174. Such is the sane and reasonable explanation which Macarius gives of this highly controversial question.
175. See note on the earlier part of the chapter. The interpretation of the whole paragraph by Macarius is a valuable contribution to the literature of the subject.
176. Thus briefly does he answer another objection of his opponent, as contained in chapter xx.
177. It is at this point that the attack on S. Peter begins. Harnack ( op. cit. p. 103 et seq.) considers that the opponent's work was here divided into two, a division which Macarius has quite obscured. He does not show why a book of excerpts from the fifteen books of Porphyry should have been thus divided, but he affords valuable though unintentional support to the theory that the work is the two books of the Philalethes of Hierocles. In this case this might well mark the beginning of the Second Book. As the beginning and end are lost, Harnack reconstruct? the two parts as follows : the first part as containing x + 10 + 13 questions, and the second part 9+16 + x (p. 105 n. 1).
178. Thus briefly and in parenthesis does he answer what his opponent had said about the injunction of "seventy times seven." See note on the heading of chapter xx. This answer is excellent as far as it goes, but scarcely covers all the objection.
179. The quotation, as often, seems to be from memory, as the reading is ti/ o3ti e1docen u9mi~n instead of sunefwnh&qh.
180. The opponent here shows considerable knowledge both of Christian methods of exegesis, and of the language of the Epistles.
181. This is mentioned again in Bk. IV. ch. iv when he says, "Peter, though he received authority to feed the iambs, was nailed to the cross and impaled." Macarius in his answer accepts the fact.
182. This seems to have been a Christian tradition, as he states it unhesitatingly. Macarius tacitly refutes it by saying that the crucifixion was at Rome.
183. It will be noticed that he puts a new and impossible sense in the words, necessitating the change of au0th~j (i. e. the church) into au0tou~ .
184. This was a favourite subject of attack, and it will be remembered that the theory of a permanent cleavage between Peter and Paul has been built upon it.
185. It is strangely unfair thus to imply that one passage follows after the other. The objector scarcely ever resorts to such subterfuges.
186. In his anxiety to whitewash S. Peter from all charges, Macarius here may be said to overstate his case, for he fails to consider S. Paul's point of view.
187. He misses the chance of scoring a point, for he might have pointed out the unfairness of the objection.
188. The text adds the curious suggestion that they were consequently called sto&loi (expeditions) : ouj e0caposte/llonte sto&louj e0ka&loun .
189. Before the next sentence the MS. has 3Ellhn in the margin, as a new heading, in order to mark the place where the actual objection begins. For the support thus claimed for the theory that Macarius is merely borrowing from a book, and himself turning it into a discussion, see Introd., p. xvii.
190. Phil. iii. 2, i.e. a mere meaningless cutting.
191. Gk. parapa&llion .
192. The MS. gives kaqhkeu&wn , which must be corrupt. The word, oddly enough, has just occurred in the previous answer of Macarius (ch. xxix. p. 122, 1. 2, kai/per kaqhkeu&wn toi~j 'Ioudai/oij polla& . Foucart suggested piqhkeu&wn in both places, as equivalent to piqhki/zw (to play the ape), Arist. Vesp. 1290). But this requires the further emendation of pa&ntaj to pa~si in the present instance. pa&ntaj has just occurred in the same line, which may have caused the mistake.
193. The speaker takes this in the moral sense, as meaning " lawless," as is clear from what follows.
194. The MS. u9popu&roj may be altered to u9poph&ron .
195. After all, he only deals with seven objections instead of eight at the previous bout, but only four of them were against S. Peter, and all the eight are here attacks on S. Paul.
196. The words tw~| po&nw| purou&menoj are taken as part of the quotation in Blondel's edition, but there is no need to do this.
197. It will be noticed that Macarius makes no attempt to argue from the special case of Timothy.
198. He omits the words, "In this city."