It is needless to bring down this article lower; but it is of importance to add, that there is no example of Christian writers of the first three centuries composing comments upon any other books than those which are found in the New Testament, except the single one of Clement of Alexandria commenting upon a book called the Revelation of Peter. Of the ancient versions of the New Testament, one of the most valuable is the Syriac. Syriac was the language of Palestine when Christianity was there first established. And although the books of Scripture were written in Greek, for the purpose of a more extended circulation than within the precincts of Judea, yet it is probable that they would soon be translated into the vulgar language of the country where the religion first prevailed. Accordingly, a Syriac translation is now extant, all along, so far as it appears, used by the inhabitants of Syria, bearing many internal marks of high antiquity, supported in its pretensions by the uniform tradition of the East, and confirmed by the discovery of many very ancient manuscripts in the libraries of Europe. It is about two hundred years since a bishop of Antioch sent a copy of this translation into Europe, to be printed; and this seems to be the first time that the translation became generally known to these parts of the world. The bishop of Antioch's Testament was found to contain all our books, except the second Epistle of Peter, the second and third of John, and the Revelation; which books, however, have since been discovered in that language in some ancient manuscripts of Europe. But in this collection, no other book, besides what is in ours, appears ever to have had a place. And, which is very worthy of observation, the text, though preserved in a remote country, and without communication with ours, differs from ours very little, and in nothing that is important.1 1 Jones on the Canon, vol. i. c. 14. The Syriac version here alluded to, commonly called the Peschito, belongs probably to the close of the first century, and Edessa may be fixed as its birth-place. It was first printed, very defectively, in the Paris Polyglott (1645), and afterwards reprinted, with some additions, in that of London. A more correct edition was published in London (1823), at the expense of the Church Missionary Society, under the care of Dr. Lee, who collated for it three MSS. The Peschito was for a long time supposed to be the most ancient of the Syriac translations; but the researches of Mr. Cureton have lately brought to light fragments of a still older version, differing considerably from any previously known. They are contained in a MS. brought from the Nitrian monasteries, now in the British Museum, and comprise large portions of the four Gospels. In 1848 an edition of this Syriac MS. was printed by Mr. Cureton, but remained unpublished until 1858, when it appeared in London.-EDITOR. OUR SECTION VIL. SCRIPTURES WERE RECEIVED BY ANCIENT CHRISTIANS OF DIFFERENT SECTS AND PERSUASIONS, BY MANY HERETICS AS WELL AS CATHOLICS, AND WERE USUALLY APPEALED TO BY BOTH SIDES IN THE CONTROVERSIES WHICH AROSE IN THOSE DAYS. THE three most ancient topics of controversy among Christians, were, the authority of the Jewish constitution, the origin of evil, and the nature of Christ. Upon the first of these we find, in very early times, one class of heretics rejecting the Old Testament entirely; another contending for the obligation of its law, in all its parts, throughout its whole extent, and over every one who sought acceptance with God. Upon the two latter subjects, a natural, perhaps, and venial, but a fruitless, eager, and impatient curiosity, prompted by the philosophy and by the scholastic habits of the age, which carried men much into bold hypotheses and conjectural solutions, raised, among some who professed Christianity, very wild and unfounded opinions. I think there is no reason to believe that the number of these bore any considerable propor tion to the body of the Christian Church; and amidst the disputes which such opinions necessarily occasioned, it is a great satisfaction to perceive, what, in a vast plurality of instances, we do perceive, all sides recurring to the same Scriptures. 1.2 Basilides lived near the age of the Apostles, about the year 120, or perhaps sooner.3 He rejected the Jewish institutions, not as spurious, but as proceeding from a being inferior to the true God; and in other respects advanced a scheme of theology widely different from the general doctrine of the Christian Church, and which, as it gained over some disciples, was warmly opposed by Christian writers of the second and third centuries. In these writings, there is positive evidence that Basilides received the Gospel of Matthew; and there is no sufficient proof that he rejected any of the other three; on the contrary, it appears that he wrote a commentary upon the Gospel, so copious as to be divided into twenty-four books. The materials of the former part of this section are taken from Dr. Lardner's History of the Heretics of the first two Centuries, published since his death, with additions, by the Rev. Mr. Hogg, of Exeter, and inserted in the ninth volume of his works, of the edition of 1788. 5 II. The Valentinians appeared about the same time. Their heresy consisted in certain notions concerning angelic natures, which can hardly be rendered intelligible to a modern reader. They seem, however, to have acquired as much importance as any of the separatists of that early age. Of this sect, Irenæus, who wrote A.D. 172, expressly records that they endeavoured to fetch arguments for their opinions from the evangelic and apostolic writings. Heracleon, one of the most celebrated of the sect, and who lived probably so early as the year 125, wrote commentaries upon Luke and Johr. Some observations also of his upon Matthew are preserved by Origen. Nor is there any reason to doubt that he received the whole New Testament. III. The Carpocratians were also an early heresy, little, if at all, later than the two preceding. Some of their opinions resembled what we at this day mean by Socinianism. With respect to the Scriptures, they are specifically charged, by Irenæus and by Epiphanius, with endeavouring to pervert a passage in Matthew, which amounts to a positive proof that they re Lardner, vol. ix. ed. 1788, pp. 350, 351. Ibid., vol. ix. ed. 1788, p. 352. Ibid., p. 309. |