reason, which puts each of them upon writing in Greek, for the universal benefit of mankind, would very probably influence those of them, who were at Jerusalem, to translate their books into the language we are speaking of. Well does Tremellius argue on this head"; "It is altogether probable" (he is speaking of the Syriac version) "that it was made in the very beginning of Christianity, either by the apostles or some of "their disciples; unless we will choose rather to believe, that in 66 writing they had regard only to those of other nations, and 46 very little or none at all to those of their own." But, 2. If we suppose the apostles thus negligent of the interest of the believing Jews, and not to have done this for them, we may with a great deal of reason suppose, that they would take care to have it done themselves. Every body knows how prodigiously fond the Jewish nation was of the sacred books of the Old Testament, because they came from God; and would not the converted Jews be likewise fond of the books of the New Testament, which they believed also came from God? They were careful enough to get the Hebrew of the Old Testament translated into Chaldee, and may be as reasonably supposed (I mean they who were converted) to get the Greek of the New Testament translated into Syriac. Upon the whole, I think it fair to conclude, that a version of the New Testament was made into this language in the time of the apostles. ments. CHAP. XXIV. The Syriac version, which we now have, is the same which was made in the apostles' time. This proved by three arguThe Syrians, from whom we had it, believed it to It is improbable the ancient version should be lost. It wants the parts of the New Testament, which were last written. be the same. I HAVE attempted in the foregoing chapter to shew, that a version of the New Testament was made into Syriac in the time of the apostles; I shall now endeavour to prove, Præfat. in Vers. Syr. 3. That the Syriac version which we now have is the same which was then made. In order to which, I observe, 1. That it was constantly and universally believed by the Syrians, from whom we had this version, that it was made by St. Mark the evangelist. The truth of this depends upon the testimony of Postellus, a learned man, who assisted Widmanstadius in his first edition of this version; and avers, that he received this account from the Syrians themselves, when he travelled among them to acquire the knowledge of their language and customs. 2. Whether this version was made by St. Mark or not, it is very improbable that the church at Jerusalem or Antioch, or any other church, for whom the Syriac version was first made, would suffer it to be lost. There was no more probability of the Syrians losing their translation, than of the Greek churches losing their original. A church of Christians, who were in possession of so valuable a treasure, would be continually using it; its copies would be daily multiplying amongst them, and so they cannot reasonably be supposed to have lost it; they looked upon it as the word of God, though not in the language in which it was originally written, and therefore would be careful in preserving it. Every one knows how exceeding fond the Jews were of their Chaldee versions of the Old Testament. Galatinus tells us P, they " paid the same respect to them, as to "the original itself:" and is it not likely the Christian Jews would be as careful of their translations of the New Testament, as the others were of the translations of the Old ? 3. The Syriac version, which we now have, is the same which was made in the apostles' time, because it has not in it those books of the New Testament which were last written, viz. the second Epistle of Peter, the second and third of John, the Epistle of Jude, and the Revelation. These indeed have been added since this version was brought into Europe, viz. the four Epistles by Mr. Pocock, and the Revelation by De Dieu; but it is, I think, agreed by every body, even the editors themselves, that these are but modern translations. Now there can be but two probable reasons assigned, why they were wanting • Guid. Fabrit. Præfat. in Syr. Test. VOL. III. T P De Arcan. Cathol. Verit. 1. 1. c. 6. in the copy brought by Moses Meridinæus into Europe, and the other ancient Syriac copies; viz. either, 1. Because they were not received into the canon, and judged authentic, when this version was made. It is certain these books were not at first received by all, but for a long time rejected by many, as Eusebius tells us 9: or, 2. They are not in the Syriac copies, because they were not written when the Syriac version was made; and this indeed seems most probable; for had they been written then, those so useful Epistles would have been translated, for the same reason as the others. This was the argument, which, among others, convinced Tremellius and the learned bishop Waltons, that this version was made in the apostles' time. I conclude therefore, since this version has the several periods of St. Matthew's Gospel in the same order with our present copies, that they never have been disordered or misplaced. INDEX. A. ABDIAS, his ridiculous history of the Lives of the Apostles, i. 277. Abgarus, king of Edessa, his epistle to Christ, with Christ's Answer, ii. 2, 3. an account of it by Eusebius and Ephraem Syrus, 4, 5. thought spurious by several learned men, 6, n. and proved so by six several arguments, 8. Ace, Aco, Acco, Acu, were the Syriac and ancient names of Ptolemais, i. 93. Acts of the Apostles, written by St. Luke, iii. 109. when written, 111. early translated into Hebrew, 112. proved to be canonical, because in all the ancient catalogues, ibid. cited by the primitive Christians, ibid. read in their churches, 115. received as canonical by the churches of Syria, 117. rejected by some of the earliest heretics, but without any reason assigned, 118. Adulterous woman, history of, John viii. wanting in many ancient Greek MSS. and especially in the present Syriac version, i. 100. not an interpolation, iii. 108. Ahmed-Ibn-Idris, a Mahometan writer, says, the Gospel of our Saviour's Infancy was used by some Christians, as the other four Gospels, ii. 143, n. Alcoran, a collection of the histories and sayings of Christ, and things relating to him, to be found in it, i. 394, &c. Vide Mahomet. Alogians, their error concerning St. John's Gospel, i. 7. affirmed St. John's Gospel to be written by Cerinthus, iii. 107. Ambrose places the Gospel of Matthias among spurious and rejected books, i. 225. censures the Gospel of Thomas, 346, n. apocryphal books cited by him, 29. why he read them, 117, n. his testimony concerning the four Gospels, iii. 8. Amira, his observation on the Chaldee and Syriac languages, i. 85, n. Ammonius, his Harmony of the Gospels, iii. 135. Anabaptists, German, denied the authority of St. Matthew's Gospel, iii. 40. Anabaticon and Revelation of Paul the same book, i. 114. Vide Paul. Andrew, his Acts and Gospels not extant, i. 107. his Acts censured as apocryphal by Eusebius, 134, n. by Philastrins, ibid. n. by Epiphanius, 135, n. by pope Gelasius, ibid. n. other books under his name declared spurious by Austin and Innocent I. 137, n. his Gospel apocryphal by Gelasius, 138, n. Anonymous author of the works under the name of Dionysius, his catalogue of canonical books, i. 56. Anonymous author, his fragment of the Preaching of Peter, i. 307. Antiochus Epiphanes, his eagerness to destroy the sacred volume, iii. 256. Apelles, an apocryphal Gospel under his name not extant, i. 107, n. nor mentioned by any writer till Jerome, 140, n. his age and principles, 141, n. Apocryphal books extant in the apostles' times, i. 20. a catalogue of those mentioned in the second century, 26. which are not extant, ibid. of those which are extant, 33. reasons why so many were extant so early in the Christian church, ibid. what books are so, 56-76. some mentioned though not extant, 107-11. made out of the present canonical, 115. never appealed to by Christian writers, as of authority, 116. cited by the fathers to shew their learning, 117. or because the persons against whom they wrote did receive them, &c. ibid. Apollonius, his account of Themison and his Epistle, i. 341. Apostles twelve, apocryphal Gospel according to them not extant, i. 107. seems to have been a different name of Matthew's Hebrew Gospel, 114, n. an account of it by Origen, Ambrose, and Jerome, 142, 143, n. their Acts under the names of Leucius, Lenticius, Leontius, and Leuthon, one and the same book, 210. the same with the apocryphal Acts under the names of John, Andrew, and Thomas, &c. 213. Apotactics, a sort of heretics so called, i. 20. they esteemed the apocryphal Acts of Andrew above other scriptures, and why, 136. Arabic, a dialect of the Old Hebrew, i. 83. Arabic version of St. Mark, proved to be very late, by De Dieu, iii. 60. Aristmas, his testimony that the Jewish books were written on parchment, iii. 224. Asterius, a writer of the fourth century, his account of the brasen statue of our Saviour, erected by the woman whom he cured of the issue of blood, ii. 23, n. Athanasius, apocryphal books mentioned by him, i. 29. his catalogue of canonical books of the New Testament, 54, n. condemns Peter's Acts for apocryphal, 285, n. 344, n. does the like by those of Thomas, 344. as also his Gospel, 347, n. his account of a picture of Christ, presented by Nicodemus to Gamaliel, ii. 23, n. his testimony concerning the four Gospels, iii. 8. Athenagoras ascribes a particular saying to our Saviour, i. 381. his references to St. Matthew, iii. 30. Austin, apocryphal books mentioned by him, i. 31. his catalogue of canonical books, 55. his opinion of Christ's Epistle to Peter and Paul, 168. disputation with Faustus the Manichee, 172, n. he proves the spurious Acts of the Apostles to have been written by Leucius, 213. his account of the Revelation of Paul, 278, 280, n. cites the Epistles of Paul and Seneca, ii. 54. highly commends Seneca, 66, n. he entertained a prodigious veneration for relics, 218. makes mention of Thecla, 328. his testimony concerning the four Gospels, iii. 9. his observations on the opinion that St. John never died, 95. B. Babylon, in 1 Pet. v. 13. generally thought to mean Rome, iii. 58. Baluzius, his conjecture concerning the decree of Gelasius, i. 140. Barclay, Robert, his Apology for the Quakers, &c. noted, ii. 339. Barnabas, his Gospel not extant, i. 107. an account of it by Gelasius, 144. two supposed fragments of it, 144, 145. another large Italian one, wherein Mahomet is named for the Paraclete, 149. therefore reasonably concluded a Mahometan forgery, 150. the author's and Dr. Mangey's conjectures concerning the original of it, 151, 152. the Epistle of, cited by ancient fathers, generally esteemed by the learned as genuine, and adjudged by some of equal authority with the books of the canon, ii. 347. the testimonies of the ancients, 348. and sentiments of the moderns concerning it, 356. this Epistle proved to be wrote by an original Gentile, 364. a remark on I Pet. iv. 3. p. 365. it was wrote after the destruction of Jerusalem, 368. Barnabas was one of the seventy disciples, ibid. explication of John xxi. 21. and Matt. xvi. 28. p. 370. this Epistle is apocryphal, because not found in any catalogue of the sacred books of the New Testament, 372. nor cited by the primitive Christians as scripture, ibid. nor read by them as the word of God, 374. one part contradicts another, 376. it contains things which are false, 377. three visible mistakes in it produced and detected, 379. five instances of things trifling and silly, 385. it is apocryphal, because not in the Syriac version, &c. 391. a conjecture that it was forged at Alexandria by some person that corrupted the books of the sibyls, about the middle of the second century, 392. cites St. Matthew, iii. 17, 265. St. John, 102. Baronius, his high opinion of the Nazarene Gospel, i. 249, n. rejects the Epistles of Paul and Seneca as spurious, ii. 68, n. esteems the history of Paul and Thecla as genuine, 330, n. his opinion that St. Mark wrote in Latin, confuted, iii. 59. Bartholomew, his writings and Gospel not extant, i. 107. seems to have been a different name of the Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew, 114. the book under his name proved spurious, 153. and by Jerome and Gelasius accounted apocryphal, 154, n. is the Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew interpolated, ibid. n. Baruch, book of, its error concerning the captivity, i. 9. |