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

by Archelaus

26. The judges said: If you allege that the shepherd exposed the kid or the lamb to the lion, when the said lion was meditating an assault^[1] on the unbegotten, the case is closed. For seeing that the shepherd of the kids and lambs is himself proved to be in fault to them, on what creature can he pronounce judgment, if it happens that the lamb which has been given up^[2] through the shepherd’s weakness has proved unable to withstand the lion, and if the consequence is that the lamb has had to do whatever has been the lion’s pleasure? Or, to take another instance, that would be just as if a master were to drive out of his house, or deliver over in terror to his adversary, one of his slaves, whom he is unable afterwards to recover by his own strength. Or supposing that by any chance it were to come about that the slave was recovered, on what reasonable ground could the master inflict the torture on him, if it should turn out that the man yielded obedience to all that the enemy laid upon him, seeing that it was the master himself^[3] who gave him up to the enemy, just as the kid was given up to the lion? You affirm, too, that the shepherd understood the whole case beforehand. Surely, then, the lamb, when under the lash, and interrogated by the shepherd as to the reason why it had submitted to the lion in these matters, would make some such answer as this: “Thou didst thyself deliver me over to the lion, and thou didst offer no resistance to him, although thou didst know and foresee what would be my lot, when it was necessary for me to yield myself to his commandments.” And, not to dilate on this at greater length, we may say that by such an illustration neither is God exhibited as a perfect shepherd, nor is the lion shown to have tasted alien meats; and consequently, under the instruction of the truth itself, it has been made clear that we ought to give the palm to the reasonings adduced by Archelaus. Archelaus said: Considering that, on all the points which we have hitherto discussed, the thoughtfulness of the judges has assigned us the amplest scope, it will be well for us to pass over other subjects in silence, and reserve them for another period. For just as, if^[4] a person once crushes the head of a serpent, he will not need to lop off any of the other members of its body; so, if we once dispose^[5] of this question of the duality, as we have endeavoured to do to the best of our ability, other matters which have been maintained in connection with it may be held to be exploded along with it. Nevertheless I shall yet address myself, at least in a few sentences, to the assertor of these opinions himself, who is now in our presence; so that it may be thoroughly understood by all who he is, and whence he comes, and what manner of person he proves himself to be. For he has given out that he is that Paraclete whom Jesus on His departure promised to send to the race of man for the salvation of the souls of the faithful; and this profession he makes as if he were somewhat superior even to Paul,^[6] who was an elect vessel and a called apostle, and who on that ground, while preaching the true doctrine, said:^[7] “Or seek ye a proof of that Christ who speaks in me?”^[8] What I have to say, however, may become clearer by such an illustration as the following:^[9]—A certain man gathered into his store a very large quantity of corn, so that the place was perfectly full. This place he shut and sealed in a thoroughly satisfactory fashion, and gave directions to keep careful watch over it. And the master himself then departed. However, after a lengthened lapse of time another person came to the store, and affirmed that he had been despatched by the individual who had locked up and sealed the place with a commission also to collect and lay up a quantity of wheat in the same. And when the keepers of the store saw him, they demanded of him his credentials, in the production of the signet, in order that they might assure themselves of their liberty to open the store to him and to render their obedience to him as to one sent by the person who had sealed the place. And when he could^[10] neither exhibit the keys nor produce the credentials of the signet, for indeed he had no right, he was thrust out by the keepers, and compelled to flee. For instead of being what he professed to be, he was detected to be a thief and a robber by them, and was convicted and found out^[11] through the circumstance that, although, as it seemed, he had taken it into his head to make his appearance a long time after the period that had been determined on beforehand, he yet could neither produce keys, or signet, or any token whatsoever to the keepers, nor display any knowledge of the quantity of corn that was in store: all which things were so many unmistakeable proofs that he had not been sent across by the proper owner; and accordingly, as was matter of course,^[12] he was forbidden admittance by the keepers.

Footnotes

1. Migne reads irrueret. Routh gives irruerat, had made an assault.
2. The text gives si causa traditus, etc. Routh suggests sive causa. Traditus, etc.; so that the sense would be, For on what creature can the shepherd of the kids and lambs pronounce judgment, seeing that he is himself proved to be in fault to them, or to be the cause of their position? For the lamb, having been given up, etc.
3. Reading eum ipse for eum ipsum.
4. Reading si quis for the simple quis of Codex Casinensis.
5. Reading “quæstione rejecta” for the relecta of Codex Casinensis.
6. This seems to be the general sense of the corrupt text here, et non longe possit ei Paulus, etc., in which we must either suppose something to have been lost, or correct it in some such way as this: “ut non longe post sit ei Paulus.” Compare what Manes says also of Paul and himself in ch. xiii. above. It should be added, however, that another idea of the passage is thrown out in Routh. According to this the ei refers to Jesus, and the text being emended thus, etsi non longe post sit ei, the sense would be: although not long after His departure He had Paul as an elect vessel, etc. The allusion thus would be to the circumstance that Manes made such a claim as he did, in spite of the fact that after Christ’s departure Paul was gifted with the Spirit in so eminent a measure for the building up of the faithful.
7. Reading aiebat for the agebat of Codex Casinensis.
8. 2 Cor. xiii. 3. The reading here is, “Aut documentum quæritis,” etc. The Vulgate also gives An experimentum, for the Greek ἐπεί, etc.
9. The text is, “et quidem quod dico tali exemplo sed clarius.” For sed it is proposed to read fit, or sit, or est.
10. Codex Casinensis has quicunque. We adopt the correction, qui cum nec.
11. Reading confutatus for confugatus.
12. The text gives “et ideo ut consequenter erat,” etc. Codex Casinensis omits the ut. Routh proposes, “et ideo consequenter thesaurus,” etc. = and thus, of course, the treasure was preserved, etc. Comp. ch. xxvii. and xxxiv.