inhabit. Supposing that the conflagration and dissolution of our earth would happen on a Lord's-day, and not knowing which, they ever passed that day in fasting and prayer, that the Lord, when he came, might find them in the exercise of humiliation and repentance.

V. The Manichees, or however those of Africa, kept Easter, as we learn from Augustine; who only blames them that they did not keep it with sufficient solemnity.

Beausobre supposes that there is no good reason to doubt of their keeping the feast of Pentecost.

In the month of March, and therefore usually about the time of Easter, they celebrated the anniversary of the martyrdom of Mani, which was called Bema, or the master's chair.

VI. Their ecclesiastical constitution we saw formerly, in the passage of Augustine concerning their elect and auditors.

It is likely they had also some ecclesiastical discipline, and that censures of their church were pronounced upon bad livers. This is supposed in a story told by Augustine of an indecency committed by some of the elect, whilst he was of that sect. He says, that he and others were offended, and expected that the men should have been excommunicated, or at least sharply reproved; but, as it seems, little notice was taken of the matter. The excuse they made was, that their assemblies were then prohibited by the laws, and therefore some inconvenience might happen, if their principal men were disobliged. He argues with them, as if an elect would be degraded for eating the smallest bit of flesh.

b Cum sæpe a vobis quærerem, illo tempore quo vos audiebam, quæ causa esset, quod Pascha Domini plerumque nullà, interdum a paucis tepidissimà festivitate frequentaretur,- -cum vestrum Bema, id est, diem quo Manichæus occisus est, quinque gradibus instructo tribunali, et pretiosis linteis adornato,- -magnis honoribus prosequamini? Contr. Ep. Manich. c. 8. See T. 2. p. 711. n. xi.

n. 9.

f

d Illo enim mense (Martio) Bema vestrum cum magnâ festivitate celebratis. Contr. Faust 1. 18. c. 5. Vid. not. ". • See before, p. 290, 291. -vidimus ergo in quadrivio Carthaginis,-non unum, sed plures quam tres electos simul, post transeuntes nescio quas feminas tam petulanti gestu adhinnire. Nos autem graviter commoti, graviter etiam questi sumus. Quis tandem hoc vindicandum, non dicam separatione ab ecclesià, sed pro magnitudine flagitii vehementi saltem objurgatione arbitratus est? Et hæc erat omnis excusatio impunitatis illorum, quod eo tempore quo conventicula eorum lege prohiberentur, ne quid læsi proderent, metuebatur. De Mor. Manich. cap. 19. n. 68, 69. Quæ ergo ratio est, vel potius amentia, de numero electorum hominem pellere, qui forte carnem valetudinis causâ, nullâ cupiditate gustaveritIta fit ut in electis vestris esse non possit, qui proditus fuerit, non concupiscendo, sed medendo, partem aliquam cœnâsse gallinæ. De Mor. Manich. cap. 16. n. 51.

SECT. VI.

THE MANICHEAN DOCTRINE CONCERNING THE SCRIPTURES.

I. A summary account of their scheme. II. They rejected the Old Testament. III. Their notion 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 books of the New Testament had been corrupted and interpolated. 1. Passages of ancient catholic authors concerning 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 are now come to the principal point, and perhaps as difficult as any, to show what books of scripture the Manichees received, and what regard they had for them.

I. Augustine's general account is to this effect: They

• 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, tanquam infalsatas, ita legunt, ut quod volunt ipsi accipiant, quod nolunt rejiciant; eisque, tanquam totum verum habentes, nonnullas apocryphas anteponunt. Aug. de Hær. c. 46.

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.

It is intimated by Serapion.

The design of the third book of Titus of Bostra was to vindicate the Old Testament against their objections.

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. Manif 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, 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. He says, moreover, that the moral precepts of the law of

b

-μnte tov voor twтes. Serap. ap. Canis. Ant. Lect. T. i. p. 47 f. Conf. p. 54. sub fin.

• Ο τρίτος ύπερ τε νόμs και των προφητων ποιειται λογον, ὡς παρα τω Θεώ πασης της παλαιας διαθηκης δοθεισης. Tit. p. 59.

ap.

Canis.

d Περι δε των παρ' ἡμιν προφητων ετως λεγει πνευμα ειναι ασέβειας, ήτοι ανομίας τε σκοτως, κ. λ. Ap. Arch. c. 10. p. 18.

• Τον δε λαλησαντα μετα Μωσεως, και των Ιεδαίων, και των ἱερέων, τον αρχοντα λέγει είναι τε σκοτως. Ib. cap. xi. p. 20.

Sed et ea, quæ in prophetis et in lege scripta sunt, ipsi [Satanæ] adscribenda sunt. Ipse est enim, qui in prophetis tunc locutus est-et scribere pauca quædam vera, ut per hæc etiam cætera, quæ sunt falsa, crederentur. Unde bonum nobis est ex omnibus quæ usque ad Joannem scripta sunt, nihil omnino suscipere. Ap. Arch. c. 13. p. 25. Vid. et p. 26.

8 Placet ad ingluviem Judæorum dæmonis, (neque enim Dei,) tunc tauros, nunc arietes, cultris sternere? Faust. 1. 18. c. 2. diffamata

h

in gentibus, id est, ex quo mundi hujus creatura existit. Id. 1. 22. c. 2.

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.

m

Hilary speaks of their enmity to the law and the prophets.

Cyril of Jerusalem" takes notice of the same thing.

In Jerom, Mani is frequently joined with Marcion, and others, who rejected the Old Testament.

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 darkness.' 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 her thought the devil helped him. Indeed it is thought

Hæc autem 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. Ib. 1. 19. c. 3. * Παλαιαν διαθηκην βλασφημέντες, και τον εν αυτή λαλήσαντα Θεόν. Epiph. Τ. i. p. 605.

Id. Hær. 66. c. 43. p. 656. c. 70. p. 691. et passim.

m Manichæus enim abrupti in improbandâ lege et prophetis furoris. Hil. de Trin. 1. 6. n. 10. p. 884. "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 margarita 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.

P Patriarchas prophetasque blasphemant. Legem per famulum Dei Moysen datam, non a vero Deo dicunt, sed a principe tenebrarum. Aug. Ep. 236. al. 74. ¶ Nam bene nôsti, quod reprehendentes Manichæi catholicam 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. n. 69.

by some that the ancient christians were not able to defend the Old Testament so well as we have done in late times.

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.

W

Faustus argues, that they were not Jews, but Gentiles: that they came directly to Christ, 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.

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.

They found fault with the Israelites spoiling the Egyptians by the order of Moses.

t

See Beaus. T. i. p. 283, &c.

-nunc ignarum futuri,-nunc ut improvidum-nunc 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. u Ibid.

▾ Aug. de Genesi contra Manichæos. libr. iii. Tom. i.

▾ Porro autem nos naturâ Gentiles sumus,-sub aliâ 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 suat aliqua, ut fama est, Sibyllæ de Christo præsagia, aut Hermetis, quem dicunt Trisinegistum, aut Orphei, aliorumque in Gentilitate vatum; hæc nos aliquanto ad fidem juvare potuerunt, qui ex Gentibus efficimur christiani, &c. Faust. 1. 13. c. i. * Hebræorum vero testimonia nobis, etiam si sint vera, ante fidem inutilia sunt, post fidem supervacua; quia ante fidem eis crede e 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 Egyptiis sumens, cum populus