(9i 1

Then he proceeds thus: " Didymus , who died" at the latter End of the fourth Century, An." Z9i. (a Man of universal Learning according to" Socrates ) in his Commentary on the second" Epistle lays: Non efi ignorandmn præfentemEpi-" jiolam efj'e falsatam ; qua licet publicetur , non" tamen in Canone efl. You ought to know that(f this Epistle is a Forgery: For tho' it be read in“ the Churches, it is not however in the Canon.Anfw. When Didymus died, is of no Concern tous; but when he wrote and flourijhed, is the mainQuestion. But our Author’s Reasons for settlingthe Chronology of this Writer, in so peculiar aManner, will appear hereafter. In the mean time,it is by no Means certain, that he looked on thisEpistle to be a Forgery. By the Words falj'atamefle, he probably meant no more, than EuJ'ebiusdoes by voQsC or dvjodys, viz. That it was notuniversally acknowledged for the Work of St. Peter ,and by non efl in Canone , that it was not in thegenerally received Canon of the Church. FalJ'a-tam efle, in the Glossary , is the same sometimes, asfalfam did. See Du Freflie. And that Didymus did not design to affirm, that this second Epistle ofSt. Peter was in the Canon of no one Church, hisown of Alexandria in particular, seems evident,because he could not affirm it with Truth. ForAthanaflus, who gives us a Catalogue of the holyBooks, as they were received in the Church ofAlexandria , before Didymus ' s Time, admits thisEpistle into the Number of those which werestrictly Canonical. In short, Didymus had nothingto object against the Genuineness of this Book, be-sides the Prejudices of some particular Churches,

% which

/