to fhew that argument to be not good; and that because the facts upon which it was founded were not real, but falfe. I conclude therefore from this priest's conviction and confeffion, that not only the book is Apocryphal, but the history is false. It must be confeffed, indeed, that this proof does not directly affect the whole history, but only that part of it which was then extant, and wrote by the prefbyter. But it is easy to answer, that if the groundwork or foundation of the story be falfe, i. e. if there were no fuch perfon as Thecla, nor any transactions between Paul and Thecla, then all the interpolations and fictitious additions, which were afterwards built upon that foundation, muft be falfe too.

Arg. II. The Acts of Paul and Thecla are Apocryphal, because they are not recited or mentioned in any of the catalogues of the facred books of the New Testament, which were made by the primitive writers of Chriftianity, by Prop. IV.

Arg. III. The Acts of Paul and Thecla are not to be efteemed Canonical, because not cited nor referred to as fuch in any of the writings of the primitive Chriftians, by Prop. V. Juftin Martyr, Irenæus, Clemens Alexandrinus, &c. have not so much as once mentioned either the book or history; from whence it would not seem unjust to conclude, either that the book and history were not known to them, or else looked upon as fabulous and falfe by them. Befides, were the ftory known or credited in thofe early times, it is perfectly unaccountable that Eufebius fhould no where have mentioned it in his hiftory, nor have inferted it in his large lifts of Apocryphal writings under the names of the Apostles, which he has given us, Hift. Eccl. 1. 3. c. 3. & 25. But to proceed: Tertullian and Jerome have exprefsly mentioned it as Apocryphal: and as I have proved the former of these looked upon the whole hiftory as fabulous and fictitious, fo it is undeniably evident the latter did too. Hence it is he justly banters it, as containing baptizati leonis fabulam, the idle ftory of a lion's being baptized, which was undoubtedly in Jerome's and other copies of this book which were extant in his time, but, being so

1

very

very grofs, was afterwards expunged by the care of fome one who thought it fo. The learned editor of thefe Acts does, indeed, suppose this story neither to have been originally nor commonly in them; because neither Tertullian nor any other of the Fathers have mentioned it; but that it was accidentally in Jerome's copy, by the careleffnefs or fraud of some scribe". But this is a fuppofition to ferve a turn, without the least colour or evidence of truth. His argument ftands fairly thus: "Paul cites a paffage out of fome book of the Old Testa"ment; but neither Peter, John, James, nor any one else of "the Apostles, have cited that paffage, though it seems to "their purpose to have cited it; therefore the paffage was "not genuine, but a peculiar interpolation in Paul's copy.' Besides as to Tertullian, I cannot but obferve that Dr. Grabe faith, if there had been any fuch ftory of the baptized lion in the antient Acts, he would certainly have taken notice of it, libri auctoritatem elevare, to overthrow the credit and authority of the book; whereas two or three pages before he would perfuade us, Tertullian believed the hiftory to be genuine, and the book to be true, only that it went falfely under St. Paul's name (fee above, Arg. I.); than which, nothing can be a more evident contradiction. But fuch inconfiftencies the best writers are betrayed into, when they have the misfortune to be flaves to prejudice.

But it is yet pleaded in behalf of these Acts, that they are frequently cited and referred to by the writers of the fourth century, and by Cyprian more than once in the third. But, after a ftrict enquiry into the matter, I find no evidence of this book or history being either known or credited before the latter end of the fourth century. Credita ex parte quarta ætate, quum perpetuæ virginitatis crefceret admiratio apud Ambrofium, Nazianzenum, &c. They met with credit among fome in the fourth century, at the time when the doctrine of perpetual virginity grew into esteem with Ambrofe, Nazianzen, &c. fays the great antiquary Frederick Spanheim; in which he seems most justly to have hinted both the time and occafion of these

a

Spicileg. Patr. t. 1. p. 93.

b Hift. Eccl. Secul. 1. p. 567. Acts

Acts first getting into publick esteem. Nor is it of any force, to say they are cited in the former age by Cyprian in his two orations (fee the places at large, Chap. XXXIV.); for it is almost universally agreed, that neither of thofe orations were wrote by that Father, but are spurious and fuppofititious. Bellarmin himself places them both among those works of Cyprian which are supposititia vel dubia; i. e. spurious or doubtful a; and fo I find they are ranked in many of the editions of Cyprian's works. Accordingly they have been rejected as fuch by the criticks in their studies, viz. Erafmus, Cocus, Rivet, Cave f, &c. As to Epiphanius, Ambrofe, Gregory Nazianzen, who were cotemporaries, and fome others who lived about the fame time, and have cited certain paffages out of these Acts or Hiftory of Thecla; as it is evident they did not cite them as Scripture, but only as what they believed to be a true and useful history; so it is no less evident they were impofed upon by the artifices and frauds of fome defigning men, who trumped up this old forgery again, and published it with the addition of fome embellishment of their own, in order to fupport the high fuperftitious notions which men at this time began to entertain of perpetual virginity. Non femper vera funt aut genuina, quæ a priscis patribus vel ufurpata funt, vel etiam aliquando probata, says the learned Rivet on this very matter ; i. e. We are not always to conclude thofe things to be true, which have been referred to and approved by the antient Fathers.

go

Arg. IV. The Acts of Paul and Thecla are Apocryphal, because they relate feveral things false, and which are contrary to those things which are certainly known to be true, by Prop. VIII. I have given above fome general, and what appears to me conclusive evidence, that the whole business is a mere romance and fiction; what I intend here is, to select some par

a De Script. Ecclef. ad Cyprian, Vid. Ind. Opp. Cypriani, et Pamel. Præfat. in tom. 3.

с

Apud Rivet. Critic. Sacr. lib.

2. C. 15.

* Cenfur. Vet. Script. p. 75, 76. * Critic. Sacr. loc. cit.

f Hift. Liter. in Cypriano, vol. I. p. 90.

Critic. Sacr. lib. 1. c. 5. ticular

ticular inftances of fuch things as appear directly to oppose and contradict acknowledged truths; fuch as,

1. The doctrine of celibacy, or the unlawfulness of marriage, which is here faid to be expressly taught and preached by Paul, Ch. IV. Bleffed are they who keep their flesh undefiled. And, Ch. VII. Blessed are the fouls and bodies of virgins; for they are acceptable to God, and shall not lose the reward of their virginity. For the word of their heavenly Father shall prove effectual to their falvation in the day of his Son, and they shall enjoy reft for evermore. So his doctrine is understood by Theoclia, Chap. IX. She tells Thamyris that Paul taught, that we should continue in chastity, i. e. not marry. So Demas and Hermogenes represent him, Ch. XI. as teaching there can be no future refurrection, unless ye continue in chastity, and do not defile your flesh, viz. by marrying: accordingly Thamyris draws up his indictment before the judge against him, as afferting matrimony to be unlawful, Ch. XIV. To add no more, it was on this account Thecla left her intended hufband Thamyris, and fuch mighty miracles attended her; and, to fupport this doctrine, it is plain the whole book was calculated. But can any thing be more abfurd, or contrary to truth? This mad doctrine, had it been poffible for it to have prevailed, must foon have extinguished and put an end to mankind on earth. Befides, nothing is more contrary to the known and confeffed doctrine of St. Paul, who has in his received Epiftles (which we may, confidering what is already above said, presume to be of equal authority with these Acts of Paul and Thecla) several times wrote a directly against those early Hereticks, who denied the lawfulness of marriage, 1 Cor. vii. 9. he ftyles fuch, 1 Tim. iv. 1, 2, 3. Departers from the faith, giving heed to feducing Spirits; and calls the doctrines of those who forbid to marry, the doctrines of devils. If then the hiftory of these Acts be true, and Paul preached and taught as above, he manifeftly contradicts himself: and I must own myfelf of the Manichee Fauftus's mind, who faid (fee the place

a

&c,

See the former volume of this work, Part II. Ch. XVI. p. 209,

above, Ch. XXXIV. Num. 4.) upon the fuppofition of the history of Paul and Thecla to be true: If the doctrine of celibacy and perpetual virginity be false, I cannot but be in pain for your own Apostle (Paul), left he should be found himself to have established the doctrine of devils; when, by his discourse at Iconium, he incited Thecla to a vow of perpetual virginity, though She was at that time actually engaged to marry. I fee no poffible method of anfwering the force of this heretick's argument, and to make the Apostle confiftent with himself, if the history of Paul and Thecla should be true. It is evident therefore these Acts contained things false; and fo, that they are Apocryphal by Prop. VIII.

2. The introducing Paul with a known downright lie in his mouth, Ch. XIX. seems to me a juft foundation to charge falfehood on thefe Acts of Paul and Thecla. That he is so introduced, is evident; for after an intimate acquaintance between Paul and Thecla (Ch. XIV, XVII.), and their having taken a journey together to Antioch (Ch. XIX.), he is prefently made to deny her, and to tell Alexander, I know not the woman of whom you speak, nor does she belong to me. But how contrary this is to the known and true character of St. Paul, every one muft fee. He who fo boldly ftood up for the defence of the Gospel against all fort of oppofition, who hazarded and suffered all things for the fake of God and a good confcience, which he endeavoured to keep void of offence towards God and men, fure never would fo eafily have been betrayed to fo gross a crime, to make a facrifice of the credit of his profeffion, and the peace of his confcience at once upon fo flight a temptation and provocation. Nor will it be of any force to object here, that, in the received Scriptures, Abraham is faid twice to have denied his wife, viz. Gen. xii. 19. and xx. 2, &c. as alfo Ifaac is faid to have denied his, Gen. xxvi. 7, &c. and in the New Teftament, that Peter denied his Mafter, and declared he did not know him, Matt. xxvi. 72. for the circumstances are in many cafes very different, and efpecially in this, that Paul appeared now in no danger if he had confeffed her; or, if he had been in danger, might have eafily delivered himself from it; to which add, that he had undergone a thouVOL. II. D d

fand