26. The judges
said: If you allege that the shepherd exposed the kid or the
lamb to the lion, when the said lion was meditating an assault1664
| 1664 Migne
reads irrueret. Routh gives irruerat, had made an
assault. |
on the
unbegotten, the case is closed. For seeing that the
shepherd of
the kids and
lambs is himself
proved to be in fault to them, on what
creature can he pronounce
judgment, if it happens that the
lamb which
has been given up
1665
| 1665 The
text gives si causa traditus, etc. Routh suggests sive
causa. Traditus, etc.; so that the sense would be, For
on what creature can the shepherd of the kids and lambs pronounce
judgment, seeing that he is himself proved to be in fault to them, or
to be the cause of their position? For the lamb, having been
given up, etc. |
through the
shepherd’s
weakness has
proved unable to withstand the
lion, and if the consequence is that the
lamb has had to do whatever has been the
lion’s
pleasure?
Or, to take another instance, that would be just as if a master were to
drive out of his
house, or
deliver over in
terror to his
adversary, one
of his
slaves, whom he is unable afterwards to
recover by his own
strength. Or supposing that by any chance it were to come about
that the
slave was
recovered, on what reasonable ground could the
master
inflict the
torture on him, if it should turn out that the man
yielded obedience to all that the
enemy laid upon him, seeing that it
was the master himself
1666
| 1666
Reading eum ipse for eum ipsum. |
who gave him up to the
enemy, just as the kid was given up to the
lion? You
affirm, too, that the
shepherd understood the whole
case beforehand. Surely, then, the
lamb, when under the lash, and
interrogated by the
shepherd as to the reason why it had submitted to
the
lion in these matters, would make some such answer as this:
“Thou didst thyself
deliver me over to the
lion, and thou didst
offer no resistance to him, although thou didst know and
foresee what
would be my lot, when it was necessary for me to yield myself to his
commandments.” And, not to dilate on this at greater
length, we may say that
by such an illustration neither is
God
exhibited as a
perfect shepherd, nor is the
lion shown to have
tasted
alien meats; and consequently, under the
instruction of the
truth
itself, it has been made clear that we ought to give the
palm to the
reasonings adduced by
Archelaus.
Archelaus said:
Considering that, on all the points which we have hitherto discussed,
the thoughtfulness of the judges has assigned us the amplest scope, it
will be well for us to pass over other subjects in
silence, and reserve
them for another period. For just as, if
1667
| 1667
Reading si quis for the simple quis of Codex
Casinensis. |
a person once
crushes the head of a
serpent, he will not need to lop off any of the other members of its
body; so, if we once dispose
1668
| 1668
Reading “quæstione rejecta” for the
relecta of Codex Casinensis. |
of this
question of the duality, as we
have endeavoured to do to the
best of our ability, other matters which
have been maintained in connection with it may be held to be exploded
along with it. Nevertheless I shall yet address myself, at least
in a few sentences, to the assertor of these opinions himself, who is
now in our presence; so that it may be thoroughly understood by all who
he is, and whence he comes, and what manner of person he
proves himself
to be. For he has given out that he is that Paraclete whom
Jesus
on His departure
promised to send to the race of man for the
salvation
of the
souls of the
faithful; and this profession he makes as if he
were somewhat superior even to
Paul,
1669
| 1669 This
seems to be the general sense of the corrupt text here, et non longe
possit ei Paulus, etc., in which we must either suppose something
to have been lost, or correct it in some such way as this:
“ut non longe post sit ei Paulus.” Compare what Manes
says also of Paul and himself in ch. xiii. above. It should be
added, however, that another idea of the passage is thrown out in
Routh. According to this the ei refers to
Jesus, and the text being emended thus, etsi non longe
post sit ei, the sense would be: although not long after His
departure He had Paul as an elect vessel, etc. The allusion thus
would be to the circumstance that Manes made such a claim as he did, in
spite of the fact that after Christ’s departure Paul was gifted
with the Spirit in so eminent a measure for the building up of the
faithful. |
who was an
elect vessel and a called
apostle, and who on that ground, while
preaching the true
doctrine,
said:
1670
| 1670
Reading aiebat for the agebat of Codex Casinensis. |
“Or
seek ye a
proof of that
Christ who speaks in me?”
1671
| 1671
2 Cor. xiii. 3. The reading here is, “Aut
documentum quæritis,” etc. The Vulgate also gives
An experimentum, for the Greek ἐπεί, etc. |
What I
have to say, however, may become clearer by such an illustration as the
following:
1672
| 1672 The
text is, “et quidem quod dico tali exemplo sed
clarius.” For sed it is proposed to read fit,
or sit, or est. |
—A certain
man gathered into his store a very large quantity of corn, so that the
place was perfectly full. This place he shut and sealed in a
thoroughly satisfactory fashion, and gave directions to keep careful
watch over it. And the master himself then departed.
However, after a lengthened lapse of time another person came to the
store, and affirmed that he had been despatched by the individual who
had locked up and sealed the place with a commission also to collect
and lay up a quantity of
wheat in the same. And when the
keepers
of the store saw him, they demanded of him his credentials, in the
production of the signet, in order that they might assure themselves of
their
liberty to open the store to him and to render their obedience to
him as to one sent by the person who had sealed the place. And
when he could
1673
| 1673
Codex Casinensis has quicunque. We adopt the correction,
qui cum nec. |
neither
exhibit the keys nor produce the credentials of the signet,
for
indeed he had no right, he was thrust out by the
keepers, and
compelled to
flee. For instead of being what he professed to be,
he was detected to be a
thief and a robber by them, and was
convicted
and found out
1674
| 1674
Reading confutatus for confugatus. |
through the
circumstance that, although, as it seemed, he had taken it into his
head to make his
appearance a long time after the period that had been
determined on beforehand, he yet could neither produce keys, or signet,
or any token whatsoever to the
keepers, nor display any
knowledge of
the quantity of corn that was in store: all which things were so
many unmistakeable proofs that he had not been sent across by the
proper owner; and accordingly, as was matter of course,
1675
| 1675 The
text gives “et ideo ut consequenter erat,” etc. Codex
Casinensis omits the ut. Routh proposes, “et ideo
consequenter thesaurus,” etc. = and thus, of course, the treasure
was preserved, etc. Comp. ch. xxvii. and xxxiv. |
he was forbidden
admittance by the keepers.
E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
