3. The old Syriack Verfion has not in it the four Catholick Epiftles, (viz. the fecond of Peter, the fecond and third of John, and the Epistle of Jude) nor the Revelation. It is true, these are added in the last printed editions, as I have observed above, but were wanting in the old manuscripts, which I take to be a very confiderable proof of the antiquity of the Verfion; for their being wanting must neceffarily proceed from one of these three causes, viz. either,

1.) Because they were not written, when this Version was made; or,

2.) Because the knowledge of them was not yet come to the Syrian Churches, for whom this tranflation was made;

or,

3.) Because they were not yet univerfally received into the number of Canonical books.

Now whichfoever of these be faid, the antiquity of the Verfion will be fufficiently established. But the first of these feems most probable; because, as I fhall hereafter fhew, the Churches of Syria did both know and receive several of these books at least as Canonical in the second century, as it is certain they do now, though it seems they are not ordinarily bound with the others in the fame volume, and read in their Churches; a very probable reafon of which the reader may fee in Mr. Richardfon's Answer to Toland's Amyntor. Until therefore any thing more probable can be faid on the contrary, which I dare fay has not yet been done, I think it fair to conclude, that the four Canonical Epiftles abovementioned not being in the old Syriack copies of the New Teftament, evidences this Verfion was made before they were written. This argument was thought fo conclufive by Tremellíus', and our learned Bishop Waltons, that from it they were perfuaded to believe this Verfion was made in the Apostles' time.

Thus have I largely endeavoured to evince the antiquity of the Syriack Verfion; from which how evidently the truth

of my Propofition follows, every one must see at once: ́ viz. how much it confirms the Canonical authority of any book, that it is found there, and how much it contributes towards fettling the true number of Canonical books.

CHA P. XIX.

Some Objections against the Antiquity of the Syriack Translation answered.

IT

T may perhaps be judged neceffary, that, before I leave this subject, I should give the reader fome account of what has been faid contrary to my hypothefis of the age of this Verfion; though I protest seriously, I know not myself, nor have yet met with any thing, that can with any force be objected. But to omit nothing in a matter of fuch confequence, I will propose all that I know has been, or can be objected.

1. Mr. Walter, a learned Bishop in Germany, though he allow this Verfion (what he calls omnem laudem antiquitatis) the greatest antiquity, is afraid to fuppofe it made either by the Apoftles, or in their time, or even in the times immediately fucceeding them; because, says he, then it would be of divine authority.

But nothing can be more weak than this; for,

(1.) It does not at all follow, that it must be of divine authority, because it was made by fome honest Christian in their time ; unless we suppose every writer of their time under the conduct of inspiration much lefs does it follow, that it must be divine, because it was wrote by a person immediately after their time; for if so, then the writings of Papias, one of the weakest of authors, the writings attributed to Ignatius, Clemens, or any one, who had the good fortune to be born then, muft have been divine. But,

t Officin. Bibl. §. 345.

VOL. I.

I

(2.) If

(2.) If there were arguments fufficient to prove it made by the Apostles, which is supposed in his reasoning, I cannot fee ~ this should be any reafon for our not believing it to be so; viz.

because then it would have divine authority; for by the fame reason we may reject any one of those books, which are certainly known to be theirs.

2. He farther urges, that it is not mentioned by Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Eufebius, Athanafius, Theophilus, Epiphanius, Jerome, Cyril, Theodoret, &c. who wrote in Syria or Egypt. To which it will be fufficient to answer, that most of them, if not all, were ignorant of the language, and fo could not cite it, or had no occafion to cite it; which I may safely affert, till it is proved that they had. But, if my memory do not fail me, Bishop Walton, in his XIII. Prolegom. before the Polyglot, fhews, that Chryfoftom did cite it in his Homily on Heb. xiii.

3. Mr. Du Pin fuppofes it made in the fifth or fixth century, because of the addition to the Lord's Prayer, viz. the Doxology, and the word Eucharist is put there inftead of Bread, which, fays he, does not favour much of antiquity". The firft of these shall be confidered presently; the last of these objections, viz. about the word Eucharift, is founded upon a very great miftake, which one would wonder so great a master of antiquity should be found guilty of; for, to mention no others, I have obferved the word Exapria feveral times in this sense in no later a writer than Justin Martyr *, who, as has been proved, lived very near the Apoftles' time. Nor indeed is it at all ftrange the word should have been thus early used, when we confider, that the original of it was the Apoftles' ufing the verb Eixapisów to denote our Lord's action in celebrating this ordinance "./

4. Grotius (as well as Du Pin) imagines this Verfion made after the use of Liturgies came into the Church; because

in it, at the end of the Lord's Prayer, we read the Doxology*, -For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever; which, not being to be found in the most antient Greek copies, they conclude was put into them after the use of Liturgies, and this Version made out of fuch a copy.

This objection, I confefs, appears very plaufible; but the force of it will be eafily taken away, if it appear,

(1.) That the Doxology is as old as the Prayer itself. (2.) If we confider, that we may as eafily fuppofe this pafsage, if it be at all an interpolation, inserted into the Syriack Verfion, as into the Greek copies.

(1.) The Doxology feems to be as old as the Prayer itself : for,

1.) It is certainly in the best, most antient, and almost all the Greek manufcripts in the world. Erafmus, though he disputes against the paffage, acknowledges he found it in all the Greek copies and Brugenfis affures us, it was extant in all, except one manufcript at Paris c.

2.) Chryfoftom, Euthymius, Theophylact, and others of the Greek Fathers, read the passage".

3.) It appears manifeftly cited by Clemens Romanus twice, in the end of his first Epistle to the Corinthians.

4.) The genuineness of the passage feems to me fully demonStrated by that excellent obfervation of the most ingenious and truly learned Mr. Gregory, out of Lucian's Philopatris. That merry writer having been ridiculing, according to his cuftom, the Chriftian Religion and doctrines (particularly the doctrine of the Trinity, that three fhould be one, and one three, &c.) in the end of the dialogue has these words: Say no more of those people, but begin your prayer with [the word] Father, and end it with the famous Hymn 8. By this it is evi

dent he must intend what we call the Lord's Prayer; and if fo, then the várupos y can mean nothing but the Doxology, and if fo, the teftimony is beyond exception, that the clause was annexed to the Prayer in Trajan's, or at least Marcus Antoninus's time.

5.) It is farther urged by the fame incomparable Mr. Gre gory, that our Lord gathered his Form of Prayer out of the tradition of the Elders, i. e. the Jewish prayers, and that this Doxology was among them. This he proves, by producing the Jewish prayers at length out of their books, which is more fully done by Dr. Lightfoot", Drufius', and Capellus*. Now hence it follows, the Doxology must be as old as the Prayer; though I must own, I am apt to fufpect, that though the words of our Lord's Prayer are in the Jewish Euchologies, yet that these were taken from the Christians, rather than the contrary. Nevertheless, they are of antiquity fufficient to prove the point in hand.

m

I cannot therefore but blame the rafhness of Erafmus, Beza ", and others, who have upon flight grounds juftled this paffage out of Scripture, and reckoned it a trifling addition to the text, as Erafmus in fo many words calls it. All that I know can be objected is, that it is not at the end of this Prayer in Luke, nor in the oldest Latin copies, nor cited by the Latin Fathers; for anfwer to which I fhall only refer the reader to what is above said, to Glaffius's Differtation on this fubject", and Dr. Whitby's Examen of Dr. Mills' Various Lections.

I conclude then, that this Doxology being as old as the Prayer itself, can be no argument against the antiquity of the Syriack Verfion. But,

(2.) Suppose the Doxology really an interpolation into the Greek copies, and not originally a part of the Prayer itself, the antiquity of the Syriack Verfion will not be at all hurt hereby. It is true, the Liturgies and Forms of prayer, as this objection of Grotius, Du Pin, and, as I find fince, of Dr. Mills,

Hor. Heb. in Matt. vi. 7-13.

i Præterit. in loc.

Spicileg. in loc.
Annot. in loc.

m Loc. jam cit.

u Philol. Sacr.

• Lib. 2. cap. 1. §. I.

fuppofes,