SECT. VI. THE MANICHEAN DOCTRINE CONCERNING THE SCRIPTURES. III. Their notion I. A summary account of their scheme. II. They rejected the Old Testament. of John Baptist. IV. What books of the New Testament they received. 1. They received the New Testament in general, or the gospels, and the epistles of St. Paul. 2. What they said of St. Matthew's gospel. 3. Whether they received the Acts of the apostles? 4. They received St. Paul's epistles: 5. Particularly that to the Hebrews. 6. Of their receiving an epistle to the Laodiceans. 7. Whether they received the catholic epistles? 8. And the Revelation? 9. Probably, they received all the canonical scriptures of the New Testament. V. Proofs of their respect for the scriptures of the New Testament. VI. Of their pretence that the book of the New Testament had been corrupted and interpolated. 1. Passages of ancient catholic authors concern-. ing that matter. 2. Passages of Faustus concerning the same. VII. Remarks upon the passages of Faustus. VIII. The Manichees vindicated from the charges of forging and interpolating scripture. 1. They did not forge a letter ascribed to Christ. 2. That they did not interpolate the books of the New Testament. IX. Of the apocryphal books used by them. 1. Augustine's definition of such books. 2. Proofs of their using apocryphal scriptures, and what. 3. An account of Leucius, a great writer of apocryphal books. 1. His works. 2. His opinions. 3. His time. 4. Remarks upon the works of Leucius, and the apocryphal books used by the Manichees. WE E are now come to the principal point, and perhaps as difficult as any, to shew what books of scripture the Manichees received, and what regard they had for them. I. Augustine's general account is to this effect: They say that the God who delivered the law by Moses, and spake in the Hebrew prophets, is not the true God, but one of the princes of darkness. The scriptures of the New Testament they receive, but say they are interpolated, taking what they like, and rejecting the rest, and preferring to them some apocryphal scriptures as containing the whole truth.' Here are therefore four things to be observed by us,-their rejecting the Old Testament; what books of the New Testament they received; then in what manner they received them, or what regard they had for them; and lastly, what apocryphal books they made use of, II. Concerning the Old Testament. That the Manichees universally, and all along, rejected the books of the Old Testament, or the Jewish scriptures, is evident from the testimonies of almost all writers, who have taken any notice of this people. b It is intimated by Serapion. their objections. third book of Titus of Bostra was to vindicate the Old Testament against In The Acts of Archelaus it is represented as one article of Mani's doctrine that the Jewish prophets were deceived by the princes of darkness: that the princes of darkness spake with Moses, and the Jewish priests and prophets. Mani' himself is there made to speak to the same purpose, and to say that there are some things true and right inserted in the Jewish scriptures, a Deum, qui legem per Moysen dedit, et in Hebræis prophetis locutus est, non esse verum Deum, sed unum ex principibus tenebrarum. Ipsiusque Testamenti Novi scripturas, tamquam infalsatas, ita legunt, ut quod volunt ipsi accipiant, quod nolunt rejiciant; eisque, tamquam totum verum habentes, nonnullas apocryphas anteponunt. Aug. de Hær. c. 46. b MYTE TOY YOUR TIμWYTES. Serap. ap. Canis. Ant. Lect. T. i. p. 47, f. Conf. p. 54, sub fin. · ὁ τριτος ὑπερ τε νόμε και των προφητων ποιείται λόγον, ὡς παρά το θες πασης της παλαιας διαθήκης δοθείσης. Τit. p. 59. ap. Canis. that the wrong might be received, but that nothing before John the Baptist ought to be admitted as of authority. Faustus, we may be sure, does not speak with greater reverence of the God of the Jews, than other Manichees. b с He says moreover, that the moral precepts of the law of Moses were not revealed by him; for they are as old as the world, and are of perpetual obligation. They were taught Enoch, Seth, and the other ancient patriarchs by angels, for the good government of the world. These laws Moses inserted in his two tables. Epiphanius in his Synopsis briefly says, they blaspheme the Old Testament, and the God that speaks therein. And in his long argument with them he often takes notice of their disadvantageous notion of the Old Testament. Hilary speaks of their enmity to the law and the prophets. In Jerom," Mani is frequently joined with Marcion, and others, who rejected the Old Testa 'ment. Augustine had frequent occasion to speak of this matter, and sometimes says they presumed 'to affirm that the law given by Moses was not from God, but from one of the princes of dark⚫ness.' And he informs us that this was one of those arguments in which they triumphed; and that they had too much success in deceiving weak people by the objections they brought against the Old Testament. Archelaus too intimates that Mani argued upon this point with much confidence, and in a specious manner, when he says he thought the devil helped him. Indeed it is thought by some that the ancient Christians were not able to defend the Old Testament so well as we have done in late times. m It would be tedious to mention all the Manichæan objections; I shall however take notice of 'some of them. They pretended to take offence at the representations given of God in the Old Testament, as if he had bodily parts and human passions; as if he was ignorant of some things, and envious, and cruel, and passionate. Their objections against the first three chapters of the book of Genesis may be seen in Faustus, and in a work of Augustine, purposely written in defence of the beginning of that book. १ Faustus argues, that they were not Jews, but Gentiles: that they came directly to Christ, Placet ad ingluviem Judæorum dæmonis, (neque enim Dei,) nunc tauros, nunc arietes, cultris sternere? Faust. 1. 18, c. 2. diffamatæ in gentibus, id est, ex quo mundi hujus creatura existit. Id. 1. 22, c. 2. Hæcautem erant antiquitus in nationibus, ut est in promtu probare, olim promulgata per Enoch, et Seth, et cæteros eorum similes justos, quibus eadem illustres tradiderint angeli temperandæ in hominibus gratiâ feritatis. Id. 1. 19. c. 3. 4 Παλαια διαθηκην βλασφημέντες, και τον εν αυτή λαληGavra lev. Epiph. T. i. p. 605. Id. Hær. 66, c. 43, p. 656. c. 70, p. 691, et passim. Manichæus enim abrupti in improbandâ lege et prophetis furoris. Hil. de Trin. 1. 6, n. 10, p. 884. 8 Cat. 6, c. 27, p. 104. Et contrario hæretici, Marcion et Manichæus, et omnes qui veterem legem rabido ore dilaniant. Hieron. in Ecc. T. 2, p. 778, in. Non quo legem juxta Manichæum et Marcionem destruamus. Id. ad Aug. Ep. 74, [al. 89.] p. 624. m. Audiant Marcion et Manichæus, et cæteri hæretici, qui vetus laniant instrumentum. Id. in Matt. c. x. T. 4, P. i. p. 33, m. Audi Marcion, audi Manichæe; bonæ margaritæ sunt lex et prophetæ, et notitia veteris testamenti. Id. in. Matt. c. 13, p. 59, f. Aliud est damnare legem, quod Manichæus facit, aliud legi præferre evangelium, quæ apostolica doctrina est. Id. in Dial. i. adv. Pelag. T. 4, p. 503, in. iPatriarchas prophetasque blasphemant. Legem per famuJum Dei Mojsen datam, non a vero Deo dicunt, sed a principe tenebrarum. Aug. Ep. 236. al. 74. *Nam bene nôsti, quod reprehendentes Manichæi catholi VOL. II. cam fidem, et maxime vetus testamentum discerpentes et dilaniantes, commovent imperitos. Id de Util. Cred. c. 2, n. 4, T. 8. ' Deinde cœpit dicere plurima ex Lege, multa etiam de Evangelio, et Apostolo Paulo, quæ sibi videntur esse contraria; quæ etiam cum fiduciâ dicens, nihil pertimescit. Credo, quod habeat adjutorem draconem illum, qui nobis semper inimicus est. Arch. cap. 40, p. 69. n m See Beaus. T. i. p. 283, &c. nunc ignarum futuri,nunc ut improvidumnunc ut invidum et timentem, ne, si gustaret homo suus de ligno vitæ, in æternum viveret; nunc alias et appetentem sanguinis atque adipis ex omni genere sacrificiorum――nunc irascentem in alienos, nunc in suos, nunc perimentem millia hominum ob levia quidem aut nulla commissa; nunc etiam comminantem, venturum se fore cum gladio, et parciturum nemini, non justo, non peccatori. Faust. 1. 22, c. 4. • Ibid. P Aug. de Genesi contra Manichæos. libr. iii. Tom. i. 9 Porro autem nos naturâ Gentiles sumus, -sub alia nati lege, -non ante effecti Judæi, ut merito Hebraïcorum sequeremur fidem, euntes ad Christianismum.- -Ita nihil, ut dixi, ecclesiæ Christianæ Hebræorum testimonia conferunt, quæ magis constat ex Gentibus quam ex Judæis. Sane si sunt aliqua, ut fama est, Sibyllæ de Christo præsagia, aut Hermetis, quem dicunt Trismegistum, aut Orphei, aliorumque in Gentilitate vatum; hæc nos aliquanto ad fidem juvare potuerunt, qui ex Gentibus efficimur Christiani, &c. Faust. 1. 13, c. i. 2 E and not by the way of Judaism. If therefore there had been, as possibly there were, Gentile prophets, they would be more profitable to them than the Jewish. They said that," whilst they were Gentiles and before they believed, the scriptures of the Old Testament were useless, because they could then be of no authority with them; and when the gospel was embraced, they were altogether needless. b They said they were satisfied with the New Testament, which the Jews rejected, and that very much, out of too great a regard for the Old. с They found fault with the Israelites spoiling the Egyptians by the order of Moses. The appointment of sacrifices, such as those in the law of Moses, they pretended was unworthy of God, and therefore was not from him, but from some evil beings. This way of argu ing is ascribed to Mani in The Acts of Archelaus, and is also made use of by Faustus. с It is easy to think they did not fail to expose the ordinance of circumcision, as much as they were able. They pretended that the law and the gospel were contrary to each other, and therefore they were not both from one and the same being. In the Old Testament men are encouraged by the hopes of riches, and other temporal blessings. But Jesus Christ blesseth the poor, and declareth that no man can be his disciple who forsaketh not all that he hath. This argument is put into the mouth of Mani in The Acts of Archelaus: and it is with the utmost disdain that Faustus speaks of the blessings promised in the Old Testament; such as riches, plenty, long life, a numerous progeny, a land flowing with milk and honey. He is fully satisfied with the spiritual blessings of the gospel. Nor would he accept of such good things as the law promiseth, if offered him. Again, says Faustus: Our church is poor indeed, but she is married to Christ, who is rich; and she is contented with the estate of her husband: nor will she hold any strange correspondence, or receive either presents or letters from another.' k The Manichees' took great liberties in reviling the patriarchs and the kings of Israel for the practice of polygamy: and they unmercifully aggravated the faults, which some good men of the Old Testament were surprised into, and misrepresented some other things. Faustus is very copious in his declamations upon these points." m And Augustine tells us that" when he was young they would come to him, and ask, if he thought they were righteous men who had more than one wife at a time!' a Hebræorum vero testimonia nobis, etiam si sint vera, ante fidem inutilia sunt, post fidem supervacua; quia ante fidem eis credere non poteramus, nec vero ex superfluo credimus. Faust. 1. 13, c. i. Quare non accipis Testamentum vetus? Quia et omne vas plenum superfusa non recipit, sed effundit,- Proinde et Judæi ex præoccupatione Moyseos Testamento veteri satiati, respuerunt novum. Id. 1. 15, cap. i. in. Ibi vero Moses argentum et aurum ab Ægyptiis sumens, cum populus fugisset ex Ægypto. Jesus autem nihil proximi desiderandum præcepit. Ap. Arch. c. 40. p. 69. Ipse [Satanas] est enim, qui in prophetis tunc locutus est, plurimas eis de Deo ignorantias suggerens, et tentationes, et concupiscentias. Sed et devoratorem eum sanguinis et carnis ostendunt. Quæ omnia ad eum pertinent Satanam, et ad prophetas ejus. Ap. Arch. c. 13, p. 25. nunc Placet ad ingluviem Judæorum dæmonistauros, nunc arietes, nunc etiam hircos, ut non et homines dicam, cultris sternere; ac propter quod idola sumus, exosi, id nunc exercere crudelius sub prophetis ac lege? Faust. 1. 18, c. 2. Vid. supr. not." f Nam peritomen ego, ut pudendam, despui, ac, si non fallor, et tu. Id. 1. 6, c. i. Placet circumcidi, id est, pudendis insignire pudenda, et Deum credere sacramentis talibus delectari? Id. 1. 18, c. 2. 8 Legem Moysi, ut breviter dicam, dicebat hic non esse Dei boni, sed maligni principis, nec habere eam quidquam cognationis ad novam legem Christi; sed esse contrariam et inimicam, alteram alteri obsistentem. Arch. c. 40, p. 69. h Dicebat ergo, quod ibi dixerit Deus, Ego divitem et pauperem facio. Hic vero Jesus beatos dicebat pauperes. Addebat etiam, quod nemo possit ejus esse discipulus, nisi renunciaret omnibus quæ haberet. Id. ib. -Di i Cur non accipis Testamentum vetus? Quia et ab ipso hoc, et ex novo didicimus, aliena non concupiscere.vitias promittit, et ventris saturitatem, et filios et nepotes, vitamque longam, et Chananitidis regnum.- Judæis bona sua habere, libens volensque permisi, solo scilicet evangelio, et regni cœlorum splendidå hæreditate contentus. Faust. ). x. c. 1. Secunda vero causa est, quod tam etiam misera ejus, et corporalis, ac longe ab animæ commodis hæreditas est, ut post beatam illam novi Testamenti pollicitationem, quæ cœlorum mihi regnum, et vitam perpetuam repromittit, etiam si gratis eam mihi testator suus ingereret, fastidirem. Id.l. 4, c. i. **Et quia ecclesia nostra, sponsa Christi, pauperior quidem ei nupta, sed diviti, contenta sit bonis mariti sui, bumilium amatorum de dignatur opes. Sordent ei Testamenti veteris et ejus auctoris munera; famæque sua custos diligentissima, nisi sponsi sui non accipit literas. Faust, l. 15, c. i. 1 soceros dormire cum nuribus, tanquam Judas ; patres cum filiabus, tamquam Loth; prophetas cum fornica tricibus, tamquam Osee; maritos uxorum suarum noctes amatoribus vendere, tamquam Abraham; duabus germanis sororibus unum misceri maritum, tamquam Jacob; rectores populi, et quos maxime entheos credas, millenis et centenis volutari cum scortis, tamquam David et Salomon. Faust. L. 32, c. 4. Vid. et 1. 22, c. 3, 5. l. 12, c. 1. m ac per hoc et Judæorum patres, Abraham scilicet et Isaac et Jacob- -quamquam fuerunt ipsi flagitiosissimi; ut fere Moses indicat eorum pronepos, sive quis alius historiæ ejus conditor est, quæ dicitur Geneseos, qui eorum vitas nobis odio omni fastidioque dignissimas scripsit. Faust. L 33, c. 1. cum a me quærerent,- et utrum justi existi mandi essent, qui haberent uxores multas simul. Confess. 1. 3 c. 7, n. 12. Jerom informs us that they alleged those words of our Lord in John x. 8. "All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers." And in fact the Manichæan bishop and author, so often quoted already, fails not to insist upon this text, and to apply it particularly to Moses. Jerom represents the Manichees arguing that it was allowed the law of Moses was abolished, and therefore we ought to receive the New Testament only. The catholic Christians maintained the authority of the Old Testament, and put the Mani chees in mind of divers things contained in the New; as those words of our Lord himself, Matth. v. 17: "I came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil." This is in The Acts of Archelaus, where Mani by way of answer says: Christ never spake those words, for it is not true that he fulfilled the law, but that he destroyed it.' Faustus in his work likewise proposes this catholic objection, to which he gives a variety of answers, weak and trifling. They are such as these: This is related by Matthew only, and as spoken by Christ in his ⚫ sermon on the mount: when he was not present, but only the first four disciples, who attended ⚫ on him before Matthew was called. Of those disciples who were present at that sermon none ⚫ have written a gospel but John, who says nothing of this matter. It may therefore be questioned whether Jesus ever spoke these words." He also says that Matthew himself did not write this, which will be considered another time. Then he adds, that all in general are agreed that Christ came not to fulfil the law, but to destroy it. After which he comes again to the Manichæan principle, of examining and judging what is right, what not, in the scriptures, and rejecting what does not appear agreeable to truth. And he pretends that if the catholics will maintain the genuineness of this text, they ought to obey all the laws of Moses, and be no longer Christians, but Jews. h Finally, he says, let us consider what law is here spoken of, for there are several laws. There is the law of Moses, the law of nature, and of truth. Which last, he says, is spoken of by the apostle, Rom. viii. 2, calling it "the law of the spirit of life." And there are other prophets, beside those of the Jews: and that our Saviour does not here speak of their law, appears from the things he discourseth of; which are not the peculiar ordinances of the Mosaic law, but those precepts which are of eternal obligation. 1 The catholics put them in mind likewise of John v. 46: "Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." To which Faustus makes divers answers: as detrahens prophetis ejus, quasi auctoritate testimonii evangelici, in quo salvator ait: Omnes, qui venerunt ante me, fures fuerunt et latrones. Hier. in Is. T. 3, p. 171. Quippe cum et ipsum dicentem audirem, fures fuisse et latrones omnes, qui venerunt ante se. Quâ sententiâ primum omnium video feriri Moysen. Faust. 1. 16, c. 2. Manichæus nobis consurgit repente, qui legem dicit abolitam, et solos novi Testamenti legendos libros. Adv. Pelag. 1. 2, T. 4. p. 510, m... Ego, audiens, dicebam eis sermonem evangelicum, quomodo dixit Dominus noster Jesus Christus, Non veni solvere legem, sed adimplere. Ille vero ait, nequâquam eum hunc dixisse sermonem: Cum enim ipsam inveniamus eum resolvisse legem, necesse est nos hoc potius intelligere quod fecit. Arch. c. 40, p. 69. * Cur Legem non accipitis et Prophetas, cum Christus eos non se venisse solvere dixerit, sed adimplere? quis hoc testatur dixisse Jesum? Matthæus. Ubi dixisse? In monte. Quibus præsentibus? Petro, Andreâ, Jacobo, et Joanne, quatuor his tantum: cæteros enim necdum elegerat, nec ipsum Matthæum. Ex his ergo quatuor unus, id est, Joannes, Evangelium scripsit? Ita. Alicubi hoc ipse commemorat? Nusquam. Quomodo ergo, quod Joannes non testatur, qui fuit in monte, Matthæus hoc scripsit, qui longo intervallo, postquam Jesus de monte descendit, secutus est eum? Ac per hoc de hoc ipso primo ambigitur, utrum Jesus tale aliquid. dixerit, quia testis idoneus tacet, loquitur autem minus idoneus; ut interim permiserimus nobis injuriam fecisse Matthæum, donec et ipsum probemus hæc non scripsisse.Faust. 1. 17, c, i that, upon searching the writings of Moses, he Uterque enim nostrûm sub hac notione Christianus est," quia Christum in destructionem. legis et prophetarum venisse putavimus. 1. 18, c. 1. h Et tamen me quidem jam adversus capituli hujus necessitudinem Manichæa fides reddidit tutum,- -Ib. c. 3, in. Nempe cogeris aut vanæ superstitioni succumbere, aut capitulum profiteri falsum, aut te Christi negare discipulum. 1. 18, c. 3. Ecce jam consentio dictum.- -Sunt autem legum genera tria: unum quidem Hebræorum, quod peccati et mortis Paulus appellat; aliud vero Gentium, quod naturale vocat. Tertium vero genus legis est veritas, quod perinde significans apostolus dicit, Lex enim spiritûs vitæ in Christo Jesu liberavit me a lege peccati et mortis. Id. 1. 19, c. 1, 2. * Item Prophetæ, alii sunt Judæorum, alii Gentium, alii veritatis. Ib. c. 2. 1 Lege ergo tripartitâ, et tripartitis Prophetis, de quonam eorum Jesus dixerit, non satis liquet. Est tamen conjicere ex consequentibus, &c, ib. c. 3. m Quare Moysen non accipitis, cum Christus dicat: Moyses de me scripsit; et si crederetis Moysi, crederetis mihi-? Nam ego quidem scripturas ejus perscrutatus,→ nullas ibidem de Christo prophetias inveni-Unde in ingenti positus æstu, ratione cogebar in alterum e duobus ; ut aut falsum pronuntiarem capitulum hoc, aut mendacem Jesum. Sed id quidem alienum pietatis erat, Deum existimare mentitum. Rectius ergo visum est, scriptoribus adscribere falsitatem, quam veritatis auctori mendacium, &c. Id. I. 16, c. i. ii. could not find any prophecies concerning Christ. Therefore our Lord never spoke in this manner, for all his words are true. And he himself elsewhere declares, "All who were before him were thieves and robbers," particularly striking at Moses. Moreover, upon divers occasions, when he might have referred the Jews to Moses and the prophets, he only directs them to consider his miracles, and the testimony given to him from heaven by God the Father. For all which reasons he pretends he may conclude that this paragraph is not genuine, but has been inserted by the corrupters of scripture, who have here said what is not true. This may suffice for shewing the opinion and the arguments of the Manichees concerning the Old Testament. C a III. I shall only add a word or two for shewing what they thought of John the Baptist. Didymus of Alexandria intimates that they did not admit his authority, reckoning him one of the Old Testament. And Photius says of Agapius, the Manichee, that he reviled not only Moses and the prophets, but the forerunner likewise. But, in The Acts of Archelaus, Mani is said to have spoken of John the Baptist as a preacher of the kingdom of heaven. Beausobre therefore concludes that the Manichees received John's testimony to the divine mission of our Saviour. And indeed Didymus himself intimates, in the place before referred to, that they were willing to argue from some things said by John the Baptist. Perhaps they were not all of the same opinion about him. Nor is it any great wonder that men should differ upon the question, whether John the Baptist belonged to the Old Testament or to the New. e IV. In the next place we are to consider what books of the New Testament were received by the Manichees. I shall observe the testimonies of divers authors. f 1. Serapion, having said he would not insist upon matters in the Old Testament, adds: Since they respect the gospels, my proofs shall be taken from them.' What books of the New Testament he quoted in his work against the Manichees was shewn formerly. ་ Titus of Bostra expressly says, they receive the gospel.' Several of his passages will be more particularly cited hereafter, when we come to observe what they said of the interpolation of the scriptures. But when Titus here says, they received the gospel,' he means, I think, the New Testament in general, because the gospel is there opposed to the law and the prophets. Epiphanius says they pretended that the two testaments were contrary to each other. He likewise says that when they reject the Old Testament, many things may be alleged from the gospels and from the apostles to confute them.' They acknowledged the New Testament therefore, both the gospels, and the epistles of the apostles, as of authority. St. Jerom's account, in the place above referred to, is, they say the law is abolished, and that the books of the New Testament only are to be attended to by us. m Faustus often says that he receives the gospel; meaning thereby the doctrine taught by Jesus Christ. n He says that he, as well as the catholics, own Jesus to be the author of the New Testament or covenant. He mentions the four evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, without hinting that there were any other authentic historians of Jesus Christ. κ Και πόσα εσιν είπειν δια των ευαγγελίων, και των αποστ τόλων, εἰς ελεγχον της το Μανεντος μανίας το σωτηρος. ὁμολογώντος την παλαιας διαθήκην, ε μόνον, αλλα και αυτοί αποσόλοι. κ. λ. Id. H. 66, c. 43, m. Manichæus nobis consurgit repente, qui legem dicit abolitam, et solos Novi Testamenti legendos libros. Adv. Pelag. 1.2. T. 4, p. 510. m Accipis Evangelium? Et maxime. Faust. I. 2, c. I. Accipis Evangeliom? Tu me interrogas, utrum accipiam, in quo idipsum apparet, quia quæ jubet observo.Nisi adhuc nescis, quid sit quod Evangelium nuncupatur. Est enim nihil aliud, quam prædicatio et mandatum Christi. Id. 1.-5, c. 1. n quod Novum Testamentum Jesum condidisse utrique fatemur. Id. 1. 18, c. 1. • Sed offensus duorum Evangelistarum maxime dissensione, qui genealogiam ejus scribunt, Lucæ et Matthæi, hæsi incertus quemnam potissimum sequerer.-Infinitâ ergo eorum prætermissâ lite,ad Joannem Marcumque me contuli, nec impariter a duobus ad duos, et ab Evangelistis ad ejusdem nominis professores. Faust. J. 3, ci |