Writings in Connection with the Manichaean Heresy

us some insight into the heresiarch’s opinions regarding the corruption of nature and the evils of sexual love.

Again, we have Manichaeus’ letter to Marcel, preserved by Epiphanius, and given in full by Beausobre;¹ which, however, merely reiterates two of the doctrines most certainly identified with Manichaeus—the assertion of two principles, and the tenet that the Son of God was man only in appearance.

Finally, Fabricius has inserted in the fifth volume of his Bibliotheca Graeca the fragments, such as they are, collected by Grabe.

Such is the fragmentary character of the literary remains of Manichaeus. For fuller information regarding his opinions, we must depend on Theodoret, Epiphanius, Alexander of Lycopolis, Titus of Bostra, and Augustine. Beausobre is of the opinion that the Fathers derived all that they knew of Manichaeus from the Acts of Archelaus.² This professes to be a report of a disputation held between Manes and Archelaus, bishop of Caschar in Mesopotamia. Grave doubts have been cast on the authenticity of this document, and Burton and Milman seem inclined to consider it an imaginary dialogue, and use it on the understanding that, while some of its statements are manifestly untrustworthy, a discriminating reader may gather from it some reliable material.³

In the works of Augustine there are some other pieces which may well be reckoned among the original sources. In the reply to Faustus, which is translated in this volume, the

¹ Histoire, i. 91.
² Published by Zaccagni in his Collectanea Monumentorum Veterum, Rome 1698; and by Routh in his Reliquiae Sacrae, vol. v., in which all the material for forming an opinion regarding it is collected.
³ Anyone who consults Beausobre on this point will find that historical criticism is not of so recent an origin as some persons seem to think. It is worth transcribing his own account of the spirit in which he means to do his work: "I will treat my subject critically, following the rule of St. Paul: 'Examine all things; hold fast that which is good.' History in general, and Ecclesiastical History in particular, is very often but a confused mixture of false and true, piled up by writers who are ill-informed, credulous, or passionate. This applies especially to the history of heretics and heresies. It is for the attentive and judicious reader to discern the truth, with the help of a criticism that is neither too timid nor too rash. Without the help of this art, one wanders in history like a pilot on the seas when he has neither compass nor sea chart" (i. 7).