non by Origen and Clemens Alexandrinus, the only two Fa-
thers who have made use of it: it was never read in any of the
Christian Churches till the time of Jerome, and then only in
some few among the Apocryphal Scriptures ; it contains seve-
ral things which are absolutely false, of which I have produced
ten instances; it contains a great number of trilling, silly, and
idle things, and is not in the Syriack Version. This I have
endeavoured to prove; all which laid together, does (I think)
afford us as much evidence as can be expected in things of this
fort, that the high opinions, which many learned men have en-
tertained of this Epistle, are groundless, and that it is not to be
looked upon either as a sacred book, or any thing like a sacred
book of the New Testament.

I have nothing farther to add concerning this Epistle, unless
it be to conjecture, that, because only Clemens Alexandrinus
and Origen have cited it, it was forged at Alexandria; and
because there are so many pious frauds in it, that it was the
forgery of some such person as corrupted the books of the
Sibyls, and that it was written about the middle of the second
century, i


[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

ABGARUS, King of Edeffa, BARCLAY Robert, his Apo.
1 his Epistle to Christ, with logy for the Quakers, &c.- noted,
Christ's Answer, 2. An account. 403.
of it by Eusebius and Ephraem BARNABAS, the Epistle of, cited
Syrus, 4,6. thought spurious by by antient Fathers, generally
several learned men, 7, n. and esteemed by the learned as ge-
proved fo by six several argu. nuine, and adjudged by some of
ments, 10.

cqual authority with the books
AHMED-IBN-IDRIS, a Mahometan of the Canon, 412. The testi-

writer, fays, the Gospel of our monies of the antients, 413. and
Saviour's Infancy was used by sentiments of the moderns, con-
some Christians, as the other four cerning it, 422. This Epistle
Gospels, 167, n.

proved to be wrote by an ori-
ASTERIUS, a writer of the fourth ginal Gentile, 432. Å remark

century, his account of the bra on 1 Pet. iv. 3. p. 433. it was
· zen statue of our Saviour, erected wrote after the destruction of Je.
· by the woman, whom he cured rusalem, 436. Barnabas was one
of the issue of blood, 26, n.

of the 70 Disciples, 436. Ex-
ATHANASIUS, his account of a plication of John xxi. 21, and
· picture of Christ, presented by Matt. xvi. 28. p. 438. This

Nicodemus to Gamaliel, 26, n. : Epistle is Apocryphal, because
AUSTIN, cites the Epistles of Paul not found in any Catalogue of
· and Seneca, 62. highly com the sacred books of the New Tele
mends Seneca, 74, n. he enter tament, 440. nor cited by the

tained a prodigious veneration primitive Christians as Scripture,
· for reliques, 256. makes men 44.0. nor read by them as the
tion of Thecla, 390..

word of God. 443. one part con-


[ocr errors]

tradicts another, 444. it contains
things which are false, 445,

Three visible mistakes in it pro-
Wduced and detected, 448. Five
instances of things trifling and
filly, 454. It is Apocryphal,
becaufe not in the Syriack Ver-
fion, &c. 461. A conjecture,
that it was forged at Alexandria
by some person that corrupted
the books of the Sibyls, about the
middle of the second century,

BARONIUS rejects the Epistles of

Paul and Seneca, as fpurious,
77, n. elteems the history of Paul

and Thecla, as genuine, 392,n.
BELLARMINE rejects the Epistles

of Paul and Seneca, as fpurious,

77, n. :
BERNARD, Dr. his opinion of Bar-

nabas's Epistle, 427. his assertion
that it was read in the churches,
together with Canonical books,

refuted, 443, n.
Beza, his opinion on John ii. 11.

p. 238, n.

ceans among the forgeries of the
Manichees, 49, n. rejects the E.
pistles of Paul and Seneca as (pu-
rious, 77, n. his opinion of the
Epistle of Barnabas, 428, n. Ex-
position of John xxi. 21. p. 438,

CEDRENUs, his account of the seal,

which Christ affixed to his Epi.

stle to Abgarus, 7, n.
CELIBACY, its doctrine confirmed

out of the Acts of Paul and

Thecla, 392, n. ..
CHARDIN, Sir John, his account

of the Gospel of the infancy of
Christ, in an Armenian legend,

CHEMNITI US censures the Epistles

of Christ and Abgarus as fpu-
rious, 8, n. his judgment on
John ïi. Il. p. 238, n. condemns
for spurious the accounts of our
Saviour's infancy, 241, n. proves
that there was no adoration of-
fered to the Virgin Mary, till the
fourth or fifth century, 254, n.
nor reliques known to the primi-
tive Christians, 255, n. A merry
story of his concerning the latter,

CHRIST, an Epiftle under his name

to an Arabian King, translated
out of Syriack into Greek, and
preserved in the writings of Eu-
sebius, 2, n. 4. An account of
the feal (consisting of leyen He-
brew letters) which he used, &c.
7, n. These Epiftles, esteemed
by several learned men, fpurious
and Apocryphal, 8, n. and proved
by several arguments to be so, g.
the main objection concerning it
answered, 18. A conjecture,
that the history of these Epistles
is an interpolation into the works
of Eufebius, with several argu.
ments to support it, 19. A frag-
ment concerning Chrit's picture,
which he sent to Abgarus, taken
out of the Orthodoxographa, 22.
A relation of a miracle wrought
by it, 23, n. The story of this
picture was common among the
writers of the sixth and following
centuries, ibid. A digression
out of Monsieur Durant, coul-


CANTERBURY, present Archbi-

shop of, demonstrates the story
and Epistles of Christ and Abga-
rus to be fpurious, 9, 11. his opi.
nion concerning St. Paul's Epi.
Ale to the Laodiceans, refuted,
42. his sentiments of the Epittle
of Barnabas, 428, n. An exa-
mination of his vindication of the
Allegories, contained in that E-

pistle, &c. 458.
CASAUBON, a mistake of his con-

cerning the Arabick translation
of Mark iii. 21. corrected by De
Dieu, 242. his opinion concern-
ing the Acts of Pilate, 333, n.
he censures the Epiftle of Barna-
bas, and the primitive Fathers,
for quoting, and too frequently
making ufe of, the Sibylline

books, 461, n.
Cave, Dr. his opinion concerning

the history of the Epiftles of
Christ and Abgarus, 8, n. He
reckons the Epistle to the Laodi-

cerning four pictures of Christ, miracles ascribed to his infancy,
made during his life on earth, forgeries and lies, 245, n. He
24. A prayer of his (probably entertained a great veneration for
a Mahometan forgery) different reliques, 256. cites the Acts of
from that in the Gospels, 27. Pilate, 330, n. mentions the Acts
proved fpurious, 29, n.

of Paul and Thecla, 391, n.
Christ's Infancy, the Gospel of, CLARKE, Dr. S. his opinion of

published and translated by Mr. Barnabas's Epistle, 429, n. re-
Henry Sike, at Utrecht, in 1697, . 'futed, 440..
p. 166. Another under the name CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, his
of Thomas, out of Cotelerius's testimonies concerning Barna-
notes on the Constitutions of the bas's Epistle, 413. His copies
Apostles, who printed it out of a corrupted, and Barnabas inserted
Ms. in the French King's li for Clemens Romanus, 419. he
brary, 221. These seem to be had too high an opinion of Bar-
originally the same, 226. The nabas's Epistle, 441. yet contra-
antient Gospel of Thomas dif dicts it, 442.
ferent from this of the Infancy Le Clerc, Mr. censures the story
of Christ, 227. They are men-

• and Epistles of Christ and Ab-
tioned by the antients as two di garus for fpurious, 9, n. His
ftin&t books, &c. 228. Christ's opinion upon the text, Col. iv,
Infancy a forgery of the Gnus 16. refuted, 41. his opinion con-
ticks, ibid. received by the Mar cerning the Acts of Pilate, 334,
cosians in the second century, n. concerning Barnabas's Epistle,
229. knjown to Mahomet, and 430.
made use of by the compilers of Cocus condemns, as fpurious, the
the Alcoran, 230. contained in whole story and Epistle of Christ
the Legends of the Persians, 232, to Abgarus, 8, n. rejects the
n. They are Apocryphal, and Epifties of Paul and Seneca, 77.
not received by the antient Christ COLLINS, Dr. his observation on
ians, 235. The design of them John ii. 16 p. 238, n.
false, ibid. proved froin Scrip. COLLYRIDIANI, whence so named,
ture, and the universal filerice of 253.
the firit Chriftian writers; 236. Cotelerius, his fragment of the
and from St. John's Gospel, ch. Infancy of Christ, 221. His opi.
ii. II. p. 237. That text criti- nion of Barnabas's Epiftle, 426.
cally discussed, 238. Intimations · LA CROZE, Monsieur, cites a fy-
in Scripture, that Christ wrought - nod, held in the diocese of Anga.
no miracles in his infancy, 241. mala, in the mountains of Mala.
This positively asserted by several bar, A. D. 1599, which con-
Fathers, 243, n. These Gospels demns the Gospels of Christ's In-
proved Apocryphal from the tri fancy, &c. 167, n. 258, n. His
fing stories, and many falsities in opinion of those Gospels,-ibid. na
them contained, 246. because Cross, the practice of signing with,
they contain things later than the ' by whom first mentioned, 348,
time in which they pretend to be 406. -
written, 251. because of the pro- CYPRIAN makes mention of The-
digious respect paid by them to cla, 389..
the Virgin Mary, 252. The

. D
opinions of Dr. Mill, Mr. La
Croze, and the author, concern. Darius Comes, in an Epislle to
ing these Gospels, 258, .

Austin, seems to refer to the let-
CHRYSOSTOm afferts, the first mi. i ters of Christ and Abgarus, 7,
· racle wrought by Christ was in

Cana of Galilee, and calls the De Dieu corrects a mistake of Ca.



389. His testimonies concern-
ing the Epistle of Barnabas,420.

, saubon in the Arabick transla-

tion of Mark iii. 21. p. 242, n.
DODWELL, Mr. his opinion of the

Epistle of Barnabas, and of Her-
mes, 427,n.
DURANT, Monsieur, A digreffion
• out of him concerning feveral

pictures of Christ, made during
his life on earth, 24.


nion concerning the Acts of Pi-

late, 333, n.
FABRICIUS, Mr. his censure on

the story and Epistles of Christ
and Abgarus, 9, n. He was of
opinion, that the Epistle to the
Laodiceans was stolen out of the

Epistle to the Philippians, 48, n.
· rejects the Epistles of Paul and

Seneca as fpurions, 77, n. His

collection of the sentiments of
· Protestants and Papists, concern-

ing the Protevangelion, 164. He
takes the Gospel of Thomas for
the Infancy of Chrift, 167, n.
His opinion of the Acts of Pilate,

Fell, Bishop, his sentiments con-

cerning Barnabas's Epistle, 426,
n. His vindication of the allego-
ries, contained in that Epistle, ·
examined, &c.

Eachard, Mr. rejects the Epistles

of Paul and Seneca as fpurious,
77, n. his opinion of Barnabas's

Epistles, 429, 11.
EPHRAEM SYRUS mentions the

Epistles of Abgarus to Chriftz.

and Christ's answer, 5.
EPIPHANIUS, a notorious error in

our present copies of him con-
cerning Marcion's Evangelium
and Apostolicon, 38, n. He e-
steemed the miracles of Christ's
infancy to be fables, 244. A
relation from him about some
silly women, who first sacrificed
to the Virgin Mary, 252. His

account of Thecla, 390,
ERASMUS, his opinion that the

Epistle to the Laodiceans was
Itolen out of the Epistle to the
Colossians, 48, n. He attempts
to prove the Epistle spurious from

its stile, 48.
ESTIUs condemns for spurious, the

accounts of the miracles wrought

by Christ in his infancy, 240, n.
EUAGRIUS confirms a story of the

city of Edesfa, that it should never
be taken, &c. 7, n. relates a
surprising miracle wrought by
Christ's picture, which he sent to

Abgarus, 23.
EUSEBIUS cites an Epistle of our

Saviour to an Arabian king, 2,
n. A character of Eufebius by
Scaliger, and others, 18. He fays
he saw a brass ftatue of our Savi.
our at Cæsarea Philippi, 25. as
also the pictures of Peter and Paul,
ibid. He appeals to the Acts of
Pilate, 331, n. Three citations
out of him, proving those Acts to
be Pagan forgeries, 338. A short
account from him of Thecla,

GELASIUS rejects, as Apocryphal

and fpurious, the Epistle under
the name of Christ to Abgarus,
7, n. and also the Gospel of
Thomas, and the book of Christ's
Infancy, 228. declares the Acts
of Paul and Thecla Apocryphal,

388, n.
GRABE, Dr. his arguments for the

Epistle of Christ to Abgarus, 8,
n. He esteems the history of
Paul and Thecla as true and ge-
nuine, 392. contradicts himself,

mention of the Acts of Paul and

Thecla, 391, n.
Grotius is of opinion with Ter-

tullian, that the Epistle, now in-
titled to the Ephesians, was for-
merly intitled to the Laodiceans,
38, n. refuted, 41. His observe
ation on the text John ii. 11. p.
238. His arguments about the
Acts of Pilate, 333, n.


« 前へ次へ »