61, 63, and 66; and in Austin, de Hæresib. ad Quodvult. c. 25, 40, 42, and 46. Let now any impartial person judge, whether it be not probable, that the reason why these several parties and sects did so mightily esteem the Acts of Andrew, was, because they found some of their peculiar and favourite notions therein; and, if so, then we have another argument, whereby to conclude it apocryphal, viz. that it contained assertions contrary to those which are certainly known to be true by Prop. VIII. CHAP. VI. Other books under the name of Andrew considered: they were the same with the Acts of Leucius. The Gospel of Andrew. The Decree of Pope Gelasius, relating to apocryphal books, produced, with its various lections: the antiquity of this Decree. No. II. Some other apocryphal books under the name of the apostle Andrew. I ENTITLE them other, although perhaps they may appear to have been the same with the former, because they are not mentioned expressly as the Acts of Andrew. These are recorded, 1. By Austin, confuting the anonymous author, whom he styles Adversarius Legis et Prophetarum”. Sane de apocryphis rite posuit testimonia, quæ sub nominibus apostolorum, Andreæ, Johannisque conscripta sunt; quæ, si illorum essent, recepta essent ab ecclesia, quæ ab illorum temporibus, per episcoporum successiones certissimas usque ad nostra tempora perseverat. 2. By pope Cætera autem, quæ sub nomine Matthiæ -vel sub nomine An n Contra Adversar. Leg. et Prophet. lib. i. c. 20. He hath made use of testimonies out of some apocryphal pieces, which were written under the names of the apostles, Andrew and John; which, if they were truly theirs, would have been received by the church, which has continued under an uninterrupted succession of bishops from their time to ours. Innocent I.o But the rest [of the books] which are written under the name of • Decret. Innocent. I. Epist. iii. ad Exuper. Tholos. Episcop. c. 7. dreæ, quæ a Nexocharide et Leonide philosophis scripta sunt-non solum repudianda, verum etiam noveris esse damnanda. Matthiasor under the name of Andrew, which were written by Nexocharides and Leonides the philosophers, are not only to be rejected, but condemned. Whatever the subject of these books was, they appear plainly to have been spurious by the express testimony of both those who mention them. Prop. III, IV, V. I have only to add, that perhaps these books, as also the former, viz. the Acts of Andrew, were either wholly, or in part, the same with the Acts of the Apostles under the name of Leucius, which I shall particularly consider in its proper place, under the letter L. As also who the philosophers Leonides and Nexocharides (mentioned in this Decree of pope Innocent, as the authors of this book) were. No. III. The Gospel of Andrew the apostle. THIS book is not mentioned by any, but by Gelasius in his DecreeP: His words are, Evangelium nomine Andreæ a- The Gospel under the name of postoli apocryphum. Andrew the apostle is apocryphal. As there are not any fragments of this Gospel extant, nor any other testimonies concerning it, it is impossible for us now to form any particular idea of it, either as to its real author or contents. It is probable, it was first forged and used by the same heretics, as the other books under that apostle's name; however, it is easy to prove, it never was reputed to be a canonical book, by Prop. IV, V, VI. I have only further to observe, after Mr. Fabritius9, that in some copies of this famous Decree of Gelasius, there is no mention made of this Gospel under Andrew's name; and if these should happen to be the best copies, it will then follow, that there never was any such Gospel in the world. Having occasion here, as I often shall hereafter, to make mention of this Decree of pope Gelasius, concerning the apocryphal books of the New Testament, I persuade myself it will P Loc. citat. 9 Cod. Apoc. Nov. Test. par. iii. p. 526. be a very excusable digression, if I give the unlearned reader a as it concerns any books translation of the Decree itself, which fall within my design. as far The Decree of pope Gelasius concerning apocryphal books. 1. The Travels under the name of Peter the apostle, which is also called the Eight Books' of St. Clemens, are apocryphal. 2. The Acts under the name of Andrew the apostle are apocryphal. 3. The Acts under the name of Philip the apostle are apocryphal. 4. The Acts under the name of Peter the apostle are apocryphal s. 5. The Acts under the name of Thomas the apostle are apocryphal. 6. The Gospel under the name of Thaddeus is apocryphalt. 7. The Gospel under the name of Thomas the apostle, which the Manichees use, is apocryphal. 8. The Gospel under the name of Barnabas is apocryphal. 9. The Gospel under the name of Bartholomew the apostle is apocryphal ". 10. The Gospel under the name of Andrew the apostle is apocryphal. 11. The Gospels corrupted by Lucianus are apocryphal. 12. The Gospels corrupted by Hesychius are apocryphal. 13. The Gospel of the Infancy of our Saviour is apocryphalt. 14. The book of the Nativity of our Saviour, of St. Mary, and the Midwife of our Saviour, is apocryphal. 15. The book which is called The Shepherd is apocryphal. 16. All the books which Lentitius, the disciple of the Devil, made, are apocryphal. 17. The book which is called The Acts of Thecla and Paul the apostle is apocryphal. 18. The Revelation ascribed to Thomas the apostle is apocryphal. Other copies for eight read nine, others ten. s In some copies this is not mentioned. Other copies read here, The Gos pel of Matthias; others both Thaddeus and Matthias. " After this, some copies have The Gospel of James the Less, and Peter. * This is omitted in some copies. 19. The Revelation ascribed to Paul the apostle is apocryphal. 20. The Revelation ascribed to Stephen is apocryphal. 21. The Travels, or Acts of St. Mary, are apocryphal. 22. The book called the Lots of the Apostles is apocryphal. 23. The book called The Praise of the Apostles is apocryphal. 24. The book of The Canon of the Apostles is apocryphal. 25. The Letters of Jesus to king Abgarus is apocryphal. I may perhaps have occasion hereafter more critically to inquire into the genuine authority of this Decree of Gelasius; I shall now only observe, that it is generally agreed to be very ancient, and by most learned men, to have been formed in the council of Rome, A. C. 494. Those who have examined the manuscripts tell us, that in some of them it is ascribed to Damasus, who lived in the century before Gelasius, and in others to Hormisdas, who lived the century after: whence Baluzius seems rightly to conjecture, that pope Damasus began the Decree, Gelasius renewed and made some additions to it, and Hormisdas afterwards further enlarged and confirmed ity. It is true, bishop Pearson, in his celebrated Vindication of Ignatius's Epistles, attempts to prove, from this variety of titles, that the Decree is spurious, as also by other arguments, which are approved by Dr. Cave, and translated into his excellent work a. But it is not at all strange these learned men should reject this Decree, when we consider it as directly opposite to some notions, which they would have been much more unwilling to part with than this Decree. CHAP. VII. The Gospel of Apelles: his age and principles. The Gospel according to the Twelve Apostles: it was the same with the Gospel of the Hebrews. No. IV. The Gospel of Apelles. THIS Gospel is not mentioned by any writer till Jerome, See Spanheim Hist. Christ. Secul. V. c.8. juxta fin. and Dallæus de Pseudepig. Apostol. l. 3. c. 3, 4, &c. z Vindic. Ignat. par. 1. c. 4. p. 44, &c. a Histor. Liter. in Gelas. who places it among several other apocryphal pieces of the New Testament, whose words, because I shall frequently refer to them, I shall here transcribe at length b. Plures fuisse, qui evangelia scripserunt, Lucas evangelista testatur, dicens, quoniam quidem multi, &c. quæ a diversis auctoribus edita, diversarum hæresium fuere principia, ut est illud juxta Ægyptios, et Thomam, et Matthiam, et Bartholomæum, duodecim quoque apostolorum, et Basilidis atque Apellis, ac reliquorum, quæ enumerare longissimum est : cum hæc tantum impræsentiarum necesse sit dicere, extitisse quosdam, qui, sine spiritu et gratia Dei, conati sunt magis ordinare narrationem, quam historiæ texere veritatem. The evangelist Luke declares, that there were many who wrote gospels, when he says, Forasmuch as many, &c. (c. i. ver. 1.) which being published by various authors, gave birth to several heresies; such as that according to the Egyptians, and Thomas, and Matthias, and Bartholomew, that of the twelve Apostles, and Basilides, and Apelles, and others, which it would be tedious to enumerate in relation to these, it will be enough at present to say, that there have been certain men, who endeavoured, without the Spirit and grace of God, rather to set forth some sort of account, than to publish a true history. : This Gospel is considerable, as it appears to have been received by some Christians who were the disciples of its author in the latter end of the second century. Mr. Fabritius supposes, that Apelles did not write any new distinct Gospel, but only formed one out of the true and genuine Gospels, that, as Marcion, he might be thought the author of a new Gospel: but however true this supposition may be, it is not worthy of any great note, because it is most certain, that most of the Gospels which the heretics made use of were formed out of the true and genuine Gospels, with the addition and omission of what they thought proper. However, it is evident, it was an apocryphal piece, by Prop. IV, V, VI. and inasmuch as Jerome tells us, it was calculated to promote the heresy of its author, it must necessarily be supposed to have contained assertions contrary to those certainly known to be true, and therefore to be rejected by Prop. VIII. To confirm which b Præfat. in Comm. in Matth. |