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.”2048
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 value
2049
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;”
2050
| 2050
Gal. iv. 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 Irenæus, Tertullian, Cyprian,
etc. [This should have been in the margin of the Revised
Version.] |
and
again, “
Christ our
passover is sacrificed for us;”
2051
and once more,
“
God hath both
raised up the
Lord, and will raise up us together
with Him by His own
power?”
2052
| 2052
1 Cor. vi. 14. The text here inserts the words
cum illo, which are found neither in the Greek, nor in the
Vulgate, nor in Irenæus, Adv. Hæres., v. 6, 7 [vol. i.
pp. 530, 532, this series], nor in Tertullian, Adv. Marc., v. 7,
etc. [vol. iii. p. 443, this series]. According to Sabatier,
however, they are found in Jerome, Ep. ad Amand. |
And there are many other passages of
a similar import; as, for example, this which follows: “How
say some among you,
2053
| 2053
Reading in vobis. But the Codex Casinensis seems to give
in nobis, amongst us. |
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,
your
2054
| 2054 But the
Codex Casinensis seems to make it fides nostra, our faith. |
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 beginning
2055
of
them that
sleep;”
2056
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 qualification
2057
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?”
2058
| 2058
Gal. iii. 1. The word in the text is
rescriptus est. The Vulgate gives præscriptus
est. The Vetus Itala proscriptus est. |
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 less
2059
in the
kingdom of
heaven is greater than he,”
2060
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.
2061
| 2061
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.] |
Wherefore tell me this too, O
Manichæus: 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;
2062
| 2062 Routh
appends a note here which 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.] |
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?”
2063
Come,
tell me; make no delay; who is this that acquires
2064
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?
2065
E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
