5. We see the ground and occasion of the liberty they took in censuring the New Testament, particularly the gospels. They had certain philosophical principles of which they were too fond; and therefore they would rather say any thing than give them up. They would not give up their particular notions. Nor did they dare to deny the authority of Christ or his apostles. The only refuge left them therefore was to say that the books of the New Testament were not written by apostles, or that they were interpolated. Perhaps it might have been sufficient to say this last: possibly that is all that was said by some of the sect. But Faustus is pleased to say both, rather than presume to contradict Christ or his apostles, or insinuate that their doctrine was in any thing wrong. Augustine has a remark to the same purpose handsomely expressed. 6. The Manichæan scheme, as here represented by Faustus, is inconsistent and overthrows itself. The gospels in some things are good authority, in others not. The gospels, he says, were not written by Christ, nor his apostles, nor apostolical men: but by some unknown people a good while after their times. Nor were those writers well acquainted with the affairs of which they have written. And yet they are, it seems, good witnesses to Christ's miracles, parables, divine discourses, and mystical crucifixion. Faustus too claims an interest in the promise of the Spirit, made by Christ; though he knows nothing of that promise but from the gospels. Augustine has well shewn the inconsistency of this scheme. If the books of the New Testament are genuine and right,' says he, your doctrine is overthrown: and if they are not so, but spurious and fallacious, your principle is in like manner overthrown. For you have no other authority to go upon. Some may think their principle led them to pay little regard to scripture. And they may be apprehensive that there was nothing in the New Testament they relied upon as certainly genuine and said by Christ, or written by his apostles. But if that be the consequence of their principle, they did not see it. We must rather say, therefore, that they were absurd and inconsistent. For that the scriptures of the New Testament, were in esteem and authority with them, must be apparent to all who have read the preceding part of this history. And it is as evident that they were well satisfied of the genuineness of some parts of the New Testament, though they affirmed other things to be interpolations. Otherwise those books could have been of no use. Moreover, we just now observed Faustus to say of our Lord's divine discourses and parables: There can 'be no doubt but they are his.' They received therefore many things in the New Testament, yea the main part of it, as unquestionably genuine. These are words of Secundinus to Augustine: And is that saying blotted out of the gospel, "Broad is the way that leads to destruc'tion ?" or is not that text in Paul genuine," that every one must give an account of himself?"" And Augustine supposes that he argues very cogently when he reminds them that, so far as they weaken the credit of the scriptures, they weaken the proofs of their own particular principles built thereon. They likewise hazarded even their Christianity. They weaken, he tells them, and in a manner overthrow the grounds and evidences upon which they believe in Jesus, or would persuade others to believe in him: such as the history of his words and works, and the divine appearances in his favour, recorded in the gospels. 7. The arguments they make use of for shewing that the gospels were not written by apostles or are interpolated, are insufficient. They are such as these: That there are in the gospels many things which are absurd and contrary to reason. But that is false: every thing in the gospels is right and reasonable. Again they say that the evangelists disagree, and that there are contrarieties in the accounts Vos ergo jam dicite, quare non accipiatis omnia ex libris Novi Testamenti? utrum quia non sunt apostolorum Christi, an quia pravi aliquid docuerunt Apostoli Christi? Respondebunt, quia non sunt apostolorum Christi. Nam illa vox altera Paganorum est, qui dicunt apostolos Christi non recta docuisse. Contr. Faust. 1. 32, c. 16, in. b Ita ergo aut cogimini veraces illos codices confiteri, et 'continuo evertent hæresim vestram: aut si fallaces eos dixeritis, eâdem auctoritate Paracletum non poteritis asserere, et vos evertitis hæresim vestram. Contr. Faust. 1. 32, c. 16, in. • An emendatum in Evangelio est, quod spatiosa via ducat în interitum? An falsum in Paulo est, quod operum singuli suorum erunt reddituri rationem? Secundin. ad Aug. c. 3. Unde asseritis personam vestri auctoris, vel potius deceptoris? Respondetis, Ex Evangelio vos probare. Ex quo Evangelio? quod non totum accipitis, quod falsatum esse vos dicitis. Quis ergo testem suum prius ipse dicat falsitate esse corruptum, et tunc producat ad testimonium? Contr. Faust. 1. 32, c. 16. Vid. ib. 1. 13, c. 4, 5. e Vocem Patris de cœlo non audistis ; opera Christi, quibus de seipso testificabatur, non vidistis; codices in quibus hæc scripta sunt, ut specie Christianâ fallatis, velut accipitis; ne tamen contra vos legantur, infalsatos dicitis. ib. 1. 13, c. 5. Sed tamen si Paganus in Novo Testamento talia reprehenderet, qualia isti reprehendunt in Vetere, nonne et ipsi ea defendenda susciperent? &c. ib. 1. 22, c. 14. of things contained in the gospels: which too is false, as Augustine well observes. If they cannot reconcile these several accounts, it is for want of skill and attention, or it is owing to prejudice. Again, says Augustine: Let them study the gospels more, and let them come with a pious disposition, and judge with the candour required in reading and comparing other historians who have severally written of like matters, and all will be easy.' As for any pretensions to the Spirit, they gave no proofs of their having a greater interest in him than other Christians had. Therefore, if their reason and judgment failed them, as they evidently did in this matter, their whole argument is desperate, and of no value. Augustine has spoken to this particular likewise. d 8. Their principle was arbitrary. They said the scriptures used by the catholics were corrupted. They should then, as Augustine well observes, produce other copies more correct, where were the things they allowed and contended for as right; whilst the other things, insisted on by the catholics in arguing against them, were wanting. But they produced no such copies, nor ever pretended to have any different from those commonly used. Augustine has very agreeably and thoroughly exposed them upon this head in a passage which I transcribe in his own words at the bottom of the page. 9. That the several books of the New Testament were written by apostles, or apostolical men, that is, by the persons whose names they bear, is evident from the testimony of all Christians in general, who lived before the time of Faustus and Mani. 10. The charge against the catholics is false and groundless. Neither they, nor their ancestors had corrupted and interpolated the scriptures of the New Testament. Some faults may have crept into them and lesser differences there will be in copies of books often transcribed: but. no considerable alterations could be made in writings so much valued, so well known, in the hands of so many persons, preserved in their original language, and translated likewise into many other languages. On these two last observations, which contain the main answer to all the Manichæan pretences and objections relating to the books of the New Testament, Augustine has insisted largely, and admirably, in his confutations of the Manichees, and elsewhere. I am sure my readers will be pleased to see what he has said; and therefore I intend to transcribe several of his passages. 1. In a letter to Jerom, Augustine writes to this purpose: The Manichees pretend that many passages of the divine scriptures, by which their impious opinions are clearly confuted, and which therefore they cannot wrest to their purpose, are not right: which wrong things however they do not ascribe to the apostles, but to some unknown corrupters of the same scriptures. But since they cannot justify themselves by the more numerous, nor more ancient copies, nor by the authority of the original language, from which the Latin copies have been translated, their foolish assertion is easily confuted.' Vos ergo quid dicitis? Unde ostenditis scripturas illas non ab apostolis ministratas? Respondetis, quia multa sunt in eis et inter se et sibi contraria. Omnino falsissimum est; vos non intelligitis.- -Quis enim ferat lectorem, vel auditorem, scripturam tantæ auctoritatis facilius quain vitium suæ tarditatis audere culpare? Contr. Faust. 1. 32, c. 16. b Sed contraria, inquit, inter se scripta eorum reperiuntur: Maligni malo studio legitis, stulti non intelligitis, cæci non videtis. Quid enim magnum erat ista diligenter inspicere, et eorumdem scriptorum magnam et salubrem invenire congruentiam, si vos contentio non perverteret, et si pietas adjuvaret? Quis enim unquam, duos historicos legens de una re scribentes, utrumque vel utrumlibet eorum aut fallere aut falli arbitratus est, si unus eorum dixit quod alius prætermisit; aut si alter aliquid brevius complexus est, &c.? Contr. Faust. 1. 33, c. 7. An hoc dicitis vos Paracletum docuisse, Scripturas istas Apostolorum non esse, sed sub eorum nominibus ab aliis esse conscriptas? Hoc saltem docete, ipsum Paracletum esse, a quo didicistis hæc apostolorum non esse. Contr. Faust. 1. 32. c. 16. • Proferendus est namque tibi alius codex eadem continens et tamen incorruptus et verior, ubi sola desint ea quæ hic immissa esse criminaris. Ut si, verbi causâ, Pauli epistolam, quæ ad Romanos est, corruptam esse contendis, aliam pro feras incorruptam, vel alium codicem potius, in quo ejusdem Apostoli eadem epistola sincera et incorrupta sit. Non faciam, inquis, ne ipse corrupisse credar. Hoc enim soletis dicere. Et verum dicitis, &c. De Mor. Ec. Cath. cap. 29, n. 61. * Aliud est ergo auctoritate aliquorum vel librorum vel hominum non teneri, et aliud est dicere, Iste quidem vir sanctus omnia vera scripsit, et ista epistola ipsius est; sed in eâ ipsâ hoc ejus est, hoc non est ejus. Ubi cum ex adverso audieris, Proba; audieris, Proba; non confugies ad exempla veriora, vel plurium codicum, vel antiquorum, vel linguæ præcedentis, unde hoc in aliam linguam interpretatum est: sed dices, Inde probo hoc illius esse, illud non esse, quia hoc pro me sonat, illud contra me. Tu es ergo regula veritatis? &c. Contr. Faust. 1. xi. c. 2. f Manichæi plurima divinarum scripturarum, quibus eorum nefarius error clarissimâ sententiarum perspicuitate convincitur, quia in alium sensum detorquere non possunt, falsa esse contendunt; ita tamen ut eam falsitatem non scribentibus apostolis tribuant, sed nescio quibus codicum corruptoribus. Quod tamen quia nec pluribus, nec antiquioribus exemplaribus, nec præcedentis linguæ auctoritate, unde Latini libri interpretati sunt, probare aliquando potuerunt, notissimâ omnibus veritate superati confusique discedunt. Aug. Ep. 82, [al. 19] n. 6. (2) In his book to his friend Honoratus, Augustine observes: Their opinion is, that some unknown men, who were desirous to mix the law with the gospel, had interpolated the scriptures of the New Testament before the time of Mani. But,' says he 'this opinion of their's always appeared to me extremely absurd and unreasonable. It appeared so to me when I was among them: and not to me only but to you, and to others also who had any good degree of 'understanding. But I am now still more persuaded of the egregious folly of such an opinion, since they cannot make it out by the difference of the copies of scripture. b (3) In another place Augustine says, the books of scripture could not be corrupted. If such an attempt had been made by any one, his design would have been prevented and defeated. His alterations would have been immediately detected by many and more ancient copies. The difficulty of succeeding in such an attempt is apparent hence, that the scriptures were early 'translated into divers languages, and copies of them were numerous. The alterations, which any one attempted to make, would have been soon perceived: just even as now,' says he in 'fact, lesser faults in some copies are amended by comparing ancient copies, or those of the original ⚫ language.' с (4) And soon afterwards he says: According to your way of proceeding, the authority of scripture is quite destroyed; and every one's fancy is to determine what in the scripture ought to be received, what not. He does not admit it because it is found in writings of so great credit and authority; but it is rightly written because it is agreeable to his judgment. Into what confu⚫sion and uncertainty must men be brought by such a principle!' (5) In a passage, which I place at the bottom of the page, Augustine shews admirably that by their way of reasoning the credit of all sorts of writings, the most authentic, the best attested, the most generally received, is weakened, and even reduced to nothing.. e 6 (6) Again: If,' says he, you receive abundance of fabulous things upon the authority of Mani, because found in his writings, though there is no demonstration of the truth, and his authority is very obscure; is it not much more reasonable to believe the things contained in the scriptures of the New Testament, which are so well known, and have been transmitted down from the time of the apostles with an universal, uninterrupted tradition? And if the things 'therein delivered are contrary to your sentiments, you should conclude your sentiments to be wrong, and should correct them by the scriptures.' (7) Augustine argues likewise in this manner: If you here ask us, how we know these to a Volunt enim nescio quos corruptores divinorum librorum ante ipsius Manichæi tempora fuisse: corrupisse autem illos, qui Judæorum legem evangelio miscere cupiebant. De Ut. Cred. c. 3, n. 7, sab f. Quæ vox mihi semper quidem, etiam cum eos audirern, invalidissima visa est; nec mihi soli, sed etiam tibi, (nam bene memini) et nobis omnibus, qui paulo majorem diligentiam in judicando habere conabamur, quam turba credentium. Nunc vero nihil mihi videtur ab eis impudentius dici, vel, ut mitius loquar, incuriosius et imbecillius, quarh scripturas divinas esse corruptas; cum id nullis in tam recenti memoriâ exstantibus exemplaribus possint convincere. ib. n. 7, init. b quid faceretis, dicite mihi, nisi clamaretis, nullo modo os potuisse falsare codices, qui jam in manibus essent omnium Christianorum? quia mox, ut facere coepissetis, vetustiorum exemplarium veritate convinceremini. Quâ igitur causâ a vobis corrumpi non possent, hac causâ a nemine potuerunt. Quisquis enim hoc primitus ausus esset, multorum codicum vetustiorum collatione confutaretur; maxime, quia non cunâ linguâ sed multis eadem scriptura contineretur. Nam etiamnum nonnullæ codicum mendositates vel de antiquioribras, vel de linguâ præcedente, emendantur. Contr. Faust. 1. 32, c. 16, f. Videtis ergo id vos agere, ut omnis de medio ScripturaTum auferatur auctoritas, et suus cuique animus auctor sit, quid in quâque Scripturâ probet, quid improbet, id est, ut non auctoritati Scripturarum subjiciatur ad fidem, sed sibi Scripturas ipse subjiciat; non ut ideo illi placeat aliquid, quia hoc in sublimi auctoritate scriptum legitur; sed ideo recte scriptum videatur, quia hoc illi placuit. Quo te committis, anima misera? Contr. Faust. 1. 32, c. 19. d Quid hoc loco potest dicere impudentissima pertinacia ? VOL. II. Non hoc Christum dixisse? At in Evangelio verba ejus ista conscripta sunt. Falsum esse scriptum? Quid hoc sacrilegio magis impium reperiri potest? quid ista voce impudentius? quid audacius? quid sceleratius? Simulacrorum cultores, qui Christi etiam nomen oderunt, nunquam hoc adversus Scripturas illas ausi sunt dicere. Consequetur namque omnium literarum summa perversio, et omnium, qui memoriæ mandati sunt, librorum abolitio; si quod tantâ populorum religione roboratum est, tantâ hominum et temporum consensione firmatum, in hanc dubitationem inducitur, ut ne historiæ quidem vulgaris fidem possit gravitatemque obtinere. De Mor. Ecc. Cath. c. 29, n. 60. e Plane, inquis, Manichæus me docuit. Sed infelix, credidisti, neque enim vidisti. Si ergo ad millia fabulosorum phantasmatum, quibus turpiter gravidatus es, te auctoritati ignotissimæ subdidisti, ut ideo hæc omnia crederes, quia in illis conscripta sunt libris, quibus miserabili errore credendum esse censuisti, cum tibi nulla demonstrentur; cur non potius Evangelicæ auctoritati, tam fundatæ, tam stabilitæ, tantâ gloria diffamatæ, atque ab Apostolorum temporibus usque ad nostra tempora per successiones certissimas commendatæ, non te subdis, ut credas, ut videas, ut discas etiam omnia quæ e offendunt, ex vanâ et perversâ opinione te offendere. Contr. Faust. 1. 32, c. 19. be the writings of the apostles; in brief we answer, in the same way that you know the epistles, or any other writings of Mani, to be his: for if any one should be pleased to dispute with you, and offer to deny the epistles ascribed to Mani to be his, what would you do? Would you not laugh at the assurance of the man who denied the genuineness of writings generally allowed? As therefore it is certain those books are Mani's, and he would be ridiculous who should now dispute it; so certain is it that the Manichees deserve to be laughed at, or rather ought to be 'pitied, who dispute the truth and genuineness of those writings of the apostles, which have been handed down as theirs from their time to this through an uninterrupted succession of 'well known witnesses.' a (8.) Augustine says farther that, following their principle, there must be an end to all authority and certainty in all writings whatever. For no writings ever had a better testimony 'afforded them than those of the apostles and evangelists. Nor does it weaken the credit and authority of books, received by the church of Christ from the beginning, that some other writings have been without ground, and falsely ascribed to the apostles. For the like has happened, for instance, to Hippocrates; but yet his genuine works are distinguished from others which have been published under his name. We know the writings of the apostles as we know the 'works of Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Varro, and others, to be theirs, and as we know the writings ' of divers ecclesiastical authors; forasmuch as they have the testimony of contemporaries, and of 'those who have lived in succeeding times. I might moreover, by way of illustration, produce 'for examples these now in hand. Suppose some one in time to come should deny those to be the works of Faustus, or these to be mine; how should he be satisfied but by the testimony of those of this time who knew both, and have transmitted their accounts to others? And shall not, 'then, the testimony of the churches, and Christian brethren, be valid here; especially when they are so numerous, and so harmonious, and the tradition is with so much ease and certainty traced ⚫ down from the apostles to our time? I say, shall any be so foolish and unreasonable as to deny or dispute the credibility of such a testimony to the scriptures, which would be allowed in behalf of any writings whatever, whether heathen or ecclesiastical?' So writes Augustine with respect both to the genuineness and the integrity of the scriptures of the New Testament, in his thirty-third and last book against Faustus. (9) I shall only add one short passage concerning this last particular, the integrity of the text, from another book of the same work. b Augustine, arguing for our Lord's humanity from these words, Rom. i. 3: "Of the seed of David according to the flesh," says, the clause is in all copies ancient and modern. All ⚫ churches and languages agree with one consent in owning it.' ridebitis, qui contra rem tantâ connexionis et successionis serie confirmatam, impudentiam hujus vocis emittat? Sicut ergo certum est, illos libros esse Manichæi, et omnino ridendus est, qui ex transverso veniens tanto post natus litem vobis hujus contradictionis intenderit; ita certum est, Manichæum, vel Manichæos esse ridendos, aut etiam dolendos, qui tam fundatæ auctoritati, a temporibus Apostolorum usque ad hæc tempora certis successionibus custoditæ atque perductæ, audeant tale aliquid dicere. Ib. cap. 21. a Infelices inimici animæ vestræ, quæ unquam literæ ullum habebunt pondus auctoritatis, si evangelicæ, si Apostolicæ non habebunt? De quo libro certum erit cujus sit, si literæ, quas Apostolorum dicit et tenet ecclesia ab ipsis Apostolis propagata et per omnes gentes tantâ eminentiâ declarata, utrum Apostolorum sint, incertum est? Quasi vero et in literis sæcularibus non fuerunt certissimi auctores, sub quorum nominibus postea multa prolata sunt, et ideo repudiata, quia vel his, quæ ipsorum esse constaret, minime congruerunt, vel eo tempore quo illi scripserint, nequaquam innotescere, et per ipsos vel familiarissimos eorum in posteros prodi commendarique meruerunt. Hos autem libros, quibus illi qui de transverso proferuntur comparati respuuntur, unde constat esse Hippocratis? nisi quia sic eos ab ipso Hippocratis tempore usque ad hoc tempus et deinceps successionis series commendavit, ut hinc dubitare dementis sit? Platonis, Aristotelis, Ciceronis, Varronis, aliorumque ejusmodi auctorum libros, unde noverunt homines, quod ipsorum sint, nisi eâdem temporum sibi succedentium contestatione continuâ? Multi multa de literis ecclesiasticis conscripserunt, non quidem auctoritate canonicâ, sed aliquo adjuvandi studio, sive discendi. Unde constat quid cujus sit, nisi quia his temporibus quibus ea quisque scripsit, quibus potuit insinuavit atque edidit, et inde in alios atque alios continuatâ notitiâ latiusque firmatâ ad posteros, etiam usque ad nostra tempora pervenerunt, ita ut interrogati cujus quisque liber sit, non hæsitemus quid respondere debeamus? Sed quid pergam in longe præterita? Ecce istas literas quas habemus in manibus, si post aliquantum tem pus vitæ hujus nostræ, vel illas quisquam Fausti esse, (vel has neget esse meas, unde convincitur, nisi quia illi qui nunc ista noverunt, notitiam suam ad longe etiam post futuros continuatis posterorum successionibus trajiciunt? Quæ cum ita sint, quis tandem tanto furore cœcatur,- -qui dicat hoc opereri non potuisse Apostolorum ecclesiam, tam fidam, tam numerosam fratrum concordiam, ut eorum scripta fideliter ad posteros trajicerent, cum eorum cathedras usque ad præsentes episcopos certissimâ successione servaverint; cum hoc qualiumcumque hominum scriptis, sive extra ecclesiam, sive in ipsâ ecclesiâ, tantâ facilitate proveniat? Contr. Faust. 1. 33. cap. 6. Hoc autem quod adversus impietatem vestram ex apostoli Pauli epistolâ profertur, Filium Dei ex semine David esse secundum carnem, omnes codices et novi et veteres habent) omnes ecclesiæ legunt, omnes linguæ consentiunt. Contr Faust. 1. xi. c. 3. (10) By all which we perceive how solidly and rationally Augustine defended the authority of the scriptures; and how weak are all the objections which the Manichees brought against the antiquity, genuineness, or purity, of the books of the New Testament. VIII. Augustine, in the passage of his Summary above cited, said that the Manichees 'made use of apocryphal books.' We shall have full proof of it presently. But let us first of all examine a charge or two brought against these people. с а 1. There is a passage in Augustine, which might lead some persons to suspect that the Manichees pretended to have some letter of Christ. Mr. Jones, in his table of apocryphal pieces, not extant, reckons this as one: An Epistle of Christ produced by the Manichess.' But,' says Beausobre, no ancient author having ever accused them of forging such a letter, ' and no man having ever seen this pretended letter, it is reasonable to consider what Augustine says only as a supposition, which makes a part of an argument, otherwise also perplexed enough.' Fabricius speaks to the like purpose. Moreover Faustus acknowledgeth that Christ did not write the New Testament. If the sect had any letter ascribed to our Saviour, Faustus would have mentioned it: and Augustine in his answer would not only have made a supposition of such a thing, but would have taken particular notice of it. d e 2. The Manichees are sometimes charged with interpolating, or endeavouring to interpolate and alter the books of the New Testament, in order to render the words of it agreeable to their sentiments. h g f The passages of Titus above cited imply as much. Pope Leo seems to say it expressly. But they may be acquitted here likewise. I have formerly said what is sufficient for answering Titus. And Fabricius has helped us to a good solution for Leo. All that is to be understood by his complaint against the Manichees, is, that they made use of some apocryphal books, ⚫ in which Christ was brought in speaking what he never said: but they did not make any alterations in the words of the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, or any other of the cano'nical books of the New Testament received by them, but only endeavoured to pervert them by false interpretations.' That they really did not make any such alterations may be well argued from the testimony given by Photius to the Paulicians of his time, whom he always considers as Manichees. He says, they do not make any material alterations in the scriptures, as Marcion and Valentinus 'did.' And presently afterwards he says, they do not corrupt the gospel by any insertions or 'additions.' k Mr. Wolff, in his notes upon that passage of Photius, says he does not see how this can be reconciled with the accounts given by Titus and Archelaus. As for Titus, what was formerly said may suffice. Nor is there, perhaps, any greater difficulty in the words of Archelaus. We have indeed seen that Mani pretended the scriptures of the New Testament had been altered by others. And in the place referred to by Mr. Wolff, Archelaus says that when Mani had our scriptures he endeavoured to find in them his doctrine of the two principles: and that when he disputed with him, he strove to support his opinions by the same; censuring some * Si enim prolatæ fuerint aliquæ literæ, quæ nullo alio narrante ipsius proprie Christi esse dicantur; unde fieri poterat, ut, si vere ipsius essent, non legerentur, non acciperentur, non præcipuo culmine auctoritatis eminerent in ejus ecclesiâ ? Quis ergo tam demens, qui hodie credat esse epistolam Christi, quam protulerit Manichæus, et non credat facta, vel dicta esse Christi, quæ scripsit Matthæus? Aug. Contr. F. 1. 28. c. 4. Jones's Can. of the N. T. Vol. i. p. 145, 146. Ex hoc loco non satis firmiter probatur, Manichæos re- Faust. Ipsasque Evangelicas et Apostolicas paginas, quædam auferendo, et quædam inserendo violaverunt; confingentes sibi sub Apostolorum nominibus, et sub verbis ipsis Salvatoris, multa volumina falsitatis, quibus erroris sui commenta munirent, et decipiendorum mentibus mortiferum virus effunderent. Leo. Serm. 4, in Epiph. cap. 4. ¿See p. 219. Hæc Leonis verba accipienda sunt de libris apocryphis a nescio quibus sutoribus fabularum sub Apostolorum nomine scriptis, quos a Manichæis lectos notat Augustinus, 1. 22, c. 79. Contra Faustum, et Timotheus presbyter in loco supra, p. 178, et seq. adducto. In his Salvator subinde loquens inducebatur. Cæterum in Evangeliis Matthæi, Marci, Lucæ, et Joannis, atque in Epistolis Pauli, -nihil vel inserendo vel auferendo violâsse hæreticos istos, sed tantum pravâ interpretatione scripta illa divina pervertisse, testatur Photius MS. contr. Manichæos, lib. i. Fabr. ib. p. 306, 337. i τοις ρήμασι μεν και ονομασιν εδεν μεγα παραλλατο των, εδε κατακιβδηλεύων το λογο το σχημα και τα μεν ῥητα-διδωσι κατέχειν τε τε ευαγγελίε, μήτε παρενθήκαις μητε προσθήκαις ανεδήν λυμαινομενος. Ph. contr. Manich. 1. 1. See before, p. 219, 220. P. 9, 10. Et, ut ne multa dicam, comparant universos libros Scripturarum nostrarum,-quibus ille acceptis, homo astutus cœpit in nostris libris occasiones inquirere dualitatis suæ- -et in nostris libris, sicut etiam adversus me disputans fecit, assertionem suam proferre, quædam in his accusans, quædam permutans. Arch. cap. 54. p. 99. |