| << | Contents | >> |
Archelaus
Introductory Notice to Archelaus.
[1430] Thus Cyril of Jerusalem, in the sixth book of his Catecheses, §§ 27 and 30, tells us how Manes fled into Mesopotamia, and was met there by that shield of righteousness (ὅπλον δικαιοσύνης) Bishop Archelaus, and was refuted by him in the presence of a number of Greek philosophers, who had been brought together as judges of the discussion. Epiphanius, in his Heresies, lxvi., and again in his work De Mensuris et Poderibus, § 20, makes reference to the same occasion, and gives some excerpts from the Acts of the Disputation. And there are also passages of greater or less importance in Jerome (De vir. illustr., ch. 72), Socrates (Hist. Eccles., i. 22), Heraclianus bishop of Chalcedon (as found in Photius, Bibliotheca, Cod. xcv.), Petrus Siculus (Historia Manichæorum, pp. 25, 35, 37), Photius (Adversus Manichæos, book i., edited in the Biblioth. Coislin., Montfaucon, pp. 356, 358), and the anonymous authors of the Libellus Synodicus, ch. 27, and the Historia Hæreseos Manichæorum in the Codex Regius of Turin. [See Cyril’s text in Routh, R. S., vol. v. pp. 198–205.]
[1431] As by Zacagnius at Rome, in 1698, in his Collectanea Monumentorum Veterum Ecclesiæ Græcæ ac Latinæ; by Fabricius, in the Spicilegium Sanctorum Patrum Sæculi, iii., in his edition of Hippolytus, etc.
[1432] Biblioth., Cod. lxxxv. [Coleridge thinks “Manes” himself a myth, “a doubtful Ens.”]
[1433] See especially ch. 39 and 55. [Note reference to John de Soyres, vol. v. p. 604, this series.]
[1434] De vir. illustr., ch. 72.
[1435] Such as the apparent confusion between ἀήρ and ἀνήρ in ch. 8, and again between λοιμός and λιμός in the same chapter, and between πήσσει and πλήσσει in ch. 9, and the retention of certain Greek words, sometimes absolutely, and at other times with an explanation, as cybi, apocrusis, etc.
[1436] Hist. Eccles., i. 22.
[1437] Hæres., lxvi. ch. 5 and 7, and De Mens. et Pond., ch. 20.
[1438] Κασχάρων.
[1439] For elsewhere (Hæres., lxvi. 11) he writes Κασχάρην, or, according to another reading, which is held by Zacagnius to be corrupt Καλχάρων.
[1440] And that form is followed by Petrus Siculus (Hist. Manich., p. 37) and Photius (lib. i., Adv. Manich.), who, in epitomizing the statements of Epiphanius, write neither Κασχάρων nor Καλχάρων, but Καρχάρων.
[1441] Geogr., book. ii. ch. 7.
[1442] Book xviii. 23, and xxv. 20, 21.
[1443] Hist. Misc., xxii. 20.
[1444] Church History, ii. p. 165, ed. Bohn.
[1445] De Mensur. et Pond., ch. 20.
[1446] Cateches., vi. p. 140.
[1447] Chronicon, lib. post., p. 177.
[1448] In ch. 24.
[1449] Catech., vi. p. m. 147.
[1450] As in the 12th, 25th, and 28th chapters.
[1451] [Compare Routh, Reliquiæ Sacræ, vol. v. pp. 4–206, and his everywhere learned notes.]
[1452] Church History, ii. pp. 165, 166, ed. Bohn. [Compare Robertson, vol. i. pp. 136–144.]
The Acts of the Disputation with the Heresiarch Manes.
[1453] Of Archelaus, bishop of Caschar in Mesopotamia.
[1454] Treasury.
[1455] In Epiphanius, Hæres., lxvi. 10, it is Marsipus.
[1456] Pietatis pretia.
[1457] Nec numero aliquo nec discretione ulla distinguit. For distinguit, some propose distribuit.
[1458] Reading commonentur, as in the text. Commoventur is also suggested, ="were deeply moved.”
[1459] On the attitude of the Christians of the primitive Church towards warfare, see Tertullian’s De Corona Militis, ch. 11, and the twelfth canon of the Nicene Council.
[1460] [The similar institution of the Rogation fasts in the West is referred to the fifth century. Pellicia, p. 372; Hooker, book v. cap. xli. 2.]
[1461] Reading cervicibus degravatis et laxis, demisso capite, frontem genibus elidit. The text gives demerso.
[1462] At this point begins the portion of the work edited by Valesius from the Codex Bobiensis, which is preserved now in the Ambrosian Library.
[1463] The Codex Bobiensis reads Adda Turbonem. This Adda, or Addas, as the Greek gives it below in ch. xi., was one of those disciples of Manes whom he charged with the dissemination of his heretical opinions in the East, as we see from ch. xi.
[1464] Codex Bobiensis adds, ad vesperam, towards evening.
[1465] The text gives veluti peregrinans. The Codex Bobiensis has quippe peregrinans.
[1466] On the attention paid by the primitive Church to the duties of hospitality, see Tertullian, De Præscriptionibus, ch. 20 [vol. iii. p. 252, this series]; Gregory Nazianzenus, in his First Invective against Julian; also Priorius, De literis canonicis, ch. 5, etc.; and Thomassin, De Tesseris hospitalitatis, ch. 26.
[1467] In the text, ignotum; in the Codex Bobiensis, ignoratum.
[1468] This letter, along with the reply of Marcellus, is given by Epiphanius in his Heresies, n. 6, from which the Greek text is taken.
[1469] φειδόμενος. The Latin gives subveniens, relieving.
[1470] The Greek text of Epiphanius gave πρὸς τὸ ἀδιάκριτον. Petavius substituted πρὸς τὸ μή ἀδιάκριτον; and that reading is confirmed by the Latin, uti ne indiscretos animos geras.
[1471] ἀπὸ τοῦ αὐτοῦ φέρεσθαι.
[1472] ὧν τὸ τέλος κατάρας ἐγγύς. Cf. Heb. vi. 8.
[1473] The text gives ἐν τοῖς εἰρημένοις εὐαγγελίοις, for which τοῖς εἰρημένοις ἐν τοῖς εὐαγγελίοις may be proposed.
[1476] τῆς ἄλλης δυσωδίας τῶν γυναικῶν.
[1477] φείδῃ.
[1479] The text gives infrendebat; the Codex Bobiensis has infringebat.[It seems to be a proverb, and I have so marked it. We should say, “he chafed like a lion,” etc.]
[1480] Ex pueris suis.
[1481] Epiphanius, under this Heresy, num. 7, says that this was a fort situated on the other side of the river Stranga, between Persia and Mesopotamia.
[1482] The section extending from this point on to ch. xii. is found word for word in the Greek of Epiphanius, num. 25.
[1483] μιξιν δὲ ητοι σύγκρασιν.
[1484] προβάλλειν ἐξ αὐτοῦ δύναμιν. But the Codex Bobiensis gives produxit ex virtute, put forth from His power one, etc. The Codex Casinensis has produxerit et esse virtutem, etc.
[1485] The text is simply καὶ αὐτὴν προβεβληκέναι τὸν πρῶτον ἄνθρωπον, τὰ πέντε στοιχεια. The Latin, with emendations from the Codex Bobiensis and Epiphanius, gives quâ virtute circumdedit primum hominem, quæ sunt quinque elementa, etc., = with which power He begirt the first man, which is the same as the five elements, etc. With slight differences the Codex Bobiensis reads quâ circumdedit, and the Codex Casinensis, quæ virtute.Petavius pointed out that there is probably an omission in the text here. And from a passage in Epiphanius, Hær., lxvi. n. 45, it has been proposed to fill out the sentence thus: προβάλλειν ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ δύναμιν μητέρα τῆς ζωῆς, καὶ αὐτὴν προβεβληκέναι τὸν πρῶτον ἄνθρωπον, αὐτὴν δὲ τὴν μητέρα τῆς ζωῆς τόν τε πρῶτον ἄνθρωπον τὰ πέντε στοιχεῖα. The sense might then be that the good Father put forth from Himself a power called the Mother of Life, that this Mother of Life put forth the first man, and that the said Mother of Life and the first man put forth (or constituted) the five elements. See the note in Routh’s Reliquiæ Sacræ, v. p. 49.
[1486] The Codex Bobiensis omits the ventus, wind.
[1487] The Greek gives ἐστερέωσεν ἐν τῷ στερεώματι. The Latin version has, “crucifixit eos in firmamento.” And Routh apparently favours the reading ἐσταύρωσεν = crucified them, etc. Valesius and the Codex Bobiensis have, “descendens eduxit principes Jesu, exiens in firmamentum quod est,” etc.
[1488] εἰς εἴδη ὀκτώ. The Latin however, gives et sunt octo, “and they are eight;” thus apparently having read εἰσὶ δὲ ὀκτώ, instead of εἰς εἴδη ὀκτώ.
[1489] i.e., one who bears on his shoulders, the upholder.
[1490] Reading ἐκ τῶν κόλπων, de sinibus suis. But the Codex Bobiensis gives de finibus, from His own territories.
[1491] The Greek text is, ὅπως αὐτῷ τὴν προσήκουσαν ἐπιτιμίαν δῷ. The Latin gives, “quo illum, ut par erat, coerceret.” The Codex Bobiensis reads, “quod illum, ut pareret, coerceret.” It is clear also that Petavius read correctly ἐπιτιμίαν for ἐπιθυμίαν in Epiphanius.
[1492] τὰ φυτά.
[1493] ἔδησεν. The Codex Bobiensis gives, “vexit animam in eo.”
[1494] But certain codices read et parebat, “and was obedient,” in stead of apparebat.
[1495] κάδους.
[1496] πορθμεῖν.
[1497] ἀπόκρουσιν. The Codex Casinensis has apocrisin; but the Codex Bobiensis gives apocrusin.
[1498] The text gives τῆς ψυχῆς. But from the old Latin version, which has animarum, we may conjecture that τῶν ψυχῶν was read.
[1499] The Latin version has “vir perfectus,”—a reading which is due apparently to the fact that the author had mistaken the ἀήρ of the Greek for ἀνήρ. [See note 2, p. 176, supra.]
[1500] ὁ θερισμὸς ἀρχων. The version of Petavius has, “Sic et princeps alter, messor appellatus.” Perhaps the reading should be ὁ θερισμοῦ ἄρχων.
[1501] λοιμόν. Other codices give famem, as reading λιμόν, famine.
[1502] ἐὰν δὲ τὰ ἄνω τῆς ῥίζης πόνῳ σαλύσῃ. It may be also = And if the upper parts of the root shake under the exertion.
[1503] πῶς μεταγγίζεται ἡ ψυχὴ εἰς πέντε σώματα. But the Codex Bobiensis reads transferuntur; and the Latin version gives “quomodo et animæ in alia quoque corpora transfunduntur” = how the souls are also transfused into other bodies.
[1504] The text gives κελεφῶν, which is spoken of in Migne as an unknown animal, though κέλεφος (thus accentuated) occurs in ecclesiastical writers in the sense of a leper. It is proposed to read ἐλεφαντιῶν, “of elephants;” and so the Codex Bobiensis gives “elephantorum corpora,” and Codex Casinensis has “in elefantia eorum corpora,” which is probably an error for “in elephantiacorum corpora.” Routh suggests ἐλεφαντείων. [Reliqu. Sac., vol. v. p. 58.]
[1505] θερίασα, reaping.
[1506] νοῦς, ἔννοια, φρόνησις, ἐνθύμησις, λογισμός. The Latin version renders, mens, sensus, prudentia, intellectus, cogitatio. Petavius gives, mens, notio, intelligentia, cogitatio, ratiocinatio.
[1507] τοῖς ἀπαρχῆς οὖσιν εἰς σκότος. But the Latin version gives “qui ex materia orti,” etc.—who, having sprung from matter, are in darkness.
[1508] ὁρνίθιον.
[1509] Explained as a species of Egyptian tree, in which the fruit grows from the stem. The Codex Casinensis has the strange reading, per se ad illam, for perseam, etc. See also Epiphanius, num. 9.
[1510] εἰς τὰ ὅλα σώματα.
[1511] πήσσει. But the Latin version gives vulnerat, “wounds,” from the reading πλήσσει. [Note 2, p. 176, supra.]
[1512] εὐσέβειαν. But the Latin version gives alimenta.
[1513] εἰς τὰς γενεάς. But the Latin version has “pœnis subdetur gehennæ” = will suffer the pains of hell. [Compare p. 185, infra, “Gehen.”]
[1514] But the Latin version gives, “respondet ad eum qui ei detulit” = he makes answer to the person who brought it to him.
[1515] The text is, καὶ πάλιν εἰσιν ἕτεροι κόσμοι τινὲς, τῶν φωστήρων δυνάντων ἀπὸ τούτου τοῦ κόσμου, ἐξ ὧν ἀνατέλλουσι. Routh suggests οἴς τινὲς, deleting ἐξ ὧν.
[1516] Reading εἴ τις, as in the text. Routh suggests εἴ τι, = As to everything existing in this world, I have told you that the body thereof does, etc.
[1517] But the Latin has “qui vocatur,” etc. = which is called, etc. And Routh thereof proposes ὃς καλεῖται for οὐ καλεῖται.
[1518] The text gives simply ἡ γνῶσις. The Codex Bobiensis has et scientia. Hence Routh would read καὶ ἡ γνῶσις, and the knowledge.
[1519] Retaining the reading ὑμῖν, though Petavius would substitute ἠμῖν, us. [Routh corrects Petav., R. S., vol. v. pp. 63, 64.]
[1520] ἁπλάριοι, in the Latin version Simpliciores, a name apparently given to the Catholics by the Manichæans. See Ducangii Glossarium mediæ et infimæ Græcitatis. [Routh, v. p. 65, worth noting.]
[1521] The text gives ὁ ἐστὶ πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος. Routh proposes ὃ ἐστὶ, etc.
[1522] Or, they.
[1523] μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἔχουσι δεθῆναι.
[1524] ἐπὶ τέλει.
[1525] The text is κάθως αὐτὸς ἔγραψεν· ῾Ο πρεσβύτης, etc. The Codex Bobiensis gives, “Sicut ipse senior scripsit: Cum manifestam feceris,” etc., = As the elder himself wrote: When thou hast, etc. The elder here is probably the same as the third elder farther on.
[1526] The Greek is, ἀφίησι τὸν βῶλον μετὰ τοῦ νέου αἰῶνος; but the Latin version has the strangely diverse rendering, “dimittunt animam quæ objicitur inter medium novi sæculi” = they let go the soul that is placed in the midst of the new age. [Routh has τὴν βῶλον.]
[1527] ἀνδριάς.
[1528] But the Latin gives, “cum statuta venerit dies” = when the appointed day has come.
[1529] αἱ δὲ προβολαὶ πᾶσαι.
[1530] πλοίῳ. [See Routh, p. 68, on this locus mire depravatus.]
[1531] κυβερνῆται.
[1532] τεῖχος.
[1533] τῶν δύο φύσεων. But the Latin version gives duorum luminarium, and the Codex Casinensis has luminariorum, the two luminaries.
[1534] Reading κλίματα, with Petavius, for κλήματα.
[1535] The Codex Casinensis makes no mention of Thomas.
[1536] Here ends the Greek of Epiphanius.
[1537] The words, the bishop, are omitted in the Codex Bobiensis.
[1538] But Codex Bobiensis gives duodecim, twelve.
[1539] But the Codex Bobiensis gives trisolium, the trisole. Strabo, book xv., tells us that the Persians wore high shoes.
[1540] Aërina, sky-like. [This portrait seems from life.]
[1541] Ducange in his Glossary, under the word Εβέλλινος, shows from Callisthenes that the prophets or interpreters of sacred things carried an ebony staff. [Ezek. xxvii. 15; Routh, p. 71.]
[1542] The text is, “vultus vero ut senis Persæ artificis et bellorum ducis videbatur.” Philippus Buonarruotius, in the Osservazioni sopra alcuni frammenti di vasi antichi di Vetro, Florence, 1716, p. 69, thinks that this rendering has arisen from the Latin translator’s having erroneously read ὡς δημιουργοῦ καὶ στρατηγοῦ instead of ὡς δημάρχου καὶ στρατηγοῦ. Taking στρατηγοῦ, therefore, in the civil sense which it bears in various passages, he would interpret the sentence thus: “His whole mien was like that of an old Persian tribune and magistrate.” See Gallandi’s note [in Routh, p. 71].
[1543] The text is secretius factum, etc. Routh suggests secretius factus, etc.
[1544] The Codex Bobiensis reads “Ægidius.”
[1545] Epiphanius gives Κλεόβουλος.
[1546] Codex Casinensis reads rectores, governors. And Epiphanius, num. 10, makes the first a professor of Gentile philosophy, the second a physician, the third a grammarian, and the fourth a rhetorician.
[1547] For primum the Codex Casinensis reads plurima, = he began a lengthened statement, etc.
[1548] Thus far Valesius edited the piece from the Codex Bobiensis.
[1549] Reading emendato. Codex Casinensis gives enim dato.
[1550] John xvi. 8. Injustitia. This reading, de injustitia, may be due to an error on the part of the scribe, but is more probably to be referred to the practice pursued by Manes in altering and corrupting the sacred text to suit his own tenets. See Epiphanius on this heresy, num. 53, and cap. 53, infra. [“He introduced much new matter.”]
[1554] Patrem diaboli.
[1556] Referring, perhaps, to John i. 5.
[1557] The text gives, “ut insequerentur.…Verbum, et inimicum,” etc. The sense seems to be as above, supposing either that the verb insequerentur is used with the meaning of assailing, persecuting, or that the ut is put for ut ne, as is the case with the excæcat ut at the close of the sentence.
[1559] Eph. vi. 12; 2 Cor. iv. 4.
[1560] Reading differens. But Codex Casinensis gives disserens.
[1561] Transformare.
[1562] Informatum.
[1564] Cf.Heb. viii. 13.
[1566] In inscitias ire vultis. It is proposed to read inficias = and yet ye desire to deny the truth. Routh suggests, et odistis et in inscitiam ire vultis = and ye hate it, and choose to take your way into ignorance.
[1567] Supplying observetis in the clause ut legem, etc.
[1568] Prævaricatorem. Gal. ii. 18 [Vulgate. But see p. 176].
[1570] Or, standard.
[1571] Titulo.
[1572] Ergastula.
[1573] Or, in the wicked one. 1 John v. 19.
[1574] The text gives “extra eum.” Routh suggests Deum, outside of God.
[1575] Vas.
[1576] The text gives simply “quod Dei substantia,” etc. We may perhaps adopt, with Routh, “quod si Dei,” etc.
[1577] Sedes. [“Thrones,” as in Milton.] Routh suggests sidera, luminaries.
[1578] Ingenitæ.
[1579] Fructus.
[1580] The reference is to the ancient custom of using wax and certain earths and clays for the purpose of affixing, by means of the ring, a seal with an impression on any object which it was desired to secure. Thus Herodotus, ii. 38, tell us how the Egyptians marked the pure victim by wrapping it round the horns with papyrus, and then smearing some sealing earth (γῆν σημαντρίδα) on it, and stamping it with a ring. See also Cicero, Pro Flacco, where he speaks of the laudatio obsignata cretâ illa Asiatica; and Plautus, Pseudolus, Scene i., where he mentions the expressam in cera ex annulo suam imaginem, etc. [Compare vol. v. p. 466, note 3, this series.]
[1581] The text is “quid dixerit adversarii;” some propose “quod” or “quia dixerit,” etc.
[1582] The manuscript reading is, “tam si quidem ex hoc arbitratus est se affirmaturum.” For this it is proposed to read, as in the translation, “tametsi quidem ex hoc arbitratus es me affirmaturum.”
[1583] The text gives ingentem. Routh suggests inscientem, stupid.
[1584] [Vol. iii. 301–302. See Coleridge (on Donne), English Divines, vol. i. p. 87.]
[1585] Adopting the proposed reading, “et ideo duæ, ingenitæ naturæ esse non possunt.” The text omits the duæ, however; and in that case the sense would be simply, And consequently there cannot be unbegotten natures; or perhaps, And so they (the creatures) cannot be of an unbegotten nature.
[1587] Propria.
[1588] Didicisti. But perhaps we ought to read dixisti, which you have been uttering.
[1589] Aliena, of what is alien.
[1590] The text runs thus: “ut si dicamus, Judæus, si velit fieri Christianus, aut si Christianus velit esse gentilis, hæc species est convertibilitatis et causa.”
[1591] The text gives convertibiles. Routh suggests inconvertibiles, inconvertible.
[1592] The text is unum dicamus ingenitum. Routh suggests unum bonum, etc. = Why should we not speak of only one unbegotten good?
[1593] The text is, “quod si suis eum dicas extitisse malum, sine dubio ergo ostenditur illum bonæ esse naturæ.” Routh suggests, “quia istis suis adversatur qui mali sunt,” etc. = The fact that he is adverse to those who are of his own kin, and who are evil, would be a proof that he comes of a good nature.
[1595] Or, kin to it, vicinum habet interitum.
[1597] The text is, “creati hominis causa invenitur exstitisse malitiæ,” for which we read “creatio hominis,” etc.
[1599] Ingenitam.
[1600] The text gives “quoniam quod futurum est nescio, homo enim sum, non tamen,” etc. Routh suggests “quonam? quod futurum,” etc. = What has that to do with the matter? The future I know not, etc.
[1601] The text is, “sed homo a mala natura plasmatus manifestum est quia ipse sit fructus,” etc.
[1602] Routh, however, points differently, so that the sense is: Be assured that it is necessary to give some proof, etc.…For the quality of a wine, etc.
[1603] The text is, “ex hominis tempore a se creati cur malus ostendatur,” which is taken to be equivalent to, “ex tempore quo hominem ipse creavit,” etc.
[1604] The reading adopted by Migne is, “si ergo ex eo homo est, mala natura, demonstratur quomodo suus fuit, ut frequenter ostendi.” Others put the sentence interrogatively = If man takes his origin from him, (and) the evil nature is thus demonstrated, in what sense was man his own, etc.? Routh suggests ex quo for ex eo = If the evil nature is demonstrated just from the time of man’s existence, how was man, etc.?
[1605] The reading is inutilitatem. But Routh points that this is probably the translation of τὴν εὐτέλειαν, vilitatem, meanness.
[1607] Dominatione et observantiæ usu.
[1610] 1 Cor. iii. 17; 2 Cor. vi. 16.
[1611] The reading is scit et audit. Routh somewhat needlessly suggests scite audit = he who hears intelligently.
[1612] The codex gives “hic enim qui exstruis.” It is proposed to read “sic enim qui exstruit” = For in this very way he who constructs.
[1613] The text gives “quod si dicat quis inimicum esse eum qui plasmaverit corpus; Deus qui Creator,” etc. The Codex Casinensis reads Deum. We adopt the emendation Deo and the altered punctuation, thus: “quod si dicat quis inimicum esse eum qui plasmaverit corpus Deo qui creator est animæ,” etc.
[1614] Reading “per conjunctionem” for the simple conjunctionem.
[1615] Reading “natus est et creatus.” The Codex Casinensis has “natus est creatus.”
[1616] Matt. vi. 9; Luke xi. 2.
[1619] Codex Casinensis gives introduceret; but, retaining the reference to the Gentiles we read introducerent.
[1620] Matt. xxiii. 25; Luke xi. 39.
[1622] Matt. xxiii. 6; Mark xii. 38; Luke xx. 46.
[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.
[1625] Dividitur.
[1626] Reading majus for the inept malus of the Codex Casinensis.
[1627] Routh refers us here to Maximus, De Natura, § 2. See Reliquiæ Sacræ, ii. 89–91.
[1628] The text is “multo inferior virtutis humanæ,” which is probably a Græcism.
[1629] Reading ceu for the eu of the Codex Casinensis.
[1630] The Codex Casinensis gives “nec quæ vellem quidem,” for which “nec æqualem quidem,” etc., is suggested, as in the translation.
[1632] The text gives a quo si, etc. Routh suggests atqui si, etc.
[1633] Medietas.
[1634] Reading objectu…creaturarum, instead of obtectu, etc., in Codex Casinensis.
[1635] The text of this sentence stands thus in Migne and Routh: “cui enim non fiat manifestum, solem istum visibilem, cum ab oriente fuerit exortus, et tetenderit iter suum ad occidentem, cum sub terram ierit, et interior effectus fuerit ea quæ apud Græcos sphæra vocatur, quod tunc objectu corporum obumbratus non appareat?” The Codex Casinensis reads quod nunc oblectu, etc. We should add that it was held by Anaximander and others that there was a species of globe or sphere (σφαῖρα) which surrounded the universe. [Vol. ii. p. 136. n. 2.]
[1636] Reading ex suimet ipsius umbra for exuet ipsius umbra, which is given in the Codex Casinensis.
[1637] Plagam.
[1638] Ministrante.
[1639] The text is “Sicut autem ante,” etc. Routh suggests, Sole adeunte, etc.
[1640] Reading “ex æquo et justo, solis fulgore,” etc. The Codex Casinensis has “ex ea quo solis fulgure.”
[1641] The text is altogether corrupt—sed non intui hunc fieri ratus sum; so that the sense can only be guessed at. Routh suggests istud for intui.
[1642] Codex Casinensis gives “omni nisi,” for which we adopt “omni nisu.”
[1643] Reading utriusque majus. The Codex Casinensis has utrunque majus.
[1644] The text is dicit, for which dicitur may be adopted.
[1646] Reading “patefaceret” for the “partum faceret” of Codex Casinensis.
[1647] The text gives sine hoc uno. But perhaps Routh is right in suggesting muro for uno = without this wall.
[1648] Some suppose that Archelaus refers here to the taking of Charræ by the Persians in the time of Valerianus Augustus, or to its recapture and restoration to the Roman power by the Eastern king Odenathus during the empire of Gallienus.
[1649] The ballista was a large engine fitted with cords somewhat like a bow, by which large masses of stone and other missiles were hurled to a great distance.
[1650] The sense is obscure here. The text gives, “non substantia id est proposito adversarius quis dejecit,” etc. Migne edits the sentence without an interrogation. We adopt the interrogative form with Routh. The idea perhaps is, Did no adversary with materials such as the kings of earth use, and that is as much as to say also with a determinate plan, overthrow, etc.?
[1651] The Codex Casinensis has “nec mirum putandum est consortio,” etc. We read with Routh and others, si ejus consortio, or quod ejus consortio, etc.
[1653] The text gives simply, sicut enim hæc. Routh suggests hæ.
[1654] Reading illæsis oculis for the illius oculis of Codex Casinensis.
[1656] The text gives et jam quidem for the etiam quidem of the Cod. Casin.
[1658] Apprehensus est hoc ingenio. For hoc here, Routh suggests hic in reference to the leo so that the sense might be = But by this plan the lion was caught, and hereafter He will save the soul.
[1659] The text is, “Quando enim pastor, nonne David de ore leonis,” etc. We adopt the amended reading, “Quando enim pastor hoc fecit? Nonne David,” etc.
[1660] Routh would put this interrogatively = Can he bring out of the mouth or the belly of the lion what it has once devoured?
[1661] This seems to be the sense intended. The text in the Codex Casinensis runs thus: “Cur igitur quod possit non illud potius asseris quod poterit propria virtute vincere leonem, si et pura Dei potentia,” etc. For si et pura we may read sive pura, or si est pura, etc.
[1662] Routh takes it as a direct assertion = It follows, then, that these two objects are of one substance, etc.
[1663] The text runs, “sed aliud alio longe differre ignorantiam pastori ascribimus;” for which we adopt the emendation, “sed alium ab alio longe differre si dicamus, ignorantiam pastori ascribimus.”
[1664] Migne reads irrueret. Routh gives irruerat, had made an assault.
[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.
[1666] Reading eum ipse for eum ipsum.
[1667] Reading si quis for the simple quis of Codex Casinensis.
[1668] Reading “quæstione rejecta” for the relecta of Codex Casinensis.
[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.
[1670] Reading aiebat for the agebat of Codex Casinensis.
[1671] 2 Cor. xiii. 3. The reading here is, “Aut documentum quæritis,” etc. The Vulgate also gives An experimentum, for the Greek ἐπεί, etc.
[1672] The text is, “et quidem quod dico tali exemplo sed clarius.” For sed it is proposed to read fit, or sit, or est.
[1673] Codex Casinensis has quicunque. We adopt the correction, qui cum nec.
[1674] Reading confutatus for confugatus.
[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.
[1676] The text has, “sedens ipse per se,” etc.; for which we adopt “sed et ipse,” etc.
[1677] The Codex Casinensis gives, “deinde die moriturus,” which may be either a mistake for “deinde moriturus,” or a contraction for “deinde die qua moriturus”—then on the day that he was about to die, etc.
[1678] The codex has, “Sin autem conderem se dicens, exposceret, devitarent persequi,” etc.; which is corrected to, “Sin autem cohæredem se dicens exposceret, devitarent atque,” etc., which emendation is followed in the translation.
[1679] Opus autem magis facere debere.
[1680] The same sort of argument is employed against the Montanists by Theodorus of Heracleia on John’s Gospel, ch. xiv. 17.
[1681] It is remarked in Migne, that it is only in the heat of his contention that this statement is made by Archelaus as to the date of the appearance of Manes; for from the death of Christ on to the time of this discussion there are only some 249 years. [Is it not probable that here is a token of the spurious character of not a little of this work?]
[1684] Reading “sed absit hoc a Domino nostro Jesu Christo Salvatore omnis animæ,” instead of the codex’s “sed absit hanc a Domino Jesu Christo Salvatore omne animæ.”
[1685] If the reference, however, is to 2 Pet. iii. 9, as Routh suggests, it may rather be = He was not slack concerning His promises. The text is, “non enim moratus est in promissionibus suis.” [A noteworthy reference to the second Epistle of St. Peter. For, if this work be a mere romance, yet its undoubted antiquity makes it useful, not only in this, but in many other critical matters.]
[1687] Reading “abundantius vero conferens Paulo,” instead of the corrupt text in the Codex Casinensis, “abundantibus vero confitens Paulo.”
[1688] The opening sentences of this chapter are given in a very corrupt form in our Codex Casinensis. Its text stands thus: “Tuum et ipsius indicio comprehensus es; hæc enim versum te locutus, ignorans, qui dum, me vis probra conjicere majori culpæ se succumbit. Dic age mihi studias qua Tiberio usque ad Probum defuncti sunt, dicent ad Jesum nolite nos judicare,” etc. We have adopted these emendations: tuimet for tuum et; adversum for versum; ignoras for ignorans; in me for me; succumbis for se succumbit; si, ut ais, qui a, for studias qua; and noli for nolite.
[1689] Supplying missurum, which is not in the codex.
[1690] Reading “noli nos tradere tormentis,” instead of the meaningless “noli nostra de tormentis” of the codex.
[1691] Reading ut ais instead of ut eas.
[1693] Nec quemquam vivificat. 2 Cor. iii. 6.
[1699] Reading reliqui per ordinem for the qui per ordinem of the codex.
[1702] Reading “per hunc modum.” But the Codex Casinensis gives “per hunc mundum”—through this world.
[1708] The text is “sufficit tibi hæc sunt an habes et alia.” Routh proposes “sufficientia tibi hæc sunt,” etc.
[1709] Routh would make it = You will come under the condemnation…you will have to bear: he suggests eris ergo for ero ego, and feras for feram.
[1712] Nec aliter nisi essent ingenita. Routh, however, would read esset for essent, making it = and that death could be nothing else than unbegotten.
[1713] Reading ex tempore for the corrupt exemplo re of the codex.
[1715] Wisd. i. 13.
[1716] The text gives discere, to learn; but dicere seems the probable reading.
[1717] Reading inquam for the iniquam of the Codex Casinensis. But Routh suggests iniquæ, in reference to what has been said towards the close of ch. xxviii.
[1718] The codex gives, “cum eas inimica semper memoriæ ineresis sed oblivio;” which is corrected thus, “cum eis inimica semper memoriæ inhæsisset oblivio.”
[1719] The text writes it Juda.
[1721] This would appear to be the meaning of these words, “transferens semper usque ad tempus in similes illius,” if we suppose the speaker still to be keeping Rom. v. 12-14 in view. Routh suggests transiens.
[1722] Referring perhaps to Ps. cv. 15.
[1723] Reading interitui tradens for the interit ut tradens of the codex.
[1724] Reading pacti for the acti of the codex.
[1725] Mors.
[1728] Recte videre. But perhaps we should read “recte vivere,” to lead a righteous life.
[1729] The phrase is imaginariam legem.On this expression there is a note in Migne, which is worth quoting, to this effect: Archelaus calls the Old Testament an emblematic or imaginary law, because it was the type or image of a future new law. So, too, Petrus de Vineis, more than once in his Epistles, calls a messenger or legate a homo imaginarius, as Du Cange observes in his Glossary, because he represents the person by whom he is sent, and, as it were, reflects his image. This word is also used in a similar manner by the old interpreter of Evagrius the monk, in the Disputation between Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria, and Simon the Jew, ch. 13, where the Sabbath is called the requies imaginaria of that seventh day on which God rested. Hence Archelaus, in his answer to the presbyter Diodorus, ch xli. beneath, devotes himself to proving that the Old Testament is not to he rejected, because, like a mirror, it gives us a true image of the new law.
[1731] Reading “invisibilia autem et intrinsecus.” The Codex Casinensis has “invisibili autem et trinsecus.”
[1732] Absurdam, standing probably for ἄτοπον, which may also be = flagitious.
[1733] The codex reads, “ultionem fecerat retorquebat.” We adopt either “ultionem quam fecerat retorquebat,” or “ultionem fecit retorqueri.”
[1738] This is one of those passages in which we detect the tendency of many of the early fathers to adopt the peculiar opinions of the Jewish rabbis on difficult points of Scripture. See also the Disputation between Theophilus of Alexandria and the Jew Simon, ch. 13. In accordance with the opinion propounded here by Archelaus, we find, for instance, in the Scemoth Rabba, p. 157, col. 1, that the making of the golden calf is ascribed to the Egyptian proselytes. See the note in Migne. [The passage is a note of antiquity and in so far of authenticity.]
[1739] The text is in quo nec scelerum pœnas aliquando rependeret.
[1741] Reading commonens for communis ne. Communiens is also suggested.
[1743] We have another instance here of a characteristic opinion of the Jewish rabbis adopted by a Christian father. This notion as to the intercourse of the angels with the daughters of men was a current interpretation among the Jews from the times of Philo and Josephus, and was followed in whole or in part by Tertullian, Justin, Irenæus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Athenagoras, Methodius, Cyprian, Lactantius, etc. Consult the note in Migne; [also p. 131, note 2, supra].
[1744] We give the above as a possible rendering. Routh, however, understands the matter otherwise. The text is, “alii vero in felicitate hominum filiabus admisti a dracone afflicti,” etc. Routh takes the phrase in felicitate as ="adhuc in statu felici existentes:” so that the sense would be, “others, while they still abode in the blessed estate, had intercourse,” etc. [Routh, R. S., vol. v. pp. 118–122.]
[1745] Archelaus seems here to assign a twofold etymology for the name devil, deriving the Greek διάβολος, accuser, from διαβάλλω, in its two senses of trajicere and traducere, to cross over and to slander.
[1750] Reading a nobis for the a vobis of the codex.
[1752] Ex uno.
[1753] The sense is obscure here. The text runs, “Interimere debes judicii ratione ut quis nostrum fallat appareat.” Migne proposes to read rationem, as if the idea intended was this: That, consistently with his reasonings, Manes ought not to admit the fact of a judgment, because the notions he has propounded on the subject of men and angels are not reconcilable with such a belief.—If this can be accepted as the probable meaning, then it would seem that the use of the verb interimere may be due to the fact that the Greek text gave ἀνᾶιρεῖν, between the two senses of which—viz. to kill and to remove—the translator did not correctly distinguish. Routh, however, proposes to read interimi, taking it as equivalent to condemnari, so that the idea might be = on all principles of sound judgment you ought to be condemned, etc.
[1754] The codex reads simply, Dei servare mandata. We may adopt either Dei non servare mandata, as above, or, Dei servare vel non servare mandata, in reference to the freedom of will, and so = they may or may not keep the commandments.
[1755] The codex has præcedit, for which procedit is proposed.
[1756] Reading “læderet—illuderetur.” But might it not rather be “læderet—illidertur,” not to bruise, but rather to be bruised, etc.?
[1758] This appears to be general sense of the very corrupt passage, “Quo videntur ostenso nulli dubium est unusquisque in quamcunque elegerit partem propria usus arbitrii potestate.” In Migne it is amended thus: “Quo evidenter ostenso, nulli dubium est, quod unusquisque in quamcunque elegerit partem, propria usus fuerit arbitrii potestate.”
[1759] Adopting the emendation, “si a Deo bonus, ut asseris, mendacem esse dixisti Jesum.” In the Codex Casinensis it stands thus: “sic a Deo bonus ut as mendacem esse dixisti Jesus.” But Routh would substitute “si a Deo diabolus” = if the devil is from God.
[1760] The argumentation throughout this passage seems to rest on the fact that, in support of the dogma of the evil deity, Manes perverted, among other passages, our Lord’s words in John viii. 44, as if they were not only “Ye are of your father the devil” but possibly also, “Ye are of the father of the devil;” and again, “He is a liar, and the father of him is the same.” Thus what Manes urges against Archelaus is this: If only what is good proceeds from the Deity, and if He is the Supreme Good Himself, you make out Jesus to have spoken falsely, when in John’s Gospel He uses expressions which imply that the devil’s father is a liar, and also the Creator of the lying devil.
[1761] There are some words deficient in this sentence. The text reads, “Manes dixit:…dico: et adjecit, Omnis qui conditor est vel Creator aliquorum pater eorum…condiderit appellatur.” It is proposed to supply jam before dico, and quæ before condiderit.
[1762] Reading et effectum for the ut effectum of the codex.
[1763] Or it may be “cogitations,” reading cogitata for agitata.
[1764] Conceptis in se doloribus.
[1766] The text gives parturies. Routh suggests parturiens. The sense then might be, But if you repent, you will also deliver yourself of your burden like one who brings to the birth.
[1767] Reading Domine for Dominum, which is given in the text.
[1768] The quotation may refer to Isa. xxvi. 18. [A curious version.]
[1770] Conturbari.
[1771] Translatis in se.
[1773] Pœnitentia. [2 Cor. vii. 10.]
[1774] Ætatis ac temporis privilegio.
[1775] Velociter.
[1776] Nec in aliquo remoratus.
[1777] The text gives “inter unius anni spatium,” for which intra, etc., is proposed. With certain others of the fathers, Archelaus seems to assign but one year to the preaching of Christ and to His working of miracles. See ch. xlix. [Vol. i. p. 391, this series.]
[1778] Referring probably to Heb. i. 3.
[1779] Migne gives this sentence as a direct statement. We adopt the interrogative form with Routh.
[1780] Eph. iii. 8. Mihi autem soli, etc.
[1782] The text reads, “quem misit ad nos Paulum in Spiritus influxit Spiritus,” etc. We adopt the emendation, “quem misit ad nos Paulum in Spiritu. Influxit Spiritus,” etc. Routh suggests, “Paulum cujus in spiritum influxit Spiritus” = this Paul, into whose spirit the Spirit was poured.
[1783] In conspectu regum et gentium. Acts ix. 15.
[1784] Consecrans. [Vol. v. p. 290, note 8; also p. 409.]
[1788] 1 Cor. xv. 9, 10. Archelaus here gives “novissimus omnium apostolorum” for the ἐλάχιστος of the Greek, and the “minimus” of the Vulgate. [“The last” instead of least.]
[1789] Vult habere.
[1790] Reading “magnifico honore” for the “magnifico hoc ore” of the codex.
[1793] Aut.
[1795] Undecim apostolis.
[1796] 1 Cor. xv. 3-9. [Note 8, supra.]
[1798] Christum.
[1799] Nihil minus feci vobis a cæteris apostolis. 2 Cor. xi. 3-5.
[1800] 2 Cor. ix. 14, 15. The text gives “velut angelum lucis,” as if the Greek had read ὡς. So also Cyprian, in the beginning of his book on The Unity of the Church. [Vol. v. p. 422, sec. 3.]
[1801] Avertere vos.
[1803] Infimo omnium apostolorum.
[1807] The Codex Casinensis gives, “de Persida venientem monet;” for which corrupt reading it is proposed to substitute “de Perside venientem Manem,” etc.
[1808] Reading percipiendum with the Vulgate. But the Codex Casinensis has perficiendum.
[1810] These words falsi apostoli seem to be added by way of explanation, as they are not found either in the Greek or the Vulgate.
[1811] Matt. xxiv. 4-5, 23-26.
[1812] Radicati.
[1813] Immobiles.
[1814] Audivimus.
[1817] The text gives “circum cucurri,” perhaps for “cursum cucurri.” The Vulgate has “cursum consummavi.”
[1819] The text gives “ex vobis.” But perhaps we should read “ex nobis” = none of us.
[1820] The Codex Casinensis has “Galatam facies vicit, o nostras feras”, for which we adopt the correction, “Galatam facies, nec ita nos.”
[1821] O Satan! The Codex Casinensis gives “anathema esse ana,” which may be an error, either for “anathema es, Satana,” or for “anathema es et maranatha.” [“O Satan” is less probable.]
[1822] The text is legum; for which regum, kings, is also suggested.
[1824] The text gives, “qui neque necessarium aliquem locum sortitus es,” etc. Routh proposes “necessarii.” The sense seems to be that Manes had nothing to prove any connection between him and Christ.
[1825] Reading “quos luto,” etc., for the “quod luto” of the codex.
[1826] [Note, against Canon Farrar and moderns, the persuasion of antiquity as to the miraculous gift of tongues; the charismata of others, also, besides the Apostles.] The text is, “quæ ne in numerum quidem aliquem ducitur.”
[1828] The text gives “Quid dicabo,” which may stand for “quid dicam;” or perhaps the translator intends to use “dicare” in the sense of urge.
[1829] Reading barbare, for which the text offers barba.
[1830] Conscium. [For Mithras, see vol. iii. p. 475.]
[1831] In this sentence the sense is somewhat obscure, in consequence of the corruptions of the text in the codex. We adopt the emendations “locorum mysticorum,” for mysteriorum, and “apud eos ludes” for ludis. In the end of the clause Migne gives, as in the translation, “et tanquam minus elegans,” etc. But Routh reads mimus = and like an elegant pantomimist, etc.
[1832] The Codex Casinensis gives the sentence thus: “…adveniat? suscitans mortuos? pene usque ad gehennam omnes persequens, qui si ut obtemperare noluerit, plurimos deterrens arrogantiæ metu, Quod est ipse circumdatus, aliis adhibet minas vultus sui conversione circumdatio ludificat.” The emendation adopted by Migne and Routh consist in removing these two interrogative marks, and in reading qui sibi for qui si ut, noluerint for noluerit, quo est for Quod est, adhibens for adhibet, and et circumductione ludificans for the last two words.
[1834] The sense is again obscure throughout this sentence, owing to the state of the text. The codex gives us this clause, “nulli alio atque posterum,” etc., for which “nulli alii æque in posterum” is proposed.
[1836] Reading “qui solus,” for the sed, etc., of the codex. See also Luke x. 22.
[1839] Inducias fortassis aliquas quærit.
[1840] Reading “non plane, non tam obscure,” etc., instead of the “non plane nota,” etc., of the Codex Casinensis.
[1841] “Protectores,” on which term consult Ducangius in his Glossary.
[1842] Signa, dracones, labaros.
[1844] The text gives simply, sicut enim parva. We may adopt, with Routh, “sicut enim cum parva,” etc.
[1845] Reading “sic ut istius comparatione,” for the “sicut istius paratione” of the codex.
[1846] Reading se ductores, for the seductores, etc., of the codex.
[1847] Seculis.
[1848] Continentes.
[1850] The precise meaning and connection are somewhat obscure here. The text gives, “verbum enim ducis obtinet locum, opera vero regis.” And the idea is taken to be, that the actual work of thoroughly doing away with the ignorance of men was something that suited only the perfect King who was expected, and that had not been accomplished by Manes.
[1853] Alluding to 2 Tim. iii. 6.
[1854] Routh inserts interdum pœnitet = sometimes he uses the penitential style, which Migne omits.
[1856] Matt. xxv. 46; Luke xiii. 27.
[1857] The text gives the plural form stolas, perhaps for stolam.
[1858] The text gives fugere, apparently in the sense of fugare.
[1860] [Note the testimony against the persecution of heretics,—a characteristic of early Christians which too soon began to disappear, notably in Alexandria under Cyril.]
[1861] Excipi.
[1862] This Diodorus appears to be called Trypho by Epiphanius, on this Manichæan heresy, n. 11.
[1863] Reading concionaretur for continuaretur.
[1864] This epistle is also mentioned, and its argument noticed, by Epiphanius, Hæres., 11.
[1865] Invidia.
[1866] [Tertullian, vol. iii. p. 251, this series.]
[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.]
[1870] Resolvisse.
[1874] Reading cum populis for the cum populo of the text.
[1881] Faciat Deus.
[1882] In litteris formatum in lapidibus.
[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.
[1892] This epistle is edited not only from the Codex Casinensis, but also by Valesius from the Codex Bobiensis. The most important varieties of reading shall therefore be noted.
[1893] Summum studium. But the Codex Bobiensis reads suum studium.
[1894] Reading “ex subtegmine atque stamine,” etc., with the Codex Bobiensis, instead of “subtemine et, quæ stamine,” etc., as it is given in the Codex Casinensis. [A beautiful anticipation of Augustine’s dictum, “The New is veiled in the Old, the Old unveiled in the New.”]
[1895] We read here “gloriam enim Domini in eodem speculamur.” The Codex Bobiensis is vitiated here, giving gloriam um Domini, which was changed by Valesius into gloriam Jesu, etc.
[1896] Reading, with the Codex Bobiensis, “speculum, cum nobis ipsam imaginem,” etc., instead of “speculum nobis per ipsam imaginem,” etc.
[1897] [Here is the literal use of the word “pædagogue,” with which Clement took liberties. Vol. ii. p. 209, note 3, this series.] Adopting “qui ad doctores a pædagogo,” instead of “qui a doctore iis a pædagogo.”
[1898] “Dehonorare,” or, as in the Codex Bobiensis, “dehonestare.”
[1899] Reading “opera ejus non indiget.” But the Codex Casinensis gives “ore ejus,” etc.
[1900] The Codex Bobiensis reads here, “accidit vero post tempus ut is qui…requireret,” etc. The other codex has, “accedit vero post tempus is qui…requirere.”
[1901] Reading pro respectu with Codex Bobiensis. The other codex gives prospectu.
[1902] Reading invenisse. The Codex Casinensis gives venisse.
[1903] Routh suggests pastor, the shepherd, for pater.
[1904] Reading cognata, with Codex Bobiensis, instead of cognita.
[1907] We adopt the reading vides, instead of the faulty unde of the Codex Casinensis.
[1908] Reading quamvis for quum.
[1909] See Heb. iii. 5, 6.
[1910] Luke xvi. 19, etc.
[1911] Infernum. [Sheol, rather, or Hades.]
[1912] The reading of the Codex Casinensis is, “rogavit dives simul uno tempore ut edisceret majorem doctrinam.” But the other codex gives, “uno tempore discere majorem doctrinam ab Abraham” = entreated that he might learn the superior doctrine of Abraham. For edisceret we may read with Routh ediscerent.
[1915] The Codex Casinensis gives, “exige ab eo illa quæ fraudem interceperat;” the other codex gives, “et exigi ab eo illa quæ fraude interceperat.” The correct reading probably would be, “exigi ab eo illa quæ per fraudem interceperat.”
[1916] We adopt the conjecture of Valesius, viz., abstinentia. The Codex Bobiensis gives absentia.
[1919] Reading inflammantur. It may perhaps be inflantur = puffed up.
[1922] Reading et parum hoc est, with Codex Bobiensis, instead of the et pauperum hoc est of Codex Casinensis. We may also render it as ="but it is far from being the case that gifts are cast,” etc.
[1923] The Codex Bobiensis reads inferuntur; the other codex gives offeruntur, offered.
[1926] The text gives sed abuti, and the Codex Bobiensis has sed et abuti. But the reading ought probably to be sed et uti, or sed etiam uti. Routh, however, notices that abutor is found with the sense of utor.
[1927] Plane.
[1929] Mark ii. 19. [I have slightly accommodated the translation to this text.]
[1930] In semetipsum causam circumcisionis excepit.
[1931] [From Job 2.10; Heb. 4.15; 6.1-8 Scripture abounds in this teaching. Comp. Lam. iii. 33.]
[1932] The Codex Bobiensis gives, “viæ compendiosum nobis tramitem demonstrare.” We adopt the reading, “viæ spatia compendioso nobis tramite demonstrare.”
[1936] Compendia viæ.
[1940] Reading “prævaricator” instead of “prædicator.” The sense would seem strictly to require, a debtor to the law.
[1941] Atramentum.
[1943] The Codex Bobiensis gives, “figuli opus aufers aut fictilium.” The Codex Casinensis has, “figuli opus et ars aut fictilium.” We adopt “figuli opus aut ars fictilium.”
[1944] Adopting “nequaquam” for “nec quemquam.”
[1945] By this he means the Epistle to the Romans, to which the first place among the epistles of Paul was assigned from the most ancient times. In Epiphanius, under heresy 42, it is alleged as an offence against Marcion, that he put the Epistle to the Romans in the fourth place among Paul’s epistles. See a note in Migne. [Again, this expression is a note of genuine antiquity.]
[1946] Reading “propositus” for “propheticus.”
[1947] The Codex Casinensis has formatum; the other codex gives firmatum.
[1949] The text gives, “neque vero omnigene in ignobilitatem redigitur,” etc. The Codex Bobiensis has, “neque vero omni genere in nobilitate.”
[1950] Reading “scisse se differentias gloriæ,” etc. Codex Bobiensis gives scis esse, etc. = you know that there are differences.
[1952] Sicut et verbi ipsius natura persuadet. Reading “natura persuadet.” But the Codex Bobiensis gives demonstrat, demonstrates.
[1954] Non revelatur quia in Christo destruitur.
[1956] Ex. xxxiv. 33; 2 Cor. iii. 13.
[1957] The text is, “hoc est velamen, quod erat positum super faciem Moysi, quod est testamentum ejus,” etc.
[1959] The reading in the text is, “non deficiet princeps ex Juda, neque dux de femoribus ejus usquequo veniat,” etc. Codex Bobiensis coincides, only giving “de femore ejus.” On the whole quotation, which is given in forms so diverse among the old versions and fathers, see Novatian, De Trin., ch. 9 [vol. v. p. 618], and Cyprian, Adv. Judæos, i. 21 [vol. v. p. 513].
[1960] The text gives, “veniat, cujus est,” etc. Prudentius Maranus on Justin’s Apology, i. § 32 [vol. i. p. 173, this series], thinks this was originally an error of transcription for cui jus est, which reading would correspond very much with the ᾧ ἀπόκειται of some of the most ancient authorities. See Cotelerius on the Constitut. Apostol., i. 1, and the note in Migne.
[1961] Qui alligabit. But Codex Casinensis has “quia alligabit,” and Codex Bobiensis “qui alligavit.”
[1962] Suffusi oculi. Codex Bobiensis gives “effusi oculi.” See, on the whole, Grabe’s Dissert. De variis vitiis LXX. interpret., 19, p. 36.
[1964] We adopt the reading “Jesu Nave.” But the Codex Bobiensis gives “Jesu Mane.” See a discussion on this name by Cotelerius on the Epistle of Barnabas, ch. 12. [Vol. i. p. 145, this series.]
[1965] For circumcisionis Routh suggests circumstationis, which might perhaps be taken as = these surroundings do not suit him.
[1966] Gen. xxxviii. 26. We read “justificare.” But the Codex Casinensis gives “justificari” = he (or she) could be justified.
[1967] The text is, “sed et videbitis vitam vestram pendentem ante oculos vestros.” The reference is apparently to Deut. xxviii. 66.
[1968] Censum dare.
[1969] Reading “sermonem, et ostendere ut intelligi dignum est.” The Codex Bobiensis gives a mutilated version: “sermonem, ut intelligi, dignum est.”
[1970] Reading “Moysi scientis,” which is the emendation of Valesius. But Codex Casinensis gives “scientibus,” and Codex Bobiensis has “scientes.”
[1976] Adopting “satiavit.” The Codex Bobiensis gives “saturavit.”
[1991] Reading “in mari.” But the Codex Bobiensis has in navi = on a ship.
[1994] The text gives in justis. But the Codex Bobiensis has in istis = in those men. The true reading may be in injustis = in the unrighteous. See Eph. ii. 2.
[1995] But the Codex Casinensis gives “Deus omnium” = the God of all.
[1996] [See p. 215, supra.]
[1997] Ex nominibus. The Codex Bobiensis offers the extraordinary reading, ex navibus.
[1998] Ingenita.
[1999] We read, with the Codex Bobiensis, “dicat homini, Loca mihi,” etc. The Codex Casinensis has the meaningless reading, “homini diviti,” etc.
[2000] Præsta.
[2001] The text of this obscure passage runs thus: “Quia ex quo duo sunt, ingenitam habentes naturam, ex eo necesse est etiam habere unumquemque ipsorum vetus Testamentum, et fient duo vetera Testamenta; si tamen ambos antiquos et sine initio esse dicis.” The Codex Bobiensis gives a briefer but evidently corrupt reading: “ex quo duo sunt ingenita habentes naturam ipsorum Testamentum, et fient,” etc.
[2002] Jamnem dico et Mambrem. [So in Vulg., except “Jannes.”]
[2004] Gratiam gratia præstare et differre. John i. 16.
[2006] The Codex Bobiensis gives, “exponere et a Patre ut convenit.” For these meaningless words Valesius proposed to read, “exponere et aperire ut convenit.” The Codex Casinensis, however, offers the satisfactory reading, “exponere et aptare convenit.”
[2007] Here ends the section edited by Valesius.
[2008] Castellum. [Note, infra, the “holy kiss.”]
[2009] The text runs: “tametsi prudentiam, gloriam etiam, nostrorum nonnulli assecuti sunt, tamen hoc vos deprecor ut eorum quæ ante me dicta sunt, testimonium reservetis.” Routh suggests prudentia = Although by their prudence some have gained glory, etc.
[2010] Pro ipsius impossibilitate. But Routh suggests that the impossibiIitate is just an inexact translation of the ἀδυνατία = impotentia, incapacity, which may have stood in the Greek text.
[2011] Reading “Marcelli viri illustris gratia.” The Codex Casinensis has, “viri in legis gratia.”
[2013] The text gives “similis facere astrologo,” for which Routh proposes “similis factus est,” etc.
[2015] The text is, “quibus utique repensari non possunt,” etc. Routh proposes repensare.
[2016] Reading “sicut vox Jesu.” The Codex Casinensis gives, “sicut vos Jesu.” Routh suggests servator.
[2022] 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.]
[2023] From this it may perhaps be gathered that Marcellus had now come along with Archelaus to the residence of Diodorus.
[2024] Scribere ausus est. Compare (note 1) p. 224, infra.
[2025] Matt. xxii. 42. We read Davidis essefor David Jesse.
[2027] The text gives, “Quod si prior fefellit, causa ad scriptorem rejicienda est.” [i.e., to the copyist; in this case the corrupter.]
[2028] Consonantibus duntaxat.
[2030] Sibi ipsi.
[2031] Secundum id quod scriptorem fefellit. [i.e. on that supposition.]
[2034] Reading “debuitne etiam” for the bad version of the Codex Casinensis, “debuit et etiam.”
[2035] The text gives, “se ipso judicante,” for which “te ipso,” etc., may be substituted.
[2036] In the Codex Casinensis the sentence stands in this evidently corrupt form: “cum enim peccatis bonus et gravatus ad discipulatum diligit.” We adopt the emendation given in Migne: “cum enim peccatis onustos et gravatos ad discipulatum delegit.”
[2039] Propitius esto, Domine.
[2040] Matt. xvi. 22. [Possibly the first words by which Satan fell.]
[2042] Matt. xvi. 23. [Satan seems to have rebelled against man’s creation.]
[2043] Luke iv. 34, reading sanctus Deus. [i.e., not the received text.]
[2044] Reading silere. The Codex Casinensis gives sinire, which may be meant for sinere = give over.
[2045] Pro accidentium salute.
[2046] We have adopted Migne’s arrangement of these clauses. Routh, however, puts them thus: And that it may be made more intelligible to you, etc.,… (for in forgetfulness, etc., you have turned off, etc.), listen to me now for a brief space.
[2047] Reading “pondus belli toleraverant,” instead of the “pondus bellico tolerarant” of the Codex Casinensis.
[2049] Salva.
[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.]
[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.
[2053] Reading in vobis. But the Codex Casinensis seems to give in nobis, amongst us.
[2054] But the Codex Casinensis seems to make it fides nostra, our faith.
[2055] Initium.
[2057] Distinctio.
[2058] Gal. iii. 1. The word in the text is rescriptus est. The Vulgate gives præscriptus est. The Vetus Itala proscriptus est.
[2059] Minor.
[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.]
[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.]
[2064] Parat.
[2065] Inferre coneris.
[2066] Artifex.
[2068] Hominem.
[2069] Hominem eum tantummodo ex Maria.
[2070] Or, effect, per profectum.
[2071] Effect. [i.e., progressively.]
[2072] Routh puts this interrogatively = Is it then your position that He really is a man, that is to say, one who is flesh and blood? Well, but if so, then it will follow, etc.
[2073] Or, as.
[2074] Reading “sicut homo, hac opinione,” for the “sicut homo ac opinione” of the Codex Casinensis.
[2075] The Codex Casinensis reads, “hanc quæstionem diffigenter aptare tam manifestarem atque manifeste dissolverem.” We follow the emendation, “hanc quæstionem diligenter aptatam manifestarem,” etc.
[2076] [A signum verecundiæ which rebukes the awful inquisitiveness concerning the conception of Mary which disgraced the late pontiff, Pius IX. To what blasphemous pruriency of thought and expression has not such an invasion of decency given rise! See St. Bernard, Opp. tom. i. p. 392. He rebukes the heresy as profane.]
[2077] The text gives tempus recusat. Routh proposes tempus requirit = which the occasion requires.
[2078] This is a purely conjectural reading, “ut dicam silex,” etc. The Codex Casinensis gives, “ut dicam dilere non homo.” But Routh, in reference to ch. xv., throws out the idea that we should read delire = thou dotard, or, lunatic. [P. 190, supra, as if Manes = μανικὸς.]
[2079] Columbarium furem.
[2080] The text gives suæ. Routh suggests tuæ.
[2081] The text is, “non solum autem, sed adventus nomen delebitur.” It may perhaps be = and not the foundation, but the name, of an advent would be done away.
[2083] The text gives “quo magnum,” etc., for which we adopt “quod magnum,” etc.
[2085] Or perhaps, = which was also, quod erat tabernaculum, etc.
[2086] The Codex Casinensis gives “Ignorabat autem propter qui genuisset Filium Dei prædicabat regnum cœlorum, qui erat,” etc. We follow generally the emendations adopted in Migne: “Ignorabat autem propter quid genuisset Filium Dei, qui prædicabat regnum cœlorum, quod erat habitaculum magnum,” etc. Routh would read “genitus esset Filius Dei,” etc.
[2089] Pugillum plenum solis mihi affer aut modium plenum.
[2091] Partis.
[2092] The text is, “et ultra ei non sinerent ad propria remeare.” Routh suggests ultro for ultra.
[2093] Reading unus, instead of “vos, comitibus,” etc.
[2094] Reading “quem etiam” instead of “quæ etiam.”
[2095] The Codex Casinensis gives, “ipse quidem me dicere recusavit,” etc. We adopt the correction in Migne, “sed ne ipse quidem dicere recusavit,” etc.
[2096] Superiores quidem causas Domini, etc.
[2097] Reading “sed et optimus architectus ejus, fundamentum,” etc. The Codex Casinensis has the corrupt lection, “sed et optimos architectos ei fundamentum,” etc. [Had this been said of Peter?]
[2098] Cf.1 Cor. iii. 10. [Had this been said of Peter, what then?]
[2099] Cf.Acts xiv. 23.
[2100] Cf.1 Tim. iii. 1. [Clement cap. xliv., vol. i. p. 17, this series.]
[2101] Various other forms are found for this name Scythianus. Thus we find Scutianus and Excutianus,—forms which may have arisen through mere clerical errors. The Codex Reg. Alex. Vat. gives Stutianus. [But see Routh, R. S., vol. v. p. 186.]
[2102] This seems the general idea meant to be conveyed. The text, which is evidently corrupt, runs thus: “in qua cum eum habitaret cum Ægyptiorum sapientiam didicisset.” The Codex Reg. Alex. Vat. reads, “in qua cum habitaret, et Ægyptiorum,” etc. In Migne it is proposed to fill up the lacunæ thus: “in qua cum diu habitaret, depravatus est, cum Ægyptiorum sapientiam didicisset.” Routh suggests, “in qua cum ea habitaret,” etc.
[2103] The Codex Casinensis reads Terbonem for Terebinthum.But in Cyril of Jerusalem, in his Catechesis, 6, as well as in others, we regularly find Τέρβινθον, Terbinthum, or Terebinthum, given as the name of the disciple of Scythianus. The form Tereventus is also given; and the Codex Reg. Alex. Vat. has Terybeneus. The statement made here as to these books being written by Terebinthus is not in accordance with statements made by Cyril and others, who seem to recognise Scythianus alone as the author. As to the name Terebinthus itself, C. Ritter, in his Die Stupa’s, etc., p. 29 thinks that it is a Græcized form of a predicate of Buddha, viz., Tere-hintu, Lord of the Hindoos. Others take it simply to be a translation of the Hebrew הלָא”, the terebinth.See a note on this subject in Neander’s Church Hist., ii. 166 (Bohn). [Routh, ut supra, p. 187.]
[2104] Capitulorum.
[2105] Thesaurus.
[2106] The Codex Reg. Alex. Vat. inserts here, “omnibus quæcunque ejus fuerant congregatis” = gathering together all that was his.
[2107] Reading “habetur.” But Codex Reg. Alex. Vat. gives habitatur, is inhabited.
[2108] The Codex Casinensis gives, “sed aliud cujusdam homine.” We adopt “sed alium Buddam nomine,” with which the narratives of Cyril, Epiphanius, and others agree. Routh proposes “alio Buddam nomine” = by another name, Buddas. [Buddha is a title, not a name.]
[2109] The text gives “natum esse, simul et ab angelo.” The Codex Reg. Alex. Vat. reads, “natum se esse simulabat et ab angelo.”
[2110] On these Persian priests, see Epiphanius on this heresy, num. 3.
[2111] Reading arguebant, with Routh, for arguebat.
[2112] Animosa exaggeratio.
[2113] Ante seculum.
[2114] Or, in the origins of things, in principiis.
[2115] Particeps ejus.
[2116] Reading tunc for nunc.
[2117] Solarium quoddam excelsum.
[2118] The Codex Casinensis gives, “ut inde ab aliquo convinci possit.” But the Codex Reg. Alex. Vat. reads, “ut ne ab aliquo,” etc. We adopt, therefore, “ne ab aliquo,” etc., taking the idea to be, as is suggested in Migne, that Manes went up alone, because he feared that, if observed by Parcus and Labdacus, the priests of Mithras, he might expose himself to punishment at the hands of the Persian rulers for an offence against their religion. [Manes here seems put for Terebinthus.]
[2119] Sub terras eum detrudi per spiritum.
[2120] But the Codex Reg. Alex. Vat. reads, “erat enim multum pecuniæ arida”—for she had a great greed for money.
[2121] But Cyril, Epiphanius, and others, make the name Cubricus (Κούβρικος).
[2122] Versuum.
[2123] This may express with sufficient nearness the original, “nec Manem sed Manes.”
[2124] The Codex Casinensis gives sexaginta regularly. The Codex Reg. Alex. Vat. reads septuaginta, seventy.
[2125] Transfert eos. It may be also “translated them.”
[2126] The text gives, “edictum proposuit in vita,” etc. For in vita it is proposed to read invitans; and that is confirmed by the Codex Reg. Alex. Vat.
[2127] We adopt the reading “qui cubum, quod nomen est tali, ludere solent.” The text gives, “qui cibum quod nomen est tale eludere solent.” The Codex Reg. Alex. Vat. seems to read, “qui cubum quod nomen est aleæ ludere solent.”
[2128] Ferri talento.
[2129] The text gives, “quique fugientes licet nunquam cessarunt,” etc. Codex Reg. Alex. Vat has, “licet nunquam cessarent” etc.
[2130] Reading “dicebam.” But the Codex Casinensis gives “dicebant,” and the Codex Reg. Alex. Vat. has “decebat”—as became them.
[2131] Reading “converti ad salutem,” for “conventi,” etc., as it is given in the Codex Casinensis.
[2132] Conscribebantur. [Note this concerning the Christian books.]
[2133] Nuntios. But Codex Reg. Alex. Vat. gives “novitios,” novices.
[2134] The text gives “fatigarent.” But Codex Reg. Alex. Vat. gives “fugarent”—expel.
[2135] The text gives “invenientes.” The Codex Reg. Alex. Vat. more correctly has “inveniens”—when he came upon.
[2136] But Codex Reg. Alex. Vat. reads “Stracum fluvium.”
[2137] The text gives, “evadere potuit dum nemo eum insequeretur. Sed populus, cum Archelai quem libenter audiebant relatione teneretur,” etc. The Codex Reg. Alex. Vat. reads “evadere potuit dum ne eum insequeretur is populus, et Archelai quem libenter audiebant relatione tenerentur.” Routh suggests, “dum eum nemo insequeretur, sed populus Archelai,” etc.
[2138] The same Codex Vat. reads Adrabion here.
[2139] The Codex Reg. Alex. Vat. ends with these words.
[2140] [See p. 177, supra. A fair discussion as to authenticity.]
[2141] Inscripsi.
[2142] Codex Casinensis reads, “non ex Manen originem mali hujus Manes esse.” We adopt the conjecture, “non ex Mane originem mali hujus manasse.”
[2143] The following note on this Basilides may be given from Migne:—“Although Eusebius (Hist. Eccles., iv. 7) tells us that the Basilides who taught heresy shortly after the times of the apostles was an Alexandrian, and opened schools of error in Egypt, the Basilides mentioned here by Archelaus may still be one and the same person with that Alexandrian, notwithstanding that it is said that he taught his heresy among the Persians. For it may very well be the case that Basilides left Alexandria, and made an attempt to infect the Persians also with his heretical dogmas. At the same time, there is no mention among ancient authorities, so far as I know, of a Persian Basilides. The Alexandrian Basilides also wrote twenty-four books on the Gospel, as the same Eusebius testifies; and these do not appear to be different from those books of Tractates which Archelaus cites, and from the Exegetics, from the twenty-third book of which certain passages are given by Clement of Alexandria in the fourth book of his Stromateis.It is not clear however, whether that Gospel on which Basilides wrote was the Gospel of the Apostles, or another which he made up for himself, and of which mention is made in Origen’s first Homily on Luke, in Jerome’s prologue to his Commentary on Matthew, and in Ambrose’s prologue to the Gospel of Luke.” We may add that Gieseler (Studien und Kritiken, i. 1830, p. 397) denies that the person meant here is Basilides the Gnostic, specially on account of the peculiar designation, Basilides quidam antiquior.But his objections are combated by Baur and Neander. See the Church History of the latter, ii. p. 50, ed. Bohn.
[2144] The text is, “aliis dictis proposuit adversariis.” Perhaps we may read, “aliorum dicta,” etc.
[2145] The text is, “necessarium sermonem uberemque salutaris sermo præstavit.” May it be = the word of salvation furnished the word which was requisite, etc.?
[2146] The text is, “per parvulam divitis et pauperis naturam sine radice et sine loco rebus supervenientem unde pullulaverit indicat.” The reading seems defective. But the general intention of this very obscure and fragmentary sentence appears to be as given above. So Neander understands it as conveying a figurative description of the two principles of light and darkness, expressed in the Zoroastrian doctrine immediately cited,—the rich being the good principle, and the poor the evil. He also supposes the phrase “without root and without place” to indicate the “absoluteness of the principle, that springs up all at once, and mixes itself up with the development of existence.”—See Church History, ii. 51 (Bohn). Routh confesses his inability to understand what can be meant by the term parvulam, and suggests parabolam.
[2147] Caput.
[2148] Alium.
[2149] Routh adopts the interrogative form here, so as to make the connection stand thus: But is this the only topic which the book contains? Does it not also contain another discussion, etc.?
[2150] Versibus.
[2151] Varietate.
[2152] By the barbari here are evidently meant the Persians.
[2153] Principles.
[2154] The text is, “non quæ esse dicebantur.” Routh proposes, “non quæ factæ, or genitæ, esse dicebantur,” = which were not declared to have been made.
A Fragment of the Same Disputation.
[2155] From Cyril of Jerusalem, Catecheses, vi. § 27–29. [And see the Introductory Notice, p. 175.]
[2156] Reading ὅπλον δικαιοσύνης. Others read ὅπλῳ = Archelaus met him with the buckler of righteousness.
[2166] Matt. x. 34. Various of the mss. add, ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν, upon the earth.
[2167] The text gives καλοί. Routh seems to prefer κακοί, evil.
[2170] Matt. xiii. 13. The text is, ἵνα βλέποντες μὴ βλέπωσι.
[2172] For εἰ δὲ δεῖ καὶ ὡς, etc., various codices read εἰ δὲ δικαίως, etc.
[2173] νοήματα, thoughts.
[2174] ψυχήν.
[2175] ὑπόστασις.
[2176] ἐφίεται.
I. (Spotless virgin, etc. p. 223 and note 7.)
[2177] 2 Tim. ii. 23; Tit. iii. 9.
III. (I shrink from repeating, p. 227 and note 10.)
[2178] St. Bernard, Opp., tom. i. Compare note 10, p. 227, supra. See the Abbé Laborde on the Impossibility, etc., translated by the editor of this series, ed. Baltimore, 1855.
[2179] Save only by Mohammed.
IV. (In presence of the catechumens, p. 235.)
[2180] Matt. xiii. 34; Mark iv. 33.
[2181] See vol. ii. p. 342, Elucidation II., this series. Note also, in the same volume, what is said, pp. 166–167.
[2182] Lewin, St. Paul, vol. ii. p. 340.
Search Comments
This page has been visited 0166 times.
| << | Contents | >> |
10 per page