Imatges de pÓgina

regard its

teneor, sed tu convinceris. In

sage thence, not that I Actibus conscriptis a Lentitio, authority, but for your conviction. quos tanquam Actus Apostolo- In the Acts wrote by Lentitius, rum scribit, habes ita positum :

which he writes as the Acts of Etenim speciosa figmenta et o- the Apostles, you find the folstentatio simulata, et coactio vi- lowing words :-—“The specious sibilium, non quidem ex propria “ appearances and delusive pomp, natura procedunt, sed ex eo ho- “and the influence of the things mine qui per se ipsum deterior " that are seen, do not proceed factus est per seductionem. “ from nature, but from that man,

“who through his own fault be

came worse by temptation.” III. The same father in his treatise of Faith, or the Trinity of the Unity, produces the same passage with no variation ; only that the author's name is there written Leontius, and not Lentitius, as in the place last cited: his words are, In actibus etiam conscriptis a Leontio, quos ipsi accipiunt, sic scriptum est; Etenim speciosa figmenta, &c.c. Whence it is evident, that these two names denote the same person ; not that he was anciently known by both these names, but through the ignorance or inadvertency of latter scribes, when they found the name Leucius contractedly wrote thus, L. or Lus. according to the old way in manuscripts, they substituted either Leucius, Lentitius, or Leontius, according to their own fancy.

IV. Jerome, or whoever was the author of that famous Epistle to Chromatius and Heliodorus under his name among his worksd, ascribes not only the book of the Nativity of Mary, but that called, The Acts or Passions of the Apostles, to Leuthon, as it is in my edition, or as it is in others, Seleucus, who was the same as Leucius, as has been often observed ; see Casaubone, Fabritius, and others; and so Dr. Mill assures us, the manuscript copies still have the name Leucius, and neither Leuthon nor Seleucuss: so that I may now set down the words of the Epistle under Jerome's name. Sed factum est, ut a Manichæi But it is certain that this book discipulo, nomine Leucio, qui was published, &c. by a disciple etiam gesta Apostolorum falso of Manichæus, whose name was

« Lib. de Fid. cont. Manich. c.5. Annal. 15. No. 39. d Epistol. 82. par. 2. tract. 6. fol. f Cod. Apoc. Nov. Testam. p. 137. • Exercit. 1. ad Apparat. Baron. 8 Prolegom. in Nov. Testam. §. 336.


par. I.


sermone conscripsit, hic liber Leucius, who also wrote a false editus, &c.

account, entitled, The Acts of

the Apostles. Hence it is evident there were certain Acts under the apostles' names wrote by Leucius. It remains now, that we more particularly make inquiry what those Acts were.

To me it seems certain, they were the very same with those apocryphal Acts which are so often mentioned by the ancient writers, as forged under the names of John, Andrew, and Thomas, and perhaps two or three more. I shall make good my assertion by these following reasons :

1. From the express testimony of Photius, that most accurate and judicious critic, who had read the books, and asserts, that they manifested Leucius Charinus to be their author h. 'Ανεγνώσθη βιβλίον, αι λεγόμεναι I read the book which is called των Αποστόλων περίοδοι, εν αις

the Acts of the Apostles, among περιείχοντο πράξεις Πέτρου, Ιω

which are contained the Acts of άννου, Ανδρέου, Θωμά, Παύλου. Peter, John, Andrew, Thomas, Γράφει δε αύτας, ως δηλοί το αυτο

the writer of which, as apβιβλίον, Λεύχιος Χαρίνος.

pears plainly from the book, was

Leucius Charinus. 2. From the Decree of pope Innocenti, in which several books under these apostles' names are joined together, as wrote by this same Leucius; Cætera quæ

sub nomine Petri et Joannis, quæ a quodam Leucio scripta sunt, &c. “As to the “ other books under the name of John, which were written by “one Leucius," &c. See the passage at large above, No. XXV.

3. St. Austin, who says the Manichees made their citations out of the Acts of the Apostles written by Leucius, in the places just now cited; in another book k says, “they made “ their citations out of some apocryphal pieces under the

names of Andrew and John."

4. They were received by several heretics, who agreed in many of the same impious principles. This is evident by the table which I have composed of this agreement in Chap. V. of

[ocr errors]

testimonia, quæ sub nominibus apoi Epist. 3. ad Exuper. Episcop. To- stolorum Andreæ, Johannisque con

scripta sunt.

Contr. Advers. Leg. et Sane de apocryphis iste posuit Proph. lib. 1. c. 20. in init.

h Cod. cxiv.

los. c. 7.


this part, and the authors there cited, who mention the Acts of Andrew and John together, as received by the Manichees, Encratites, Apostolicks, or Apotacticks, and Origenians. These therefore appearing so evidently to be the same,

I shall in the next place produce the places where they are mentioned, viz.

1. By Eusebius!. "Ιν' είδέναι έχoιμεντας ονόματι That we may know-the books των Αποστόλων προς των αιρετι- published by the heretics under κών προφερομένας, ήτοι ως Πέ- the apostles' names, such as the τρου, και Θωμά, και Ματθία, ή Gospels of Peter, Thomas, Matκαί τινων άλλων παρά τούτους thias, and some others, and also

the Acts of Andrew and John Ευαγγέλια περιεχούσας, ή ως 'Ανδρέου και Ιωάννου, και των άλλων

and some other apostles, which

never esteemed valuable 'Αποστόλων πράξεις, ών ουδέν ου

enough to be cited in the works δαμώς έν συγγράμματα των κατά

of any ecclesiastical writer: beδιαδοχές εκκλησιαστικών τις ανής sides, the phraseology of them is εις μνήμην αγαγείν ήξίωσεν" πόρρω

very different from the apostles' δε που και ο της φράσεως παρά το style; and withal, the doctrines ήθος το αποστολικόν εναλλάττει

and sentiments, which they conχαρακτήρ, ή τε γνώμη και η των

tain, are so very opposite to the εν αυτοίς φερομένων προαίρεσις, orthodox faith, as evidently to πλείστον όσον της αληθούς ορθο- denmonstrate that they are the δοξίας απάδουσα, ότι δη αιρετικών, forgeries of heretics, and s0 not ανδρών αναπλάσματα τυγχάνει, only to be looked upon as spuriσαφώς παρίστησιν, όθεν ουδ' εν νό- ous, but to be utterly rejected as θοις αυτά κατατακτέον, αλλ' ως absurd and impious. άτοπα πάντη και δυσσεβή παραιτητέον.

2. By Athanasiusm. Της νέας Διαθήκης αντιλεγόμενα The apocryphal books of the New ταύτα. Περίοδοι Πέτρου, περίοδοι Testament are these: The Acts Ιωάννου, περίοδοι Θωμά, Ευαγ– of Peter, the Acts of John, the γέλιον κατά Θωμά, διδαχή 'Απο- Acts of Thomas, the Gospel acστόλων, Κλημέντια - παραγε- cording to Thomas, the Doctrine γραμμένα δέ εισι πάντως, και νό- of the Apostles, and the books θα, και απόβλητα. Και ουδέν τού- under Clement's name. They are

1 Hist. Eccl. 1. 3. C. 25. m In Synops. or whoever was the author of that ancient book.

[ocr errors]

TW Tūv &moxpúowv páruota šy- all false, spurious, and to be reκριτον και επωφελές, εξαιρέτως της jected. And none of those apoνέας Διαθήκης» αλλά πάντα, δίχα cryphal books of the New Testaτων ανωτέρω διαληφθέντων και

ment have been either approved, έγκριθέντων παρά τους παλαιούς

are useful ; but they have all σοφούς και πατράσιν, αποκρυφής

been judged apocryphal (i. e. raμάλλον ή αναγνώσεως ως αληθώς

ther worthy to be concealed than άξια τάτε άλλα, και αυτά τα

read) by the ancient wise men καλούμενα εν αυτοίς Ευαγγέλια, thing contrary to the books above

and fathers, which contain any εκτός των παραδοθέντων ημίν τεσ

recited n; as also all other Gosσάρων τούτων. .

pels, besides those four delivered

to lis.

3. By Philastriuso. E quibus sunt Manichæi, Gnos- Among whom are the Manichees, tici, Nicolaitæ, Valentiniani, et Gnosticks, Nicolaitans, Valentialii quamplurimi, qui apocrypha nians, and many others, who havapostolorum, i.e. separatos Actus ing some apocryphal books under habentes, canonicas legere scri- the apostles' names, i. e. some pturas contemnunt scripturæ distinct Acts, despise the canoniautem absconditæ. i. e. apocry- cal scriptures as not worthy to pha, etsi legi debent morum causa be read: but these secret, i. e. a perfectis, non legi debent ab apocryphal scriptures, though for omnibus, quia non intelligentes the conduct of life they ought to multa addiderunt et tulerunt, quæ be read by the more able Chrisvoluerunt hæretici. Nam Mani

tians, yet ought not to be read chæi apocrypha beati Andreæ A- by all, because the ignorant hepostoli, i. e. Actus


retics have added and taken away niens de Ponto in Græciam, quos

inany things, according to their conscripserunt discipuli tunc se- own fancies. For the Manichees quentes apostolum ; unde et ha- [make use) of apocryphal books bent Manichæi et alii tales, An- under the name of St. Andrew the dreæ beati et Joannis Actus e- apostle, i. e. the Acts which he vangelistæ, beati et Petri similiter did in his journey from Pontus Apostoli, et Pauli pariter Aposto- to Greece, which the disciples, li; in quibus quia signa fecerunt who followed that apostle, wrote: magna et prodigia, ut et canes et so also the Manichees and other bestiæ loquerentur, etiam et ani- such [heretics] have the Acts of mas hominum tales velut canum St. Andrew and John the evan

fecit ve

" He refers to the catalogue he had given before of canonical books.

Hæres. 40. cui titul. apocryphi.


et pecudum similes imputaverunt gelist; also of St. Peter the apoesse hæretici perditi.

stle, and the apostle Paul; in which, because they wrought many miracles, such as making dogs and beasts to speak, those wretched heretics imagined the souls of men to be like the souls

of dogs and beasts. 4. By Epiphanius P, speaking concerning the Encratites. Κέχρονται δε γραφαϊς πρωτοτύ. They principally made use of πως ταϊς λεγομέναις Ανδρέου και those scriptures, which were callΙωάννου πράξεσι, και Θωμά, και

ed the Acts of Andrew, and John, αποκρύφοις τισί. .

and Thomas, and some other a

pocryphal pieces. The same author, in the heresy of the Apotacticks and Origenians, says, they made use of the same book; the passages are produced above, in the place referred to in the margin 9.

5. By pope Gelasius T. Libri omnes quos fecit Lentitius, All the books which were made seu Leucius, filius Diaboli, apo- by Lentitius, or Leucius, that son cryphi.

of the Devil, are apocryphal. These are all the places which I have observed, in which these apocryphal Acts are expressly mentioned by name: there are indeed some other places where they are referred to, but not named, as I shall shew in the end of this chapter; and only add here some account of their author Leucius, and some reasons for rejecting his books.

Concerning Leucius I have met with very little, besides what has been produced above, in any writers within the limits of my time. Pacianus, a writer of the fourth century, mentions one Leucius, whom the Montanists falsely asserted to be a great promoter of their heresys; accordingly Dr. Grabet, and Dr. Millu, supposing Pacianus to speak of the same Leucius, of whom I am now writing, conclude, he lived in the second century, viz. says Dr. Mill, about the year of Christ 140, i. e. a little before the rise of the Montanists, who pretended to be encouraged by him. The said doctor adds, “ that Leucius

p Hæres. 47. §. 1.
4 Part 2. c. 5.
r In Decret.

Epist. 1. ad Sympron. in init. + Spicileg. Patr. tom. 1. p. 78.

Prolegom. in Nov. Test. §. 334.


« AnteriorContinua »