They say it was by way of appearance, and in this manner, that the divine virtue in matter was affixed to the cross; and that He Himself did not undergo this punishment, since it was impossible that He should suffer this; which assertion Manichæus himself has taken in hand to teach in a book written upon the subject, that the divine virtue was enclosed in matter, and again departs from it. The mode of this they invent. That it should be said, indeed, in the doctrine of the Church, that He gave Himself up for the remission of sins, obtains credit from the vulgar, and appears likewise in the Greek histories, which say that some "surrendered themselves to death in order to ensure safety to their countrymen." And of this doctrine the Jewish history has an example, which prepares the son of Abraham as a sacrifice to God. [2205] But to subject Christ to His passion merely for the sake of display, betrays great ignorance, for the Word is God's representative, to teach and inform us of actual verities.
[2205] Gen. xxii. 1.
Chapter XXV.--The Manichæan Abstinence from Living Things Ridiculous; Their Madness in Abhorring Marriage; The Mythology of the Giants; Too Allegorical an Exposition.
They abstain also from living things. If, indeed, the reason of their abstinence were other than it is, it ought not to be too curiously investigated. But if they do so for this reason, that the divine virtue is more or less absent or present to them, this their meaning is ridiculous. For if plants be more material, how is it in accordance with reason to use that which is inferior for food and sustenance? or, if there be more of the divine virtue in them, how are things of this sort useful as food, when the soul's faculty of nourishing and making increase is more corporeal? Now in that they abstain from marriage and the rites of Venus, fearing lest by the succession of the race the divine virtue should dwell more in matter, I wonder how in thinking so they allow of themselves? For if neither the providence of God suffices, both by generations and by those things which are always and in the same manner existent, to separate off the divine virtue from matter, what can the cunning and subtlety of Manichæus effect for that purpose? For assuredly by no giant's co-operation does assistance come to God, in order by the removal of generations to make the retreat of the divine virtue from matter quick and speedy. But what the poets say about the giants is manifestly a fable. For those who lay it down about these, bring forward such matters in allegories, by a species of fable hiding the majesty of their discourse; as, for instance, when the Jewish history relates that angels came down to hold [2206] intercourse with the daughters of men; for this saying signifies that the nutritive powers of the soul descended from heaven to earth. But the poets who say that they, when they had emerged in full armour from the earth, perished immediately after they stirred up rebellion against the gods, in order that they might insinuate the frail and quickly-perishing constitution of the body, adorn their poetry in this way for the sake of refreshing the soul by the strangeness of the occurrence. But these, understanding nothing of all this, wheresoever they can get hold of a paralogism from whatsoever quarter it comes, greedily seize on it as a God-send, and strive with all their arts to overturn truth by any means.
[2206] Gen. vi. 2.
Chapter XXVI.--The Much-Talked-of Fire of the Manichæans; That Fire Matter Itself.
That fire, endowed indeed with the power of burning, yet possessing no light, which is outside the world, in what region has it place? For if it is in the world, why does the world hitherto continue safe? For if at some time or other it is to destroy it, by approaching it, now also it is conjoined with it. But if it be apart from it, as it were on high in its own region, what will hereafter happen to make it descend upon the world? Or in what way will it leave its own place, and by what necessity and violence? And what substance of fire can be conceived without fuel, and how can what is moist serve as fuel to it, unless what is rather physiologically said about this does not fall within the province of our present disquisition? But this is quite manifest from what has been said. For the fire existing outside the world is just that which they call matter, since the sun and the moon, being the purest of the pure, by their divine virtue, are separate and distinct from that fire, no part of them being left in it. This fire is matter itself, absolutely and per se, entirely removed from all admixture with the divine virtue. Wherefore when the world has been emptied of all the divine virtue which is opposed to it, and again a fire of this sort shall be left remaining, how then shall the fire either destroy anything, or be consumed by it? For, from that which is like, I do not see in what way corruption is to take place. For what matter will become when the divine virtue has been separated from it, this it was before that the divine virtue was commingled with it. If indeed matter is to perish when it is bereft of the divine virtue, why did it not perish before it came in contact with the divine virtue, or any creative energy? Was it in order that matter might successively perish, and do this ad infinitum? And what is the use of this? For that which had not place from the first volition, how shall this have place from one following? or what reason is there for God to put off things which, not even in the case of a man, appears to be well? For as regards those who deliberate about what is impossible, this is said to happen to them, that they do not wish for that which is possible. But if nothing else, they speak of God transcending substance, and bring Him forward as some new material, and that not such as intelligent men always think to be joined with Him, but that which investigation discovers either to be not existing at all, or to be the extreme of all things, and which can with difficulty be conceived of by the human mind. For this fire, devoid of light, is it of more force than matter, which is to be left desolate by divine virtue, or is it of less? And if it is of less, how will it overcome that which is of more? but if it is of more, it will be able to bring it back to itself, being of the same nature; yet will it not destroy it, as neither does the Nile swallow up the streams that are divided off from it.
Elucidation.
------------------------
If anything could be more dreary than the Manichæan heresy itself, it may be questioned whether it be not the various views that have been entertained concerning our author. I have often remarked the condensation of valuable information given by Dr. Murdock in his notes upon Mosheim, but he fails to get in the half that needs to be noted. [2207] He tells us that "Alexander of Lycopolis flourished probably about a.d. 350." He adds, "Fabricius supposes that he was first a Pagan and a Manichee, and afterwards a Catholic Christian. Cave is of the same opinion. Beausobre thinks he was a mere pagan. [2208] Lardner thinks he was a Gentile, but well acquainted with the Manichees and other Christians, [2209] and that he had some knowledge of the Old and New Testaments, to which he occasionally refers. He speaks with respect of Christ and the Christian philosophy, and appears to have been "a learned and candid man." Of an eminent Christian bishop, all this seems very puzzling; and I feel it a sort of duty to the youthful student to give the statements of the learned Lardner in an abridged form, with such references to the preceding pages as may serve in place of a series of elucidations.
According to this invaluable critic, the learned are not able to agree concerning Alexander. Some think he was a Christian, others believe that he was a heathen. Fabricius, who places him in the fourth century, holds to this latter opinion; [2210] all which agrees with our Cave. [2211] Photius makes him Archbishop of Nicopolis. [2212] Tillemont thinks [2213] he was a pagan philosopher, who wrote to persuade his friends to prefer "the doctrine of the churches" to that of Manes. Combefis, his editor, [2214] thinks him very ancient, because he appears to have learned the principles of this heresy from the immediate disciples of the heretic. Beausobre, [2215] the standard authority, is of like opinion, and Mosheim approves his reasoning.
Nothing in his work, according to Lardner, proves that our author wrote near the beginning of the fourth century, and he decides upon the middle of that century as his epoch.
Alexander gives a very honourable character to the genuine Christian philosophy, and asserts its adaptation to the common people, and, indeed, to all sorts of men. [2216] He certainly is not mute as to Christ. His tribute to the Saviour is, if not affectionate, yet a just award to Him. [2217] By the "council of all together," he intends the College of the Apostles, [2218] made up of fishermen and publicans and tent-makers, in which he sees a design of the blessed Jesus to meet this class, and, in short, all classes. It is clear enough that Alexander has some knowledge of Christ, some knowledge of the received doctrine of the churches, [2219] or orthodox Christians; and he appears to blame the Manichees for not receiving the Scripture of the Old Testament. [2220]
He argues against their absurd opinion that Christ was "Mind;" [2221] also that, though crucified, He did not suffer: [2222] and he affirms [2223] that it would be more reasonable to say, agreeably to the ecclesiastical doctrine, that "He gave Himself for the remission of sins." He refers to the sacrifice of Isaac, [2224] and to the story of Cain and Abel; [2225] also to the mysterious subject of the angels and the daughters of men. [2226] Like an Alexandrian theologian, he expounds this, however, against the literal sense, as an allegory.
My reader will be somewhat amused with the terse summing-up of Lardner: "I am rather inclined to think he was a Gentile....He was evidently a learned and rational man. His observations concerning the Christian philosophy deserve particular notice. To me this work of Alexander appears very curious."
[2207] Mosheim, E. H., vol. i. p 383, note 5, Murdock's edition, New York, 1844. His references to Lardner in this case do not accord with my copy.
[2208] Histoire des Manichéens (Lardner's reference), pp. 236-237.
[2209] Credib., vol. vii. p. 574, ed. London, 1829.
[2210] Lardner's reference is: Bib. G., lib. v. c. 1, tom. 5, p. 290.
[2211] Long extract from Cave ubi supra. He quotes the Latin of Cave's Diss. on Writers of Uncertain Date.
[2212] Lardner's reference is to Photius, Contra Manich., i. cap. 11.
[2213] Lardner quotes from the Hist. des Manich., art. 16., Mémoires, etc., tom. iv.
[2214] Reference defective. See Lardner, Credib., vol. iii. 269. Here will be found (p. 252) a learned examination of Archelaus, and what amounts to a treatise on these Manichæans.
[2215] For Beausobre's summary of Alexander's deficiencies, see condensed statement in Lardner, vol. iii. p. 575.
[2216] Cap. i. p. 241, supra. A beautiful exordium. A recent writer, speaking of Potamiæna and Herais, virgin martyrs, and catechumens of Origen, remarks, that "the number of young women of high character who appreciated the teachings of this great master, many of whom were employed as copyists of his works, is creditable to the state of Christian society at that period" (Mahan, Church Hist., p. 237). It was to avoid scandal as well as temptation in his relations with these that he fell into his heroic mistake.
[2217] Cap. xxiv. p. 251, supra. Who can imagine that the author of this chapter is not a Christian? Observe what he says of "the Word."
[2218] Cap. xvi. p. 247.
[2219] Cap. xxiv. p. 251.
[2220] Cap. xxiv. p. 251.
[2221] Cap. xxiv. p. 251.
[2222] Cap. xxiv. p. 251.
[2223] Cap. xxiv. p. 251.
[2224] Cap. xxiv. p. 251.
[2225] Note the reference to the Old and New Testaments entire, p. 243, supra.
[2226] Cap. xxv. p. 252, supra.
The Canonical epistle, with the Commentaries of Theodore Balsamon and John Zonaras
Peter.
[Translated by the Rev. James B. H. Hawkins, M.A.]
Introductory Notice
to
Peter, Bishop of Alexandria.
------------------------
[a.d. 260 [2227] -300-311.] Entering upon the fourth century, we may well pause to reflect upon what Alexandria has been to the Church of Christ,--the mother of churches, the mother of saints, maintaining always the intellectual and even the ecclesiastical primacy of Christendom. "Ye are the light of the world," said the great Enlightener to the Galileans of an obscure and despised Roman province. But who could have prophesied that Egypt should again be the pharos of the world, as it was in Moses? Who could have foreseen the "men of Galilee" taking possession of the Alexandrian Library, and demonstrating the ways of Providence in creating the Bible of the Seventy, and in the formation of the Hellenistic Greek, for their ultimate use? Who could have imagined the Evangelist Mark and the eloquent Apollos to be the destined instruments for founding the schools of Christendom, and shaping scientific theology? Who would not have looked for all this in some other way, and preferably in Athens or in Rome? But who would have expected the visit of God Incarnate to Nazareth, and not to Alexandria?