GRYNÆUS, his oversight and miftake about the Protevangelion, 163.
HAMMOND, Dr. believes the prefent Epiftle to the Ephefians was formerly intitled to the Laodiceans, 38, n. This opinion refuted, 43. his expofition of John xxi. 21. p. 438. HELLENISTICK language, what,
HILSCHER, Mr. his relation of a Mahometan tradition, concerning Chrift in his infancy, 233, n. HUETIUS cites the Acts of Pilate, 333, n.
JENKIN, Dr. his account of Pilate's information and character of Chrift, 332. his opinion concerning the Epiftle of Barnabas,
JEROME feems to refer to the hif tory of the Epiftles of Chrift and Abgarus, 7. His account of the Epittle to the Laodiceans, 47, n. He mentions the Epiftles of Paul and Seneca, and gives a reafon for placing the latter in his catalogue of faints, 61. tranflates the Gospel of the Birth of Mary out of Hebrew, at the request of Chromatius and Heliodorus, 78. Their Epiftle to him, and his anfwer concerning it, 93. Another afcribed to him to the fame purpofe, 97. He entertained a veneration for reliques, 256. cites the Acts of Pilate, 332, n. reckons the Acts of Paul and Thecla among the Apocryphal Scriptures, 387, n. His teftimonies concerning the Epistle of Barnabas, 420. He fays, it was read among Apocryphal books, 443,
IRENEUS, his cenfure of the Hereticks, for making use of the. Gofpels of the Infancy of Christ, 229, n. He is the only antient Christian, who makes mention of them, 230.
JUSTIN MARTYR appeals to the Acts of Pilate, 331, n.
KING, Lord Chief Juftice, his collection of all the Creeds within the three firft centuries cited, 17,
KNATCHBULL, Sir Norton, his opinion upon the text, Col. iv. 16. refuted, 42.
LACTANTIUS cites the Epiftles of Paul and Seneca, 74, n. LAUD, Archbishop, his judgment of the Epiftle of Barnabas, 424. LIGHTFOOT, Dr. his conjecture concerning the words of Paul, Col. iv. 16. p. 45, n. Expofition of the text, John xxi. 21. p. 438.
LINUS, his Acts fpurious, 63. and
rejected by feveral Popifh and Proteftant writers as fuch, ibid. LOCRINUS efteemed the Acts of Paul and Thecla as genuine, 392,
LUDOVICUS VIVES rejects the Epiftles of Paul and Seneca as fpurious, 77, n.
M MAHOMETANS were well verfed in the Gospel of Chrift's Infancy, 230, n. Some of their traditions concerning this Gospel, 231, n. MARCOSIANS, a branch of the Gnofticks, 229.
MARY, the Gospel of her Birth, published out of Jerome, 78. This Gofpel extant in the third, and even fecond century, and received by feveral antient hereticks. as genuine, 130, n. it received many alterations, and the antient copies were different from that of Jerome, 131. formerly went under the name of St. Matthew, &c. 132. is for the moft part the fame as the Protevangelion of James, 133. This Goipel contains fe-veral contradictions to the EvanHh z gelion,
gelion, ibid. Inftances of them, ibid. Several relations in both credited by antient writers, 134. The Gofpel and Protevangelion wrote by a Jew, or Hellenist, 139. A conjecture that the Gofpel was the later book, and made out of the Protevangelion, 144. but both are Apocryphal, ibid. This Gofpel rejected as fuch by Auftin, 145. and by Gelafius, 146. both of them are fuch, because neither was read in the Chriftian churches, and because they contain things contrary to known truths, 147. Falfehoods in this Gofpel detected, ibid. Both books Apocryphal from their fabulous contents, 152. A collection of trifling ftories in this Gospel, ibid. Inftances in it of accounts borrowed from Canonical books, 155. This book Apocryphal, because not in the Syriack Verfion, 157. MARY, Virgin, Adoration, &c. when firft offered to her, 252. MEDE, his expofition of John xxi. 21. p. 438. MENARDUS, HUGO, an account of him, and his fentiments concerning the Epistle of Barnabas, 423. MILL, Dr. would perfuade us that St. Paul directed the Epiftle, intitled to the Ephefians, to the Laodiceans; and that the prefent title to the Ephefians is falfe, 39, n. his opinion, that thefe Epiftles were the fame, refuted, 43. his opinion concerning the original of the Gospel of Chrift's Infancy, 258, n. of Barnabas's Epiltle, 429, n.
NESSEL, DANIEL DE, fays there are five MSS. of the Protevangelion in the library of Vienna, 158, n. NICODEMUS, Gospel of, taken out of the Orthodoxographa, 262. was formerly called the Acts of Pilate, and why, 329. The name of Nicodemus was (according to Fabricius) given this Gof
pel by the Anglo-Saxons and Britons, &c. 330, n. probably fome accounts of Chrift, &c. were fent by Pilate to Tiberius, ibid. The Acts of Pilate appealed to by Juftin Martyr and Tertullian, 331, n. who affirm that he fent them to the Emperor, ibid. It does not appear that any Christian writer ever faw thefe Acts, 334, n. The original and occafion of thefe Acts or Gofpel confidered, 336. Leucius Charinus proved to be the author, 342. This Gospel, &c. proved Apocryphal by several propofitions, 346. Miscellaneous remarks on it, 350.
NONNUS afferts, that the first miracle Christ wrought, was in Cana of Galilee, 245, n.
duced by Sixtus Senenfis, ibid. n.
An Epistle under this title ex-
tant in Marcion's time, 37. Mar-
cion's Apoftolicon, ibid. St. Paul
wrote no fuch Epiftle, 39. the
occafion of the forgery taken
from Col. iv. 16. ibid. Various
opinions upon that text, 40. The
prefent Epistle to the Laodiceans
not the fame that was in Marci-
on's Apoftolicon, 46, n. is fpu-
rious and Apocryphal, 47. ftole
out of St. Paul's genuine Epiftles,
ibid. A conjecture concerning
its original, 49. Paul's Epiftles
to Seneca, and Seneca's to Paul,
50. extant in the fourth century,
61. None of the Fathers, be-
fides Jerome and Austin, faw
them, 62. A fragment out of
Linus concerning them, 63. The
prefent are the fame as the an-
tient Epiftles, 65, n. They were
not received as authentick by the
two Fathers above-mentioned,
66. Several evidences of their
fpuriousness, 69. The author's
conjecture concerning the forgery
of them, and the time of it, 75.
A lift of the writers, Proteftant
and Popifh, who have rejected
thefe Epiftles as fpurious, 77, n.
PAUL and THECLA, the Acts of,
published out of a MS. in the
Bodleian library, 353. Several
reafons for inferting thefe Acts,
387. They were ranked among
the Apocryphal Scriptures by
fome primitive Fathers, ibid. fe-
veral things contained in them
were credited by the fame Fa-
thers, 388, n. They went under
St. Paul's name, 391. and were
esteemed as genuine by several
moderns, 392, n. were, in part,
the forgery of a Prefbyter of A.
fa, mentioned by Tertullian,393.
The prefent Acts different froin
the antient book written by that
Prefbyter, 394. Are Apocry
phal and fpurious, by the confef-
fion of their author, 395. because
never mentioned in the catalogue
of facred books of the New Tef-
tament, 397. nor cited as fuch by
any primitive Fathers, ibid. be-
caufe they contain many falfe-
hoods, &c. 399. and idle and
fabulous relations, 404. relate
things later than the time in
which they are faid to be done,
406. The author's conjecture
concerning the original and occa-
fion of thefe Acts, 411.
PEARSON, Bifhop, cites the Acts
of Pilate, 333, n.
PHILASTRIUs, his account of the
Epiftle to the Laodiceans, 47, n.
PHOTIUS, his account of the Acts
of Thecla, written in verfe by
Bafil of Seleucia, 391, n.
PILATE, Acts of. See NICODE.
DU PIN, his cenfure of the ftory
and Epiftles of Christ and Abga-
rus, 9, n. he rejects the Epistle of
Paul and Seneca, as fpurious, 77,
n. His fentiments of Barnabas's
Epiftle, 427, n.
POSSEVIN rejects the Epiftles of
Paul and Seneca, as spurious, 77,
POSTELLUS and BIBLIANDER,
their account of the Protevange-
lion refuted, 161.
PRAYERS for the dead, its anti-
quity and origin, 407.
PROCOPIUS CAESARIENSIS, his
relation of the Epiftles of Chrift
and Abgarus, 7, n.
PROTEVANGELION of James, pub-
lifhed out of the Orthodoxogra-
pha of Jacobus Grynæus, 100.
is different from the antient Gof-
pel of Mary, &c. 134. was wrote
by a Jew or Hellenift, 139. Our
author conjectures that this was
the older book, and that the Birth
of Mary was made out of it, 144.
both are Apocryphal, ibid. and
proved fo for feveral reafons, 147.
Inftances of falfehoods in this
book, ibid. both these books
Apocryphal from their fabulous
contents, 152. A collection of
trifling ftories, ibid. Inftances
of things borrowed from Canoni-
cal books, 153. feveral contra-
dictions in it, 156. It is Apo-
cryphal, because not in the Syri
ack Verfion, 157. Several MS.
copies of it now extant in Eu-
SALMERON, the Jefuit, contends
for the genuineness of St. Paul's
Epiftle to the Laodiceans, 32, n.-
SCALIGER, his character and cen-
fure of Eufebius, 18, n.
SCHOTTUS, A. A citation out of
him concerning Seneca, 74. he
rejects the Epiftles of Paul and
Seneca as fpurious, 77, n.
SELDEN, Mr. in his Commentary
on Eutychius, produces a prayer
of our Lord, different from that
in the Gofpels, 27. An account
of it taken from the Dean of
Norwich's Life of Mahomet, &c.
31.
SENECA, his Epiftles to Paul, 50.
extant in the fourth century, and
cited by Jerome and Auftin only,
62, n. He is ranked in the ca-
talogue of faints by the former,
ibid. applauded by Tertuilian,
for his treatife of fuperftition, 74,
n. cited by La&tantius, ibid. n.
highly commended by Austin,
75, n. See St. PAUL.
SEVERUS, SULPITIUS makes men-
tion of the Acts of Paul and
Thecla, 391, n.
SIMON, Father, condemns the Epi-
ftles of Chrift and Abgarus for
fpurious, 9, n. mentions two
Greek MSS. of the Protevange-
lion in the French King's library,
157.
SIXTUS SENENSIS cites two MSS.
of the Epistle of St. Paul to the
Laodiceans, 32, n. attempts to
prove the Epiftle fpurious, 48.
SPANHEIM, the younger, proves
the ftory and Epittles of Chrift
and Abgarus to be fpurious, 9,
n. rejects the Epistles of Paul
and Seneca, 77, n. A citation
out of him concerning the wor-
fhip of the Virgin Mary, &c.
253, n. his opinion of the Acts
of Pilate, 333, n. his opinion of
Barnabas's Epiitle, 428, n.
STAPLETON, the Jefuit, contends
for the genuineness of St. Paul's
Epiftle to the Laodiceans, 32, n.
TERTULLIAN differs, in his ac-
count of Marcion's Apoftolicon,
from Epiphanius, 38, n. and is
in this mistaken, 39.
He ap-
plauds Seneca for his treatife on
superstition, 74, n. appeals to,
and often cites, the Acts of Pon-
tius Pilate, 331. is the firft that
mentions the practice of figning
with the cross, 348. ranks the
Acts of Paul and Thecla among
Apocryphal Scriptures, 387, n.
and declares it the forgery of an
Afiatick Prefbyter, ibid.
TESSARESCAIDECATITES, why fo
called, 329. their rife about the
latter end of the third century,
THECLA. Vide PAUL.
THEOPHYLACT, his opinion con-
cerning the Epiftles to the Lao-
diceans and Ephefians, refuted,
44. he afferts that Chrift wrought
no miracles in his infancy, 245,
TOLAND, a notorious blunder of
his, in citing Austin concerning
the Epiftles of Paul and Seneca,
66, n. his opinion concerning
Barnabas's Epiftie, 428, n. he
falfely afferts, that Clemens Alex-
drinus and Origen cited the afore-
mentioned Epiftle as Scripture,
VALESIUS, his opinion concerning
the Acts of Pilate, 333, n.
VOSSIUS, ISAAC, his opinion of
Barnabas's Epiftle, 425, n.
USHER, Archbishop, his fentiments
of Barnabas's Epistle, 423.
WALTHER demonftrates the Epi-
ftles of Chrift and Abgarus to be
fpurious, 9, n. rejects the Epi-
files of Paul and Seneca as fuch,
77, n. cites the Acts of Pilate,
333.
WHISTON, Mr. his opinion of
Barnabas's Epiftle, 430, n.
WHITBY, Dr. believes the prefent
Epiftle to the Ephesians, was for-
merly intitled to the Laodiceans,
38, n. his opinion, that the Epi-
ftle to the Laodiceans and Ephe-
fans was the fame, refuted, 41.
His expofition of John xxi. 21.
P. 438.
|