JUSTIN MARTYR appeals to the

Acts of Pilate, 331, n.

K

KING, Lord Chief Justice, his col-

lection of all the Creeds within
the three first centuries cited, 17,

n.

Grenæus, his oversight and mil-

take about the Protevangelion,
163.

H
HAMMOND, Dr. believes the pre-

fent Epistle to the Ephesians was
formeriy intitled to the Laodice-
ans, 38, n.

This opinion re-
futed, 43. his exposition of John

xxi. 21. p. 438.
HELLENISTICK language, what,

139.
HILSCHER, Mr. his relation of a

Mahometan tradition, concerning

Christ in his intancy, 233, n.
HUETIUS cites the Acts ot Pilate,
333, n.

I

KNATCHBULL, Sir Norton, his

opinion upon the text, Col. iv.
16. refuted, 42.

L

LACTANTIUS cites the Epistles of

Paul and Seneca, 74, n.
LAUD, Archbishop, his judgment

of the Epistle of Barnabas, 424.
LIGHTFOOT, Dr. his conjecture

concerning the words of Paul,
Col. iv. 16. p. 45, n. Expofi-
tion of the text, John xxi. 21. p.

438.
LINUS, his Acts spurious, 63. and

rejected by several Popish and

Protestant writers as such, ibid,
LOCRINUS esteemed the Acts of

Paul and Thecia as genuine, 392,
LUDOVICUS Vives rejects the E-

pistles of Paul and Seneca as fpu-
rious, 77, n.

n.

JENKIN, Dr. his account of Pi-

late's information and character
of Christ, 332. his opinion con-
cerning the Epistle of Barnabas,

431, n.
JEROME seems to refer to the his-

tory of the Epistles of Christ and
Abgarus, 7. His account of the
Epistle to the Laodiceans, 47, n.
He mentions the Epistles of Paul
and Seneca, and gives a reason
for placing the latter in his cata-
logue of saints, 61, translates the
Gospel of the Birth of Mary out
of Hebrew, at the requeit of
Chromatius and Heliodorus, 78.
Their Epistle to him, and his an-
fwer concerning it, 93.

Ano-
ther ascribed to him to the fame
purpose, 97. He entertained a
veneration for reliques, 256. cites
the Acts of Pilate, 332, i). reck-
ons the Acts of Paul and Thecla
among the Apocryphal Scrip-
tures, 387, n. His testimonies
concerning the Epistle of Barna-

He says, it was read
among Apocryphal books, 443,

M
MAHOMETANS were well versed in

the Gospel of Christ's Infancy,
230, n.

Sone of their traditions
concerning this Gospel, 231, n.
MARCOSIANS, a branch of the

Gnosticks, 229.
MARY, the Goipel of her Birth,

published out of Jerome, 78.
This Gospel extant in the third,
and even iecond century, and re-
ceived by several antient herericks,
as genuine, 130, n. it received
many alterations, and the antient
copies were different from that of
Jerome, 131. formerly went un-
der the name of St. Matthew,&c.
132. is for the inolt part the same
as the Protevangelion of James,
133. This Goipel contains fé-
veral contradictions to the Evan-
Hh 2

gelion,

bas, 420.

gelion, ibid. Instances of them,
ibid. Several relations in both
credited by antient writers, 134.
The Gospel and Protevangelion
wrote by a Jew, or Hellenist, 139.
A conjecture that the Gospel was
the later book, and made out of
the Protevangelion, 144. but
both are Apocryphal, ibid. This
Gospel rejected as such by Au-
stin, 145. and hy Gelasius, 146.
both of them are such, because
neither was read in the Christian
churches, and because they con-
tain things contrary to known
truths, 147. Falsehoods in this
Gospel detected, ibid. Both books
Apocryphal from their fabulous
contents, 152. A collection of
trifling stories in this Gospel,
ibid. Instances in it of accounts
borrowed from Canonical books,
155. This book Apocryphal,
because not in the Syriack Ver-

pel by the Anglo-Saxons and
Britons, &c. 330, n. probably
some accounts of Christ, &c.
were sent by Pilate to Tiberius,
ibid. The Acts of Pilate ap-
pealed to by Justin Martyr and
Tertullian, 331, n. who affirm
that he sent them to the Empe-
ror, ibid. It does not appear that
any Christian writer ever faw
these Acts, 334, n. The origi,
nal and occasion of these Acts or
Gospel considered, 336. Leu-
cius Charinus proved to be the
anthor, 342. This Gospel, &c.
proved Apocryphal by several
propofitions, 346. Miscellaneous

remarks on it, 350.
Nonnus asserts, that the first mi.

racle Chrift wrought, was in Cana
of Galilee, 245, n.

fion, 154

MARY, Virgin, Adoration, &c.

when first offered to her, 252.
MEDE, his expofition of John xxi.

21. p. 438.
MENARDUS, Hugo, an account of

him, and his sentiments concern-
ing the Epistle of Barnabas, 423.
Mill, Dr. would persuade us that

St. Paul directed the Epistle, in-
titled to the Ephesians, to the
Laodiceans; and that the pre-
sent title to the Ephesians is
false, 39, n. his opinion, that
these Epistles were the fame, re-
futed, 43. his opinion concerning,
the original of the Gospel of
Christ's Infancy, 258, n. of Bar-
nabas's Epiltle, 429, n.

OCOBIUS DE CASTRO cites a

Gospel of Thomas, which Mr.
Fabricius takes for the Gofpel of

the Infancy, &c. 167, n.
ORIGEN, his testimonies concerning

the Epistle of Barnabas, 419.
He did not esteem it as Canoni-

cal Scripture, 441.
ORTHODOXOGRAPHA, a fragment

out of it concerning Christ's pic-
ture, which he fent to Abgarus,

22. Vide PROTEVANGELION.
OSIANDER censures the Epistles of

Christ and Abgarus for fpurious,
8, n.

P

N

ac,

Nessel,DANIEL DE, says 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 (accord.
ing to Fabricius) given this Gof-

PAMELIUS, his opinion concern-

ing the Acts of Pilate, 333, n.
PARKER, Dr. his sentiments con-

cerning the letters of Christ and
Abgarus, 8, n. His opinion,
that Pilate transmitted an
count of Christ, &c. to the Em-

peror, 332, n.
PAUL, St. his Epistle to the Lao-

diceans highly esteemed by seve-
ral learned men, and its genuine-
ness contended for by Quak-
ers, 32, n. Two MSS. of it pro-

duced

cause they contain many falsem
hoods, &c. 399. and idle and
fabulous relations, 404. relate
things later than the time in
which they are said to be done,
406.

The author's conjecture
concerning the original and occa-

fion of these Acts, 411.
PEARSON, Bishop, cites the Acts

of Pilate, 333, n.
PHILASTRIUS, his account of the

Epistle to the Laodiceans, 47, n.
PHOTIUS, his account of the Acts

of Thecla, written in verse by

Basil of Seleucia, 391, n.
PILATE, Acts of. See NICODE.

MUS.

n.

n.

duced by Sixtus Senenfis, ibid. n.
An Epistle under this title ex-
tant in Marcion's time, 37. Mar-
cion's Apostolicon, ibid. St. Paul
wrote no such Epistle, 39. the
occasion of the forgery taken
from Col. iv. 16. ibid. Various
opinions upon that text, 40. The
present Epiftle to the Laodiceans
not the same that was in Marci-
on's Apostolicon, 46, n. is fpu-
rious and Apocryphal, 47. stole
out of St. Paul's genuine Epistles,
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, saw
them, 62. A fragment out of
Linus concerning them, 63. The
prefent are the same as the an-
tient Epistles, 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, 7-5.
A list of the writers, Protestant
and Popish, who have rejected

these Epistles as fpurious, 77, n.
PAUL and THECLA, the Acts of,

published out of a MS. in the
Bodleian library, 353. Several
reasons for inserting these Acts,
387. They were ranked among
the Apocryphal Scriptures by
some primitive Fathers, ibid. fé-
veral things contained in them
were credited by the same Fa.
hers, 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 Presbyter of A-
fia, mentioned by Tertullian,393.
The present Ačts different froin
the antient book written by that
· Presbyter, 394. Are Apocry.
phal and spurious, by the confer-
fion of their author, 395. because
never mentioned in the catalogue
of sacred books of the New Tofa
tament, 397. nor cited as such by
any primitive fathers, ibid. bés

Du Pin, his censure of the story

and Epistles of Christ and Abga-
rus, 9, n. he rejects the Epistle

of
Paul and Seneca, as fpurious, 77,

His sentiments of Barnabas's
Epistle, 427, n.
Possevin rejects the Epistles 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 CÆSARIENSIS, his

relation of the Epistles of Christ

and Abgarus, 7, n.
PROTEVANGELIon of James, pub-

lished 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 Hellenist, 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 so for several reasons, 147.
Instances of falsehoods in this
book, ibid. both thele books
Apocryphal from their fabulous
contents, 152.

A collection of
trifling stories, ibid. Instances
of things borrowed from Canoni.
cal books, 153. several contra.
dictions in it, 156. It is Apo-
cryphal, because not in the Syri-
ack Version, 157.

Several MS.
copies of it now extant in Eu.

rope,

Tope, 157. Two in the French
King's library, and five at Vi-
enna, ibid, n. It was first made
known in Europe by Potteilus,
and published by Bibliander,
A. D. 1552. 158. rejected as
spurious and Apocryphal, by
molt Protestants and Papists,
164.

QUAKERS contend for the genu-
ineness of Paul's Epistle to the
Laodiceans, 32, n.

n. cited by Lactantius, ibid. r.
highly commended by Austin,
75, n.

See St. PAUL.
SEVERUSSULPITIus makes men-

tion of the Acts of Paui and

Thecla, 391, n.
SIMON, Father, condemns the Epi-

Itles of Christ and Abgarus for
fpurious, 9, n. mentions two
Greek MSS. of the Protevange-
lion in the French King's library,

157.
Sixt US SENENSIS cites two MSS.

of the Epift e of St. Paul to the
Laodiceans, 32, n. attempts to

prove the Epittle spurious, 48.
SPANHEIM, the younger, proves

the story and Epistles of Christ
and Abgarus to be fpurious, 9,
n. rejects the Epistles of Paul
and Seneca, 77, n.

A citation
out of him concerning the wor-
ship 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 Jesuit, contends

for the genuineness of St. Paul's
Epistle to the Laodiceans, 32, n.

T

R
RELIQUES, their original, 256.

inuch venerated by Austin, Je-
rome, Chrysostom, and others,
ibid. A merry story from Chem-

nitius concerning them, 258, n.
RICHARDSON, Mr. detects a false

affertion of Mr. Toland, con-
cerning the Epistle of Barnabas,

4-41, n.
Rivet, his censure of the story

and Epistles of Chriit and Ab.
garus, 8, n. he rejects the Epi-
ities of Paul and Seneca as fpu-
rious, 77, n.

S
SALMERON, the Jesuit, contends

for the genuineness of St. Paul's

Epistle to the Laodiceans, 32, n.-
SCALIGER, his character and cen-

fine of Eusebius, 18, 11.
SCHOTTUS, A. A citation out of

him concerning Seneca, 74. he
rejects the Epistles 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 Gospels, 27. An account
of it taken from the Dean of
Norwich's Life of Mahomet, &c.

31.
SENECA, his Epistles to Paul, 50.

extant in the fourth century, and
cited by Jerome and Austin only,
62, n. He is ranked in the ca-
talogue of saints by the former,
ibid. applauded by Tertullian,
for his treatise of superstition, 74,

He ap-

TERTULLIAN differs, in his ac-

count of Marcion's Apostolicon,
from Epiphanius, 38, n. and is
in this mistaken, 39.
plauds Seneca for his treatise on
superstition, 74, n. appeals to,
and often cites, the Afts of Pon-
tius Pilate, 331. is the first 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 Presbyter, ibid.
TESSARESCALDECATITEs, why so

called, 329. their rise about the
latter end of the third century,

337.
THECLA. Vide PAUL.
THEOPHYLACT, his opinion con-

cerning the Epistles to the Lao-
diceans and Ephesians, refuted,
44. he asserts that Christ wrought

W

n.

no miracles in his infancy, 245,
TOLAND, a notorious blunder of

his, in citing Austin concerning
the Epistles of Paul and Seneca,
66, n. his opinion concerning
Barnabas's Epistie, 428, n. he
falsely asserts, that Clemens Alex-
drinus and Origen cited the afore-
mentioned Epistle as Scripture,

WALTHER demonstrates the Epi-

ftles of Christ and Abgarus to be
fpurious, 9, n. rejects the Epi-
ities of Paul and Seneca as such,
77, n. cites the Acts of Pilate,
333
WHISTON, Mr. his opinion of

Barnabas's Epistle, 430, n.
WHITBY, Dr. believes the present

Epistle to the Ephesians, was for-
merly intitled to the Laodiceans,
38, n. his opinion, that the Epi-
ftle to the Laodiceans and Ephe-
fians was the same, refuted, 41.
His exposition of John xxi. 21.

441, n.

p. 438.