a state of happiness; which request Trifina made to Thecla, and Thecla accordingly prayed for her. This paffage is brought by Damafcenus, to support the doctrine of praying for the dead, and helping the miferable in the other world by our prayers and alms. Again, the Popish doctrine of celibacy is frequently contended for, and confirmed out of this book; as, perhaps, the first prevalence and progress of that doctrine owed its original to it".

(5.) Add to all this, that not only Cardinal Baronius, Locrinus, and others; but the learned editor of these Acts in England, Dr. Grabe, also looks upon this history as true and genuine, wrote in the apoftolick age, and containing nothing in it which is fuperfitious, or disagreeable to that time; which, if true, will certainly make it as justly confiderable, as any other Apocryphal book whatsoever.

CHAP. XXXV.

Previous Remarks upon these Acts: they were in Part the Forgery of an Afiatick Prefbyter: they are now interpolated: they are Apocryphal and fpurious; were confeffed to be fuch by their Author; were never read nor cited as Scripture: they contain many Falsehoods; as, that Paul was against Marriage; that he told a wilful Lie; that he allowed Women to preach. Robert Barclay noted.

AVING in the former chapter largely given the reasons

of my inferting these Acts of Paul and Thecla, I proceed now to lay before the reader whatever I have observed relating to them, with a particular proof that they are Apocryphal. I obferve then,

(1.) That fome part of these Acts was certainly written by the prefbyter of Afia, whom Tertullian mentions in the Apoftolick age. (See the place, Chap. preced. Numb. 1.) The truth of this is fufficiently evinced by this fingle confideration, viz. That the peculiar doctrines, which Tertullian faith were delivered and contended for out of this book forged by the Afiatick prefbyter, are to be found in the Acts above, published. The doctrines I mean are those, That women may lawfully teach or preach in the Church, and that women may lawfully baptize. These are the two things for which this book was cited, and pleaded by those against whom Tertullian disputes; and these things are very vifible in the Acts which we have now under confideration. For,

1. We read of Thecla's teaching, or preaching, several times, e. g. Ch. XXIV. fhe preached the Word of the Lord, and was the inftrument of converting many young women to Christianity in the houfe of Trifina at Antioch; and Ch.XXV. when she had found Paul at Myra, and told him of her intended journey to Iconium, he gives her a commiffion, or command, to preach the Gofpel: Go, fays he, and teach the Word of the Lord. And accordingly, Ch. XXVII. we find

her

her at Seleucia, enlightening many in the knowledge of Christ. And once more, Ch. XXVIII. we read of feveral gentlewomen converted by her preaching in the cave. From all this it was easy and natural to conclude the lawfulness of women's teaching, or preaching.

2. Nor was it with lefs reason, that they did also support their practice of baptizing from the example of Thecla: for, Ch. XXII. it is faid, that she threw herself into the water, and faid, In thy name, O my Lord Jefus Chrift, I am this last day baptized. And upon her arrival to Paul, Ch. XXV. she acquaints him, that he who had affifted him in preaching, had also affifted her in baptizing. From hence (to omit many other arguments, which it were eafy to produce) it is evident, that fome part of thefe Acts of Paul and Thecla were written by the prefbyter of Asia.

(2.) The prefent Acts of Paul and Thecla are very different from the antient book written by the prefbyter of Afia. It happened to them, as to many other of the Apocryphal pieces of the New Teftament; the too fruitful imagination and kind hand of fome well-defigning Christian to have embellished the original performance by the addition of many fictitious circumstances; and just as the first author declared he was influenced to his forgery out of the prodigious respect he had for St. Paul, and with defign to advance his reputation, so with the fame kind defign others have taken the liberty of interpolating, and inferting whatsoever they apprehended conducive to it. This cannot but be moft clearly evident to any one, who with a juft impartiality reflects upon the matter; for nothing can poffibly be more unlike a writing of the first century, or apoftolick age, than a confiderably large part of this book is the idle and romantick fables, the filly miracles, the incredible ftories (of which I fhall produce inftances below), the ridiculous and late cuftoms which are referred to, fuch as figning with the fign of the cross, &c. are so many demonstrative evidences of interpolations in this work long after the Apostle's time, and make the composure appear much more like the legends of the monks, and the products of the mira

culous

a

culous ages before the reformation, than a real and genuine hiftory of a plain fact done and written in the Apostle's time. Nothing therefore can be a more surprising evidence of prejudice, than that a person of Dr. Grabe's learning fhould fo confidently tell us, That it is a confirmation the Acts of Paul and Thecla were wrote by the prefbyter of Afia, that there is fcarce any thing fuperftitious in them, or that favours of any opinions later than the Apostles' age, and that there is nothing in them which might not have been wrote in that firft century by an honeft prefbyter, not well versed in Chriftianity.

(3.) The Acts of Paul and Thecla are Apocryphal. No one that I know has yet ventured to affert them Canonical; but the afferting of them to be genuine, true, and containing real fact which happened in the Apostles' time, and in which St. Paul bore fo confiderable a part; the afferting them to contain fermons and difcourfes, which were really the fermons and discourses of the inspired Apoftle; in a word, the afferting them to relate many real miracles wrought at that time, and the book itself written about that time, which is done by Baronius, Lorinús, and Dr. Grabe, feems to be little less than afferting them to be of authority very near equal to the books which are of the Canon. I fhall therefore, for the most part, under this head endeavour after fuch proof, as will not only fhew these Acts to be Apocryphal, but the whole history to be fpurious and false, a mere fable and legend.

Arg. I. The Acts of Paul and Thecla appear to be Apocryphal and spurious, from the confeffion and acknowledgment of the Afiatick prefbyter who was the first author of them. When he had first published his book, fuch was the care of those primitive Christians not to be imposed upon by any spurious pieces under the Apoftles' names, that they immediately endeavoured to detect the fraud; in which they met with the desired success, and obliged him to a confeffion of the whole

a Vix quidquam in iis reperiatur fuperftitiofum, aut proprias fequioris ævi hypotheses redolens, nihilque

fit, quod non prima ista ætate fcribi potuerit, &c. Spicileg. Patr. tom. 1. p. 93.

matter,

matter, and upon that deprived him of his office in the Church. All he pleaded for himself was, that he made the book out of his great refpect for St. Paul; by which he could mean no other, than that he defigned, by relating the miracles attending St. Paul's preaching, to make him of a more advanced reputation. All this is in the place of Tertullian cited at large Chap. preced. Num. 1. to which I fhall only add out of Jerome (fee the fame place, Num. 2.), that he was convicted of the forgery by St. John. Nothing can be more fairly deduced from any words, than it is from hence, that the book of this prefbyter's writing, and the history contained in it, was the fiction of his own brain; and a compofure or relation not of any real facts, but a mere fable, or collection of imaginary ftories to ferve a purpose. This will undeniably prove it Apocryphal and spurious; and one would have imagined, there had been scarce any way poffible to have avoided the force of fuch evidence. But it is ftrange to observe with what subtle artifice and pains, learned men will endeavour to elude the force of every thing which is faid against a favourite opinion, Dr. Grabe a has therefore found a means to come off here, and would perfuade us, that the words of Tertullian imply no more, than that the book was falfely afcribed to St. Paul, as the author, and not that the ftory was a fiction. But can any thing be more evidently calculated to ferve a purpose? The whole of Tertullian's argument, as well as the plain texture of the words, imply it was a fiction; for if the whole that was proved upon the prefbyter was, that he wrote the book; and it was not also proved, that he wrote that which was false (i. e. if we fuppofe with Dr. Grabe, the history genuine, and only the title or name of Paul to be fuppofititious); then the argument taken out of the book for the practice of women's preaching and baptizing would still remain valid and good; which is directly contrary to the whole design of Tertullian, which is

a At vero iftud adhuc in quæftione manet, utrum hiftoria Thecla in ifto libro narrata, mera fuerit fabula, a Presbytero ifto confecta, cum talis virgo et martyr fanctiffima nunquam exftiterit, iftave egerit et

paffa fit pro fide Chriftiana, quam a Paulo didiciffe fertur. Sane Tertulliani verba hoc non evincunt; fed folum libellum Presbyteri iftius Afiatici perperam Apostolo adscriptum, &c. Spicileg. tom. 1. p. 88.

to