The passages which seem at first to identify baptism with the gift of the Spirit are especially Ac 238 and 192-«- In 2^8 St. Peter says: 'Repent and be baptized . . . and ye shall receive the gift of the Spirit.' This seems decisive, but in the con- text we are not told that those baptized received the Spirit — only that they were added to the Church. Was this the same thing for the writer? Or did he mean that after reception into the Church they would receive it? In the same way in Ac 19-'® St. Paul asks the Ephesians whether they have not received the Spirit ; and, hearing that this is not so, he inquires further into their baptism. Nevertheless, in the end, the gift of the Spirit in their case is directly connected with the 'lapng on of hands.' This conclusion is, of course, supported by the other passages in which baptism and the gift of the Spirit are distinguished : of these 8^-^" and 10^' are the most important. (A full discussion will be found in ERE ii. 382 ff.)
LrrERATUHE. — See at the end of the various sections and throughout the article. KiRSOPP LaKE.
**ACTS OF THE APOSTLES (Apocryphal).— I. lyTRODCCTORY.— The most important of the Apocryphal Acts are the five (Peter, Paul, John, Andrew, Thomas) which sometimes are referred to as 'the Leucian Acts,' because they are supposed to have been composed by a certain Leucius. Before they can be discussed separately, it is therefore necessary to deal with the problem of the Leucian corpus, and inquire whether such a collection ex- isted in early times, what was its nature, and how far the name of 'Leucian' may be applied to it. The direct source of the later tradition that there was a Leucian corpus is no doubt a statement of Photius {Bibliotheca, cod. 114) :
aveyvwcrOj] jSt^At'oi', at \€y6fj.€vai tujv a.iro<TT6\ti>v nepioSoi, ev aiy ireptet'xorro 7rpa^€is UeVpou, 'lojai'vov, 'AvSpe'ou, 0a)fjta, navAov ypd(^ei Se avras, ws Sr]Kol to aiiTO ^tfiKiov, AeuKios Xapi^'os.
From this it is plain that Photius had seen a corpus of Acts, and interpreted some passage in the text to mean that the five Acts were all written by Leucius Charinus. It is therefore desirable to examine earUer hterature for (1) mention of Leucius, (2) mention of the five Acts of Peter, John, Andrew, Thomas, and Paul, either as a corpus or as separate writings.
1. References to Lencius. — i. Ix the East. — Epiphaniirs (Fanar. li. 6), when speaking of the Alogi, mentions as famous heretics Cerinthus and Ebion, Merinthus and Cleobius or Cleobulus, Claudius, Demas, and Hermogenes, and says they Charles Scribner's Sons.
30
ACTS (APOCRYPHAL)
ACTS (APOCRYPHAL)
were controverted by St. John Kal tQiv dfj.<pl avT6v, AcvKiov Kcd d\\u)i> TroWu}i>. Presumably, therefore, Epiphaniua was acquainted with some book in which Leucius appeared as a companion of St. John, but it will be noted that he does not suggest that Leucius was in any way heretical, but rather that he controverted heretics. Apart from this sohtary mention there is no trace of Leucius in Greek Christian \\Titings until Photius.
ii. In the West. — It is quite different in the West ; here there is a series of witnesses to Leucius. (1) Pacian (f c. 390), bishop of Barcelona. — In Ep. iii. 3 Pacian wT-ites to Semp. Novatianus concerning the Proclan party of the Montanists, * who claimed some connexion with Leucius, which Pacian denied; and the natural interpretation of his words seems to be that he regarded Leucius as an orthodox Christian to whom the Montanists tried to attach their origin ; but the passage is obscure :
'Et primum hi plurimis utuntur auctoribus; nam puto et Graecus Blastus ipsorum est. Theodotus quoque et Praxeas vestros aliquando docuere : ipsi illi Phryges [i.e. Montanists] nobiliores, qui se animatos mentiuntur a Leucio, se institutes a Proculo gloriantur.'
(2) Aiigustine. — In the contra Felicem, ii. 6, written earlier in the 5th cent., Augustine says :
'H.abetis etiam hoc in scripturis apocryphis, quas canon quidem catholicus non admittit, vobis autem [i.e. the Mani- chseans] tanto graviorea sunt, quanto a catholico canone seeluduntur ... in actibus scriptis a Leucio (codd. 'Leutio') quos tamquam actus apostolorum scribit, habes ita positum : "etenim speciosa figmenta et ostentatio simulata et coactio visibilium nee quidem ex propria natura procedunt, sed ex eo hominequiperseipsum deterior factus est per seductionem." '
As is shown later, Augustine was acquainted with the Apocryphal Acts of Peter, Andrew, Thomas, John, and Paul, of which the first four were accepted only by Manichaeans, the last (Paul) probably by Catholics also. There is nothing, however, to show from which he is quoting here, and the passage is not in any of the extant frag- ments. Thomas is excluded, as we probably have the complete text, and the passage is unlike what we possess of the Acts of Peter or Paul. It is there- fore probable, as Schmidt argues {Alte Petrusakten, p. 50), that he is referring to Andrew or John — the two Acts for which the Leucian authorship is other- wise most probable. But the point is not certain, and the possibility remains that he is referring to a Manichsean corpus of Acts, collected by Leucius.
(3) Euodius of Uzala. — In the de Fide contra Manichaeos, ch. 38 (printed in Augustine's works [ed. Migne, Patrologia Latina, vol. xlii.]), written by Euodius, the contemporary of Augustine, the Acts of Andrew is attributed to Leucius. The full quota- tion is given by Schmidt (p. 53), who thinks that it probably, though not certainly, impUes that Euodius also regarded Leucius as the author of a corpus of Acts, but argues that this opinion was probably based only on an interpretation of the passage of Augustine quoted above. However this may be, it remains clear that Euodius regarded the Acts of Andrew as IVIanichaean and the work of Leucius.