C 1 32 )

I. A Latin MS . os the Vulgar, written, fays Fa-ther Simon, 800 Years ago, in the Time of Lotha-rim the Second. This is the same with that men-tioned by our Author above, and said by him, tohave been written between the Years 1125 and1139. According to which Account the Copy, atthis Time, cannot be above 600 Years old. Nowthe Secret of this Difference between Father Simonand our Editor, is this. The Father happens tofay, that this Copy was written in the Time of Lo-tharius the Second. And as Lotharius Saxo, inthe twelfth Century, pastes with some Chronogra-phers, under the Name of Lotharius the Second,the Editor, without more ado, sots down his Time,as the Age of this Latin MS, and thereby finks atleast 2C0 Years, of the real Antiquity of this Evi-dence to the Text, he has expunged. And hereinhe has prevaricated after a most wilful Manner.For Father Simon plainly fays, that this MS . at theTime he wrote his Critical History of the New Te-Jftament was 8c o Years old: So that Lotharius theSecond, under whoso Reign it was written, mustbe looked for in the ninth Century, where accord-ingly we find such a one, succeeding his Father Lo-tharius in Part of his Dominions, An. 855. VidePetav. Ration. Temp. p. 526. So that pollibly thisMS. which our Adversary had degraded to thetwelfth Century, is now near 900 Years old.

2. A Latin MS . soen by Bilhop Bur net at StraJburgh, about the Age of Charles the Great , andconsequently 900 Years old.

3. Another at Geneva, which the said Bishopjudges to be above 700 Years old.

4. The

/