f

с

2

с

ing disciples gradually, and not completing at once the number of his apostles; his conference with Nicodemus; the imprisonment of John the Baptist, his message to Jesus, and the answer sent back to him; Peter's confession, that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God; that unclean spirits crying out owned Jesus to be the son of God; many miracles of our Lord, his curing a man blind from his birth, raising the dead, the woman healed upon touching Christ's garment; the history of the centurion, whose servant Christ healed; the escape of Barabbas at the petition of the Jews; and the penitent thief, and Christ's acceptance of him; Thomas's ' unbelief, and Christ's shewing him the marks of his wounds; and many other things.

g

Augustine having quoted the histories of the dæmoniacs at the tombs, and of the barren figtree, which withered at Christ's word, particularly observes, that these were things which they had never pretended to be interpolations.

Faustus, quoting the gospel, calls it scripture.

n

m

i

I shall here in the margin put down a number of passages, shewing the respect which the Manichees had for the apostles of Jesus, though I have before taken notice of some of them. That the apostle Paul should contradict himself, or teach different doctrine at one time, or in one epistle, from what he had taught in another, is a thought which Faustus rejects with indignation.

VI. What comes to be considered by us in the next place, is, their pretence that the scrip'tures of the New Testament were corrupted, having been interpolated by the catholics: and therefore, as Augustine said in his summary account, they took what they liked, and rejected the rest. What has been already said may be of some use to help us in understanding this notion of theirs. Nevertheless divers passages of ancient authors should be observed by us, that we may the more distinctly perceive how far they carried this principle.

1. Some might complain if I did not largely transcribe so ancient a writer in this controversy as Titus of Bostra, who, I think, has used the strongest expressions of any of their adversaries in speaking of this matter. They are such as these:

Mani, and his followers,' he says, for supporting their doctrines, quote some texts of scripture, and wrest them from their right meaning.'

The Old Testament, even the law and the prophets, he ascribes to what he calls the evil principle. The gospels, and other parts of the New Testament,' he says, are from the good principle; but they are not uncorrupt: for many things of Hyle, or the bad principle, are mixed with them. For which reason we are to make a distinction, and are to follow, and ⚫ make use of those parts only which belong to what he calls the good principle.' He adds,

quia nec spiritibus immundis, cum iidem Jesum esse filium Dei exserte indissimulanterque confiterentur, profuit.-1. 16, c. 1.

.! Nam et cœcum a nativitate lumen videre natura non sinit, quod tamen Jesus potenter operatus videtur erga hujus generis cœcos · ? manum aridam sanâsse, vocem ac verbum privatis his per naturam redonâsse; mortuis et in tabem jam resolutis corporibus compage redditâ, vitalem redintegråsse spiritum, quem non ad stuporem adducat? Quæ tamen omnia nos communiter facta ab eodem credimus Christiani. 1. 26, c. 2.

8 l. 33, c. 2.

" An Barabbas, latro ille insignis, qui non solum in ligno suspensus minime est, sed etiam Judæorum rogatu emissus e carcere, magis fuit benedictus, quam ille qui cum Christo de cruce adscendit in cœlum? 1. 14, c. i.

1. 16, c. 8.

* Sed quoniam privilegio quodam vos tuemini, ut de scripturis opprimi nequeatis, dicendo eas esse falsatas; quamquam ex quæ commemoravi de arbore, et de grege porcorum, nun

quam a corruptoribus immissa esse dixistis. De Mor. Manich.

c. 17, n. 55.
1 ——

ut scriptura testatur. Nam pannum, inquit, novum nemo assuit vestimento veteri, &c. I. 8, c. i.

m Ut fere Christo placet, et ejus Apostolis, et nobis profecto. Faust. 1. 24, cap. 1.

Neque id temere aut præsumtive, sed a Christo discentes, et ejus apostolis. ibid. in fin.

Sed quærendum potius est, quid ipse de se, quidve apostoli sui de eodem prædicârint. Id. l. 19, c. 1.

Ecce quid Apostolus dixit, ecce quid Evangelista. Fel. Act. 1. 2, c. 2, ap. Aug. T. 8.

" Non equidem crediderim apostolum Dei contraria sibi scribere potuisse, et modo hanc, modo illam de Domino nostro habuisse sententiam.--Alioquin, absit apostolum Dei, quod ædificavit, unquam destruere. Faust. 1. xi. c. i.

ο ρησεις τινας των άγιων γραφων εκβιαζόμενος προς την αυτό ψευδολογιαν. Tit. 1. 3. p. 135, f.

• Των δε γραφων τας μεν παλαιότερας ανατίθησι τη προς αυτό λεγομένη κακια, νομον τε και προφητας· τα δε ευαγγελια, και τα λοιπα της καινης διαθηκης μαθήματα, παρα μεν το αγαθό, ώς οιεται, δεδοσθαι, φησιν εδε ταυτα μην βλασφημίας εύρετης διισχυρίζεται δι' όλες καθαρεύειν, το, ὡς φησιν, εναντις θεω· ενυπάρχειν δε και τετοις ώσπερ κατα τινα μίξιν, πολλα της υπ' αυτό καλεμενης ύλης και χρηναι ταυτά, πέμελοντα μονά καθ' έαυτα, καταλίπειν α τη τε αγαίο μεριδί ib. p. 136.

that Mani pretends to correct the holy scriptures, and, acting here the assumed character of the Paraclete, he takes away a large part of the New Testament, and leaves in it a few things only, so spoiling all its harmony.'

b

Titus says farther: Because they honour the name of Christ, they pretend to honour also the gospels. But if they did really honour the gospels they would neither take away from them, nor add to them. Whereas they have added to the gospels what they pleased, and have taken away from them what they thought fit: still calling it the gospel, however, when it is not; for they have not the body [or substance] of the gospel.'

Presently afterwards he says that they had treated the scriptures worse than the heathens: for they only rejected them, whereas these men, pretending to receive the gospels, have abused, 'perverted and adulterated them.'

d.

More to the like purpose may be seen in Titus. But I suppose I have transcribed enough to satisfy every one concerning the nature of the charge which he brings against this people. And there is reason to think that he aggravates and exaggerates beyond the truth. Therefore Mill says judiciously, they did not alter the gospels; they only said of those passages, which they did not like, that they were additions, made long ago by some corrupters of the scriptures.' And Beausobre has shewn largely, that Titus has in part misrepresented the case. Jerom intimates either that the Manichees curtailed the copies of the New Testament, or did not receive and admit the authority of every thing found in the copies generally used by the catholics.

What Photius says of Agapius was observed formerly. He does not expressly charge Agapius with pretending that the books of the New Testament were interpolated.

Augustine often speaks of this matter. Divers of his passages must be produced.

The general account which he gives in his Retractations of what he wrote against Faustus, is this: I wrote a large work against Faustus, blaspheming the law and the prophets, and their God, and the incarnation of Christ, and saying that the scriptures of the New Testament, by which he is confuted, are interpolated.'

He frequently speaks to this purpose: When any text is alleged against them from the gospels which they cannot answer, they say it is interpolated.' Again, When they are * greatly pressed with the authority of the scriptures, they cry out: "That passage was inserted in the gospel by the corrupters of scripture." When the words of scripture are clearly against them, so that they can find no way to pervert them, they betake themselves to their common answer, and say the passage is an interpolation.'

m

In an epistle to Ceretius, having represented their opinion concerning the Old Testament, he adds: And " in the canonical scriptures of the New Testament, that is, the genuine evan

a

* Ούτω των άγιων γραφων την διορθωσιν, ὡς μιεται, καθ' ἑαυτον μεταχειριζόμενος, και δια τετο μάλιςα τολμων παρα κλητος είναι δοκειν, τα μεν πλείονα περιγράφει, βραχιά δε καταλιπων, και της καινης διαθηκης ποθεντα των συγγενων λόγων την συμφωνίαν. ib. p. 136.

Αλλ' επειδη τετιμηται το ονομα Ιησε, προσποιενται εδει yap αυτός, είγε τα ευαγγελια ετίμων, μη περιτέμνειν τα ευαγγελία, μη μέρη των ευαγγελιων εξυφελείν, μη έτερα προσθηναι προσγεγραφηκασι γεν όσα βεβεληνται, και εξυφειλαντο όσα κεκρίκασι και λοιπον ονόματι καλεσι το ευαγγελιον, μη τετήρηκότες το σωμα. Tit. 1. 3, p. 139.

C

-οἱ δε ειληφεναι δοκόντες, ενεβατευσαν, ενεχόρευσαν, ενεκαπήλευσαν τοις γραμμασι ib. p. 139. d Id. ib. p. 140, 141.

* Non quidem palam rejectis istis capitulis, sed dissimulatis, seu ita apud animum repudiatis; ut nihilominus, cum ab eis premerentur, haud necesse haberent, cum Marcionitis, reformare codices suos, sive ex ipsis tollere quæ sibi minus probata fuerint; sed sufficeret dixisse, loca illa jam olim a corruptoribus S. textûs fuisse inserta.- -Mill. Proleg. n. 726. Gemina istis, ipsiusque textûs depravationem objicit Manichæis Titus. Dicit eos circumcidisse Evangelia.- -Verum criminatio hæc quousque valeat, et quomodo interpretanda sit, ex supra dictis liquet non mutilantes quidem Scripturas, textumve ipsum quovis modo mutantes. Id n. 761.

'An forte dicturi sunt, sicut solent dicere, cum scripturarum eos urget auctoritas, hoc capitulum a corruptoribus scripturarum insertum esse Evangelio? Contr. Adim. c. 15, n. 1, m.

Hoc est quod paulo ante dixi, quia, ubi sic manifestâ veritate isti præfocantur, ut, obsessi dilucidis verbis sanctarum scripturarum, exitum in eis fallaciæ suæ reperire non possint, id testimonium, quod prolatum est, falsum esse respondent. Contr. Faust. I. xi. c. 2.

" Qui etiam in scripturis canonicis testamenti novi, hoc est, in veris Evangelicis et Apostolicis literis, non accipiunt omnia,

gelical and apostolical writings, they do not receive all, but what they like. In every book they mark the places, taking such as they think favourable to their errors, and setting aside the ⚫ rest as interpolations.'

a

He somewhere calls this a certain privilege of theirs, by which they endeavoured to defend themselves against arguments brought from a text of scripture.

b

In another place he says: This is their principle Whatever is found in the gospels, or in the epistles, by which they imagine their error may be supported, that they allow and maintain to have been said by Christ and his apostles: whatever appears contrary to them in the same

• books they make no scruple to say, without shame, has been inserted by some corrupters of scripture. By which diabolical privilege of theirs they think themselves secure against every thing that can be alleged from scripture.'

Hence we learn that, according to them, the apostolical epistles, as well as the gospels, had been corrupted.

C

He elsewhere says that they receive and approve some things in the books of the New Testament: and that when asked, why they rejected and found fault with other things in the same books, they answered, because those passages had been inserted by corrupters of the • scripture.'

d

Augustine intimates that this principle was taught by Mani himself, to accept whatever 'favoured him in the New Testament, and reject what did not.'

It is found in The Acts of Archelaus. That bishop argued in favour of the Old Testa ment from those words of Christ, Matt. v. 17: "I came not to destroy, but to fulfil." To which Mani answers, that Christ never spoke those words. For since in fact he destroyed the law, 'we ought to conclude his discourses agreed therewith.'

The same thing is implied in some charges of Archelaus against Mani.

g

h

And Faustus speaks of it as the common Manichæan doctrine, and taught them by their master.

2. There is a long paragraph of Faustus upon this point, which I shall transcribe largely. I need not insert it all here, because there are in it many tautologies: but I shall endeavour to represent the whole of his argument in his own words.

Says this Manichæan bishop: If you receive the gospel, you ought to receive all things 'written therein. And do you, who receive also the Old Testament, believe every thing written ⚫ therein? Excepting the prophecies concerning the king of the Jews, who was to come, whom 'you take to be Jesus, and some moral precepts, you no more value it than Paul does, who considers it as dung. Why then may not I do the like with the New Testament-take what is right and conducive to my salvation, and reject those things which have been fraudulently 'foisted in by your ancestors, and disfigure it, and spoil its beauty and excellence?

a Sed quoniam privilegio quodam vos tuemini, ut de scripturis opprimi nequeatis, dicendo eas esse falsatas. De M. Manich. c. 17, n. 55..

An forte, quæ de Novo Testamento protulimus, ipsa quo que audent dicere falsa esse, atque perversa, privilegio suo diabolico, ut, quidquid est in Evangelio vel Epistolis canonicis, quo adjuvari hæresim suam putent, id esse a Christo et apostolis dictum teneant atque suadeant, quidquid autem ex iisdem codicibus adversus eos sonuerit, immissum ab infalsatoribus, ore impudenti ac sacrilego non dubitent dicere? Cui furori eorum, auctoritatem omnium librorum exstinguere atque abolere conanti, jam supra-non pauca respondi. Contr. Faust. 1.22, c. 15.

Vos scripturas Novi Testamenti, tamquam falsatas corruptasque, pulsatis.- -Vos autem omnia, quæ in libris Novi Testamenti non accipitis, omnino reprehenditis, nec a Christo, nec ab apostolis ejus, dicta vel conscripta asseveratis.Cum itaque a vobis quæritur, quare non omnia in libris Novi Testamenti accipitis, sed in eis libris, in quibus approbatis aliqua, multa respuitis, reprehenditis, accusatis, a corruptoribus inserta esse contenditis. Contr. Faust. 1. 32, c. 8.

Nam sicut te Manichæus impiam docuit perversitatem, ut

ex evangelio quod hæresim tuam non impedit accipias, quod autem impedit, non accipias. Contr. Faust. 1. 18, c. 7.

Ego audiens dicebam eis sermonem evangelicum, quomodo dixit Dominus noster Jesus Christus, Non veni solvere legem, sed implere.' Ille vero ait, nequâquam eum hoc dixissesermonem. Cum enim ipsam inveniamus eum resolvisse legem, necesse est nos hoc potius intelligere quod fecit. Arch. c. 40, p. 69.

f

et in nostris libris, sicut etiam adversus me disputans fecit, assertionem suam proferre, quædam in his accusans, quædam permutans, solo Christi nomine adjecto. Arch. cap. 54, p. 99.

Et tamen me quidem jam adversus capituli hujus necessitudinem Manichæa fides reddidit tutum, quæ principio mihi non cuncta quæ ex salvatoris nomine scripta leguntur, passim credere persuasit. Faust. I. 18, c. 3.

h Quare indeficientes ego præceptori meo refero gratias, qui me similiter labentem retinuit, &c. Id. l. 19, c. 5, in.

i Si accipis evangelium, credere omnia debes, quæ in eodem scripta sunt. Quid enim tu, quia vetus accipis testamentum, idcircone credis omnia passim, quæ in eodem scripta sunt? Nempe solas indidem excerpentes prophetias, quæ regem Judæis venturum significabant, quia ipsum putatis esse Jesum; et pauca quædam disciplinæ civilis præcepta communia, ut est, non occides, non machaberis, cætera prætermittitis, et arbi

And how much more allowable is it for us to take this method, since it is certain that the • New Testament was not written by Christ himself, nor by his apostles, but a long while after their time by some unknown persons; who, lest they should not be credited when they wrote: of affairs they were little acquainted with, affixed to their works the names of apostles, or of such as were supposed to have been their companions, and saying they were written by them?, Whereby, in my opinion, they have greatly injured the disciples of Christ, making them the • authors of books in which there are many errors and contradictions. For is not this to abuse the disciples of Jesus, who certainly agreed, and were all of one mind? We, perceiving this, have taken the only reasonable method; which is to examine every thing according to the rules of sound reason and judgment, accepting those things which are useful for establishing our faith, and are honourable to the Lord Jesus Christ and Almighty God his Father, and rejecting all other things which are not for his honour nor our benefit.

b

Whether the prophets prophesied of Jesus will be considered hereafter. In the mean time I say, if Jesus, foretold in the Old Testament, teaches that some things in it are to be received, and many others rejected, in like manner the Comforter, promised in the New Testament, • teaches us what of it we ought to receive and what to reject. Of whom Jesus, when he promised him, says in the gospel: in the gospel: " He shall lead you into all truth, and teach you all things, and bring • all things to your remembrance:" John xvi. 13. Why therefore may not we do the same with ⚫ the New Testament, through the Comforter, that you do with the Old by Jesus?especially, since, as before said,, it was not written by Christ, nor by his apostles.

с

To conclude, therefore, as you in the Old take only the prophecies and moral precepts and have rejected circumcision, and sacrifices, and the sabbath, and its rest, and unleavened bread; what absurdity is there, if we also receive in the New those things only which we find ❝to the honour of the Son, and said by himself or his apostles, but perfect and fully instructed; and reject other things said by them [that is, the apostles] in their ignorance, or falsely and impudently ascribed to them, and since handed about as theirs? I mean that Jesus was born of a woman, circumcised like a Jew; that he sacrificed like a heathen, was meanly baptized, led ⚫ about in the wilderness, and miserably tempted by the devil. Excepting these, and the quotations of the Old Testament, fraudulently inserted by those writers, we receive all the rest; especially his mystical crucifixion, in which are manifested the wounds of our own souls; as also his salutary precepts, and his parables, and all his divine discourses, teaching the difference of two natures, of which there can be no doubt but they are his.?

tramini, esse non minus atque eadem quæ Paulus putavit stercora. Quid ergo peregrinum hoc, aut quid mirum est, si ego de testamento novo purissima quæque legens et meæ saluti convenientia, prætermitto quæ a vestris majoribus inducta fallaciter, et majestatem ipsius et gratiam decolorant? Faust. I. 32, cap. i.

præsertim quod nec ab ipso scriptum constat, nec ab ejus apostolis, sed longo post tempore a quibusdam incerti nominis viris, qui, ne sibi non haberetur fides, scribentibus quæ nescirent, partim apostolorum, partim eorum qui apostolos secuti viderentur, nomina scriptorum suorum frontibus in diderunt, asseverantes secundum eos se scripsisse quae scripserunt. Quo magis mihi videntur injuriâ gravi affecisse discipulos Christi: quia quæ dissona iidem et repugnantia sibi scriberent, ea referrent ad ipsos, et secundum eos hæc scribere se profitentur evangelia, quae tantis sint referta erroribus, tantis contrarietatibus narrationum simul ac sententiarum, ut nec sibi prorsus, nec inter se ipsa conveniant. Quid ergo aliud est, quam calumniari bonos, et Christi discipulorum concordem cœtum in crimen devocare discordia? Quæ quia nos legentes animadvertimus, cordis obtutu sanissimo æquissimum judicavimus utilibus acceptis ex iisdem, id est, iis quæ et fidem nostram ædificent, et Christi Domini atque ejus Patris omnipotentis Dei propagent gloriam, cætera repudiare, quæ nec ipsorum majestati, nec fidei nostræ conveniant. ib. c. 2.

b

Sed an prophetæ Jesum præsagiverint, postea vide bimus. Interim ad hæc me respondere oportet, quia si Jesus, per testamentum vetus annuntiatus, nunc dijudicat et carminat, docetque pauca ejus accipienda esse, repudianda vero

quam plurima; et nobis Paracletus ex Novo Testamento promissus perinde docet, quid accipere ex eodem debeamus, et quid repudiare: de quo ultro Jesus, cum eum promitteret, dicit in Evangelio: Ipse vos inducet in omnem veritatem, et ipse vobis annuntiabit omnia, et commemorabit vos. Quapropter liceat tantum et nobis in Testamento Novo per Paracletum, quantum vobis in vetere licere ostenditis per Jesum: præsertim quod nec a Christo scriptum constat, ut diximus, nec ab ejus apostolis. ib. c. 6.

Quapropter ut vos ex Vetere Testamento solas admittitis prophetias, et illa quæ superius diximus civilia atque ad disciplinam vitæ communis pertinentia præcepta; supersedistis vero peritomen, et sacrificia, et sabbatum et observationem ejus, et azyma; quid ab re est, si et nos de Testamento Novo sola accipientes ea, quæ in honorem et laudem filii majestatis vel ab ipso dicta comperimus, vel ab ejus apostolis, sed jam perfectis ac fidelibus, dissimulavimus cætera, quæ aut simpliciter tunc et ignoranter a rudibus dicta, aut oblique et maligne ab inimicis objecta, aut impudenter a scriptoribus affirmata, et posteris tradita? dico autem hoc, ipsum natum ex feminâ turpiter, circumcisum judaïce, sacrificâsse gentiliter, baptizatum humiliter, circumductum a diabolo per deserta, et ab eo tentatum quam miserrime. His igitur exceptis, et si quid ei ab scriptoribus ex Testamento Vetere falsâ sub testificatione injectum est, credimus cætera; præcipue crucis ejus mysticam fixionem, quâ nostræ animæ passionis monstrantur vulnera; tum præcepta salutaria ejus, tum parabolas, cunctumque sermonem deificum, qui maxime duarum præferens naturarum discretionem, ipsius esse non venit in dubium, ib. c. 7.

a

I put in the margin another passage of Faustus, without translating it exactly, where he pretends that there are many differences and contrarieties in the gospels; and that the ancestors of the catholics had inserted many things, mingling their own words with the oracles of the Lord, which did not agree with the doctrine taught by him; and that the gospels were not written by Christ, nor his apostles, but a long while after them by some unknown men, half-Jews, who were not well informed, but put down any uncertain traditions which they met with; and then affixed to their own erroneous accounts the names of Christ's apostles or their companions. From all which he concludes, that men ought never to hear or read the gospels without caution, trying all things by their own reason and judgment, and admitting nothing but what, after strict examination, is found to be right.'

Such is the substance of a paragraph in the thirty-third and last book of the work of Faustus, so far at least as it is given us by Augustine.

b

I refer likewise in the margin to a place or two more, where he speaks somewhat distinctly of this matter.

VII. It is fit we should now make some remarks upon these passages.

1. It appears hence, that Augustine's account upon this head is just and right. The Manichees, or however those of Africa, took what they liked in the New Testament, and rejected what did not suit them. So Faustus evidently.

с

2. As for what Faustus says of the catholics not receiving every thing in the Old Testament, Augustine well answers, that they received every thing therein as of divine original and appointment; and allowed all things to be right for the time; those which they did not now follow, as well as the laws of true and real righteousness, by which they were still obliged. I have transcribed several passages of Augustine at the bottom of the page, supposing that they will not be disagreeable to the reader.

d

3. The Manichees, or however Faustus and his friends, denied that the gospels were written by the apostles and evangelists whose names they bear. Mr. Nye gives a different account of the sentiments of our Manichæan author. But it is manifest that Faustus speaks of the books of the New Testament commonly received by catholic Christians, or at least of the gospels. Beausobre is sensible of it, and speaking of this subject says, they denied the gospels to have ⚫ been written by the sacred authors whose names they bear; and denied it with surprising rash

с

'ness and assurance.'

4. Hence we perceive what in the gospels the Manichees received, and what not. They received our Lord's discourses and parables; the history of his preaching, miracles, crucifixion, and every thing else, excepting some few things most evidently contrary to their notions; as our Lord's nativity, circumcision, and the quotations from the Old Testament. Some might be apt to think they must have set aside a very large part of the New Testament, as interpolated: but from this passage of Faustus himself, and from many things already alleged, it may be perceived' that would be a wrong conclusion.

Nec immerito nos ad hujusmodi scripturas tam inconsonantes et varias, nunquam sane șine judicio ac ratione aures afferimus: sed, contemplantes omnia, et cum aliis alia conferentes, perpendimus utrum eorum quidque a Christo dici potuerit, necne. Multa ením a majoribus vestris eloquiis Domini nostri inserta verba sunt, quæ nomine signata ipsius cum ejus fide non congruant; præsertim, quia, ut jam sæpe probatum a nobis est, nec ab ipso hæc sunt, nec ab ejus apostolis scripta; sed, multo post eorum assumtionem, a nescio quibus, et ipsis inter se non concordantibus, semi-judæis, per famas opinionesque comperta sunt; qui tamen omnia eadem in apostolorum Domini conferentes nomina, vel eorum qui secuti apostolos viderentur, errores ac mendacia sua secundum eos se scripsisse mentiti sunt. Id. 1. 33, c. 3.

b Vid. Faust. 1. 18, c. 3, l. 19, c. 5.

laudamus, accipimus, approbamus: Sed quæ in his mandata corporali operatione non observamus, et rectissime tunc mandata intelligimus, et umbras futurorum esse didicimus, et nunc impleri cognoscimus. Id. ib. c. 14.

Hoc enim aliquâ verisimili ratione diceretur, si esset aliquid in Veteris Testamenti libris, quod nos diceremus non recte dictum, non divinitus jussum, non veraciter scriptum. Nihil horum dicimus; sed accipimus omnia, sive quæ observamus, ut recte vivamus; sive quæ non observamus, ut tamen et ipsa tunc in prophetia jussa et observata nunc jam compleri videamus. Id. ib. cap. 15.

4 See Steph. Nye's Defence of the Canon of the New Testament. p. 94—100.

* Nos hérétiques ayant supposè que les Evangiles n' avoient été écrits ni par des Apôtres, ni par des disciples des Apôtres, mais par des inconnus à demi-juifs, &c. Beaus. Hist. de Manich. T. i. p. 299. See also p. 296.

His autem exceptis, et testimoniis ex Veteri Testamento, quæ illis inserta sunt literis, cætera vos, secundum id quod Faustus loquitur, fatemini accipere. Aug. Contr. Faust. L32,

c. 19.