a

He seems to allow that John wrote the gospel under his name. For, mentioning Peter and Andrew, James and John, as the first and most early disciples of Jesus, he says: of all these four John only wrote a gospel.'

b

In The Acts of Archelaus it is expressly said that Mani argued from the gospel, and the apostle Paul; that is, from the gospels, and from the epistles of that apostle.

Photius, in his extracts from Agapius, says that he quoted many passages of the divine gospel, and the epistles of the divine Paul.'

Augustine speaks of their using the four gospels, and the epistles of Paul; and frequently of their approving or admitting the authority of the gospel and the apostle.

f

2. With regard to St. Matthew's gospel, Faustus has disputed its genuineness. He is answering the catholic argument for the authority of the Old Testament, taken from the words of our Lord in Matt. v. 17: and, among other things, he says that Matthew did not write this: and that he is not the author of the gospel under his name may be concluded from what is said Matt. ix. 9. "And as Jesus passed forth from thence he saw a man named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom; and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose and followed him.' Faustus argues, that if Matthew were the writer he would have said: Jesus saw me, and called ⚫ me, and I arose and followed him.' But certainly this argument is unworthy of a man of learning and consideration. The weakness of it is evident from many texts of the gospels not disputed by the Manichees. In John iii. 16, our Lord himself says: "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him might not perish." John the evangelist speaks of himself in the third person several times: see John xix. 26. xx. 2. xxi. 7. 20. It is a common thing for Josephus, the Jewish historian, to speak of himself after the like manner. And does not every one perceive that Matthew out of modesty might decline to speak of himself in the first person upon that occasion? Augustine has fully answered this objection: and I have transcribed a part of what he says in the margin, for the satisfaction of inquisitive readers.

k

Not to add, what is also well observed by Augustine elsewhere, that it is a vain imagination to think by such trifling objections to overthrow the authority of a gospel so fully established as that of St. Matthew.

3. Augustine often intimates that the Manichees rejected the Acts of the apostles. He sometimes speaks as if their aversion to that book was very great, and they could scarce endure the mention of it. I have already cited several of his passages relating to this matter. To them the reader is referred, and I entreat him to cast an eye upon them, though I add here" one or two more.

* Quibus præsentibus? Petro, Andrea, Jacobo, et Joanne. Ex his quatuor unus, id est, Joannes, Evangelium scripsit? Ita. Faust. 1. 17, c. i.

Deinde cœpit dicere plurima ex Lege, multa etiam de Evangelio, et Apostolo Paulo, quæ sibi videntur esse contraria. Arch. c. 40, p. 69.

αποσπαράσσων δε ῥητα τινα το πεις ευαγγελια, και επιτολών το θείο Παύλο, πείραται ς ρεβλων αυτά, και προς την οικείαν δυσσεβειαν έλκειν. Ph. Cod. 179, p. 405.

Aut si talis oratio impudens est, sicuti est, cur in Pauli Epistolis, cur in quatuor Evangelii libris ea valere aliquid putant? De Util: Cred. cap. 3, n. 7.

Nam quæro ab eis, utrum bonum sit delectari lectione Apostoli,et utrum bonum sit Evangelium disserere? Respondebunt ad singula: Bonum est. Conf. l. 8, c. x. p. 24.

Videamus, quemadmodum ipse Dominus in Evangelio nobis præceperit esse vivendum; quomodo etiam Paulus Apostolus. Has enim scripturas illi condemnare non audent. De M. E. C. c. 7, n. 13, in.

- ut interim permiserimus nobis injuriam fecisse Matthæum, donec et ipsum probemus hæc non scripsisse, sed alium nescio quem, sub nomine ejus: quod docet et ipsa lectionis ejusdem Matthæi obliqua narratio. Quid enim dicit ? Et cum transiret Jesus, vidit hominem sedentem ad telonium, nomine Matthæum, et vocavit eum. At ille confestim surgens, Et quis ergo de se ipso scribens, dicat, Vidit hominem, et vocavit eum, et secutus est cum: ac non

secutus est eum.

potius dicat, Vidit me, et vocavit me, et secutus sum: nisi quia constat hæc Matthæum non scripsisse, sed alium nescio quem. sub ejus nomine? &c. Id. 1. 17, c. 1.

h Vid. Joseph. de B. J. 1. 2, c. 20, n. 4, 5, et passim. iSed non usque adeo imperitum putaverim, ut nec legerit, nec audierit, solere scriptores rerum gestarum, cum in suam personam venerint, ita se contexere tamquam de alio narrant, quod de se narrant. Contr. Faust. l. 17, c. 4.

k

qui etiam de Evangelico [al. Evangelio,] tantæ auctoritatis culmine omnibus noto, mentiri sic audet, ut non Matthæum, ne apostolici nominis pondere comprimatur, sed nescio quem alium sub Matthæi nomine, velit putari scripsisse de Christo, quod non vult credere, et quod calumniosâ versutiâ refutare conatur. Aug. contr. Faust. 1. 23, c. 6.

See before, p. 182, 183.

m Quâ potestate Petrus apostolus usus est in eo libro quer isti non accipiunt, quoniam manifeste continet Paracleti adventum, id est, conslatoris Sancti Spiritûs.- Contr. Adim, c. 17, n. 5. Quod non solum in Actibus Apostolorum canonicis, quos isti non accipiunt, ne de adventu veri Paracleti, quem promisit Dominus, convineantur, evidenter apparet. Contr. Faust. 1. 19, c. 31. Deinde Paracletum sicut promis sum legimus in iis libris, quorum non omnia vultis accipere; ita et missum legimus in eo libro, quom nominare etiam for midatis. In Actibus quippe Apostolorum apertissime legitur missus die Pentecostes Spiritus Sanctus. ib. l. 32, c. 15.

a

b

In one place he may be understood to say that some of the Manichees reject, this book. Perhaps others may interpret the place differently. But I have accidentally observed that the composer of the general index in the Benedictine edition of Augustine's works did not understand him to say certain people called Manichees,' but some of the Manichees.'

And indeed I. question whether the Manichees did all, and always, reject the book of the Acts as they did the scriptures of the Old Testament.

For, first, I do not see any reason they had to reject the Acts any more than the gospels, or other books of the New Testament. Augustine himself says that in other books of the New Testament there are like things to those in the Acts: and that as they pretended other books of the New Testament were interpolated, they might have said the same of this likewise. That indeed, as he observes, would have been a groundless and impudent assertion: but if that had been what they chose to say of this book, it would have been no more unreasonable than their saying it of the rest; for there were not here more things contrary to their opinions, than in the other books which they did receive.

Secondly, I have observed that several Greek writers of the fourth century, or thereabouts, in their disputes with the Manichees, cite this book as if it was received by them.

The Acts are quoted in The Dispute of Archelaus.

с

Serapion having alleged the history in 2 Kings xiii, 21, adds: But if they pay no regard to these things, and despise the law, let them however hearken to what is said of sick people being healed by the very shadow of Peter's body, and let that fill them with confusion:' where he plainly refers to Acts v. 15.

Titus of Bostra argues with them out of the Acts. The Manichees pretended that the dispensation of the law was cruel and unmerciful. They excepted against Elisha's cursing the children, which presently afterwards were devoured by two bears: and against Elijah's calling for fire from heaven to consume the captains with their men, sent to him from the king of Israel. Whereupon Titus answers: If they condemn these actions as evil, what will they say of Paul, when observing that Barjesus, who was with the proconsul Sergius Paulus, strove to turn him from the truth, he deprived him of eyesight, and said: "O full of all subtilty?"" and what follows: Acts xiii. 10. He likewise adds: And what will they say of Peter, who, when Ananias and Sapphira brought a part only of the price of what they had sold, and he had convicted them of lying, struck Ananias dead, and afterwards delivered Sapphira to the same grave? Upon these instances Titus proceeds to argue a great deal, without any suspicion of their contesting. the credit and authority of the book whence they are taken.

Epiphanius," in his argument with the Manichees, quotes the Acts of the apostles several

times.

Didymus of Alexandria likewise, in his short tract against them, expressly quotes the same book for a part of the history of St. Stephen.

All this seems sufficient to render it probable that the Manichees did not always, and every where, reject the Acts of the apostles: if they had so done, Archelaus, or Serapion, or Titus, or Epiphanius, or Didymus, must have known it, and would have taken some notice of it.

We have therefore Augustine's single testimony alone against them upon this head; which can affect only the Manichees of his time in Africa, if it be valid so far.

I do not recollect that Faustus has any thing which can afford us much light. He has

n Nam quidam Manichæi canonicum librum, cujus titulus est Actus Apostolorum, repudiant. Aug. ad Ceret. Ep. 237, [al. 253], n. 7. Vid. supra. 183, not.a

See the general Index in the word Manichæi — ex eis quidam Actus Apostolorum repudiant. 2. Tom. Ep. 237. c Hoc enim de illo libro fecerunt, qui Actus Apostolorum inscribitur. Quod eorum consilium cum mecum ipse pertracto, nequeo satis mirari.———— Tanta enim liber iste habet, quæ similia sunt his quæ accipiunt, ut magnæ stultitiæ mihi videatur, non et hunc accipere, et, si quid ibi eos offendit, falsum atque immissum dicere. Aut si talis oratio impudens est, sicuti est, cur in Pauli Epistolis, cur in quatuor Evangelii libris, ea valere aliquid putant, in quibus haud scio an multo plura sint proportione, quam in illo libro esse potuerunt, que a corruptoribus interjecta credi volunt? De Ut. Cred. c. 3, n. 7.

quoted the tenth of the Acts: but it is not in such a manner as to decide the question. He may be supposed likewise to refer to the fifteenth chapter.

b

Upon the whole, I somewhat doubt whether the Manichees were so much offended at this book as Augustine insinuates.

If the reader thinks it may be of any use for finding out the Manichæan sentiment concerning the book of the Acts, he may observe the testimony of the Paulicians to the New Testament, which will be taken notice of hereafter. They are commonly reckoned a branch of this sect; and it is said that some of them did not receive the Acts.

d

с

Beausobre, considering this matter, says: Nevertheless, Augustine has well observed that the Manichees might have received the book of the Acts, and yet avoid the difficulties they would then have been urged with, by only making the like exceptions, which they did to ⚫evade the testimony of the gospels. Which,' as that learned author adds, has made me think that the true reason why the Manichees excluded the history of the apostles from their canon, was, that it had not in the eastern churches, from the beginning, the same authority with the gospels and epistles.' After which he refers to a well known passage of St. Chrysostom.

But I am rather of opinion that this book was not always rejected by the Manichees: and I rely upon the reasons just assigned, without adding any thing farther.

Nor can I allow that the Acts of the apostles was not of authority from the beginning in the eastern churches: for it was received by Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Dionysius of Alexandria, and other Christians in the east, as has been already shewn in this work.

4. I next observe what epistles of apostles they admitted.

с

Augustine speaks of it as an undoubted and well known thing, that the Manichees read, admired, and commended St. Paul's epistles..

f

In another place he speaks of their having, reading, and commending, or commenting upon, the epistles of the apostles.

He also speaks of their receiving the gospel, and the canonical epistles: meaning by this last expression, as I apprehend, the epistles commonly received by other Christians as a part of their canon; not those sometimes called catholic, as Beausobre thought. The first sense is agreeable to Augustine's use of the word in other places.

i

I suppose there is no doubt but they received thirteen epistles of the apostle Paul. Photius, speaking of Agapius, in the passage above cited, says, he quotes passages of the divine gospel, and of the epistles of the divine Paul.

1

१

Faustus readily says, he receives the apostle;' thereby meaning Paul, or the epistles of that apostle. And in his yet remaining work he quotes expressly, and by name, many of them: as well as frequently without naming them: as the epistle to the Romans, the "first and second to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, the Ephesians, to the Colossians, to Titus.. 5. Let us now consider whether the Manichees received the epistle to the Hebrews. There is some reason to think they did: for there are references to it in The Acts of Archelaus. Serapion in his book Against the Manichees, quotes this epistle, as does Titus of Bostra, and Didymus of Alexandria. Epiphanius, in his argument with these people, quotes this

t

Quapropter idem rursum' Apostolus ad Corinthios dicit. -1. 24, c. 1, fin.

Scribensque ad Corinthios. 1. xi. c. 1. et passim.

Quippe Paulus inde Galatas arguit. . 8, c. I. Et ad Ga latas de semetipso. 1. 24, c. I.

9 Dicit ad Ephesios. Id. I. 24, c. I.

Necnon et ad ipsos Colossenses idipsum denuo dicit. ibid. De Gentium [lege] vero si quis ambigit, audiat Paulum, qui scribens ad Titum de Cretensibus, dicit. Id. 1. 19, c. 2. Arch. c. 5, p. 7, c. 43, p. 77.

Serap. p. 46, m. and see before, p. 146.

Tit. I. 3. p. 142, 153. See before, p. 147. y Did. p. 209.

a

epistle several times. Augustine, in his book against Adimantus, quotes it together with the epistle to the Romans. He also quotes it in his answer to Faustus.

с

6. Timothy of Constantinople says the Manichees received an epistle to the Laodiceans: but possibly he means the Paulicians. However, I think this testimony can be of but little value here.

h

7. As for the Catholic Epistles, we cannot say any thing very particularly about them. However Epiphanius, in his confutation of them, has quoted, beside most other books of the New Testament, the first and second epistles of Peter. Augustine, in his books against Faustus, again and again quotes the first epistle of Peter, as received by them. In another work against the Manichees he openly quotes the second epistle of Peter. And in his answer to Faustus he cites the first epistle of John, which is also quoted by Mani himself in the Acts of Archelaus.

k

i

m

8. Augustine, in his work against Faustus, quotes words of the Revelation with others of the first epistle to the Corinthians, as if they received the former as well as the latter, which may lead us to think that the Manichees, those in Africa at least, did not reject the book of the Revelation.

9. In a word, Augustine, Epiphanius, and other ancient catholic authors, who wrote against the Manichees, do so quote all the books of the New Testament, that one is induced to think they received all the evangelical scriptures which other Christians did; for if they had not those authors would have taken notice of it. They inform us distinctly, that the Manichees did not receive the Old Testament. If they had rejected any books of the New Testament, generally received, they would have mentioned it. Augustine indeed says, they did not receive the book of the Acts: but as he does not speak of their entirely disliking any of the rest, it may be hence inferred, that in other respects their canon of the New Testament was much the same with that of the catholics.

n

Augustine once speaks of their not only rejecting some passages of the New Testament, but also of their chusing what books they pleased; but the only instance he produceth is that of the Acts: which confirms what has been just now said, that the Manichees did not reject any book of the New Testament, received by other Christians, except the book of the Acts, if indeed they rejected that. Augustine, who so often speaks of their not liking the Acts of the apostles, must some time have joined with it other books, if there had been any other disowned by them.

V. We have therefore now seen what books of the New Testament were generally received by the Manichees. Under the next particular we shall observe what they said of the scriptures of the new Testament being interpolated; where, it is likely, we shall more distinctly perceive what regard they had for them. Nevertheless I would add here some things for shewing the credit and authority which these scriptures had with them.

And it seems evident that they ascribed a good degree of authority to the books of the New Testament before mentioned. This appears from passages of Serapion, and others above cited, and from the constant method of arguing with them by Serapion, Titus, Epiphanius, and all authors in general who wrote against them. To add here only one instance from Serapion, who

sed peccando facti sunt mali, sic Petrus in epistolâ suâ dicit: Si enim Deus angelis peccantibus non pepercit, [2 Pet. ii. 4.] De Nat. Boni. cap. 33.

**Quod etiam Joannes dicit; Filii Dei sumus; et non apparuit, quid erimus. [1 John iii. 2.] Contr. Faust. 1. 32,

c. 18.

1 Ap. Arch. c. 14, p. 26. Vid. loc. citat. supra, p. 15.

in Non solum enim in vetere Testamento scriptum est, 'Quem enim diligit Deus, corripit—sed etiam in novo, Ego, quem amo, arguo et castigo.' Apoc. iii. 19. Contr. F. 1. 22, c. 14.

" Qui non accipiunt omnia, sed quod volunt, et libros eligunt quos accipiant, aliis improbatis. Sed in singulis quibusque libris loca distinguunt, quæ putant suis erroribus convenire. Cætera in eis pro falsis habent. Nam quidam Manichæi canonicum librum, cujus titulus est Actus Apostolorum, repudiant. Aug. Ep. 237, [al. 253,] T. 2.

a

supposeth that he fully confutes and overthrows a sentiment of theirs by arguing from the New Testament in this manner: The gospel says, publicans and harlots go into the kingdom of heaven before you. And Paul says, that Raab the harlot perished not with them that

Augustine, at the beginning of one of his books against these men, says: I will observe this method, to quote no texts but such as they cannot except against; that is, out of the New Testament only; and out of that too none of those texts which they, when hardly pressed, are wont to call interpolations: but I shall allege such things only as they both approve and com"mend.'

Every one, I presume, has observed in the history which has been given of their opinions, that they endeavoured to justify their doctrine of two principles, their notion of the person of Christ, and all their peculiar sentiments, by texts of the New Testament. Particularly, when they reject the Old Testament, one of their strongest arguments is taken from its contrariety to the New. Therefore this last was received, and was of authority with them. The design of the book written by Adimantus, the old disciple of Mani, as Augustine informs us, was to overthrow the Old Testament, by shewing it to be contrary to the evangelical and apostolical scrip

tures.

..

с

Mani, in his letter to Marcellus, complains that men, even Christians, did not believe the gospels.' And in that same short letter he has words of the gospels of Matthew and John, of the first epistle to the Corinthians, and of the epistle to the Hebrews. And in the dispute with Archelaus he quoted and argued from many passages of the gospels and Paul's epistles. And there are large and numerous quotations of the books of the New Testament in his letter to ' Menoch, if it be genuine.

i

h

Fortunatus, the Manichæan presbyter, in his dispute with Augustine, quotes Philip. ii. 5, in this manner: We think,' as the apostle directs and says, he knows very well, that hề ⚫ cannot prove his faith to be right, unless he shews it to be agreeable to the scriptures.' Secundinus, in his letter to Augustine, though of no great length, quotes the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and the epistles to the Romans, the Ephesians, and first to Timothy. And in a short compass he owns a great number of facts recorded in the gospels; as Peter's thrice denying his Lord; the final apostacy of Judas; the unbelief of Thomas after our Lord's resurrection; Christ's crucifixion; the Jews' preferring Barabbas to Jesus at the instigation of the scribes and pharisees; that Jesus was crowned with thorns, and had vinegar given him to drink; that his side was pierced, and that he was crucified between two thieves, by one of whom he was reviled. He refers also to Hymeneus and Alexander, and other things spoken of by Paul, 1 Tim. i.

Indeed a large part of the New Testament may be found quoted by Faustus, and other Manichees with whom Augustine was concerned, and according to our copies.

k

Notwithstanding what is said of their charging the catholic Christians with having interpolated the gospels, which will be considered hereafter, Faustus readily says, They believe Christ's mystic crucifixion, his saving or wholesome precepts, his parables, and his divine discourses, as related in the gospels.'

And in Faustus alone we find these following, and many other things; our Lord's gather

• Όταν εν λέγη το ευαγγελιον όταν λέγη Παυλος. Serap. p. 46, infr. m.

b

Et ea de scripturis assumam testimonia, quibus eos necesse est credere, de Novo scilicet Testamento. De quo tamen nihil proferam eorum quæ solent immissa esse dicere, cum magnis angustiis coarctantur; sed ea dicam, quæ et approbare et laudare coguntur. De M. Ec. Cath. c. i. n. 2.

Eodem tempore venerunt in manus meas quædam disputationes Adimanti, -quas conscripsit contra Legem et prophetas, velut contraria eis Evangelica et Apostolica scripta demonstrare conatus. Aug. Retr. 1. i. c. 22, in.

Ap. Arch. cap. v. p. 6, 7, 8.

Ib. c. 13, p. 24, 25, et passim.

Ap. Augustin. Op. Imperf. 1. 3. c. 177, 180, 185, 186. Hoc sentimus, quod nos instruit beatus Paulus, qui dixit: Fortunat. Disp. i. n. 7.

Et quia nullo genere recte me credere ostendere possum,

VOL. II.

nisi eamdem fidem Scripturarum auctoritate firmaverim. Id. in Disp. ii. n. 20.

i ut et Petrum coëgerit sub unâ nocte tertio Dominum negare, et eidem resurgenti Thomam non permiserit credere et tanto pastori Iscariotem rapuerit; et ut ad ultimum crucis supplicium veniretur, in perniciem ipsius Scribas. Pharisæosque accenderit, ut Barabbam dimitti clamarent, et Jesum crucifigi.- Et tamen ne ipso quidem crucis opprobrio potuit satiari. Quin imo insaniens hinc coëgit spinis coronari, illinc aceto potari: hinc militum lanceâ percuti, illinc sinistri latronis ore blasphemari. &c. Secundin. ad Aug. сар. 4.

His igitur exceptis, credimus cætera, præcipue crucis ejus mysticam fixionem,-tum præcepta salutaria ejus, tum parabolas, cunctumque sermonem deificum. Faust. 1. 32, c. 7.

'Quis hoc testatur dixisse Jesum? Matthæus. Ubi dix

F