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

50. Manes said: No one, certainly, who may be able to give a reply to what has just been alleged by you need fear incurring the guilt of blasphemy, but should rather be deemed thoroughly worthy of all commendation. For a true master of his art, when any matters are brought under his notice, ought to prepare his reply with due care, and make all clearly to understand the points that are in question or under doubt; and most especially ought he to do so to uninstructed persons. Now since the account of our doctrine does not satisfy you, be pleased, like a thorough master of your art, to solve this question also for me in a reasonable manner. For to me it seems but pious to say that the Son of God stood in need of nothing whatsoever in the way of making good His advent upon earth; and that He in no sense required either the dove, or baptism, or mother, or brethren, or even mayhap a father,—which father, however, according to your view, was Joseph; but that He descended altogether by Himself alone, and transformed Himself, according to His own good pleasure, into the semblance of a man, in accordance with that word of Paul which tells us that “He was found in fashion as a man.” Show me, therefore, what thing He could possibly need who was able to transform Himself into all manner of appearances. For when He chose to do so, He again transformed this human fashion and mien into the likeness of the sun. But if you gainsay me once more, and decline to acknowledge that I state the faith correctly, listen to my definition of the position in which you stand. For if you say that He was only man as born of Mary, and that He received the Spirit at His baptism, it will follow that He will be made out to be Son by increase and not by nature. If, however, I grant you to say that He is Son according to increase, and that He was made as a man, your opinion is that He is really a man, that is to say, one who is flesh and blood. But then it will necessarily follow that the Spirit also who appeared like a dove was nothing else than a natural dove. For the two expressions are the same,—namely, “as a man” and “like a dove;” and consequently whatever may be the view you take of the one passage which uses the phrase “as a man,” you ought to hold that same view also of this other passage in which the expression “like a dove” is used. It is a clear matter of necessity to take these things in the same way, for only thus can we find out the real sense of what is written concerning Him in the Scriptures. Archelaus said: As you cannot do so much for yourself, like a thorough master of your art, so neither should I care to put this question right and with all patience to make it clear, and to give the evident solution of the difficulty, were it not for the sake of those who are present with us, and who listen to us. For this reason, therefore, I shall also explain the answer that ought to be given to this question as it may be done most appropriately. It does not seem to you, then, to be a pious thing to say that Jesus had a mother in Mary; and you hold a similar view on certain other positions which you have now been discussing in terms which I, for my part, altogether shrink from repeating. Now, sometimes a master of any art happens to be compelled by the ignorance of an opponent both to say and to do things which time would make him decline; and accordingly, because the necessity is laid upon me, by consideration for the multitude present, I may give a brief answer to those statements which have been made so erroneously by you. Let us suppose, now, your allegation to be that if we understand Jesus to be a man made of Mary after the course of nature, and regard him consequently as having flesh and blood, it will be necessary also to hold that the Holy Spirit was a real dove, and not a spirit. Well, then, how can a real dove enter into a real man, and abide in him? For flesh cannot enter into flesh. Nay rather, it is only when we acknowledge Jesus to be a true man, and also hold him who is there said to be like a dove to be the Holy Spirit, that we shall give the correct account according to reason on both sides. For, according to right reason, it may be said that the Spirit dwells in a man, and descends upon him, and abides in him; and these, indeed, are things which have happened already in all due competence, and the occurrence of which is always possible still, as even you yourself admit, inasmuch as you did aforetime profess to be the Paraclete of God, you flint, as I may call you, and no man, so often forgetful of the very things which you assert. For you declared that the Spirit whom Jesus promised to send has come upon you; and whence can He come but by descending from Heaven? And if the Spirit descends thus on the man worthy of Him, then verily must we fancy that real doves descended upon you? Then truly should we rather discover in you the thieving dove-merchant, who lays snares and lines for the birds. For surely you well deserve to be made a jest of with words of ridicule. However, I spare you, lest perchance I appear to offend the auditors by such expressions, and also most especially because it is beside my purpose to throw out against you all that you deserve to hear said about you. But let me return to the proper subject. For I am mindful of that transformation of thine, in virtue of which you say that God has transformed Himself into the fashion of a man or into that of the sun, by which position you think to prove that our Jesus was made man only in fashion and in appearance; which assertion may God save any of the faithful from making. Now, for the rest, that opinion of yours would reduce the whole matter to a dream, so far as we are concerned, and to mere figures; and not that only, but the very name of an advent would be done away: for He might have done what He desired to do, though still seated in heaven, if He is, as you say, a spirit, and not a true man. But it is not thus that “He humbled Himself, and took the form of a servant;” and I say this of Him who was made man of Mary. For what? Might not we, too, have set forth things like those with which you have been dealing, and that, too, all the more easily and the more broadly? But far be it from us to swerve one jot or one tittle from the truth. For He who was born of Mary is the Son, who chose of His own accord to sustain this mighty conflict,—namely, Jesus. This is the Christ of God, who descended upon him who is of Mary. If, however, you refuse to believe even the voice that was heard from heaven, all that you can bring forward in place of the same is but some rashness of your own; and though you were to declare yourself on that, no one would believe you. For forthwith Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil; and as the devil had no correct knowledge of Him, he said to Him, “If thou be the Son of God.” Besides, he did not understand the reason of this bearing of the Son of God by Mary, who preached the kingdom of heaven, whose was also indeed a great tabernacle, and one that could not have been prepared by any other: whence, too, He who was nailed to the cross, on rising again from the dead, was taken up thither where Christ the Son of God reigned; so that when He begins to conduct His judgment, those who have been ignorant of Him shall look on Him whom they pierced. But in order to secure your credence, I propose this question to you: Why was it, that although His disciples sojourned a whole year with Him, not one of them fell prostrate on his face before Him, as you were saying a little ago, save only in that one hour when His countenance shone like the sun? Was it not by reason of that tabernacle which had been made for Him of Mary? For just as no other had the capacity sufficient for sustaining the burden of the Paraclete except only the disciples and the blessed Paul, so also no other was able to bear the Spirit who descended from heaven, and through whom that voice of the Father gave its testimony in these terms, “This is my beloved Son,” save only He who was born of Mary, and who is above all the saints,—namely, Jesus. But now give us your answer to those matters which I bring forward against you. If you hold that He is man only in mien and form, how could He have been laid hold of and dragged off to judgment by those who were born of man and woman—to wit, the Pharisees—seeing that a spiritual body cannot be grasped by bodies of grosser capacities? But if you, who as yet have made no reply to the arguments brought before you, have now any kind of answer to offer to the word and proposition I have adduced, proceed, I pray you, and fetch me at least a handful or some fair modicum of your sunlight. But that very sun, indeed, inasmuch as it is possessed of a more subtle body, is capable of covering and enveloping you; while you, on the other hand, can do it no injury, even although you were to trample it under foot. My Lord Jesus, however, if He was laid hold of, was laid hold of as a man by men. If He is not a man, neither was He laid hold of. If He was not laid hold of, neither did He suffer, nor was He baptized. If He was not baptized, neither is any of us baptized. But if there is no baptism, neither will there be any remission of sins, but every man will die in his own sins. Manes said: Is baptism, then, given on account of the remission of sins? Archelaus said: Certainly. Manes said: Does it not follow, then, that Christ has sinned, seeing that He has been baptized? Archelaus said: God forbid! Nay, rather, He was made sin for us, taking on Him our sins. For this reason He was born of a woman, and for this reason also He approached the rite of baptism, in order that He might receive the purification of this part, and that thus the body which He had taken to Himself might be capable of bearing the Spirit, who had descended in the form of a dove.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Artifex.
* ↑ Phil. ii. 7.
* ↑ Hominem.
* ↑ Hominem eum tantummodo ex Maria.
* ↑ Or, effect, per profectum.
* ↑ Effect. [i.e., progressively.]
* ↑ Routh puts this interrogatively = Is it then your position that He really is a man, that is to say, one who is flesh and blood? Well, but if so, then it will follow, etc.
* ↑ Or, as.
* ↑ Reading “sicut homo, hac opinione,” for the “sicut homo ac opinione” of the Codex Casinensis.
* ↑ The Codex Casinensis reads, “hanc quæstionem diffigenter aptare tam manifestarem atque manifeste dissolverem.” We follow the emendation, “hanc quæstionem diligenter aptatam manifestarem,” etc.
* ↑ [A signum verecundiæ which rebukes the awful inquisitiveness concerning the conception of Mary which disgraced the late pontiff, Pius IX. To what blasphemous pruriency of thought and expression has not such an invasion of decency given rise! See St. Bernard, Opp. tom. i. p. 392. He rebukes the heresy as profane.]
* ↑ The text gives tempus recusat. Routh proposes tempus requirit = which the occasion requires.
* ↑ This is a purely conjectural reading, “ut dicam silex,” etc. The Codex Casinensis gives, “ut dicam dilere non homo.” But Routh, in reference to ch. xv., throws out the idea that we should read delire = thou dotard, or, lunatic. [P. 190, supra, as if Manes = μανικὸς.]
* ↑ Columbarium furem.
* ↑ The text gives suæ. Routh suggests tuæ.
* ↑ The text is, “non solum autem, sed adventus nomen delebitur.” It may perhaps be = and not the foundation, but the name, of an advent would be done away.
* ↑ Phil. ii. 7.
* ↑ The text gives “quo magnum,” etc., for which we adopt “quod magnum,” etc.
* ↑ Matt. iv. 3.
* ↑ Or perhaps, = which was also, quod erat tabernaculum, etc.
* ↑ The Codex Casinensis gives “Ignorabat autem propter qui genuisset Filium Dei prædicabat regnum cœlorum, qui erat,” etc. We follow generally the emendations adopted in Migne: “Ignorabat autem propter quid genuisset Filium Dei, qui prædicabat regnum cœlorum, quod erat habitaculum magnum,” etc. Routh would read “genitus esset Filius Dei,” etc.
* ↑ John xix. 37.
* ↑ Matt. iii. 17.
* ↑ Pugillum plenum solis mihi affer aut modium plenum.
* ↑ 2 Cor. v. 21.
* ↑ Partis.