21. But now, what it is
necessary for me to say on the subject of the inner and the outer man,
may be expressed in the words of the Saviour to those who swallow a
camel, and wear the outward garb of the hypocrite, begirt with
blandishments and flatteries. It is to them that Jesus addresses
Himself when He says: “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees,
hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the
platter, but within they are full of uncleanness. Or know you
not, that He that made that which is without, made that which is within
also?”1620
Now why did
He speak of the
cup and of the platter? Was He who uttered these
words a glassworker, or a
potter who made
vessels of
clay? Did He
not speak most manifestly of the body and the
soul? For the
Pharisees truly looked to the “tithing of anise and cummin, and
left undone the weightier matters of the
law;”
1621
and while devoting great care to the
things which were external, they overlooked those which bore upon the
salvation of the
soul. For they also had respect to
“greetings in the
market-place,”
1622
| 1622
Matt. xxiii. 6; Mark xii. 38;
Luke xx. 46. |
and “to the uppermost seats at
feasts:”
1623
| 1623 The
Codex Casinensis gives a strangely corrupt reading here:
“primos discipulos subitos in cœnis, quod scientes
Dominus.” It is restored thus: “primos
discubitus in cœnis, quos sciens Dominus,” etc. |
and to
them the
Lord Jesus, knowing their
perdition, made this declaration,
that they attended to those things only which were without, and
despised as
strange things those which were within, and understood not
that He who made the body made also the
soul. And who is so
unimpressible and stolid in intellect, as not to see that those sayings
of our Lord may suffice him for all cases? Moreover, it is
in
perfect harmony with these sayings that
Paul speaks, when he
interprets to the following intent certain things written in the
law: “Thou shalt not
muzzle the mouth of the
ox that
treadeth out the corn. Doth
God take care for
oxen? Or
saith He it altogether for our sakes?”
1624
But why should we waste further
time upon this subject? Nevertheless I shall add a few things out
of many that might be offered. Suppose now that there are two
unbegotten
principles, and that we determine
fixed localities
for these: it follows then that
God is separated,
1625
if He is
supposed to be within a certain location, and not diffused
everywhere; and He will consequently
be represented as
much inferior to the locality in which He is understood to be
for
the object which contains is always greater1626
| 1626
Reading majus for the inept malus of the Codex
Casinensis. |
than the object which is contained in
it: and thus
God is made to be of that magnitude which
corresponds with the magnitude of the locality in which He is
contained, just as is the case with a man in a
house.
1627
| 1627
Routh refers us here to Maximus, De Natura, § 2. See
Reliquiæ Sacræ, ii. 89–91. |
Then, further, reason asks who it
is that has divided between them, or who has
appointed for them their
determinate limits; and thus both would be made out to be the decided
inferiors of man’s own
power.
1628
| 1628 The
text is “multo inferior virtutis humanæ,” which is
probably a Græcism. |
For Lysimachus and
Alexander held
the empire of the whole
world, and were able to
subdue all
foreign
nations, and the whole race of men; so that throughout that period
there was no other in possession of empire besides themselves under
heaven. And how will any one be rash enough to say that
God, who
is the true
light that never
suffers eclipse, and whose is also the
kingdom that is holy and everlasting, is not everywhere present,
as
1629
| 1629
Reading ceu for the eu of the Codex Casinensis. |
is the way with
this most depraved man, who, in his impiety, refuses to ascribe to the Omnipotent God
even equal power with men?
1630
| 1630 The
Codex Casinensis gives “nec quæ vellem quidem,” for
which “nec æqualem quidem,” etc., is suggested, as in
the translation. |
E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
