Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

a

b

mention of Abraham, and of the gospel having been preached to him; on which account he ought also to have omitted part of the 9th verse, GUY TW T15W Abpack," with faithful Abraham:" and according to Tertullian's manner of stating the argument against him, this was the case. In the 15th verse of this chapter Marcion erased some things. Tertullian gives no particular account of what he left out. Dr. Mill expresses himself dubiously on this head. If I may be allowed to guess from the manner in which Tertullian expresseth himself, I should imagine that Marcion erased the whole of the 3d chapter after the word Aey in the 15th verse, and the beginning of the 4th chapter, till you come to the word or, in the 3d verse, and then the words will be connected in the following manner, turning from the 15th verse of the 3d chapter to the 3d of the fourth chapter: "Brethren, I speak after the manner of men-when we were children, we were in bondage under the elements of the world; but when the fulness of time was come, God sent forth his Son." This is precisely what Tertullian's argument requires, and they are the very words which he connects together. Dr. Mill indeed gives the words of Tertullian, as a various reading under the 3d verse. But from what he himself says under the 15th verse of the former chapter, and from this various reading being found no where else but in this place of Tertullian, it appears highly probable that the sense before given of this passage of Tertullian is the true one.

[ocr errors]

с

In the 9th verse of the fifth chapter Marcion read Soho, corrupteth,' instead of Cuμoi, leaveneth,' as it is in our present copies. Marcion's reading is probably 'the right one.

SECTION XLIV.

In the First Epistle to the Corinthians.

[ocr errors]

In the first epistle to the Corinthians, the 9th chapter, 8th verse, where we read, "or saith not the law the same also?" he changed it into, or doth not the law of Moses say the same?" inserting the word Moses, as if he would thereby make the apostle insinuate that it was not the law of the God of the Christians.

h

[ocr errors]

In chapter x. 9, Epiphanius accuses Marcion of having changed xupiov, Lord,' which, according to him, was the true reading, into X50, Christ, which is the reading in our present copies. But whatever Epiphanius thought, it is probable Xpisov was the true reading: for some person who thought the sense harsh with Xpisov, might change it into xupov: but no good reason can be assigned for the contrary change. In the 19th verse of this chapter, Marcion' changed

(xaows in v. 6.) ad v. 9. wisɛ oi en wisews, &c. Marcion omnia erasit in Ar050λixw, suo, teste Hieronymo in locum. Millii Tes. in loc.

Sed et quum adjicit, omnes enim filii estis fidei, ostenditur quid supra hæretica industria eraserit, mentionem scilicet Abrahæ, quâ nos Apostolus filios Abrahæ per fidem affirmat, secundum quam mentionem hic quoque filios fidei notavit. Adv. Mar. lib. 5, cap. 3. p. 456. 25. F. 1597.

b Hoc loco quædam omisit Marcion in Arosoλixa suo, teste Tertul. lib. 5. Con. Mar. cap. 4. Si quidem mentem ejus recte assequar. Millii. Test. in locum.

Adhuc, inquit, secundum hominem dico, dum essemus parvuli, sub elementis mundi eramus positi ad disserviendum eis. Atqui non est hoc humanitus dictum; non enim exemplum, sed veritas. Quis enim parvulus utique sensu, quod sunt nationes, non elementis subjectus est mundi, quæ pro Deo suscipit'-Erubescat spongia Marcionis, nisi quod ex abundanti retracto quæ abstulit, quum validius fit illum ex his revinci quæ servavit. Quum autem evenit impleri tempus, misit Deus filium suum, utique is qui etiam ipsorum temporum Deus est, &c. Adv. Mar. 1. 5. c. 4. p. 456. 37. Fr. 1597. d'Adhuc secundum hominem dico, dum essemus par' vuli,' &c. Marcionis Año5oλixo, teste Tertul. lib. 5. Contra Marcion. cap. 4. interjecto illo xar' av puπoY λEYW ex v. 15. præcedentis capitis. Millii Test. in locuni.

• Αντί τ8, μικρά ζύμη όλον το φύραμα ζυμοί, εποίησε δολοι. Epi. Hær.42. p. 319. C.

Epiphanius lectionem hanc Marcionis esse dicit. Ego certe ipsius Apostoli germanam esse nullus dubito. Vide note 1. Cor. 5, 6. Millii Test. in locum. Vide Simon's Crit. Hist. N. T. part 1. cap. 15. p. 133.

6 Μετηλλαγμένος. αντι γας τ8, και ὁ νόμος ταῦτα 8 λεγει, (in nostris codicibus η οχι και ὁ νόμος ταυτα λέγει) φησι εκείνος. ει και ὁ νόμος Μωϋσεως ταυτα 8 λεγει. Epi. ibid. p. 320. B. E is here put for . E quod alibi passim scripto pro, non autem posito, quod vult Epiphanius, pro conjunctione tametsi, quis enim. Marcionem adeo vesanum credat, ut dicat legem ista non dicere; et tamen addat in proximo, in lege Mosaïcâ scriptum, & iuwasis, &c. Milli Test. in locum.

Q. Doth not Epiphanius understand & in the same sense with Dr. Mill? Vide Epi. Hær. 42. p. 355. Exey. & xai 18. Ο δε Μαρκιων αντι το κυριον, Χρισον εποίησε. Epi. ibid. p. 358. B.

i Τι εν φημι, ὅτι ἱεροθυτον τι εσιν, η ειδωλόθυτον τι εσιν poreberO SE Maρxiwy To ispofurov. Epi. ibid. p. 358. D. poσelero, added, because Epiphanius read in his copy only, Τι εν φημι, ειδωλόθυτον τι εςιν.

OTI EISWROV TI E51", "that the idol is any thing," into OTI IEROBUTON 1851, that what is offered in the ότι είδωλον τι temple is any thing.'

6

a

In the 14th chapter and 19th verse Marcion read Sia Tov voμov on account of the law,' instead of dia 78 voos e, as it is in our copies, or Tu vo ue, as Epiphanius and some very ancient Greek MSS. read "with my understanding."

66

[ocr errors]

σώμα,

In the 15th chapter and the 38th verse Marcion substituted vεuua, spirit,' instead of rap, body;" and left out the latter clause of the 38th verse, and the whole 39th, 40th, and 41st verses, and the first clause of the 42d, and introduced part of the 44th verse, before the latter clause of the 42d. For thus the Marcionite, in the dialogue ascribed to Origen, says it is read in their Apostolicon; God giveth it a spirit as it hath pleased him. It is sown an animal body, it is raised a spiritual body. It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption, &c.' In the 45th verse of this chapter Marcion substituted nupios, Lord,' instead of Adaμ,“ Adam,” in the latter clause; and in the 47th verse he omitted aveguros, " man," in the latter clause.

[ocr errors]

с

d

SECTION XLV.

In the Second Epistle to the Corinthians.

In the second epistle to the Corinthians, chap iv. 4, Marcion understood by Oes 78 KINVOS T8T8, "the god of this world," the Creator, and considered him as here opposed to the good God, or the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who was the God of the Christians.

e

In opposition to this Irenæus, Tertullian, and others who wrote against the Marcionites, were for placing a comma after Θεος, and referring αιώνος τ8τε to απιςων. In whom God hath blinded the eyes of the unbelievers of this world. To us of the present day, who are but little interested in the dispute with the Marcionites, this sense appears very harsh, and is one instance, among many others, how far the heat of controversy will carry men. In the 13th verse of this same chapter Marcion erased the words κατα το γεγραμμενον επίςευσα, διο ελάλησα. “ according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken."

SECTION XLVI.

In the Epistle to the Romans.

66

In the epistle to the Romans, which is placed the fourth in the Apostolicon, 'Tertullian

• Πεπλανημένος ὁ Μαρκιων αλλα εν εκκλησια θελω πεντε λογες τῳ νοϊ με λαλήσαι, ἑτέρως δε δια τον νομον. Epi. ibid. 361. B. C.

* Μ. Εν τῳ ἡμετέρῳ Αποσολικῳ εκ έτω λεγει. Α. Αλλα πως ; Μ. Β λέγει, ὁ Θεός δίδωσιν αὐτῷ σωμα, καθως ηθελησεν αλλα ὁ Θεος δίδωσιν αὐτῷ πνευμα, καθως ηθελησεν· σπείρεται σώμα ψυχικον, εγείρεται σώμα πνευματικον σπείρεται εν Propa, EXELPETAL Ev aplapoia. Dia. Con. Mar. sec. 5. p. 144.

Novissimus Adam inspiritum vivificantem,' licet stultissimus hæreticus noluerit ita esse. Dominum enim posuit novissimum, pro novissimo Adam. Ter. Adv. Mar. lib. 5. cap. 1o. p. 465. 46. 1597. The Marcionite cites these words in the same manner from his Apostolicon, in the dialogue. Μ. Εγένετο ὁ πρωτος ανθρωπος Αδαμ εις ψυχην ζωσαν ὁ εσχατος Κύριος εις πνευμα ζωοποιεν. Dia. Con. Marc. sec. 5. p. 150.

* Ο πρωτος ανθρωπος εκ γης χοϊκος, ὁ δεύτερος Κύριος εξ 8pα18. Ibid. p. 150.

• Quod autem dicunt aperte Paulum in 2a. ad Corinthios dixisse: In quibus Deus seculi hujus excæcavit mentes in"fidelium ;' et alterum quidem Deum esse seculi hujus dicunt, alterum vero qui sit super omnem principatum, et initium, et potestatem: non sumus nos in causâ, si hi qui, quæ super Deum sunt, mysteria scire se dicunt, ne quidem legere Paulum sciunt. Si enim quis secundum Pauli consuetudinem, quen

admodum ex multis et alibi ostendimus, hyperbatis eum utentem sic legerit: in quibus Deus,' deinde subdistinguens, et modicum diastematis faciens, simul et in unum reliqua legerit, seculi hujus excaecavit mentes infidelium, inveniet verum; ut sit quod dicitur, Deus excæcavit mentes infidelium hujus seculi.' Iren. adv. Hær. lib. 3. cap. 7. p. 210. Ed. Ox. 1702.

f Hanc Marcion captavit, sic legendo, in quibus Deus ' ævi hujus' ut creatorem ostendens Deum hujus ævi, alium suggerat Deum alterius ævi. Nos contra sic distinguendum dicimus: in quibus Deus;' dehinc, ævi hujus excæcavit ' mentes infidelium.' Tertul. Adver. Marcionem, lib. 5. c. 11. p. 467. 36. 1597.

Augus. Con. Faust. (lib. 21. c. 2, 9.) who mentions this, but seems better pleased to understand Eos T8 aswvos tate of the devil. Quocirca in opere malo, i. e. excæcatione infidelium, si intelligatur et diabolus per persuadendi malignitatem, ut sic distinguatur, Deus hujus seculi, non mihi videtur absurdum: hujus sæculi, i. e. hominum improborum non nisi in hoc seculo florere volentium-cujus Deus venter. cap. 9. Έχοντες δε το αυτό πνεύμα της πίσεως και ήμεις πιςευομεν, διο και λαλεμεν. εξεκοψε δε το κατα το γεγραμμενον. Epi. ibid. p. 367. C.

h

Quantas autem foveas in istâ vel maxime epistolâ Marcion fecerit, auferendo quæ voluit, de nostri testamenti integritate

informs us, Marcion had made great erasures; but the particular passages mutilated by him, he says he shall not point out, intending only to mention others, which upon the same principle he might have expunged, because they made against him; and which he therefore produces as instances of his negligence and blindness.

a

Epiphanius has given us no instance of any corruptions or mutilations made by Marcion in this epistle; the passages produced by him from thence are only intended to confute Marcion from those texts which he allowed to be genuine. He finds fault indeed with his ranking it the fourth in his Apostolicon, and says it was because he would have nothing right. However, we are informed by Origen, or rather by Rufinus, in his edition of Origen's Commentary on this epistle, that Marcion omitted the two last chapters as spurious, ending the epistle in his Apostolicon with the 23d verse of the 14th chapter.

с

It is also observable that Tertullian quotes no passage from the 15th or 16th chapters in his confutation of Marcion, from passages contained in this epistle.

[ocr errors]

d 6

SECTION XLVII.

In the first Epistle to the Thessalonians.

THE fifth in Marcion's Apostolicon is the first epistle to the Thessalonians, which Epiphanius says, was so entirely corrupted by him, that he had selected nothing from thence on which to found any refutations of him, or his doctrine. Tertullian however was of a different mind. From him it appears, that though there might be alterations made by Marcion, yet sufficient was left untouched to shew the absurdity of his opinions. He says, 'it will not be unprofitable to attend to the shorter epistles; for there is a savouriness in few words.' He accordingly draws arguments from the 2d, 4th, and 5th chapters of this first epistle. He says that the word "own", in the 15th verse of the second chapter, was an addition of this heretic. It is read in our present copies, but it is left out in some of the most ancient Greek MSS, and by Origen, as well as Tertullian and some others.

i

h

SECTION XLVIII.

In the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians.

EPIPHANIUS affirms the same concerning the second epistle to the Thessalonians, the sixth in Marcion's Apostolicon, which he had before affirmed concerning the first, viz. that the reason why he selected nothing from thence was, because it was entirely corrupted by Marcion. Tertullian however produces several passages from this second epistle to confute this heretic; and accuses him only of erasing EV TUP Qλoyos, in flaming fire, from the eighth verse of the first chapter, lest he should attribute vengeance and the infliction of punishment to Christ, who was the son of the good God.

k

patebit. Mihi sufficit, quæ proinde eradenda non vidit, quasi negligentias et cocitates ejus accipere. Adv. Mar. 1. 5. cap. 13. p. 469. 38. 1597.

• Της προς Ῥωμαιες τεταρτης επιςολης. έτως γαρ εςι παρα τῳ Μαρκιωνι κειμενη, ίνα μηδεν ορθον παρ' αυτῷ ειη. Ibid. p. 368 B.

Εpί. b Vide Origen. seu potius Rufin. Commen. in Ep. ad Rom. C. J4, 23. e Vide Tert. ad. Marcion, L. 5. c. 14. Της προς Θεσσαλονικεις πέμπτης επισολης" έτω γαρ κειται εν τω Μαρκιων,τα παντα το Μαρκιωνος διεσραμμένως απ' αυτής εχοντος, εδεν εξ αυτής παρεθέμεθα. Epi, ibid. p. 371, A.

d

• Brevioribus quoque epistolis non pigebit intendere. Est sapor et in paucis. Ter. ad. Mar. L. 5. c. 15 p. 472. 5. 1597. Licet suos adjectio sit hæretici. Ibid. p. 472. 12.

* Vide Millii Test. in locum, et Dia. Con. Marcion, sec. 4. p. 125. et Res. ad Afric. p. 234.

* Της προς Θεσσαλονικείς δευτέρας, έκτης δε κειμενης παρα τῳ Μαρκίωνι ὁμοίως διαγραφείσης υπ' αυτό το Μαρκιωνος, παλιν δεν εξεθεμεθα. Epi. Ibid. p. 371. Α.

i Vide Ter Adv. Mar. L. 5. c. 16. passim.

Sed flammas et ignem delendo hæreticus extinxit, ne scilicet nostratem Deum faceret. Tcr. Ibid. Lib. 5. c. 16. p. 473.3. 1597.

SECTION XLIX.

In the Epistle to the Ephesians, which was called by him the Epistle to the Laodiceans.

b

THE Epistle to the Ephesians is the seventh, according to the order in which Marcion has placed St. Paul's writings. Tertullian says Marcion had entitled this the epistle to the Laodiceans, as if to shew his great diligence in investigating this matter. According to Epiphanius, as before quoted, he had in his Apostolicon some fragments of that which was called the epistle to the Laodiceans. That passage which he quotes from his Apostolicon under this title, 'is evidently taken from Ep. iv. 5, 6, with only the insertion of es X50s, one Christ,' between the words "one baptism" and "one God."

own.

d

Mr. Jones asserts, that it does not appear Tertullian ever saw the Apostolicon of Marcion.' But to me it seems highly probable, as he gives an account of several variations which were in this Apostolicon, from his own copy of the epistles that he had seen, and compared it with his What Marcion had in his Apostolicon under the title of an epistle to the Laodiceans, is expressly said by Epiphanius to be only μg, parts or fragments. Possibly in the time of Epiphanius, some passages from the epistle to the Ephesians, and from other epistles of St. Paul, might be inserted in the Apostolicon, which the Marcionites then used under the title of the epistle to the Laodiceans; though in the Marcionite Apostolicon in the time of Tertullian, the epistle to the Ephesians bore that title. This is certain, that Tertullian quotes precisely from those ten epistles of St. Paul, which Epiphanius says Marcion received, and from those only; and they are ranged in the same order in both authors, except, as before said, ' that Epiphanius places Philemon the ninth, and Philippians the last: and Tertullian Philippians the ninth, and Philemon the last. Epiphanius, by saying that Marcion received but ten epistles of St. Paul, farther shews that what was added in the Apostolicon of Marcion under the title of the epistle to the Laodiceans, in those places, if any, wherein it differed from the other ten epistles, was not considered as the genuine writing of St. Paul. Might not this therefore be a forgery, later than Tertullian's days, and inserted by some Marcionite who lived after him, in the Apostolicon used in the time of Epiphanius? because Tertullian expressly says that, in his time, the epistle to the Ephesians bore the title in Marcion's Apostolicon of the epistle to the Laodiceans. Another thing also proper to be observed is, that with respect to four of the epistles which Marcion received in his Apostolicon, viz. the two to the Thessalonians, that to the Philippians, and that to Philemon, Epiphanius has asserted they were so totally corrupted, that he quoted nothing from them for that reason. Whereas Tertullian quotes several passages from the three former, which are the same as in our former copies, and which one would from thence imagine were admitted in that genuine state by this heretic: and the variations which he accuses him of making in these three are but trifling. With respect to the epistle to Philemon he also expressly says that this epistle alone has had an advantage from its brevity, for hereby it has escaped the

[ocr errors]

Ecclesiæ quidem veritate epistolam istam ad Ephesios habemus emissam, non ad Laodicenos; sed Marcion ei titulum aliquando interpolare gestiit, quasi et in illo diligentissimus explorator. Adv. Mar. L. 5. c. 17. p. 471. 40.

Prætereo hic et de aliâ epistolâ, quam nos ad Ephesios præscriptam habemus, hæretici vero ad Laodicenos. Ibid. L. 5. c. 11. p. 468.6.

b Vide sec. 42. p. 618. note 2.

• Εἰς Κύριος, μια πισις, ἐν βαπτισμα, εἰς Χρισος, εἰς Θεός, και πατήρ παντων, ὁ επι πάντων, και δια παντων, και εν πασιν. Συναδοντως μεν τη προς Εφεσίες, ω Μαρκιων, και ταύτας τας κατα σε μαρτυρίας από της λεγόμενης προς Λαοδίκειας συνηγαYes. Dia. Ibid. p. 274. B.

Canon of the New Test. Vol. 2. pt. 3. c. 6.
P. 50.

e Vide adv. Mar. L. 5. passim.

f See sec. 42. p. 618.

8 Εχει δε και επισολας παρ' αυτῷ τε άγιο Απόσολα δεκα ais μovais nexenta. Epi. Ibid. p.309. D. After this passage Epiphanius reckons them up, in the order before mentioned:

adding at the end of his enumeration, exe de nais apos Aaodixɛas λeopens μegn. The critique also which he gives us, is only upon these ten epistles, and upon one passage selected from the fragment of the epistle to the Laodiceans. And yet, as Mr. Jones has observed (Canon. N. T. vol. 2. p. 49) there is a strange passage in Epiphanius, in the begin ning of which he says, Marcion did not receive all the epistles of St. Paul into his Apostolicon. Notwithstanding this, he immediately proceeds to enumerate all the fourteen, in a different order from what he gives in any other place, with the epistle to the Laodiceans also inserted in the middle of them, as if a complete epistle, and not μgn, fragments. But this passage, upon the face of it, must appear to be in a very corrupt state. See the passage. Epi. Ibid. p. 321. C. D. See the passages which assert this, quoted this sec. 47, 48, p. 621. notes & and * and p. 624. notes b and c

Soli huic epistolæ brevitas sua profuit, ut falsarias manus Marcionis evaderet. Adv. Mar. L. 5. c. 21. p. 479. 13.

falsifying hands of Marcion. One need not however greatly wonder that forged writings in different ages should be different, though they go under the same general name. For this is certainly the case with this very epistle to the Laodiceans, as it is called: since what is now extant under this name, has not a single passage in it like that which Epiphanius quotes from the Apostolicon of Marcion.

a

с

d

In Ephesians ii. 15, Marcion' erased the word aurs "his," that he might make the enmity to refer to flesh, as if the apostle was here asserting that it was a carnal enmity which Christ destroyed, and not pointing out the method by which he destroyed it, viz. by his incarnation and death. In the 20th verse of this chapter, he erased the words apoyτwv, "prophets," from that clause, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets: because if our building as Christians rested in part upon that foundation, our God and the God of the Jews must be the same; which he denied. În the 9th verse of the 3d chapter he erased the preposition ev "in," in order to give a different turn to the whole sentence; which, to coincide with his notions, must be thus rendered: And to make all men see by Jesus Christ, what is the fellowship of the mystery, which hath for ages been hid from God the creator of all things.' A construction which the Greek language will by no means admit of: since if ev be left out it should be e, and κτισαντος. In chap. v. 31, Marcion erased some words: according to Epiphanius only τ yuvanı, "unto his wife:" but Tertullian quotes the text, as if he had omitted the whole clause, and shall be joined unto his wife:' which Dr. Mill thinks was the case. Though in the manner in which Epiphanius represents it the sense will be complete: "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined," (to the Lord mentioned in verse 29th) " and they two shall be one flesh." In chapter vi. ver. 2, he omitted the latter clause," which is the first commandment with promise," lest the Mosaic law should hereby be thought to be esta blished.

[ocr errors]

γυναικι,

f

e

SECTION L.

He probably did not much alter the Epistle to the Colossians.

i

k

COLOSSIANS stands next after Ephesians in Marcion's Apostolicon. I cannot find that Marcion is accused of altering any passage in this epistle by Origen, Epiphanius, or any other ancient author, except in what follows by implication from a passage of Tertullian before quoted, in which he asserts that the epistle to Philemon was the only one that had escaped his falsifying hands. Though I wonder,' says he, why he should receive this which was written to a single 'person, and yet reject the two to Timothy, and that to Titus, which treat of the government of the church. But I suppose he had a mind to alter even the number of the epistles.'

[ocr errors]

a See this epistle at large in Jones's Canon. N. T. vol. 2. p. 3. c. 6. p. 42, &c.

b Sed Marcion abstulit sua: ut inimicitiæ daret carnem, quasi carnali vitio, non Christo æmulæ. Tertul. adv. Mar. L. 5. c. 17. p. 475. 12.

Abstulit hæreticus et prophetarum, oblitus dominum posuisse in Ecclesiâ, sicut Apostolos, ita et prophetas. Timuit seilicet, ne et super veterum prophetarum fundamenta ædificatio nostra constaret in Christo. Tertul. adv. Mar. Lib. 5, c. 17. p. 475. 25.

Rapuit hæreticus, in, præpositionem, et ita legi fecit, occulti ab ævis Deo, qui omnia condidit. Ibid. 1. 5. c. 18. p.. .475.32.

• Αντι τ8, καταλείψει ανθρωπος τον πατέρα αύτε, και της μητέρα, και προσκολληθήσεται τη γυναικι, και έσονται οἱ δύο εις σάρκα μίαν, παρα το, τῇ γυναικι.—καν τε συ, ω Μαρκίων, παρακοψης το γυναικι. κ. τ. λ. Epi. Ibid. p. 372, 3. D. A.

Laborabo ego nunc eumdem Deum probare masculi et Christi, mulieris et Ecclesiæ, carnis et spiritûs, ipso apostolo sententiam creatoris adhibente, imo et disserente: propter

hoc relinquet homo patrem et matrem, et erunt duo in carnem unam. Sacramentuin hoc magnum est. Sufficit inter ista, si creatoris magna sunt apud Apostolum sacramenta, minima apud hæreticos. Adv. Mar. L. 5. c. 18. p. 476. 28.

Neque enim expungere vellet aços Tyy yuvaina, nisi expunxerit una et reliquum xai @goonoλày‡ycerai. Millii Test. in locum.

h Obaudiant et parentibus filii. Nam etsi Marcion abstulit: hoc est enim primum in promissione præceptum; lex loquitur, honora patrem et matrem. Tert. adv. Mar. L. 5. c. 18. p. 476. 35.

1 Της προς Κολοσσαείς, ογδοης παρα τῷ Μαρκιωνι κειμένης. Epi. Ibid. 373. A.

Soli huic epistolæ brevitas sua profuit, ut falsarias manus Marcionis evaderet. Miror tamen, quum ad unum hominem literas factas receperit, quid ad Timotheum, duos, et unam ad Titum de ecclesiastico statu compositas recusaverit. Affectavit opinor etiam numerum epistolarum interpolare. Adv. Mar. L. 5. c. 21. p. 479. 13.

« AnteriorContinuar »