things, and changing others: that is, I think, perverting them. In a word, Mani perverted some texts of scripture; and some others, that were too hard for him, he censured, as additions, but did not alter the text of the New Testament himself.

6

a

Augustine may be reckoned a good witness for them here: For,' says he, if any one should charge you with having interpolated some texts alleged by you, as favourable to your cause, what would you say? Would you not immediately answer that it is impossible for you 'to do such a thing in books read by all Christians? And that if any such attempt had been 'made by you, it would have been presently discerned and defeated by comparing the ancient copies? Well then,' says Augustine, for the same reason that the scriptures cannot be corrupted by you, neither could they be corrupted by any other people.'

The scriptures therefore were not corrupted; for it was impossible: nor had the Manichees attempted it.

Nor has Augustine, that I remember, any where charged them with such an attempt: though, if there had been reason for it, there were many occasions to mention it. He often speaks of their charge against the catholics. Certainly therefore he would have returned it, if there had been any ground for it.

Moreover, it is evident from Augustine that the Manichees had no copies of the books of the New Testament, different from those used by the catholics: they often said, that the catholic copies were corrupted: but when called upon to produce others, more sincere and uncorrupt, they always declined it.

b

It is also very remarkable, which Augustine says, that when he was with them, and in their private discourses they insinuated that the scriptures of the New Testament had been corrupted by some men, who were desirous to mix Judaism with Christianity, they produced not any copies different from those commonly received.

d

Beausobre has vindicated the Manichees from the charge or suspicion of being the authors of several passages found in some copies of the New Testament. I refer to him: but I do not think it needful for me now to enter into particulars of that kind; I have said what is sufficient to render men easy upon this head.

IX. Augustine, in his Summary, said that the Manichees made use of apocryphal books, which they prefer to the canonical scriptures.' That they used such books is unquestionable: but what regard they had for them is not easily perceived by us now.

6

1. As we are now entering into this inquiry, and are to observe the proofs of the Manichees using apocryphal writings, and what they were, it may not be improper to take notice here of Augustine's definition of such books. Apocryphal books,' he says, are not such as are of authority [or received by the church,] and are kept secret: but they are books whose original is obscure, and which are destitute of proper testimonials; their authors being unknown, and 'their character either heretical, or suspected.' That passage is taken out of Augustine's answer to Faustus. A like description of such books may be seen in his work, entitled Of the City of God.

a Tamen cum ea de iis codicibus proferretis, quos dicitis falsatos, hoc ipsum illic immissum esse diceremus, quod illic de Manichæo sic dictum legeretur, ut de alio intelligere non possemus: quid faceretis, dicite mihi, nisi clamaretis, nullo modo vos potuisse falsare codices, qui jam in manibus essent omnium Christianorum? quia mox ut facere cœpissetis, vetustiorum exemplarium veritate convinceremini. Quâ igitur causâ a vobis corrumpi non possent, hac causâ a nemine potuerunt. Aug. contr. F. 1. 32. c. 16. Vid. et supra. p. 373. note ".

b Proferendus est namque tibi alius codex eadem continens, sed tamen incorruptus et verior, ubi sola desint ea quæ hic immissa esse criminaris. Ut si, verbi causâ, Pauli epistolam, quæ ad Romanos scripta est, corruptam esse contendis, aliam proferas incorruptam, vel alium codicem potius, in quo ejusdem Apostoli eadem epistola sincera et incorrupta conscripta sit. Non faciam, inquis, ne ipse corrupisse credar: hoc enim soletis dicere. De Mor. Ec. Cath. cap. 29. n. 61.

Quam [responsionem] quidem non facile palam promebant, sed nobis secretius, cum dicerent scripturas novi Testa

f

menti falsatas fuisse a nescio quibus, qui Judæorum legem inserere Christianæ fidei voluerunt, atque ipsi incorrupta exemplaria nulla proferrent. Confess. 1. 5. c. xi. n. 21.

Hist. de Manich. T. i. p. 342-344.

e Aliud est ipsos libros non accipere, et nullo vinculo detineri, quod Pagani de omnibus libris nostris, quod Judæi de novo Testamento faciunt, quod denique nos ipsi de vestris et aliorum hæreticorum, si quos suos et proprios habent, vel de iis qui appellantur apocryphi: non quod habendi sint in aliquâ auctoritate secretâ, sed quia nullâ testificationis luce declarati, de nescio quo secreto, nescio quorum præsumtione prolati sunt. Contr. Faust. 1. xi. c. 2.

f Omittamus igitur earum scripturarum fabulas, quæ apocryphæ nuncupantur, eo quod earum occulta origo non claruit patribus, a quibus usque ad nos auctoritas veracium Scripturarum certissimâ et notissimâ successione pervenit. In his autem apocryphis etsi invenitur aliqua veritas, tamen, propter multa falsa, nulla est canonica auctoritas. De Civ. Dei. 1. 15. c. 23. n. 4.

2. Let us now observe some farther proofs of the Manichees using apocryphal scriptures: at the same time we shall perceive, in good measure, what they were.

Photius says of Agapius, a celebrated Manichæan writer, that he makes use of the Acts of the twelve apostles, especially those of Andrew.

Philaster says that the Manichees, and divers other heretics, make use of apocryphal scriptures. He says particularly, that they have Acts of Andrew, John and Peter.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, having named the three disciples of Mani, Thomas, Buddas, and Hermas, adds: Let no man read the gospel according to Thomas: for it is not a work of one of the twelve apostles of Christ, but one of the three naughty disciples of Mani.' And in another place he says, The Manichees have written a gospel, entitled according to Thomas, by which the minds of the simple are corrupted.'

Faustus speaks as if he had some writings or histories of the apostles Peter, and Andrew, and Thomas, and John, which were not in the catholic canon. He certainly quotes The Acts of Paul and Thecla with a good deal of respect, as if he thought it a true history. Of this book I have said something already. Faustus says, The Virgin Mary was not of the tribe of Judah, but of Levi: forasmuch as 'her father was a priest, named Joachim.' Augustine, in his answer, calls the book, whence that particular was taken, an apocryphal piece of no authority. Beausobre makes no doubt but *that it was some book of Leucius.

Augustine often speaks of the Manichees using apocryphal scriptures. In his book against Adimantus he quotes one of those books, containing a history of the apostle Thomas. In the same work he relates " another history of the apostle' Peter, taken from their apocryphal scriptures, and probably from the same work where was the forecited history concerning Thomas: and in the twenty-second book of his work against Faustus he relates the same account of Thosed ex tribu Levi, unde sacerdotes: quod ipsum palam est, quia eadem patrem habuit sacerdotem quemdam nomine Joachim, cujus tamen in hac generatione nulla usquam habita mentio est. Faust. 1. 23. c. 4.

mas from the apocryphal scriptures used by the Manichees, which, he there says, were composed by some unknown fabulous authors under the names of apostles.

a

In his answer to an anonymous author, whom he styles an adversary of the law and the prophets, he observes, that author alleged passages out of apocryphal writings under the names of the apostles Andrew and John: which, he says, if they were really theirs, would have been received by the church, which has subsisted with an uninterrupted succession of bishops, from the times of the apostles to our own.

b

In the disputes with Felix the Manichee, Augustine puts him in mind of a passage of The Acts of Leucius, called Acts of the Apostles, one of the apocryphal scriptures, not received by the catholic church, but much esteemed by the Manichees, as he says.

d

The same passage is also quoted, as from Leutius or Leucius, by the author De Fide against the Manichees: who also afterwards quotes the same books of Leucius, entitled Acts of the Apostles, and relates thence a story concerning the apostle Andrew.

3. As we have now had sufficient proofs of the Manichees using apocryphal scriptures, and Leucius has been named, I shall next give some account of this man, who is usually esteemed a great forger of such books.

In the first place I shall take notice of his works, and the ancient authors who have mentioned him; secondly, his opinions; thirdly, his time: after which I intend to add some remarks upon the apocryphal scriptures made use of by the Manichees.

(1) I would give some account of the books ascribed to Leucius, and shew the places of ancient authors who have mentioned him: but I must be allowed to be brief. They who are desirous of fuller satisfaction may look into Fabricius, Jones, Beausobre, and others: and possibly I may some time have another opportunity to take farther notice of him.

с

f

g

Leucius is expressly named in two or three passages just cited from Augustine, and the author De Fide: and possibly he is the author of all the other apocryphal pieces before taken notice of from Faustus and Augustine, though he is not there named.

i

Photius gives an account of a book entitled The Travels of the Apostles: in which are 'contained Acts of Peter, John, Andrew, Thomas, Paul. The author is Leucius Charinus, as the book itself' shews.'

He is mentioned by name in the Decree of Gelasius. All his books are declared to be apocryphal.

I

He is mentioned in like manner by pope Innocent the first in one of his epistles.

A large fragment of his Travels of the Apostles is cited" in the second council of Nice. He is mentioned " in the supposititious letter of Jerom to Chromatius and Heliodorus, and called Seleucus.

(2) In the next place I shall speak a word or two of the opinions of Leucius. The account

sit aut conficta narratio, nihil mea nunc interest. Certe enim Manichæi, a quibus illæ scripturæ, quas canon ecclesiasticus respuit, tamquam veræ ac sinceræ acceptantur, saltem hinc coguntur sateri, &c. Contr. Faust. 1. 22. c. 79.

Quæ

a Sane de apocryphis iste posuit testimonia, quæ sub nominibus apostolorum Andreæ Joannisque conscripta sunt. si illorum essent, recepta essent ab ecclesiâ, quæ ab illorum temporibus per episcoporum successiones certissimas, usque ad nostra deinceps tempora perseverat. Contr. Adv. L. et P. 1. i. c. 20. in.

Habetis etiam hoc in scripturis apocryphis, quas canon quidem catholicus non admittit; vobis autem tanto graviores sunt, quanto a catholico canone secluduntur. Aliquid etiam inde commemorem, cujus ego auctoritate non teneor, sed tu convinceris. In Actibus scriptis a Leucio, quos tamquam Actus Apostolorum scribit, habes ita positum: Etenim speciosa figmenta, &c. Act. cum. Fel. 1. 2, c. 6.

In Actibus etiam conscriptis a Leucio, quos ipsi accipiunt, sic scriptum est; Etenim speciosa figmenta, &c. De Fid. c. 5. ap. Aug. T 8, in App.

Attendite in Actibus Leucii, quos sub nomine Apostolorum scribit, qualia sint quæ accipitis de Maxiinilla uxore Egetis: Ibi etiam scriptum est, quod cum eadem Maximilla et Iphidamia simulissent ad audiendum apostolum Andream, puerulus quidam speciosus, quem vult Leucius vel

Deum vel certe angelum intelligi, commendaverit eos Andreæ apostolo. De Fid. cap. 38.

Cod. Apocr. N. T.

f Of the canon of scripture, vol. i.

g Hist. de Manich. T. i. p. 348, &c.

i

h Act. cum Fel. 1. 2, c. 6. De Fide c. 5, et 38.

Η Ανεγνώσθη βιβλιον, αἱ λεγομεναι των Αποςόλων περιοδοι εν αἷς περιείχοντο πράξεις Πετρο, Ιωάννε, Ανδρες, Θωμα, Παύλο. Γράφει δε αυτας, ὡς δηλοι το αυτο βιβλιον, Λεύκιος Xapivos. Phot. Cod. 114, p. 292.

* Libri omnes, quos fecit Leucius discipulus diaboli, apocryphi. Gelas. ap. Labb. Conc. T. 4, p. 1264.

Cætera autem, quæ vel sub nomine Matthiæ, sive Jacobi minoris, vel sub nomine Petri et Joannis, quæ a quodam Leucio scripta sunt, vel sub nomine Andreæ, quæ a Henocharide et Leonidâ philosophis; vel sub nomine Thomæ, et si qua sunt alia, non solum repudianda, verum etiam noveris esse damnanda. Inn. ad Exup. Ep. 3, ap. Conc. ib. T. 2, p. 1256.

m εκ των ψευδεπίγραφων Περιόδων των άγιων αποσόλων. ap. Labb. Conc. T. 7, p. 357, &c. and see Beaus. Hist. de Man. T. i. p. 388, 389, &c.

Sed factum est, ut a Manichæi discipulo nomine Seleuco, qui etiam Apostolorum gesta falso sermone conscripsit, hic liber editus, &c. Ap. Hieron. T. v. p. 445.

a

which Photius gives of them, who had read his work abovementioned, is this: He teaches that the God of the Jews is evil; that the God preached by Jesus Christ is good. He speaks of God by the names of Father and Son: he says that Christ was not really man, though he ap'peared to be so; that he appeared to the disciples differently, sometimes young, sometimes old, and less at one time than another, and sometimes so high as to touch the heavens with his head: he says that Christ was not crucified, but another in his room; that marriage is evil in itself, and of the evil one; that God is not the creator of dæmons. In the Acts of John he seems to argue against images.'

From this account, though possibly Photius is not exact, and may have misrepresented some things, it may be concluded that Leucius agreed in divers respects with the Manichees, or rather they with him. For we may hence argue that, as he said the God of the Jews was evil, he did not receive the books of the Old Testament. We likewise perceive that he was one of them who are called Docetæ, and that he did not believe Christ to be man really, but in appearance only: he likewise had a disadvantageous opinion of marriage, and highly extolled perpetual virginity: he denied that dæmons were made by God, and condemned the use of pictures and images. Beausobre has carefully examined the forecited extract of Photius, and made just remarks upon it, for discovering the real sentiments of Leucius.

с

d

с

(3) I am to consider the time of Leucius. Mr. Jones was positive that Leucius was a Manichee, and that he did not live before the latter part of the third, or the beginning of the fourth, century after Christ: and many others undoubtedly are of the same opinion. But Grabe placeth him in the second century, as does Mill; who supposeth that he flourished about the year of Christ 140, and has a great many just observations upon this man and his works, to whom I refer the reader; not judging it needful to transcribe a modern author who is, or ought to be, in every body's hands. Beausobre is exactly of the same mind with the two last mentioned writers: and says that, unless by a Manichee be meant one who held the same or like opinions with them, it is certain that Leucius was not a Manichee, he having lived more than a hundred years before Mani was born. He then proceeds to mention divers arguments for that supposition, which appears to me very considerable: but I may not now stay to transcribe or abridge them.

4. Lastly, I am to mention some observations upon the works of Leucius, and the apocryphal writings made use of by the Manichees.

(1) It seems to me not improbable that all the preceding quotations of apocryphal books in Augustine are taken out of one and the same book, called Acts or Travels of the Apostles, and composed by Leucius.

(2) So much I said formerly. I now add: It seems to me that the Apocryphal Acts of Andrew, Thomas, Peter, John, and even Paul, were not distinct books, but parts of one and the same work called Acts of the Apostles. Photius, as before quoted, calls the work of Leucius, Travels of the Apostles. That very title might lead us to suppose there was somewhat in that piece concerning all, or most of the apostles. In his article of Agapius he says, that Manichæan author makes use of The Acts of the twelve Apostles, especially those of Andrew.' It does not follow that The Acts of Andrew or Thomas, or the like, were distinct works, because they are sometimes quoted severally and alone. We have a proof of this in the article of Leucius, just now transcribed from Photius, where at the end he mentions the Acts of John distinctly whilst yet, unquestionably, they were a part only of the work before described by the general title of The Travels of the Apostles: which also he expressly said contained The Acts of Peter, John, Andrew, Thomas, Paul. Mill likewise allows it to be one work which contained Acts of several apostles.

a

2 Φησι γαρ αλλον είναι τον των Ιεδαίων θεον και κακον -αλλον δε τον Χρισον, ὃν φησιν αγαθον

- και καλει

αυτόν και πατέρα και υἱον· λέγει δε μηδ' ενανθρώπησαι αληθώς, αλλα δοξαι και πολλα πολλακις φανηναι τοις μαθηταις, νεον και πρεσβύτην παλιν, και παλιν παίδα, και μείζονα και ελατ τονα, και μέγισον, ώσε την κορυφήν διήκειν εσθ' ότε μέχρις έρανό

και τον Χρισον μη σαυρωθήναι, αλλ' έτερον αντ' αυτ8. Γαμος δε νομιμες αθετεί, και πασαν γενεσιν πονηραν τε και το πονηρες και πλάσην των δαιμόνων αλλον εκκληροιδοκει δε κατ' εικόνων τοῖς εικονομάχοις εν ταις Ιωαννε πράξεσι SoyμariLEY. Phot. Cod. 114, p. 292.

i

(3) Another observation to be mentioned here is, that there is no good reason to think, as some have done, that the apocryphal scriptures, made use of by the Manichees, were forged by them. No, they had no occasion to forge books of that sort: for they found most of their sentiments encouraged by apocryphal books, composed by authors of earlier antiquity. Those books favoured their sentiments concerning the seeming humanity of Jesus, the merit of virginity or celibacy, and the imperfection of the marriage-state. They therefore took the advantage of those writings, and sometimes quoted or appealed to them.

C

d

a

Cyril, above quoted, says the gospel of Thomas was written by a disciple of Mani, so called. But Beausobre well argues that this gospel was not forged by the Manichees; forasmuch as it was in being before the rise of Manichæism; and is mentioned among spurious writings, not only by Eusebius, but also by Origen, in the preface to his Commentary upon St. Luke's Gospel. He adds, that the gospel of Thomas is placed among apocryphal books in the Synopsis, which is in the works of Athanasius, without imputing it to the Manichees. Gelasius likewise contents himself with saying of this gospel, that it was used by the Manichees, without adding that it was forged by them.

The same may be shewn to be probable with regard to other books made use of by the Manichees.

i

h

k

Eusebius among spurious books written by heretics, reckons & Acts of Andrew, John, and other apostles. Epiphanius says that The Acts of Andrew, John, and Thomas, were used by the Encratites: The Acts of Andrew and Thomas by the apostolics: The Acts of Andrew and other apostles by the Origenists: all three sects, which are supposed to be older than the1 Manichees.

m

Augustine particularly observes of a hymn used by the Priscillianists, that it was among the apocryphal scriptures: and then adds, Not that these apocryphal scriptures are peculiarly theirs; for there are several sects of very different opinions from each other, who delight in those books, as fetching thence some support for some of their notions.'

(4) I add but one observation more, which is, that these apocryphal books confirm the history of the genuine and authentic scriptures of the New Testament. They do not directly contradict them; they indirectly confirm and establish them. For they are composed and written in the names of such as our authentic scriptures say were apostles, or companions of apostles. They all suppose the dignity of our Lord's person, and the power of working miracles, together with a high degree of authority, to have been conveyed by him to his apostles.

I

SECT. VII.

Various readings, and select passages, in Faustus the Manichee.

SHALL here take some notice of various readings in the New Testament, or the texts of scripture made use of by the Manichees, and likewise some select passages, or observations, in Faustus the Manichee.

1. The catholics, as " Faustus observes, asserted the integrity of the books of the New Testament, and could not endure the supposition that they had been corrupted and interpolated.