( *75 )

pi as's having been a Millenarian . But couldPapias s having been a Millenarian influenceSt. Andrew so far, as to make him think helaw and read that in Papias ’s Works, whichwas never there ? For he does not speak of Pa-ptas upon common Fame , but had read him, andallures us, in the Preface to his Commentary , thathe had borrowed from him as well as the otherFathers above named. And accordingly,/*. 1572.he cites him upon a Subject, no where so ex-pressly treated of, as in the Revelations , viz. theFall of Angels and the Reason of it. So that theDifcourfer is here engaged in the hopefuls tov\nce tof persuading a Man out of his very Senses. Se-condly , As to Nazianzen . if, It is false to fay,he expressly excludes the Revelations from amongthe canonical Books. For if he does it at all, hedoes it only by consequence, when after havingomitted it in his Catalogue , he adds, 7

cht cv yyvj<rlo:g. None but these are [un-questionably] genuine. 2dly, Perhaps in this Ca-talogue, Nazianzen regarded only the Evangelical and Epiflolical Canon , without having any Eyeto the Revelations, which being a prophetical Work,was distinct from the other two. For in his o-ther Catalogue, which goes under the Name ofAmphilochius , he takes in the Revelations, andowns that some inserted it in the Canon, thoughmore rejected it. In short, the only Thing cer-tain in this Matter is, that Gregory Nazianzen ^ omits the Apocalypse in one of his Catalogues. Butsure we are it does not thence follow, that hewould not call it a divine Work. For Philaflrtusalso leaves it out of his Lif of ca?ionical Books,

who