broad before the death of the Apostles, V. 160. read in the affemblies of the primitive Chriftians on Sunday, V. 167. GRABE, fuppofes the firft Chriftian writers to have cited no certain Canon, 16, GREEK LANGUAGE, its extensive ufe in the time of the Apostles, 68. V. 149. GROTIUS, miftaken in fuppofing Matthew and Levi to be different perfons, II. affigns a reason, why the laft part of St. Mark's Gofpel was wanting in fome Greek copies, 82. his opinion of St. John's ftyle, 116. his conjecture, that the last chapter of St. John's Gospel was not written by him, without foundation, 124. H HAMMOND, his obfervation on the difagreement of the Gospels, V. 42. his argument to fhew, that St. Mark's Gospel was written from the account of St. Peter, 66. V. 53. HARMONIES, by whom compofed, V. 21. HEBREWS, Gofpel according to the, poffeffed by the Nazarenes or Ebionites, V. 139. written in Hebrew, and fuppofed by them to be the true Gospel of St. Matthew, V. 140. the fame opinion held by many, ibid. but fhewn to be falfe, V. 141. made ufe of by Origen, Epiphanius, and Jerome only, V. 143. HERACLEON, miftaken in fuppofing Matthew and Levi not the fame perfon, 11. HERMAS, Shepherd of, St. Mat thew cited in it, 23. HOBBES, his mistake in fuppofing, that the Gofpels, &c. were for a long time unknown to the generality of Chriftians, V. 163. HYPOTYPOSES, account in them of St. Mark's Gospel, 63. I IGNATIUS, cites St. Matthew, 29. V. 166. St. Luke, 97. St. John, 118. IRENEUS, fhews that no more than the four Gofpels, which we now acknowledge, were in his time acknowledged in the Church, 6. cites St. Matthew, 35. his notion of the time, when St. Matthew's Golpel was published, 48. V. 161. his account of St. Mark's writing his Gospel, 62. V. 50. his teftimony concerning St. Luke's, 90, 91. cites St. Mark, 75. St. Luke, 98. St. John, 119. afcribes the Acts of the Apoftles to St. Luke, 125. cites them, 130. informs us that before his time there was a large number of fpurious Scriptures, V. 25. J JEROME, his teftimony concerning the four Gofpels, 9. his account of St. Matthew's writing his Gofpel, 14. fays St. Mark wrote his Gofpel from St. Peter's information, 62. V. 51. his teftimony concerning St. Luke's Gospel, 90. his account of St. John's defign in writing his Gofpel, 111. affirms the Acts of the Apoftles to have been written by St. Luke, 127. JESUS CHRIST, why he commanded fecrecy to the leper, V. 95. JOHN, St. his approbation of the three former Gofpels, recorded by Eufebius, 2. V. 159. Scripture accounts of him, ror. accounts of him from the Fathers, 104. his death, 108. his defign in writing his Gospel, 111. the time, in which it was written, 113. his Gospel tranflated into Hebrew, 115. admired by the Platonifts, ibid. its ftyle, ibid. proved to be Canonical, 116. in all the Catalogues of facred books, ibid. cited by the primitive Chrif tians, 117. read in their churches, 122. objection against it, anfwered, 123. efteemed Canonical by the Syrians, ibid. JOSEPHUS, his teftimony, that the Jewish books were written on parchment, V. 121. L LACTANTIUS, his account of St. L'ENFANT, his opinion that St. for writing hiftory, V. 43. LUKE, St. Scripture accounts of him, 83. accounts of him from the Fathers, 85. not a Jew, 86. the opinion of Jerome and others, that he was more skilled in Greek than the other Evangelists, ibid. a phyfician, ibid. one of the feventy difciples, 87. the companion of St. Paul, 88. his death, 89. his reliques faid to have been carried to Conftantinople, ibid. his Gofpel wrote from the information of the Apostles, &c. 90. under the direction of Paul, 91. his defign in writing it, 92. the time, in which it was written, ibid. is Canonical, 95. in all the Catalogues of Canonical books, ibid. cited by the early Chriftians, ibid. and feveral others, 100. read in the primitive churches, ibid. efteemed Canonical by the churches of Syria, ibid. he wrote the Acts of the Apoftles, 125. does not in the beginning of chap. 1. allude to either of the genuine Golpels, V. 24. Verse 3. of chap. 1. explained, V. 32. M MANICHEES, alone among the antients, objected to the authority of St. Matthew's Gofpel, 45. rejected the Acts of the Apofties, 136. MARCION, and his followers, had a different Gofpel of St. Luke, 100. MARK, St. Scripture account of, 53. account of him from the Fathers, 56. a companion or interpreter of St. Peter, 53, 54, 57, 62. preached in Egypt, 57. one of the feventy difciples, 58. his death, 59. tradition of his reliques being removed to Venice, ibid. occafion of his writing his Gofpel, 60. wrote under the direction of St. Peter, 61. his Gospel went under the name of St. Peter, 66. V. 50. the language in which it was written, 67. the time of his writing, 69. his Gofpel proved to be Canonical, 73. in all the Catalogues of Canonical books, ibid. cited by the Apoftolic Fathers, ibid. but no places cited from him, which are not alfo in St. Matthew, 74. and but one by Justin Martyr, ibid. Irenæus cites him by name, and refers to places which are in no other Gofpel, 75. Tertullian alfo cites that which is in no other Gospel, 76. His Gospel read in the primitive churches, 77. was in the Syriac collection of facred books, 78. objections to it, 79. is not an abridgment of St. Matthew's, ibid. V. 48. the laft chapter genuine, 80 inftances, in which he relates things more fully than St. Matthew, V. 57. feveral inftances of his difagreeing with St. Matthew, V. 71. a Catalogue of hiftories related by him, which are not in St. Matthew, V. 77. things omitted in his Gospel, which are in St. Matthew's, V. 78. his Gospel not an epitome, because infpired, V. 81. because the fuppofing it to be fo, detracts from its honour and usefulness, V. 82. and alfo greatly invalidates his teftimony, V. 84. did not defign in all things to obferve the order of time, V. 91. MATTHEW, St. an account of him, 10. occafion of his writing his Gofpel, 13. his Gofpel Canonical, becaufe it is in all the antient 1 antient Catalogues, 14. cited by firft Chriftian writers to have ORDER of time, not intended to be low, that it fhould always be fo, ORIGEN, his teftimony that the P PANTENUS, found the Gofpel of SENECA, a noble refolution of his, his reafon for thinking St. Mark's Gofpel not an epitome of St. Matthew's, V. 79. one of the greatest enemies to the Scriptures, V. 83. V. 113.. SIXTUS SENENSIS, his attempt to reconcile Irenæus and Eufebius, concerning the time when St. Matthew wrote, 53. a peculiarity in St. John's ftyle obferved by him, 116. SPINOZA, one of the greatest enemies to the Scriptures, V. 83. V. 113. afferted, that most of the books of the Old Teftament were abridgments of larger records, V. 83. SUETONIUS, frequently violates the order of time, V. 28. SYRIAC VERSION of St. Matthew, in the same order as our present Greek copies, V. 160. V. 168. made in the time of the Apoftles, 109. Syriac then the language of the Jews, ibid. that which we now have is the antient Verfion, 174. T TATIAN, his Harmony of the four Gofpels, 4. V. 21. TERTULLIAN, has exprefsly determined the number of Gofpels in his time, to be four, 7. fays the Gofpel of St. Mark went under the name of St. Peter, 66. cites St. Mark, 76. his teftimony concerning St. Luke's Gospel, 90, 91. he afcribes to St. Luke, the Acts of the Apoftles, 126. cites them, 132. TESTAMENT, books of the Old, always preferved by Providence fafe and uncorrupted, V. 156. THEOPHILUS ANTIOCHENUS, his references to St. Matthew, 34. to St. John, 119. TIMOTHY, the Martyrdom of, an extract from it in Photius, 2. TOINARD, his Harmony cited, V. 114. TOLAND, his opinion, that the firft Chriftian writers had no certain Canon, which they cited, 15. thought that the Gospels of St. WHISTON, his many curious and ufeful difcoveries in his Harmony, V. 22. mistaken in fuppofing, that the former part of St. Matthew's Gospel is mifplaced, ibid. his opinion, that the Evangelifts intended to obferve always the order of time, confuted, V. 29. he fuppofes St. Luke's Gospel to be perfectly in the order of time, V. 30. furnishes the author with a reason, why the Evangelifts differ, V. 42. his argument, that, because St. Matthew for the most part writes in this order, he never recedes from it, V. 44. alfo, that the notes of time, &c. are as many in that part, which is now mifplaced, as in that which is in its proper order, ibid. he fuppofed St. Mark's Gofpel to be an epitome of St. Matthew's, V. 47. his own epitome of the Gospel hiftory, V. 79. the argument he derives from the laft-mentioned fuppofition, V. 87. the branches of St. Matthew's Gofpel, which he thought mifplaced, V. 89. he accounts for this diforder, by fuppofing that St. Matthew wrote on fmall pieces of paper, V. 112. his obfervation that the prefent Gofpel of St. Matthew is a tranflation from the Hebrew, V. 137. he fuppofes the diforder to end, and the true order to begin, at the death of John the Baptift, V. . 154. WHITBY, his explanation of the word nas in St. Luke, V. 33. he has confidered the teftimony of the Fathers, concerning St. Mat thew's |