[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.
20. On hearing these argumentations, the multitudes who were present were exceedingly delighted; so much so, indeed, that they were almost laying hands on Manes; and it was with difficulty that Archelaus restrained them, and kept them back, and made them quiet again. The judges said: Archelaus has given us proof sufficient of the fact that the body and soul of man are the works of one hand; because an object cannot subsist in any proper consonance and unison as the work of one hand, if there is any want of harmony in the design and plan. But if it is alleged that one could not possibly have sufficed to develop both these objects, namely, body and soul, this is simply to exhibit the incapacity of the artificer. For thus, even though one should grant that the soul is the creation of a good deity, it will be found to be but an idle work so far as the man is concerned, unless it also takes to itself the body. And if, again, the body is held to be the formation of an evil deity, the work will also none the less be idle unless it receives the soul; and, in truth, unless the soul be in unison with the body by commixture and due introduction, so that the two are in mutual connections, the man will not exist, neither can we speak of him. Hence we are of opinion that Archelaus has proved by a variety of illustrations that there is but one and the same maker for the whole man. Archelaus said: I doubt not, Manes, that you understand this, namely, that one who is born and created [1615] is called the son of him who begets or creates. But if the wicked one made man, then he ought to be his father, according to nature. And to whom, then, did the Lord Jesus address Himself, when in these terms He taught men to pray: "When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven;" [1616] and again, "Pray to your Father which is in secret?" [1617] But it was of Satan that He spoke when He said, that He "beheld him as lightning fall from heaven;" [1618] so that no one dare say that He taught us to pray to him. And surely Jesus did not come down from heaven with the purpose of bringing men together, and reconciling them to Satan; but, on the contrary, He gave him over to be bruised beneath the feet of His faithful ones. However, for my part, I would say that those Gentiles are the more blessed who do indeed bring in a multitude of deities, but at least hold them all to be of one mind, and in amity with each other; whereas this man, though he brings in but two gods, does not blush to posit enmities and discordant sentiments between them. And, in sooth, if these Gentiles were to bring in [1619] their counterfeit deities under conditions of that kind, we would verily have it in our power to witness something like a gladiatorial contest proceeding between them, with their innumerable natures and diverse sentiments.
[1615] Reading "natus est et creatus." The Codex Casinensis has "natus est creatus."
[1616] Matt. vi. 9; Luke xi. 2.
[1617] Matt. vi. 6.
[1618] Luke x. 18.
[1619] Codex Casinensis gives introduceret; but, retaining the reference to the Gentiles we read introducerent.
21. But now, what it is necessary for me to say on the subject of the inner and the outer man, may be expressed in the words of the Saviour to those who swallow a camel, and wear the outward garb of the hypocrite, begirt with blandishments and flatteries. It is to them that Jesus addresses Himself when He says: "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of uncleanness. Or know you not, that He that made that which is without, made that which is within also?" [1620] Now why did He speak of the cup and of the platter? Was He who uttered these words a glassworker, or a potter who made vessels of clay? Did He not speak most manifestly of the body and the soul? For the Pharisees truly looked to the "tithing of anise and cummin, and left undone the weightier matters of the law;" [1621] and while devoting great care to the things which were external, they overlooked those which bore upon the salvation of the soul. For they also had respect to "greetings in the market-place," [1622] and "to the uppermost seats at feasts:" [1623] and to them the Lord Jesus, knowing their perdition, made this declaration, that they attended to those things only which were without, and despised as strange things those which were within, and understood not that He who made the body made also the soul. And who is so unimpressible and stolid in intellect, as not to see that those sayings of our Lord may suffice him for all cases? Moreover, it is in perfect harmony with these sayings that Paul speaks, when he interprets to the following intent certain things written in the law: "Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith He it altogether for our sakes?" [1624] But why should we waste further time upon this subject? Nevertheless I shall add a few things out of many that might be offered. Suppose now that there are two unbegotten principles, and that we determine fixed localities for these: it follows then that God is separated, [1625] if He is supposed to be within a certain location, and not diffused everywhere; and He will consequently be represented as much inferior to the locality in which He is understood to be for the object which contains is always greater [1626] than the object which is contained in it: and thus God is made to be of that magnitude which corresponds with the magnitude of the locality in which He is contained, just as is the case with a man in a house. [1627] Then, further, reason asks who it is that has divided between them, or who has appointed for them their determinate limits; and thus both would be made out to be the decided inferiors of man's own power. [1628] For Lysimachus and Alexander held the empire of the whole world, and were able to subdue all foreign nations, and the whole race of men; so that throughout that period there was no other in possession of empire besides themselves under heaven. And how will any one be rash enough to say that God, who is the true light that never suffers eclipse, and whose is also the kingdom that is holy and everlasting, is not everywhere present, as [1629] is the way with this most depraved man, who, in his impiety, refuses to ascribe to the Omnipotent God even equal power with men? [1630]
[1620] Matt. xxiii. 25; Luke xi. 39.
[1621] Luke xi. 42.
[1622] Matt. xxiii. 6; Mark xii. 38; Luke xx. 46.
[1623] The Codex Casinensis gives a strangely corrupt reading here: "primos discipulos subitos in coenis, quod scientes Dominus." It is restored thus: "primos discubitus in coenis, quos sciens Dominus," etc.
[1624] 1 Cor. ix. 9.
[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.
22. The judges said: We know that a light shines through the whole house, and not in some single part of it; as Jesus also intimates when He says, that "no man lighting a candle puts it under a bushel, but on a candlestick, that it may give light unto all that are in the house." [1631] If, then, God is a light, it must needs be that light (if Jesus is to be credited) shall shine on the whole world, and not on any portions of it merely. And if, [1632] then, that light holds possession of the whole world, where now can there be any ungenerated darkness? or how can darkness be understood to exist at all, unless it is something simply accidental? Archelaus said: Forasmuch, indeed, as the word of the Gospel is understood much better by you than by this person who puts himself forward as the Paraclete, although I could call him rather parasite than paraclete, I shall tell you how it has happened that there is darkness. When the light had been diffused everywhere, God began to constitute the universe, and commenced with the heaven and the earth; in which process this issue appeared, to wit, that the midst, [1633] which is the locality of earth covered with shadow, as a consequence of the interposition [1634] of the creatures which were called into being, was found to be obscure, in such wise that circumstances required light to be introduced into that place, which was thus situated in the midst. Hence in Genesis, where Moses gives an account of the construction of the world, he makes no mention of the darkness either as made or as not made. But he keeps silence on that subject, and leaves the explanation of it to be discovered by those who may be able to give proper attention to it. Neither, indeed, is that a very arduous and difficult task. For to whom may it not be made plain that this sun of ours is visible, when it has risen in the east, and taken its course toward the west, but that when it has gone beneath the earth, and been carried farther within that formation which among the Greeks is called the sphere, it then ceases to appear, being overshadowed in darkness in consequence of the interposition of the bodies? [1635] When it is thus covered, and when the body of the earth stands opposite it, a shadow is superinduced, which produces from itself the darkness; and it continues so until again, after the course of the inferior space has been traversed in the night, it rolls towards the east, and is seen to rise once more in its wonted seats. Thus, then, the cause of the shadow and the night is discovered in the solidity of the body of the earth,--a thing, indeed, which a man may understand from the fact of the shadow cast by his own body. [1636] For before the heaven and the earth and all those corporeal creatures appeared, the light remained always constant, without waning or eclipse, as there existed no body which might produce shadow by its opposition or intervention; and consequently one must say that nowhere was there darkness then, and nowhere night. For if, to take an illustration, it should please Him who has the power of all things to do away with the quarter [1637] which lies to the west, then, as the sun would not direct its course toward that region, there would nowhere emerge either evening or darkness, but the sun would be on its course always, and would never set, but would almost always hold the centre tract of heaven, and would never cease to appear; and by this the whole world would be illumined with the clearest light, in virtue of which no part of it would suffer obscuration, but the equal power of one light would remain everywhere. But on the other hand, while the western quarter keeps its position, and the sun executes [1638] its course in three parts of the world, then those who are under the sun will be seen to be illuminated more brightly; so that I might almost say, that while the people who belong to the diverse tract are still asleep, those former are in possession of the day's beginning. But just [1639] as those Orientals have the light rising on them earlier than the people who live in the west, so they have it also more quickly obscured, and they only who are settled in the middle of the globe see always an equality of light. For when the sun occupies the middle of the heavens, there is no place that can appear to be either brighter or darker (than another), but all parts of the world are illuminated equally and impartially by the sun's effulgence. [1640] If, then, as we have said above, that portion of the western tract were done away with, the part which is adjacent to it would now no more suffer obscuration. And these things I could indeed set forth somewhat more simply, as I might also describe the zodiacal circle; but I have not thought of looking into these matters at present. [1641] I shall therefore say nothing of these, but shall revert to that capital objection urged by my adversary, in his affirming so strenuously [1642] that the darkness is ungenerated; which position, however, has also been confuted already, as far as that could have been done by us.