(4) Innocent I. — In a rescript of 405 to E.xsuperius, bishop of Toulouse, Innocent says :
'Cetera autem quae vel sub nomine Matthiae vel sub nomine lacobi minoris, vol sub nomine Petri et Johannis quae aquodam Leucio scripta sunt (vel sub nomine Andreae quae a Nexo- charide et Leonida philosophis), vel s>ib nomine Thomae et si qua sunt alia {r.l. talia), non solum repudianda verum etiam noveris damnanda.'
The words enclosed in brackets are probably an interpolation (see Zahn, Acta Joannis, 209), and Nexocharides and Leonidas the philosophers are otherwise unknown persons. The text is certainly not quite in order, but Leucius is clearly indicated as the author of the Acts of Peter and of John.
* From pseudo-Tertullian, Tfcfut. omn. fleer, viii. 19, x. 26, it appears that some Montanists were Kara. UpoKAov, others Kara Ai(7\ivrjv (see Th. Zahn, Acta Joannis, p. Ixvi, n. 1).
(5) The Decretum Gelasianum (6th cent.), — After rejecting as apocryphal the Acts of Andrew, Thomas, Peter, and Philip, the ^vTiter goes on to give a hst of Apocryphal Gospels, and then con- tinues : 'Libri omnes quos fecit Leucius discipulus diaboli, apocryphi.' _ As there follow several Mani- cha?an writings, it is tolerably certain that here, as elsewhere, 'disciple of the devil' means 'Mani- chsean,' but it is not clear to which books reference is made. There is a slight presumption that the books made by Leucius are not identical with any ah-eady mentioned, and this would suggest either the Acts of John, which are not otherwise men- tioned, or possibly the Acts of Pilate, which in the Latin version are connected with the name of Leucius Charinus. Schmidt, however, while think- ing that the Acts of John are certainly intended, is inclined to beheve that the writer may have meant the whole Manichaean collection.
(6) Turribius of Astorga (c. 450). — In a corre- spondence with his fellow-bishops, Idacius and Creponius, Turribius discusses the Hterature of the Manichaeans and Priscillianists. Among these he mentions 'Actus illos qui vocantur S. Andreae, vel illos qui appellantur S. loannis, quos sacrilego Leucius ore conscripsit, vel illos qui dicuntur S. Thomae et his similia, etc' Here clearly Leucius is regarded as the author of the Acts of John, and presumably not of the others — though, if a certain laxity of syntax be conceded, the Acts of Andrew might be added — certainly not of the Acts of Thomas.
(7) Mellitus. — The writer of a late Catholic version -of the Acts, who took to himself the name of Mellitus, probably intending to identify himself withMeUto of Sardis (c. 160-190), says: 'Volo solhcitam esse fraternitatem vestram de Leucio quodam qui scripsit apostolorum actus, loannis evangelistae et sancti Andreae vel Thomae apostoK, etc' ; so that he must have regarded Leucius as the author of these three Acts, but there is no suggestion of the full corpus of five. Schmidt thinks that he probably derived his knowledge from the letter of Turribius and a list of heretical writings, which was once annexed to it, though it has now disappeared ; the letter was probably taken up into the works of Leo, with whom Turri- bius corresponded (see Schmidt, p. 61). It does not appear probable from internal evidence that Mellitus had any first-hand knowledge of the Apocryphal Acts.
(8) Further traces of Leucius, under the corrupt form of Seleucus, can perhaps be traced in pseudo- Hieronymus, Ep. ad Chromatium et Heliodorum, and in hterature dependent upon it (see Schmidt, p. 62) ; but no importance can be attached to this late and inferior composition.
It would appear from these data that (a) the earliest traditions connected Leucius with St. John, and did not regard him as heretical. (6) A quite late tradition regarded him as the author of the corpus of five Acts — Paul, Peter, John, Andrew, and Thomas — which the Manichaeans used as a substitute for the canonical Acts, and the Priscil- lianists in addition to the canonical Acts, (c) E.x- ternal evidence suggests that Leucius was probably the author of the Acts of John, and, with less clearness, of Andrew, but not of Peter, Paul, or Thomas ; and this conclusion is supported by in- ternal evidence.
2. The evidence for the Acts as a collection. — i. In the West.— (1) Fhila.strius of Brescia (.38.3- 391). — In his Liber de Hairesibus, 88, we have the earliest evidence for a corpus of Apocyrphal Acts. He begins by referring to those who use ' apocryfa, id est sccreta,' instead of the canonical OT and NT, and mentions as the chief of those who do this the 'Manichaei, Gnostici, Nicolaitae, Valentiniani et
ACTS (APOCR\THAL)
ACTS (APOCR\THAL)
31
alii quam plurimi qui apocryfa prophetarum et apostolorum, id est Actus separates habentes, canonicas legere scripturas contemnunt.' Later on he gives more details in a passage where the text is unfortunately clearly corrupt :
'Nam Manichaei apocrj'fa beati Andreae apostoli, id est Actus quos fecit veniens de Ponto in Greciam [quos] conscrip- serunt tunc discipuli sequentes beatum apostolum, unde et habent Manichaei et alii tales Andreae beati et Joannis actus evangelistae beati et Petri similiter beatissimi apostoli et Pauli pariter beati apostoli : in quibus quia signa fecerunt magna et prodigia, etc'
TMiatever may be the true text of this passage, it clearly implies (a) that the IManichaeans used a corpus of ApocrA'phal Acts in place of the canonical Acts of the Apostles ; (h) that this corpus contained the Acts of Andrew, John, Peter, and Paul ; (c) the Acts of Thomas is not mentioned (Schmidt [p. 44] thinks that this is merely accidental) ; {d) Leucius is not mentioned.