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.”2014
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?
2015
| 2015 The text
is, “quibus utique repensari non possunt,”
etc. Routh proposes repensare. |
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 found 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
Jesus2016
| 2016 Reading
“sicut vox Jesu.” The Codex Casinensis gives,
“sicut vos Jesu.” Routh suggests servator. |
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;
2017
and again He says, “He that receiveth me, receiveth Him that sent
me;”
2018
and, “I
came not to do mine own will, but the will of Him that sent
me;”
2019
and once more,
“I am not sent but unto the lost
sheep of the
house of
Israel.”
2020
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;”
2021
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
virgin2022
| 2022 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.] |
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?
2023
| 2023 From
this it may perhaps be gathered that Marcellus had now come along with
Archelaus to the residence of Diodorus. |
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,
2024
| 2024
Scribere ausus est. Compare (note 1) p. 224,
infra. |
“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.
2025
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;”
2026
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.
2027
| 2027 The
text gives, “Quod si prior fefellit, causa ad scriptorem
rejicienda est.” [i.e., to the copyist; in this case the
corrupter.] |
We know, therefore, that there is
one Christ, according to the Apostle Paul, whose words, as in
consonance at least
2028
| 2028
Consonantibus duntaxat. |
with His advent, we
believe.
E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
