ee Mosheim, p. 539.]
[Footnote 341: M. Hahn has restored the Marcionite Gospel with great
ingenuity. His work is reprinted in Thilo. Codex. Apoc. Nov. Test. vol.
i.--M.]
[Footnote 35: See a very remarkable passage of Origen, (Proem.
ad Lucam.) That indefatigable writer, who had consumed his life in the
study of the Scriptures, relies for their authenticity on the inspired
authority of the church. It was impossible that the Gnostics could
receive our present Gospels, many parts of which (particularly in the
resurrection of Christ) are directly, and as it might seem designedly,
pointed against their favorite tenets. It is therefore somewhat singular
that Ignatius (Epist. ad Smyrn. Patr. Apostol. tom. ii. p. 34) should
choose to employ a vague and doubtful tradition, instead of quoting the
certain testimony of the evangelists. Note: Bishop Pearson has attempted
very happily to explain this singularity.' The first Christians were
acquainted with a number of sayings of Jesus Christ, which are not
related in our Gospels, and indeed have never been written. Why might
not St. Ignatius, who had lived with the apostles or their disciples,
repeat in other words that which St. Luke has related, particularly at a
time when, being in prison, he could have the Gospels at hand? Pearson,
Vind Ign. pp. 2, 9 p. 396 in tom. ii. Patres Apost. ed. Coteler--G.]
[Footnote 36: Faciunt favos et vespae; faciunt ecclesias et Marcionitae,
is the strong expression of Tertullian, which I am obliged to quote
from memory. In the time of Epiphanius (advers. Haereses, p. 302) the
Marcionites were very numerous in Italy, Syria, Egypt, Arabia, and
Persia.]
[Footnote 37: Augustin is a memorable instance of this gradual progress
from reason to faith. He was, during several years, engaged in the
Manichaear sect.]
But whatever difference of opinion might subsist between the Orthodox,
the Ebionites, and the Gnostics, concerning the divinity or the
obligation of the Mosaic law, they were all equally animated by the
same exclusive zeal; and by the same abhorrence for idolatry, which had
distinguished the Jews from the other nations of the ancient world. The
philosopher, who considered the system of polytheism as a composition of
human fraud and error, could disguise a smile of contempt under the
mask of devotion, without apprehending that either the mockery, or the
compliance, would expose him to the resentment of any invisible, or, as
he conceived the
|