| << | Contents | >> |
Archelaus
37. Archelaus said: Those sayings which are put forth by the blessed Paul were not uttered without the direction of God, and therefore it is certain that what he has declared to us is that we are to look for our Lord Jesus Christ as the perfect one, who[1836] is the only one that knows the Father, with the sole exception of him to whom He has chosen also to reveal Him,[1837] as I am able to demonstrate from His own words. But let it be observed, that it is said that when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. Now this man (Manes) asserts that he is the perfect one. Let him show us, then, what he has done away with; for what is to be done away with is the ignorance which is in us. Let him therefore tell us what he has done away with, and what he has brought into the sphere of our knowledge. If he is able to do anything of this nature, let him do it now, in order that he may be believed. These very words of Paul’s, if one can but understand them in the full power of their meaning, will only secure entire credit to the statements made by me. For in that first Epistle to the Corinthians, Paul speaks in the following terms of the perfection that is to come: “Whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall be destroyed: for we know in part, and we prophesy in part; but when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.”[1838] Observe now what virtue that which is perfect possesses in itself, and of what order that perfection is. And let this man, then, tell us what prophecy of the Jews or Hebrews he has done away with; or what tongues he has caused to cease, whether of the Greeks or of others who worship idols; or what alien dogmas he has destroyed, whether of a Valentinian, or a Marcion, or a Tatian, or a Sabellius, or any others of those who have constructed for themselves their peculiar systems of knowledge. Let him tell us which of all these he has already done away with, or when he is yet to do away with any one of them, in this character of the perfect one. Perchance he seeks some sort of truce—does he?[1839] But not thus inconsiderable, not thus obscure[1840] and ignoble, will be the manner of the advent of Him who is the truly perfect one, that is to say, our Lord Jesus Christ. Nay, but as a king, when he draws near to his city, does first of all send on before him his life-guardsmen,[1841] his ensigns and standards and banners,[1842] his generals and chiefs and prefects, and then forthwith all objects are roused and excited in different fashions, while some become inspired with terror and others with exultation at the prospect of the king’s advent; so also my Lord Jesus Christ, who is the truly perfect one, at His coming will first send on before Him His glory, and the consecrated heralds of an unstained and untainted kingdom: and then the universal creation will be moved and perturbed, uttering prayers and supplications, until He delivers it from its bondage.[1843] And it must needs be that the race of man shall then be in fear and in vehement agitation on account of the many offences it has committed. Then the righteous alone will rejoice, as they look for the things which have been promised them; and the subsistence of the affairs of this world will no longer be maintained, but all things shall be destroyed: and whether they be prophecies or the books of prophets, they shall fail; whether they be the tongues of the whole race, they shall cease; for men will no longer need to feel anxiety or to think solicitously about those things which are necessary for life; whether it be knowledge, by what teachers soever it be possessed, it shall also be destroyed: for none of all these things will be able to endure the advent of that mighty King. For just as a little spark, if[1844] taken and put up against the splendour of the sun, at once perishes from the view, so the whole creation, all prophecy, all knowledge, all tongues, as we have said above, shall be destroyed. But since the capacities of common human nature are all insufficient to set forth in a few words, and these so weak and so extremely poor, the coming of this heavenly King,—so much so, indeed, that perchance it should be the privilege only of the saintly and the highly worthy to attempt any statement on such a subject,—it may yet be enough for me to be able to say that I have advanced what I have now advanced on that theme on the ground of simple necessity,—compelled, as I have been, to do thus much by this person’s importunity, and simply with the view of showing you what kind of character he is.
38. And, in good truth, I hold Marcion, and Valentinian, and Basilides, and other heretics, to be sainted men when compared[1845] with this person. For they did display a certain kind of intellect, and they did, indeed, think themselves capable of understanding all Scripture, and did thus constitute themselves leaders[1846] for those who were willing to listen to them. But notwithstanding this, not one of these dared to proclaim himself to be either God, or Christ, or the Paraclete, as this fellow has done, who is ever disputing, on some occasions about the ages,[1847] and on others about the sun, and how these objects were made, as though he were superior to them himself; for every person who offers an exposition of the method in which any object has been made, puts himself forward as superior to and older than the subject of his discussion. But who may venture to speak of the substance of God, unless, it may be, our Lord Jesus Christ alone? And, indeed, I do not make this statement on the bare authority of my own words, but I confirm it by the authority of that Scripture which has been our instructor. For the apostle addresses the following words to us: “That ye may be lights in this world, holding[1848] the word of life for my glory against the day of Christ, seeing that I have not run in vain, neither laboured in vain.”[1849] We ought to understand what is the force and meaning of this saying; for the word may suit the leader, but the effectual work suits the king.[1850] And accordingly, as one who looks for the arrival of his king, strives to be able to present all who are under his charge as obedient, and ready, and estimable, and lovely, and faithful, and not less also as blameless, and abounding in all that is good, so that he may himself get commendation from the king, and be deemed by him to be worthy of greater honours, as having rightly governed the province which was entrusted to his administration; so also does the blessed Paul give us to understand our position when he uses these words: “That ye may be as lights in this world, holding the word of life for my glory against the day of Christ.” For the meaning of this saying is, that our Lord Jesus Christ, when He comes, will see that his doctrine has proved profitable in us, and that, finding that he, the apostle, has not run in vain, neither laboured in vain, He will bestow on him the crown of recompense. And again, in the same epistle, he also warns us not to mind earthly things, and tells us that we ought to have our conversation in heaven; from which also we look for the Saviour, our Lord Jesus Christ.[1851] And as the knowledge of the date of the last day is no secure position for us, he has given us, to that effect, a declaration on the subject in the epistle which he wrote to the Thessalonians, thus: “But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you; for yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.”[1852] How, then, does this man stand up and try to persuade us to emigrate his opinions, importuning every individual whom he meets to become a Manichæan, and going about and creeping into houses, and endeavouring to deceive minds laden with sins?[1853] But we do not hold such sentiments. Nay, rather, we should be disposed to present the things themselves before you all, and bring them into comparison, if it please you, with what we know of the perfect Paraclete. For you observe that[1854] sometimes he uses the interrogative style, and sometimes the deprecatory. But in the Gospel of our Saviour it is written that those who stand on the left hand of the King will say: “Lord, when saw we Thee an hungered, or athirst, or naked, or a stranger, or in prison, and did not minister unto Thee?”[1855] Thus they will implore Him to be indulgent with them. But what reply is that righteous Judge and King represented as making to them? “Depart from me into everlasting fire, ye workers of iniquity.”[1856] He casts them into everlasting fire, although they cease not to direct their entreaties to Him. Do you see, then, O Manes, what manner of event that advent of the perfect King is destined to be? Do you not perceive that it will not be such a perfection, or consummation, as you allege? But if the great day of judgment is to be looked for after that King, surely this man is greatly inferior to Him. But if he is inferior, he cannot be perfect. And if he is not to be perfect, it is not of him that the apostle speaks. But if it is not of him that the apostle speaks, while he still makes the mendacious statement that it is of himself that the said word of the apostle was spoken, then surely he is to be judged a false prophet. Much more, too, might be said to the same effect. But if we were to think of going over in detail all that might thus be adduced, time would fail us for the accomplishment of so large a task. Hence I have deemed it abundantly sufficient thus to have brought under yournotice only a few things out of many, leaving the yet remaining portions of such a discussion to those who have the inclination to go through with them.
39. On hearing these matters, those who were present gave great glory to God, and ascribed to Him such praise as it is meet for Him to receive. And on Archelaus himself they bestowed many tokens of honour. Then Marcellus rose up; and casting off his cloak,[1857] he threw his arms round Archelaus, and kissed him, and embraced him, and clung to him. Then, too, the children who had chanced to gather about the place began and set the example of pelting Manes and driving him off;[1858] and the rest of the crowd followed them, and moved excitedly about, with the intention of compelling Manes to take to flight. But when Archelaus observed this, he raised his voice like a trumpet above the din, in his anxiety to restrain the multitude, and addressed them thus: “Stop, my beloved brethren, lest mayhap we be found to have the guilt of blood on us at the day of judgment; for it is written of men like this, that ‘there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.’”[1859] And when he had uttered these words, the crowds of people were quieted again.[1860]—Now, because it was the pleasure of Marcellus that this disputation should have a place given it,[1861] and that it should also be described, I could not gainsay his wish, but trusted to the kind consideration of the readers, believing that they would pardon me if my discourse should sound somewhat inartistic or boorish: for the great thing which we have had in view has been, that the means of knowing what took place on this occasion should not fail to be brought within the reach of all who desired to understand the subject. Thereafter, it must be added, when Manes had once taken to flight, he made his appearance nowhere there again. His attendant Turbo, however, was handed over by Marcellus to Archelaus; and on Archelaus ordaining him as a deacon, he remained in the suite of Marcellus. But Manes in his flight came to a certain village which was at a considerable distance from the city, and bore the name of Diodorus. Now in that place there was also a presbyter whose name likewise was Diodorus,[1862] a man of quiet and gentle disposition, and well reputed both for his faith and for the excellence of his general character. Now when, on a certain day, Manes had gathered a crowd of auditors around him, and was haranguing[1863] them, and putting before the people who were present certain outlandish assertions altogether foreign to the tradition of the fathers, and in no way apprehending any opposition that might be made to him on the part of any of these, Diodorus perceived that he was producing some effect by his wickedness, and resolved then to send to Archelaus a letter couched in the following terms:—
Diodorus sends greeting to Bishop Archelaus,[1864]
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 grudge[1865] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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!
41. On receiving this epistle, Archelaus was astonished at the man’s boldness. But in the meantime, as the case called for the transmission of a speedy reply, he immediately sent off a letter with reference to the statements made by Diodorus. That epistle ran in the following terms:[1892]—
Archelaus sends greeting to the presbyter Diodorus, his honourable son.
The receipt of your letter has rejoiced me exceedingly, my dearly beloved friend. I have been given to understand, moreover, that this man, who made his way to me before these days, and sought to introduce a novel kind of knowledge here, different from what is apostolic and ecclesiastical, has also come to you. To that person, indeed, I gave no place: for presently, when we held a disputation together, he was confuted. And I could wish now to transcribe for your behoof all the arguments of which I made use on that occasion, so that by means of these you might get an idea of what that man’s faith is. But as that could be done only with leisure at my disposal, I have deemed it requisite, in view of the immediate exigency, to write a short reply to you with reference to what you have written me on the subject of the statements advanced by him. I understand, then, that his chief[1893] effort was directed to prove that the law of Moses is not consonant with the law of Christ; and this position he attempted to found on the authority of our Scriptures. Well, on the other hand, not only did we establish the law of Moses, and all things which are written in it, by the same Scripture; but we also proved that the whole Old Testament agrees with the New Testament, and is in perfect harmony with the same, and that they form really one texture, just as a person may see one and the same robe made up of weft and warp together.[1894] For the truth is simply this, that just as we trace the purple in a robe, so, if we may thus express it, we can discern the New Testament in the texture of the Old Testament; for we see the glory of the Lord mirrored in the same.[1895] We are not therefore to cast aside the mirror,[1896] seeing that it shows us the genuine image of the things themselves, faithfully and truly; but, on the contrary, we ought to honour it all the more. Think you, indeed, that the boy who is brought by his pædagogue to the teachers of learning[1897] when he is yet a very little fellow, ought to hold that pædagogue in no honour[1898] after he has grown up to manhood, simply because he needs his services[1899] no longer, but can make his course without any assistance from that attendant to the schools, and quickly find his way to the lecture-rooms? Or, to take another instance, would it be right for the child who has been nourished on milk at first, after he has grown to be capable of receiving stronger meats, then injuriously to spurn the breasts of his nurse, and conceive a horror of them? Nay, rather he should honour and cherish them, and confess himself a debtor to their good services. We may also make use, if it please you, of another illustration. A certain man on one occasion having noticed an infant exposed on the ground and already suffering excessively, picked it up, and undertook to rear it in his own house until it should reach the age of youth, and sustained all the toils and anxieties which are wont to fall to the lot of those who have to bring up children. After a time, however, it happened that he who was the child’s natural father came seeking the boy, and found him with this person who had brought him up.[1900] What ought this boy to do on learning that this is his real father? For I speak, of course, of a boy of the right type. Would he not see to it, that he who had brought him up should be recompensed with liberal gifts; and would he not then follow his natural father, having his proper inheritance in view[1901] Even so, then, I think we must suppose that that distinguished servant of God, Moses, in a manner something like this, found[1902] a people afflicted by the Egyptians; and he took this people to himself, and nurtured them in the desert like a father, and instructed them like a teacher, and ruled them as a magistrate. This people he also preserved against the coming of him whose people they were. And after a considerable period the father[1903] did come, and did receive, his sheep. Now will not that guardian be honoured in all things by him to whom he delivered that flock; and will he not be glorified by those who have been preserved by him? Who, then, can be so senseless, my dearly beloved Diodorus, as to say that those are aliens to each other who have been allied with each other, who have prophesied in turn for each other, and who have shown signs and wonders which are equal and similar, the one to the other, and of like nature with each other;[1904] or rather, to speak in truth, which belong wholly to the same stock the one with the other? For, indeed, Moses first said to the people: “A Prophet will the Lord our God raise up unto you, like unto me.”[1905] And Jesus afterwards said: “For Moses spake of me.”[1906] You see[1907] how these twain give the right hand to each other, although[1908] the one was the prophet and the other was the beloved Son,[1909] and although in the one we are to recognise the faithful servant, but in the other the Lord Himself. Now, on the other hand, I might refer to the fact, that one who of old was minded to make his way to the schools without the pædagogue was not taken in by the master. For the master said: “I will not receive him unless he accepts the pædagogue.” And who the person is, who is spoken of under that figure, I shall briefly explain. There was a certain rich man,[1910] who lived after the manner of the Gentiles, and passed his time in great luxury every day; and there was also another man, a poor man, who was his neighbour, and who was unable to procure even his daily bread. It happened that both these men departed this life, that they both descended into the grave,[1911] and that the poor man was conveyed into the place of rest, and so forth, as is known to you. But, furthermore, that rich man had also five brothers, living as he too had lived, and disturbed by no doubt as to lessons which they had learned at home from such a master. The rich man then entreated that these should be instructed in the superior doctrine together and at once.[1912] But Abraham, knowing that they still stood in need of the pædagogue, said to him: “They have Moses and the prophets.” For if they received not these, so as to have their course directed by him, i.e., Moses, as by a pædagogue, they would not be capable of accepting the doctrine of the superior master.
Search Comments
This page has been visited 0001 times.
| << | Contents | >> |
10 per page