( ICO )

that of Constantinople , assembled Anno 381. But thenthis Difficulty is not peculiar to the Council nowin Dispute. For that of Gangra, tho’ mentionedin Ecclesiastical History, appeared also, we do notknow how long, after the Council of Nice. Baronius contends that it was prior to that ŒcumenicalCouncil. And tho’ this be evidently false, yet itcannot with Certainty be determined how manyYears it is posterior thereto. Only ’tis very proba-ble, that it was assembled some time before thatof Antioch. In short, no Writer, of common Can-dour, who knows the Clyronological Difficulties,that attend many undoubted Facts of Antiquity,would object to one so well attested, as that of theJLaodicean Cowicil is, from the Disagreements ofthe Learned in stating the precise 'Time of its Ce-lebration. But so unfair are the Enemies of Re-ligion, as to admit nothing in favour of it. that hasthe least disputable Circumstance belonging to it,Whilst all is right with them, tho’ ever so question-able, that distresses the Cause of Revelation. Up-on the whole we conclude against our Adversary,that the Council of Laodicea was an Assembly,whose Existence was unquestionable, and that ryejustly appeal to it in the Behalf of the SecondEpistle of St. Peter, against all who dispute thedivine Authority of that Writing.

The next Attack made upon this Epistle is asfollows: “ Jerom, in [his Epistle to Hedibia ,“ speaking of the first and second Epistles of Peter ,“ fays, Stylo inter fe & Charablere discrepant, jlru-

" Bur ague verborum - fecunda a plerisque e-

" jus ejje negatur propter Styli cum firiore diffo-s j nantiam [Catal. voce Petrus ] most People would