40. I wish you to know, most
pious father, that in these days there has arrived in our parts a
certain person named Manes, who gives out that he is to complete the
doctrine of the New Testament. And in the statements which he has
made there have been some things, indeed, which may harmonize with our
faith; but there have been also certain affirmations of his which seem
very far removed from what has come down to us by the tradition of our
fathers. For he has interpreted some doctrines in a strange
fashion, imposing on them certain notions of his own, which have
appeared to me to be altogether foreign and opposed to the faith.
On the ground of these facts I have now been induced to write this
letter to you, knowing the completeness and fulness of your
intelligence in doctrine, and being assured that none of these things
can escape your cognizance. Accordingly, I have also indulged the
confident hope that you cannot be kept back by any grudge1865
from explaining
these matters to us. As to myself, indeed, it is not possible
that I shall be drawn away into any novel
doctrine; nevertheless, in
behalf of all the less
instructed, I have been led to ask a word with
your
authority. For, in
truth, the man shows himself to be a
person of extraordinary force of character, both in
speech and in
action; and indeed his very aspect and attire also bear that out.
But I shall here
write down for your information some few points which
I have been able to retain in my memory out of all the topics which
have been
expounded by him: for I know that even by these few you
will have an idea of the
rest. You well understand, no doubt,
that those who
seek to set up any new dogma have the
habit of very
readily perverting into a conformity with their own notions any
proofs
they desire to take from the Scriptures.
1866
| 1866
[Tertullian, vol. iii. p. 251, this series.] |
In anticipation, however, of
this, the apostolic word marks out the case thus: “If any
one
preach any other
gospel unto you than that which you have received,
let him be accursed.”
1867
And consequently, in addition to
what has been once
committed to us by the
apostles, a
disciple of
Christ ought to receive nothing new as
doctrine.
1868
| 1868
[Against Scripture and the torrent of patristic testimony, the men of
this generation have seen new dogmas imposed upon a great portion of
Christendom by the voice of a single bishop, and without synodical
deliberation or consent. The whole claim to
“Catholicity” perishes wherever such dogmas are
accepted.] |
But
not to make what I have got to say too long, I return to the subject
directly in view. This man then maintained that the
law of
Moses,
to speak shortly, does not proceed from the good
God, but from the
prince of
evil; and that it has no kinship with the new
law of
Christ,
but is contrary and hostile to it, the one being the direct antagonist
of the other. When I heard such a sentiment propounded, I
repeated to the people that sentence of the
Gospel in which our
Lord
Jesus Christ said of Himself: “I am not come to
destroy the
law, but to fulfil it.”
1869
The man, however, averred that He
did not utter this saying at all; for he held that when we find that He
did abrogate
1870
that same
law,
we are bound to give heed, above all other considerations, to the thing
which He actually did. Then he began to cite a great variety of
passages from the
law, and also many from the
Gospel and from the
Apostle Paul, which have the
appearance of contradicting each
other. All this he gave forth at the same time with
perfect
confidence, and without any hesitation or
fear; so that I verily
believe he has that
serpent as his
helper, who is ever our
adversary. Well, he declared that there
in the law God
said, “I make the
rich man and the
poor man;”
1871
while here
in the Gospel Jesus called the
poor blessed,
1872
and added, that no man could be His
disciple unless he gave up all that he had.
1873
Again, he maintained that there
Moses took
silver and
gold from the Egyptians when the people
1874
| 1874
Reading cum populis for the cum populo of the text. |
fled out of
Egypt;
1875
whereas
Jesus
delivered the
precept that we should
lust after nothing belonging to
our neighbour. Then he affirmed that
Moses had
provided in the
law, that an
eye should be given in penalty for an
eye, and a tooth for
a tooth;
1876
but that our
Lord bade us offer the other cheek also to him who smote the
one.
1877
He
told us, too, that there
Moses commanded the man to be
punished and
stoned who did any
work on the
Sabbath, and who
failed to continue in
all things that were written in the
law,
1878
as in fact was done to that person
who, yet being ignorant, had gathered a bundle of sticks on the
Sabbath-day; whereas
Jesus cured a
cripple on the
Sabbath, and ordered
him then also to take up his
bed.
1879
And further, He did not restrain
His
disciples from plucking the
ears of corn and rubbing them with
their
hands on the
Sabbath-day,
1880
which yet was a thing which it was
unlawful to do on the Sabbaths. And why should I mention other
instances? For with many different assertions of a similar
nature
these dogmas of his were propounded with the utmost energy and the most
fervid
zeal. Thus, too, on the
authority of an
apostle, he
endeavoured to establish the position that the
law of
Moses is the
law
of
death, and that the
law of
Jesus, on the contrary, is the
law of
life. For he based that assertion on the passage which runs
thus: “In which also may
God make us
1881
able
ministers of the New Testament;
not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but
the spirit giveth
life. But if the ministration of
death,
engraven in letters on the
stones,
1882
| 1882
In litteris formatum in lapidibus. |
was made in
glory, so that the
children of
Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of
Moses for
the
glory of his
countenance; which
glory was to be done away; how
shall not the ministration of the Spirit be rather glorious? For
if the ministration of condemnation be
glory, much more doth the
ministration of
righteousness exceed in
glory. For even that
which was made glorious had no
glory in this respect, by reason of the
glory that excelleth. For if that which shall be done away is
glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.”
1883
And
this passage, as you are also well aware, occurs in the second
Epistle
to the Corinthians. Besides, he added to this another passage out
of the first
epistle, on which he based his affirmation that the
disciples of the Old Testament were earthly and
natural; and in
accordance with this, that
flesh and
blood could not possess the
kingdom of
God.
1884
He
also maintained that
Paul himself spoke in his own proper person when
he said: “If I build again the things which I
destroyed, I
make myself a
transgressor.”
1885
Further, he averred that the
same
apostle made this statement most obviously on the subject of the
resurrection of the
flesh, when he also said that “he is not a
Jew who is one outwardly, neither is that
circumcision which is outward
in the
flesh,”
1886
and that according to the letter the
law has in it no
advantage.
1887
And again he adduced the
statement, that “
Abraham has
glory, but not before
God;”
1888
and that
“by the
law there comes only the
knowledge of
sin.”
1889
And
many other things did he introduce, with the view of detracting from
the honour of the
law, on the ground that the
law itself is
sin; by which
statements the simpler people were somewhat influenced, as he continued
to bring them forward; and in accordance with all this, he also made
use of the affirmation, that “the
law and the
prophets were until
John.”
1890
He
declared, however, that John
preached the
true kingdom of
heaven; for verily he held, that by the cutting off of his head it was
signified that all who went before him, and who had precedence over
him, were to be
cut off, and that what was to come after him was alone
to be maintained. With reference to all these things, therefore,
O most pious
Archelaus, send us back a short reply in writing:
for I have heard that you have studied such matters in no ordinary
degree; and that
capacity which you possess is
God’s
gift,
inasmuch as
God bestows these
gifts upon those who are worthy of them,
and who are His
friends, and who show themselves allied to Him in
community of purpose and
life. For it is our part to prepare
ourselves, and to approach the gracious and liberal
mind,
1891
| 1891
Reading “præparare et proximos fieri benignæ ac diviti
menti” for “præparet proximus fieri benignæ
hac,” etc., as it stands in the Codex Casinensis. Routh
suggests “præparare proximos fieri benignæ ac diviti
menti et continuo…consequemur” = to take care to draw near
to the gracious and liberal mind, and then we shall forthwith receive
steadily from it, etc. |
and forthwith
we receive from it the most bountiful
gifts. Accordingly, since
the learning which I possess for the discussion of themes like these
does not meet the requirements of my desire and purpose, for I confess
myself to be an
unlearned man, I have sent to you, as I have already
said more than once, in the hope of obtaining from your hand the
amplest solution to this question. May it be well with you,
incomparable and honourable father!
E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
