ACTS OF THE APOSTLES, Spurious. Of these several are extant, others are lost, or only fragments of them have come down to us. Of the following we know little more than that they once existed. They are here arranged chronologically: — (1.) The Preach- ing of Peter, referred to by Origen (in his Commentary on St. Joints Gospel, lib. xiv), also referred to by Clemens Alexandrinus. (2.) The Acts of Peter, sup- posed by Dr. Cave to be cited by Serapion. (3.) The Acts of Paul and Thecla, mentioned by Tertullian (Lib. de Baptismo, cap. xvii). This is, however, supposed by some to be the same which is found in a Greek MS. in the Bodleian Library, and has been published by Dr. Grabe (in his Spicil. Patrum Soecul. I.). (4.) The Doctrine of Peter, cited by Origen (" Prooem." in Lib. de Princip."). (5.) The Acts of Paul (id. de Princip. i, 2). ((3.) The Preaching of Paul, referred to by St. Cyprian (Tract, de non iterando Baptismo). (7.) The Preaching of Paul and Peter at Pome, cited by Lactan- tius (De vera Sap. iv, 21). (8.) The Acts of Peter, thrice mentioned by Eusebius (/list. Eccles. iii, 3) ; " as to that work, however, which is ascribed to him, called 'The Acts' and the 'Gospel according to Peter,' wc know nothing of their being handed down as Catholic writings, since neither among the ancient nor the ec- clesiastical writers of our own day has there been one that has appealed to testimony taken from them." (9.) The Acts of Paul (ib.). (10.) The Revelation of Peter (ib.). (11.) The Acts of Andrew and John (ib. cap. 25). " Thus," he says, "we have it in our power to know .... those books that arc adduced by the heretics, under the name of the apostles, such, viz., as compose the gospels of Peter, Thomas, and Matthew,
. . . and such as contain the Acts of the Apostles by Andrew and John, and others of which no one of those writers in the ecclesiastical succession has condescend- ed to make any mention in his works ; and, indeed, the character of the style itself is very different from that of the apostles, and the sentiments and the purport of those that are advanced in them deviating as far as possible from sound orthodoxy, evidently proves they are the fictions of heretical men, whence they are to be ranked not only among the spurious writings, but are to be rejected as altogether absurd and im- pious." (12.) The Acts of Peter, John, and Thomas (Athanasius, Synops. § 76). (13.) The Writings <f Bartholomew the Apostle, mentioned by the pseudo- Dionysius. (14.) The Acts, Preaching, and Revelation of Piter, cited by Jerome (in his Catal. Script. Eccles.). (15.) The Acts of the Apostles by Seleucus (id. Epist. ad Chrom., etc.). (10.) The Acts of I aid and Thecla (id. Catalog. Script. Eccles.). (17.) The Acts of the Apos-
' ties, used by the Ebionites, cited by Epiphanius (Adrer. sus Ilores. § 1G). (18.) The Acts of Leucius, Lentias,
' or Lenticius, called the Acts of the Apostles (Augustin. Lib. de Fid. c. 38). (19.) The Acts of the Apostles, used by the Manichees. (20.) The Revelations of Thomas, Paul, Stephen, etc. (Gelasius, de Lib. Apoc. ajmd Gra- tian. Distinct. 15, c. 3).
To these may be added the genuine Acts of Pilate, appealed to by Tertullian and Justin Martyr, in their Apologies, as being then extant. Tertullian describes them as " the records which were transmitted from Jerusalem to Tiberius concerning Christ." He refers to the same for the proof of our Saviour's miracles. — Kitto, s. v. See Acts of Pilate.
The following are the principal spurious Acts still extant : — (1.) The A cts of. Paul and Thecla, said to have been written by a disciple of St. Paul, and who (ac- cording to Tertullian, De Bap. cap. xvii, and Jerome,
: De Scrip, cap. vi), when convicted by John the Evan- gelist of having falsified facts, confessed that he had done so, but through his love for his master Paul.
j These Acts were rejected as uncanonical b}' Pope Ge- lasius. They were printed, together with some that follow, at London (in English) in 1821, 8vo, under the title "Apocryphal New Testament" (see Fabrieius,
'. Cod. Apoc. N. T. ii, 794). (2.) Acts of the Twelve
' Apostles, falsely attributed to Abdias of Babylon. See Abdias. These Acts are said to have been written by him in Hebrew, translated into Greek by Eutropius, and into Latin by Julius Africanus, and were pub- lished by Lazius, at Basle, in 1551 (Fabric, ii, 388). It is a work full of the most extravagant fables, and bears internal evidence of having been written after
| the second century. (3.) Acts of St. Peter, or, as the work is sometimes designated, Recognitionum libri 10, attributed falsely to Clemens Romanus. (4.) The Acts or Voyages (Periodi) of St. John, mentioned by Epi- phanius and Augustine, is probably that which we
I now have as the Acts of St. John among those attrib- uted to Abdias.
There exist also the following (for which see each
j name in its place) : — The Creed of the Apostles ; The Epistles of Barnabas, Clement, Ignatius, and Poly carp • The Shepherd of Hernias; The Acts of Pilate (spurious), or the Gospel of Nicodemus ; The Constitutions of the Apostles; The Canons of the Apostles; The Liturgies of the Apostles; St. Paul's Epistle to the Laodiceans; St.