( *73 )

Again, among the canonical Books of the prover-bial Species, he places the Wisdom of Sir ach andshuts out the Canticles, as a doubted Piece. Tho’’tis certain that no ancient Church or Writer everdeclared the former undoubtedly Canonical, orquestioned the Genuineness of the latter. Bishop* Cofins thinks Junilius’s Text to have been cor-rupted in this Place. But if that be not theCafe, he was very ignorant in biblical Antiquities ,and we have no Reason to envy our Adversary hisFavourite Junihus. For such an uncorrect Wri-ter would in no Age have hurt the Credit of theRevelations.

" In the same Century, p. 86. he owns, that" another Writer bore Testimony to the Revela-" tions, viz. Andrew of Cæsar e a, a celebrated" Greek, fays our Author, who had more Sense“ than to trifle away his Time in disputing, but" receives the Revelations at first Sight, without" once regarding whether they are contested or“ not. P. 87. he represents St. Andrew, saying," in his Preface to the Revelations, that it would" be needless to examine the Authority of this" Book , since Gregory the Divine, Cyril of Ale-" xandria, and before those Fathers, Papias , Ire-\ " ncens , Methcdus and Dippolytus assure us, in

" more than one Place, that it is a divine Book," and worthy of being credited.” But this Re-i presentation is highly injurious to St. Andrew ofCæsarea and the T mth. For that ancient Com-mentator actually disputes for the Authority of theRevelations, both in his Proœmium and likewise in

* Scholast, Hist. of the Can. of Script, p. 131.

the