« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
Nero, and in the ad of Gessius Florus President of Judea, and of Christ 66, and in the Month of May; See Dr. Pearson's Annales Paulinæ. Thus Monsieur Le Clerc.
Here I shall shew how our Monsieur both is injurious to Dr. Hammond, and alfu contradicts himself. 1. He contradicts that which he says in p. 212, and 214. In p. 212, he says, that the most exact Chronologers think that S. Peter died An. Chr.65. and
p. 2 14, that it is much more probable that S. Peter died in the Year of Christ 65, as A. Pagus has shewn; so that in both thefe places he refers that Apostle's Martyrdom not to An. Chr. 68, as Dr. Hammond doth, but with Pagi to An. Chr. 65: and ye: in
2:599 quite contrary he chusés to follow Bishop Pearson who agrees with Dr. Hammond in referring it to An. Chr. 68, rather than Pagi, who refers it to An. Chr.65, as our Monsicur says. 2. He is injurious to Dr. Hammond : He says that Dr. Hammond follows Baronius as to the Year of Christ in which S. Peter suffer'd Martyrdom, which he do's not; for as I have often said he refers it to An. Chr. 68, but Baronius to An. Chr. 69; see Baronius
ad An. Dom. 69. Num. I. Our Monsieur further urges against Dr. Hammond, that if S. Peter writ his second Epistle and was put to death in the Year which the Doctor mentions, it cannot be said that the Jewish War was then approaching: which began in the Year of Christ 66. For answer to which I grant
that the Annales Paulini make the Jewish War to have begun An. Chr. 66, I grant also that Dr. Hammond faith that the writing S. Peter's second Epistle was near the Jewish War, but Dr. Hammond do's not speak of that beginning of the War which the Annales do. The Annales speak of that beginning when Jerusalem was first besieged by the Romans, but Dr. Hammond of that which Eusebius mentions when the Jews rebelling Vespasian was sent against them. This Ěusebius refers to the last Year of Nero and An. Chr. 70. according to the Bafil Edition, and 69 according to 70%. Scaligers. This War ended in the destruction of the City and Temple, and so Dr. Hammond describes it the War on which follow'd the destruction of the Jews; whereas the first siege was rais'd, and the Roman Army then overthrown. We have here the fourth time Annales Paulina, of which I have spoke before.
P.641. in Revel. 6.4. It was worth observing that Eusebius makes mention of two Famines under the Reign of Claudius, one foretold by Agabus, and
to be referd to the second Tear of Claudius, tho he mentions it on his 4th; another in Greece and at Rome, which he refers to the 9th and 10th Years of that Emperour. I know that Jof. Scaliger thinks that the latter was foretold by Agabus, and refers it to the 5th Tear of Claudius; but he gives no reason for his Affirmation ; expečting, as is common with him, to be believed without proof. Thus Monsieur Le Clerc.
Eufebius seems rather to mention three Famines, the ist in Claudius's 4th year, the 2d in his 9th, the 3d in his roth. Our Monsieur says of the ist of these, that it is to be refer'd to the 2d Year of Claudius, which may seem strange, partly because Dr. Hammond ( with whom our Monsieur rarely agrees) refers it to that Year, partly because the Annales Paulini (which our Monsieur is wont to follow) refer it to the 4th Year of Claudius
as Eusebius doth, yea Pagi also refers it to that Year.
According to Jos. Scaliger the Famine in Greece, of which Eusebius speaks was also throughout the world, and that Famine which was foretold by Agabus. But (says our Monsieur) he gives no reason for his Affirmation ; expecting, as is common with him, to be believed without proof. To which I shall only say, If it was a fault in Jos. Scaliger to expect so often to be believed without proof, why do's our Monsieur imitate or rather go beyond him in it? for I do not know that Scaliger or any other Author is so much guilty of asserting things without proof, as our Monsieur is.
# OUR Monsieur having reflected upon
the ancient Fathers, yea upon the Apostles and Penmen of Holy Writ, could not
rest there, but would shew his Critical Art i in correcting the Text of Scripture it felf.
How happy he is in it, we shall see in a few instances.
P. 1o5. in S. Mark 8. 24. These words ás dy deg meestalovlas make but a harsh construction, and I do not know but that the ancient reading was as déyd ea meeltalovla, as trees that walk; and so the meaning of the blind man will be, that two forts of objects presented themselves to him, whereof one stood still, viz. Trees ; and another, which were also like Trees to his apprehenfion, walked. Thus Monsieur Le Clerc.
To this I say very briefly, 1. Our Monfieur, that can find Trees standing still in