104 NEWBOLD— THE SYRIAC DIALOGUE " SOCRATES;' 



From this mystical theory of the soul's relation to her source 

 the " Socrates " draws some important practical conclusions. Since 

 the rational element is identical in all human souls which possess 

 it and since it is still in organic union with their common Root, it 

 necessarily follows that such souls enjoy a virtual community of 

 knowledge. It is by virtue of this community of knowledge that 

 truth spoken by one receives the assent of another. " But you, 

 Herostrophus," says Socrates, " have not come to ask or inquire of 

 me aught which is not your own. If it be of speech that you would 

 inquire of me, it is in you and is yours ; if of sight, it is yours ; if, 

 again, of hearing, it is in you. For no man shall see Good except 

 him in whom it is and no man speaks speech unless it be implanted 

 in him nor hears unless it is in him. That through which the eye 

 sees and the ear hears and speech speaks, [and] these three which 

 appear distributed among sense-organs (lit. parts, i.e., fiopia) — their 

 Root is one. And all these things which I have said to you, Hero- 

 strophus, if you should see them as I do and hear them as I do — 

 and you do (lit., such you are) — the Root is one. And if again 

 in another Space you should hear this discourse which you are hear- 

 ing from me, know that this is the Root of which is no Space empty 

 where it is not. For we who abide in the Root are like the branches 

 of a tree, some in the east, some in the north, some in the south, 

 some in the west, but the remainder is One Root." Ephraim criti- 

 cizes ("Against Hypatius," V., p. 159, Mitchell) a precisely similar 

 doctrine : " According to it one soul has no need of another soul to 

 learn or teach . . . because the knowledge of their essence is equal 

 if, as they say, the essence of all souls is one. If Teacher and 

 Teaching (pupil?) are from one Root and both are clad in flesh 

 . . . how does one go astray and another teach? ... If there is 

 recollection in all the Root, there is no error in all the Essence. 

 And the sons of this Essence (i. c, those who share in the Essence) 

 — how does one fail and another succeed? Their essence is not 

 the same." Ephraim rarely mentions the name of the author he is 

 controverting and in this passage he does not mention Bardaisan. 

 But in these sermons he is criticizing only Marcion. Bardaisan and 

 Mani and as there is no reason for ascribing the doctrine in question 



