(2) Augustine. — In the controversial WTitings of Augustine against the Manichseans there are manj^ allusions to the Apocryphal Acts. Reference may especially be made to (a) the de Sermone Domini in Monte (i. 20, 6.5), in which allusions can be traced to the Acts of Thomas ; (6) the contra Adimayitum, 17, where allusions to the Acts of Thomas and Acts of Peter can be identified ; (c) the contra Faustum Manicheum (Ub. xiv. and xxx.) ; (d) the contra Felicem ; and (e) the de Civitate Dei. Schmidt (44 ff.) has shown, from the consideration of these passages, that the Manichaeans used the five Acts of John, Andrew, Peter, Thomas, and Paul, while the Cathohcs rejected the first four, but accepted the Acts of Paul. The crucial pass- age for this conclusion is c. Faustum, xxx. 4, in which Faustus the ISIanichee says :
' Mitto enim ceteros eiusdem domini nostri apostolos, Petrum et Andream, Thomam et ilium inexpertum veneris inter ceteros beatum Joharmem . . . sed hos quidem, ut dixi, praetereo, quia eos vos [i.e. the Catholics] exclusistis ex canone, facUeque mente sacrilega vestra daemoniorum his potestis importare doctrinas. Num igitur et de Christo eadem dicere poteritis aut deapostolo Paulo, quemsimiliterubique const at etverbo semper practulisse nuptis innuptas et id opera qaoque ostendisse erga sanctissimam Theclam ? quodsi haec daemoniorum doctrina non fuit, quam et Theclae Paulus et ceteri ceteris adnuntiaverunt apostoli, cui credi iam poterit hoc ab ipso memoratum, tam- quam sit daemoniorum voluntas et doctrina etiam persuasio eanctimonii ? '
As Schmidt says, it is clear that Faustus gava up the use of the Acts of Andrew, John, Peter, and Thomas, because his opponents refused to recognize their authority, but rehed on a Pauhne document relating to Thekla. Before the discovery of the Acts of Paul it was possible to think that this might be the so-called Acts of Paul and Thekla. It is now, however, fairly certain that this latter docu- ment in its present form is merely an extract from the older Acts of Paul ; there is no reason, there- fore, to doubt that Augustine and Faustus both recognized the Acts of Paul, which had not yet been entirely deposed from the Canon.
(3) Innocent I. and Exsuperius. — A correspond- ence (in A. D. 405) between Innocent i. and Exsup- erius, bishop of Toulouse (see the quotation above), shows that the Apocr^-phal Acts were used in Spain not only by IManichaeans but also by Priscillian- ists. . It is not quite clear to which Acts Innocent refers. Besides mentioning the Acts of Peter and John (of which certainly the latter and probably the former also are ascribed to Leucius), he refers to Acts of Matthias and of James the less, which do not elsewhere appear in the Manichaean corpus, as well as to those of Andrew, which in some texts (see Zahn, Gesch. des A'T Kanons, Leipzig, 1888- 92, ii. 244 ff .) are ascribed to Nexocharide (v.l. Xenocharide) and Leonidas ; Fabricius (Codex Apocryphns, ii. 707) thinks that these names are a corruption of Charinus and Leucius.
(4) Leo the Great and Turribius (440-461) . — Forty
years after the time of Innocent, the correspond- ence between Leo and Turribius, bishop of Astorga in Spain, throws more hght on the use of the Apocrj'phal Acts by the PrisciUianists. Leo com- plains that the PrisciUianists 'scripturas veraa adulterant ' and ' falsas inducunt.' Turribius found that the PrisciUianists and Manichseans were mak- ing great progress in Spain, and for this reason had elicited a letter of condemnation from Leo. He also expressed himself further in his letters to Idacius and Creponius, and apparently annexed a selection of heretical passages from the Apocryphal Acts to justify his disapproval. This selection is, however, unfortunately no longer extant, but it is plain that he was acquainted with the Acts of Thomas, Andrew, and John (for text see above, 1. (6)). He also refers to a Memoria Apostolorum,
'inquo admagnam perversitatissuae auctoritatem doctrinam domini mentiuntur, qui totam destruit legem veteris Testa- menti ct omnia quae S. Moysi de diversis creaturae factorisque divinitus revelata sunt, praeter reliquaa eiusdem libri blas- phemias quaa referre pertaesum est.'
This Memoria Apostolorum is also mentioned by Orosius (ConsuJtatio ad Augustinum, in Patr. Lat. xUi. 667), and Schmidt (p. 50) thinks that it is the source of a quotation from a Manichaean writing which Augustine could not trace :
' Sed Apostolis dominus noster interrogantibus de Judaeorum prophetis quid sentiri deberet, qui de adventu eius aliquid cecinisse in praeteritum putabantur, commotus talia eos etiam nunc sentire respondit "Demisistis vivum qui ante vos est et de mortuia fabulamini."'
ii. In the East. — (1) Eusebius. — In HE iii. 25. 6 the Acts of John and Andrew are mentioned to- gether with 'those of the other apostles,' and are regarded as books used by heretics. In iii. 3. 2 the Acts of Peter are mentioned, and in iii. 3. 5 and iii. 25. 4 the Acts of Paul. The Acts of Thomas are not quoted, nor is any reference made to Leucius.
(2) EphraimSyrus (c. 360). — In his commentary' Ephraim says that the apocr^-phal correspondence between Paul and the Corinthians was ■RTitten by the followers of Bardesanes, 'in order that under cover of the signs and wonders of the Apostle, which they described, they might ascribe to the name of the Apostle their own godlessness, against which the Apostle had striven.' This apocryphal correspondence was contained in the Acts of Paul, but it also circulated in some SjTiac and Armenian NT MSS ; no doubt it was an excerpt from the Acts, but it is not clear whether Ephraim knew the Acts or the excerpt. It is, however, much more probable that Ephraim is here referring to the Acts, as the correspondence alone does not seem ever to have been regarded by the SjTiac Church as heretical.