« ZurückWeiter »
one consent, may be depended upon as certainly the right faith.' This might be reckoned a true, or very probable proposition; for there are some generals, not denied or contradicted by heretics, in which they and catholics agree; but these would make out but a short and defective creed. Moreover, this cannot be Vincent's meaning: for he is laying down a rule to distinguish those catholic doctrines which are different from those of the heretics; not those in which catholics and heretics agree. We must not consider this observation concerning universality, antiquity, and consent, as an independent proposition, but as in connection with what precedes and follows; which is the only way to know a writer's meaning.
VII. If we have rightly explained this passage, we may now make some remarks.
1. This way of arguing is a plain petitio principii,' a mean begging the question: that is assumed, which ought to be proved; it is determined, who are catholics, or which is the catholic faith; whilst we are still inquiring, What is the catholic faith? which is absurd and ridiculous.
2. This rule is attended with unavoidable and insuperable perplexity and difficulty. It is impossible, or next to impossible, for the most learned and laborious men, much more for private and unlearned Christians, to know what opinions are now held by the whole church all over the earth, and have been held by the whole church from the beginning to their own time; and all the declarations and decisions of all bishops and teachers, called catholic.
3. The difficulty is increased by length of time. It is more difficult for us now, than it was for Vincent, to know what has been believed in the church, every where, always, and by all.
There is, indeed, one way to shorten this inquiry: which is, for some one man, or a few men, to declare decisively, and authoritatively, what is tradition; or what has been the judg ment of all catholics, in all times, and in all places. Then the trouble here spoken of is saved, but this destroys all private judgment: thought, and examination, and consideration, are no longer needful, but quite useless and insignificant. But before any man can willingly and deliberately allow, that the right faith, or what he is to believe, should be so determined for him, he must be first quite indifferent about truth. He might as well consent, that what is right or wrong, true or false, should be determined by the throw of a die.
4. The only sure method, therefore, of knowing what is the true Christian doctrine, is to have recourse to the scriptures; and, according to our Lord's direction, to "search" them carefully and sincerely, without prejudice: which likewise is indeed the doctrine of all the many Christian writers of former times; as appears from the large extracts, which we have made from their works. And as Vincent is pleased to refer us to them, I hope we may be permitted to respect their judgments upon this head, in which there is a very general concurrenceamong them.
The learned writer, before quoted, says: It is wonderful, that so many Protestants, as well as Romanists, should have suffered themselves to be dazzled by this rule: which either 'contains big words only, without meaning, or else would reduce a man to an examen absolutely impossible.'
It is farther observed, by the same writer, that this rule was invented in favour of Semipe-lagianism. The Semipelagians,' he says, 'embarrassed with the numerous passages which Augustine alleged from St. Paul's epistles, had recourse to tradition. They accused Augustine of being an innovator; they boasted of the antiquity of their doctrine. This argument
seemed to them so cogent, that perhaps there is not any one of their works, in which it is not
repeated.' Pagi also speaks to the like purpose: though, upon other accounts, he greatly 'commends this work of Vincent.
Whatever might be the particular views of Vincent, I think that the divinely inspired scriptures are the sole rule of Christian belief and practice; and not the writings, or sentiments of any men, since the days of the inspired apostles of Jesus Christ.
Enfin non seulement les Catholiques Romains, intéressés à défendre les traditions, la mettent toujours à la tête de leurs écrits; mais il y a des Réformés, qui s' en étant laissés éblouir, 's'en sont fait une règle sûre pour connôitre la vérité... Mais il est étonnant, qu' on se laisse éblouir par de grands mots, qui ne disent rien, ou qui réduisent l'homme à un examen absolument impossible. I. Basn. H. de l' Eglise. 1. ix. ch. 7. iv. b Ibid.
Opus illud aureum, et nunquam satis pro dignitate ejus
commendandum, eo fine conscriptum fuit, ut Augustini doctrinam in suspicionem traheret. Ann. 434. n. 17.- Denique Prosper etiam ad Augustinum scribens eum certiorem facit, Semipelagianos sua dogmata venerando vetustatis nomine tueri, et ei novitatem objicere.... Obstinationem suam inquit, vetustate defendunt.'... At Vincentius Lirinensis in toto passim Commonitorio id unum inculcat, tuendam antiquitatem, vitandam novitatem: a doctore ea esse dicenda, quæ ab antiquis didicerit. Ib. n. 18.
VIII. After this discussion of the first three chapters of Vincent, it may not be amiss to observe, briefly, the books of the New Testament, received or quoted by him.
1. I do not recollect in him any quotation of the epistle to the Hebrews, or reference to it; which may create a suspicion, whether it was received by him.
Otherwise I should be apt to think that he received all the books of the New Testament which we now receive: for he has quoted the second epistle of St. John; and the book of the Revelation is quoted or referred to in a passage of St. Ambrose, quoted by him. It seems also to be referred to in some words of his own.
IX. I shall now take some select passages.
1. Vincent describes the cruelty of some Arian persecution; either in the reign of Constantius, or Valens.
2. Vincent assures us that heretics received the same scriptures that were received by catholics.
Here, perhaps, some one may say: Do heretics then quote the divine scripture? Yes, very much. They have the phrases of scripture continually in their mouths: they quote every part of scripture: the law; the books of the Kings; the Psalms; the apostles; the gospels; the prophets. They are perpetually citing scripture; and they clothe all their language in expressions of scripture; in public and private; in their sermons, and in their books; at their • entertainments, and in their walks. Look into the writings of Paul of Samosata, Priscillian, ◄ Eunomius, Jovinian, and other men of that sort: you will scarcely see a page which is not larded with passages of scripture. They say nothing for which they have not a text of scrip*ture, if you will take it in their sense: for which reason they are to be the more dreaded, and
Siquis,' inquit, venit ad vos, et hanc doctrinam non adfert.'... Quid tum? Nolite,' inquit,' recipere eum in domum, nec Ave,' ei dixeritis. Qui enim dicit illi Ave,' ✦ communicat operibus ejus malignis.' [2 Jo. 10, 11.] Commonit. cap. 33. p. 354. edit. Baluz. 1669.
b Vid. Comm. cap. 7. p. 320, 321. Baluz.
Magnum hoc igitur eorumdem beatorum exemplum, planeque divinum, et veris quibusque catholicis indefessâ meditatione recolendum, qui in modum septemplicis candelabri septenâ sancti Spiritûs luce radiantes, clarissimam posteris normam præmonstrârunt, &c. Com. cap. 8. p. 322. Baluz.
d...disturbati clerici, verberati Levitæ, acti in exilium sacerdotes, oppleta sanctis ergastula, carceres, metalla; quorum pars maxima, interdictis urbibus, protrusi atque extorres, inter deserta, speluncas, feras, saxa, nuditate, fame, siti affecti, contriti, et tabefacti sunt. Comm. cap. 7. p. 320. Baluz.
e Hic fortasse aliquis interroget, an et hæretici divinæ scripturæ testimoniis utantur? Utuntur plane, et vehementer quidem. Nam videas eos volare per singula quæque sanctæ legis volumina, per Möysis, per Regum libros, per Psalmos, per apostolos, per evangelia, per prophetas. Sive enim apud suos, sive alienos, sive privatim, sive publice, sive sermonibus, sive in libris, sive in conviviis, sive in plateis, nihil unquam pene de suo proferunt, quod non etiam scripturæ verbis adumbrare conentur. Lege Pauli Samosatenti opuscula, Priscilliani, Eunomii, Joviniani, reliquarumque pestium: cernas infinitam. exemplorum congeriem; prope nullam omitti paginam, quæ non Novi aut Veteris Testamenti sententiis fucata et colorata sit. Sed tanto magis cavendi et pertimescendi sunt, quanto occultius sub divinæ legis umbraculis latitant.... Inde denique et Salvator clamabat: Attendite vobis a pseudoprophetis, qui veniunt ad vos in vestitu ovium, intus autem sunt lupi vpraces. Quid est vestitus ovium, nisi prophetarum et apostolorum proloquia?... Qui sunt lupi rapaces, nisi sensus hæreticorum feri et rabidi ? . . qui. . manente luporum ferociâ, deponunt lupinam speciem, et sese divinæ legis sententiis, velut quibusdam velleribas, obvolvunt; ut, quum quisque la parum mollitiem præsenserit, nequaquam aculeos dentium pertimescat. Cap. 36. p. 357. Baluz.-... Ergo, secundum apostoli Pauli magisterium, quotiescumque vel pseudoapostoli, vel pseudoprophetæ, vel pseudodoctores divinæ legis sententias proferunt, quibus male interpretatis errores suos adstruere conentur, non dubium est, quin auctoris sui callida machina
menta sectentur, quæ ille nunquam profecto comminisceretur, nisi sciret omnino nullam esse ad fallendum faciliorem viam, quam ut ubi nefarii erroris subinducitur fraudulentia, ibi divinorum verborum prætendatur auctoritas. Sed dicet aliquis: Unde probatur, quia sacræ legis exemplis diabolus uti soleat?' Legat evangelia, in quibus scribitur: Tunc assumsit illum diabolus,' id est, Dominum Salvatorem, et 'statuit illum super pinnam templi.'. . . Quid hic faciet misellis hominibus, qui ipsum Dominum majestatis scripturarum testiinoniis appetivit? Si,' inquit, filius Dei es, mitte te deorsum.' Quâre Scriptum est enim,' inquit. Magnopere nobis doctrina loci istius attendenda atque retinenda est: ut tanto evangelicæ auctoritatis exemplo, quando aliquos apostolica seu prophetica verba proferre contra catholicam fidem viderimus, diabolum per eos loqui minime dubitemus. Nam sicut tunc caput capiti, ita nunc quoque membra membris loquuntur, membra scilicet diaboli membris Christi, perfidi fidelibus, sacrilegi religiosis, hæretici postremo catholicis. Sed quid tandem dicunt? Si,' inquit, filius Dei es, mitte de ' deorsum.' Hoc est si filius esse vis Dei, et hæreditatem regni cœlestis accipere, mitte te deorsum, id est, ex istius te sublimis ecclesiæ, quæ etiam templum Dei putatur, doctrinâ et traditione demitte. Ac si quis interroget quempiam hæreticorum sibi talia persuadentem: Unde probas ? unde doces, quod ecclesiæ catholicæ universalem et antiquam fidem dimittere debeam? statim ille: Scriptum est enim.' Et continuo mille testimonia, mille exempla, mille auctoritates parat, de Lege, de Psalinis, de apostolis, de prophetis; quibus novo et malo more interpretatis, ex arce catholicâ in harescos barathrum infelix anima præcipitetur. Cap. 37. Baluz. p. 358, 359. Sed dicit aliquis: si divinis eloquiis, sententiis, promissionibus, et diabolus et discipuli ejus utuntur, quorum alii sunt pseudoapostoli, alii pseudoprophetæ, pseudomagistri, et omnes ex toto hæretici, quid facient catholici homines et matris ecclesiæ filii? Quonam modo in scripturis sanctis veritatem a falsitate discernent? Hoc scilicet magnopere curabunt, quod in principio Commonitorii istius sanctos et doctos viros nobis tradidisse scripsimus: ut divinum canonem secundum universalis ecclesiæ traditiones, et juxta catholici dogmatis regulas interpretentur: in qua item catholicâ et apostolicâ ecclesià sequantur necesse est universitatem, antiquitatem, consensionem. Cap. 38. Baluz. p. 360.
guarded against with the utmost care. And our Saviour therefore says: "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheeps-clothing: but inwardly they are ravening wolves." What is the sheeps-clothing, but the sayings of the prophets and apostles? Who are ravenous wolves, but heretics? Retaining their wolfish fierceness, they cover themselves with sayings of the scriptures, as with fleeces; that they may appear to have the softness of wool, and men may 'forget their sharp teeth.'
Vincent afterwards alleges, 2 Cor. xi. 13, 14. Whence,' he says, we may conclude that, 'according to the apostle, as oftenas false apostles, false prophets, and false teachers, quote passages ' of scripture, by which, not rightly understood, they endeavour to support their errors, they follow the cunning wiles of their master; which he would never have made use of, if he did not know 'that there is not a more effectual way to promote error, than a pretence of authority from scrip⚫ture. But some one may say: How does it appear that the devil is wont to argue from scripture? Let him read the gospels, in which it is written: "Then the devil taketh him, and 'setteth him upon a pinnacle of the temple. And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee." [Matt. iv. 5, 6.] What will not he do to poor mortals, who attacked the Lord of all with passages of scripture? "If," says he, "thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down." Why?" For it is written," says he. The doctrine of this place ought to be carefully attended to, and well remembered by us: that by this instance, recorded in the gospel itself, we may be fully satisfied, when we see any men alleging passages of the apostles or prophets against the catholic faith, that it is the devil who speaks by them. For as the head then spake to the head, so now the members speak to the members; that is, the members of Satan to the members of Christ: 'perfidious men to faithful; sacrilegious to religious; in a word, heretics to catholics. But what do they say?" If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down." Which is to say: If thou wilt be the Son of God, and obtain the inheritance of the heavenly kingdom, cast thyself down from the doctrine and tradition of that high church, which is also reckoned the temple of God. And if you should ask any of these heretics, Who talks to you at this rate? How do you prove, that I ought to let go the universal and ancient faith of the catholic church? he will presently ' answer: "For it is written." And without delay he is ready to allege a thousand passages, a thousand instances, a thousand authorities, from the law, the Psalms, the apostles, the prophets, by which, with his new and false interpretations, the unhappy soul, if not upon the guard, is thrown down from the catholic fortress into the dungeon of heresy.
But some one may say: If the devil and his disciples, of which some are false apostles, ⚫ others false prophets, others false teachers, even all heretics, make use of passages and promises of the divine oracles, what shall catholic men do, who are sons of our mother, the church? How shall they understand the scripture, so as to distinguish truth from falsehood? My answer
is, that they should carefully observe what was mentioned at the beginning of this Memoir, as ⚫ delivered to us by learned and holy men: that they are to interpret the divine canon according to the traditions of the universal church, and the determinations of catholic doctrine; in which catholic and apostolic church they must, by all means, have universality, antiquity,
X. I shall transcribe no more: I only hope that my readers will now join with me in the following remarks:
1. We may hence conclude it to be very probable, that there were then some Christians, of different sentiments from Vincentius upon some points, who made great use of scripture, and had an advantage from it; it was their strong hold; and Vincentius endeavours to bring their intrenchments into suspicion. If he can once draw them from thence, he hopes to have them for his converts and captives.
2. We may also reckon it to be probable, that there were about this time some Christians, whose great regard for the determination of some councils, and for the writings of learned men much esteemed by them, had diminished their respect for the sacred scriptures.
3. Nevertheless, in the method here proposed, of joining the traditions of the church with scripture, or interpreting the divine canon by the determinations of bishops, and other eminent men, Vincentius is far from having universality, antiquity, consent; many excellent Christians, of his own time, had a greater regard for scripture. The early Christian writers declare the inspired scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be the rule of faith; and in that doctrine
they concur, and consent. And I would hope that the large collections which have been made by us, containing so numerous testimonies to the scriptures, may be of use to fortify serious men against all confident assertions to the contrary: for whenever they are advanced, they must be accompanied with confidence, as the only way of making head against reason, scripture, and the general sense of the most early Christians.
Vincentius does little less than say, that arguments from scripture are heretical and satanical : which, I presume, every reader of this work is able to say, upon good grounds, is a novel way of speaking, unknown in the early ages of Christianity, next succeeding those of the apostles; in which the scriptures were not slighted and disparaged, but highly respected, and earnestly recommended to the attention of all. Moreover, Vincentius seems to have forgotten, that our Saviour himself repelled all the temptations of Satan with texts of scripture, and with reasons from thence saying: "It is written." And,' again,' " It is written: for it is written." See Matthew, iv. and Luke iv. 8....12.
EUCHERIUS, BISHOP OF LYONS.
1. EUCHERIUS, bishop of Lyons in Gaul, flourished about the year 434. Some things have been ascribed to him, which are not allowed to be his. The generally received are these: Forms and Phrases of Scripture, or a book of Spiritual Forms; Difficult Questions out of the Old and New Testament, with an interpretation of Hebrew names; an epistle concerning the Contempt of the World and Secular Philosophy; another epistle, in Praise of Solitude, or of the Desert. I shall quote no other beside these.
2. As Eucherius is in Gennadius, I place a part of his chapter below.
3. The difficult questions of the New Testament, are taken out of the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John; the epistle to the Romans; the first and second to the Corinthians; the epistle to the Ephesians; to the Colossians; the first and second to Timothy; the epistle to the Hebrews; the Acts of the apostles; the epistle of James; the first epistle of John; and the Revelation out of each book, in the order here named.
4. Though no questions are there taken out of other books of the New Testament, no doubt can be made but Eucherius received all the fourteen epistles of St. Paul, and St. Peter's two epistles, and the two latter epistles of St. John, and the epistle of St. Jude: the second epistle of Peter is quoted by him more than once.
5. Mill says, without hesitation, that Eucherius had, in his copies of St. John's first epistle, the heavenly witnesses. But, in my opinion, that is far from being certain: indeed the text is
• Rufinus, who was well acquainted with the ancient Christian writers, both Greeks and Latins, having put down a catalogue of the books of the Old and New Testament, the same which are now received by us, adds: These are the ' volumes which the fathers have included in the canon, and 'out of which they would have us prove the doctrines of our 'faith.' See before, Vol. ii. p. 573.
b Vid. Cav. H. L. T. i. p. 423, 424. Fabric. ad Gennad. cap. 63. Du Pin. T. iii. P. ii. p. 173. Tillem. T. xv.
Formulæ seu Phrases Scripturæ, seu Formularum Spiritualium Liber. Instructiones ad Salonium de Quæstionibus Veteris et Novi Testamenti. Epistola parænetica ad Valerianum cognatum de Contemtu Mundi et Secularis Philosophiæ. De Laude Eremi, seu de Vitâ Solitaria. Ap. Bib. PP. Lugd. T. vi. p. 822....866.
Eucherius, Lugdunensis ecclesiæ presbyter, scripsit ad Valerianum propinquum suum de Contemtu Mundi et Secu
'laris Philosophiæ epistolam unam,' scholastico sermone et rationabili. Disseruit etiam ad personam filiorum Salonii et Veranii, postea episcoporum, Obscura quæque Sanctaruin 'capitula Scripturarum.'. .. aliaque tam ecclesiasticis quam monasticis studiis necessaria. Moritur sub Valentiniano et Martiano Principibus. Gennad. De V. I. cap. 63.
Ap. Bib. PP. T. vi. p. 847...853.
f Sic Petrus in epistolâ : Unam vero hoc non lateat vos 'carissimi, quia unus dies apud Deum sicut mille anni.' [2 Pet. iii. 8.] Form. Spirital. cap. 11. p. 839. D. Vid. et cap. 5. p. 832. H.
Jam enim, sub annum Christi 434, ab Eucherio Lugdunensi citatam eam reperimus,lib. Formularum Spiritalis In'telligentiæ.' cap. xi. 3, 4. Et sane mirum, haud exstitisse ipsam jam in aliis scriptis Patrum Occidentalium, &c. Prolegom. n. 938.
found in the book of Spiritual Forms, or Scripture Phrases. But let us observe the questions taken out of St. John's epistle, one of which is: Again, John, in his epistle, says: "There are ⚫ three that bear witness; water, blood, and spirit. What does that mean? Answer. Here • seems a reference to what the same John writes in his gospel; "But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out water and blood. And he that saw it, bare record." [ch. xix. 34, 35.] And he had before said; "He bowed his head, and gave up the ghost." [ver. 30.] Some therefore argue, that "the water," denotes baptism; the "blood," martyrdom; and " the spirit," the soul; which at death goes to God: but the most, by a mystical interpretation, understand the Trinity itself. The "water," they say, denotes the Father; the "blood," Jesus Christ, who died; and the "spirit," the Holy Ghost.'
Eucherius, who wrote this, had not the heavenly witnesses in his copy of St. John's epistle. The text, therefore, as cited in the forementioned place and book, did not come from him; but has been made out, by some late transcriber, from modern copies of the New Testament, Eucherius had written: And in John's epistle: "There are three that bear witness; the "water, the blood, and the spirit:" but some transcriber filled up the quotation out of his late copies. The reading, without the heavenly witnesses, does as well suit the design of the author or better, than with them: for he is there explaining, or shewing the mystery of numbers. • Number I,' he says, refers to the unity of God: Number II, refers to the two testaments of the divine law: Number III, to the Trinity. So, in John's epistle : "There are three that bear witness; the water, the blood and the spirit." So I think, Eucherius wrote: and in this manner the two places, in those two works, perfectly agree and harmonize.
I hope the account which I have here given of this matter, may be satisfactory to the reader. Nevertheless, since writing what is above, I have observed, that J. A. Bengelius, referring to the book of Spiritual Forms,' says, that the disputed text in St. John is plainly quoted by ⚫ Eucherius.' And before that, referring to the books of the Questions out of the Old and New Testament, he says: Eucherius, but different from him to be afterwards mentioned, does not
quote it: what reasons Mr. Bengelius has for thinking those two works to have been composed by two different authors, I cannot tell. Eucherius, bishop of Lyons, had two sons, Veranius, and Salonius, or Saloninus; to the former, he inscribed his book of Spiritual Forms;' to the other, the work of Difficult Questions.' About this there is no dispute among learned men, that I know of; however, I shall now refer to some other, beside those referred to at the beginning of this chapter.
The preceding argument, therefore, remains in full force, so far as I can perceive.
This whole chapter, as it now is, was finished by me before the publication of the second volume of Mr. Wetstein's New Testament: what he says of Eucherius Lugdunensis may be seen at p. 725 of the said volume.
* Ad Trinitatem in Johannis epistola: Tres sunt qui testimonium dant in cœlo, Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus. Et tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terrâ, Spiritus, Aqua,
et Sanguis.' Form. Spirit. cap. 11. n. 3. p. 838. E.
Interr. Item in epistolâ suâ Johannes ponit: Tria sunt, quæ testimonium perhibent, aqua, sanguis et spiritus.' Quid in hoc indicatur? Resp. Simile huic loco etiam illud mihi videtur, quod ipse in evaugelio suo de passione Christi loquitur, dicens: Unus militum lanceâ latus ejus aperuit, et con'tinuo exivit sanguis et aqua. Et qui vidit, testimonium per'hibet.' In eodem ipse de Jesu supra dixerat: Inclinato 'capite reddidit spiritum. Quidam ergo ex hoc ita disputant. Aqua baptismum: Sanguis videtur indicare martyrium: Spiritus vero est, qui per martyrium transit ad Dominum.... Plures tamen hic ipsam interpretatione mysticâ intelligunt Trinitatem, eo quod perfecta ipsa perhibeat testimonium Christo. Aqua Patrem indicans, quia ipse de se dicit: Me ⚫ dereliquerunt, fontem aquæ vivæ.' [Jerem. n. 13.] Sanguine Christum demonstrans, utique per passionis cruorem: Spiritu vero Sanctum Spiritum manifestans. Hæc autem tria de Christo testimonium ita perhibent, ipso in evangelio loquente:
Ego sum qui testimonium perhibeo de meipso.'. . . [Joh. viii.
18.] Et item: Cum autem.'... [xv. 26.] Perhibet ergo testimonium Pater, cum dicit: Hic est Filius meus dilectus.' [Matt. iii. 17.] Filius cum dicit: Ego et Pater unum sumus."' [Joh. x. 30.] Spiritus Sanctus, cum de eo dicitur: 'Et vidit
Spiritum Dei descendentem, sicut columbam venientem
super se. [Matt. iii. 16.] De Qu. N. T. ib. p. 853. B. C. D. I. Hic numerus ad unitatem Deitatis refertur... II. Ad duo testamenta divinæ legis referuntur. . . III. Ad Trinitatem, in Johannis epistolâ....Tres sunt qui testimonium dant, 'Aqua, Sanguis, et Spiritus.' Formul. Spiritual. cap. 11. p. 838.
d Sect. xv. Et apertissime Eucherius Lugdunensis. Versum 7, et 8, distincte citat in libro Formularum Spiritualis intelligentiæ de numeris agens. Bengel. N. T. Gr. p. 753.
e Non citat Eucherius, sed diversus ab illo, de quo, sect. xv. in Quest. N. T. Id. ibid. p. 750.
f De uxore duos filios suscepit, Veranium et Saloninum, quibus et libros nuncupavit; Veranio librum Formularum spiritualis intelligentiæ; Salonino vero duos, priorem de Quæstionibus difficilioribus Veteris et N. T. posteriorem de Hebr. nominum interpretatione. S. Basn. ann. 441. n. v. Vid. et Hod. de Text. Orig. p. 397. et Pagi an. 441. n. iv.......... x.