C H3 )

Century, insisted on by Mills , and especially byMr. Martin , both in his Dissertation and Examen ,and to whoie Testimony no possible Exception canbe made, is quite dropped. Fulgentius Rufpenjis ,in the Beginning of the sixth Century, never fails tomake one in the List of Evidences for the Passagein Dispute, produced by such as appear in its De-fence ; and he also is concealed. Possibly our Au-thor may be a Stranger to the new-found Authorityof Cajsodorius , in the same Century, and to thegreat Importance of his Peflimony-, tho' I fear thisis another wilful Snpprejson. For the Learning ofour unbelieving Adversaries in Title Pages is aPraise^ that cannot justly be denied them, and Cas-Jiodorius's Testimony stands recorded there , as thegreat Di/iinBion of his newly discovered Piece.ViBor Vitenjis indeed, and Vigilius Papsenss , hehas called or rather miscalled , tho’ not under theexpress Notion of Evidences (as they truly are andcapital ones too) in the present Case. For whichReason he has particularly laid a Load of Infamyon the former of the two, representing him as aWriter of a spurious CharaBer , and not worth theunkennelling. Language proper for a Fox-hunt er,but never till now made Use of by a Critic. Butit is worth any Man’s while, to observe the Diffe-rence of Style and Manner in Writing, betweenthe Reasonings on the Prologue ascribed to St.Je-rom , and the Reflections that follow on the Wri-ters abovenamed. The former are none of hisown, but taken from Persons conversant in Enqui-ries of this Kind, and accordingly are sober , ra-tional and pertinent. But what follows is entirelyour Annotator’s own, and there we bid Adieu to