In the Epi/lle to the LI $ BR Ew s. where it yetabides,though Originally it had no place there,as we (hall in the Expofition of the Wordsfufficientlymanifeft.The fameandno other is the caufe why lam is rende- red p,Li2 T, Gen. 49. And maywendt as well think,nay is it not more likely, that they would infert his words into the places from whence theyknew his Teftimonies were taken, with a very little alteration of theantient Reading, than that theywould wholly intrudethem into theplacesfrom whence theywere not taken byhim,which yet unde-, niably hath beendone, and that with fuccefs. Nay,we find that many things out of the NewTellament are tranflated into the Apocbrypball Book,- themfelves. As for in- fiance, Ecclefiafiicur, chap. 2¢. v. 3. we have theft words in theLatinCopier, Exore al= tifmiprodii primogenita ante omnemCreaturam ; which are cited by Bellarmine andothers in the confirmationof the DeityofChrift, whereas they are taken from Col. i. 55. and are in noGreekCopies of that Book. upon theftReafonsthen, which may yet be rendered more cogent, many other inflames, but that weconfine our felves to this Epifi'k, I fuppofe I may conclude, that it is more probable at leali, that the Apotlles interpretations of the Teftimonies ufed by him, all agreeably unto the mind ofthe Holy Ghoft,. were by fome of old inferted into the Vulgar Copies of theGreekTranflation of the Old Tellament,and therein we- nailed unto common acceptation, thanthat he hirñfelf followed inthe Citation of them aTranflationdeparting withoutReafon from the, Original Text, and diverting unto fuck ¡infer; as its Authors knew 'kit tobe contained in them, which muff needsgive offence unto themwith whom he had to do. It appears then, that from hence no light can begiven untoour enquiry after theLanguage wherein this Epitllewas Origi.. nay written, though it be clear enoughupon other Confederations. Exereitatio
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=