then, if not before, synagogues came into existence. A later date cannot well be assigned. Deprived of the solemnities of their national worship, yet still retaining their religious convictions, and keenly feeling the loss they had endured, earnestly, too, longing and praying for a restoration of their forfeited privileges, the captive Israelites could not help meeting together for the purposes of mutual sympathy, counsel, and aid, or of prayer and other devout exercises. But prayer makes every spot holy ground. Some degree of secrecy, too, may have been needful in the midst of scoffing and scornful enemies. Thus houses of prayer would arise; and the peculiar form of the synagogue worship-namely, devotion apart from external oblations-would come into being. It has, indeed, been asserted (Bauer, Gottesd. Verfassung, ii. 125) that synagogues were not known till the time of Antiochus Epi

phanes (B.c. 174), on the ground that it is then for the first time that the term is used by Josephusone more instance added to the hundreds which already existed, of the folly which denies an historical reality to every thing for which positive vouchers cannot be found in the Jewish historian. Such arguments would have some force if Josephus had professed to narrate every thing, and left us as many volumes as he has left us chapters. That he did not consider it set down in his duty to give au exact history of the origin and progress of the synagogue-worship, may be inferred from the fact that his mention of synagogues is only occasional and en passant.

The authority of the Talmudists (such as it is) would go to show that a synagogue existed wherever there were teu families. What, however, is certain is, that in the times of Jesus Christ synagogues were found in all the chief

cities and lesser towns of Palestine. These places are then spoken of as well known, and therefore long-established houses of worship, and obviously formed an essential and recognised portion of the national inheritance. There was a synagogue at Nazareth (Luke iv. 16), one also at Capernaum (Mark i. 21), as well as in the several cities of Syria, Asia Minor, and Greece, which had a Jewish population (Acts ix. 2; xiii. 5; xiii. 42; xiv. 1; xvii. 1, 10; xviii. 4; xix. 8; and see also Joseph. Antiq. xix. 6. 3; De Bell. Jud. vii. 3. 3). The larger cities had several. In Acts ix. 2, we find Paul asking for letters to Damascus to the synagogues' (ver. 20). In Jerusalem, one Rabbinical authority (Megill. Ixxiii. 4) represents the number to have been 480; another (T. Hieros. Ctuboth, xxxv. 3) makes them 460. From

6

Acts vi. 9, it appears that every separate tribe and colony had a synagogue in Jerusalem. The reader must not confound synagogues with the pooevxal, houses of prayer, oratoria, oratories, chapels, places where prayer was wont to be made' (Acts xvi. 13), which, as in the place just cited, were mostly near a piece of flowing water, in order to afford the Jews means of observing their custom of washing before prayer (Joseph. Antiq. xiv. 10. 23; Deutsch, De Sacris Judæorum ad litora frequenter exstructis). Synagogues were built sometimes on the outside of cities, but more frequently within, and preferably on elevated spots. At a later period they were fixed near burial-places. A peculiar sanctity was attached to these spots, even after the building had fallen to ruin (Mishna, Megill. 3. 3). In the

Synagogue pious Israelites assembled every Sabbath and festival day, the women sitting apart from the men (Philo, Opp. ii. 458, 630); and at a later period, on every second and fifth day of each week (T. Hieros. Megill. 75. 1; T. Babyl. Babd. Kama, 82. 1), for the purposes of common prayer, and to hear portions of the sacred books read; which was performed sometimes by any one of the company (Luke ii. 16), or, according to Philo (Opp. ii. 639, ed. Mang.), by any one of the priests or elders (Tŵv iepéwv dé Tis d Tapur τῶν γερόντων εἷς ἀναγινώσκει τοὺς ἱερούς νόμους αὐτοῖς καὶ καθ ̓ ἕκαστον ἐξηγεῖται), who, as the passage just quoted shows, expounded each particular as he proceeded. The writings thus read aloud and expounded were the Law, the Prophets, and other Old Testament books (Acts xiii. 15; xv. 21; Mishna, Megill. 3. 4; Eichhorn, Einleit. ins A. T. ii. 458, sq.). The language in which the Scrip tural passages were read cannot be generally and accurately determined. It doubtless varied according to circumstances. Ezra (Neh. viii. 8), if he read in the old Hebrew, gave the sense in the Chaldee. The Septuagint translation was in very common use in the time of our Lord, and may have been employed in synagogues. It appears (T. Hieros. Sota, 7) that in Cæsarea, a city more Græcian than Jewish, the prayers were uttered in the Greek tongue. In synagogues out of Palestine,

the Greek translation seems to have been read

conjointly with the original text. The exposition of the Scripture was doubtless made in each nation in the vernacular tongue; accordingly, in Palestine the worship of the synagogue was conlucted in Syro-Chaldee. In Egypt, from the time of the Ptolemies, the Greek language was customary in the services of the synagogue.

The expositor was not always the same person as the reader (Philo, Opp. ii. 458, 476). A memorable instance in which the reader and the

expositor was the same person, and yet one distinct from the stated functionary, may be found in Luke iv. 16, sq., in which our Lord read and applied to himself the beautiful passage found in the prophecy of Isaiah (Ixi. 4). The synagogue, indeed, afforded a great opportunity for preaching the gospel of the kingdom; and the reader may well suppose that the novelties of doctrine which were then for the first time heard within its walls created surprise, delight, wonder, and indignation in the minds of the hearers of our Lord and his apostles, according to their individual spiritual

condition.

the church,' who in the synagogue meetings acted commonly as the speaker, or as the Protestant minister, conducting the worship of the congre gation (Mishna, Rosh Hasshana, 4. 9), as well as performed on other occasions the duties of secretary and messenger (Schöttgen, Hor. Heb. i. 1089, sq.). Then came, fourthly, the minister" (Luke iv. 20), the attendant who handed the books to the reader, was responsible for the cleauliness of the room, and for its order and decency, and opened and closed the synagogue, of which he had the general care. In addition, there probably were almoners or deacons, y X]] (Matt. vi. 2), who collected, held, and distributed the alms of the charitable.

In regard to the furniture of the synagogue, seats merely are mentioned in the New Testament (Matt. xxiii. 6; James ii. 3). The chief seats," or rather front seats' (TрwтоKaleopía), were occupied by the Scribes and Pharisees. The outfit may have been more simple in the days of Christ; still there was probably then, as well as at a later period, a sort of pulpit (ua, 7, 730), and the sacred books (Mishna, Berach, v. 3; Rosh a desk or shelf (hân, na or p'n), for holding Hasshana, 4. 7; Megilla, 3. 1; Sabb. 16. 1). been held in the synagogues, and punishments of Some sort of summary judicature seems to have flogging and beating inflicted on the spot (Matt. xxi. 12; Acts xxii. 19; xxvi. 11; 1 Cor. xi. 22). x. 17; xxiii. 34; Mark xiii. 9; Luke xii. 11; The causes of which cognizance was here taken were perhaps exclusively of a religious kind. that a sort of judicial triumvirate presided in this Some expressions in the Talmud seem to imply court (Mishna, Sanked. i.; Maceoth, 3. 12). It heresy and apostacy were punished before these certainly appears from the New Testament that tribunals by the application of stripes.

·

semblance between this account and the arrangeThe reader may have been struck by some rechurches. The angel of the church' (Rev. ii. 1), ments which prevailed in the early Christian the pastor, was obviously taken from the synagogue. Winer, however, denies that the messengers of the churches' (2 Cor. viii. 23) has any connection with the legatus ecclesia. The words referred to this same office,-a reference which 'because of the angels' (1 Cor. xi. 10) have been Winer does not approve. in loc.) holds that the allusion is to celestial Meier (Commentar, beings, an idea which he thinks Paul derived from Judaism (Septuagint, Ps. cxxxviii. 1; Tobit Eisenmeier, Entdeckt. Jadenth. ii. p. 193). xii. 12; Burt, Synag. p. 15; Grotius, in loc.;

remains the chief authority on the subject, though The work of Vitringa (De Synagoga Veterum) Acad. ii. 3, sq.; Reland, Antiq. Sacr. i. 10; published in 1696. See also Burmann, Exercitt. Carpzov, Appar. p. 307, sq.; Hartmann, Verbind. quities of the Jews, vol. i. p. 590, sq.-J. R. B. des A. T. mit d. Neuen, p. 225, sq.; Brown, Anti

SYNAGOGUE, GREAT (

the name applied in the Talmud to an assembly or synod presided over by Ezra, and consisting of one hundred and twenty men, alleged therein to have been engaged in restoring and reforming the worship of the Temple after the return of the Jews from Babylon. We shall here furnish the evidences of the existence of this assembly. 'The

house of judgment of Ezra is that called the Great Synagogue, which restored the crown to its original condition' (Chron. 'D', fol. 13). The crown, observes Buxtorf (Tiberias, ch. x.), was triple, consisting of the law, the priesthood, and the commonwealth; and he explains this by adding that Ezra purified the law and the Scriptures generally from all corruptions. Again in the Jerusalem Talmud (Cod. Megillah, 3) it is said, 'When the men of the Great Synagogue arose, they restored magnificence (i, e. the crown of the law) to its pristine state.' In Pirke Aboth, cap. 1, it is observed that Moses received the law from Mount Sinai, gave it to Joshua, Joshua to the elders, the elders to the prophets, and these to the men of the Great Synagogue; and in Tract Fomah, Ixix. 2, it is added, Why is this called by the name of the Great Synagogue? Because they restored the crown to its pristine state. In Megillah, fol. x. 2: This is a tradition from the men of the Great Synagogue;' and in Baba Bathra, fol. 15: The men of the Great Synagogue wrote Ezekiel, the twelve (minor) prophets, Daniel, and Esther;' and the glossator explains this by saying that they collected the books into one volume, and made new copies of them, knowing that the prophetic spirit was about to depart.' In Pirke Aboth it is added that Simeon the Just was the last survivor of the men of the Great Synagogue. He is supposed to have been contemporary with Alexander the Great (B.c. 332), and is said to have completed the canon by adding the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, and to have survived forty years the building of the second temple.

Abarbanel and some of the later Jewish commentators have amplified these statements, and some eminent Christian writers have adopted their views in regard to the history of the text of Scripture. We have already seen that several of the fathers held that the books of the law, having been destroyed at the burning of the temple by Nebuchadnezzar, were miraculously restored by Ezra [ESDRAS]. Buxtorf assumes that the labours of the Great Synagogue consisted only in restoring both the law and the entire Scriptures to their integrity, separating the false from the true, and removing corruptions. Carpzov (Introd. lib. i. ch. i.) observes, in reference to this subject, that the account of the restoration by Ezra of the law, which had been burned by Nebuchadnezzar, is a fable of the Papists derived from the fathers, but impugned by Bellarmine (De Verb. Dei, ii. 1), and Natalis Alexander, (Hist. Eccles.) [and others of the Roman church]. Neither,' he adds, did Ezra correct and amend the Scriptures, which had been corrupted during the captivity-a papistical comment built up by Cornelius a Lapide, (Pram. Com. p. 5), and refuted by our divines (see Calovius); nor did he invent the present letters of the Hebrew alphabet, in place of the Samaritan-a fable refuted by Buxtorf [SCRIPTURE, HOLY]. But what Ezra really did was this he collected the copies of the Scriptures into one volume, purified them by separating the spurious from the genuine, fixed the canon of divinely inspired books, and rejected all that was heterogeneous, and finally examined the canonical books, that nothing foreign or depraved should be mixed up with them, and pointed out the true

:

method of reading and expounding them: in which labour he had the assistance of Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Nehemiah [Ezra, Mordecai, Simon the Just], and the others, in all one hundred and twenty.' It was,' he observes, the unshaken principle of both Jews and Christians that the canon of the Old Testament was fixed once for all by Ezra and the men of the Great Synagogue.' Bellarmine also (1. c.) maintains that although some of the fathers supposed that the whole Scriptures had been burned and miraculously restored by Ezra, as Basil, whose words (Ep. ad Chilon.) are, Hic campus in quo

secessu facto Esdras omnes divinos libros ex mandato Dei eructavit, yet that from the statements of Chrysostom, that out of the remains of the Scripture Ezra recomposed it;' of Hilary (Præf. in Psal.), that Ezra had collected the Psalms into one volume;' and of Theodoret, that 'the Scripture having been depraved in the time of the exile was restored by Ezra ;'-these fathers did not mean to assert that Ezra had restored the whole from memory, but only that he collected into one body the different books which he had found dispersed in various places, and amended such parts as had been corrupted by the negli gence of transcribers. In opposition to all these views, Le Clerc (Sentiments de quelques Théologiens) maintains that the whole history of the Great Synagogue and the Esdrine Recension was a Talmudical fable; in which he was followed by Father Simon and many others. There certainly appears but a very slight foundation for the superstructure raised by Buxtorf (Tiberias), Carpzov, and Prideaux [ESDRAS]. That the law and the prophets, however, had not perished, but were read by the Jews during the exile, appears from Dan. ix. 1, 2, 6, 11, 12; comp. Ezra vi. 18; vii. 10.

Genebrard asserts that there were no less than three Great Synagogues, one in A.M. 3610, or B.C. 391, when the Hebrew canon, consisting of twenty-two books, was fixed; another in 3860 (B.c. 144), when Tobit and Ecclesiasticus were added; and a third in 3950 (B.c. 54), when the whole was completed by the addition of the books of Maccabees. But this statement, being unsupported by any historical proof, has met with no reception.-W. W.

SYNTYCHE (Zuvτúxn), a female Christian named in Phil. iv. 2.

SYRACUSE (vpákovσai), a celebrated city on the south-east coast of the island of Sicily. It was a strong, wealthy, and populous place, to which Strabo gives a circumference of not less than one hundred and eighty stades. The great wealth and power of Syracuse arose from its trade, which was carried on extensively while it remained an independent state under its own kings; but about 200 B.C. it was taken by the Romans, after a siege rendered famous by the mechanical contrivances whereby Archimedes protracted the defence. Syracuse still exists as a considerable town under its original name, and some ruins of the ancient city yet remain. St. Paul spent three days at Syracuse, after leaving Melita, when being conveyed as a prisoner to Rome (Acts xxviii. 12).

SYRIA (Zupía). This great country is men tioned under the name of ARAM in the Hebrew Scriptures, several parts of it being so designated,

with the addition of a district name; and it is only by putting together the portions thus separately denominated, that we learn the extent of country which the word indicated among the Hebrews [see ARAM]. Aram is usually rendered Syria in the Authorized and other versions: and in the time of the kings it more frequently in dicates the kingdom of which Damascus was the capital than the whole country, or any other part of it. [DAMASCUS.] In the Maccabees the Greek text frequently employs the term 'Syria' to designate the empire of the Seleucida; and in the New Testament it occurs as the name of the Roman province (Matt. iv. 21; Luke ii. 2; Acts xv. 23, 41; xviii. 18; xx. 3; xxi. 3; Gal. i. 21, which was governed by presidents, and to which Phoenicia and (with slight interruption) Judæa also were attached; for in and after the time of Christ, Judæa was for the most part governed by a procurator, who was accountable to the president of Syria.

The word Syria is of uncertain origin. Some conceive it to be merely a contraction of Assyria, which was sometimes considered as part of it; while others conjecture that it may have been derived from Sur (Tyre), which may be regarded as the best known, if not the chief, town of the whole country. The names of both Aram and Syria are now equally unknown in the country itself, which is called by the Arabs Baresh-Sham, or simply Esh-Sham, i. e. the country to the left, in contradistinction to Southern Arabia or Yemen, i. e. the country to the right; because when, in order to determine the direction of the cardinal points, the eye is supposed to be directed towards the east, Arabia lies on the right hand, and Syria on the left. It is difficult to define the limits of ancient Syria, as the name seems to have been very loosely applied by the old geographers. In general, however, we may perceive that they made it include the tract of country lying between the Euphrates and the Mediterranean, from the mountains of Taurus and Amanus in the north, to the desert of Suez and the borders of Egypt on the south; which coincides pretty well with the modern application of the name. Some ancient writers, such as Mela (i. 11) and Pliny (v. 13), give to Syria a much larger extent, carrying it beyond the Euphrates, and making it include Mesopotamia, Assyria, and Adiabene. Understood in the narrower and usual applications, Syria may be described as composed of three tracts of land, of very different descriptions. That which adjoins the Mediterranean is a hot, damp, and rather unwholesome, but very fruitful valley. The part next to this consists of a double chain of mountains, running parallel from south-west to northeast, with craggy precipitous rocks, devious valleys, and hollow defiles. The air is here dry and healthy; and on the western declivities of the mountains are seen beautiful and highly cultivated terraces, alternating with well-watered valleys, which have a rich and fertile soil, and are densely peopled. The eastern declivities, on the contrary, are dreary mountain deserts, connected with the third region, which may be described as a spacious plain of sand and rock, presenting an extensive and almost unbroken level.

more

Spring and autumn are very agreeable in Syria, and the heat of summer in the mountain districts

is supportable. But in the plains, as soon as the sun reaches the equator, it becomes of a sudden oppressively hot, and this heat continues till the end of October. On the other hand, the winter is so mild, that orange-trees, fig-trees, palms, and many tender shrubs and plants flourish in the open air, while the heights of Lebanon are glittering with snow and hoar-frost. In the districts, however, which lie north and east of the moun tains, the severity of winter is greater, though the heat of the summer is not less. At Antioch, Aleppo, and Damascus, there are ice and snow for several weeks every winter. Yet, upon the whole, the climate and soil combine to render this country one of the most agreeable residences throughout the East.

The principal Syrian towns mentioned in Scripture are the following, all of which are noticed under their respective names in the present work: -Antioch, Seleucia, Helbon, Rezeph, Tiphsalı, Rehoboth, Hamath, Riblah, Tadmor, Baal-Gad, Damascus, Hobah, Beth-Eden.

Syria, when we first become acquainted with its history, was divided into a number of small kingdoms, of which the most important of those mentioned in Scripture was that of which Damascus was the metropolis. A sketch of its history is given under DAMASCUS. These kingdoms were broken up, or rather consolidated by conquerors, of whom the first appears to have been Tiglathpileser, King of Assyria, about 750 B.C. After the fall of the Assyrian monarchy, Syria came under the Chaldæan yoke. It shared the fate of Babylonia when that country was conquered by the Persians; and was again subdued by Alexander the Great. At his death in B.C. 323, it was erected into a separate monarchy under the Seleucida, and continued to be governed by its own sovereigns until, weakened and devastated by civil wars between competitors for the throne, it was finally, about B.C. 65, reduced by Pompey to the condition of a Roman province, after the monarchy had subsisted 257 years. On the decline of the Roman empire, the Saracens became the next possessors of Syria, about A.D. 622; and when the crusading armies poured into Asia, this country became the chief theatre of the great contest between the armies of the Crescent and the Cross, and its plains were deluged with Christian and Moslem blood. For nearly a century the Crusaders remained masters of the chief places in Syria; but at length the power of the Moslems predominated, and in 1186 Saladin, Sultan of Egypt, found himself in possession of Syria. It remained subject to the sultans of Egypt till, in A.D. 1517, the Turkish sultan, Selim I., overcame the Memlook dynasty, and Syria and Egypt became absorbed in the Ottoman empire. In 1832, a series of successes over the Turkish arms gave Syria to Mehemet Ali, the Pasha of Egypt; from whom, however, after nine years, it again passed to the Turks, consequence of the operations undertaken for that purpose by the fleet under the command of Admiral Stopford, the chief of which was the bom bardment of Acre in November 1840. The treaty restoring Syria to the Turks was ratifien early in the ensuing year. See Rosenmüller's Bib. Geograph., translated by the Rev. N. Morren Winer's Real-Wörterb. s. v.; Volney's Travels, ii 289, 358; Modern Traveller, vol. ii.; Napier's War in Syria.

SYRIAC VERSIONS. The old Syriac version of the Scriptures is often called the Peshito; a term in Syriac which signifies simple or single, and which is applied to this version to mark its freedom from glosses and allegorical modes of interpretation (Hävernick, Einleit. Erst. Theil. zweite Abtheil. S. 90). The time when the Peshito was made cannot now be certainly known. Various traditions respecting its origin have been current among the Syrians, which partake of the fabulous. Jacob of Edessa, in a passage communicated by Gregory Bar Hebræus, speaks of those translators who were sent to Palestine by the apostle Thaddeus, and by Abgarus king of Edessa' (Wiseman, Hora Syriaca, p. 103). This statement is not improbable. There is no good ground for absolutely rejecting it. It is true that other accounts are repeated by Bar Hebræus which must be pronounced fabulous; but the present does not wear the same aspect. Ephrem the Syrian, who lived in the fourth century, refers to the translation before us in such a manner as implies its high antiquity. It was universally circulated among the Syrians in his time; and accordingly he speaks of it as OUR version, which he would scarcely have done had it not then obtained general authority. Besides, it has been shown by Wiseman that many expressions in it were either unintelligible to Ephrem, or at least obscure. Hence this father deemed it necessary to give an explanation of many terms and phrases for the benefit of his countrymen. Such circumstances are favourable to the idea of an early origin. Perhaps it was made in the first century, agreeably to the tradition in Jacob of Edessa.

Its internal character favours the opinion of those who think that the Old Testament part, of which we are now speaking, was made by Christians. Had it proceeded from Jews, or one Jew, as Simon supposed, it would not have been free from the glosses in which that people so much indulged. It would probably have resolved anthropomorphisms and other figurative expressions, as is done in the Sept.; and have exhibited less negligence and awkwardness in rendering the Levitical precepts (Hirzel, De Pentat. vers. Syr. indole, Commentat. crit.-exeget., p 127, et seq.). Besides, the Messianic passages show that no Jew translated them. Dathe conjectured that the author was a Jewish Christian, which is not improbable; for the version does present evidence of Jewish influences upon it-influences subdued and checked by Christian opinions, yet not wholly imperceptible. Hence some have thought that use was made of the Targums by the translator or translators. This can scarcely be proved. The Jews were numerous throughout Syria and Mesopotamia, as we learn from Josephus; and their modes of interpretation were prevalent in consequence. There is therefore an approach to the Chaldaic usus loquendi-a similarity to Jewish exegesis. If the authors were originally Jews, who had afterwards embraced Christianity, this indication of Jewish influence is at once accounted for, without having recourse to the supposition that they made actual use of the Targums when translating the original. It is now impossible to tell whether the Septuagint was consulted by the authors of the Peshito. There is indeed a considerable resemblance between it and our version, not so much in single

passages as in general tenor; but it is not necessary to assume that the Greek was used. Perhaps it was afterwards employed in revising and correcting the Peshito. The latter was sometimes interpolated out of it in after times (Hävernick, p. 92; Hirzel, p. 100; Credner, p. 107).

It is certain that it was taken from the original Hebrew. In establishing this position, external and internal arguments unite.

Eichhorn tried to show, from the parts of the version itself, that it proceeded from several persons. Without assenting to all his arguments, or attaching importance to many of his presumptive circumstances, we agree with him in opinion. Tradition, too, affirms the same thing; and the words of Ephrem are favourable where he says, on Josh. xv. 28, since those who translated into Syriac did not understand the signification of the Hebrew word,' &c. (Von Lengerke, Commentatio Critica de Ephr. Syro s. s. interprete, p. 24).

The Peshito contains all the canonical books of the Old Testament. The Apocryphal were not originally included. They must, however, have been early rendered into Syriac out of the Septuagint, because Ephrem quotes them. In his day, the books of Maccabees were wanting in the Syriac; as also the apocryphal additions to Daniel. After the Syrian church had been divided into different sections, various recensions of the version were made. The recension of the Nestorians is often quoted in the scholia of Gregory Bar Hebræus. According to Wiseman, this recension extended no farther than the points appended to the Syriac letters. The Karkaphensian recension is also cited by Bar Hebrææus. For a long time this was supposed to be a separate version, till the researches of Dr. Wiseman at Rome threw light upon its true character. From the examination of two codices in the Vatican library, he ascer tained that it was merely a revision of the Peshito, distinguished by a peculiar mode of pointing and a peculiar arrangement of the books, but not deviating essentially from the common text. In this recension, Job comes before Samuel; and immediately after Isaiah, the minor prophets. The Proverbs succeed Daniel. The arrangement in the New Testament is quite as singular. It begins with the Acts of the Apostles, and ends with the four Gospels; while the epistles of James, Peter, and John come before the fourteen letters of Paul. This recension proceeded from the Monophysites. According to Assemaui and Wiseman, the name signifies mountainous, because it originated with those living about Mount Sagara, where there was a monastery of Jacobite Syrians, or simply because it was used by them.

The Peshito in the Old and New Testaments is one and the same version, having been made in the first century of the Christian era. Bishop Marsh, in his notes to Michaelis's Introduction to the New Testament, contends that the New Testa ment part was not made till after the canon had been formed, i. e. about the middle of the second century. From the fact, however, of its wanting the books that were not received at once by the early Christians, viz., the second epistle of Peter, the second and third of John, Jude, and the Apocalypse, it claims a higher antiquity than the learned prelate assigns it. Had the version been made in the third century, it is not probable