CHAP. IV. of Apostolic books as the foundation of his system. The Canon thus published is the first of which there is any record; and like the first Commentary and the first express recognition of the equality of the Old and New Testament Scriptures, it comes from without the Catholic Church, and not from within it.

The peculiar position of Marcion.

The position which Marcion occupies in the history of Christianity is in every way most striking. Himself the son of a bishop of Sinope, it is said that he aspired to gain the 'first place' in the Church of Rome'. And though his father and the Roman presbyters refused him communion, he gained so many followers that in the time of Epiphanius they were spread throughout the world. While other heretics proposed to extend or complete the Gospel, he claimed only to reproduce in its original simplicity the Gospel of St Paul. But his personal influence was great and lasting. He impressed his own character on his teaching, where others only lent their names to abstract systems of doctrine. Polycarp called him 'the first-born of Satan,' we

If

1 Epiph. Hær. xlii. 1. What the рoedpia was is uncertain. Probably it implies only admission into the college of TрeσBÚTEроL. Cf. Bingham, Orig. Eccles. i. p. 266. Massuet, de Gnostic. reb. § 135.

2 Tert. adv. Marc. i. 20: Aiunt Marcionem non tam innovasse regulam separatione Legis et Evangelii, quam retro adulteratam recurasse.

may believe that the title signalized his special CHAP. IV. energy; and the fact that he sought the recog

nition of a Catholic bishop shows the position which he claimed to fill.

The time of Marcion's arrival at Rome1 His date. cannot be fixed with certainty. Justin Martyr speaks of him as still teaching' when he wrote his first Apology, and from the wide spread of his doctrine then, it is evident that some interval had elapsed since he had separated from the Church?. Consistently with this, Epiphanius 139-142 A. C. places that event shortly after the death of Hyginus; and Tertullian states it as an acknowledged fact, that Marcion taught in the reign of Antoninus Pius, but with a note to the effect that he had taken no pains to inquire in what year he began to spread his heresy. This approximate date, however, is sufficient to give an accurate notion of the historical place which he occupied. As the contemporary of Justin, he united the age of Ignatius with that of Irenæus. He witnessed the consolidation of the Catholic

1 Petavius has discussed his date. Animadv. in Epiph. Hær. xlvi. (p. 83); and Massuet much more fully and exactly, de Gnostic. reb. § 136.

2 Just. Mart. Ap. i. c. 26.

3 Tert. adv. Marc. i. 19: Quoto quidem anno Antonini Majoris de Ponto suo exhalaverit aura canicularis non curari investigare; de quo tamen constat, Antonianus hæreticus est, sub Pio impius.

CHAP. IV. Church; and his heresy was the final struggle of one element of Christianity against the whole truth the formal counterpart of Ebionism, naturally later in time than that, but no less naturally a result of a partial view of Apostolic teaching'.

The contents of his Canon.

Marcion professed to have introduced no innovation of doctrine, but merely to have restored that which had been corrupted.

The

St Paul only, according to him, was the true Apostle; and Pauline writings alone were admitted into his Canon. This was divided into two parts, The Gospel' and 'The Apostolicon"." Gospel was a recension of St Luke with numerous omissions, and variations from the received text3. The Apostolicon contained ten Epistles of St Paul, excluding the Pastoral Epistles and that to the Hebrews".

1 Marcion is commonly described as the scholar and successor of Cerdo. But it is impossible to determine how far Cerdo's views on the Canon were identical with those of Marcion. The spurious additions to Tertullian's tract, De Præscr. Hæret. (c. li.), are of no independent authority.

2 I have not noticed the title 'Apostolicon,' or 'Apostolus,' in Tertullian; but it occurs in Epiphanius, and in the Dialogue appended to Origen's works.

3 Cf. p. 351, and note 1.

The Epistles were arranged according to Tertullian (adv. Marc. v.) in the following order: Galatians, Corinthians (i. ii.), Romans, Thessalonians (i. ii.), Ephesians (Laodiceans), Colossians, Philippians, Philemon.

Tertullian and Epiphanius agree in affirming CHAP. IV. that Marcion altered the text of the books which The text of the Epistles. he received to suit his own views; and they quote many various readings in support of the assertion. Those which occur in the Epistles are certainly insufficient to prove the point1;

Epiphanius gives the same order, with the single exception that he transposes the two last (Hær. xlii. p. 373).

Tertullian expressly affirms the identity of the Epistles to the Laodiceans and to the Ephesians (v. 17); and implies that Tertullian prided himself on the restoration of the true title, quasi et in isto diligentissimus explorator. The language of Epiphanius is contradictory.

The statements of Tertullian and Epiphanius as to the Epistle to Philemon are at first sight in opposition; but I believe that Epiphanius either used the word diaσrpópws loosely, or was misled by some author who applied it to the transposition and not to the corruption of the Epistle. He uses the same word of the Epistle to the Philippians, but Tertullian gives no hint that that Epistle was tampered with in an especial manner by Marcion. Cf. Epiph. Hær. xlii. pp. 373, 374; Tertull. adv. Marc. v. 20, 21. Again, Epiphanius says (id. p. 371) that the Epistles to the Thessalonians 'distorted in like manner.'

were

1 The variations which Epiphanius notices are: Eph. v. 31, Tŷ yuvaiki. So Jerome.

Gal. v. 9, doλoî. So Lucif. &c.

1 Cor. ix. 8, ó vóμos + Mwvoéws.

Cf. the following verse.

x. 9, Χριστὸν for Κύριον. So D, E, F, G, &c.

The language of Tertullian is more general. Speaking of the Epistle to the Romans he says: Quantas autem foveas in ista vel maxime Epistola Marcion fecerit auferendo quæ voluit de nostri Instrumenti integritate parebit (adv. Marc. v.

CHAP. IV. and on the contrary, they go far to show that

Marcion preserved without alteration the text which he found in his MS. Of the seven 13); but he does not enumerate any of these lacunæ, nor are they noticed by Epiphanius. In the next chapter, after quoting Rom. viii. 11, he adds, 'Salio et hic amplissimum abruptum intercisse scripturæ,' and then passes to Rom. x. 2. Epiphanius says nothing of any omission here; and the language of Tertullian is at least ambiguous, especially when taken in connexion with his commentary on Rom. xi. 33. It appears however from Origen (Comm. in Rom. xvi. 25), that Marcion omitted the two last chapters of the Epistle.

In the Epistle to the Galatians it seems that there was some omission in the third chapter (Tert. v. 3), but it is uncertain of what extent it was. In Gal. ii. 5, Marcion read ovde, while Tertullian omitted the negative (1. c.).

The other variations mentioned by Tertullian are the following:

1 Cor. xv. 45, Kúptov for 'Adáμ. Cf. varr. lectt.

2 Cor. iv. 4, Marcion was evidently right in his punctuation.

1 Thess. ii. 15, + idíovs. So D***, E** &c.

2 Thess. i. 8, = ἐν πυρὶ φλογός.

In addition to these various readings, Jerome (1. c.) mentions the omission of kaì ¦‹oû Пaтpòs in Gal. i. 1; and from the Dialogue (c. 5) it appears that the Marcionites read 1 Cor. xv. 38 sqq. with considerable differences from the common text.

The examination of these readings perhaps belongs rather to the history of the text than to the history of the Canon; but they are in themselves a proof of the minute and jealous attention paid to the N. T. Scriptures. If the text was watched carefully, the Canon cannot have been a matter of indifference.