [Satan seems to have rebelled against man’s creation.]
405 Luk_4:34, reading sanctus Deus. [i.e., not the received text.]
406 Reading silere. The Codex Casinensis gives sinire, which may be meant for sinere = give over.
407 Pro accidntium salute.
408 We have adopted Migne’s arrangement of these clauses. Routh, however, puts them thus: And that it may be made more intelligible to you, etc. … (for in forgetfulness, etc., you have turned off, etc.), listen to me now for a brief space.
409 Reading “pondus belli toleraverant,” instead of the “pondus bellico tolerarant” of the Codex Casinensis.
410 Salva.
411 Gal_4:4. The reading is, “cum autem fuit Dei voluntas in nobis.” The Vulgate, following the ordinary Greek text, gives, “at ubi venit plenitudo temporis.” And so Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, etc. [This should have been in the margin of the Revised Version.]
412 1Co_6:14. The text here inserts the words cum illo, which are found neither in the Greek, nor in the Vulgate, nor in Irenaeus, Adv. Haeres., v. 6, 7, etc., nor in Tertullian, Adv. Marc., v. 7, etc. According to Sabatier, however, they are found in Jerome, Ep. ad Amand.
413 Reading in vobis. But the Codex Casinensis seems to give in nobis, amongst us.
414 But the Codex Casinensis seems to make it fides nostra, our faith.
415 Initium.
416 Distinctio.
417 Gal_3:1. The word in the text is, rescriptus est. The Vulgate gives praescriptus est. The Vetus Itala gives proscriptus est.
418 Minor.
419 It would seem that Archelaus read the passage in Matthew as meaning, notwithstanding, he that is less, is, in the kingdom of heaven, greater than he. Thus, he that is less is understood to be Jesus in His natural relations. [A very lean and hungry proculdubio of the author.]
420 Routh appends a note here with may be given. It is to this effect: I am afraid that Archelaus has not expressed with sufficient correctness the mystery of the Divine Incarnation, in this passage as well as in what follows; although elsewhere he has taught that the Lord Jesus was conceived by divine power, and in ch. xxxiv has called the Virgin Mary Dei genetrix, Θεοτόκος. For at the time of the Saviour’s baptism the Holy Spirit was not given in His first communication with the Word of God (which Word, indeed, had been united with the human nature from the time of the conception itself), but was only received by the Christ ἀνθρωπίνως and οἰκονομικῶς, and for the sake of men. See Cyril of Alexandria, De Rectâ Fide, xxxiv. vol. v. 2, p. 153, editio Auberti. [Routh, R. S., vol. v. p. 178.]
421 Parat.
422 Inferre coneris.
423 Artifex.
424 Hominem.
425 Hominem eum tantummodo ex Maria.
426 Or, effect, per profectum.
427 Effect. [i.e., progressively.]
428 Routh puts this interrogatively = It is then your position that He really is a man, that is to say, one who is flesh and blood? Well, but if so, then it will follow, etc.
429 Or, as.
430 Reading “sicut homo, hac opinione,” for the “sicut homo ac opinione” of the Codex Casinensis.
431 The Codex Casinensis reads, “hanc quaestionem diffigenter aptare tam manifestarem atque manifeste dissolverem.” We follow the emendation, “hanc quaestionem diligenter aptatam manifestarem,” etc.
432 [A signum vercundiae which rebukes the awful inquisitiveness concerning the conception of Mary which disgraced the late pontiff, Pius IX. To what blasphemous pruriency of thought and expression has not such an invasion of decency given rise! See St. Bernard, Opp., tom. i. p. 392. He rebukes the heresy as profane.]
433 The text gives tempus recusat. Routh proposes tempus requirit = which the occasion requires.
434 This is a purely conjectural reading, “ut dicam silex,” etc. The Codex Casinensis gives, “ut dicam dilere non homo.” But Routh, in reference to ch. xv., throws out the idea that we should read delire = thou dotard, or, lunatic. [P. 190, supra, as if Manes = μανικὸς.]
435 Columbarium furem.
436 The text gives suae. Routh suggests tuae.
437 The text is, “non solum autem, sed adventus nomen delebitur.” It may perhaps be = and not the foundation, but the name, of an advent would be done away.
438 The text gives “quo magnum,” etc., for which we adopt “quod magnum,” etc.
439 Or perhaps, = which was also, quod erat tabernaculum, etc.
440 The Codex Casinensis gives, “Ignorabat autem propter qui geniusset Filium Dei praedicabat regnum coelorum, qui erat,” etc. We follow generally the emendations adopted in Migne: “Ignorabat autem propter quid geniusset Filium Dei, qui praedicabat regnum coelorum, quod erat habitaculum magnum,” etc. Routh would read “genitus esset Filius Dei,” etc.
441 Pugillum plenum solis mihi affer aut modium plenum.
442 Partis.
443 The text is, “et ultra ei non sinerent ad propria remeare.” Routh suggests ultro for ultra.
444 Reading unus, instead of “vos, comitibus,” etc.
445 Reading “quem etiam” instead of “quae etiam.”
446 The Codex Casinensis gives, “ipse quidem me dicere recusavit,” etc. We adopt the correction in Migne, “sed ne ipse quidem dicere recusavit,” etc.
447 Superiores quidem causas Domini, etc.
448 Reading “sed et optimus architectus ejus, fundamentum,” etc. The Codex Casinensis has the corrupt lection, “sed et optimos architectos ei fundamentum,” etc. [Had this been said of Peter?]
449 Cf. 1Co_3:10. [Had this been said of Peter, what then?]
450 Cf. 1Ti_3:1. [Clement, cap. xliv., vol. 1. p. 17, this series.]
451 Various other forms are found for this name Scythianus. Thus we find Scutianus and Excutianus, – forms which may have arisen through mere clerical errors. The Codex Reg. Alex. Vat. gives Stutianus. [But see Routh, R. S., vol. v. p. 186.]
452 This seems the general idea meant to be conveyed. The text, which is evidently corrupt, runs thus: “in qua cum eum habitaret, cum Aegyptiorum sapientiam didicisset.” The Codex Reg. Alex. Vat. reads, “in qua cum habitaret et Aegyptiorum,” etc. In Migne it is proposed to fill up the lacunae thus: “in qua cum diu habitaret, depravatus est, cum Aegyptiorum sapientiam didicisset.” Routh suggests, “in qua cum ea habitaret,” etc.
453 The Codex Casinensis reads Terbonem for Terebinthum. But in Cyril of Jerusalem, in his Catechesis, 6, as well as in others, we regularly find Τέρβινθον, Terbinthum, or Terebinthum, given as the name of the disciple of Scythianus. The form Tereventus is also given; and the Codex Reg. Alex. Vat. has Terybeneus. The statement made here as to these books being written by Terebinthus is not in accordance with statements made by Cyril and others, who seem to recognise Scythianus alone as the author. As to the name Terebinthus itself, C. Ritter, in his Die Stupa’s, etc., p. 29, thinks that it is a Graecized form of a predicate of Buddha, viz., Tere-hintu, Lord of the Hindoos. Others take it simply to be a translation of the Hebrew אֵלָה, the terebinth. See a note on this subject in Neander’s Church Hist., ii. 166 (Bohn). [Routh, ut supra, p. 187.]
454 Capitulorum.
455 Thesaurus.
456 The Codex Reg. Alex. Vat. inserts here, “omnibus quaecunque ejus fuerant congregatis” = gathering together all that was his.
457 Reading “habetur.” But Codex Reg. Alex. Vat. gives habitatur, is inhabited.
458 The Codex Casinensis gives, “sed aliud cujusdam homine.” We adopt “sed alium Buddam nomine,” with which the narratives of Cyril, Ephiphanius, and others agree. Routh proposes “alio Buddam nomine” = by another name, Buddas. [Buddha is a title, not a name.]
459 The text gives “natum esse, simul et ab angelo.” The Codex Reg. Alex. Vat. reads, “natum se esse simulabat et ab angelo.”
460 On these Persian priests, see Epiphanius on this heresy, num. 3.
461 Reading arguebant, with Routh, for arguebat.
462 Animosa exaggeratio.
463 Ante seculum.
464 Or, in the origins of things, in principiis.
465 Particeps ejus.
466 Reading tunc for nunc.
467 Solarium quoddam excelsum.
468 The Codex Casinensis gives, “ut inde ab aliquo convinci posit.” But the Codex Reg. Alex. Vat. reads, “ut ne ab aliquo,” etc. We adopt, therefore, “ne ab aliquo,” etc., taking the idea to be, as is suggested in Migne, that Manes went up alone, because he feared that, if observed by Parcus and Labdacus, the priests of Mithras, he might expose himself to punishment at the hands of the Persian rulers for an offence against their religion. [Manes here seems put for Terebinthus.]
469 Sub terras eum detrudi per spiritum.