|« Prev||Chapter XLVII.||Next »|
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.”20142014 Matt. x. 28. 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?20152015 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 223is 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 Jesus20162016 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;20172017 John i. 18; iii. 13. and again He says, “He that receiveth me, receiveth Him that sent me;”20182018 Matt. x. 40. and, “I came not to do mine own will, but the will of Him that sent me;”20192019 John vi. 38. and once more, “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”20202020 Matt. xv. 24. 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;”20212021 Matt. xii. 47. 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 virgin20222022 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?20232023 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,20242024 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.20252025 Matt. xxii. 42. We read Davidis essefor David Jesse. 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;”20262026 Matt. xvi. 16. 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 224writer.20272027 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 least20282028 Consonantibus duntaxat. with His advent, we believe.
|« Prev||Chapter XLVII.||Next »|
►Proofing disabled for this book
► Printer-friendly version