II. I now proceed to what I formerly proposed to do in this space: which is to settle the time of the rise of the Manichæan sect; or, if that cannot be done, to shew at least the sentiments of ancients and moderns about it. We have already seen the sentiments of two learned ancients. Eusebius, or Jerom, said that Manichæism rose in the second year of Probus, the year of Christ 277; Socrates' not long before the reign of Constantine. I shall now shew the sentiments of divers others. d e Jerom elsewhere says it is certain that the Manichees appeared before the council of Nice. Augustine, that this sect did not arise until after Tertullian, and even after Cyprian. In another place he says that Cyprian obtained the crown of martyrdom before Manichæism was at all known in the Roman empire. It is likely that Augustine thought he spoke within compass. However, if we should not be able to be more exact than this with full certainty, it is of importance to be assured, that as this sect evidently appeared in the Roman empire before the council of Nice, so it did not arise in the world until after Cyprian, who was ordained bishop about the year of Christ 248, and obtained the crown of martyrdom in 258. f h In The Acts of Archelaus the reign of Probus is several times mentioned as the time of Mani's appearing, or the time of the dispute with him; soon after which he was put to death. Cyril of Jerusalem, who wrote his Catechetical Lectures about the year 347, observes that * the Manichæan heresy arose not very long ago, about seventy years, and that there were then men living who had seen Mani. In another place he speaks of Mani's not appearing till the apostles had been dead two hundred years. Toutée supposes Cyril to mean the year of Christ 277, which was the second of Probus; and that he computed the apostolic age to have ended about the year of Christ 77. It may be also supposed that Cyril took his date of Manichæism from The Acts of Archelaus, where Mani's coming is placed under the emperor Probus. Κ i Epiphanius is not consistent with himself, placing Mani earlier at one time than another. In one of his works he says that Mani came from Persia, and disputed with Archelaus in the ninth of Valerian and Gallienus; that is, in the year of our Lord 261 or 262; which date is also in Photius. But, in his work Against Heresies, Epiphanius sometimes mentions the fourth of Aurelian; that is, the year 273 or 274; at other times the reigns of Aurelian and Probus; that is, about the year 276. Moreover, Epiphanius, who wrote about the year 376, says he had conversed with persons who were acquainted with Hermias, disciple of Mani. m n Pope Leo placeth the rise of Manichæism in the consulate of Probus and Paulinus, or the year 277. In the Edessen Chronicle,' published by Asseman, Mani's birth is placed at the year of our Lord 240, a thing not mentioned, that we know of, any where else. Alexander of Lycopolis mentions it as a common report that Mani lived in the time of the emperor Valerian, who was taken captive by the Persians in the year 259; that he went to the с b P. 140. a P. 139. Alioqui hoc argumento, -nec Marcion, nec Cataphryges, nec Manichæus damnari debent; quia Synodus Nicæna eos non nominat; quos certe ante Synodum fuisse non dubium est. Hieron. ad Pamm. et Ocean. Ep. 41 al. 65, p. 344, in. Nam constat, non solum post Tertullianum, verum etiam post Cyprianum, hanc hæresim exortam. Aug. contr. Faust. 1. 43, c. 4, in. Ecce prædicatissimus tractator divinorum eloquiorum [Cyprianus] antequam terras nostras vel tenuissimus odor Manichææ pestilentiæ tetigisset. Id. contr. duas Ep. Felag. 1. 4, c. 8, n. 24. enumquid et gloriosissimæ coronæ Cyprianus dicetur ab aliquo, non solum fuisse, sed vel esse potuisse Manichæus, cum prius iste sit passus, quam illa in orbe Romano pestis apparuit? De Nuptiis et Concup. l. 2, c. 29, n. 5). --sub Probo demuin Romano imperatore.Arch. n. 27, p. 46. Vid. n. 28, init. 8 τον πρώην επι Προβε βασιλεως αρξάμενον προ γαρ ὅλων ἑβδομήκοντα ετών ή πλανη· και εισι μέχρι το νυν ανθρωποι αυτοις οφθαλμοις θεωρήσαντες εκεινον. Cat. 6, n. 20. ада οἱ τελευτήσαντες απόςολοι από διακοσίων ετών εξεδε Xouro Maryy:Cat. 16, n. 9. ἐν τῷ εννάτῳ εν έτει της τωτων βασιλείας ενεξη Alarys año Tys Пlepoidos, n. λ. De Mens. et Pond. c. 20, p. 176, A. * Contr. Manich. 1. 1, c. 15, in, m έως το χρονο τε προδηλωθέντος Αυρηλιανό τε και Προβε, εν ᾧ ὗτος ὁ Μάνης εγνωρίζετο. κ. λ. ib. c. 19, f. vid. et n. 20, p. 637, D. Πρόβος δε ην ὁ κατ' εκείνα καιρο βασιλευς, και Αυρηλιανος ὁ προ αυτό, ότε ετος ὁ Μανης ενεδήμει. ib. n. 77, in. εκ εσι γαρ αρχαΐζεσα ἡ αίρεσις, και οι συντετυχηκότες τω προειρημένῳ Ερμεία, μαθητή οντι τε Μάνη, ημεν τα κατ' αυτόν dinyayo. H. 66, n. 12. διηγήσαντο. Manichæus ergo, magister falsitatis diabolicæ, et conditor superstitionis obscœnæ, eo tempore damnandus innotuit.———— Probo Imperatore Paulinoque Consulibus. Leo Hom. 2. de Pentec. cap. 7. PAnno quingentesimo quinquagesimo primo natus est Manes. Chr. Ed. ap. Assem. Bib. Orient. T. i. p. 393. 9 -natus enim fuit juxta Chronicon nostrum anno Græcorum 551, Christi 240, quod nemini hactenus de ejus natali observatum. Assem. ib. in notis. wars with Sapor king of Persia; and, having by some means displeased the king, was put to death by him. Having put down so many accounts from ancient authors, I shall now mention the opinions of moderns. d b a The general opinion, as Asseman owns, is, that Mani disputed with Archelaus in the year 277, and died in 278. To the like purpose Tillemont, and Basnage, and others. And Zacagni observes that whereas Epiphanius, in the work first quoted above, placed the dispute of Archelaus and Mani, in the ninth of Valerian and Gallienus, he afterwards followed a later date in his work Against all Heresies, having then obtained better information. But Asseman prefers the first account of Epiphanius, followed by Photius and others; though then, if Mani was born in 240, he must have finished his course when he was little more than twenty years of age; which, surely, must appear improbable to most persons. Tillemont never saw the Edessen Chronicle: but having taken notice of what Alexander says of Mani's living in the time of Valerian, he adds, that in order to reconcile him with Jerom's Chronicle, we may suppose Mani to have been in an advanced age in 277, when he was put to death; and then he may easily have gained reputation in Persia before the year 260. Beausobre does not disallow it to be probable that Manichæism began to be known in the Roman empire about the year 277, the time fixed in Jerom's Chronicle; but it may have arisen " eight or ten years sooner in Persia. Nor is it, he says, very improbable that Mani might be author of a new sect by that time he was thirty years of age: for more he could not be, admitting the authority of the Edessen Chronicle concerning the time of his birth, as Beausobre does: nay, he supposeth that * Mani might make a figure in 267. Toutée observes that, since Cyril says in his time there were persons living who had seen Mani, we cannot reasonably place the dispute with him before the year 277, at which time his heresy was first brought into the Roman empire, and in the following year he was put to death: which, I think, cannot be denied by those who have any regard for the Acts ofTM Árchelaus. Л Cave therefore is somewhat singular when he says that " Mani began to spread his notions in 277, and lived to near the end of that century; and yet he may be thought to have some reason for that supposition when it is recollected that in Cyril's time there were some who had seen Mani; in Epiphanius's, some who had conversed with his disciple Hermias; provided those authors may be depended upon. Pagi approves of the date in Jerom's Chronicle, but says that, according to the success and • Deinde communior fert scriptorum opinio, eam disputationem anno Christi 277, Manetis interitum anno 278, accidisse. Bib. Or. T. 3. P. 2, p. 45. b Mem. Ec. T. 4, Les Manichèens, art. 7, et 12, et note v. Ann. 277, n. 3, etc. Vid. Fabr. Bib. Gr. T. v. p. 262, 281. d Dicendum itaque est, Epiphanium in libro de Mensuris et Ponderibus errâsse, et multo certiora de Manichæorum hæresis exortu in libris adversus hæreses nobis tradidisse, licet in eisdem quoque libris iterum sibi non constare deprehendatur. Zacagn. Pr. n. 8, p. 9. * Hujus hæreseos initium accurate describitur a S. Epiphanio lib. de Mensuris et Ponderibus. Assem. Bib. Or. T. i. p. 393, not. 2. Atqui ex Epiphanio, Photio, et Petro Siculo, Manes ex Persarum carceribus in Mesopotamiam anno Gallieni nono, id est Christi 261, aufugit. Anno igitur sequenti, vel ad summum anno 263, dignas impietatis suæ pœnas persolvit ; idque anno ætatis suæ circiter vigesimo tertio, si auctori Chronici Edesseni credendum, qui illum, ut supra dixi, natum scribit anno Christi 240. Assem. ib. T. 3. P. 2, p. 45. Les Manichéens, Note v. fin. * See Beaus. Vol. i. p. 121, 122. J'explique tous ces passages, non du tems de la naissance du Manichéisme, qui avoit commencé en Perse environ dix ans auparavant, mais du tems, ou cette hérésie commença de faire du bruit dans l'empire. Beaus. T. i. p. 123. Je ne vois point de raison assez forte, pour rejetter le témoignage de la Chronique d'Edesse, sur le tems de la naisVOL. II. sance de Manès.— Or ce prince [Sapor] étant mort en l'année 271 ou en 272, il ne pouvoit avoir alors que trente deux, ou trente trois ans. Il est vrai encore, que l'on peut être surpris que Manès soit devenu chef de secte,étant encore si jeune. Mais ces raisons ne sauroient balancer le témoignage d'un auteur Syrien, ou Mesopotamien, qui paroît bien instruit des faits, qui se sont passés en Orient. Beaus. T. i. P. 65. J'en ai marqué le tems à l'année deux cens soixante sept, en quoi j'ai suivi Abulpharage, qui témoigne, qu'elle parût sous Aurélien. Ib. p. 186, in. Is est annus 277 a Christi nativitate. Non esse in anteriora tempora retrahendum Manetis exortum argumento est id quod Cyrillus subjicit, fuisse adhuc suo tempore superstites, qui Manetem ipsi suis oculis conspexissent. Quod autem sub Probo innotuit Manes, intelligendum de ejus in Mesopotamiam et Romanorum imperium adventu, qui uno tantum anno ejus necem antecessit. Toutt. ad Cyr. Cat. 6, p. 99, not. 3. m Vid. Arch. n. 55, p. 100. ■ Hæresin suam disseminare cœpit circa ann. 277. Probi imperatoris anno secundo. H. L. T. i. p. 139, in Manete. Insaniæ suæ virus non ante annum 277 propinare cœpit Manes, et plures postea annos in vivis erat, ac proinde, ad exitum vergente hoc sæculo, Agapium sibi discipulum adscivit. Cav. Diss. de Script, incertæ æt, sub. in. P In Annalibus origo hæreseos Manichæorum anno præcedenti consignatur; sed eam ad præsentem retrahendam esse evincit Eusebius in Chronico. Pagi Ann. 277, n. vi. Verum est, varias sub idem fere tempus eruptiones monstri illius fu progress of this doctrine in several places, authors have spoken differently concerning the timeof it. For my own part, I think it very difficult to determine exactly the time of the rise of Manichæism in Persia, or of its first appearance in the Roman empire: and I am apt to think that most considerate persons may be in suspense here. It is evident from the letter of Arius, and the testimonies of Jerom and Augustine, that Manichæism was known in the Roman empire before the council of Nice, and not till after the time of Cyprian. As for the edict of Dioclesian, I am not satisfied about its genuineness. What ground Eusebius, or rather Jerom, in the Chronicle, had for fixing Manichæism at the second year of Probus, we cannot now certainly say: excepting only the authority of The Acts of Archelaus, which there is not much reason to think that Eusebius was acquainted with. It appears to me remarkable that Alexander of Lycopolis, who, as is said, once was a Manichee, and afterwards wrote against them, speaks not with assurance about Mani's time. The little notice taken of Manichæism by Eusebius is another thing that deserves observation; as do likewise the words of Cyril and Epiphanius, where they speak of Mani or Hermias having been personally known to some of their times: insomuch that, upon the whole, I am doubtful whether Manichæism was known in the Roman empire before the very end of the third century, or the beginning of the fourth. If it was known there sooner, I think its progress must have been very inconsiderable. SECT. III. MANI'S PREDECESSORS AND WORKS. I. His predecessors; 1. Scythian; 2. Terebinthus. II. His works. Ir will be proper, in the next place, to give an account of Mani's works. a I. But it is requisite that I beforehand take notice of two persons spoken of as Mani's predecessors, and sometimes called his master's, Scythian and Terebinthus; both expressly named in the long passage of Socrates, transcribed at the beginning of this chapter. с 1. It has been the prevailing opinion of learned men that Scythian lived in the apostolic age, or near it. Epiphanius placeth him near the times of the apostles; which Cave thinks may be understood with so great latitude as to leave room to suppose that Scythian lived to near the end of the second century. d In The Acts of Archelaus, Scythian is said to have lived in the time of the apostles; but that seems not very consistent with what follows, where it is said that Terebinthus was a disciple of Scythian, and intimate with him: and Mani, who appeared not in the world till after the middle of the third century, is said to have been the slave and adopted son of the woman at whose house Terebinthus died. Indeed there is reason to believe that Scythian was contemporary with Mani, as some learned men have perceived; for in Photius is express mention made of a letter of Mani to Scythian. isse, et insignibus alicujus facinoris notis celebratas. Qua causa fuit, cur non iisdem Imperatoribus hæresis istius origo mandata fuerit. Ib. n. vii. a Tes Mavevтos didaonaλes. Vid. Anathem. ap. Coteler. Clem. Recogn. 1. 4, c. 27, in. b 620, A. περι τες χρόνες των αποςόλων. Η. 66, n. 3, p. <Tradit Epiphanius ipsum Hierosolyma profectum well res χρόνες των αποςόλων. [Η. 66, n. 3, p. 620, Α.] Quod laxiore quidem sensu de sæculo ævum apostolicum proxime secuto intelligendum est; adeo ut vergente ad exitum sæculo secundo diem fatalem obiisse censeri potest. Cav. H.1. T. i. p. 140. Oxon.1740. d Scythianus nomine apostolorum tempore fuit sectæ hujus auctor et princeps.- -Arch. n. 51, p. 95. * Discipulum habuit quemdam nomine Terebinthum. Arch. n. 52, p. 96.- -quia ergo aliquantulum temporis secum isti ambo decreverunt soli habitare;discipulus, qui cum eo fuerat conversatus, -ib. -Ille vero Hunc Scythianum Manetis adhuc ætate vixisse non dubi to, licet ætate ac senio eum præcessit.- -Certe ex Manetis epistola ad Scythianum fragmentum a me infra afferetur. Fabr. Bib. Gr. T. v. p. 280. Vid. et Beausobre Hist. des Manich. T. i. p. 26, et 63. Β Και μην και ὁ Μανιχαίος προς Σκυθίανον επιςελλωνap. Phot. in Eulogio cod. 230, p. 849. h See a French translation of the fragment of that letter in B. T. i. p. 45. b a Archelaus in one place says that Scythian was of the country of Scythia: but afterwards he says he was a Saracen or Arabian; which is also said by Cyril and Epiphanius. Photius too says, not very differently from Archelaus, that Scythian was descended from the Saracens, but chose to live in Egypt, and particularly at Alexandria. e :f g 2. Terebinthus, reckoned another predecessor of Mani, is said by Epiphanius to have been a learned man as well as Scythian. The common account of this man in Archelaus, Cyril, * * Epiphanius, and others, is, that after the death of his master Scythian, he went into Persia, or the country of Babylon, where he changed his name from Terebinthus to Buddas; and gave out that he was born of a virgin, and brought up by an angel in the mountains; and that at last he was thrown off the top of a house by an angel, or some other spirit, where he had gone up very early one morning to perform some sacred rites. m As for his changing his name, in all probability there was no bad design in that, Buddas being in the Babylonian language equivalent to Terebinthus, which in Greek signifies a certain tree. What is said of his pretending to have been born of a virgin, and educated in the mountains, must needs be a fiction; because, as Beausobre observes, the Manichees universally denied the possibility of such a birth, and always supposed that Mani himself was born in the ordinary way. As for the manner of his death, there is no reason to receive the account of it as true, from those who have suffered themselves to be imposed upon in so many particulars: but it is not improbable that Terebinthus often went to the upper part of the house to perform his devotions there; the Manichees being frequent in prayer, and the top of the house being a place much used for that purpose by the eastern people. Whether Terebinthus died suddenly in such a place I do not know. a Finally, whereas it is said that Terebinthus outlived Scythian, and that having died himself at the house of a widow, who, coming to the possession of his estate, purchased the boy Cubricus or Mani, then seven years of age, it must be all without foundation; for Scythian himself was contemporary with Mani, and alive after that Mani had published his peculiar opinions, as has been shewn. Moreover, Terebinthus, or Buddas, or Addas was a disciple of Mani: his name is in all catalogues of the first disciples of that Persian master, and he wrote in defence of his scheme. And by Scythian may then be meant Mani, who, as Theodoret was sometimes so called; possibly, because he was awhile in that country. ૧ says, Let this suffice for shewing that the common accounts concerning these two predecessors of Mani, are not be relied upon, but are really idle fictions. I have already several. times quoted Beausobre. I here again refer to his History of the Manichees. II. We come now to Mani's works, of which I shall give the best account I can. Socrates, in the passage formerly cited, speaks of four books written by Terebinthus or Buddas, entitled Mysteries, The Gospel, The Treasure, and Chapters. By Cyril, and Epi . cogitante, justissimus Deus sub terras eum detrudi per spiri- 621, A. τύπο αγγελε καταχθεις κατέπεσε. Epiph. ib. p. m Qui in Persiam concedens, ut melius celaretur, transtulit nomen suum in Buddam, (rectius Butm, seu Budm,) Terebinthum significans. Hyde, p. 280, Conf. Beaus. Hist. de Manich. T. i. p. 53, 54, 55. " T. i. p. 56. n cur hominem susceptum a Spiritu Sancto, Mani- 4 Σκυθίανος δε δελεύων προσηγορεύετο. Hær. Fab. l. i. c. 26, in. + Hær. 66, n. 2. a с phanius, and Photius, they are ascribed to Scythian, as they are also in The Acts of Archelaus. But there being an ambiguity in one place of that work where they are mentioned, it is likely that thereby Socrates was induced to call them Terebinthus's, as has been hinted by some learned men. e d Socrates says that Mani, coming to the possession of those books, distributed them among his followers as his own. Archelaus speaks to the like purpose; only he says that Mani first made additions to them. It seems to me probable that they are really Mani's; and I shall consider them as such. Beausobre does the same. The four books, mentioned by Socrates, are differently placed by the authors just cited. I chuse to speak of them in the order in which they are named by Archelaus and Epiphanius: Mysteries, Chapters, Gospel, Treasury. Afterwards I shall put down the titles of other things ascribed to him. 6 1. The first is The Mysteries. It appears,' says Beausobre, by comparing Titus of Bostra and Epiphanius, that it began with these words: "God and matter existed, light and darkness, good and evil: they were entirely separate and contrary to each other." This book was divided into two-and-twenty sections, according to the number of the letters of the Syriac alphabet. As for the subject of the book, Photius says the author there blasphemed the law and the prophets. But that was not the principal design of this pernicious work: it is 'the doctrine of two principles that Mani there endeavoured to prove by a demonstration a posteriori: I mean from the mixture of good and evil which there is in the world. All his reasoning is founded upon this maxim, that if there were one sole cause, who is most simple, most perfect, most good, all effects would be answerable to the nature and will of that cause; ⚫ the whole would shew his simplicity, his perfection, his goodness; and every thing would be im mortal, holy, happy, like himself. We may with assurance conclude what were the contents ⚫ of this book, The Mysteries, from the confutation of it by Titus of Bostra; who follows his 'adversary very closely, though he does not concern himself minutely with everything.' 1 m n Some learned men, as Cave, and " Fabricius, thought that Mani wrote a book Concerning the Faith. They suppose it to be quoted by Epiphanius. But Beausobre well argues that the passage in Epiphanius is taken out of the book of the Mysteries, as appears by comparing him with Titus of Bostra. I think Epiphanius does not intend a book different from others there named, but says that in the books mentioned by him, particularly that of The Mysteries, Mani shews. what was his faith or doctrine. I therefore shall not speak of this as a distinct book of Mani, as some have done. 2. The second book is that called Chapters or Heads: summarily representing, it is likely, the fundamental principal articles of the Manichæan doctrine. Beausobre puts the question, whether this be not The Epistle of the Foundation. As I see no reason for such a supposition, I shall speak of that afterwards among Mani's epistles. P 3. The third book was entitled The Gospel; which, as Cyril says, did not contain the history of the life of Christ, but resembled the gospels in name only. We might be apt to conclude from those words of Cyril that he had seen the book; but perhaps he speaks only by way of conjecture; as Photius seems to have done when he says that therein were related things derogatory to the honour of Christ our Saviour. I suppose this to be the same book which is * Ph. contr. Manich. I. i. c. 12. b -etiam quatuor illos libellos, quos Scythianus scripserat, non multorum versuum singulos. Arch. n. 53, p. 97. c Discipulum autem habuit [Scythianus] quemdam nomine Terebinthum, qui scripsit ei quatuor libros, ex quibus unum quidem appellavit Mysteriorum, alium vero Capitulorum, tertium autem Evangelium, et novissimum omnium Thesaurum appellavit. Arch. n. 52, p. 96. d Scythianus-discipulum habuit Terebinthum, qui alio nomine Buddam se vocavit, scripsitque ei (hoc est ab eo dictatos) quatuor libros. Fabr. Bib. Gr. T. v. p. 280. Vid. et Touttée in Cyr. not. 2, p. 101. et confer. Beaus. T. i. 46, m. г adscribit, prioris nomine deleto, tamquam si eos solus ex semetipso conscripserit. Arch. n. 53, p. 98. f B. T. i. p. 46, 47. 8 Ην θεος και ύλη φως, και σκοτος· αγαθον, και κακον εν τοις watt anpws EvavTia. Tit. contr. Manich. 1. i. p. 63, in. et ap. Epiph. H. 66, n. 14, in. h Epiph. H. 06, n. 13, p. 629, C. D. i Ph. contr. Manich. 1. i. c. 12, p. 40. * What Beausobre says farther of this book may be seen T. i. p. 427. H. 1. T. i. p. 139. n T. i. p. 426, 427. P e Tunc assumit illos libellos, et transfert eos, ita ut multa alia a semetipso insereret eis-nomen vero libellis proprium m Bib. Gr. T. v. p. 282. • Ib. p. 48, in. Η ευαγγελιον, ο Χρισε πράξεις περιέχεσαν, αλλ' άπλως μονον την προσηγορίαν. Cyr. Cat. 6, n. 22. b 4 Vit. Toutée not. in Cyr. p. 101. Phot. contr. Manich. 1. i. c. 12, p. 40. |