- 1
Sapor. We have here a characteristic touch of his diligent and also intrepid spirit. Epiphanius says this short epistle “was so entirely corrupted by Marcion, that he had himself selected nothing from it whereon to found any refutations of him or of his doctrine.” Tertullian, however, was of a different mind; for he has made it evident, that though there were alterations made by Marcion, yet sufficient was left untouched by him to show the absurdity of his opinions. Epiphanius and Tertullian entertained, respectively, similar opinions of Marcion’s treatment of the second epistle, which the latter discusses in the next chapter (Larder).
- 2
1 Thess. ii. 15.
- 3
All the best mss., including the Codices Alex., Vat., and Sinait., omit the ἰδίους, as do Tertullian and Origen. Marcion has Chrysostom and the received text, followed by our A.V., with him.
- 4
Amarum.
- 5
Status exaggerationis.
- 6
Ergo exaggerari non potuit nisi.
- 7
Ex utroque titulo.
- 8
1 Thess. iv. 3, 4.
- 9
1 Thess. iv. 5.
- 10
Portentuosis.
- 11
The rule of Gentile life.
- 12
We have here followed Oehler’s reading, which is more intelligible than the four or five others given by him.
- 13
Tractet.
- 14
Retundo.
- 15
1 Thess. iv. 15–17.
- 16
Gal. iv. 26.
- 17
Isa. lx. 8.
- 18
Oehler and Fr. Junius here read Amos, but all the other readings give Hosea; but see above, book iii. chap. xxiv., where Amos was read by all.
- 19
Amos ix. 6.
- 20
1 Thess. v. 19, 20.
- 21
Nihil fecit. This is precisely St. Paul’s ἐξουθενεῖν, “to annihilate” (A.V. “despise”), in 1 Thess. v. 20.
- 22
Formam.
- 23
Celebratur.
- 24
Si quando corpus in hujus modi prænominatur.
- 25
1 Thess. v. 23. For a like application of this passage, see also our author’s treatise, De Resurrect. Carnis, cap. xlvii. [Elucidation I.]
- 26
It is remarkable that our author quotes this text of the three principles, in defence only of two of them. But he was strongly opposed to the idea of any absolute division between the soul and the spirit. A distinction between these united parts, he might, under limitations, have admitted; but all idea of an actual separation and division he opposed and denied. See his De Anima, cap. x. St. Augustine more fully still maintained a similar opinion. See also his De Anima, iv. 32. Bp. Ellicott, in his interesting sermon On the Threefold Nature of Man, has given these references, and also a sketch of patristic opinion of this subject. The early fathers, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alex., Origen, as well as Didymus of Alex., Gregory Nyssen., and Basil, held distinctly the threefold nature. Our own divines, as is natural, are also divided in views. Bp. Bull, Hammond, and Jackson hold the trichotomy, as a triple nature is called; others, like Bp. Butler, deny the possibility of dividing our immaterial nature into two parts. This variation of opinion seems to have still representatives among our most recent commentators: while Dean Alford holds the triplicity of our nature literally with St. Paul, Archdeacon Wordsworth seems to agree with Bp. Butler in regarding soul and spirit as component parts of one principle. See also Bp. Ellicott’s Destiny of the Creature, sermon v. and notes.
- 27
On this paradox, that souls are corporeal, see his treatise De Anima, v., and following chapters (Oehler). [See also cap. x. supra.]
- 28
Quæ = caro.
