Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VI/Archelaus/Acts of Disputation/Chapter XLI

by Archelaus

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:^[1]—

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^[2] 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.^[3] 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.^[4] We are not therefore to cast aside the mirror,^[5] 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^[6] when he is yet a very little fellow, ought to hold that pædagogue in no honour^[7] after he has grown up to manhood, simply because he needs his services^[8] 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.^[9] 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^[10] Even so, then, I think we must suppose that that distinguished servant of God, Moses, in a manner something like this, found^[11] 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^[12] 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;^[13] 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.”^[14] And Jesus afterwards said: “For Moses spake of me.”^[15] You see^[16] how these twain give the right hand to each other, although^[17] the one was the prophet and the other was the beloved Son,^[18] 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,^[19] 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,^[20] 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.^[21] 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.

Footnotes

1. This epistle is edited not only from the Codex Casinensis, but also by Valesius from the Codex Bobiensis. The most important varieties of reading shall therefore be noted.
2. Summum studium. But the Codex Bobiensis reads suum studium.
3. Reading “ex subtegmine atque stamine,” etc., with the Codex Bobiensis, instead of “subtemine et, quæ stamine,” etc., as it is given in the Codex Casinensis. [A beautiful anticipation of Augustine’s dictum, “The New is veiled in the Old, the Old unveiled in the New.”]
4. We read here “gloriam enim Domini in eodem speculamur.” The Codex Bobiensis is vitiated here, giving gloriam um Domini, which was changed by Valesius into gloriam Jesu, etc.
5. Reading, with the Codex Bobiensis, “speculum, cum nobis ipsam imaginem,” etc., instead of “speculum nobis per ipsam imaginem,” etc.
6. [Here is the literal use of the word “pædagogue,” with which Clement took liberties. Vol. ii. p. 209, note 3, this series.] Adopting “qui ad doctores a pædagogo,” instead of “qui a doctore iis a pædagogo.”
7. “Dehonorare,” or, as in the Codex Bobiensis, “dehonestare.”
8. Reading “opera ejus non indiget.” But the Codex Casinensis gives “ore ejus,” etc.
9. The Codex Bobiensis reads here, “accidit vero post tempus ut is qui…requireret,” etc. The other codex has, “accedit vero post tempus is qui…requirere.”
10. Reading pro respectu with Codex Bobiensis. The other codex gives prospectu.
11. Reading invenisse. The Codex Casinensis gives venisse.
12. Routh suggests pastor, the shepherd, for pater.
13. Reading cognata, with Codex Bobiensis, instead of cognita.
14. Deut. xviii. 18.
15. John v. 46.
16. We adopt the reading vides, instead of the faulty unde of the Codex Casinensis.
17. Reading quamvis for quum.
18. See Heb. iii. 5, 6.
19. Luke xvi. 19, etc.
20. Infernum. [Sheol, rather, or Hades.]
21. The reading of the Codex Casinensis is, “rogavit dives simul uno tempore ut edisceret majorem doctrinam.” But the other codex gives, “uno tempore discere majorem doctrinam ab Abraham” = entreated that he might learn the superior doctrine of Abraham. For edisceret we may read with Routh ediscerent.