ページの画像
PDF
ePub

non by Origen and Clemens Alexandrinus, the only two Fathers who have made use of it: it was never read in any of the Chriftian Churches till the time of Jerome, and then only in fome few among the Apocryphal Scriptures; it contains feveral things which are absolutely false, of which I have produced ten inftances; it contains a great number of trifling, filly, and idle things, and is not in the Syriack Verfion. 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 entertained of this Epiftle, are groundless, and that it is not to be looked upon either as a facred book, or any thing like a facred book of the New Teftament.

I have nothing farther to add concerning this Epiftle, 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 fome fuch perfon as corrupted the books of the Sibyls, and that it was written about the middle of the second century.

IN D E X

TO THE

SECOND VOLUME.

A

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

B

BARCLAY ROBERT, his Apology for the Quakers, &c.-noted, 403.

BARNABAS, the Epiftle of, cited by antient Fathers, generally efteemed by the learned as genuine, and adjudged by fome of cqual authority with the books of the Canon, 412. The teftimonies of the antients, 413. and fentiments of the moderns, concerning it, 422. This Epiftle proved to be wrote by an original Gentile, 432. Á remark on 1 Pet. iv. 3. P. 433. it was wrote after the deftruction of Jerufalem, 436. Barnabas was one of the 70 Difciples, 436. Explication of John xxi. 21. and Matt. xvi. 28. p. 438. This Epiftle is Apocryphal, because not found in any Catalogue of the facred books of the New Teftament, 440. nor cited by the primitive Christians as Scripture, 440. nor read by them as the word of God. 443. one part contradicts

tradicts another, 444. it contains things which are falfe, 445. Three vifible mistakes in it produced and detected, 448. Five inftances of things trifling and filly, 454. It is Apocryphal, because not in the Syriack Verfion, &c. 461. A conjecture, that it was forged at Alexandria by fome perfon that corrupted the books of the Sibyls, about the middle of the fecond century, 462. BARONIUS rejects the Epiftles of Paul and Seneca, as fpurious, 77, n. esteems the hiftory of Paul and Thecla, as genuine, 392, n. BELLARMINE rejects the Epiftles of Paul and Seneca, as fpurious,

77, n.

BERNARD, Dr. his opinion of Bar

nabas's Epistle, 427. his affertion that it was read in the churches, together with Canonical books, refuted, 443, n.

BEZA, his opinion on John ii. 11. p. 238, n.

BIBLIANDER. Vide POSTELLUS.

C

CANTERBURY, prefent Archbifhop of, demonftrates the story and Epiftles of Christ and Abgarus to be spurious, 9, 11. his opinion concerning St. Paul's Epitle to the Laodiceans, refuted, 42. his fentiments of the Epiftle of Barnabas, 428, n. An examination of his vindication of the Allegories, contained in that Epistle, &c. 458.

CASAUBON, a mistake of his concerning the Arabick translation of Mark iii. 21. corrected by De Dieu, 242. his opinion concerning the Acts of Pilate, 333, n. he cenfures the Epistle of Barnabas, and the primitive Fathers, for quoting, and too frequently making ufe of, the Sibylline books, 461, n. CAVE, Dr. his opinion concerning the hiftory of the Epiftles of Chrift and Abgarus, 8, n. He reckons the Epistle to the Laodi

ceans among the forgeries of the Manichees, 49, n. rejects the Epiftles of Paul and Seneca as fpurious, 77, n. his opinion of the Epiftle of Barnabas, 428, n. Expofition of John xxi. 21. p. 438,

n.

CEDRENUS, his account of the feal, which Chrift affixed to his Epiftle 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 Gofpel of the infancy of Chrift, in an Armenian legend, 232.

CHEMNITIUS cenfures the Epiftles of Chrift and Abgarus as spurious, 8, n. his judgment on John ii. 11. p. 238, n. condemns for fpurious the accounts of our Saviour's infancy, 241, n. proves that there was no adoration offered to the Virgin Mary, till the fourth or fifth century, 254, n. nor reliques known to the primitive Christians, 255, n. A merry ftory of his concerning the latter, 258. CHRIST, an Epiftle under his name to an Arabian King, tranflated out of Syriack into Greek, and preferved in the writings of Eufebius, 2, n. 4. An account of the feal (confifting of feven Hebrew letters) which he used, &c. 7, n. Thefe Epiftles esteemed by feveral learned men, fpurious and Apocryphal, 8, n. and proved by feveral arguments to be fo, 9. the main objection concerning it answered, 18. A conjecture, that the hiftory of these Epiftles is an interpolation into the works of Eufebius, with feveral arguments to support it, 19. A fragment concerning Christ's picture, which he fent to Abgarus, taken out of the Orthodoxographa, 22. A relation of a miracle wrought by it, 23, n. The ftory of this picture was common among the writers of the fixth and following centuries, ibid. A digreffion out of Monfieur Durant, concerning

cerning four pictures of Chrift, made during his life on earth, 24. A prayer of his (probably a Mahometan forgery) different from that in the Gospels, 27. proved fpurious, 29, n. CHRIST'S Infancy, the Gospel of, publifhed and tranflated by Mr. Henry Sike, at Utrecht, in 1697, p. 166. Another under the name of Thomas, out of Cotelerius's notes on the Conftitutions of the Apoftles, who printed it out of a MS. in the French King's library, 221. Thefe feem to be originally the fame, 226. The antient Gospel of Thomas different from this of the Infancy of Christ, 227. They are mentioned by the antients as two diftinct books, &c. 228. Chrift's Infancy a forgery of the Gnofticks, ibid. received by the Marcofians in the second century, 229. known to Mahomet, and made ufe of by the compilers of the Alcoran, 230. contained in the Legends of the Perfians, 232, n. They are Apocryphal, and not received by the antient Chriftians, 235. The defign of them falfe, ibid. proved from Scrip. ture, and the univerfal filence of the firft Chriftian writers, 236. and from St. John's Gospel, ch. ii. 11. p. 237. That text critically difcuffed, 238. Intimations in Scripture, that Chrift wrought no miracles in his infancy, 241. This pofitively afferted by feveral Fathers, 243, n. Thefe Gofpels proved Apocryphal from the trifling stories, and many falsities in them contained, 246. because they contain things later than the time in which they pretend to be written, 251. because of the prodigious refpect paid by them to the Virgin Mary, 252. The opinions of Dr. Mill, Mr. La Croze, and the author, concerning thefe Gofpels, 258, . CHRYSOSTOM afferts, the first miracle wrought by Chrift was in Cana of Galilee, and calls the VOL. II.

He

miracles afcribed to his infancy, forgeries and lies, 245, n. entertained a great veneration for reliques, 256. cites the Acts of Pilate, 330, n. mentions the Acts of Paul and Thecla, 391, n. CLARKE, Dr. S. his opinion of Barnabas's Epiftle, 429, n. refuted, 440. CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, his teftimonies concerning Barnabas's Epittle, 413. His copies corrupted, and Barnabas inferted for Clemens Romanus, 419. he had too high an opinion of Barnabas's Epiftle, 441. yet contradicts it, 442.

LE CLERC, Mr. cenfures, the ftory and Epiftles of Christ and Abgarus for fpurious, 9, n. His opinion upon the text, Col. iv. 16. refuted, 41. his opinion concerning the Acts of Pilate, 334, n. concerning Barnabas's Epiftle, 430.

Cocus condemns, as fpurious, the

whole ftory and Epistle of Chrift to Abgarus, 8, n. rejects the Epifties of Paul and Seneca, 77. COLLINS, Dr. his obfervation on John ii. 11. p. 238, n. COLLYRIDIANI, whence fo named, 253.

COTELERIUS, his fragment of the Infancy of Chrift, 221. His opinion of Barnabas's Epiftle, 426. LA CROZE, Monfieur, cites a fynod, held in the diocefe of Angamala, in the mountains of Malabar, A. D. 1599, which condemns the Gospels of Chrift's Infancy, &c. 167, n. 258, n. His opinion of thofe Golpels, ibid. n. CROSS, the practice of figning with, by whom first mentioned, 348, 406. CYPRIAN makes mention of Thecla, 389.

D

DARIUS COMES, in an Epifle to Auftin, feems to refer to the letters of Christ and Abgarus, 7,

n.

DE DIEU corrects a mistake of CaHh faubon

faubon in the Arabick tranflation of Mark iii. 21. p. 242, n. DODWELL, Mr. his opinion of the Epiftle of Barnabas, and of Her

mes, 427, n.

DURANT, Monfieur, A digreffion out of him concerning feveral pictures of Chrift, made during his life on earth, 24.

E

EACHARD, Mr. rejects the Epiftles of Paul and Seneca as fpurious, 77, n. his opinion of Barnabas's Epiftles, 429, n.

EPHRAEM SYRUS mentions the Epiftles of Abgarus to Chrift, and Chrift's anfwer, 5. EPIPHANIUS, a notorious error in our prefent copies of him concerning Marcion's Evangelium and Apoftolicon, 38, n. He He efteemed the miracles of Chrift's infancy to be fables, 244. A relation from him about fome filly women, who firft facrificed to the Virgin Mary, 252. His account of Thecla, 390. ERASMUS, his opinion that the

Epistle to the Laodiceans was ftolen out of the Epistle to the Coloffians, 48, n. He attempts to prove the Epiftle fpurious from its ftile, 48. ESTIUS Condemns for fpurious, the

accounts of the miracles wrought

by Christ in his infancy, 240, n. EUAGRIUS Confirms a ftory of the city of Edeffa, that it should never be taken, &c. 7, n. relates a furprifing miracle wrought by Chrift's picture, which he fent to Abgarus, 23. EUSEBIUS cites an Epiftle of our

Saviour to an Arabian king, 2, n. A character of Eufebius by Scaliger, and others, 18. He fays he faw a brafs ftatue of our Saviour at Cæfarea Philippi, 25. as alfo 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 fhort account from him of Thecla,

389. His teftimonies concerning the Epistle of Barnabas, 420.

F

FABER, TANAQUILLUS, his opinion concerning the Acts of Pilate, 333, n. FABRICIUS, Mr. his cenfure on the ftory and Epiftles of Chrift and Abgarus, 9, n. He was of opinion, that the Epistle to the Laodiceans was ftolen out of the Epiftle to the Philippians, 48, n. rejects the Epiftles of Paul and Seneca as fpurions, 77, n. His collection of the fentiments of Proteftants and Papifts, concerning the Protevangelion, 164. He takes the Gospel of Thomas for the Infancy of Chrift, 167, n. His opinion of the Acts of Pilate,

[blocks in formation]
« 前へ次へ »