Nero, and in the 2d of Geffius Florus Prefident of Judea, and of Chrift 66, and in the Month of May; See Dr. Pearson's Annales Paulinæ. Thus Monfieur Le Clerc.

Animadv.

Here I fhall fhew how our Monfieur both is injurious to Dr. Hammond, and alfo contradicts himself. 1. He contradicts that which he fays in p. 212, and 214. In p. 212, he fays, that the most exact Chronologers think that S. Peter died An. Chr. 65. and p. 214, that it is much more probable that S. Peter died in the Year of Christ 65, as A. Pagus has fhewn; fo that in both thefe places he refers that Apoftle's Martyrdom not to An. Chr. 68, as Dr. Hammond doth, but with Pagi to An. Chr. 65: and yet in p. 599 quite contrary he chufes to follow Bishop Pearfon who agrees with Dr. Hammond in referring it to An. Chr. 68, rather than Pagi, who refers it to An. Chr. 65, as our Monfieur fays. 2. He is injurious to Dr. Hammond: He fays that Dr. Hammond follows Baronius as to the Year of Chrift in which S. Peter fuffer'd Martyrdom, which he do's not; for as I have often faid he refers it to An. Chr. 68, but Baronius to An. Chr. 69; fee Baronius

ad An. Dom. 69. Num. 1. Our Monfieur further urges against Dr. Hammond, that if S. Peter writ his fecond Epiftle and was put to death in the Year which the Doctor mentions, it cannot be faid that the Jewish War was then approaching: which began in the Year of Chrift 66. For anfwer to which I grant that the Annales Paulini make the Jewish War to have begun An. Chr. 66, I grant alfo that Dr. Hammond faith that the writing S. Peter's fecond Epiftle was near the Jewish War, but Dr. Hammond do's not speak of that beginning of the War which the Annales do. The Annales fpeak of that beginning when Jerufalem was firft befieged by the Romans, but Dr. Hammond of that which Eufebius mentions when the Jews rebelling Vefpafian was fent against them. This Eufebius refers to the laft Year of Nero and An. Chr. 70. according to the Bafil Edition, and 69 according to Jof. Scaligers. This War ended in the deftruction of the City and Temple, and fo Dr. Hammond describes it the War on which follow'd the deftruction of the Jews; whereas the firft fiege was rais'd, and the Roman Army then overthrown. We have here the fourth time Annales Pauline, of which I have spoke before.

P. 641.

P. 641. in Revel. 6. 4.

It was worth obferving that Eufebius makes mention of two Famines under the Reign of Claudius, one foretold by Agabus, and to be refer'd to the fecond 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 Year of Claudius; but he gives no reafon for his Affirmation; expecting, as is common with him, to be believed without proof. Thus Monsieur Le Clerc.

Animadv.

Eufebius feems rather to mention three Famines, the 1ft in Claudius's 4th year, the 2d in his 9th, the 3d in his 10th. Our Monfieur fays of the ift of these, that it is to be refer'd to the 2d Year of Claudius, which may feem ftrange, partly becaufe Dr. Hammond (with whom our Monfieur rarely agrees) refers it to that Year, partly because the Annales Paulini (which our Monfieur is wont to follow) refer it to the 4th Year of Claudius

According to Jof. Scaliger the Famine in Greece, of which Eufebius fpeaks was alfo throughout the world, and that Famine which was foretold by Agabus. But (fays our Monfieur) he gives no reason for his Affirmation; expecting, as is common with him, to be believed without proof. To which I fhall only fay, If it was a fault in Fof. Scaliger to expect fo often to be believed without proof, why do's our Monfieur imitate or rather go beyond him in it? for I do not know that Scaliger or any other Author is fo much guilty of afferting things without proof, as our Monfieur is.

SECT.

SECT. V.

of Monfieur Le Clerc's correcting the Sacred Text.

OUR Monfieur having reflected

upon the ancient Fathers, yea upon the Apoftles and Penmen of Holy Writ, could not reft there; but would fhew his Critical Art in correcting the Text of Scripture it felf. How happy he is in it, we shall see in a few inftances.

P. 105. in S. Mark 8. 24.

There words ὡς δένδρα περιπαλένιας make but a harsh construction, and I do not know but that the ancient reading was ws dedea TECalla, as trees that walk; and fo the meaning of the blind man will be, that two forts of objects prefented themselves to him, whereof one stood still, viz. Trees; and another, which were also like Trees to his apprehenfion, walked. Thus Monfieur Le Clerc.

Animadv.

To this I fay very briefly, 1. Our Monfieur, that can find Trees standing still in these