knew of Manichæus from the Acts of Archelaus.33  This professes to be a report of a dispu- tation 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.34 In the works of Augustin 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 book of Faustus is not indeed reproduced; but there is no reason for doubting that his arguments are fairly represented, and we think there is evidence that even the original expression of them is preserved.35  Augustin had been acquainted with Faustus for many years.  He first met him at Carthage in 383, and found him nothing more than a clever and agreeable talker, making no pretension to science or philosophy, and with only slender reading.36  His clev- erness is sufficiently apparent in his debate with Augustin; the objections he leads are plausible, and put with acuteness, but at the same time with a flippancy which betrays a want of earnestness and real interest in the questions.  In his reply to Faustus, Augustin is very much on the defensive, and his statements are apologetic rather than systematic.37 But in an age when the ability to read was by no means commensurate with the interest taken in theological questions, written discussions were necessarily supplemented by public disputations.  These theological contests seem to have been a popular entertainment in North Africa; the people attending in immense crowds, while reporters took down what 33 Published by Zaccagni in his Collectanea Monumentorum Veterum, Romæ, 1698; and by Routh his Reliquiæ Sacræ, vol. v., in which all the material for forming an opinion regarding it is collected. 34 Any one 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:  "Je traiterai mon sujet en Critique, suivant la Regle de S. Paul, Examinez toutes choses, et ne retenez que ce qui est bon.  L’Histoire en general, et l’Histoire Ecclesiastique en particulier, n’est bien souvent qu’un mélange confus de faux et de vrai, entasse par des Ecrivains mal instruits, credules ou passionez.  Cela convient surtout a l’Histoire des Heretiques et des Heresies.  C’est au Lecteur attentif et judicieux d’en faire le discernement, a l’aide d’une critique, qui ne soit trop timide, ni temeraire.  Sans le secours de cet art, on erre dans l’Histoire comme un Pilote sur les mers, lorsqu’il n’a ni boussole, ni carte marine" (i. 7). 35 Beausobre and Cave suppose that we have the whole of Faustus’ book embodied in Augustin’s review of it.  Lardner is of opinion that the commencement, and perhaps the greater part, of the work is given, but not the whole. 36 See the interesting account of Faustus in the Confessions, v. 10. 37 [This estimate of Faustus is somewhat too disparaging.  For fuller bibliography, see Introductory Es- say.—A.H.N.] 50 Preface to the Anti-Manichæan Writings.