The Young-students-library containing extracts and abridgments of the most valuable books printed in England, and in the forreign journals, from the year sixty five, to this time : to which is added a new essay upon all sorts of learning ... / by the Athenian Society ; also, a large alphabetical table, comprehending the contents of this volume, and of all the Athenian Mercuries and supplements, etc., printed in the year 1691.

Varia Sacra, ceu Sylloge variorum Opus∣culorum Graecorum ad rem Ecclesia∣sticam spectantium. Cura & studio Stephani Le Moyne Theologi Ley∣densis, qui collegit, versiones partim addidit, & Notis & Observationi∣bus uberioribus illustravit. ••ugd. Batav. apud Danielem Gaesbeeck 1685, 2 Vol. in 4 to.

THIS Work is Composed of three parts, since 'tis a Collection of Greek Pieces, before which are long Pre∣faces, and after them very fine Notes.

The Collection is not only made of rare pieces; for the Epistle of St. Polycarp, and that of St. Barnabas, which are at the beginning, are common enough, but there are others which are very curious, as, A Treatise of the Occumenic Councils by Germain, Patriarch of Constantinople: The Preface of Euthymius upon the Psalms: An Account of the five Patriarchates of the Church, by Nilus Doxopatrius: A Confe∣rence between a Christian and a Sarazen, by Bartholomew of Edessa: A Conference between a Grecian and a Roman. The Latin Version is annexed to all these Pie∣ces, and they have been taken either out of the King's Library, or that of Ox∣ford, or Leyden.

We may consider the Prefatory Di∣scourses as divided into four parts, and for the first take all that the Author says about his being engaged by chance to Compose this Work, and how he has brought it to that perfection it now ap∣pears to us in. He dissembles not the Grief and Vexation that he received from a new Edition of Iosephus, being begun at Oxford▪ For as he had made it the Care and Study of his whole Life to Cor∣rect and Explain it; so he thought none else shou'd ever have had the Glory of giving it to the Publick. Having been prevented of his hopes, tho' not without great Mortification, he e'en resolved to be content with that Printed at Oxford, and go upon this design, of Collecting these Pieces together. The three other parts of these Prefatory Discourses, are so many Dissertations, one upon St. Po∣lycarp and his Writings; the second upon St. Barnabas and his Epistle; the third upon Hipolitus, and the greatest part of the Works that are Attributed to him.

Before he begins his first Dissertation, he tells us, That he had no design to publish the Epistles of Polycarp and Bar∣nabas, because they were already so well known; but coming into Holland, he heard every where a great Rumour, that was surprizing enough; viz. That M. Rulleus, who was Chaplain to Mr. Paetus, during his Embassy to Spain, and who afterwards making a Voyage into Italy, brought back from thence a Manuscript of the Epistle of St. Polycarp, above twice as big as any that has yet appear'd as his. Mr. Rulleus was very Inquisitive after it, and himself intended to publish this rare Treasure; but Death preventing him, his Brother made a Present of the Manu∣script to Mr. Le Moyne, who soon per∣ceived, that they had taken the Epistle of St. Barnabas for part of St. Polycarp, be∣cause they were both joyned together, without any distinction. The Jesuit Tur∣rian, a very Learned Man, and very much accustom'd to Manuscripts, was also fal∣len into the like mistake. Which made me remember, that formerly the piece of Minucius Felix's was taken for the eighth Book of Arnobius, because it was affixed to his seven, and that it was ima∣gined instead of Octavius, which was its true Title, it ought to be read Octavus. It must be very welcome to the World; that the Author, according to the last Will of Mr. Rulleus, made an Impression of these two Epistles, for there are many fine Observations added, which are altoge∣ther new.

In his first Dissertation he maintains, That St. Polycarp suffer'd Martyrdom on one of the Days of the Great Sabbath, which was the beginning of the Ecclesi∣astick Year, the first Day of the Month Nisan, according to the Hebrews. He says, That the Jews gave the Name of the Great Sabbath to the two first Days of the Civil and Ecclesiastick Years, the first of which began in the Month Tisri, or September, and the last in the Month Nisan, or March. These two Days were call'd by preference 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but the first Day of Tisri was prefer'd to the other, insomuch, that the first Day Nisan was only the second Great Sabbath, whence it comes (adds Mr. Moyne,) that in the Gospel according to St. Luke there is mention made of a second first Sabbath, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which perhaps is so nam'd, because they call'd the first Day of the Year 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Sabbathum prin∣cipii Anni. Now because 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies

Annum & secundum, some Antient Inter∣preters wou'd Translate (by sticking too much to the Letter) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Sabbathum principii Anni, by these other words Sabbathum primo secundum, or se∣cundo primum, which the Greeks have render'd by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

This Observation will appear very pro∣bable to those that understand both Lan¦guages The Author says, There is much reason to believe that Polycarp dyed in the Year 167. under the Consulship of Qua∣dratus, and he maintains this Cronologi∣cal Observation very learnedly against all those that affirm he suffered Martyrdom in any other Year, and to remove all difficulty▪ he shews that there were ma∣ny Quadratus's. There was T. Numidius Quadratus, who was Consul in the Year, 167. and L. ••tatius Quadratus, who was Pro-Consul in the lesser Asia at the same time.

There is a happy Illustration of a very considerable matter of Fact; amongst the Circumstances of the Death of this Mar∣tyr; some tell us, That a Dove which came out of his side, fled into the Air, having lighted upon the Pile of Wood, without being injured by the Flame, was killed by a Soldier. Neither Eusebius nor the Antients speak any thing of that Mi∣racle, they only say, That St. Polycarp was wounded in the side, and that a great quantity of Blood issued from the wound. The Author believes, That there was formerly in the Epistle of the Church of Smyrna, wherein the Martyrdom of this Holy Man was related, these Greek words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Ex sinistro Latere exivit Magna copia San∣guinis, and that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was chang'd into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifies a Dove, af∣ter which they were piously believed, and as confidently published, that a Dove went out from the side of St. Polycarp. M. Le Moyne supposes also, that Lucian, who lived in the same time with St. Po∣lycarp, only composed his Peregrinus to insult over this Martyr, and to turn Christianity into Ridicule. He believes, that the Novus Empedocles, to whom The∣mistius compares the Emperor Iovinian, was Polycarp, and proves it by Reasons that appear very solid, and in refuting the Opinion of M. Petit, who maintains in his Miscellanea, Printed in the Year 1682, that this Empedocles is infallibly the Peregrinus of Lucian.

The Discourse upon St. Bernard is also full of Curicus Remarks. The Author observes, he was of the Isle of Cyprus, where there was so great a number of Iews, and that once they put all the Ido∣laters in that place to Death. These Iews lived in the principal Towns of the Isle, as Cyrene, and Labithus, and as they went often to Ierusalem, both because the Passage was very easie, and to assist at the Solemn Feasts, so they had Syna∣gogues there; and these, he says, are those that were called Cyrenians and Ly∣bertines in the 6th chapter of the Acts. St. Barnabas dying in Cyprus was Buried under a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Carch-Tree, and not under a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Cherry-Tree, as a Learned Interpreter believed it to be. We may see here very Learned Etymolo∣gical Remarks, intermixt with a great deal of Arabick. The consideration of St. Barnabas was, because the Metropoli∣tan of Cyprus pretended to the right of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and Independent of any Patriarchal Jurisdiction. M. Le Moyne il∣lustrates whatsoever he says with very fine Notions; and after having observed, that upon the Breast of this Apostle, was the Gospel of St. Matthew Writ in Hebrew by his own hand, he refutes the false consequence that Mr. Mallet has inferred from thence, That the Apostles would not permit the Laicks to read the Holy Scripture. He praises Mr. Arna••d, and the vigour with which he refutes this consequence of M. Mallet. But however, he proves by very good Reasons, that the Epistle that is attributed to St. Barnabas, is none of his: He supposes it to be St. Polycarp's, without absolutely determining any thing upon it.

In the Dissertation upon St. Hypolitus, he maintains that he was not put to death in the Year 230, but many Years after: He proves it by the Letter he writ to Severa Wife to the Emperour Philip. She is call'd Severina in the Canon Paschalis that was published by Scaliger; but as there never was any Empress Named Severina, so the Author pretends it it must be read Sever. Aug. whereof they made Severina. He bids us not confound this Severa with her that was the Wife of Severus, who applyed her self so much to Philosophy, that she was called a Philo∣sophress in this Passage of Philostratus. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. That is, Antoninus was Son to the Philo∣sophress Iulia. These words have puz∣led the great Scaliger, that Man of the World, who confest the least that he was ignorant of any thing. Our Author shews, that we must Correct them after this manner, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and under∣stand by 'em Antonine Caracalla. After∣wards he easily overcometh all the Diffi∣culties founded upon this, that Iulia Se∣vera was not the Wife of the Emperour Marcus Aurelius, sirnam'd the Philoso∣pher, nor by consequence the Mother of Antoninus Commodus. This same Pas∣sage of Philostratus is a very strong proof to M. Le Moyne, that this Iulia was own Mother to Caracalla, and not Mother-in-Law, as is generally believed, and he confirms his thoughts by a Passage of the Kynegetick of Oppian, Dedicated to the Emperour Caracalla himself.

Hyppolitus never writ to this Iulia Se∣vera, but to Severa Daughter of Mam∣meus, and Wife to the Emperour Philip, to whom she communicated the good Sentiments she had of Christianity, which she had received of her Mother. The Author agrees not with the Testimony

of Eusebius, that it is doubtful whether this Emperour was a Christian or not; but he thinks not that we ought to prove this Opinion by the Medal, which those of Apamea made under their Emperor; one may see 〈◊〉〈◊〉 on one side the Head of this Empero•• and on the other an Ark, 4 Perso•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 2 Pidgeons, one of which hold 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Branch of Olive in its Mouth▪ Round 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Figures are these Characters, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and under them〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, all which made the Celebrated Mr. Fa••conier judge that this Medal represented the Leluge, as he endeavours to prove in a very Learned Dissertation. Our Author shews here, that he's deceived, and explains the Me∣dal after this manner.

The Ark signified the City of Apamea, which was call'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because it was the Store-house of all the Country round about: The four Persons represent two Inhabitants of Apamea, and two of A∣lexandria. The Doves and the Olive-Branch, was a Representation of the good Intelligence there was between these two Cities. It's very certain, that the Characters inscrib'd upon it contain'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Those of Alexandria. If we read the three last Letters Reverse, they make 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which Mr. Falconier believ'd were to be seen at the bottom of the Medal. And altho' it were so, if we believe this Au∣thor, we must not establish our Faith of the Emperour's Christianity upon this Medal; but found it upon other Proofs that he alledges for it.

Thus having maintain'd that this Em∣perour was a Christian, and that it was to the Empress his Wife, that Hyppolitus writ Letters, as well as Origen had done to the same Lady, the Author shews, it was not this Hyppolytus that contributed so considerably both by his Exhortations and Purse to the Works which Origen composed upon the Scripture, as the Pa∣triarch Photius has falsly affirm'd. He that was at these great Expences for Ori∣gen was a very Rich Laick, Named Am∣brose▪ Hyppolitus being then only Bishop, was not at that time in a condition of making such Contributions: It is not easie to decide what City he was Bishop of, for he is sometimes call'd Bishop of Rome, sometimes Bishop of Arabia.

The ••••thor examins all these Diffi∣culties after such a manner, as shews he has a very penetrating Wit, and is a Man of great Reading. He proves by many Examples, that there has been two Bi∣shops in the same City; and he does not only believe that Hyppolitus continued a long time in Arabia, but also that we ought to attribute to him the Conversion of Thirty Thousand Saracens, which Work others assign to Nonnus. He shews that he has been confounded with this Nonnus, and others of his own Name; and that he never was a Monk, nor long enough Deacon to bear that Title, from whence he takes occasion to censure a Council held at Rome in the Year 324, which gave him the Name of Hyppolitus, Deacon. He confirms the Observations of some Learned Men, that this Council was never held under Sylvester.

He afterwards makes many Remarks upon the Works of Hyppolitus, that are en∣graved upon a Marble Chair at Rome, and which is one of the finest Monu∣ments of Antiquity. It was found in the Year 1551. in the Diocese of Tivoli; from whence the Author infers, that Hyp∣politus was not Bishop of Porto, at the Mouth of the Tyber; for if it had been so, it is very probable this Monument would have been found there, and not in the Diocese of Tivoli: It cannot be doubted, but that the Marble Image of the Man that is sitting in this Chair, in Hyppolitus, because, altho' his Name is not there, yet there appears all the Titles of almost all his Works that the Antients have attribu∣ted to him. M. Le Moyne tells us, 'twas the Custom of placing these sort of Mo∣numents in the Temples, and that it was practised both amongst the Heathens and Iews. They had in the middle of their Temples upon Walls and Pillars, a great many Inscriptions, and Historical Relations, that by the Holiness of the place, the me∣mory of past things might be the better preserved. 'Twas from such Monuments that Sanchoniaten Contemporary with Gideon, took the greatest part of his Me∣moirs, wherewith he composed his Book. He observes that he drew them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, from the Am∣monean Letters that is from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, from the Temples and Statues of the Sun that the Hebrews call'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, upon which they writ the most remarkable things that concern'd the Eastern People.

The Third part of this Work, which is the Notes, is a distinct Volume, much larger than all the Collections and Prefa∣ces.

My Reader perhaps may wonder (says our Abridger) that I have so long neg∣lected to tell him. That the Famous Epi∣stle of St. Chrysostom to Cesarius, is one of the Pieces that M. Le Moyne has published. He so religiously observes to Print it ex∣actly according to the Manuscript, that he has given it without Points, and without any Distinctions; but he designs in his Vo∣lume of Notes, which is to follow to give it in a better form, and make it the most intelligible he can. He proves 'tis a Work of St. Chrysostom's, and he says, he will discover from whence, when, and by whom this Rare Piece is fallen into his hands. This Work is considerable, be∣cause it appears contrary to the Opinion of Transubstantiation, and I believe it wou'd not have made so much noise as it has done, if something that feel out at Paris some few Years agoe had not given the occasion of making Reflections upon it.

The Affair happen'd when the Learned M. Pigot Printed the Life of St. Chrysostom, writ by Paladius. He wou'd have added there amongst other little Pieces, this same Letter of his, written to the Monk Cesarius; and some say, that it was rea∣dy for the Press, but he was desired to Suppress it, and made to understand, un∣less he did so, he shou'd obtain no privi∣ledge for his Book, wherefore he did what they desired him. The Protestants, who come to understand this Matter, have not fail'd to take notice of it, as if the Publication of this Letter had been hindered only, because it favour'd them. One of 'em has Printed a long Disserta∣tion upon this Subject, under this Title, St. Anastasii Sinaitae Anag••g••carum Contem∣plationum in Hexaemeron liber 32 hactenus desideratus, cui praemissa est expostulatio de Sancti Iohannis Chrysostomi Epistola ad Cae∣sarium Monachum adversus Apollinarii hae∣resin à Parisiensibus aliquot Theologis non ita pridem suppressâ, Londini 1682, in 4to. Now we shall speak to the Notes.

This Second Volume wholly fill'd with his Remarks, is as I have told you, very large, yet its only upon the three first Pieces of the Collection, which are the Epistle of St. Polycarp, that of St. Barna∣bas, and a Discourse on Hyppolitus. There is above 15 or 16 to comment upon be∣sides, little or great. 'Twould have been very pleasing if the Author had made Notes on them all; for his Commentaries are fill'd with so much Learning and Judgment, that all Ingenious Men that read 'em, receive advantage from them. It wou'd be impossible here to give a particular Accont of all the fine things in this second Volume, wherefore we shall be content to give the World leave to judge of the whole, by some of its parts.

The Title of St. Polycarp's Letter, by which it appears, that he and his Priests, writ to the Philippians, gives M. Le Moyne a good opportunity to speak of the dif∣ference between Ecclesiasticks; for after having rejected the Opinion of those that alledge that as a Proof of the equality be∣tween Priests and Bishops, he shews there was a difference in that time, but not so great as is between the Ecclesiasticks at this Day, since the Priests Consecrated Vir∣gins, even conferred Orders, performed the Chrism, gave their Opinions in Synods, and had Seats like to the Bishops, which were call'd Thrones as well as theirs. Here he takes occasion to reprehend Salmasius, who thought these words of Eusebius, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, signified Bishops that were Suffragans to a Metropolitan, where∣as he ought to be understood by't, (says our Author) Simple Priests, which he proves also to have been call'd Antistites, which a Learned Man being ignorant of fell into this over-sight, and understood by it Antistitem secundae sedis, the Patriarch of Constantinople. He proves by the Ex∣ample of St. Cyprian, that the Bishops writ conjoyntly with the Priests, to other Bi∣shops and Priests both together, and some time even with the Deacons. He Relates a Letter of Constantine's the Emperour, wherein he speaks much upon it, because it is directed to Miltiades Bishop of Rome, and to Mark; which is not conformable to the Idea they have of the Pope's Pre∣eminence; for its a little too familiar, not only to write to him by himself, but al∣so to associate him with another that was only a simple Priest. The Author justi∣fies its being read Mark, contrary to the reading of a great many Learned Men; and he wonders, that in the same Book where the great Salmasius, who hath ci∣ted this Letter of Constantine's against the Pretensions of the Court of Rome, shou'd believe it as false. This defect of Me∣mory is more supportable than the Infi∣delity of this Translator, who to disguise Constantine's directing to the Pope and to another in the same Letter, has thus changed these words of the Original, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Nec tuam Sedulitatem Latet.

The Author makes this Remark upon the word Sacerdos, a Sacrificing Priest; that it was never given to the Ecclesiasticks in the first or second Age, the reason of which, he says, was because the Christi∣ans conforming themselves to the practice of the Synagogues, and not that of the Temple of Ierusalem, established Priests, Deacons, Bishops, &c. But not Sacrifi∣cers, or Sacrificing Priests, by which he Convicts him of Imposture, who dis∣guised himself under the Name of Denis the Areopagite, and who affected to be call'd Sacerdos. He concludes this Re∣mark with Criticising upon some Autho∣rities that seem to be contrary to this point.

Mr. Le Moyne as occasion offers it self, explains all obscure places, and corrects the Errors; but he has a very handsome Quality, that is not very common, for he treats those very civilly that are guilty of Mistakes, and very often censures the faults, without naming the person. As he was very well acquainted with Iudaick Antiquities, and the Eastern Tongues. So he has taken a great many Etymologies from them, which has been unusefully sought for, both in the Greek and Latin.

He is not satisfied only with clearing a great many Critical Points, but has also en∣gag'd himself to defend our Mysteries, & the Divinity of the word against a Heretick, which was so much the more dangerous, as beside his Heresie he had Wit and Learning; he was not so uncivil and im∣prudent as some others who have boldly published, it did not concern them, if what they affirm'd was never before known to the World. His Name was Sandius, he was wise enough to see 'twas the greatest Absurdity in the World to

pretend that an Opinion was true, that took birth only in these last Ages, or in case that it was true, it was not worth the while to trouble the Church; for common sense evidently tells us, that e∣very Opinion that Christianity has past by for these Sixteen Ages is unuseful for Salvation, and of none, or at most of very little importance. So that when an Heretick is cunning, he puts off no opi∣nion but under pretence of its being founded upon some very antient Do∣ctrin; this was the craft of Sandius, he apply'd himself very much to Ecclesia∣stical History, that he might prove the Fathers of the three first Ages did not believe the Trinity, as it is now taught, from whence he pretends to draw one of these Advantages, either that Error pre∣vail'd in the Council of Nice, and that so things ought to be reduced to their Primitive State, or that the Fathers of this Council made that an Article of Faith, without which, their Predecessors burn∣ing with Zeal and Holiness, had obtain'd the Glory of Paradice, and therefore by consequence persons were not obliged to undergo the new Yoke that the Coun∣cil of Nice wou'd have impos'd upon the Conscience. Every one must be sen∣sible that its the Duty of the Orthodox to dissipate these Illusions, and the Author deserves praise for undertaking the proof of the Divinity of the Son, by Passages of the Antients, whilst M. Wittichius, his Collegue, maintain'd the Divinity of the Holy Ghost against the same Sandius.

I believe, that after having considered the proofs that M. Le Moyne brings, there's few Men will be so Opinionative as to maintain, that the Fathers of the three first Ages were of Acius's Opinion; for he relates many express and formal Pas∣sages, wherein they maintained the Eter∣nal Divinity of the Son of God. He doubts not but what was said of Tiberius is true, viz. That he proposed to the Se∣nate the Apothesis of Iesus Christ, or ta∣king him into the number of the Gods. Tertullian, Eusebius, and St. Chrysostom relate it, but this last was deceived when he said the Senate of Rome placed Alex∣ander in the number of the Gods; its very likely he took the Roman Senate for that of A••hens.

The Author Corrects a passage of Pe∣r••••ius's Translation of Iustin Martyr, and which Cardinal Bellarmin made use of to prove the worship of Angels. He shews that such a worship was not meant in this passage, and that it must be point∣ed according as Christopher Langus, and Sigismond Gelenus have pointed it: He adds; that in the time of this Father the worship of Angels was not practised a∣mongst the Christians. He very strictly examin's what was the true Opinion of Paulus Samosatus, whereupon he takes occasion to explain the different Fortunes of the Term Homousian.

I shou'd be too tedious to give an ac∣count of the fine remarks he has made upon the Measure of the Encrease of Nile, that was kept as a relick in the Temple of Serapis, and which the Emperor Con∣stantine carryed to the Church of Alex∣andria. Mr. de Valois has happily cor∣rected the Passage of Socrates where this Translation is Copi'd▪ for whereas Chri∣stophorson and Musculus had translated it thus, Constantine caused this measure to be removed to the Church of Alexandria, his Translation says, that this Emperor Com∣manded Alexander who was then Pa∣triarch of Alexandria to place it in the Church. But in remarking so exactly the Errors of others, he did not observe he committed on himself, when he said, that Constantine at the same time, caused the Images of the False Gods to be placed in the Church. Which is the sense he gives to the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which Sozomon makes use of. The Author shews how improb∣able it was that Christians shou'd put such abominable objects in so! Sacred a place, so that the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 must signify, ei∣the the Standard or Ancient Titles of the Town. The Idolaters murmuring against this Translation, Reported that Nile en∣creased more, but that they were deceiv∣ed. For the People always imagin'd that upon the change of Religion wou'd fol∣low strange marks of the wrath of Hea∣ven; they wish'd it out of spite, and yet were afraid of it, because of the unhappy effects it might produce; and these two Passions made men very credulous; we ought not however to think it strange that Providence very often makes use thereof. The Christians had their part in the surprise if they be∣lieved that Nile was sensible of it when Iulian carryed back to the Temple of Serapis, what Constantine had taken from thence. The Conjectures of the Author are very fine upon the Reason, which made Iosephus cite a Second Book of Ezekiel, and upon the sense of a difficult passage of the First Book of the Maccabee's Chap. 3. vers. 48. where according to some Versions it is, That the Heathens sought Copies of the Law to Paint their Idols by in. These conjectures are very learn∣ed, as well as all that he says upon the Instruments of punishments, &c. used amongst the Romans; from whence he takes occasion to explain many obscuri∣ties of the Ancient Authors.

He says, that the Wild-Hony which St. Iohn eat of in the Wilderness, was not a kind of Manna, or Concrete Dew, but a true Hony made by Bees in the hollow places of some Trees, as there are Ants in China and Tunquin which fly in great Companies upon the Trees, and there make a kind of Wax or Gum, whereof the Lacca, so well known to the Dyers, is made; it is also the chief Ingre∣dient of the Spanish Wax; he confirms his Opinion by the History of Ionathan,

who found Honey in a Wood, and re∣futes the Chymical Opinion of the Rabbi, who pretended Ionathan only found Su∣gar there.

Upon which Mr. Le Moyne examines, whether Sugar was in use amongst the Ancients, and says, That although they knew how to draw from certain Reeds a Juice very agreeable to the Taste, yet they had not the Art of Taking, Conden¦sing, Whitening, and making it dry as we do now. Lucan speaks of this Reed when he says,

Quique bibunt tenerâ dulces ab arundine Succos.

Eratosthenes speaks thereof also in the 15th. Book of Strabo, and plainly insinu∣ates, that they sometimes baked this Juice, but 'twas a preparation very dif∣ferent from ours. Those that alledge this Verse of Stace, Et quas praecoquit E∣bufita Cannas, to prove that the Antients made Sugar, did not observe that it was corrupted, and that instead of Cannas, it must be read Caunus, which was a kind of Figs that the Inhabitants of the Isle of Ebusus, made very excellent by their manner of preparing them. As for the Sugar Mambu and Tabaxir, which the Antients had the knowledge of.

The Author shews 'twas a kind of Gum, which they made use of to sweeten their Medicines, and that this Gum ga∣thered together in the joints of certain Trees, or else that 'twas the dew which Coagulated upon the boughs: He brings a passage of Pliny which Favours this o∣pinion, since in it one sees, that Sugar is a Hony gathered upon Reeds white like Gum, which may be reduced to Powder by the Teeth, larger than a Hazle-Nut, and which is used only in Medicins. Arrian, Seneca, Galen, and Theophrastus have spoken of Sugar, either under its proper name, or under that of the Hony of Canaan, but the Idea they give us of it only resembles a thick juice either running from the Plant it self, or taken from the Reed. We must therefore conclude with the Author that the Ancients knew not the Sugar that we now have. He very Learnedly examins the Reasons how the Rabbi come to commit that mistake; and mentions amongst other things the Scripture ob∣servation, That as soon as Ioanathan had taken of this Hony his Eyes were enlightned, which had probably Contributed there∣to; for the Ancient Physicians ascribed to their Sugar, a particular vertue of curing Eyes, as may be seen in the second Book of Diosc••rdies, Chap. 104. He afterwards speaks upon the Goat Azazel, upon the dependences of this Mysterious Sacrifice, upon Hysop, Circumsicion, &c. To ex∣tract from which subjects all that Merits observation, wou'd take up too great a part of this Volume; I shall therefore content my self with relating these rich Treasures of Learning, and with the Thoughts of St. Barnabas, That the num∣ber of the 318 Persons that Abraham Cir∣cumcised in his House; was very Myste∣rious.

They were so accustomed in that time to expect the finding a Mystery in Numbers, (according to the Platonists, Pythagorians, and Iews) that they were perswaded from one to another that the Three Hundred and Eighteen Domesticks of Abraham were a Mystical Figure of the Crucifixion of the Son of God, because that to make this Number they must use these three Letters of the Alphabet TIH. The first whereof represents the Cross, and the other Two are the First Syllable of Iesus's Name in the Greek Tongue. Our Age is so much reduced from playing with words, and these Mystical Allusi∣ons, that they never use 'em; for if we except a few contemplative Monks, there are none to be found who have lost themselves in these sorts of Refinements. In the First Ages of the Church, there was no such Custom, altho' there were few in this respect wiser than the Iew∣ish Doctors: 'Tis here that one may see the Mysteries of Numbers in their great∣est extent.

There were also some Fathers which pretended that the 318 Domesticks of Abraham with whom he overcame the Kings that had spoil'd Sodom were a Fi∣gure of the 318 Bishops of the Council of Nice. The Author shews in brief the Illusion of the whole, and afterwards tells us in what time they began to count by Figures that are called Cyphers. He believes with the Generality of Learned Men that we are obliged to the Sarazens for the Communication of these Notes▪ and that they come originally from the Arabians, in which he dissents from the Opinion of Mr. Vossius, and from his old Friend Mr. Huet, for whom with Rea∣son he Professes a very particular Friend∣ship.

Scaliger was so perswaded of the Novelty of Cyphers, that he believed the Cele∣brated Silver Medal of Marguard Speher was lately cast, as soon as he had learnt there was seen on it these Numeral Fi∣gures 234, 235. There is four different Explanations of this Medal in the 3d. Volume of Camerarius, Book 4. It's be∣lieved that Planudes who lived at the end of the 13th. Age, is the first of the Chri∣stians that made use of Cyphers. The manner how Father Kircher relates that they passed from the Indian Brachmans to the Arabians in the Ninth and Tenth Age, and from the Arabians into Spain in the time of Alphonsus King of Castile, who causing Astronomic Tables to be made, made use of those marked with Cyphers; and in fine from Spain to Greece a little time after; this manner, I say, is here abridg'd with some Criticks of this Au∣thor. He concludes that to be a pretty

thought, but does not believe that the Arabians having brought from the Indians this Invention, gave them the Glory of it, and amongst other Reasons, founds his Opinion upon the great Conformity that he observed between the Cyphers and Arabian Characters.

I shall omit what he says upon the Fast of the Sabbath, the shadow of Samuel, upon the time that St. Iohn had the Vi∣sion of the Apocalypse, and a great many other Prophane and Holy things, which wou'd oblige me to give him great Prai∣ses, did I not know him to be as Modest as Learned, which is to possess two Qua∣lities almost incompatible, and to which we may almost apply what a great Wit once said concerning certain words ill, put together, viz. 'Tis I believe very sur∣prizing to see others like them, for 'tis proba∣ble they were the first and last of their kind. Nature seems not to have made these two things one for the other, and those that can unite them make a more dange∣rous Rupture than that of Nerva, who made the Romans sensible of a Republick Liberty under the Government of an Emperor.

Nerva Caesar res olim dissociabiles miscuit Principatum & Libertatem. Tacit. in vit. Agrico. cap. 3.