[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]
------------------------
The fragment is introduced by Cyril in the following terms: --He, i.e., Manes, fled from prison and came into Mesopotamia; but there he was met by that buckler of righteousness, [2156] Bishop Archelaus. And in order to bring him to the test in the presence of philosophical judges, this person convened an assembly of Grecian auditors, so as to preclude the possibility of its being alleged that the judges were partial, as might have been the case had they been Christians. Then the matter proceeded as we shall now indicate:--
[2155] From Cyril of Jerusalem, Catecheses, vi. § 27-29. [And see the Introductory Notice, p. 175.]
[2156] Reading hoplon dikaiosunes . Others read hoplo = Archelaus met him with the buckler of righteousness.
1. Archelaus said to Manes: Give us a statement now of the doctrines you promulgate.--Thereupon the man, whose mouth was like an open sepulchre, [2157] began at once with a word of blasphemy against the Maker of all things, saying: The God of the Old Testament is the inventor of evil, who speaks thus of Himself: "I am a consuming fire." [2158] --But the sagacious Archelaus completely undid this blasphemy. For he said: If the God of the Old Testament, according to your allegation, calls Himself a fire, whose son is He who says, "I am come to send fire upon the earth?" [2159] If you find fault with one who says, "The Lord killeth and maketh alive," [2160] why do you honour Peter, who raised Tabitha to life, [2161] but also put Sapphira to death? [2162] And if again, you find fault with the one because He has prepared a fire, [2163] why do you not find fault with the other, who says, "Depart from me into everlasting fire?" [2164] If you find fault with Him who says, "I, God, make peace, and create evil," [2165] explain to us how Jesus says, "I came not to send peace, but a sword." [2166] Since both persons speak in the same terms, one or other of these two things must follow: namely, either they are both good [2167] because they use the same language; or, if Jesus passes without censure though He speaks in such terms, you must tell us why you reprehend Him who employs a similar mode of address in the Old Testament.
[2157] Ps. v. 9.
[2158] Deut. iv. 24.
[2159] Luke xii. 49.
[2160] 1 Sam. ii. 6.
[2161] Acts ix. 40.
[2162] Acts v. 10.
[2163] Deut. xxxii. 22.
[2164] Matt. xxv. 41.
[2165] Isa. xlv. 7.
[2166] Matt. x. 34. Various of the mss. add, epi ten gen, upon the earth.
[2167] The text gives kaloi. Routh seems to prefer kakoi, evil.
2. Then Manes made the following reply to him: And what manner of God now is it that blinds one? For it is Paul who uses these words: "In whom the God of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the Gospel should shine in them." [2168] But Archelaus broke in and refuted this very well, saying: Read, however, a word or two of what precedes that sentence, namely, "But if our Gospel be hid, it is hid in them that are lost." You see that it is hid in them that are lost. "For it is not meet to give the holy things to dogs." [2169] And furthermore, is it only the God of the Old Testament that has blinded the minds of them who believe not? Nay, has not Jesus Himself also said: "Therefore speak I to them in parables: that seeing, they may not see?" [2170] Is it then because He hated them that He desired them not to see? Or is it not on account of their unworthiness, since they closed their own eyes? For wherever wickedness is a matter self-chosen, there too there is the absence of grace. "For unto him that hath shall be given, but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he seemeth to have." [2171]
[2168] 2 Cor. iv. 4.
[2169] Matt. vii. 6.
[2170] Matt. xiii. 13. The text is, hina blepontes me bleposi.
[2171] Matt. xxv. 29.
3. But even although [2172] we should be under the necessity of accepting the exegesis advocated by some,--for the subject is not altogether unworthy of notice,--and of saying thus, that He hath actually blinded the minds [2173] of them that believe not, we should still have to affirm that He hath blinded them for good, in order that they may recover their sight to behold things that are holy. For it is not said that He hath blinded their soul, [2174] but only that He hath blinded the minds of them that believe not. And that mode of expression means something like this: Blind the whorish mind of the whore-monger, and the man is saved; blind the rapacious and thievish mind of the thief and the man is saved. But do you decline to understand the sentence thus? Well, there is still another interpretation. For the sun blinds those who have bad sight; and those who have watery eyes are also blinded when they are smitten by the light: not, however, because it is of the nature of the sun to blind, but because the eye's own constitution [2175] is not one of correct vision. And in like manner, those whose hearts are afflicted with the ailment of unbelief are not capable of looking upon the rays of the glory of the Godhead. And again, it is not said, "He hath blinded their minds lest they should hear the Gospel," but rather "lest the light of the glory of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ should shine unto them." For to hear the Gospel is a thing committed [2176] to all; but the glory of the Gospel of Christ is imparted only to the sincere and genuine. For this reason the Lord spake in parables to those who were incapable of hearing, but to His disciples He explained these parables in private. For the illumination of the glory is for those who have been enlightened, while the blinding is for them who believe not. These mysteries, which the Church now declares to you who are transferred from the lists of the catechumens, it is not her custom to declare to the Gentiles. For we do not declare the mysteries touching the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit to a Gentile; neither do we speak of the mysteries plainly in presence of the catechumens; but many a time we express ourselves in an occult manner, so that the faithful who have intelligence may apprehend the truths referred to, while those who have not that intelligence may receive no hurt.
[2172] For ei de dei kai hos, etc., various codices read ei de dikaios, etc.
[2173] noemata, thoughts.
[2174] psuchen.
[2175] hupostasis.
[2176] ephietai.
Elucidations.
------------------------
I.
(Spotless virgin, etc. p. 223 and note 7.)
Oh that "foolish and unlearned questions" had been avoided, as the Scripture [2177] bids! Surely, we should be as decent about the conjugal relations of the Blessed Virgin as we are socially in all such matters. Pearson, as in the note, says all that should be said on such a subject. Photius, in his thirtieth epistle, expounds the text Matt. i. 25. But it did not rest there. Let it rest here.
II.
(Get thee behind me, Satan, p. 224 and note 13.)
I adopt the views of those who reverently suppose that when it was said, "Let us make man," etc., Lucifer conceived rebellion, and said, "This be far from Thee, Lord;" fearing the creature made in God's own image might outshine himself. Hence our Lord applies the epithet "Satan" to Peter when he ventures to use similar language. Possibly there lurks a reference to this in such language as Job iv. 18. I have previously referred to the Messias and Anti-Messias of the Rev. Charles Ingham Black (London, 1854), in which this view is singularly well argued. It is well to halt, however, with a confession, that, while it seems intimated in Holy Scripture, it cannot be proved as revealed. Hence let us reverently say what is said by the Psalmist in Psa. cxxxi. 1, and confess what is written in Deut. xxix. 29. I go so far, only because the words on which this note is a comment seem to authorize inquiry as to the force of "Satan" just there. I state what seems the reference, but go no farther. Compare Dan. iv. 35.
III.
(I shrink from repeating, p. 227 and note 10.)
The delicacy of feeling here expressed is most honourable to the sentiment of the Church at this period. Not till St. Bernard's day was it hinted [2178] even in the West, that the Blessed Virgin was conceived without taint of original sin; and he rebukes the innovators with a holy indignation. [2179] It shocks him that questions were thus raised as to her parents, their amplexus maritales, etc.
IV.
(In presence of the catechumens, p. 235.)
Here is testimony to the catechumen system of the primitive Church which appears to me not inconsistent with the period to which it is assigned. No doubt this gradual instruction of the disciple is based upon the example of our Lord Himself, who spoke in parables, [2180] and taught "as they were able to hear it." But the disciplina arcani was designed chiefly to protect the Church from the profaneness of the heathen, and it fell into desuetude after the Council of Nice.