Moses, and differed only from the Jews, in that they professed the name of Christ, and urged, as necessary, the use of sacrifices, circumcision, &c. i 2. They denied the divinity of Christ, asserting him to be a mere man; so we read in Theodoret, that they looked upon him only as a just and good man. Hær. Fab. 1. ii. c. 2.1 3. They used the Gospel according to Matthew in the Hebrew, most entire, according to Epiphanius, who adds, that he was uncertain whether they had taken away out of it the genealogy from Abraham to Christ, or no o. manded in the law of Moses, such as sacrifices, circumcision, &c. professed enemies to St. Paul and his writings, because he wrote so warmly against the law *. 2. They all looked upon Christ as a mere creature; some asserting him a mere man, born, as other men, of Joseph and Mary m Others confessed him to have come from heaven, but made before all, and being a superangelical creature, had the dominion of all". 3. They made use of St. Matthew's Gospel alone P, and that in Hebrew, but according to Epiphanius, not entire, but corrupted and adulterated, and took away the genealogy from it, and began their Gospel with these words; And it came to pass in the days of Herod', &c. It is plain therefore, that there was a very great agreement between these two ancient sects; and though they went under different names, yet they seem only to differ in this, that the Ebionites had made some additions to the old Nazarene system ; for Origen expressly tells us", Καὶ Ἐβιοναῖοι χρηματίζου σιν οἱ ἀπὸ Ἰουδαίων τὸν Ἰησοῦν ὡς Χριστὸν παραδεξάμενοι, “ They 66 were called Ebionites who from among the Jews own Jesus "to be the Christ." And though Epiphanius seems to make their Gospels different, calling one λnρéστaτov, most entire, the other ou AngéσTaTov, not entire, yet this need not move us; for if the learned Casaubon's conjecture should not be right, that we should read the same, viz. oử nλngéσtaтov, in both places*: (which yet is very probable for any thing father Simon has proved to the contrary :) yet will the difficulty be all removed at once by this single consideration, that Epiphanius never saw any Gospel of the Nazarenes; for though he calls it λŋρέστατον, yet he himself says, οὐκ οἶδα δὲ εἰ καὶ τὰς γενεαλογίας TEGIETOVY," that he did not know whether they had taken away the genealogy, as the Ebionites had done," i. e. having never seen the Nazarene Gospel, for ought he knew, it might be the very same with that of the Ebionites, as indeed it most certainly was. 66 CHAP. XXX. The The Acts of Paul and Thecla extant in the Bodleian library, and published by Dr. Grabe. Acts of Paul a different book. These falsely supposed by Dr. Mill to be wrote by faithful Christians, A. D. LXIX. to supply the defects of Luke's history of the Apostles' Acts. A silly forgery rejected by all the ancients who name it. The Preaching of Paul and Peter one book. A book under the name of Paul. Anabaticon or Revelation of Paul generally thought to have. been two books. A ridiculous blunder of Mr. Toland's, relating to it. Proved by several arguments to be only different titles of the same book. A conjecture concerning a passage of Tertullian, wherein he refers to this book. The title of a revelation under the name of Paul now extant in a manuscript in the library of Merton college at Oxford. No. XLIII. The Acts of Paul and Thecla. THESE are mentioned by Tertullian, and from him by Jerome, and afterwards by Gelasius. 1. Tertullian2, in his Treatise of Baptism, mentions it thus. Quod si qui Pauli perperam scripta legunt, exemplum Thecla ad * See this conjecture in his Exercitations against Baronius, ad Ann. Christi XXXIV. N. 165. p. 486. It is rejected by Simon, Critic. Hist. of the VOL. I. But if any read the apocryphal New Test. part 1. c. 7. p. 65. Fabrit. T licentiam mulierum docendi tingendique defendunt, sciant in Asia presbyterum qui eam scripturam construxit, quasi titulo Pauli de suo cumulans, convictum, atque confessum, id se amore Pauli fecisse, loco discessisse. 2. Jerome, in his Periodos Pauli et Theclæ, et totam baptisati leonis fabulam, inter apocryphas scripturas computamus. Quale enim est, ut individuus comes apostoli inter cæteras ejus res hoc solum ignoraverit? Sed et Tertullianus, vicinus eorum temporum, refert presbyterum quendam in Asia, σovδάστην, i. e. amatorem Pauli, convictum apud Joannem quod auctor esset libri, et confessum se hoc Pauli amore fecisse, et loco excidisse. right of women to preach and The Acts of Paul and Thecla, 3. Gelasius, in his Decree. Liber, qui appellatur Actus Theclæ et Pauli, apocryphus. The book, which is called The Acts of Thecla and Paul, is apocryphal b. I need not be at much pains here in making any critical remarks on this book. The learned Dr. Grabe has lately published, out of a manuscript in the Bodleian library, a book entitled, Μαρτύριον τῆς ἁγίας καὶ ἐνδόξου πρωτομάρτυρος καὶ ἀποστό λov Oéxλas, “The Martyrology, or Acts of the pious and cele"brated first martyr and apostle Theclac." This he believesd a Catal. vir. illust. in Luca. b Mr. Toland (Amyntor, p. 30.) has the goodness to refer us to a place in St. Austin, and another in Epiphanius, where these Acts are mentioned: but I must do him the justice to tell him, there is no such book mentioned in either place. c Spicileg. Patr. Sæcul. I. t. 1. p. 95. d Ibid. p. 90. 95. to be the very same with the Acts of Paul and Thecla, mentioned by Tertullian, Jerome, and Gelasius; and indeed there is this good argument to support his opinion, that what Tertullian saith was urged out of these Acts, viz. the example of Thecla, to countenance the practice of women's preaching and baptizing, is to be found in this manuscript which he has published; see p. 114. 116. &c. I must therefore look upon this as a book extant, and so shall defer the consideration of it to the next volume of this work, where I design (God willing) to produce this and other such pieces now extant, in their original languages, with an English translation. No. XLIV. The Acts of Paul. CONCERNING this old apocryphal piece, we have but very little that is certain now left. It is mentioned; 1. By Origen, giving a description of Christe. Unde et recte mihi dictus videtur sermo ille, qui in Actibus Pauli scriptus est, Quia hic est Verbum, animal vivens. Wherefore that saying seems to me right, which is written in the Acts of Paul, That this is the Word, a living animal. 5. By Philastriusi. Habent Manichæi-Actus Pauli pariter apocryphi, &c. The Manichees have also the Acts of Paul, which are apocryphal. These are the several places where these Acts are mentioned. I readily agree with Dr. Grabek, they were not the same with the Acts of Paul and Thecla in the last number; but must utterly dissent from him in saying, that Eusebius places it in the catalogue of books which were doubted of only by some: whereas nothing can be more plain, than that he ranks it with the vótos, or spurious books; which are in the worst class. Nor is it less absurd in Dr. Mill to suppose, "that these Acts of Paul were compiled by some faithful Christians about the year of Christ LXIX. to 66 supply (as he calls it) imperfectam historiam Pauli quam "tradiderat Lucas," i. e. those imperfect accounts which are contained in the [now received] Acts of the Apostles which were written by Luke. For besides that he offers no manner of argument for his hypothesis, it is sufficient to destroy it, that "Eusebius reckons it among the spurious books, and "Philastrius among those silly books, which contained abun"dance of strange stories, about dogs and beasts speaking, &c. "and for that reason, that the souls of men were like the souls "of those animals." Although I cannot but here own, that perhaps Philastrius may speak of those Acts of Paul which are mentioned by Photius m, and attributed to Leucius Charinus by him. As to the two passages taken out of these Acts by Origen, it is plain he appeals to them, and the book whence he takes them, not as being of authority. Accordingly he introduces them thus: "The saying seems to me right, and if any one 66 please to admit that which is written in the Acts of Paul," &c. which are forms of speech he would never have used concerning any book, which he thought to be of undoubted authority. Besides, to say nothing of the first of those passages, which is most obscure and unintelligible, to say no worse, viz. i Hæres. Apocrypha quæ est 87. See it above in this part, Chap. XXI. k Lib. cit. p. 86. 1 Prolegom. in Nov. Test. §. 130. in Cod. CXIV. See the place at large above, Chap. XXI. |