Anf-03 vi.iii.xxi Pg 3
The argument (p. 673, note 6,) is conclusive, but not clear. The disciples of John must have been baptized by him, (Luke vii. 29–30) and “all the people,” must have included those whom Jesus called. But, this was not Christ’s baptism: See Acts xix. 2; 5. Compare note 8, p. 673. And see the American Editor’s “Apollos.”
Anf-03 v.iv.v.xxvii Pg 43
Luke xi. 52.
but the interpretation of the law? Into the perception of this they neither entered themselves, even because they did not believe (for “unless ye believe, ye shall not understand”); nor did they permit others to enter, because they preferred to teach them for commandments even the doctrines of men. When, therefore, He reproached those who did not themselves enter in, and also shut the door against others, must He be regarded as a disparager of the law, or as a supporter of it? If a disparager, those who were hindering the law ought to have been pleased; if a supporter, He is no longer an enemy of the law.4616 4616 As Marcion held Him to be.
But all these imprecations He uttered in order to tarnish the Creator as a cruel Being,4617 4617 A Marcionite position.
against whom such as offended were destined to have a “woe.” And who would not rather have feared to provoke a cruel Being,4618 4618 Sævum.
by withdrawing allegiance4619 4619 Deficiendo.
from Him? Therefore the more He represented the Creator to be an object of fear, the more earnestly would He teach that He ought to be served. Thus would it behove the Creator’s Christ to act.
