(11) Ambrosiaster has the following note on Rom. v. 14 (Migne, xvii. 100 f.): Et tamen sic (_i.e._ μὴ ἁμαρτήσαντες) praescribitur nobis de graecis codicibus, quasi non ipsi ab invicem discrepent, quod facit studium contentionis. Quia enim propria quis auctoritate uti non potest ad victoriam, verba legis adulterat, ut sensum suis quasi verba legis asserat, ut non ratio sed auctoritas praescribere videatur. Constat autem porro olim quosdam latinos de veteribus graecis translatos (esse) codicibus, quos incorruptos simplicitas temporum servavit et probat: postquam autem a concordia animis discedentibus et haereticis perturbantibus torqueri quaestionibus coeperunt, multa immutata sunt ad sensum humanum, ut hoc contineretur in litteris quod homini videretur, unde etiam ipsi Graeci diversos codices habent. Hoc autem verum arbitror, quando et ratio et historia et auctoritas observatur: nam hodie quae in latinis reprehenduntur codicibus, sic inveniuntur a veteribus posita, Tertulliano, Victorino, et Cypriano. The correction “hodie quae” for “hodieque” in the last sentence is due to Haussleiter, _Forschungen_, iv. 32. The passage is also interesting as being the earliest instance known to me of the collocation of _ratio_ and _auctoritas_ as the two arbiters in theological disputes. Compare the frequent combination of the two by Luther in his earlier polemics—_e.g._ against Prierias, and also later in his protest at Worms. Again, Ambrosiaster says on Gal. ii. 1, with reference to Acts xv. 20, 29: Quae sophistae Graecorum non intelligentes, scientes tamen a sanguine abstinendum _adulterant_ scripturam, quartum mandatum addentes “et a suffocatis observandum,” quod puto nec ne Dei nutu intellecturi sunt, quia iam supra dictum est, quod addiderunt. [Sidenote: Marcion.] (_g_) =Marcion.=—We have more exact information in regard to Marcion’s great undertaking than to these slender attempts at textual criticism. Here there is a fuller stream of testimony both in the Greek and Latin Fathers. It must be confessed, however, that hitherto attention has been directed more to his position in the matter of the Canon generally than to his work on the text of the New Testament. Here again, the works of Zahn throw most light upon the subject; in other works, like the PRE _e.g._, this side of Marcion’s activity is very superficially treated. Several points have already been referred to here and there in the previous part of this work, but the question must now be treated as a whole.[205]