Opening the library…

Search the Bible

Acts of Disputation

Archelaus

Chapter 40

About this work

Author: Archelaus

Section 40

40. I wish you to know, most pious father,

‹ Chapter 39 Chapter 41 ›

that

in

these

days

there

has

arrived

in

our

parts

a

certain

person

named

Manes

,

who

gives

out

that

he

is

to

complete

the

doctrine

of

the

New

Testament

.

And

in

the

statements

which

he

has

made

there

have

been

some

things

,

indeed

,

which

may

harmonize

with

our

faith

;

but

there

have

been

also

certain

affirmations

of

his

which

seem

very

far

removed

from

what

has

come

down

to

us

by

the

tradition

of

our

fathers

.

For

he

has

interpreted

some

doctrines

in

a

strange

fashion

,

imposing

on

them

certain

notions

of

his

own

,

which

have

appeared

to

me

to

be

altogether

foreign

and

opposed

to

the

faith

.

On

the

ground

of

these

facts

I

have

now

been

induced

to

write

this

letter

to

you

,

knowing

the

completeness

and

fulness

of

your

intelligence

in

doctrine

,

and

being

assured

that

none

of

these

things

can

escape

your

cognizance

.

Accordingly

,

I

have

also

indulged

the

confident

hope

that

you

cannot

be

kept

back

by

any

grudge

from

explaining

these

matters

to

us

.

As

to

myself

,

indeed

,

it

is

not

possible

that

I

shall

be

drawn

away

into

any

novel

doctrine

;

nevertheless

,

in

behalf

of

all

the

less

instructed

,

I

have

been

led

to

ask

a

word

with

your

authority

.

For

,

in

truth

,

the

man

shows

himself

to

be

a

person

of

extraordinary

force

of

character

,

both

in

speech

and

in

action

;

and

indeed

his

very

aspect

and

attire

also

bear

that

out

.

But

I

shall

here

write

down

for

your

information

some

few

points

which

I

have

been

able

to

retain

in

my

memory

out

of

all

the

topics

which

have

been

expounded

by

him

:

for

I

know

that

even

by

these

few

you

will

have

an

idea

of

the

rest

.

You

well

understand

,

no

doubt

,

that

those

who

seek

to

set

up

any

new

dogma

have

the

habit

of

very

readily

perverting

into

a

conformity

with

their

own

notions

any

proofs

they

desire

to

take

from

the

Scriptures

.

In

anticipation

,

however

,

of

this

,

the

apostolic

word

marks

out

the

case

thus

:

“

If

any

one

preach

any

other

gospel

unto

you

than

that

which

you

have

received

,

let

him

be

accursed

.

”

And

consequently

,

in

addition

to

what

has

been

once

committed

to

us

by

the

apostles

,

a

disciple

of

Christ

ought

to

receive

nothing

new

as

doctrine

.

But

not

to

make

what

I

have

got

to

say

too

long

,

I

return

to

the

subject

directly

in

view

.

This

man

then

maintained

that

the

law

of

Moses

,

to

speak

shortly

,

does

not

proceed

from

the

good

God

,

but

from

the

prince

of

evil

;

and

that

it

has

no

kinship

with

the

new

law

of

Christ

,

but

is

contrary

and

hostile

to

it

,

the

one

being

the

direct

antagonist

of

the

other

.

When

I

heard

such

a

sentiment

propounded

,

I

repeated

to

the

people

that

sentence

of

the

Gospel

in

which

our

Lord

Jesus

Christ

said

of

Himself

:

“

I

am

not

come

to

destroy

the

law

,

but

to

fulfil

it

.

”

The

man

,

however

,

averred

that

He

did

not

utter

this

saying

at

all

;

for

he

held

that

when

we

find

that

He

did

abrogate

that

same

law

,

we

are

bound

to

give

heed

,

above

all

other

considerations

,

to

the

thing

which

He

actually

did

.

Then

he

began

to

cite

a

great

variety

of

passages

from

the

law

,

and

also

many

from

the

Gospel

and

from

the

Apostle

Paul

,

which

have

the

appearance

of

contradicting

each

other

.

All

this

he

gave

forth

at

the

same

time

with

perfect

confidence

,

and

without

any

hesitation

or

fear

;

so

that

I

verily

believe

he

has

that

serpent

as

his

helper

,

who

is

ever

our

adversary

.

Well

,

he

declared

that

there

in

the

law

God

said

,

“

I

make

the

rich

man

and

the

poor

man

;

”

while

here

in

the

Gospel

Jesus

called

the

poor

blessed

,

and

added

,

that

no

man

could

be

His

disciple

unless

he

gave

up

all

that

he

had

.

Again

,

he

maintained

that

there

Moses

took

silver

and

gold

from

the

Egyptians

when

the

people

fled

out

of

Egypt

;

whereas

Jesus

delivered

the

precept

that

we

should

lust

after

nothing

belonging

to

our

neighbour

.

Then

he

affirmed

that

Moses

had

provided

in

the

law

,

that

an

eye

should

be

given

in

penalty

for

an

eye

,

and

a

tooth

for

a

tooth

;

but

that

our

Lord

bade

us

offer

the

other

cheek

also

to

him

who

smote

the

one

.

He

told

us

,

too

,

that

there

Moses

commanded

the

man

to

be

punished

and

stoned

who

did

any

work

on

the

Sabbath

,

and

who

failed

to

continue

in

all

things

that

were

written

in

the

law

,

as

in

fact

was

done

to

that

person

who

,

yet

being

ignorant

,

had

gathered

a

bundle

of

sticks

on

the

Sabbath

-

day

;

whereas

Jesus

cured

a

cripple

on

the

Sabbath

,

and

ordered

him

then

also

to

take

up

his

bed

.

And

further

,

He

did

not

restrain

His

disciples

from

plucking

the

ears

of

corn

and

rubbing

them

with

their

hands

on

the

Sabbath

-

day

,

which

yet

was

a

thing

which

it

was

unlawful

to

do

on

the

Sabbaths

.

And

why

should

I

mention

other

instances

?

For

with

many

different

assertions

of

a

similar

nature

these

dogmas

of

his

were

propounded

with

the

utmost

energy

and

the

most

fervid

zeal

.

Thus

,

too

,

on

the

authority

of

an

apostle

,

he

endeavoured

to

establish

the

position

that

the

law

of

Moses

is

the

law

of

death

,

and

that

the

law

of

Jesus

,

on

the

contrary

,

is

the

law

of

life

.

For

he

based

that

assertion

on

the

passage

which

runs

thus

:

“

In

which

also

may

God

make

us

able

ministers

of

the

New

Testament

;

not

of

the

letter

,

but

of

the

spirit

:

for

the

letter

killeth

,

but

the

spirit

giveth

life

.

But

if

the

ministration

of

death

,

engraven

in

letters

on

the

stones

,

was

made

in

glory

,

so

that

the

children

of

Israel

could

not

stedfastly

behold

the

face

of

Moses

for

the

glory

of

his

countenance

;

which

glory

was

to

be

done

away

;

how

shall

not

the

ministration

of

the

Spirit

be

rather

glorious

?

For

if

the

ministration

of

condemnation

be

glory

,

much

more

doth

the

ministration

of

righteousness

exceed

in

glory

.

For

even

that

which

was

made

glorious

had

no

glory

in

this

respect

,

by

reason

of

the

glory

that

excelleth

.

For

if

that

which

shall

be

done

away

is

glorious

,

much

more

that

which

remaineth

is

glorious

.

”

And

this

passage

,

as

you

are

also

well

aware

,

occurs

in

the

second

Epistle

to

the

Corinthians

.

Besides

,

he

added

to

this

another

passage

out

of

the

first

epistle

,

on

which

he

based

his

affirmation

that

the

disciples

of

the

Old

Testament

were

earthly

and

natural

;

and

in

accordance

with

this

,

that

flesh

and

blood

could

not

possess

the

kingdom

of

God

.

He

also

maintained

that

Paul

himself

spoke

in

his

own

proper

person

when

he

said

:

“

If

I

build

again

the

things

which

I

destroyed

,

I

make

myself

a

transgressor

.

”

Further

,

he

averred

that

the

same

apostle

made

this

statement

most

obviously

on

the

subject

of

the

resurrection

of

the

flesh

,

when

he

also

said

that

“

he

is

not

a

Jew

who

is

one

outwardly

,

neither

is

that

circumcision

which

is

outward

in

the

flesh

,

”

and

that

according

to

the

letter

the

law

has

in

it

no

advantage

.

And

again

he

adduced

the

statement

,

that

“

Abraham

has

glory

,

but

not

before

God

;

”

and

that

“

by

the

law

there

comes

only

the

knowledge

of

sin

.

”

And

many

other

things

did

he

introduce

,

with

the

view

of

detracting

from

the

honour

of

the

law

,

on

the

ground

that

the

law

itself

is

sin

;

by

which

statements

the

simpler

people

were

somewhat

influenced

,

as

he

continued

to

bring

them

forward

;

and

in

accordance

with

all

this

,

he

also

made

use

of

the

affirmation

,

that

“

the

law

and

the

prophets

were

until

John

.

”

He

declared

,

however

,

that

John

preached

the

true

kingdom

of

heaven

;

for

verily

he

held

,

that

by

the

cutting

off

of

his

head

it

was

signified

that

all

who

went

before

him

,

and

who

had

precedence

over

him

,

were

to

be

cut

off

,

and

that

what

was

to

come

after

him

was

alone

to

be

maintained

.

With

reference

to

all

these

things

,

therefore

,

O

most

pious

Archelaus

,

send

us

back

a

short

reply

in

writing

:

for

I

have

heard

that

you

have

studied

such

matters

in

no

ordinary

degree

;

and

that

capacity

which

you

possess

is

God’s

gift

,

inasmuch

as

God

bestows

these

gifts

upon

those

who

are

worthy

of

them

,

and

who

are

His

friends

,

and

who

show

themselves

allied

to

Him

in

community

of

purpose

and

life

.

For

it

is

our

part

to

prepare

ourselves

,

and

to

approach

the

gracious

and

liberal

mind

,

and

forthwith

we

receive

from

it

the

most

bountiful

gifts

.

Accordingly

,

since

the

learning

which

I

possess

for

the

discussion

of

themes

like

these

does

not

meet

the

requirements

of

my

desire

and

purpose

,

for

I

confess

myself

to

be

an

unlearned

man

,

I

have

sent

to

you

,

as

I

have

already

said

more

than

once

,

in

the

hope

of

obtaining

from

your

hand

the

amplest

solution

to

this

question

.

May

it

be

well

with

you

,

incomparable

and

honourable

father

!

Notes

1
Invidia.
2
[Tertullian, vol. iii. p. 251, this series.]
3
Gal. i. 8.
4
[Against Scripture and the torrent of patristic testimony, the men of this generation have seen new dogmas imposed upon a great portion of Christendom by the voice of a single bishop, and without synodical deliberation or consent. The whole claim to “Catholicity” perishes wherever such dogmas are accepted.]
5
Matt. v. 17.
6
Resolvisse.
7
Prov. xxii. 2.
8
Matt. v. 3.
9
Luke xiv. 33.
10
Reading cum populis for the cum populo of the text.
11
Ex. xii. 35.
12
Ex. xxi. 24.
13
Luke vi. 29.
14
Num. xv. 32.
15
Mark ii. 11.
16
Luke vi. 1.
17
Faciat Deus.
18
In litteris formatum in lapidibus.
19
2 Cor. iii. 6–11.
20
1 Cor. xv. 46–50.
21
Gal. ii. 18.
22
Rom. ii. 28.
23
Rom. iv. 1.
24
Rom. iv. 2.
25
Rom. iii. 20.
26
Luke xvi. 16.
27
Reading “præparare et proximos fieri benignæ ac diviti menti” for “præparet proximus fieri benignæ hac,” etc., as it stands in the Codex Casinensis. Routh suggests “præparare proximos fieri benignæ ac diviti menti et continuo…consequemur” = to take care to draw near to the gracious and liberal mind, and then we shall forthwith receive steadily from it, etc.