384 



NOTES AND QUERIES, 



[2na S. Tin. Nov. 5. '69. 



his other epistles ; consequently not in 52, but after 

 63, and not later than a.d. 70 — the persecution of 

 Nero. That it could not have been written from 

 Corinth, where he stayed eighteen months, is evi- 

 dent from the greeting which he sends yrom Italy 

 to the Christian Hebrews of Palestine. (Heb. xiii, 

 24.) Compare the use of a.nh in Matthew xv. 1., 

 Acts xvii. 13., and John xi. 1. Tholuck*, at the end 

 of his commentary, admitting that it was written 

 at Rome, wonders why the apostle did not say 

 ojrb 'Pcofiris, not adverting to the Syriac versiao 

 where "Roman Italy" is mentioned. The equi- 

 valent to ol airh rris 'iraxias in the Greek is 



y 7 -»i -x -x 



{ ^^V^ l V) j ^r n\^ in the Syriac version = 



" omnes qui sunt ex Italia," acQprding to Tremel- 

 lius. Both Chrysostom and Theodoret consider the 

 salutation of ot avh ttjs 'IraXla^ as proof that this 

 epistle was written at Rome. Further, Timothy 

 was with Paul at Corinth (Acts xviii. 5.) ; but, 

 on the contrary, he was absent when this epistle 

 was written. (Heb. xiii. 23.) The release of Ti- 

 mothy from prison, and the residence of Paul in 

 his own hired house (Acts xxviii. 30.), lead to the 

 necessary inference that St. Paul, if the writer, was 

 then free ; or had reasonable ground for his pro- 

 mise to visit the Hebrews shortly (xiii. 23.) ; and 

 he was, in fact, acquitted in the beginning of the 

 tenth year of Nero, a.d. 63 ; after which release 

 (and not before it) he wrote, according to Hug, 

 this epistle (Introd. N. T. s. 143.), which is also 

 the opinion of Mill, Wetstein, Tillemont, Lardner, 

 and Calmet. Chrysostom says {^Prolog, ad Rom.) 

 that this epistle was written dirJ) 'vdijx-qs from Rome. 

 So does Theodoret {Com. ad Rom. et Heh.xm. 24.) 

 The assumption that it is less perfect as a dog- 

 matic exposition than other writings of St. Paul 

 (" written during the Hebraistic condition of his 

 mind"), is not warranted by the opinion of the 

 best authorities in dogmatic theology. Hug says 

 it is Paul's master- piece (s. 143.). Moses Stuart 

 (Lond. 1828), as the advocate of St. Paul, and 

 Bleekf or Tholuck, his opponents, and both, like 

 Luther, the advocates of ApoUos J as the author 

 of it, furnish materials whereon to found a judg- 

 ment as to the time and place of its composition. 

 The hypothesis of the early date of this epistle as 

 by the hand of St. Paul from Corinth, is that of 

 Storr (Stuart, i. 19.) and Noesselt (Stuart, i. 31.), 

 but it cannot stand the test of comparison with 

 the positive evidence extant on this point, whereon 

 the critics generally are well agreed. 



T. J. BuCKTON. 



Lichfield. 



* Bill. Cabinet. 



t " Versuch einer voUatand. Einleitung in d. Brief a. 

 d. Hebr. Berlin, 1828." 



X So are Le Clerc, Heuraann, Semler, Ziegler, Dindorf, 

 and De Wette. 



FEANCIS BURGERSDICIU8. 



(2°* S. viii. 327.) 



Franco Petri Burgersdijck, or Burghersdijck, 

 or Burgersdicius, was born at Lier in De'fland, 

 May 3, 1590. He was educated at Amersfoort, 

 Delft, and Leiden. He next entered at Saumur, 

 where, after a residence of six months, he was 

 appointed professor of philosophy. After five 

 years (in 1619) he returned to Leiden, where (iu 

 March, 1620) he became professor of rhetoric. 

 In 1628 he was appointed to the chair of natural 

 history, and held both professorships until his 

 death, Feb. 19, 1635. His portrait has been 

 engraved. 



Most of his works (Idea Philosophic Naturalis, 

 1626; Idea Philosophies Moralis, 1626; Institu- 

 tiones Logicce, 1626; also, Synopsis Inslitutionum 

 Logicaruni and De Usu Logices, Liber singularis ; 

 Institutiones Physicce ; Collegium Physicum Dis- 

 putationibus XXXII. absoluttim, 1637 ; Institutionum 

 Metaphysicorum Libri II., Opus posthumum, 1640 ; 

 Idea CEconomicce et Politicce Doctrines, Opus pos- 

 thumum, 1654) have been translated into Dutch, 

 and widely used in other countries. Leaving 

 some Oxford bibliographer to say how often his 

 books were printed in that University (we have 

 in St. John's Library the Natural and Moral 

 Philosophy, Oxf. 1654), I extract the following 

 notices from a list which I am forming of books 

 printed at Cambridge : — Institutiones Logicce, 8vo. 

 1637; with Heereboord, 2 vols. 8vo. 1644; with 

 Vualtheri Rheto7-ica, Svo. 1647 ; Svo. John Field, 

 1660; A. Heereboord, Logica ex Bursgersdicio 

 deprompta, Svo. 1663; 8vo. 1666; Svo. with 

 Heereboord, 1668 ; Heereboord alone, Svo. Jo. 

 Hayes, 1670 ; with Heereboord, Svo. 1680. 



This list has been drawn up from sale cata- 

 logues (chiefly the earliest) and similar sources, 

 but I do not doubt that the greater number of 

 the editions specified may be found in the Cam- 

 bridge libraries. 



In St. John's Library we have John Field's 

 edition of 1660, with the motto : — 



" Ad juventutem Cantabrigiensem. 



Quod vetus est, juvenes, in RelUgione sequamur : 

 Quod placet in Logica, nil vetat esse novum." 



Bound up with this is : — 



" ERMHNEIA (sic), Logica, sea Synopseos Logics 

 Burgersdicianae Explicatio, turn per notas turn per ex- 

 empla ; Authore Adriano Heereboord, Phil. Profess. 

 Acad. Leid. primario. Editio nova accurata. Accedit 

 ejusdem Authoris Praxis Logica." 



From this book we learn that B.'s Logic was 

 introduced by public authority into the schools 

 of Holland and West Friesland. If we are to 

 judge of Burgersdijck from his friends, we must 

 be prepared to expect much from a book recom- 

 mended as the Logic is, by the verses of P. 

 CunsBus, G. J. Vossius, and Dan. Heinsius. 



