Écrits contre les manichéens et contre les donatistes

Earlier writers on Manichaeism have, for the most part, made the Acta Disp. Archelai et Manetis and the anti-Manichaean writings of Augustin the basis of their representations. For later Manichaeism in the West, Augustin is beyond question the highest authority, and the various polemical treatises which he put forth exhibit the system under almost every imaginable aspect. The "Acts of the Disputation of Archelaus and Manes," while it certainly rests upon a somewhat extensive and accurative knowledge of early Manichaeism, is partially discredited by its generally admitted spuriousness — spuriousness in the sense that it is not a genuine record of a real debate. It is highly probable that debates of this kind occurred between Mani and various Christian leaders in the East, and so Mani may at one time or other have given utterance to most of the statements that are attributed to him in this writing; or these statements may have been derived, for substance, from his numerous treatises, and have been artfully adapted to the purposes of the writer of the "Acts.'' It is certain that most of the representations are correct. But we can no longer rel}' upon it as an authentic first-hand authority. Since Fliigel ])ublished the treatise from the Fihrist entitled " The Doctrines of the Manichaeans, by Muhammad ben Ishak,'' with a German translation and learned annotations, it has been admitted that this treatise must be made the basis for all future representations of Manichaeism. Kessler, while he has had access to many other Oriental documents bearing upon the subject, agrees with Fliigel in giving the first place to this writing. On this exposition of the