Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

SECTION IX.

He had a great Number of Followers.

[ocr errors]

MARCION had many followers. Epiphanius says that he deceived multitudes of people, and that his heresy still subsisted in his time at Rome, in Italy, Ægypt, Palestine, Arabia, and Syria, in Cyprus, Thebais, Persia, and other places.

[ocr errors]

b

Justin intimates that he had perverted many of all ranks in divers places

с

Tertullian having mentioned Apelles, Valentinus, and Marcion, speaks as if there were a greater number of the followers of these than of the other heretics.

d

[ocr errors]

e

Theodoret converted about a thousand Marcionites in his diocese. In his preface to his second book of Heretical Fables he says, a few only remained scattered in divers cities of Syria, followers of Valentinus, Marcion, and Mani:' which he thinks a reproach to the pastors of those times, who were not vigilant enough to root out the small remains of these heresies. Tertullian speaks of the deserters of Marcion, that is those who still followed him in divers points, but differed from their master in some others.

Rhodon, of whom we spake formerly, as flourishing about the year 190, says that in his 'time the Marcionites were divided into several parties:' the leaders of whom he makes to be Apelles, Potitus, Basilicus, and Syneros.

The great number of books published against him in the second century, and afterwards, shew the prevalence of this doctrine. In enumerating the works of my authors, as I have gone along, doubtless the reader has observed this; and in the Index at the end of this work, are references to divers of those writings.

k

1

Irenæus, whose words are likewise cited by Eusebius, says that Polycarp, when he came to Rome, in the time of Anicetus, converted many followers of Valentinus and Marcion; which is also taken notice of by Jerom" in his article of Polycarp: which seems to shew that though Marcion met with no encouragement from the presbyters of Rome, as Epiphanius says, yet he made converts there of other people.

A

His followers are supposed to have had him in great veneration; but then, when blamed for calling themselves Marcionites, after their leader; they answered, that others called themselves catholics, though that name was not given to Christians in scripture. And when asked whom they most respected, Paul or Marcion; they answered, Paul was an apostle, Marcion their bishop only."

[ocr errors]

SECTION X.‘

Of his Opinions, and the Number of Principles which he held.

THIS may suffice for Marcion's time and history; we proceed to his opinions.
Theodoret says that Marcion held four principles, or unbegotten substances, as his

. H. 42. n. 1.

P

• Ός κατα παν γενος ανθρωπων- πολλές πεποιηκε βλαςBruids λEYEIV. X. λ. Ap. p. 70. A. Vid. Ib. p. 92. A.

Hos, ut insigniores et frequentiores adulteros veritatis,

nominamus. De Præs. cap. 30. p. 242. C.

d Ep. 113. Tom. 3. p. 986. D.

H. F. lib. 2. Tom. 4. p. 218. C.

f Nam et Philumene illa magis persuasit Apelli caterisque desertoribus Marcionis. Con. Mar. lib. 3. cap. 11. p. 486. A. Vol. i. p. 445.

Apud. Eus. Hist. Eccles. 1. 5. c. 13. P. 177. B. C.

* See there Marcion.

Iren. 1. 3. c. 3. n. 4. p. 177. 203-4.
H. E. 1. 4. c. 14. p. 128. Æ.

expres

m Hic sub imperatore Antonino Pio, ecclesiam in Urbe regente Aniceto, Romam venit, ubi plurimos credentium, Marcionis et Valentini persuasione deceptos, reduxit ad fidem. De V. I. cap. 17.

* Ου γαρ Χρισιανος ονομάζεται, αλλά Μαρκιωνικής και ύμεις της καθολικής λεγεσθε. Ουκ εσε εν Χρισιανοί, ετε ὑμεῖς, Dialog. contr. Marcionit. p. 12.

• Τις μείζων ην, Μαρκιων η Παυλος ; μιαν επίσκοπος με ην. Ibid. p. 13.

-Παύλος -May

• Τέτταρας γαρ αγεννητος εσίας τῷ λόγῳ διεπλασε. Και

sion is; one the good God, and unknown, whom he also calls the Father of our Lord JesusChrist; and the Creator, called by him just, and sometimes evil; and beside these matter, and the evil one that governs it. But if ever the Marcionites called the devil god, I suppose it was only figuratively, and in conformity to scripture, where he is sometimes called the god of this world, and is said to rule in the children of disobedience.

b

d

с

с

Some ascribe to Marcion and his followers the doctrine of three principles; so Epiphanius and Cyril of Jerusalem: but Augustine says that Marcion held two principles; and maintains that to be the true account, against such as spoke of his holding three principles. And, in like manner, that ancient writer Rhodon, who wrote against Marcion; and the dialogue ascribed to Origen. Tertullian often says that Marcion believed two gods, though not both equal." It is likely that, according to different ways of speaking, men may be said to believe in more or fewer principles. But I apprehend that Marcion believed in only two eternals; the supreme God the Father who was Good, and Matter. For, according to him, the Creator was from the Father; and the devil, somehow or other, sprang out of Matter. That he thought Matter eternal is unquestionable; it was the opinion of the ancient heathen philosophers, and of the heretics that followed them.

In the dialogue which is ascribed to Origen, the word principle seems to be used both by Adamantius the orthodox disputant, and by Megethius the Marcionite, as equivalent to lord

and governor.

In answer therefore to the question of Adamantius, over whom the three principles are governors? Megethius answers: that the good principle governs the Christians, the creating principle the Jews, and the evil principle the heathens.' But in the sense of unbegotten, allsufficient, and independent, Marcion could hold but two, as is asserted before.

SECTION XI.

His notion of the Creator, and the World formed by him; and the God superior to him.

IRENEUS, at the beginning of the long passage before transcribed, says that Marcion blasphemed the Creator, and said that Jesus came from the Father, who is superior to the God that 'made the world.' In another place he says the Marcionites have two gods very different 'from each other, one much better than the other.' In another place that they divide the Deity into two, one good, the other severe.'

a

Justin, in like manner, says that Marcion

τον μεν εκάλεσεν αγαθόν τε και αγνωςον, όν και πατερα προσηγόρευσε τα κυριε τον δε δημιεργον τε και δικαιον, ἐν και πονηρον ωνομάζει και προς τέτοις την ύλην κακην τε εσαν, και ὑπ' αλλῳ κακῳ τελεσαν. Η. Fab. 1. i. c. 24. p. 210. Α. Β. Λέγων τρεις είναι αρχας, μιαν μεν την άνω ακατονόμασον και αόρατον· ἦν και αγαθον θεόν βέλεται λεγειν, μηδεν δε εν τῷ κόσμῳ κτισασαν αλλον δε είναι όρατον θεον, και κτιςην και δημιεργον—Τον δε κτίσην και δημιεργον, και όρατον θεον είναι Ιεδαίων, είναι δε αυτόν κριτην H. 42. n. 3. p. 304. Α.

• Ο πρώτος τρεις θεες είπων. Cyr. Cat. 16. c. 7. p. 246. Vid. et ib. c. 4. p. 244. D. Cat. 6. c. 16. p. 97. A. Ed. Bened.

• Marcion quoque, a quo Marcionitæ appellati sunt, Cerdonis secutus est dogmata de duobus principiis; quamvis Epiphanius eum tria dicat asseruisse principia, bonum, justum, pravum. Sed Eusebius [1. v. c. 13.] Sinerum quemdam, non Marcionem, trium principiorum atque naturarum scribit auctorem. De Hær. cap. 22. Tom. 6. Venet.

• Ετεροι δε, καθὼς και αυτος Μαρκίων, δυο αρχας εισηγενTal. Ap. Eus. 1. 5. cap. 13. p. 177. B.

e

• Εγω ὁρίζομαι, 8 τρεις αρχας είναι, αλλα δυο. Dial. p.

43. in.

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

taught men to believe in another God, superior

Sic adhuc videmur disputare quasi duos pares constituat -Alioquin certi Marcionem dispares Deos constituere ; alterum judicem, ferum, bellipotentem; alterum mitem, pla cidum, et tantummodo bonum atque optimun. Adver. Mar. lib. 1. cap. 6. p. 433, 434.

Et materiam ei subjicit utique innatam et infectam et hoc nomine æternam. Adv. Mar. lib. i. cap 15. p. 441. A. : ΑΔ. Αρχη γαρ μοι δοκει λεγεσθαι, δια το αρχειν τινος" ώσπερ και κύριος λέγεται, δια το κυριεύειν τινων· τινος τοινυν αρχεσιν αἱ τρεις αρχαι; αποκρινε. ΜΕΓ. Η αγαθή αρχή των Χρισιανων αρχει ή δε δημιεργική των Ιεδαίων· ἡ wornga rwv Elvixov. Dial. Contr. Marci. sec. 1. p. 4. Basil. 1674.

"Et quidem hi qui a Marcione sunt statim blasphemant fabricatorem, dicentes eum malorum factorem:duos naturaliter dicentes Deos, distantes ab invicem, alterum quidem bonum, alterun malum. Iren. lib. 3. c. 12. n. 12. p. 198. Duos Deos infinitâ distantiâ separatos ab invicem. lib. 4. cap. 33. n. ii. p. 270.

1 Marcion igitur ipse, dividens Deum in duo, alterum quidem bonum, et alterum judicialem dicens, ex utrisque interi mit Deum. Id. 1. 3. c. 25. n. iii. p. 224.

- Αλλον τινα νομίζειν μείζονα το δημιεργό Θεόν. Αp. C. p. 70. A. Vid. et. p. 92. A.

to the Creator, and who was the supreme God the Father. He was,' according to them, 'in'visible, inaccessible, and perfectly good.'

с

The Creator, the God of the Jews, according to Marcion and his followers, made this lower and visible world. The supreme God the Father, had also a world of his making, but better than this, immaterial and invisible. Justin says that according to Marcion the supreme Deity had made greater and better things than the Creator of this visible world.' To the like purpose Tertullian, whose words I place at the bottom of the page; so also Jerom.

e

Some ancient writers say that the Marcionites held two gods, one good, the other evil. But, as at other times, they represent them, as calling one good, the other a judge or severe; this must be their meaning.

On this account it may be proper to observe passages of several ancient authors relating to this matter.

f

Jerom says that Marcion taught Jesus to be the son of the good Good, that is, not of the same God spoken of in the prophets, who,' they say, is there represented as cruel, righteous, 'just, a judge, and the like.'

To the same purpose also Clement of Alexandria, who, I apprehend, may be relied upon. The Marcionites say that nature, or the world, is evil, because it is made of matter, which is evil in itself; and that the world was made by the Creator, who is just. They therefore are spoken of as having but low thoughts of this world on account of its being very imperfect, and not worthy of the supreme Deity: and yet, as Tertullian says, they respected the Creator.

h

SECTION XII.

The Marcionite Idea of the Difference between good and just.

THE account given by Origen of the sentiments of those who held a different God from the Creator, is similar to the above representation. He says this last was just, the God above him good; and Jerom himself says the same in the place just quoted.

66

But what is the difference between good and just? Beausobre gives this account of it: Bardesanes, dividing men into three sorts, says; some are like scorpions and adders, who hurt unprovoked: others do evil to those only who do evil to them; they are satisfied with re

a

Igitur quæcumque exigitis Dco digna, habebuntur in patre invisibili, incongressibilique, et placido, et (ut ita dixerim) philosophorum Deo. Adv. M. lib. 2. cap. 27. p. 475. A. Sic adhuc videmur disputare, quasi duos Marcion pares constituat: alioquin certi Marcionem dispares Deos constituere; alterum judicem, ferum, bellipotentem; alterum mitem, placidum, et tantummodo bonum atque optimum, &c. Adv. M. lib. 1. cap. 6. p. 434. A. B.

Certe Deum confiteris Creatorem? Certe inquis, &c. Adv. Mar. lib. 2. cap. 16. p. 466. B. Creatorem autem et Marcion Deum non negat. Ibid. lib. 5. cap, 7. p. 588. D.

• Αλλον δε τινα, ως οντα μείζονα, τα μείζονα παρα τετον ὁμολογεῖν πεποιηκεναι. p. 70. Β.

d Quum dixeris esse et illi conditionem suam, et suum mundum, et suum cœlum. Jam nunc de loco quæstio est, pertinens et ad mundum illum superiorem, et ad ipsum Deum ejus. Ecce enim, si et ille habet mundum suum infra se, supra Creatorem, in loco utique fecit eum. Adv. Marc. lib. 1. cap. 15. p. 440. B. C. Non comparente igitur mundo alio, sicut nec Deo ejus, consequens est, ut duas species rerum, visibilia et invisibilia, duobus auctoribus Deis dividant, et ita suo Deo invisibilia defendant. Id. ibid. cap. 16. p. 441. B. e Si de Marcionis arguereris hæresi, quæ alterum bonum, alterum justum Deum inferens, illum invisibilium, hunc visibilium asserit Creatorem. Ad. Pammach. cap. 38. [al. 61.] p. 315. f.

f Denique Marcion hæreticus boni Dei Filium, hoc est, alterius, putat esse Christum, et non justi, cujus prophetæ sunt;

quem sanguinarium, crudelem, et judicem vocat. Com. in Is. c. 8. p. 68. ad fin. Confundetur Marcion, duos deos intelligens, unum bonum, et alium justum, alterum invisibilium, alterum visibilium conditorem. In Is. c. 44. p. 334. B. Vid. eumdem in Ezek. cap. 9. p. 751. in. et fin. An ignoramus, Marcionem, et cæteros hæreticos, qui vetus laniant Testamentum, contemto Creatore, id est, justo Deo, alium quemdam bonum Deum colere et adorare, quem de suo corde finxerunt? In Ezek. cap. 9. p. 751. in.

8. Οἱ απο Μαρκιωνος φυσιν κακήν, εκ τε της ύλης κακής και εκ δικαιο γενομένην δημιεργο. Str. lib. 3. p. 431. B.

h Narem contrahentes impudentissimi Marcionitæ conver tuntur ad destructionem operum Creatoris: nimirum, inquiunt, grande opus et dignum Deo mundus. Nunquid ergo Creator minime Deus? Plane Deus. Ad. M. I. 1. c. 13. p. 438. D. At quum et animalia irrides minutiora, quæ maximus artifex de industriâ ingeniis aut viribus ampliavitimitare, si potes, apis ædificia, formicæ stabula, araneæ retia, bombycis stamina

δικαιών

-Postremo, te tibi circumfer; intus ac foris considera hominem. Placebit tibi vel hoc opus Dei nostri, quod tuus dominus ille Deus melior adamavit. Ibid. cap. 14. p. 439. D. · Οἱ δε έτερον θεον φασκοντες παρα τον δημιεργον, μεν αυτόν είναι θέλεσι, και εκ αγαθον. Orig. in Ex. p. 17, 18, Huet. Tom. 2. p. 112. A. Bened. Tas de año Tw a¡pereur δικαιον μεν είναι τον δημιεργον, αγαθόν δε τον το Χριςό warɛpa. Id. in Joh. p. 38. A. B. Huet. k Hist. de Manich. T. 2. p. 91.

Ap. Euseb, Præ. Ev. lib. 6. cap. 10. p. 274.

a

venging the injuries they receive: others, finally, are mild and gentle as lambs; and render not evil for evil. The first are called wicked, the second just, the last good. According to these definitions, the good God is he who never does evil to any: the just is he who treateth men according to their deserts; he punisheth the guilty: the evil one is he who does evil, even to the innocent."

SECTION XIII.

The good God was the Maker of Beings spiritual and invisible.

b

GOD the Father, according to Marcion, was the maker of beings spiritual, invisible, and happy, as is allowed. And yet Tertullian frequently represents Marcion's Deity as idle, indolent, happy in his ease and tranquillity, and the like.

C

Possibly one reason of this is, that Marcion's god was good only, never offended with, or punished evil doers.

d

But besides this there appear to be other reasons of this charge. For Tertullian argues that none of his works were visible or known; and therefore there was no reason to believe in him, as it did not appear that he had made any thing. Moreover, though he saw the disorders of this world of the Creator, he did not interpose, nor take any step to amend things, till at last, after a long space of time, he sent his son. But except this, he never did any kind of good which men were ever sensible of, or by which he might be known to be what they called him, a God made up entirely of goodness and benevolence. In short, he there shews that there was no proof of any Deity different from, or superior to, the Creator of the visible world.

* Οι μεν λεγονται αγαθοι, οι δε κακοι, οἱ δε δικαιοι. Ibid. b Inde Marcionis Deus melior de tranquillitate. A Stoïcis venerat. De Pr. cap. 7. p. 232. D. Si aliquem de Epicuri scholâ Deum adfectavit Christi nomine titulare, ut quod beatum et incorruptibile sit, neque sibi, neque alii molestias præstet, (hanc. enim sententiam ruminans Marcion, removit ab illo severitatem, et judiciarias vires) aut in totum immobilem et stupentem Deum concepisse debuerat. Ad. Mar. Lib. 1. cap. 25. p. 449. A.

In ipso præconio solitariæ bonitatis, quâ nolunt ii adscribere ejusmodi motus animi, quos in Creatore reprehendunt : si enim neque æmulatur, neque irascitur, neque damnat, neque vexat, ut pote qui nec judicem præstat. Ibid. 1. 1. c. 26. p. 449. D. -Donec Marcion præter Creatorem alium Deum, solius bonitatis induceret. De Præscr. c. 34. p. 244. B. Deus autem Marcionis et quia ignotus non potuit offendi, quia nescit irasci. Ad. Marci. 1. 5. c. 5. p. 584. A.

4 Unam saltem cicerculam Deus Marcionis propriam protulisse debuerat- Aut exhibe rationem Deo dignam, cur nihil condiderit. Adv. M. 1. 1. c. 11. p. 437. D.

Hoc ipso nemo debeat credere Deum et illum qui nihil condidit, nisi ratio forte proferatur. Ib. p. 438. A. Nam et quale est, ut Creator quidem ignorans esse alium super se Deum, ut volunt Marcionita,tantis operibus notitiam sui armaverit ille autem sublimior, sciens inferiorem Deum tam instructum, nullam sibi prospexerit agnoscendo paraturam; quando etiam insigniora et superbiora opera debuisset condidisse, ut Deus cognosceretur secundum Creatorem; et ex honestioribus potior et generosior Creatore. Ibid. p. 438. B.

Non comparente igitur mundo alio, sicut nec Deus ejusQuis autem poterit inducere in animum, nisi spiritus hæreticus, ejus esse invisibilia, qui nihil visibile præmiserit: quum ejus qui visibilia operatus, invisibilium quoque fidem faceret : quum justius multo sit aliquibus exemplariis adnuere, quam nullis. L. 1. c. 16. p. 444. A.

toris.

* His compressi erumpunt dicere, sufficit unicum hoc opus Deo nostro, quod hominem liberavit summâ et præcipuâ bonitate suâ. Ad. Mar. Lib. 1. c. 17. p. 441. D. Exhibe perfectam quoque bonitatem ejus Non enim omnes salvi fiunt, sed pauciores omnibus et Judæis, et Christianis CreaPluribus vero pereuntibus, quomodo perfecta defenditur bonitas?Sed malitia perfectior. Sed nolo jam de parte majore pereuntium. Imperfectum bonitatis arguere Deum Marcionis, sufficit ipsos quos salvos facit, imperfectæ salutis inventos. Ibid. Lib. 1. c. 24. p. 447, 448. Conf. Lib. 1. c. 25. p. 449. A. Lib. 4. c. 25. p. 542. B. 543. A. Lib. 5. c. 4. p. 581. B. et Lib. 5. c. 4. p. 581. B. et Lib. 5. c. 16. p. 601. A.

Sed quis iste suavis, qui ne cognitus quidem usque adhuc? quomodo suavis, a quo nulla beneficia processerant. Adv. M. 1. 4. c. 17. p. 528. B. Sed et cur apud Dominum optimum, et profusæ misericordiæ, alii salutem referunt, credentes crucem, virtutem et sapientiam Dei; alii perditionem, quibus Christi crux stultitia reputatur. Ibid. 1. 5. c. 5. p. 584. B.

Jam nunc de loco quæstio est, pertinens et ad mundum illum superiorem, et ad ipsum Deum ejus. Ecce enim, si et ille habet mundum suum infra se, supra Creatorem, in loco utique fecit eum. L. 1. cap. 15. p. 440. C.

SECTION XIV.

The Marcionites erroneous in dividing the Deity.

In dividing the Deity, Marcion and his followers were undoubtedly in the wrong. They scem however to have gone into this opinion out of respect to his attributes. For they thought, if a good god had made the world, there would have been neither sin, nor misery, but all men would have been both holy and happy. Their reasonings upon this point are given us by Ter tullian, as also some other arguments which they brought from the law, and other parts of the Old Testament, to prove the being from whom that was derived, different from the supreme or good God.

2

[ocr errors]

The Marcionites, in the dialogue ascribed to Origen, frequently use the same sort of reasonings, taken from some actions of inspired men, and from some commands under the law, which they considered opposite to the conduct and commands of Christ and his apostles, under the gospel.

d

With respect to that argument which they drew from the goodness of God, to prove that he could not be the Creator of this world, it only removed the difficulty one step further back. As Beausobre therefore justly observes, the system of these men was liable to as great objections as that of the catholics. For the same perfections which rendered it unlikely that the supreme Being should make such a world as ours, would also have obliged him to hinder the Creator from making it; or would have led him to have directed him in his works of creation, and to have over-ruled him so as to prevent the bad effects which his operations might have otherwise produced.

с

SECTION XV.

They were Believers in a future Judgment, and in the Necessity of human Actions. THOUGH in some instances, according to several passages already quoted from Tertullian and others, they seem to blame justice, calling it by the name of severity, and representing it

a

Si Deus bonus, et præscius futuri, et avertendi mali potens, cur hominem-passus est labi de obsequio legis in mortem, circumventum a diabolo. Si enim et bonus, qui evenire tale quid nollet, et præscius, qui eventurum non ig noraret, et potens, qui depellere valeret, nullo modo evenisset quod sub his tribus conditionibus divinæ majestatis evenire non posset. Adv. Marci. Lib. 21. cap. 5. p. 456. C. Languens enim circa mali quæstionem: unde malum? et obtusis sensibus ipsâ enormitate curiositatis, inveniens Creatorem pronuntiantem, Ego sum qui condo mala-et ita in Christo quasi aliam inveniens dispositionem, solius et puræ benignitatis ut diversa a Creatore, facile novam et hospitam argumentatus est divinitatem in Christo suo revelatam, modicoque exinde fermento totam fidei massam hæretico acore decepit. Quo facilius duos Deos cœci perspexisse se existimaverunt. Unum enim non integre viderant. Alterum igitur Deum quem confiteri cogebatur, de malo infamando destruxit. Alterum quem commentari connitebatur de proferendo construxit. Ibid. Lib. 1. c. 2. p. 431. B. C.

Magnum argumentum Dei alterius permissio obsoniorum adversus legem, quasi non et ipsi confiteamur legis onera dimissa; sed ab eo qui imposuit, qui novationem repromisit. Ibid. 1. 5. c. 7. p. 589. D. Olim duplicem vim Creatoris vindicavimus, et judicis et boni, literâ occidentis per legem, spiritu vivificantis per evangelium. Non possunt duos Deos facere, quæ etsi diversa apud unum recenseri pervenerunt. Si leo ut claritatem majorem defenderet (Apostolus) Novi Tes

tamenti, quod manet in gloriâ, quam veteris, quod evacuari habebat; hoc et meæ convenit fidei præponenti evangelium legi, et vide ne magis meæ. Ibid. Lib. 5. c. 11. p. 591. A.B. An ignoramus Marcionem et cæteros hæreticos, qui vetas laniant Testamentum, contempto Creatore, i. e. justo Deo, alium quemdam bonum Deum colere et adorare, quem de suo corde finxerunt. Hieron. in Ezek. c. 9. p. 751. in.

Blasphemare vel Testamenti veteris Deum, irridere et contemnere. Ibid. fin.

• Δεικνύω, ὅτι ὁ Δημιεργος αλλά ενομοθέτησε, και ο Χρισος aλλα εvavтiα т878. Dial. Con. Marc. Sec. 1. p. 14. 0 Χριςος ανέτρεψε τα το δημιυργό, και δεικνυμι ότι ανέτρεψεν. x. T. λ. Ibid. p. 16, 17.

δια

TYS EXT2

Ο προφήτης τε Θε8 της γενέσεως, πολεμε συσαντος προς τον λαον, αναβας επι την κορυφήν τε όρες, εξέτεινε τας χείρας αυτό προς τον Θεον, ἵνα πολλές τῳ πολεμῳ ανελῃ. Ὁ δε Κύριος ήμων, άγιος ων, εξέτεινε τας χειρας αύτε, εχι το ανελείν τας άνθρωπος, αλλά τε σώσαι. Τι εν ὅμοιον; ὁ μεν σεως των χειρών αναίρει, ὁ δε σώζει. Ibid. p. 19. Ο εν τῷ νόμῳ Κυριος λεγει, Αγαπησεις τον αναπώντα σε, και μισήσεις τον εχθρον σε. 'Ο δε Κύριος ήμων, αγαθος ων, λεγεί, Αγαπατε τες έχθρες ύμων, και ευχεσθε ύπερ των δικ NovτWY μas. Ibid. p. 20. Vid. etiam. p. 21, 23, 24, 25, &c. d Histoire de Mani. tom. 2. p. 93. in.

• ΜΕΤ. Η τε αγαθε αρχή) ισχυρότερα. Dia Con. Mar. sec. 1. p. 6. άπαξ δε ισχυρότερος αυτόν εσιν. Ibid.

Quanta itaque perversitas vestra erga utrumque ordine

« ForrigeFortsæt »