תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

SECTION LI.

Nor at all that to Philemon.

PHILEMON is the ninth epistle in Marcion's Apostolicon.*

This epistle,' Epiphanius' says,

⚫ was so entirely corrupted by Marcion, that he quoted nothing from it on that account.' On the other hand Tertullian asserts, it was the only one which remained unfalsified.'

con.c

SECTION LII.

Nor but little that to the Philippians.

[ocr errors]

PHILIPPIANS is the tenth and last of St. Paul's epistles received by Marcion in his ApostoliThis also,' Epiphanius says, was so mutilated by him, that he did not choose to quote any part of it out of his copy.'

d

Tertullian has quoted several passages from this epistle, but doth not accuse Marcion of any particular corruptions. Nor doth any other author, that I can find, except Epiphanius.

SECTION LIII.

An Argument from hence in favour of the Authenticity of the New Testament.

THUS then we have gone through what Marcion thought proper to receive into his Evange lium and Apostolicon, from the gospel of St. Luke and the writings of St. Paul. In many places in the epistles, as well as the gospel, he hath altered and mutilated passages to serve his own purpose. In others, the variations probably arose from the difference in copies. The testimony to be drawn from this view, in favour of the books of the New Testament, is very strong. By means of this heretic's rejecting some books entirely, and mutilating others, the ancient Christians were led to examine into the evidence for these sacred writings, and to compare copies together, and on this account to speak of whole books, and particular passages, very frequently in their works; which hath enabled us of later ages to authenticate these books, and to come at the genuine reading of many texts, in a better manner than we otherwise could have done.

* Προς Φιλήμονα εννάτης, έτως γαρ παρα το Μαρκιωνι κεί Tas. Epi. Ibid. p. 373. C.

Όμως απο ταύτης της προς Φιλημονα εδεν παρεθέμεθα, δια το ολοσχερως αυτην διαςρόφως παρ' αυτῳ κεισθαι. Epi. Ibid. p. 373. D.

Προς Φιλιππησίες δεκατης, έτως γαρ κείται παρά τω Μαρκιωνι εσχατη και δεκατη· ώσαυτως εδε απ' αυτής δια το διασροφώς παρ' αυτῳ κεισθαι, εδεν εξελεξαμεθα. Ibid.373.4. Adv. Mar. L. 5. c. 20. passim. p. 478, 9.

[ocr errors]

CHAP. XI.

OF LUCIAN, OR LEUCIUS.

SECTION I.

Some general Account of him from ancient Authors, with Observations thereon.

THE person concerning whom we are now going to treat, I suppose, has been already mentioned several times. Nevertheless, it is fit that he should appear here in his proper time and place.

Lucian the elder,' says Epiphanius' in his Summary, to distinguish him from another of a later time, in all things followed Marcion. But, by making some additions, he endeavoured to improve his scheme.'

[ocr errors]

с

In his larger work he again calls him the elder, or ancient Lucian: and says he was a follower of Marcion, but separated from him, and formed a distinct sect. He held one being or good God; another Creator, judge, and just; and a third evil. In this he agreed with Marcion, according to the manner in which Austin understands Epipharius: though, according to Eusebius, it was one Synerus who introduced the notion of three principles and three natures : *

He alleged some texts from the prophets, particularly Mal. iii. 14, 15, in support of his notions concerning the Creator. He rejected marriage, and commended virginity: not from a love of chastity, but from an aversion to the Creator and his works. Epiphanius, in his next article, says that Apelles was his fellow disciple under Marcion.

h

Augustine hath not given this Lucian any distinct place in his book of heresies. Mr. Jones indeed thinks he is spoken of by him under the name of Seleucus, in the account which he gives of the Seleuciani and Hermiani, which is the 59th heresy in his catalogue. Though the names Seleucus and Leucius are different, yet it must be allowed that no sufficient argument can be drawn from thence against the identity of the persons, since names more different than these have been sometimes confounded. And this hath been the case in the present instance, as has been frequently observed. The name of this very person being Seleucus in some printed copies of Jerom,' while the MS. copies still retain Leucius."

A more important objection against Mr. Jones's opinion is, that the time is too late for Lucian. Besides it must be observed, that Austin cannot mean by the Seleuciani the followers

• Λεκιανος τις αρχαιος. τίσε. p. 230. D.

-παντα κατα Μαρκιωνα εδογμα- δε το, ματαιος ὁ δελεύων Κυρίῳ. και το ειρημένον αντεςησαν

• Λυκιανος τις αρχαιος- συνεπομενος τω προειρημένω Μαρκιωνι και απο τότε αποσχίσας, και αυτός άθροισμα ἑαυτῷ ποιησάμενος, αίρεσεως προεση. Ibid. Hær. 43. No. 1. p. 378. B. C.

[ocr errors]

Έτερον μεν τον δημιεργον, και κριτην, και δικαιον· ἑτερον δήθεν αγαθον ώσαύίως, και έτερον τον πονηρον. Hær. 43. n. 1. p. 378. D.

Quamvis Epiphanius eum (Marcionem) tria dicat asseruisse principia, bonum, justum, pravum: sed Eusebius Synerum quemdam, non Marcionem, trium principiorum atque naturarum scribit auctorem. De Hær. T. 6. n. 22. f. 5. c. 3. G. Ven. 1570.

• See more on this head in the foregoing chapter of Marcion, sec. 10. p. 594, 595

* Βελεται χρησθαι και μαρτυρίαις τισι κατα τον Μαρκιωνα, κατα την αυτ8 ύπονοίαν από της των προφητων γραφής. Φημι

VOL. IV.

Θεῳ, και εσώθησαν. Epi. Hær. 43. n. 1. p. 378. D.

8. Απαρνείται τον γαμον, και άγνειαν ασκει· 8 δι' άγνειαν, αλλ' ίνα αθέτηση τα έργα το δημιεργα. Ibid. Η Απελλής- -WY και αυτός συσχολασης αυτό Λεκιανε, και μαθητης το προειρημενο Μαρκιωνος. 380. C.

Jones's Canon. Vol. 1. p. 305.

Hær. 44. n. 1. p.

* Séleucus, ou Leuce, qui en est le premier auteur. Beaus. His. de Mani. Tom. 1. L. 11. c. 11. p. 353. Cela se trouvoit sans doute, avec d'autres erreurs, dans le livre de Séleucus, qui avoit écrit l'histoire de la Vierge. Ibid. p. 354. See also p. 348. See also Casau. Exercit. ad apparat. Baron. Annal. No. 15. p. 74, &c. et Fabritii Cod. Apoc. Nov. Testam. p. 137. p. 1.

1 Sed factum est- -a Seleuco, Epis. 82. Par. 2. Tract. 6. fol. 140. vel apud Hieron. Oper. T. ix. p. 203. m Millii Prole. in N. T. sec. 336. p. 37.

4 L

of this person whom we are here speaking of: because having given an account of the Psalliani, and some others, ranked under the same article by himself and Epiphanius, he says I shall now speak of some which we find in Philaster, but which Epiphanius has not mentioned; and the second of this class is Seleucus and his followers. This therefore must be a different person from the Lucian who was mentioned expressly by Epiphanius, and placed both by him and Philaster between Marcion and Apelles. Austin moreover declares that he followed the order of Epiphanius, though he did not insert the whole number of his heresies. It is not difficult to account for the present omission in him: for he informs us that he had inserted some which Epiphanius had wholly omitted, and had omitted others which he had inserted: enlarging the accounts of some, and abridging those of others; and reducing the sixty heresies after the coming of Christ, which we find in Epiphanius, to fifty-seven; considering those as only one heresy, when there was but a trifling difference between them, which Epiphanius had made two. In the present case therefore, as Epiphanius had himself said that Lucian in all things followed Marcion, Austin, in this short account which he was giving of heretics, might think it unnecessary to speak of him as distinct from Marcion, since he could find little or no difference between them.

I place at the bottom of the page the account of this person given by Philaster, and the author of the Additions to Tertullian; but they call him Lucan; their order is Cerdon, Marcion, Lucan, Apelles; which serves to shew that they mean the same person whom Epiphanius calls Lucian. He is also mentioned by Tertullian himself, as not allowing the resurrection of the body. He too calls him Lucan, as doth Origen in his book against Celsus. The latter says he did not know of any Christians who had altered the text of the gospel, except the followers of Valentinus and Marcion, and perhaps of Lucan.

Having thus put down the accounts of the most ancient writers relating to Lucan, or Lucian, or Leucius, I beg leave to refer to what hath been already said somewhat largely concerning him in another place; but I must resume some particulars there mentioned; I shall repeat however as little as may be.

My method in treating of him shall be to consider his time, his opinions, and his works or writings.

• Nunc ergo addo quas Philaster posuit, nec posuit Epiphanius. Aug. ad. 9. v. Deum de Hær. 59. T. 6. fol. 8. c. 4. I. Ven. 1570.

Cujus ego (scilicet Epiphanii episcopi) in commemorandis hæreticis non modum sed ordinem sum secutus. Ibid. Hær. 57. F.8. c. 3. H.

• Nam et aliqua ex aliis posui, quæ ipse non posuit; et aliqua non posui, quæ ipse posuit: itaque alia latius quam ipse, alia et brevius explicavi; paremque in nonnullis exhibui brevitatem, omnia moderans sicut intentionis meæ ratio postulabat. Proinde ille de octoginta hæresibus, separatis viginti, quas ante domini adventum extitisse, sicut ei visum est, computavit; reliquas post domini ascensum natas sexaginta, brevissimis libris quinque comprehendit, atque omnes in sex libros totius ejusdem sui operis fecit concludi. Ego autem, qui secundum petitionem tuam eas hæreses memorare institui, quæ post glorificationem Christi se adversus doctrinam Christi, et sub velamine Christiani nominis extulerunt, quinquaginta septem ex Epiphanii ipsius opere in meum transtuli, duas in

unam referens, ubi nullam differentiam potui reperire: es rursus, ubi ille ex duabus unam facere voluit, sub numeris suis singulas posui. Ibid. Hær. 57. F. 8. c. 3. 4. H.

Lucanus post istum quidam similia Marcionis statuens acdecernens, ut ille doctor ipsius Marcion est in omnibus ementitus. Hær. 47. p. 97. p. 12. La Prigne.

e Extitit post hunc Lucanus quidam nomine, Marcionis sectator atque discipulus. Et hic per eadem vadens blasphemiæ genera, eadem docet quæ Marcion et Cerdon docuerant. Præs. c. 51. p. 253. D. 217. 21. Fran.

f Viderit unus aliquis Lucanus, nec huic quidem substantiæ parcens, quam secundum Aristotelem dissolvens, aliud quid pro eâ subjicit, quasi sit tertium quiddam resurrecturum, neque anima neque caro, id est non homo, sed ursus forsitan, quâ Lucanus. De Res. Carne. c. 2. p. 380. D. p. 315. 11.

8 Μεταχαραξαντας δε το ευαγγελιον αλλες εκ οίδα, η της απο Μαρκίωνος, και τες απο Ουαλεντίνο, οιμαι δε και τις απο Aexave. Con. Cels. L. 2. p. 77. Can. p. 411. Bened. h Vol. ii. p. 230-232.

d

[ocr errors]

'SECTION II.

Of the Time when he lived.

FIRST, of his time. I formerly mentioned several learned moderns, who place him in the second century, viz. Grabe, Mill, and Beausobre: to whom I now add Cave. But he thinks he appeared not till about the year 180, supposing him to have been a leader of the Cataphrygians, or Montanists, as some other authors also suppose. But in this they are evidently mistaken. Mill & thinks he flourished about the year 140, or soon after. And Fabricius nearly agrees with him, endeavouring to prove that the Leucius spoken of by Pacian against the Montanists, is a different person from him we are now treating of. Though in this I think him wrong,' because ancient authors mention but one. It however appears to me most agreeable to the current of history to place him somewhere between the years 135 and 150.

SECTION III.

Of his Opinions.

SECONDLY, we are to speak of his opinions. What they were was shewn distinctly in the place before referred to. The account there given is further confirmed by what we have quoted just before, and shall now proceed to mention.

He was a scholar and follower of Marcion. He believed the Creator to be different from God the Father. He said that the God of the Jews was an evil being, and that Simon Magus was his minister: but that the God whom Christ revealed was different from him, and was good ;* and to him he applies the appellation of both Father and Son. He was one of the Docete. He condemned marriage, and denied the resurrection of the body. He also had a notion that the Divine Being, or an angel, appeared at a certain time in the shape of a beautiful boy, and

■ Vol. ii. p. 231.

b Lucius rectius Leucius Charinus, pessimæ notæ hæreticus, sectâ sive Marcionita, sive Montanista, sive ex utrâque conflatus, circa annum CLXXX. vixisse videtur. Certe post exortam Montani hæresin, si modo Cataphrygum antesignanus fuerit. His. Lit. sec. 2. p. 82. vel p. 49. Gen. 1720.

Etatem designat Pacianus, cum ait, illi ipsi Phryges se animatos mentiuntur a Leucio. Ibid. p. 83 vel 49. Gen.

Erat Lucianus Marcionis sectator, ita et Leucius. Iste, vivo adhuc magistro, novain sectam instituit; vixitque adeo circa annum Christi 140, seu paulo postea. Prol. n. 334. p. 37.

• Sed quis præstabit a Paciano innui Leucium? Certe mentiri hoc Phryges ait Pacianus. Itaque Leucium istum non habuit ipse pro antesignano, verum pro viro Catholico, ad cujus

[blocks in formation]

consensum frustra a Montanistis provocaretur. Fab. Cod.
Apoc. N. T. p. 42. in notis. Suspicor autem illum a Paciano.
Leucium denotari, quem inter Johannis discipulos nominat
Epiphanius. Hær. 51. n. 6. p. 427. D. Id. Ibid. P. 768.
Vide Beaus. H. Man. T. 1. p. 351, 2. n. 3.
Vol. ii. p. 230, 231.

Vide note, p. 625 of this chapter.

1 Φησι γαρ αλλον είναι τον των Ιεδαίων Θεον, και κακον 8 και Σίμωνα τον μάγον υπηρετην καθεσαναι· αλλον δε τον Χρισον (lege Χρισε) όν φησιν αγαθον. και φύρων άπαντα, και συγχέων, καλει αυτόν και πατέρα και υἱον. Pho. Cod. 114, p. 292.*

* Λέγει δε μηδε ενανθρώπησαι (Χριστν) αληθως, αλλά So Ear- Γαμος δε νομιμες αθετεί, και πασαν γενεσιν ποιηçavlɛ, nai te move eyes. Phot. Cod. 114. p. 292.

[blocks in formation]

imitated a small female voice; as we find it related at large in the book intitled de Fide,” among Austin's works. He also thought, according to Philaster," that the souls of men like the souls of dogs and beasts: alleging in proof of it, from the spurious acts of Andrew and Peter, that cattle and dogs, and wild beasts, had been miraculously made to speak.

SECTION IV.

Some Observations on his Notion about the Souls of Brutes, and the Resurrection of them.

THIS doth not seem to have been an opinion peculiar to Lucian and his followers: but was held, according to Philaster, in the place before quoted, by the Manichees, Gnostics, Nicolaitans, Valentinians, and many other heretics.. There is indeed no doubt but Lucian believed that the souls of men and the souls of beasts were of the same kind. For it is expressly said by Philaster to be contained in those spurious writings which went under the names of Andrew, John, Peter, and some others of the apostles; which writings it will evidently appear were the forgeries of Lucian. This tenet is also ascribed to him by Photius, though in somewhat a dif ferent manner. He says that this heretic strangely believed a most absurd and puerile kind of resurrection of dead men, and oxen, and cattle.

d

Photius seems here to have mistaken the meaning of the terms. It should be observed, that all the Docetæ denied the resurrection of the body, or of the flesh. This was a consequence of their believing that Christ had not really a body, but only appeared to have one. However, the Marcionites talked of a resurrection, which may be called a figurative resurrection, and which they applied to souls. They considered souls as dead while they were in the body; and therefore the death of the body was the life, or, in their phraseology, the resurrection of the soul. This is agreeable to the Platonic doctrine, which represented the soul as in a prison while confined in the body. From this philosophy Docetism seems to have derived its origin; for the followers of this opinion were principally among the higher classes of men, and were chiefly those who had been converted from heathenism to Christianity. Lucian might therefore very probably be a believer in the resurrection of the souls of brutes in this sense, as well as in that of the souls of men. For it was a Marcionite tenet, to which he also undoubtedly gave his assent, that the souls of men and the souls of brutes are of the same kind. Thus far then Philaster is undoubtedly right in saying that he believed the souls of men and beasts to be alike: and this is one proof, among many others, that he was a follower of Marcion, and not a Manichee, and therefore he is justly placed, as before observed, in the second century.

a Attendite in actibus Leucii, quos sub nomine Apostolorum scribit, qualia sunt quæ accipitis de Maximillâ uxore Egetis, &c. Ibi scriptum est quod cum eadem Maximilla et Iphidamia simul issent ad audiendum Apostolum Andream, puerulus quidam speciosus, quem vult Leucius vel Deum vel certe Angelum intelligi, commendaverit eas Andreæ Apostolo, et perrexerit ad prætorium Egetis, et ingressus cubiculum earum finxerit vocem muliebrem, quasi Maximillæ murmurantis de doloribus sexûs feminei, et Iphidamiæ respondentis. Quæ colloquia cum audisset Egetes, credens eas ibi esse, discesserit. De fide, c. 38. Ap. Aug. T. 8. in Appen. T. 6. fol. 187, 1, 2, Venet. 1570.

b Unde et habent Manichæi et alii tales, Andreæ beati et Joannis actus Evangelista, beati et Petri similiter Apostoli, et Pauli pariter Apostoli; in quibus quia signa fecerunt magna et prodigia, ut et pecudes et canes et bestiæ loqueren

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]
« הקודםהמשך »