Apocryphal Books Which Are Still Extant

We come now to consider those Apocryphal books which are still extant, and concerning, which, therefore, we can speak more particularly.

The first of these, is the Letter of Abgarus, King of Edessa, addressed to Jesus, us sent by hh footman Jinanias.

EusKRius is the first who makes mention of this Epistle, and the sum of his account is. that our Saviour’s miraculous works drew innumerable persons to him, from the most remote countries, to be healed of their diseases; — that Abgakus, a famous King beyond the Euphrates, wrote to him, because he was afflicted with a malady, incurable by human art. Our Lord promised to send one of his disciples to him, and Thaddeus, one of the seventy disciples was sent by Thomis after the ascension of Jesus, by an intimation given him from heaven. For the truth of this story, Eusehius appeals to thf public records of the city of Edessa, where, he says, all the transactions of the reign of Abgarus are preserved in the Sy-iac language; out of which he translated these Epistles, and the accompanying history. He proceeds to relate, that Thaddeus having come to Edessa, wrought many miracles, and healed many that were diseased, Abgarus, supposing that this was the person whom Christ had, in bis letter, promised to send to him, as soon as Thaddeus was introduced lo him, perceiving something extraordinary in his countenance, fell down before him, at which his nobles were greatly surprised. The king having inquired, whether he was the person sent by Christ, he answered that on account of the faith of Christ he was sent, and assured him, that all things should be according to his faith. To which the king replied, that he believed so much in Christ, that he was resolved, had it not been for fear of the Romans, to hare made war with the Jews for crucifying him. Thaddeus informed him of the ascension of Christ to his Father; the king replied, I believe in himp and in his Father also; on which the apostle said, I lay my hand on you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ; and the king was instantly cured of his disease. He also cured others who were diseased; and on the morrow, the king ordered all the city lo meet together, to hear the apostle preach. The king offered him gold and silver, which he refuspH, sayinc;, ffe have left our own, und fthould we take I hat which is aii()thcrls?

These Epistles are also mentioiifd by Ephrkm, the Syrian, who was a deacon in the church of Edessa, in the latter end of the fourth century. His account of this matter, as je;iven by Dr. Grabe, is as follows; “Blessed be your city, and mother Edessa, which was expressly blessed by the mouth of the Lord, and his disciples, but our apostles; for when Abarus the kine;, who built that city, thought fit to send and acknowledge Christ, the Lord and Saviour of all, in his pilgrimage on earth; saying, I have heard all things which are do’ie by you, and how much you have suffered by thtp Jews, who contemn you; wherefore, come hither, and take up your r sidence with mo. I have a little city, whirh shall be equally yours and mine. Hereupon, the Lord admiring his faith, sent by messeugt-rs a blcsiig unto the city, which should abide forever, till the Holy One be revealed from Heaven, even Jesus Christ the Son of God, and God of God.”

No other writir of the first four centuries, makes any explicit mention of this Epistle; but Procopius, in the sixth century, in his history of the Persian war, relates, <’That Abgarus had been long afflicted with the gout, and finding no relief from the physioians, but hearing of the miracles of Christ, sent to him, and desired that he would come and live with him j and Uiat upon his receiving an answer from Christ, be was immediately cured: and that our Saviour in the end of his let er, gave Abojarus assurance, that his city should never be takn by enemies.”

EvAGRius, in the Intter end of the sixth century, appeals to this account of Procopius, and confirms the story, that the city never should be taken by enemies, by a r< ference to some facts, particularly the failure of Chosioes, to take the city, when he laid siege to it. But this author adds a circumstance, which has nuch the air of a fable, tha’ this failure of cap’uring the city was brought ab iut by a picture of Christ’s face, which he had impressed on a handkerchief, and sent to Abga-Rus, ai his earnest request.

Cedrenus adds to all the rest, that Christ sealed his lett( r, with a seal consisting of seven Hebrew letters, the meaning of which was, the divine niiracle of God is seen.

Among the moderns, a very large majority are of opinion, that this Epistle is Apocryplial. Indeed the principal advocates of i’s genuineness, are a few 1< arned Englishrnen, particularly, Dr. Parker, Dr. Cave, and Dr. Grahe, but they do not speak confidently on the subject; while on the oti’er side, are fuund almost the whole body of learned erities, both Protestants and Romanists. !Now, ttpa! rhis Epistle and history existed in the Archives of Ed-’ssa, in the tio’e of EuseHius, there is no room to doubt, unless we would accuse this respectable hisforian of the most deliberate lais(phoocl; for he asserts thnt ho himspjf, hail taken them thence. His words, however, must not be too strictly interpreted, as though he had himself been at Edessa, and had translated the Epistle from the Syriac; for there is reason to believe, that he never visit: d that place and that he v-as not acquainted with the Syriac ton;ue. The words will be sufiRciently verified, if this document was translated and transmitted to him, through an authentic channel, fmm Edessa.

It is probable, therefore, that this story has some foundation in truth. Probably, Thaddeus, or some other apostle, did preach the gospel and pcrf )rm miracles in that city; but how much of the story is credible, it is not now easy to determine. But I think, it may be shown, that this Epistle was never penned by Jesus Christ, for the following reasons.

1. It is never mentioned, in the genuine gospels; nor referred to by any writer of the first three centuries.

2. If this account had been true, there never could have been any hesitation, among the apostles, about preaching the gospd to the Gentiles.

3. It is unreasonable to believe, that if Christ had been applied to by this king for healing, he would have deferred a cure, until he could send an apostle, after his ascension. This does not correspond with the usual conduct of the benevolent Saviour.

4. It seems to have been a tradition universally received, that Christ never wrote any thing himself; and if he had written this letter, it would have been more prized than any other portion of Scripture, and would have been placed in the Canon, and every where read in th churches.

5. After it was published by Eusebius, it never gained so much credit, as to be received as a genuine writing of Christ. As it was unknown in the first three centuries; so, in the fourth, when published, it was scarcely noticed by any writer.

6. The plain mention of our Lord’s ascensifpn,in the Epistle, is an evidence of its spuriousness; for in all his discourses, recorded by the Evangelists, there is no such explicit declaration of this event; and it cannot be su[)posed, that he would speak more explicitly to a Heathen king, than to the ^.ersons, chosen to be witnesses of his actions, and dispensers of his doctrine.

There is, however, nothing in the sentiments express d in this Epistle, unsuitable to the humble and benevolent character of the Saviour; but learned n.en have supposed thst there are several internal evidences of spuriousi ess, besides the one just iTiCtitioned. I conceive, h v ever, that the re.ison? alrradv aS’-ian- d will be c ‘nsidere>! as sufficient to prove, that this Letter forms no part of the Sacred

Canon. It is excluded by several of the rules laid down, above; and even if it was genuine, it seems, that it ought ralher to be received as a private communication, than as intended for the edificatioti of the whole church. The history, which accompanies the letter, has several strong marks of ppariousness, but as this does not claim to be Canonical, we need not pursue the subject further. It may, however, not be amiss tu remark, that the story of (he picture of our Saviour impresstd on a handkerchief and sent to Abiarus, is enough of itself to condemn the history as fabulous. This s.ivours not of the simplicity of Christ; and has no parallel in any thing recorded in the Guspel.*

II. There is now extant, an E|)isile, under the title of, Paui. to the Lacdickans; and it is known, that as early as the beginning of the second century, a work exisied under ihis name, which was received by INIarcion, the heretic. Hut there is good reas )n for thinking, that the Epistle now extant, is an entir.ly different work. fr.)ni the one which ancieiitly exi-ted; for the prcsciit Epistle does not contain the words, which Epipha.iius has cited from thit used by M iroion: and what renders this clear is, that the ancient E|)istle was heretical, and was rejected by the Fathers of the church, with one cons, nt; whenas, the Ejjisile which we now have, cptntaiijs nothing erroneous j

“See Note F-E E for it is a mere compilation from the other Epistles of Paul, with a few additional sentences, which contain no heretical doctrine.

As the Epistle is short, a translation of it will be given in the Noies, at the eml of the volume.*

Concerning the ancient Epistle, under this title, PhilasJrius says, “That some were of opinion, that it was written by Luke; but because the heretics have inserted some (false) things, it is for that reason not read in the churches. Though it be read by some, yet there are no more than thirteen Epistles of Paul read to the people in the church, and sometimes, that to the Hebrews”

‘’ There are some,” says Jerome, “who read an Epistle, under the name of Paul, to the Laodiceans, but it is rejected by all.”

And Epiphanius calls it, “An Epistle not written by the apostles.”

The Epistle now extant, never having been received into the ancient catalogues, read in the churches, or cited as Scripture, is of course Apocryphal.

It is also proved not to be genuine, because it is almost entirely, an extract from the other Epis, ties of Paul.

III. Another writing which has been ascribed to Paul is. Six Letteks to Seneca; with which are connected, Eight Letters from Seneca to Paul. These Letters are of undoubted antiquity; and

* See Note Gseveral learned men of the Jesuits, have defended them as •jenuine; and allege, that th’-y are similar to other Epistles received into the Canon, which wer; addressed to individuals. That such letters were in existence as early as the fourth century, appears from a passagje in Jerome’s Catilogjue of Illusirious Men, where he fjives the following; account of Seneca; Lucius Annaeus Seneca, born at Corduba, a disciple of Sotio, a Stoic, uncle of Lucan the poet, was a person of very exinordinary temperance, whom I slionjcl not have ranked in mv Cafalogue of Saints, but that I was determined to it, by the Kpistles Of Paul to Senka, and Seneca to Paul, vvhicli are n-ad by many. In which, thoiiujh he was at that lime tutor to Nero, and made a very consideridjle fi;i;urc, he saith, he wishes to be of the same repute among his countrymen, as Paul was among the Christians. He was slain by Nero, two years before Peter and Paul were hon pured with martyrdom.”

There is also a prissage in Augustine’s 54th Epistle, to Macedonius, which shows that he was i ot un:icqnainted with these Letters. His words are, “It is true, which Seneca, who lived in the tim.-s of the ap ‘Sties, and ?^7-^o wrote certain Epistles to Paul whirh are now read, s;iid, he who will hate those who are wicked, must hate all men”

There is no authentic evidence, that these Letters have been rioiiced by any of the rest of the Fathers. Indeed, it has been too hastily asserted by several eminent critics, that Aujjjustine believed that the Letteis of Paul to Seneca were genuine; but the fact is, that he makes no mention, whatever, of Paul’s Letters; he only mentions ihose of Seneca to Paul. The probability is, that he never saw them, for had he been acquainted with them, it is scarcely credible, that he would have said nothii’ir respectina; them, in this place.

Neither does Jerome say any thing from which it can with any ct rtainty be inferred, that he received these Letters as genuine. He gives them the title by which they were known, and says, they were read by many; but if he had believed them to be genuine Letters of Paul, would he not have said much more? Would he not have claimed for them a place among Paul’s Canonical P^pisties? And what proyes, that this Father did not believe them to be genuine is, that in this same book, he gives a full account of Paul and his writings, and yet does not make the least mention of theseLetters to Seneca.

But the style of these Letters sufficiently demonstrates, that t! ey are not genuine. Nothing can be more dissimilar to the style of Paul, and of Seneca, thai; that of these Epistles. The style of those attributed to Seneca, says Du Pin, is barbarous, and full of idioms that do not belong to the Latin tongue. “And those attributed to Paul’’’ says Mr. Jeremiah Jones, <’have not the least tine

:f25

ture ol the yravity of the apostle, but are rathetcouijjlimcnt-* hin instructions.”

The subscriptions to these Letters, are very different from those used by these writers in their genuine F]pistles Seneca is made to salute Paul by the name of brother; aff app’’lation not in use amonsjtltc Htathen, but peculiar to Christians.

By several of these Letters it would appear, that Pan! was at Rome ivhcn they were written, but from others, the contrary may be inferred.

It seems strmeje, if they wore both in the city, that they should dat” iht-ir Letters by consulships; and, indeed, this method of dating Letters, was wholly unknown among the Romans; and there are several mistakes in them, in reg »rd to the consuls in authority, at the time.

Their trifling contents is also a strong argument of spui iousness. “They contain nothing,” says Du Pi), “worthy eithur of Seneca or of Paul; scarcely one moral sentiment in the Lttiters. of Seneca, nor any thing of Christianity in those of Paul.”

What can be more unlike Paul than the Fifth Letter, which is occupied with a servile ajjology for p’ltting his own name before Seneca’s, in the inscription of his Letters, and declaring this to be contrary to Christianity?

These Letters, moreov r, coi;tain some things which are not true, as, That the ^mperor Nero was delighted and surprised at the thoughts in E K 2 ‘326

Paul’s Epistles to the Churches:” — ‘• Ami that N^-ro was both ati admirer and favourer of Christianity.’^ But very incongruous with this, and also with Paul’s character, is that which he is made to say, in his Fourth Epistle, where he entreats Sineca to say no more to the Emperor respecting him or Christianity, lest he should offend him. Yet, in the Sixth Letter, he adVises Seneca to take convenient opportunities of insinuating the Christian religion, and things favourable to it, to Nero and his family. But for further particulars, the reader is referred to the Epistles themselves, a translation of which, extracted from Jones, is inserted in the Notes*

IV. There is extant a spurious gospel, entitled, The Protevangelion of James, in the Greek language, which was brought from the East by FosTELL, who asserts, that it is held to be genuine by the Oriental churches, and is publicly read in their asse.nblies, with the other Scriptures. This learned man, moreover, undertakes the defence of this gospel, as the genuine production of the a[)OStle James; and insists, that it ought at least, to have a place in the Hagiographa. But his arguments are weak, and have been fully refuted by Fabricius and Jones.

This Apocryphal book, however, appears to be ancient ,; or at least, there was formerly a book un-

See Note H.

;j27

der the same name, but that it is not Canonical, is easily proved. It is quote<l by none of the ancii’nt Fathers, except Epiplpanius, who explicitly rejects it, as Apocryphal. It is found in none the catalogues, and was never read in the primiilve church. It contains many false and triflinj>; stories; and in its style and composition, is a perfect contrast to the genuine gospels of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

From the Hebraisms with which it abounds, it has been supposed to he the work of some person, who was oriu;inally a Jew; but as il was anciently used by the Gnostics, there can be little doubt, that the author when he wrote, belonged lo some one of the heretical sects, which so abounded in primitive times.

There is also another work, wliicli has a near aiiinity with this, called, Tub Nativity of Ma-KV. And although these books poss-ss a similar character and contain many things in common; yet in other points ihcy are contradictory to each other, as they both are, to the Evangelical history.

The internal evid”nce is itself sufficient to satisfy any candij reader of their Apocryphal character. *

V. The largest Apocryphal gospel extant, is en-

* Both these Apocryphal works, may be seen in the sc- 1,’ond volume of Jones’ learned work on the Canon.

titled. The Gosfel of our Saviour’s Inpancv, There is also remaining a frpgment tf a g spl ascribed to Thomas, which probably was, originally, no other than the one just mentioned.

These gospels were never supposed to be Canonical by any Christian writer. They were foryed and circulated by the Gnostics, and altered from time to time, according to their caprice.

The G spel of our Saviour’s Infancy, seems to have been known to Mohammed, or rather to his assistants; for occ rding to his own account, in the Koran, he was un vble to read. Many of the things related in the Koran, respecting Christianity, are from this Apocryphal work.

This Gospel is condemned by almost every rule laid down for the detection of spurious writings; and if all other evidence were wanting, the silly, trifling, and ludicrous stories, with which it is stuffed, would be enou2;h to demonstrate, that it was spurious and Apocryphal. To give the curious reader an opportunity of contrasting these Apocryphal leg-nds with the gravity and simplicity of the genuine gospels, I have inserted some of the miracles recorded in this book, at the end of the volume.*

It seems highly probable that this gospel of the Saviour’s Infancy, and the book of the Nativity of Mary? were originally parts of the same work; an

‘■ Sfte Note Ievidence of which is, that in the Koran, there is a continued ami connected story, which is tHken partly from the one, and partly from the other * The same thing is proved by ihefact, that Jerome, in one place, speaks of a preface which he had written to the gospel of our Saviour’s Infancy, in which he condemns it, bicaus*- it contradicts the g spel of John, and in another place, he uses the same words, and says they are in the preface to the Nativity of Mary.

Both thfihc Apocryphal h(ioks have been formerly ascribed to Leucids Charintis, who lived in the latter part bf the third century, and who rendered himself famous, by forging spurious works, under the name of the apostles.

VI. There is anoth. rApocryphal gospel.entitled, THE Gospel op NiroDEMUs, or, the Acrs of Pilate, which was probably forsj;pd about the same time, as the one last treated of, and it is very likely, by the same person.

That it was the custom for the governors of provinces in the Roman Empire, to transmit to the emperors an account of all remarkable occnrrencfts under their government, is capable of proof from the Roman history; and Eusebius expressly informs us, that this wns customary; and Philo JufloE’ s speaks, “Of the daily memoirs which were transmitted to Caligula, from Alexandria.”

* See Koran, chap. iii.

That Pontius Pilate transmitted some account efthe crucifixion of Christ, and of Ins wondeiful works, is, therefore, in itself, highly probable; but it is rendered certain, by the public appeal made to these Acts of Pilate, boih by Jttstin Martyr, and Terttlljan, in iheir Apologies; the one addressed to the Ronian emperor, Antomwrs Pius; and the ottier, pobiibly, to the Roman Senate. The words of Justin Martyr, are, “And of the truth of thv se farts you may be infoimed, out of the Acrs which were written by Pontius PiLAiE.” And in the same Apology, he r< f rs to these Acts f r proof, ‘’That our Saviour cured all sorts of diseases, ai)d raised the dead.”

T£Kii i,LiAN, in two placts of his Apology, ap-P’als to R, CURDS WHICH WERE TRANSMITTED TO

TiBEUius, FROM JERUSALEM. His testimony is remarkable in both places, and deserves to be transcribed; “Tiberius,” pays he. “in whose time the Christian name becanie first known in the world, having; received information from Palestine, in Syria, that Jesus Christ had there given manifest proof of the truth of his divinity, communicated it to the Senate, insisting upon it as his prerogative, that they should assent to his opinion in that matter; but the Senate not approving it, refused. Caesar continued in the same opinion, threatening those who were accusers of the Christians.”

In the other passage, after enumerating many of the miracles of Christ, ho adds, <’ All these things, Pilate himself, who was in his onscii- ice fur Ibllowinj; Christ, transmitied to Tibeiius Caesar; and even the Caestrs themselves had been Christians, if it had been consistent with thcr secular interest.” Both Eusebins and Jerome, cite this testimony of Tertuili »n, as authentic. It seems therefore certain, that some account of Christ and his actions was transmitted by Pilate to the emperor. “F()r,” to use the words of an eminent man, ‘* Terlullian, though a Christian writer, durst never have presumed to impose upon the Seniite themselves, with such a remirkable story, if he was not able to prove it; and that he was, is 6’ ident from Justin M iriyr, who often appeals to the Acts of Pilate, Concerning thi’ history of our Saviour — That Pilate did send niich Acts is evident, forsorce any man, much less such a man as Justin M irtyr, W(nild have been so foolish, or so confident, as to affirm a thi.ig in vlhich it vvoulil be so easy to convict him of falsehood. “*

And another, speaking of ‘he same thing, says,” They were men of excellent learning and judgment; but no man who could write an Apology, can be supposf-d to hav<; so liitle understanding, as to appeal to that account which Pilate sent to Tiberius, concrning the rcsurr’etion of Chnsi, in Apologies, dedicated to the Rcunan emperor himself,

Dr. Parker.

and to the Senate, if no such account had ever been sent.”*

It does not follow, however, that these Fathers had ever seen the se Acts, or that they were ever seen by any Christian. During the reigns of Heathen emperors. Christians could have no access to the archives of the nation; but the fact of the existence of such a record, might ha■e been, and probably was a matter of public not .riety; otherwise, we never can account for the confident appeal of these learned and respectable writers. There is no difficulty in conceiving how such a fact might have been certainly known to theseFathei s,without supposing that they had seen the record. As the learned Casaubon s;iys, ‘’ Some servants or officers of one of the Caesars, who were converted to Christianity, and had opportunity of searching the public records at Rome, gave this account to some Christians, from whom Justin and Tertullian had it.”

It may seem to be an objection to the existence of such Acts, that they were never made public, when the emperors became Christian; but it is altogether probable, that they were destroyed through the malice of the Senate, or of some Ron-.an Emperor who was hostile to Ci.ristianity. They who took so much pains to destroy the writings of Christians, w )uld not sufl’er such a monument of the truth of Christianity to remain, in their own palace.

Dr. Jenkin.

But as to those Acts of Pilate which are now uxtani, ao one supposes that th y ar*; genuine. They have every mark of bring spurious. The external and internal evidence is cqudly against them; and it would be a watste of time to enter into any discussion of this point.

It may, however, be worth while to enquire into the motives which probably led some mistaken Christian, to forge such a narrative. And there seem to have been two; first, to have it in his power, to show the record, to which the Fathers had so confidently referred. The Heathen adversaries might say, after the destruction of the genaine Acts of Pilate, where is the document to which this appeal has been made, let it be produced. And some man thinking that he could serve the cause of Christianity, by forging Acts under the name of Pilate, was induced through a mistaken zeal, to write this narrative.

But there was another reason which probably had some influence on this fact. About the close of the third century, the Heathen had forged and published a writing, called rnio Acts of Pilate, the object of which was, to render the Christians odious and contemptible to the public, by foul calu:nnies against their Founder and his ipostles. Of this fact, EiisEBius gives us express and particular inf irmation “From whence,” says he, ‘• the forgery of these is manifestly detected, who have lately published certain Acts, against our Saviour. In p F which, lirst, the very time which itp assis;iied to them, discovers the imposture; for those things which they have impudently forged to have come to pass at our Saviour’s crucifixion are said to have occurred in the fourth consulship of Tiberius, which coincides with the seventh of his reign; at which time, it is certain, Pilate was not yet come into Judea; if any credit is due to Josephus, who expressly says, that Pilate was not constituted governor of Judea, until the twelfth year of Tiberius.”*

And in another place, he says, “Seeing therefore that this writer, (Josephus) who was himself a Jew, has related such things in his history concerning John the Baptist and the Saviour, what can they possibly say for themselves, to prevent being convicted of the most impudent forgery, who wrote those things against John and Christ.”

And in the ninth book of his Ecclesiastical History, this writer gives us informntion, still more particular, respecting this malicious forgery. “At length (the Heathen) having forged certain Acts of Pilate, concerning our Saviour, which were full oi all sorts of blasphemy against Christ, they caused them, by the decree of Maximinus, to be dispersed through all parts of the empire; commanding by letters, that they should he published to all persons, in every place, both in cities and country places:

-* Euseb. Ecc. Hist Lib. L c. 9, 1 1.

and that schoolmasters should put them into the hands of their children, and oblifre them to learntJieni by heart, instead of their usual lessons.”

Here it may be observed, that while this impudent for2;ery clearly shows with what malicious efforts the attempt was made to subvi;rt the gctspel, it proves at the same time, that there had existed a document under the name of The Acts of Pilate.

Now, the circulation of such aA impious piece of blasphemy, probably instigated Chakincs, or whoever was the author of these Acts, to counteract them by a work of another kind, under the same name.

How this book came to be called, The Gospel OF NicoDEMUs, will appear by the subscription annexed to it, in which it is said, “The emperor Theddosius the g;reat, fout)d at Jerusalem, in the hall of Pontius Pilate, among the public records; — the things vvliich were transacted in the nineteenth year of Tiberius Cajsar, emperor of the Romans — being a History written in Hebrew by N’codemus, of what happened after our Saviour’s crucifixion.” And if this subscription be no part of the original work, still it may have occasioned this title; or, it may have originated in the fact that much is said about Nicodemus, in the story which is here told.

But even if we had the original Acts of Pilate, or some History of Nicodemus, it needs no proof

J that they could have no just claim to a place in the Capor.

VII. The last Apocryphal book, which I shall mention, is that entitled The Acts op Paul and Thkcla.

There is no doubt, but that this book is Apocryphal. It was so considered by all the Fathers, who have mentioned it.

Tertitllian says, respecting it; “But if any read the Apocryphal books of Paul, and thence defend the right of women to teach and baptize, by the example of Thecla, let them consider, that a certain presb)^tpr of Asia, who forged that book, under the name of Paul, being convicted of the forgery, confessed that he did it out of respect to Paul, and so left his place.”*

And Jerome, in his life of Luke, says, “The Acts of Paul and Thecla, with the whole story of the baptized lion I reckon among the Apocryphal Scriptures.”

And in the decree of pope Gelasius, it is asserted, “That the Acts of Thecla and Paul are Apocryphal.”

It is manifest, however, that the primitive Christians gave credit to a story respecting Paul andThecla, on which this book is founded; for it is often referred to, as a history well known, and commonly believed.

“Tertnll. De Baptismo.

ThuSfCTPRiAN, or some anrient writrr unrlcr his name, says, ‘* Help us, 0 Lord, as ihou ditlst help the apostles,in theirimpnsonTnents,THECLA amidst the ftamcs, Paul in his persecutions, and Peter amidst the waves of the sea.”

And again, “Deliver me, 0 Lord, as thou didst deliver Tliecla, when in the midst of the amphitheatre, slve was in conflict with the wil-d beasts.”

EusEBiTTS mentions a woman by this name, but he places her lono; after fhe apostle Paul, and she is therefore supposed to be another person.

EpiPiiANius relates, “That when Thecla met Paul she determined against marriage, although she was then engaged to a very agreeable youngjmafl.”*

AuousTiNE refers to the same thing, and say?, “By a discourse of Paul’s, at Iconium, he incited Thecla to a resolution of perpetual virginity, although she was then actually engaged to be married.”

Many others of the Fathers speak of Thecla, as of a person whose history was well known.

And among the moderns, Baronius, Locrinus, and Gral)e, look upon this history as true and genuine, written in the apostolic age, and containing nothing superstitious, or unsuitable to that time. But none have ventured to assert, that these Acts ought to have a place in the Canon.

Epiph. liter. lxviii.
P P 2

No doubt, the book now extant, is greatly altered from that ancient history, referred to by the Fathers; and probably, the original story was founded on some tradition, which had a foundation in truth; but what the truth is, it is impossible now to discover among such a mass of fables, and ridiculous stories, as the book contains. As it now stands, it contains numerous things, which are false in fact; others, which are inconsistent with the Canonical Scriptures; and some, totally incompatible with the true character of Paul. Moreover it is favourable to several superstitious practices, which had no existence in the apostles’ days; and finally, the forgery was acknowledged, as it relates to the ancient Acts; and those now existing, cannot be more genuine than the original; but to these many things have been added, of a silly and superstitiou’^

C^K^Z.