[3455] Lit., "with ocular inspection, and held touched."
[3456] "Fire" is wanting in the ms.
[3457] Arnobius here allows himself to be misled by Cicero (Tusc., i. 10), who explains entelecheia as a kind of perpetual motion, evidently confusing it with endelecheia (cf. Donaldson, New Crat., § 339 sqq.), and represents Aristotle as making it a fifth primary cause. The word has no such meaning, and Aristotle invariably enumerates only four primary causes: the material from which, the form in which, the power by which, and the end for which anything exists (Physics, ii. 3; Metaph., iv. 2, etc.).
[3458] Lit., "with indivisible bodies."
[3459] Pl.
[3460] So the ms., LB., and Hildebrand, reading Archesilæ, while the others read Archesilao, forgetting that Arcesilas is the regular Latin form, although Archesilaus is found.
10. Finally, do not even the leaders and founders of the schools [3461] already mentioned, say those very things [3462] which they do say through belief in their own ideas? For, did Heraclitus see things produced by the changes of fires? Thales, by the condensing of water? [3463] Did Pythagoras see them spring from number? [3464] Did Plato see the bodiless forms? Democritus, the meeting together of the atoms? Or do those who assert that nothing at all can be comprehended by man, know whether what they say is true, so as to [3465] understand that the very proposition which they lay down is a declaration of truth? [3466] Since, then, you have discovered and learned nothing, and are led by credulity to assert all those things which you write, and comprise in thousands of books; what kind of judgment, pray, is this, so unjust that you mock at faith in us, while you see that you have it in common with our readiness of belief? [3467] But you say you believe wise men, well versed in all kinds of learning!--those, forsooth, who know nothing, and agree in nothing which they say; who join battle with their opponents on behalf of their own opinions, and are always contending fiercely with obstinate hostility; who, overthrowing, refuting, and bringing to nought the one the other's doctrines, have made all things doubtful, and have shown from their very want of agreement that nothing can he known.
[3461] Sententiarum is read in the first ed. by Gelenius, Canterus, and Ursinus, and seems from Crusius to be the ms. reading. The other edd., however, have received from the margin of Ursinus the reading of the text, sectarum.
[3462] In the first ed., and that of Ursinus, the reading is, nonne apud ea, "in those things which they say, do they not say," etc., which Gelenius emended as in the text, nonne ipsa ea.
[3463] Cf. Diog. Lært. ix. 9, where Heraclitus is said to have taught that fire--the first principle--condensing becomes water, water earth, and conversely; and on Thales, Arist., Met., A, 3, where, however, as in other places, Thales is merely said to have referred the generation and maintenance of all things to moisture, although by others he is represented as teaching the doctrine ascribed to him above. Cf. Cic., de Nat. Deor., i. 10, and Heraclides, Alleg. Hom., c. 22, where water evaporating is said to become air, and settling, to become mud.
[3464] There is some difficulty as to the reading: the ms., first ed., and Ursinus give numero s-c-ire, explained by Canterus as meaning "that numbers have understanding," i.e., so as to be the cause of all. Gelenius, followed by Canterus, reads -os scit--"does Pyth. know numbers," which is absurdly out of place. Heraldus approved of a reading in the margin of Ursinus (merely inserting o after c), "that numbers unite," which seems very plausible. The text follows an emendation of Gronovius adopted by Orelli, -o ex-ire.
[3465] So the ms., reading ut; but Orelli, and all edd. before him, aut--"or do they."
[3466] i.e., that truth knowable by man exists.
[3467] So the ms. reading nostra in-credulitate, for which Ursinus, followed by Stewechius, reads nostra cum. Heraldus conjectured vestra, i.e., "in your readiness of belief," you are just as much exposed to such ridicule.
11. But, supposing that these things do not at all hinder or prevent your being bound to believe and hearken to them in great measure; [3468] and what reason is there either that you should have more liberty in this respect, or that we should have less? You believe Plato, [3469] Cronius, [3470] Numenius, or any one you please; we believe and confide in Christ. [3471] How unreasonable it is, that when we both abide [3472] by teachers, and have one and the same thing, belief, in common, you should wish it to be granted to you to receive what is so [3473] said by them, but should be unwilling to hear and see what is brought forward by Christ! And yet, if we chose to compare cause with cause, we are better able to point out what we have followed in Christ, than you to point out what you have followed in the philosophers. And we, indeed, have followed in him these things--those glorious works and most potent virtues which he manifested and displayed in diverse miracles, by which any one might be led to feel the necessity of believing, and might decide with confidence that they were not such as might be regarded as man's, but such as showed some divine and unknown power. What virtues did you follow in the philosophers, that it was more reasonable for you to believe them than for us to believe Christ? Was any one of them ever able by one word, or by a single command, I will not say to restrain, to check [3474] the madness of the sea or the fury of the storm; to restore their sight to the blind, or give it to men blind from their birth; to call the dead back to life; to put an end to the sufferings of years; but--and this is much easier [3475] --to heal by one rebuke a boil, a scab, or a thorn fixed in the skin? Not that we deny either that they are worthy of praise for the soundness of their morals, or that they are skilled in all kinds of studies and learning; for we know that they both speak in the most elegant language, and that their words flow in polished periods; that they reason in syllogisms with the utmost acuteness; that they arrange their inferences in due order; [3476] that they express, divide, distinguish principles by definitions; that they say many things about the different kinds of numbers, many things about music; that by their maxims and precepts [3477] they settle the problems of geometry also. But what has that to do with the case? Do enthymemes, syllogisms, and other such things, assure us that these men know what is true? or are they therefore such that credence should necessarily be given to them with regard to very obscure subjects? A comparison of persons must be decided, not by vigour of eloquence, but by the excellence of the works which they have done. He must not [3478] be called a good teacher who has expressed himself clearly, [3479] but he who accompanies his promises with the guarantee of divine works.
[3468] Heraldus has well suggested that plurimum is a gloss arising out of its being met with in the next clause.
[3469] So the ms. and edd., reading Platoni; but Ursinus suggested Plotino, which Heraldus thinks most probably correct. There is, indeed, an evident suitableness in introducing here the later rather than the earlier philosopher, which has great weight in dealing with the next name, and should therefore, perhaps, have some in this case also.
[3470] The ms. and both Roman edd. give Crotonio, rejected by the others because no Crotonius is known (it has been referred, however, to Pythagoras, on the ground of his having taught in Croton). In the margin of Ursinus Cronius was suggested, received by LB. and Orelli, who is mentioned by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., vi. 19, 3) with Numenius and others as an eminent Pythagorean, and by Porphyry (de Ant. Nymph., xxi.), as a friend of Numenius, and one of those who treated the Homeric poems as allegories. Gelenius substitutes Plotinus, followed by most edd.
[3471] [Thus everywhere he writes as a Christian.]
[3472] Stemus, the admirable correction of Gelenius for the ms. tem-p-us.
[3473] Orelli, following Stewechius, would omit ita.
[3474] Hildebrand thinks compescere here a gloss, but it must be remembered that redundancy is a characteristic of Arnobius.
[3475] The superlative is here, as elsewhere, used by Arnobius instead of the comparative.
[3476] i.e., so as to show the relations existing between them.
[3477] Perhaps "axioms and postulates."
[3478] According to Crusius, non is not found in the ms.
[3479] White and Riddle translate candidule, "sincerely," but give no other instance of its use, and here the reference is plainly to the previous statement of the literary excellence of the philosophers. Heraldus suggests callidule, "cunningly," of which Orelli approves; but by referring the adv. to this well-known meaning of its primitive, all necessity for emendation is obviated.
12. You bring forward arguments against us, and speculative quibblings, [3480] which--may I say this without displeasing Him--if Christ Himself were to use in the gatherings of the nations, who would assent? who would listen? who would say that He decided [3481] anything clearly? or who, though he were rash and utterly [3482] credulous, would follow Him when pouring forth vain and baseless statements? His virtues have been made manifest to you, and that unheard-of power over things, whether that which was openly exercised by Him or that which was used [3483] over the whole world by those who proclaimed Him: it has subdued the fires of passion, and caused races, and peoples, and nations most diverse in character to hasten with one accord to accept the same faith. For the deeds can be reckoned up and numbered which have been done in India, [3484] among the Seres, Persians, and Medes; in Arabia, Egypt, in Asia, Syria; among the Galatians, Parthians, Phrygians; in Achaia, Macedonia, Epirus; in all islands and provinces on which the rising and setting sun shines; in Rome herself, finally, the mistress of the world, in which, although men are [3485] busied with the practices introduced by king [3486] Numa, and the superstitious observances of antiquity, they have nevertheless hastened to give up their fathers' mode of life, [3487] and attach themselves to Christian truth. For they had seen the chariot [3488] of Simon Magus, and his fiery car, blown into pieces by the mouth of Peter, and vanish when Christ was named. They had seen him, I say, trusting in false gods, and abandoned by them in their terror, borne down headlong by his own weight, lie prostrate with his legs broken; and then, when he had been carried to Brunda, [3489] worn out with anguish and shame, again cast himself down from the roof of a very lofty house. But all these deeds you neither know nor have wished to know, nor did you ever consider that they were of the utmost importance to you; and while you trust your own judgments, and term that wisdom which is overweening conceit, you have given to deceivers--to those guilty ones, I say, whose interest it is that the Christian name be degraded--an opportunity of raising clouds of darkness, and concealing truths of so much importance; of robbing you of faith, and putting scorn in its place, in order that, as they already feel that an end such as they deserve threatens them, they might excite in you also a feeling through which you should run into danger, and be deprived of the divine mercy.
[3480] Lit., "subtleties of suspicions." This passage is certainly doubtful. The reading translated, et suspicionum argutias profertis, is that of LB., Orelli, and the later edd. generally; while the ms. reads -atis--"Bring forward arguments to us, and" (for which Heraldus conjectures very plausibly, nec, "and not") "subtleties," etc., which, by changing a single letter, reads in the earlier edd. pro-fer-etis--"Will you," or, "You will bring forward," etc.
[3481] Meursius conjectures in- (for ms. ju-) dicare--"pointed out," of which Orelli approves.
[3482] So the ms. and both Roman edd., supported by Heraldus, reading solidæ facilitatis, changed by the edd. into stolidæ--"stupid."
[3483] So all the edd. except Oehler; but as the first verb is plural in the ms., while the second is singular, it is at least as probable that the second was plural originally also, and that therefore the relative should be made to refer both to "virtues" and "power."
[3484] Orelli notes that by India is here meant Ethiopia. If so, it may be well to remember that Lucan (x. 29 sq.) makes the Seres neighbours of the Ethiopians, and dwellers at the sources of the Nile.
[3485] Instead of sint, Stewechius would read essent--"were."
[3486] Instead of the ms. reading, Numæ regis artibus et antiquis superstitionibus, Stewechius, followed by Heraldus, would read ritibus--"with the rites of Numa," etc.
[3487] So the ms., reading res patrias, for which Heraldus, ritus patrios--"rites."
[3488] So the ms., although the first five edd., by changing r into s, read cur-s-um--"course." This story is of frequent occurrence in the later Fathers, but is never referred to by the earlier, or by any except Christian writers, and is derived solely from the Apostolic Constitutions. In the Greek version of the Apost. Const. the sixth book opens with a dissertation on schisms and heresies in which the story of Simon and others is told; but that this was interpolated by some compiler seems clear from the arguments brought forward by Bunsen (Hippolytus and his Age, more particularly vol. ii. pt. 2, § 2, and the second appendix).