« AnteriorContinuar »
He had a great Number of Followers.
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.
Justin intimates that he had perverted many of all ranks in divers places
Tertullian having mentioned Åpelles, Valentinus, and Marcion, speaks as if there were a greater number of the followers of these than of the other heretics.
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, 5 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.
frenæus," 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.
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.
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.
· H. 42. n. 1.
Iren. 1. 3. c. 3. n. 4. p. 177. 203-4. • Ος κατα παν γενος ανθρωπων- πολλές πεποιηκε βλας- 'H. E. I. 4. c. 14. p. 128. Æ. φημίας λεγειν. κ. λ. Αp. p. 70. Α. Vid. Ιb. p. 92. Α.
m Hic sub imperatore Antonino Pio, ecclesiam in Urbe c Hos, ut insigniores et frequentiores adulteros veritatis, regente Aniceto, Romam venit, ubi plurimos credentium, nominamus. De Præs. cap. 30. p. 242. C.
Marcionis et Valentini persuasione deceptos, reduxit ad fidem. d Ep. 113. Tom. 3. p. 986. D.
De V. I. cap. 17. • H. F. lib. 2. Tom. 4. p. 218. C.
2 Ου γαρ Χισιανος ονομαζεται, αλλα Μαρκιωνιης-Και * Nam et Philumene illa magis persuasit Apelli ceterisque υμεις της καθολικης λεγεσθε. Ουκ εςε 8ν Χριστιανοι, ετε υμείς. desertoribus Marcioois. Con. Mar. lib. 3. cap. 11. p. 486. A. Dialog. contr. Marcionit. p. 12. & Vol. i.
• Τις μειζων ην, Μαρκιων η Παυλος ;: -Παυλος Map Apud. Eus. Hist. Eccles. 1. 5. c. 13. p. 177. B.C. κιων επισκοπος με ην. Ιbid. p. 13. i See there Marcion.
? Τετταρας γαρ αγεννητες εσιας τω λογω διατλασε. Και
sion is; one the good God, and unknown, whom he also calls the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, 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.
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 iri 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, i 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.
His notion of the Creator, and the World formed by him; and the God superior to him.
IRENÆUS, at the beginning of the long passage before transcribed, says that · Marcion blas• phemed 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 thek Marcionites have two gods very • from each other, one much better than the other.' In another place that they divide the • Deity into two, one good, the other severe.'
Justin, in like manner, says that · Marcion “ taught men to believe in another God, superior τον μεν εκαλεσεν αγαθον τε και αγνωςον, ον και πατερα προ- & Sic adhuc videmur disputare quasi duos pares constituat σηγoρευσε το κυριε' τον δε δημιεργον τε και δικαιον, αν και -Alioquin certi Marcionem dispares Deos .constiruere ; πονηρον ωνομαζει και προς τ8τοις την ύλην κακην τε 8σαν, και alterum judicein, ferum, bellipotentem; alterum mitem, plaυπ' αλλω κακω τελεσαν. Η. Fab. 1. i. c. 24. p. 210. Α. Β. cidum, et tantummodo bonum atque optimın. Adver. Mar.
Λεγων τρεις ειναι αρχας, μιαν μεν την ανω ακατονο- lib. 1. cap. 6. p. 433, 434. μαςον και αορατον ήν και αγαθον θεον βαλεται λεγειν, μηδεν "Et materiam ei subjicit utique innatam et infectam et δε εν τω κόσμω κτισασαν αλλον δε είναι ορατον θεον, και κτις ην hoc nomine æternam. Adv. Mar. lib. i. cap 15. p. 441. A. και δημιεργον -Τον δε κτισης και δημιουργον, και όρατον θεον 1 ΑΔ. Αρχη γαρ μοι δοκει λεγεσθαι, δια το αρχειν τινος ειναι Ιεδαιαν, είναι δε αυτον κριτην H. 42. η. 3. p. 304. Α. ώσπερ και κυριος λεγεται, δια το κυριευειν τινων: τινος τοινυν
και ο πρωτος τρεις θεας ειπων. Cyr. Cat. 16. c. 7. p. 246. αρχεσιν αι τρεις αρχαι; αποκριν8. ΜΕΓ. “Η αγαθη αρχη Vid. et ib. c. 4. p. 244. D. Cat. 6. c. 16. p. 97. A. Ed. των Χριςιανων αρχει η δε δημιεργικη των Ιεδαιων' η δε Bened.
Worriga Twy Ebvixwy. Dial. Contr. Marci. sec. 1. p. 4. Basil. · Marcion quoque, a quo Marcionitæ appellati sunt, Cer- 1674. donis secutus est dogmata de duobus principiis ; quanzvis Epi- * Et quidem hi qui a Marcione sunt statim blasphemant fabripharius eum tria dicat asseruisse principia, bonum, justum, catorem, dicentes eum malorum factorem :duos naturalipravum. Sed Eusebius (l. v. c. 13.) Sinerum quemdam, non ter dicentes Deos, distantes ab invicem, alterum quidem Marcionem, trium principiorum atque naturarum scribit auc- bonum, alteruin malum. Iren. lib. 3. c. 12. n. 12. p. 198. torem. De Hær. cap. 22. Tom. 6. Venet.
Duos Deos infinità distantiâ separatos ab invicem. lib. 4. cap. Ετεροι δε, καθως και αυτος Μαρκιων, δυο αρχας εισηγεγ- 33. 11. ii. p. 270. tai. Ap. Eus. I. 5. cap. 13. p. 177. B.
Marcion igitur ipse, dividens Deum in duo, alterum quiΕγω οριζομαι, και τρεις αρχας ειναι, αλλα δυο. Dial. p. dem bonum, et alterum judicialem dicens, ex utrisque interi43. in.
mit Deum. Id. 1. 3. c. 25. n. iii. p. 224. I Duos Ponticus deos adfert: -quem negare non potuit, η Αλλον τινα νομιζειν μειζονα το δημιογο θεον. Αp. 1. p. id est, creatorem, id est, nostrum; et quem probare non 70. A. Vid. et. p. 92. A. poterit, id est, suum. Adv. Marcion. lib. 1. c. 2. p. 431. B.
• to the Creator, and who was the supreme God the Father. He was,' according to them, in• visible, inaccessible, and perfectly good.'
The Creator, the God of the Jews, according to Marcion and his followers, 6 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. 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.
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.
The Marcionile Idca 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.
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 quæcuinque exigitis Deo digna, habebuntur in quem sanguinarium, crudelem, et judicem vocat. Com. in Is. patre invisibili, incongressibilique, et placido, et (ut ita dixe- C. 8. p. 68. ad fin. Confundetur Marcion, duos deos intellirim) philosophorum Deo. Adv. M. Jib. 2. cap. 27. p. 475. A. gens, unum bonum, et alium justum, alterum invisibilium, alSic adhuc videmur disputare, quasi duos Marcion pares con- terum visibilium conditorem. In Is. C. 44. p. 334. B. Vid. stituat:----alioquin certi Marcionem dispares Deos consti- eumdem in Ezek. cap. 9. p. 751. iv. et fin. An ignoramus, tuere; alterum judicem, ferum, bellipotentem; alterum mi- Marcionem, et cæteros hæreticos, qui vetus laniant Testatem, placidum, et tantummodo bonum atque optimum, &c. mentum, contenito Creatore, id est, justo Deo, alium queniAdv. M. lib. 1. cap. 6. p. 434. A. B.
dam bonum Deum colere et adoraie, quem de suo corde b Certe Deum confiteris Creatorem ? Certe inquis, &c. finxerunt? In Ezek. cap. 9. p. 751. in. Adv. Mar. lib. 2. cap. 16. p. 466. B. Creatorem autem et 8 Οι απο Μαρκιανος φυσιν κακην, εκ τε της ύλης κακής και Marcion Deum non negat. Ibid. lib. 5. cap, 7. p. 588. D. εκ δικαι8 γενομενην δημιεργο. Str. lib. 3. p. 431. Β.
ο Αλλον δε τινα, ως οντα μειζονα, τα μειζονα αρα τετον. h Narem contrahentes impudentissimi Marcionitæ conrerομολογειν πεποιηκεναι. p. 70. Β.
tuntur ad destructionem operum Creatoris: nimirum, inquiunt, d Quum dixeris esse et illi conditionem suam, et suum grande opus et dignum Deo mundus. Nunquid ergo Creator mundum, et suum cælum. Jam nunc de loco quæstio est, minime Deus? Plane Deus. Ad. M. I. 1. c. 13. p. 438. D. pertinens et ad mundum illum superiorem, et ad ipsum Deum At quum et animalia irrides minutiora, quæ maximus artifex ejus. Ecce enim, si et ille habet mundum suum infra se, de industriâ ingeniis aut viribus ampliavi-imitare, si potes, supra Creatorem, in loco utique fecit eum. Adv. Marc. lib. apis ædificia, formicæ stabula, araneæ retia, bombycis stainina 1. cap. 15. p. 440. B. C. Non comparente igitur mundo -Postremo, te tibi circumfer; intus ac foris considera hoalio, sicut nec Deo ejus, consequens est, ut duas species re- minem. Placebit tibi vel hoc opus Dei nostri, quod tuus dorum, visibilia et invisibilia, duobus auctoribus Deis dividant, et minus ille Deus melior adamavit. Ibid. cap. 14. p. 439. D. ita suo Deo invisibilia defendant. Id. ibid. cap. 16. p. 441. B. 1 Οι δε έτερον θεον φασκοντες παρα τον δημιεργον, δικαιον
e Si de Marcionis arguereris hæresi, quæ alterum bonum, μεν αυτον ειναι θελεσι, και εκ αγαθον. Orig. in Ex. p. 17, 18, alterum justum Deum inferens, illum invisibilium, hunc visi- Huet. Tom. 2. p. 112. A. Bened. Tos & ATO TWY aipateur bilium asserit Creatorem. Ad. Pammach. cap. 38. [al. 61.] p. -δικαιον μεν ειναι τον δημιεργον, αγαθον δε τον τε Χριςο 315. f.
Watepa. Id. in Joh. p. 38. A. B. Huet, Denique Marcion hæreticus boni Dei Filium, hoc est, al- k Hist. de Manich. T. 2. P. 91. terius, putat esse Christum, et non justi, cujus prophetæ sunt; Ap. Euseb, Præ. Ev. lib. 6. cap. 10. p. 274.
* 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."
The good God was the Maker of Beings spiritual and invisible.
God the Father, according to Marcion, was the maker of beings spiritual, invisible, and happy, as is allowed. And yet Tertulliano frequently represents Marcion’s Deity as idle, indolent, happy in his ease and tranquillity, and the like.
Possibly one reason of this is, that “ Marcion’s god was good only, never offended with, or punished evil doers.
But besides this there appear to be other reasons of this charge. For Tertullian argues that d 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.
8 Οι μεν λεγονται αγαθοι, οι δε κακοι, οι δε δικαιοι. Ιbid. Non comparente igitur mundo alio, sicut nec Deus ejus
b Inde Marcionis Deus melior de tranquillitate. A Stoïcis Quis autem poterit inducere in animun, nisi spiritus hæretivenerat. De Pr. cap. 7. p. 232. D. Si aliqnem de Epicuri cus, ejus esse invisibilia, qui nihil visibile præmiserit : quum scholà Deum adfectavit Christi nomine titulare, ut quod ejus qui visibilia operatus, invisibilium quoque fidem faceret : beatum et incorruptibile sil, neque sibi, neque alii molestias quum justius multo sit aliquibus exemplariis adnuere, quam prästet, (hanc. eniin sententiam ruminans Marcion, removit nullis. L. 1. c. 16. p. 444. A. ab illo severitatem, et judiciarias vires) aut in totum immo- · His compressi erumpunt dicere, sufficit unicum hoc opus bilem et stupentem Deum concepisse debuerat. Ad. Mar. Deo nostro, quod bominem liberavit summâ et præcipua boLib. 1. cap. 25. p. 449. A.
nitate suâ. Ad. Mar. Lib. 1. c. 17. p. 441. D. *Exhibe perIn ipso præconio solitariæ bonitatis, quâ nolunt ii adscri- fectam quoque bonitatem ejus—Non enim omnes salvi bere ejusmodi motus animi, quos in Creatore reprehendunt: fiunt, sed pauciores omnibus et Judæis, et Christianis Creasi enim neque æmulatur, neque irascitur, neque damnat, toris. Pluribus vero perenntibus, quomodo perfecta defendineque vexat, ut pote qui nec judicem præstat. Ibid. I. 1. c. tur bonitas ?
-Sed malitia perfectior. Sed nolo jam de 26. p. 449. D. -Donec Marcion præter Creatorem alium parte majore pereuntium. Imperfectum bonitatis arguere Deuin, solius bonitatis induceret. De Præscr. c. 34.
24.1.B. Deum Marcionis, sufficit ipsos quos salvos facit, imperfectæ Deus autem Marcionis et quia ignotus non potuit offendi, quia salutis inventos. Ibid. Lib. 1. c. 24. p. 4-47, 148. Conf. Lib. nescit irasci. Ad. Marci. I. 5. c. 5. p. 584. A.
1. c. 25. p. 449. A. Lib. 4. c. 25. p. 542. B. 543. A. Lib. 5. o Unam saltem cicerculam Deus Marcionis propriam pro- c. 4. p. 581. B. et Lib. 5. c. 4. p. 581. B. et Lib. 5. c. 16. tulisse debueratAut exhibe rationem Deo dignam, cur
p. 601. A. nihil condiderit. Adv. M. 1. 1. c. 11. p. 437. D.
Sed quis iste suavis, qui ne cognitus quidem usque adhuc? Hoc ipso nemo debeat credere Deum et illum qui nihil quomodo suavis, a quo nulla beneficia processerant. Adv. M. condidit, nisi ratio forte proferatur. Ib. p. 438. A. Nam et 1. 4. c. 17. p. 528. B. Sed et cur apud Dominuni optimum, quale est, ut Creator quidem ignorans esse alium super se et profusæ misericordiæ, alii salutem referunt, credentes cruDeum, ut volunt Marcionitæ,
—tantis operibus notitiam sui cem, virtutem et sapientiam Dei; alii perditionem, quibus armaverit : ille autem sublimior, sciens inferiorem Deum iam Christi crux stultitia reputatur. Ibid. 1. 5. c. 5. p. 584. B. instructum, nullam sibi prospexerit agnoscendo paraturam ; Jam nunc de loco quæstio est, pertinens et ad mundum quando etiam insigniora et superbiora opera debuisset condi- illum superiorem, et ad ipsum Deum ejus. Ecce enim, si et disse, ut Deus cognosceretur secundum Creatorem ; et ex ille habet mundum suum infra se, supra Creatorem, in loco bonestioribus potior et generosior Creatore. Ibid. p. 438. B. utique fecit eum. L. 1. cap. 15. p. 440. C.
The Marcionites erroneous in dividing the Deity.
In dividing the Deity, Marcion and his followers were undoubtedly in the wrong. They seem 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 Tertullian, · 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.
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.
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, 4 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 hiin 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,
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
• Si Deus bonus, et præscias futuri, et avertendi mali tamenti, quod manet in gloriâ, quam veteris, quod evacuari potens, cur hominem-passus est labi de obsequio legis in habebat; hoc et meæ convenit fidei præponenti evangelium mortem, circumventum a diabolo. Si enim et bonus, qui legi, et vide ne magis meæ. Ibid. Lib. 5. c. 11. p. 591. A. B. evenire tale quid nollet, et præscius, qui eventurum non ig: An ignoramus Marcionem et cæteros hæreticos, qui vetas noraret, et potens, qui depellere valeret, nullo modo evenisset laniant Testamentum, contempto Creatore, i. e. justo Deo, quod sub his tribus conditionibus divinæ majestatis evenire alium quemdam bonum Deum colere et adorare, qnem de suo non posset. Adv. Marci. Lib. 21. cap. 5. p. 456. C. Lan- corde finxerunt. Hieron. in Ezek. c. 9. p. 751. in. guens enim circa mali quæstionem : unde malunı ? et obtusis Blasphemare vel Testamenti veteris Deum, irridere et consensibus ipså enormitate curiositatis, inveniens Creatorem pro- temnere. Ibid. fin. nuntiantem, Ego sum qui condo mala-et ita in Christo quasi • Δεικνυω, ότι ο Δημιεργος αλλα ενομοθετησε, και ο Χρισης aliam inveniens dispositionem, solius et puræ benignitatis ut anda Evartia 7878. Dial. Con. Marc. Sec. 1. p. 14. 0:19 diverse a Creatore, facile novam et hospitam argumentatus Χρισος ανέτρεψε τα το δημιουργε, και δεικνυμι ότι ανέτρεψεν. est divinitatem in Christo suo revelatam, modicoque exinde x. T. a. Ibid. p. 16, 17. fermento totam fidei massam hæretico acore decepit. Quo “Ο προφητης τε Θες της γενέσεως, πολεμε συναντος προς τον facilius duos Deos co perspexisse se existimaverunt. Unum λαον, αναβας επι την κορυφην τα ορες, εξετεινε τας χείρας αυτ8 enim non integre viderant. Alterum igitur Deum quem con- προς τον Θεον, ίνα πολλες των πολεμω ανελη. Ο δε Κυριος fiteri cogebatur, de malo infamiando destruxit. Alterum ήμουν, αγιος ων, εξετεινε τας χειρας αυτ8, 8χι τα ανελειν τε; quem commentari connitebatur de proferendo construxit. ανθρωπος, αλλα το σωσαι. Τι 8ν όμοιον και ο μεν
δια Ibid. Lib. 1. c. 2. p. 431. B. C.
σεως των χειρων αναιρει, ο δε σωζει. Ιbid. p. 19. • Magnum argumentum Dei alterius permissio obsoniorum Ο εν τω νομω Κυριος λεγει, Αγαπησεις τον αναπωντα σε, adversus legem, quasi non et ipsi confiteamur legis onera di- και μισησεις τον εχθρον σε. ο δε Κυριος ημων, αγαθος ων, nissa ; sed ab eo qui imposuit, qui novationem repromisit. λεγεί, Αγαπατε τες έχθρας υμων, και ευχεσθε υπερ των διαIbid. l. 5. c. 7. p. 589. D. Olim duplicem vim Creatoris XOYTWY vuas. Ibid. p. 20. Vid. etiam. p. 21, 23, 24, 25, fic. vindicavinius, et judicis et boni, literà occidentis per legem, d Histoire de Mani. tom. 2. p. gs. in. spiritu vivificantis per evangelium. Non possunt duos Deos • MET. H τα αγαθα αρχη) ισχυροτερα. Dia Con. Mar. facere, quæ etsi diversa apud unum recenseri pervenerunt. Si sec. 1. p. 6. άπαξ δε ισχυροτερος αυτον εςιν. Ιbid. leo ut claritatem majorem defenderet (Apostolus) Novi Tes- I Quanta itaque perversitas vestra erga utrumque