and

Sicilie, was a chief difciple of Mani, and fat in his chair after him, as his fucceffor. However, whether thofe authors are to be relyed upon as to that particular, or not; it is not reasonable to think, that Archelaus, a Catholic Bishop of the Roman Mefopotamia, fhould have with him at one and the fame time two difciples and intimates of Mani, and both deferters.

Sifinnius is a Greek name. I should be glad to know more of him, if ever there was a Manichean of this name, It might perhaps afford fome light for clearing up the time of this piece, which we have been examining.

Sect. I.

3. Valefius in his notes upon Socrates trans- Libanius. cribes a paffage out of a letter of Libanius to Prifcian, Prefident of Palestine: which letter he supposeth to relate to the Manicheans in that province, though they are not named. "These (n) men worship the fun, but with"out bloodie facrifices, and honor him as a

(η) Οι τὸν ἥλιον ὗτοι θεραπέυοντες ἀνευ ἅιματα, κτι μάντες θεὸν προσηγορία δευτέρᾳ, καὶ τὴν γαςέρα κολάζοντες, και εν κέρδει ποιόμενοι τὴν τῆς τελευτῆς ἡμέραν. Πολλαχό μὲν εἰσὶ τῆς γῆς, πανταχε δὲ ὀλίγοι· καὶ ἀδικῖσι μὲν ἐδένα, λυπονται δὲ ὑπ' ενίων. Aunot. in Socr. l. i. c. 22. p. 13.

2

Sect. I.

Authors, who wrote

against them.

"deity in a fecondarie fenfe only. They pinch their belly to a great degree, and "look upon the day of their death as the day of their deliverance. They are in

many places of the world, but every "where a few only. They injure no man, "but fome there are who give them trouble."

rous.

II. That fuits the Manicheans. They were in many places, but no where numeThat they were in many parts of the world, may be concluded from the many books published against them. Fabricius (0) has a catalogue of ancient authors, who have mentioned the Manicheans, or writ against them, amounting to more than forty in number. And yet that catalogue might be greatly enlarged.

Epiphanius in his article of the Manicheans, writ about the year 376. speaking of authors who had written against them, nameth (p) Eufebe of Cefarea, Eufebe of Emefa, Serapion of Thmuis, Athanafius of Alexandria, George of Laodicea, Apollinarius of the fame place, and Titus of Boftra. And he fays, there

there were other authors befide thefe, who had writ against them.

Sect. I.

1. Photius giving an account of Heraclean, Heraclean. Bishop of Chalcedon, whofe work he much commends, (whofe time however is not now certainly known,) fays, that speaking of others who had opposed the same sect before him, he names (q) Hegemonius, who wrote the Difputations of Archelaus with Mani: Titus, George of Laodicea, Serapion of Thmuis, and Diodore, whofe work against the Manicheans confifted of five and twenty books. This work of Diodore of Tarfus is in Ebedjefu's (r) Catalogue, and therefore must have been tranflated into Syriac. And Photius in his own work against the Manicheans, or Paulicians, mentions (s) Cyril Bishop of Jerufalem, Epiphanius, Titus of Bostra, Serapion of Thmuis, Alexander of Lycopolis, the twenty books of Heraclean Bishop of Chalcedon, upon whom he again bestows great commendations. But we have now nothing of that work remaining, befide the extracts made by Photius.

D4

(9) Cod. 85. p. 204.

(r) Vid. Ajem. Bib. Or. T. 3. P. i. p. 29. (s) Ph. contr. Manich. l.i. cap. xi.

2. The

lis.

Sect. I. 2. The piece of Alexander, just mentiAlexander oned, written in Greek, who was of Lycus, of Lycopoa city of Thebais in Egypt, is still in (t) being. Fabricius fuppofeth, that (u) he was at first a Heathen and Manichean, afterwards a Catholic Chriftian. Cave (x) thinks, he was originally a Heathen, next a Manichean, in the end a Catholic. He fays, that he is a very ancient writer, probably of the fourth centurie. Photius, as before cited, calls him (y) Archbishop of Cyropolis. But Beaufobre argues, that (2) he was a mere Heathen, or Pagan Philofopher, as he calls

him. Tillemont likewise says, " that (a) by "his book he appears to have been a Pagan Philofopher, who obferving that some of "his fellow-difciples embraced the opinion "of the Manicheans, wrote this piece to "confute it by natural and philosophical ❝ reasons.

(t) Ap. Combeff. Auct. Nov.

(u) Alexandri Lycopolitae ex Ethnico Manichaei, atque inde ad ecclefiam reducti liber. Videtur fcripfiffe faeculo quarto. Fabr. Bib. Gr. T. v. p. 290.

(x) Erat quidem primum cultu Gentilis, deinde ad Manichaeos in Egyptum recens delatos fe contulit. Tandem ejurata haerefi, ad Catholicorum caftra tranfiit. Cav. Diff. de Scriptor. incertae. aetatis.

(y) Phot. contr. Manich. ubi fupra.

(x) Beauf. Hift. de Manich. T. i. p. 236,

(a) Tillem. T. iv, Les Manicheens Art. 16. fin.

"reasons. He speaks with some respect of Sect. I. Jefus Chrift, and prefers the doctrine of "the churches (they are his own words;) "to that of Mani. But it may be per"ceived by those very places, that he is by < no means a Chriftian." I do not choose to enter at present into any debate about the character of this writer. The reader, if he pleaseth, may confult the work itself, and the modern authors, to whom I have referred. I fhall only fay, that the Manicheans were Chriftians. If ever Alexander was a Manichean, he must have been a Chriftian at that time. What he was afterwards, when he wrote against them, is another question.

3. I do not think it needful to fay any Auguflin. thing here particularly of Auguftin, whose books however against the Manicheans are numerous, and ftill extant, and will be of great use to us, as will appear hereafter. Caffiodore commends Auguftin's writings (b) against the Manicheans, as if they were fuperior to what he had writ against other heretics.

4. But

(b) Contra quos ita fervore pietatis incanduit, ut diligentius atque vivacius adverfus eos dixerit, quam contra haerefes alias differuit. Caff. de Inftitu. D. L. c. i. p. 510. T. 2.