講道與書信 第 195 章

1. About to speak at present of Manes's last attempts to overthrow the catholic faith, our discourse must return to where the preceding chapter was brought to its close. And so, while Manes was dwelling in that solitude to which he had withdrawn after slipping out of prison, it was announced to him that there was a certain most excellent man, endowed with surpassing piety, named Marcellus or Marcellinus, who dwelt at Caschara (which is a town of Mesopotamia), and that he had been a man Christian on every side, and plainly admirable in all the duties of righteousness.

He hoped, therefore, that this man would one day be a partner of his wickedness, an avenger of his crimes, and a champion of his nefarious sect, if he could ensnare him in the toils of his diabolical doctrine. For he presumed that he could occupy the entire province, if he had first subjected such a man to himself. Wherefore, having devised various plans, he judged it necessary to employ only one or the other of two which he anxiously kept turning over in his mind: either, namely, to journey to him and, under zeal for piety, or under color of procuring this man's eternal salvation, gradually to suggest to him during conversation his noxious dogmas—so that, once these had been imbibed by him, the purity of the catholic faith which Marcellus or Marcellinus professed might be, as it were, gradually corrupted.

But he feared that this manner of acting would be less safe for him. Because, namely, from an unforeseen and sudden entry—aimed at overthrowing the foundations of the catholic religion—some grave evil might befall him to his own destruction and ruin. Therefore the other course, which he revolved in his mind, he judged would be more profitable to himself. That is, first to address Marcellus by letters; and if he had lent them a kindly hearing, or at least if he did not boldly oppose himself, then greater effort was to be applied, so that Marcellus himself, moved either by fear or led by curiosity, might demand that all the dogmas of the Manichaean sect and its empty figments be disclosed to him. This last course, finally, Manes judged safer and more expeditious to use.

Therefore, having summoned Turbo, one of the disciples whom Addas had depraved with those nefarious teachings, he handed to him a letter to be delivered to Marcellus, commanding that, at once setting out on the journey, he should hasten to Caschara. 2. Turbo did not delay the command; and when he had endured very much toil and trouble in his swift course, five days of the journey having elapsed, he arrived at the hospitable house of Marcellus as a stranger; but he was not immediately received by the one to whom he had been sent. For the men who were in charge of Marcellus's hospitality for strangers inquired of Turbo who he was, whence he came, by whom and for what reason he was being sent.

He confessed that he drew his origin from Mesopotamia, that he came thither from Persia, and that he was discharging an embassy on behalf of the Manichaean, a teacher of the Christians, dwelling at the Castle of Arabio. But they, not knowing the name of the sender, altogether refused to receive Turbo: so that they thrust him out of hospitality, not even the means of water being granted to him. Archelaus, bishop of Caschara, describes the matter in nearly these words, adding: 'When Turbo had endured these and worse things on various days, worn out with toils, hunger, and distress, he would by no means have escaped death, had he not at last indicated to the guardians of the hospitality that he had brought with him a letter to be delivered to Marcellus (or Marcellinus).' 3.

So at last he delivered the letter to be read to Marcellus, in whose house there was then present Archelaus, bishop of Caschara. When he had heard the blasphemies with which that letter was filled, he began to rage against its author as if out of zeal for religion, and like a lion shut in he gnashed his teeth, desiring that Manes be given up to him. Marcellus's spirit, however, was more peaceable. He promised his bishop that he would take care by letter that Manes should nevertheless come to Caschara, as the latter kept promising, if Marcellus himself should demand it. But how many, or what sort of, blasphemies against God, the Mother of God, and the saints the letter of Manes contained, anyone will be able easily to learn from its copies transcribed both by Epiphanius and by Archelaus.

But we deem it not necessary to transcribe them at present. Nevertheless, that we may lighten for our readers the burden of running through them in the praised writers, we shall here indicate in a few words their sum or compendium. And indeed, in the first place, since the exemplar of these letters bore such a title or inscription, it was necessary that, without doubt, it should draw the mind of any pious and religious man whatsoever into the greatest indignation. Or if that title or inscription had chanced to be read by someone less instructed in matters of the faith, or little versed in catholic philosophy, it could indeed have led him both into a stupor of soul and into anxiety.

Now that inscription is of this sort: 'Manichaeus, apostle of Jesus Christ, and all the saints who are with me, and the virgins, to Marcellus, most beloved son: grace, mercy, peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ; and may the right hand of light preserve you from this present evil world, and from its ruins, and from the snares of the evil one. Amen.' But what more audacious, what more wicked, what, finally, more injurious to God and the saints, could have been devised by that barbarian Persian? Did he think that the name of 'apostle of Jesus Christ,' and the gifts of which most holy Paul above all gloried, could belong to him by his own or by other men's election, calling, and mission?

Having execrated this first impiety against religion, he expressed still worse things in the text of the letter. For, in order to capture Marcellus's goodwill, having praised in a few words that man's piety, he professes to endure grief because Marcellus did not believe according to right reason. Very arrogantly, moreover, he adds that he was sent for the amendment of the human race, to bring aid to those who have handed themselves over to seductions and errors. For which cause he had deemed it necessary to send these writings, first indeed (he says) 'for the salvation of your soul,' and then also of those who are with you. But what dogmas of salvation he suggested to him it will not be difficult to foresee, since we have already spoken of them chiefly in chapters 3 and 4.

He affirmed, namely, that two Gods must necessarily be admitted; each of whom was the maker of those things which correspond to his nature, so that he contended that good things and light were founded only by the good god, but evil things and darkness by the evil god. Which good and evil things indeed no one could confound and mingle with each other without insult to the divine goodness, and without incurring the extreme curse of the omnipotent God. And on occasion of this nefarious dogma, he abused rather audaciously the evangelical words of the Savior: 'For a bad tree cannot bring forth good fruits, nor a good tree bad fruits.' And when he tried to twist this testimony into his own sense by the following gloss, he added:

'I greatly marvel how they dare to call the Lord the maker and creator of Satan and of his evil deeds.' These fabulous opinions about two causes of things, according to Manes's depraved opinion, not only did Bayle explain rather copiously in his Historical Dictionary, but he also, snatched away by a peculiar spirit, brought them forth all too laboriously from the testimonies of Ovid, Zoroaster, and other heathen philosophers and poets. Whether he did this to boast the abundance of his erudition, or rather that weight might be added to Manes's depraved opinion, I would not dare to judge. Yet it is quite certain that those points appear utterly weak and futile—borrowed from the reasonings of nature alone—upon which, with divine revelation removed, he strives to rely.

Did not the more ancient Fathers and theologians, relying on natural reasons alone against the Marcionites, the Manichaeans, and other heretics of this doctrine, prove in every age that there was perpetually only one cause of all things? This we ourselves shall explain a little later, when reviewing the writings of those who resisted the Manichaeans. But now, having left Bayle, the interpreter of his own writing's aim, let us examine the other errors of Manes described in the letter to Marcellus. In the second place, then, he undertakes to philosophize about the ransom of man; and distinguishing the interior man from the exterior, he contends that these fight against each other.

He then asserts that the good god is the author of the interior man, but mingles in the claim that the condition of the bodily and fleshly matter took its origin from the devil. After this he attacks the catholic mystery concerning the incarnation of Christ the Lord. And, just as if the apostles and their successors had erred in this greatest article of our faith, he reasons thus: 'And would that their vanity had reached only so far, that they did not call the Only-begotten, who descended from the bounds of the Father, the Christ, the son of a certain woman Mary, generated from blood, and flesh, and the rest of the filth of women.'

Manes therefore did not believe that the Only-begotten Son of God the Father could be clothed with true and bodily flesh, or be borne in a woman's womb, or, finally, that Mary was the true Mother of God himself. But how hateful these things were to those upright men, Marcellus and Archelaus—learned in the sacred letters and illustrious for the highest piety toward religion—let the reader himself weigh. For it was not without the greatest grief of our own spirit that we could bring ourselves to remark upon these and similar blasphemies. 4.

Marcellus, therefore, having read a letter of this kind, resolved without any delay to write back to Manes, intending by these his letters to bring it about that, that impostor being summoned to Caschara, he should enter into a disputation with Bishop Archelaus, so that the truths of the catholic religion might be made ever more manifest. Marcellus completed his letter in a few words, and, that he might everywhere preserve gravity of speech, first employed this title of dignity, namely: 'Marcellus, a man of note, to the Manichaean who has been indicated to him by letter, greeting.' Then in the body of the letter he feigns not to understand the sense of the writings which he had received through Turbo, unless perhaps (he says) 'you, present, expound to us, through words, the several points, just as you promised through the letter.'

When, therefore, this letter of Marcellus was handed over to be carried to Turbo, he could be induced by no persuasion to journey back to Manes; 'Mindful (says Archelaus) of the toils of the journey,' and he asked that another be dispatched in his place, refusing further to return to that man, or that there should be any communion with him. But although Turbo resisted returning to Manes, nonetheless Marcellus did not desist from his purpose. For, having summoned one of his own boys, Callistus by name, he ordered him to set out. He, three days having elapsed, arrived at the Castle of Arabio, where Manes had withdrawn. Then Manes, having received this letter, partly rejoiced, because he was summoned to Marcellus without any postponement;

but partly his mind foreboded some evil for him from the delay of his disciple Turbo. Meanwhile, however, the most audacious man by no means deferred to undertake the journey. And, having taken with him twelve young men who aspired to cultivate virginity, that they might attend him with dutiful escort, he set out for Caschara and arrived at the abode of Marcellus. There, when he had asked in vain for Turbo (for the latter, after abjuring the superstitious sect of his master, and having laid open to the holy bishop its secret and fabulous offerings, and having been endowed with many gifts by Marcellus, had been ordered to reside in the house of Bishop Archelaus)—Manes, I say, when he looked upon Marcellus, seemed to himself to be presenting before him a droll buffoon.

more apt therefore for performing jests than for discussing the affairs and dogmas of religion. Would not his gait, garments, and appearance, his gestures, the instruments which he carried, and his adornment, have compelled every grave and serious man to redouble his guffaws? What sort of figure he presented to be seen by Marcellus's eyes, Archelaus describes in these words: 'For he had a kind of shoe with four soles, which is commonly called a 'quadrisole'; a mantle indeed of variegated colors, as it were of an airy appearance. In his hand he held a most sturdy staff of ebony wood. He carried a Babylonian book under his left arm; and he had also covered his legs with a diverse color, of which the one was ruddy, the other as if of a leek-green color.'

'And his face indeed looked like that of an aged Persian artificer and leader of wars.' 5. So when Marcellus first cast his eyes upon this man, he at once thoroughly perceived all the arts of a true sycophant, and therefore, neglecting him as it were and setting aside all conversation, he straightway sent for Archelaus. When the latter beheld Manes present before him, moved by the greatest zeal for religion, he was urged in spirit to attack him, scarcely able to restrain the hatred preconceived against the impostor; to which he was more vehemently incited by his very bearing, by the appearance of his figure, and above all by the secret confession of all his impieties made to him by Turbo—and by the execration of these things, which had more grievously pierced the heart of that most holy Pastor.

But the most prudent Marcellus, all zeal for contention being removed, decreeing that both should be heard, having summoned to his house the leading men of that city—among whom he also chose four judges, gentiles by religion: namely Manippus, a grammarian and most skilled in the disciplines of the rhetoricians; Aegialeus, a most noble chief physician and excellently learned in letters; Claudius and Cleobulus, brothers, likewise exercised in the arts of the rhetoricians—decrees that a frequent assembly should be held. But whether by the name 'assembly' a certain synod is to be understood cannot easily be defined; especially because Archelaus affirms that an assembly of this kind was gathered not in a church, but in Marcellus's house;

and because he described in express words that four judges, gentiles by religion, had been chosen in Manes's case. But these two things by no means embarrass those who champion the affirmative side. For other synods, or councils, have sometimes been convened in the palaces of emperors and princes, as we read of the Trullan council convened at Constantinople. To other councils also, even general ones, it was permitted for the philosophers of the heathen to be present, as has been made quite plainly manifest chiefly from the acts, or history, of the first council of Nicaea. To the affirmative opinion likewise the author of the synodical booklet has given his support. For he says that Manes's errors were condemned in a certain synod of Mesopotamia by that great Archelaus, bishop of the Cascharenes.

Which manner of speaking can serve as an argument that the author of the praised booklet interpreted the word 'assembly' as standing for a council. But 'no one of the ancients (adds Father Natalis Alexander) makes mention of a synod of this kind. Which is an argument that it has been fabricated.' But the silence of the ancient writers—namely of Cyril of Jerusalem and of Epiphanius—to which the most learned Father Natalis appeals, how can it serve as an argument of fabrication? Does then, in Father Natalis's view, the silence of two writers obtain greater weight than the testimony of one Archelaus, who was the author both of the disputation and of the convened assembly? I will indeed grant that no other bishop besides Archelaus was present at this assembly. But what of it?

Shall we suppose that the presbyters, and that remaining part of the clergy which at least dwelt in the city of Caschara, were absent from that gathering? By no means will I grant this. For that bishop Archelaus, discoursing of such a gathering, calls it a 'magnificent assembly,' so that the house of Marcellus, which was immense, was filled from those who had been called together to hear. But, besides those who had been called together to hear, the same Archelaus has testified that there were present chosen judges sitting in a higher place. 6. But the preceding conjectures and the testimony of the synodical booklet seem to totter as if utterly weak, if we turn our eyes to the history of Photius.

For he not only describes otherwise these deeds done against Manes by Archelaus, bishop of Caschara; but he also indicated that that assembly, and that gathering of men, could by no means obtain the name of a synod. For he relates how Manes, a fugitive, coming into Mesopotamia, began to sow the tares of his defection: 'But the BISHOP OF CASCHARA (he says), WHOSE NAME WAS ARCHELAUS, a holy man, most skilled in things divine and human, having gathered a band of Greek, that is, gentile, hearers—lest the truth should seem to have triumphed through favor while Christians were judging—instituted against the man named Manes a pious disputation, and so put to shame and confuted the most impious man, that he thereupon at once fled.'

If then, on Photius's authority, it was granted to Greeks and gentiles to be present at the disputation, 'lest the truth should seem to have triumphed through favor while Christians were judging,' why or in what sense could that multitude and gathering of Greek or gentile men be called a synod? For to laymen, and especially to those alien from the name of Christ, it has always and everywhere been guarded against that they should judge concerning matters of the faith and dogmas—just as the catholics against the heterodox have with every effort championed from the cradle of the Church up to our own times.

These things, I say, I too observing, plainly learned that Photius's praised narrative could rather add strength to the preceding conjectures than weaken and overthrow those conjectures and the testimony of the synodical booklet. For those gentiles had to be present at the assembly as hearers and witnesses, lest at some time a grave suspicion should arise among the people and the common folk—that the Christians, in judging, had followed favor rather than truth, with the greatest loss to justice and equity. But what prevents this from happening? Did not the whole multitude of believers convene at the councils of Jerusalem? Yet the catholics demonstrate by most certain arguments, against Blondel and the other rabbles of the heretics, that the apostles alone judged.

It does not at all behoove us at present to undertake this disputation, lest we seem to sing out of chorus and to wander hither and thither, as Beausobre is accustomed to do. So when I had pondered all these things with myself, I could by no means be induced to persuade myself that that diocesan synod was utterly fabricated—the synod in which, once Archelaus's disputation was concluded, we judge it more probable that at least an anathema was pronounced upon Manes's errors. Which perhaps would be gathered more evidently from the Acts of that disputation, had they not, through the injury of the times and the sloth of the interpreters, been either corrupted or depraved.

That the several depraved dogmas of this scoundrel were, by Archelaus disputing, reproved and condemned chiefly from the Scriptures, among others Cyril of Jerusalem alone asserts, who, having noted various testimonies of the Scriptures, adds these words, writing: 'By these and many other things of this kind the dragon was laid low, and by such contests Archelaus overcame Manes, so that again thereupon he fled, just as before out of prison.' Manes, therefore, having been overcome and confuted, resolved to take to flight, just as from prison—namely, so that he might not only avoid shame and confusion, but also decline the fury of the people stirred up against him, by which he was sought for slaughter.

And indeed he would by no means have escaped death, had not Marcellus and Archelaus employed the efforts of all their strength to restrain the vehement rage of these people. Since, therefore, in this case or kind of judgment all those things concur which are wont to be had in councils against the accused of the Christian faith, nothing will be able to hinder us from understanding, under the name of 'assembly,' that a council was then held at Caschara. But now at last let us attend to Beausobre's censures. 7. Much labor, however, Beausobre expends to cast down and overthrow little by little the things said hitherto; and then he so undermines the credit of the Acts that he decrees they are to be exploded as utterly fictitious and fabulous.

He begins his discourse chiefly from that narrative which, together with Tillemont, we judge to have been stitched on to those Acts—the narrative, namely, in which twelve thousand Christians are described, men, women, and infants, who, having gone out from the city, had withdrawn into a certain field, fasting and praying day and night, in order to entreat the one invisible God that at fitting seasons He would deign to command rains upon the earth and upon the seed. It is asserted that the ancient Christians there observed this rite every year.

But while this people was giving itself to such exercises of piety and religion, the Roman soldiers, being not far from that field, whether present or absent, were led by a grave suspicion that the crowd had resolved to remain there as hostile to the imperial army, in order to bring force of arms against them and their own if they should find a favorable opportunity. At once, therefore, the Roman soldiers did not shrink from falling upon the sleeping Christians; and, making no distinction of children or women, they compelled some to perish by the edge of the sword, and others (seven thousand seven hundred, namely), after a three days' journey, they led captive to Cascar, that they might, upon receiving money, hand them over into slavery.

Bishop Archelaus, therefore, becoming aware of so great a crime, hastened without delay to Marcellus, or Marcellinus; who, straightway opening all the treasuries of his wealth, offered to the heathen soldiers so great a portion of gold as would suffice for that multitude of captives to be restored to their former liberty. And when the cohorts of soldiery could not sufficiently marvel at the greatness of his soul and his supreme charity, they at once changed their counsel. For some of them, having laid aside the military belt and the worship of idols, immediately gave their name to Christ; while others, taking only the fourth part of the money necessary to them for provisions on the road, returned to their former stations.

And so, in the first place, Beausobre judged that this narrative smacked of a pure and utter fable; and therefore, relying on many conjectures, running through every point one by one, he draws his censorious pen, so that, having noted various arguments of improbability, the reader might thereby judge that the Acts which are circulated under the name of Archelaus, together with that whole Disputation, are to be rejected as wholly spurious. In the second place, he persuades himself that the aforesaid Tillemont at least does not gainsay conjectures of this kind noted down, since he had said that the preceding history bears the signs and characteristics of some little tale.

Chiefly, since it must be reckoned exceedingly difficult that twelve thousand Christians could have been found in one and the same city while idolatry was still reigning. He says that Tillemont's astonishment is also increased by the fact that for so long a time the Christian people could have persevered gathered in a spacious field, fasting and praying, unless perchance the Paschal fasts were then recurring. Finally he closes his discourse concerning Tillemont;

who, since many difficulties presented themselves to him—especially that so great a multitude of people, overcome by sleep and unarmed, should have allowed themselves to be surprised by the soldiers, whereas by then, at sunset, it would have resolved to return to the city from which it had gone forth—he says that, held in suspense amid so many and such great knots, amid these most grievous crags, lest he should affirm the Acts of Archelaus to be wholly fabricated, he chose rather to judge that the history of which we treat is an interpolator's makeweight, which someone strove to sew, like a ragged addition, onto those Acts of Archelaus, yet without being able to detract from their faith and authority.

Notwithstanding all these things, Beausobre, having rejected Tillemont's opinion, judges that one may reason as follows, and he resolves to preoccupy the reader's mind with the following precautions. All fables (he says) are wont to rest upon some foundation drawn from true histories. Wishing himself to inspect this more carefully in the present case, he believed it could more probably be derived from a certain testimony of the ancients, described by Mr. Hyde in his work on the Religion of the Ancient Persians. But when he had afterwards consulted it and surveyed it with his own eyes, he perceived it to totter as feeble; and he did not decline to subjoin it only, lest he should at some time come under suspicion of fraud among his readers. Thus, therefore, he reasons.

Let us therefore believe that the praised fable rests upon some foundation drawn from true history. On this account, first it must be supposed (he says) that that Marcellus, of whom mention is made in the Acts, was truly a distinguished and illustrious man, sprung from the Roman race, enriched with the greatest wealth, who was powerful with great authority in Mesopotamia by reason of the administration of all affairs, which he discharged in the imperial name.

Secondly, we too must suppose that the crowd of people, praying and fasting in the field and surprised by the soldiers, was giving itself to exercises of religion of this kind while keeping the worship and rites of the Persians, and by no means having regard to Christian piety and the evangelical institutions to be observed according to ecclesiastical tradition, by which either the Lenten fasts or the fasts of the Four Seasons (Ember Days) are wont to be celebrated. Now that the Persians were accustomed to assemble in the fields on appointed days of the year, imploring a blessing from the invisible God for the abundance of the earth and its fruits, the author asserts while speaking of the religion of the ancient Persians, as we ourselves shall observe a little later.

With the former supposition therefore in view, Beausobre subjoins the following proposition as wholly certain: namely, that Marcellus—so called through the drowsiness of copyists—truly held the administration of all the affairs of the province of Mesopotamia, and presided over those peoples as a true governor, in the reign of Aurelian, about the year of Christ 273, when, namely, Zenobia being conquered, he subjected the Palmyrenes to the Roman empire. For Zosimus relates that the administration of those provinces was given to a certain Marcellinus. This could easily have come about because some read 'Marcellus' for 'Marcellinus.' But that the ancients everywhere slipped into similar errors is now well known to all.

That this Marcellinus, a leader of the Roman race, was a man of the highest and greatest integrity, has already become almost evident from those trials and perils by which many times the faith and constancy of soul of certain servants of the Lord, being tested, could scarcely resist. Nay rather, most mortals thought they gained glory and honor for themselves when, allured by the hope of obtaining greater honor, authority, and dominion, indulging their own advantages and not blushing to despise and violate the rights of justice and equity, they were able to turn another's property to their own. For the Palmyrenes, bearing too grievously the devastation of their cities, and then the dishonor and captivity of Queen Zenobia, were trying to withdraw themselves from the tyranny of the emperor Aurelian;

and therefore an offer was made to Marcellinus, that he should revolt from the obedience and allegiance of the emperor, and, having entered into a treaty of alliance with them, should claim for himself the whole kingdom both of Mesopotamia and of the East. But when Marcellinus's mind had resisted these counsels and flatteries, he most steadfastly refused to have the supreme dominion of that people given to him, rather inquiring more diligently how, with all zeal for defection set aside, they might serve the Roman empire by which they had been subdued. He nevertheless reported the matter to Aurelian, lest, as popular sedition daily grew greater, they should break the yoke of servitude by which they were held. It could therefore have been (Beausobre concludes) that Marcellinus was inclined toward the Christians and their religion.

He then proceeds to the second supposition which Beausobre had premised, and asserts that it wavers exceedingly. For who could imagine to himself that Roman soldiers, under the discipline of those who are wont to command armies, were so savage that they should have wished to destroy an unarmed multitude of children and women, which was obedient to the commonwealth? It is equally devoid of probability that they should have led captive persons who were free and innocent. For if these had been of the Persian race, the soldiers could have suspected them to be gathered there in the field, as enemies, in order to invade with the sword lands now existing under the Roman empire.

Wherefore, since the innocence of those captives had afterwards been proved, the supreme administrator of that province ought to have ordered that they be restored to their former liberty without any payment of money. As for the third supposition—namely, whether it was a question of the Persians' supplications celebrated with superstitious worship—Beausobre first judged that Mr. Hyde had wished to indicate this. Namely, when he had described certain ceremonies of the magi bearing some likeness to ours, to the rites of baptism and the Eucharist, being led by a testimony which is wrongly attributed to Chrysostom. This testimony he subjoined in the notes, to wit:

In their sacred rites also the followers of Mithras had washings, as it were of regeneration, in which he too (namely the priest) baptizes certain of his believers, and his faithful, and promises expiation of sins by a washing; and thus he still initiates them into Mithras. Concerning this it is read in Justin Martyr and in Chrysostom. These men, therefore, every year, after the threshing of the harvest, used to ascend a certain mountain which is called, in their language, the Mount of Victory, having in it a certain little cave in the rock, most delightful with springs and choice trees; and ascending into it and washing, they offered themselves, and prayed in silence to God for three days. Beausobre asserts that this structure is not badly constructed.

But he contends that the foundation on which it rests utterly totters and falls to ruin, since neither Justin Martyr nor Chrysostom affirmed it. Nay rather (he says), the testimony just praised is taken from the author of the 'Opus Imperfectum in Matthaeum' (the Unfinished Work on Matthew), which work is stuffed with nothing but fabulous little tales. For in it there is no mention at all of the supplications of the magi, but rather there is a discussion of a certain tradition generally approved by Christians of the Eastern communion, concerning which he promises he will speak more fully when he shall dispute concerning the apocryphal writings of the Manichaeans. Wherefore he gradually turns his pen even against Mr.

Hyde, admonishing the readers not to subscribe, without diligent examination, to the testimonies of the ancients, even to those praised by learned men; who, although in their works they proposed neither to lie nor to sell words, nevertheless in praising and annotating such passages labored under a delusion. I have had to describe these things somewhat more fully, intending afterwards to judge whether Beausobre wished to trifle, or whether, with all party zeal set aside—as he boasts—he pursued the truth. And first indeed, as regards Justin, I am compelled to confess that either Beausobre ran through his Works drowsily, or at least surveyed them with bleary eyes.

For the holy martyr spoke chiefly in three places about the rites, mysteries, and ceremonies of the Persians, and recounted those things which Mr. Hyde noted from Chrysostom concerning the ancient religion of these people. His first testimony is read in the Apology for the Christians, which is commonly called the Second; in which, making mention of the eucharistic sacrament, he proves its truth by the evangelical words of Christ, adding then: 'Which indeed the wicked demons also taught to be done, by imitation, in the mysteries and initiations of Mithras.' The Persians therefore, taught by demons, strove in their supplications and solemn initiations to imitate the sacred table of the Christians.

Yet with this distinction preserved (as the same Justin adds), namely that bread and a cup of water are placed in the sacrifices, or divine rite of the one being initiated, with certain words added—as you assuredly either know, or can learn. That the Manichaeans too were accustomed to do this, we shall more opportunely observe in its place from Leo the Great—namely, in chapter 9 of the second book of this history. Again, that the Persians celebrated supplications and unspeakable mysteries in caverns and caves, especially when the initiations of Mithras were celebrated, the same Justin explained in his Dialogue with Trypho in these words:

Moreover, those who hand down the initiations of Mithras relate that he was born from a rock, and they name 'cave' or 'grotto' the place where they say those who believe in him are initiated. Finally, speaking of the nativity of Christ the Lord in Bethlehem, he narrates how Joseph, since he had no place to lodge, withdrew into a certain grotto near the village; and while they were there, Mary brought forth Christ, and laid Him in a manger, where the magi coming from Arabia found Him. Then, a few words interposed, he added: 'For this reason, those who initiate into the mysteries of Mithras, stirred by the devil's instigation, initiate their own and perform their secret rites in the place which among them is called a grotto or cave.'

These rites and ceremonies, therefore, the Persians and the magi practiced in caverns and caves, being led as it were by this design—that they might serve the devil, abusing the Scriptures of the New and Old Testament, by which they feigned to conform themselves to the divine institutions and mysteries of the Christians. Not therefore does that foundation collapse from which the preceding narrative was taken. Rather it ought to stand more firmly, since the writers who flourished after Justin borrowed, perhaps from his sayings and authority, the rites, ceremonies, and supplications of the Persians. But could anyone contend that Chrysostom made no mention at all of these Persian rites? For what then?

Could Chrysostom's silence perhaps stand in the way of the testimonies of Justin Martyr? For Justin flourished when the religion of the Persians and the magi still greatly held sway in Mesopotamia and the rest of those provinces, and the name of Christ had not yet, or scarcely, been announced to those inhabitants. On the contrary, in Chrysostom's age, although the Christian religion had been propagated here and there in that same region, to the destruction of magic and idolatry, yet this had not everywhere been wholly abolished, on account of the fierceness of those nations, which, following the institutions of their forefathers, did not shrink from paying the highest honors to the sun alone, as Chrysostom himself testifies in his eleventh homily to the people of Antioch. Nor, finally, ought Beausobre to have assailed Mr.

Hyde for having praised the 'Opus Imperfectum in Matthaeum' as though it were a product of Chrysostom. For most of the ancients adjudged it to Chrysostom; and the old editors caused it to be printed in the second volume of his Works, since in codices and manuscripts homilies of this kind are commonly ascribed to him. Wherefore, when more recent scholars, wishing with more diligent study to inquire into the author of these homilies, had found in the aforesaid homilies certain blemishes of Arian doctrine, and had observed that they had been dislocated by various interpolations, corruptions, and additions, they judged with better judgment that they had been composed by a Latin writer, and by a man of impaired faith stuffed with the same blemishes and additions.

Yet none of these dared to affirm that pure and utter fables are contained in them, as Beausobre confessed. Now indeed Beausobre proceeds to the letter of Manes which he took care to send to Marcellus through Turbo, which he rendered whole into French, not blushing to praise a work of this kind as written in the style of the apostles, and everywhere stuffed with the phrases and turns of speech of the Apostle St. Paul. Which two things can by no means agree in a neophyte man, versed for a few months in perusing the sacred Scriptures; or in a fierce, barbarous, and impious man, such as the ancient writers affirmed Manes to have been.

He then subjoins that the Manichaeans venerate St. Paul, wrongly persuading themselves that from the writings of this holy apostle they can draw foundations for proving both the existence of two principles and the natural corruption of man, especially since Paul, among his other contemporary apostles, labored more to free the Church of the Christians from the yoke of the Mosaic law. These things, therefore, and many others of the sort, Beausobre heaped up in expounding the Manichaean epistle and in describing the heretical man's disputation with Archelaus, bishop of Cascar. Since it shames us to relate some of them, we have deemed it necessary to cover them over entirely in silence;

but the rest, since they pertain rather to Manichaean philosophy, morals, worship, and discipline, we, having resolved to preserve the order of things, shall try to explain or refute each in its proper place.