[129] This was the contention of Marcion, whose influence upon the Christian world was far larger than is commonly supposed. By far the best account of him, in both this and other respects, is that of Harnack, _Dogmengeschichte_, 1er Th. B. i. c. 5. [130] Euseb. _H. E._ 6. 19. 8. [131] Origen, _de princip._ 1. 16. [132] _Ib._ c. 15. [133] Clement. _Recogn._ 10. 36. [134] Clement. _Hom._ 6. 18. [135] Tatian, _Orat. ad. Græc._ 21. [136] Euseb. _Præp. Evang._ 2. 6, vol. iii. p 74: θεραπεία became a technical term in this sense; cf. Gräfenhan, _Geschichte des klass. Philologie im Alterthum_, vol. i. p. 215. [137] Porphyr. ap. Euseb. _H. E._ 6. 19. 5. [138] Origen, _c. Cels._ 4. 48-50. [139] Origen, _in Gen. Hom._ 13. 3, vol. ii. p. 94; _in Joann. Hom._ 10. 13, vol. iv. p. 178. [140] Euseb. _H. E._ 7. 24. [141] Kihn, _Theodor von Mopsuestia und Junilius Africanus als Exegeten_, Freib. im Breisg. 1880, p. 7. [142] J. G. Rosenmüller, _Hist. Interpret._ iii. p. 161. The letter is printed, with the other remains of Julius Africanus, in Routh, _Reliquiæ Sacræ_, vol. ii. [143] See the chapter on “Scripture and its Mystical Interpretation” in Newman’s “Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine,” especially p. 324 (2nd ed.), “It may almost be laid down as an historical fact that the mystical interpretation and orthodoxy will stand or fall together.” [144] I have endeavoured to confine the above account to what is true of _Greek_ Rhetoric: the accounts which are found in Roman writers, especially in Quintilian, though in the main agreeing with it, differ in some details. The best modern summary of Greek usages is that of Kayser’s Preface to his editions of Philostratus (Zürich, 1844; Leipzig, 1871, vol. ii.). [145] E. Rohde, _der griechische Roman und seine Vorläufer_, Leipzig, 1876, p. 297. [146] There is a distinction between τὰ δικανικὰ and τὰ ἀμφὶ μελέτην, and both are distinguished from τὰ πολιτικὰ in Philostratus, _V. S._ 2. 20, p. 103. Elsewhere Philostratus speaks of a sophist as being δικανικοῦ μὲν σοφιστικώτερος σοφιστοῦ δὲ δικανικώτερος, “too much of a _litterateur_ to be a good lawyer, and too much of a lawyer to be a good _litterateur_,” 2. 23. 4, p. 108. [147] θέσις is defined by Hermogenes as ἀμφισβητημένου πράγματος ζήτησις, _Progymn._ 11, Walz, i. p. 50: ὑπόθεσις as τῶν ἐπὶ μέρους ζήτησις, Sext. Emp. _adv. Geom._ 3. 4: so τὰς εἰς ὄvομα ὑποθέσεις, Philostr. _V.S._ proœm. The distinction is best formulated by Quintilian, 3. 5. 5, who gives the equivalent Latin terms, “infinitæ (quæstiones) sunt quæ remotis personis et temporibus et locis cæterisque similibus in utramque partem tractantur quod Græci θέσιν dicunt, Cicero propositum ... finitæ autem sunt ex complexu rerum personarum temporum cæterorumque: hæ ὑποθέσεις a Græcis dicuntur, caussæ a nostris, in his omnis quæstio videtur circa res personasque consistere.” [148] Philostr. _V.S._ 1. 25. 7, 16. [149] _Ib._ 2. 5. 3. [150] Dio Chrysost. lvi. vol. ii. p. 176.