« السابقةمتابعة »
Jerom informs us that' they alleged those words of our Lord in Johın 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 Thea 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.
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.
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" that, upon searching the writings of Moses, he
detrahens prophetis ejus, quasi auctoritate testi- Uterque enim nostrům sub hac notione Christianus est, monii evangelici, in quo salvator ait: Omnes, qui venerunt quia Christum in destructionem legis et prophetarum venisse ante me,'fures fuerunt et latrones. Hier. in Is. T. 3, p. 171. putavimus. I. 18, c. 1.
Quippe cum et ipsum dicentem audirem, fures fuisse et & Et tamen me quidem jam adversus capituli hujus neces.. latrones omnes, qui venerunt ante se. Quâ sententiâ primum situdinem Manichæa fides reddidit tutum, -Ib. c. 3, in. omnium video feriri Moysen. Faust. 1. 16, c. 2.
h Nempe cogeris aut vanæ superstitioni succumbere, aut • Manichæus nobis consurgit repente, qui legem dicit abo- capitulum profiteri falsum, aut te Christi negare discipulum. litam, et solos novi Testamenti legendos libros. Adv. Pelag. 1. 18, c. 3. 1.2, T. 4. p. 510, m.
Ecce jam consentio dictum.
Sunt autem legum genera Ego, audiens, dicebam eis sermonem evangelicum, quo- tria: unum quidem Hebræorum, quod peccati et mortis modo dixit Dominus noster Jesus Christus, Non veni solvere Paulus appellat ; aliud vero Gentium, quod naturale vocat. lagem, sed adimplere. Ille vero ait, nequaquam eum hunc Tertium vero genus legis est veritas, quod perinde significans dixisse sermonem: Cum enim ipsam inveniamus eum resol-, apostolus dicit, Lex enim spiritûs vitæ in Christo Jesu liberavit visse legem, necesse est nos hoc potius intelligere quod fecit. me a lege peccati et mortis. Id. l. 19, c. 1, 2. Arch. c. 40, p. 69.
* Item Prophetæ, alii sunt Judæorum, alii Gentium, alii e Cur Legem non accipitis et Prophetas, cum Christus eos, veritatis. Ib. c. 2. · non se venisse solvere dixerit, sed adimplere ? quis hoc testa- Lege ergo tripartita, et tripartitis Prophetis, de quonam tur dixisse Jesum ? Matthæus. Ubi dixisse? In monte. eorum Jesus dixerit, non satiş liquet. Est tamen conjicere ex Quibus præsentibus ? Petro, Andrea, Jacobo, et Joanne, qua- consequentibus, &c. ib. c. 3. luor his tantum: cæteros enim necdum elegerat, nec ipsum m Quare - Moysen non accipitis, cum Christus dicat : Matthæum. Ex his ergo quatuor unus, id est, Joannes, Moyses de me scripsit ; et si crederetis Moysi, crederetis Evangelium scripsit? Ita. Alicubi hoc ipse commemorat? mihi--? Nam ego quidem scripturas ejus perscrutatus, --Nusquam. Quomodo ergo, quod Joannes non testatur, qui nullas ibidem de Christo prophetias inveni. -Unde in ingenti fuit in monte, Matthæus hoc scripsit, qui longo intervallo,, positus æstu, ratione cogebar in alterum e duobus ; ut aut postquam Jesus de monte descendit, secutus est eum? Ac falsum pronuntiarem capitulum hoc, aut mendacem Jesum. per hoc de hoc ipso primo ambigitur, utrum Jesus tale aliquid. Sed id quidem alienum pietatis erat, Deum existimare mendixerit, quia testis idoneus tacet, loquitur autem minus ido.. titum. 'Rectius ergo visum est, scriptoribus adscribere falsiseus; ut interim permiserimus nobis injuriam fecisse Mat
cisse Mat- tatem, quam veritatis auctori mendacium, &c. ld. I. 16, c. thæum, donec et ipsum probemus hæc non scripsisse.
i, üi. Faust. 1. 17, c, in
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, 66 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.
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.
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.
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.
Faustus often says that " he receives the gospel ; meaning thereby the doctrine taught by Jesus Christ.
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.
1 3 γαρ δεχονται τον βαπτισης Ιωαννην, τυγχανοντα ένα k Και ποσα εσιν ειπειν δια των ευαγγελιων, και των αποσTvis gananas ypaons. Didym. contr. Macich. p. 214.
τολων, εις ελεγχος της το Μαγεντος μανίας
τ8 σωτηγος '6 Την δε παλαιαν γραφην κωμωδει, Μωσεα και αυτον, και ομολογBντος την παλαιας διαθηκην, και μονον, αλλα και αυτοι της προφητας, και τον προδρομον. ---
Phot, cod. 179, αποσολοι. κ. λ. Ιd. H. 66, C. 43, m.
Manichæus nobis consurgit repente, qui legem ¿ Aiebat autem, Joannem - regnurn cælorum prædicare ; dicit abolitam, et solos Novi Testamenti legendos libros. Adva nam et per abscissionem capitis ejus hoc esse indicatum, quod, Pelag. 1. 2. T. 4, p. 510. omnibus prioribus et superioribus ejus abscissis, posteriora sola
m. Accipis Evangelium? Et maxime. Faust. 1. 2, c. la servanda sint. Arch. cap. 40, p. 70. Vid. ib. c. 13, p. 25, 26. Accipis Evangeliom? Tu me interrogas, utrum accipiam, in d Beaus. T. i. p. 289.
quo idipsum apparet, quia quæ jubet observo. Nisi • Ει δε κακεινο προφεροντο, το λεχθεν υπο τε βαπτισε Ιωαννε adhuc nescis, quid sit quod Evangelium nuncupatur. Est
-ακετωσαν, ότι και δυνανται προφερειν αφ' ων μη παραδε- enim nihil aliud, quam prædicatio et mandatum Christi. Id. xorta.. Did. ib. p. 213, 214.
1.5, c. 1. f Επειδη γαρ τα ευαγγελια μεμελετηται αυτοις, εκ των n quod Novum Testamentum Jesum condidisse utrique EuQYYENIWv mporwex em Ó Fley Xos. Serap. ap. Canis. T. i. p. fatemur. Id. I. 18, c. 1. 54, infr. m.
• Sed offensus duorum Evangelistarum maxime dissensione, • See p. 146.
qui genealogiam ejus scribunt, Lucæ et Matthæi, hæsi in* Το ευαγγελιον παραδεχομενοι τον νομον και παραδεχονται.
quemnam potissimum sequerer..
-infinitâ ergo Tit. I. 3, p. 140, f.
eorum prætermissa lite, ad Joannem Marcumque me Parner yap tas duo drabnxas gydytias agosarannas. Hær, contuti; nec impariter a duobus ad duos, et ab Evangelistis 66, e, 42, in,
ad ejusdem nominis professores. Faust. 1. 3, c.is
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.'
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 e approving or admitting the authority of the gospel and the apostle.
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 thatMatthew 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 ñi. 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
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.
3. Not to add, what is also well observed by Augustine elsewhere, that k 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.
a Quibus præsentibus ? Peiro, Andrea, Jacobo, et Joanne. potius dicat, Vidit me, et vocavit me, et secutus sum: nisi quia
Ex his quatuor unus, id est, Joannes, Evangelium constat hæc Matthæum non scripsisse, sed alium nescio quem scripsit? Ita. Faust. I. 17, c. i.
sub ejus nomine ? &c. Id. 1. 17, c. 1. b. Deinde cepit dicere plurima ex Lege, multa etiam de h Vid. Joseph. de B. J. 1, 2, c. 20, n. 4, 5, et passim. Evangetio, et Apostolo Paulo, quæ sibi videntur esse con- i Sed non usque adeo imperitum putaverim, ut nec legerit, traria. Arch. c. 40, p. 69.
nec audierit, solere scriptores rerum gestarum, cum in saam αποσπαρασσων δε ρητα τινα το θεις ευαγγελια, , personam venerint, ita se contexere tamquam de alio narrant, και επιςολων τ8 θειο Παυλό, πειραται τρελBν αυτα, και quod de se narrant. Contr. Faust. I. 17, c. 4. προς την οικειαν δυσσεβειαν ελκειν. Ρh. Cod. 179, p. 405.
qui etiam de Evangelico [al. Evangelio,) tantæ Aut si talis oratio impudens est, sicuti est, cur in auctoritatis culmine omnibus noto, mentiri sic audet, ut non Pauli Epistolis, cur in quatuor Evangelii libris ea valere ali- Matthæum, ne apostolici nominis pondere comprimatur, sed quid putant? De Util. Cred. cap. 3, n. 7.
nescio quem alium sub Matthæi nomine, velit pulari scripsisse Nam quæro ab eis, utrum bonum sit delectari lectione de Christo, quod non vult credere, et quod calumniosâ verApostoli, et utrum bonum sit Evangelium disserere ? Rese sutiâ refutare conatur, Aug. contr. Faust. I. 23, c. 6. pondebunt ad singula : Bonum est. Conf. I. 8, c. X. p. 24. | See before, p. 182, 183.
r.Videamus, quemadmodum ipse Dominus in Evangelio m Quâ potestate Petrus apostolus usus est in eo libro quem nobis præceperit esse vivendum ; quomodo etiam Paulus isti non accipiunt, quoniam manifeste continet Paracleti ad. Apostolus. Has enim scripturas illi condemnare non audent. ventum, id est, conslatoris Sancti Spiritûs. - Contr. De M. E. C. c. 7, n. 13, in.
Adim, c. 17, D. 5. Quod non solum in Actibus Apostolorum & ut interim permiserimus nobis injuriam fecisse canonicis, quos isti non accipiunt, ne de adventu veri Paracleti, Matthæum, donec et ipsum probemus hæc non scripsisse, quem promisit Dominus, convineantur, evidenter appareti sed alium nescio quem, sub nomine ejus : quod docet et ipsa Contr. Faust. I. 19, c. 31. Deinde Paracletum sicut promise lectionis ejusdem Matthæi obliqua narratio. Quid enim dicit ? sum legimus in iis libris, quorum non omnia vultis accipere; Et cum transiret Jesus, vidit hominem sedentem ad telonium, ita et missum legimus in eo libro, quom Bominare etiam for nomine Matthæum, et vocavit eum. At ille confestim surgens, midatis. In Actibus quippe Apostolorum apertissime secutus est eum. Et quis ergo de se ipso scribens, dicat, legitur inissus die Pentecostes Spiritus Sanetus.ib. l. 32, c. 15. Vidit hominem, et vocavit eum, et secutus est eum : ac non
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 ofArchelaus.
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: · Iff 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 d Vid. Arch. c. 34. p. 59, c. 36, p. 63. est Actus Apostolorum, repudiant. Aug. ad Ceret. Ep. 237,
Ει δε Μανιχαιοι προς αυτον μεμηνοτες, και το [al. 253), n. 7. Vid. supra. 183, not. a
λογιον διαβαλλεσι, μητε τον νόμον τιμωντες, καν εκ τε παραλb See the general Index in the word Manichæi
ληλα δυσωπεισθωσαν, καν η σκια Πετρε την γνωμην εκείνων eis quidam Actus Apostolorum repudiant. 2. Tom. Ep. 237. αισχυνετω, κ. λ. Serap. p. 47, f.
c'Hoc enim de illo libro fecerunt, qui Actus Apostolorum Και επειδη τοιαυτας αιτιας και τοιαυτας επιθυμίας εν ταξει inscribitur. Quod eoruin consilium cum mecum ipse per- πονηριας και κακιας τιθεν ται, τι ερασι περι Παυλε; δεις tracto, nequeo satis mirari. Tanta enim liber iste habet,
ποτε τον λεγομενον βαριησον, τον μαγον, επετιμησε, , quæ similia sunt his quæ accipiunt, ut magnæ stultitiæ mihi videatur, non et hunc accipere, et, si quid ibi eos offendit, p. 155.
Sepron Twy oplaauw Eipyarato. 'Tit. contr. Manich: 1.3, falsum atque immissum dicere. Aut si talis oratio impudens 8 Τι δε ερασι σερι το Πετρα
τον μεν Ανανιαν νεκρών est, sicuti est, cur in Pauli Epistolis, cur in quatuor Evangelii edite, my de Larpeipar TW autw Muatiw mapadsowney ; libris, ea valere aliquid putant, in quibus haud scio an multo Id. ib. plura sint proportione, quam in illo libro esse potuerunt, que ► Vid. H. 66, c. 61, p. 674. B.c. 62, p. 675, B. et C. a corruptoribus interjecta credi volunt? De Ut. Cred. c. 3,
ώσπερ και εν ταις Πραξεσιν των αποστολων Στεφα0.7.
VOS, X. 2. Didym. contr. Manich. p. 208.
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.
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.
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.
Augustine speaks of it as an undoubted and well known thing, that the Manichees read, admired, and commended St. Paul's epistles..
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 suppose there is no doubt but they received thirteen epistles of the apostle Paul.
otius, speaking of Agapius, in the * passage above cited, says, he quotes passages of the divine gospel, and of the epistles of the divine Paul.
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 anda second to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, 9 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
quemadmodum et illud, quod de Petro soletis adferre, tamquam idem viderit aliquando de cælo demissum vas, in quo essent omnia genera animalium, et serpentes. Faust. 1.31, c. 3.
• De mandato vero abstinendi a cibis communibus, visum vobis est et vehementer creditum, morticina quidem et immalata esse sane immunda. I. 32, c. 3. <B. T. i. p. 293.
De Util. Cred. cap. 3. • Certe et ipsi Manichæi legunt apostolum Paulum, et laudant et bonorant; et ejus epistolas male interpretando multos. decipiunt. De Gen. contr. Manich. 1. i. c. 2, n. 3.
Et tamen epistolas apostolorum, quibus hæc omnia cone tinentur, tenetis, legitis, prædicatis. Contr. Faust. 1. 12, c. 24.
ut quidquid est in evangelio vel epistolis canonicis, quo adjuvari hæresiin suam putent, id esse a Christo, et Apostolis dictum teneant atque suadeant. Contr. Faust. I. 22, C. 15.
"Tii. p. 292. 'Qui etiam iri scripturis canonicis Testamenti Novi, hoc
est in veris evangelicis et apostolicis literis, non accipiunt omnia,
ad Ceret. Ep. 237, [al. 253,) et passim. * See p. 213, note
Apostolum accipis ? Et maxime. Faust. I. xi. e. i. m Aut si vobis secundum quod ad Romanos scribit, credere cordi est. l. xi. c. 1. "Quapropter idem rursum Apostolus ad Corinthios dicit.
- 1. 24, c. 1, fin.
Scribensque ad Corinthios. l. xi. c. J. et passim. P Quippe Paulus inde Galatas arguit. I. 8, C. E. 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.
Serap. p. 46, m. and see before, p. 146.