« VorigeDoorgaan »
dation of Rome, according to Cicero, who expreffes himself thus upon that fubject. EratHiftoria nihil aliud nifi Annalium confectio, cujus rei memoriæque publicæ retinendæ causâ, ab initio rerum Romanarum, ufque ad Publium Mutium Pontificem Maximum, res omnes fingulorum annorum mandabat litteris Pontifex Maximus, referebatque in album, & proponebat tabulam domi, poteftas ut effet populo cognofcendi; hique etiam nunc Annales Maximi nominantur. Lib. 2. de Orat. As for that fabulous ftory which Dionyfius gives out as true, Plutarch fhows the abfurdity of it, and reckons it among fables. The fame Writers, and Dionyfius among others, add that Valeria, at the head of the Roman Ladies, offered for the People the first facrifice to the Feminine Fortune, upon an altar erected in the place, where it had been refolved to raise a Temple to that Goddess. The ceremony of that facrifice, according to Dionyfius, was performed the next year, in the month of December, upon the day of the new Moon; for it was upon fuch a day that Coriolanus laid down his arms. The next year, the Temple was finished and confecrated, on the feventh day of July. 3. Upon the Senate's decree that no Crown fhould be laid on the head of the Goddess, &c. Father Catrou alleges Servius upon the 4. Book of the Eneid, who bears witness to that cuftom. He adds this paffage out of Tertullian. Fortune muliebri coronam non imponebat, nifi uni-vira.
If I have fet down in this Article a paffage relating to Coriolanus, rather than any other, 'tis because it was the firft that occurred to my mind. The Readers may think it strange that I have not mentioned all along Father Rouillé, as the Author of this Roman Hiftory together JULY 1725.
with Father Catrou, though his name appears alfo in the Title-Page. I muft therefore obferve that in the Approbations of the Cenfors, and in the King's Privilege, this Work is only afcribed to Father Catrou; from whence it might be inferred that Father Rouillé was only an Affiftant to him. The fourth Volume of this History goes no farther than the year of Rome 415. The Fafti Confulares to that year have been inferted at the end of that Volume.
The Ufe and Intent of PROPHECY, in the feveral Ages of the World. In fix Difcourfes delivered at the Temple Church, in April and May, 1724. Published at the defire of the Mafters of the Bench of the two Honourable Societies. To which are added three Differtations. I. The Authority of the Second Epistle of St. Peter. II. The fenfe of the Antients before Chrift, upon the circumftances and confequences of the Fall. III. The Bleffing of Judah. Gen. xlix. By THOMAS SHERLOCK, D. D. Dean of Chichester, and Master of the Temple. London: Printed
Printed for J. Pemberton against St. Dun Stan's Church in Fleet-Street. 1725. in 8°. pagg. 344.
THOUGH I have read this Book very care
T fully, I fhall only give an account of the
Author's Differtation upon the fecond Epistle of St. Peter. It is a very curious and rational Difcourse; and I am extremely defirous that all my Readers fhould have a notion of it. The fecond Epiftle, afcribed to St. Peter, fays the Author, was reckoned doubtful by fome of the Antients, because the style of it was different from that of the first Epiftle; but it was not rejected by the whole Church. It must be allowed that there is a difference in the ftyle of the first and second Epiftles, that go by the name of St. Peter; but it is not fuch a difference as fhould create any doubt of the genuineness of the fecond Epiftle One reafon of it is, because this difference of ftyle does not run through the whole Epistle, but is only to be obferved in one part of it. Another reason is, that this difference may be more probably accounted for, than by supposing the fecond Epiftle to come from another hand than the firft.
The fecond Epiftle is divided into three Chape ters. The first and the third ftand clear of this difficulty, agreeing very well with the style of the first Epistle. The fecond Chapter is full of bold Figures, and abounds in pompous words and expreffions. It is a defcription of the falfe Prophets and Teachers, who infefted the Church, and perverted the doctrines of the Gofpel; and it feems to be an Extract from fome antient Jewish Writer, who had given a defcription of Ba
the falfe Prophets of his own time, or perhaps of fome who lived before him. That defcription is applied both by St. Peter and St. Jude to the falfe Teachers of their own time. If this be the cafe, where is the wonder that a paffage tranfcribed from another Author, and inferted into this fecond Epiftle, fhould differ in ftyle from St. Peter's firft Epiftle? efpecially, confidering that the ftyle of this paffage differs as much from all the reft of this fecond Epiftle, as it does from the first.
The very beginning of the fecond Chapter of this fecond Epiftle fhews that St. Peter had the Image of fome antient falfe Prophets before him, in defcribing the falfe Teachers of his own time: There were (fays he) falfe Prophets alfo among the people, even as there fhall be falfe Teachers among you, v. I. If we confider the character he gives of thefe falfe Teachers, it will appear to be drawn from the description of the old falfe Prophets: Such they are, fays that Apostle, as have forfaken the right way, and are gone aftray, following the way of Balaam the Son of Bofor, who loved the wages of unrighteoufnefs. v. 15. St. Jude ufes the fame comparison, and others of the fame kind: They have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam, and perished in the gain-faying of Core. v. 11. He tells us plainly that these falfe Teachers were defcribed or fet forth of old for this condemnation; and 'tis very likely that both St. Peter and he had the old Description before them, when they gave the character of the falfe Teachers of their own time. The Epiftle of St. Jude is fo like the fecond Chapter of St. Peter's fecond Epistle, the Figures and Images in both are so much the fame, as likewife the antient Examples and In
ftances made ufe of, that it has been commonly thought that St. Jude transcribed St. Peter's Epiftle. And yet, the turn of words and the expreffions are fo different; the choice of matter likewife is in part fo different, fome things being mentioned in one, and omitted in the other, that 'tis much more probable that both copied from the fame Original. Our Author gives fome inftances of it by comparing the 4. Verfe of St. Peter with the 6. of St. Jude, the 6 with the 7, and the 11 with the 9. I fhall not infert here thofe paffages: the Curious may eafily compare them together, if they please.
St. Peter fpeaks there of the Angels that finned. St. Jude gives an account of their fin: he fays, they kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation. This account of the fin of the Angels is no where elfe to be found in Scripture. The Author conjectures that it was in the old Book from which St. Jude tranfcribed; for 'tis very unlikely that he fhould have added thofe circumftances, if he had only before him these words of St. Peter, the Angels that finned. The very fame difference may be obferved in fetting forth the Example of Sodom and Gomorrba, which is common to both Epiftles. St. Peter speaks only of their Judgment, and of their being made an example to finners: St. Jude adds an account of their Crime; and though, as far as the two Epiftles agree in refpect to this Inftance, the Images and Ideas are the fame, yet the turn of expreffion is very different. Again, St. Peter, V. 11. in reproof of the Prefumptuous who speak evil of Dignities, fays, that Angels which are greater in power and might, bring not railing arcufations against them before the Lord, But here St. Jude has given us the History to which