_________________________________________________________________

   Title: The Canon of the Old and New Testaments Ascertained, or The Bible
   Complete without the Apocrypha and Unwritten Traditions.
   Creator(s): Alexander, Archibald (1772-1851)
   Print Basis: Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication [1851 ?]
   CCEL Subjects: All;
     _________________________________________________________________

THE

CANON

OF THE

OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS

ASCERTAINED,

OR

THE BIBLE COMPLETE

WITHOUT

THE APOCRYPHA AND UNWRITTEN TRADITIONS.

  A NEW EDITION,
  Revised for the Presbyterian Board of Publication.

BY ARCHIBALD ALEXANDER, D. D.

   Professor in the Theological Seminary, Princeton, New Jersey.

   PHILADELPHIA:
   PRESBYTERIAN BOARD OF PUBLICATION,
   No. 265 CHESTNUT STREET.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Entered, according to the Act of Congress, in the year 1851,
   By A. W. Mitchell, M.D.
   In the office of the Clerk of the District Court for the
   Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
     _________________________________________________________________
     _________________________________________________________________

   Stereotyped by Slote & Mooney, Philadelphia.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Printed by Wm. S. Martien.
     _________________________________________________________________
     _________________________________________________________________
     _________________________________________________________________

CONTENTS.

PART. I.

   Page

   INTRODUCTION—The importance of ascertaining the true Canon of the Holy
   Scriptures,
   9

SECTION I.

   Early use and import of the word Canon,
   17

SECTION II.

   Constitution of the Canon of the Old Testament by Ezra—The Canon of the Old
   Testament as it now exists, sanctioned by Christ and his Apostles—Catalogues
   of the books by some of the early Fathers—Agreement of Jews and Christians
   on this subject,
   21

SECTION III.

   Apocryphal books—Their origin-Importance of distinguishing between canonical
   and apocryphal books—Six books of the latter class pronounced canonical by
   the Council of Trent—Not in the Hebrew, nor received by the Jews, ancient or
   modern,
   36

SECTION IV.

   Testimonies of the Christian Fathers, and of other learned men, down to the
   time of the Council of Trent, respecting the Apocrypha,
   46

SECTION V.

   Internal evidence that these books are not canonical—The writers not
   prophets, and do not claim to be inspired,
   66

SECTION VI.

   No canonical book of the Old Testament has been lost,
   84

SECTION VII.

   The Oral Law of the Jews without foundation,
   94

PART II.

SECTION I.

   Method of settling the Canon of the New Testament,
   113

SECTION II.

   Catalogues of the books of the New Testament—Canonical books only cited as
   authority by the Fathers, and read in the churches as Scripture,
   124

SECTION III.

   Order of the books of the New Testament—Time of the gospels being
   written—Notice of the Evangelists,
   144

SECTION IV.

   Testimonies to Matthew’s gospel—Time of publication—Language in which it was
   originally composed,
   154

SECTION V.

   Gospel of Mark—On what occasion published—Ascribed to the dictation of Peter
   by all the Fathers,
   165

SECTION VI.

   Gospel of Luke—Testimonies of the Fathers respecting it,
   173

SECTION VII.

   The objections of J. D. Michaelis to the canonical authority of the gospels
   of Mark and Luke, considered and answered,
   179

SECTION VIII.

   The gospel of John—Life of this Evangelist—Occasion and time of his
   writing-Canonical authority indisputable,
   192

SECTION IX.

   The Acts of the Apostles—Luke the author—Canonical authority undisputed by
   the Fathers—Rejected only by heretics,
   200

SECTION X.

   Testimonies to the canonical authority of the fourteen epistles of Paul,
   205

SECTION XI.

   Canonical authority of the seven Catholic Epistles,
   228

SECTION XII.

   Canonical authority of the book of Revelation,
   236

SECTION XIII.

   The titles given to the sacred Scriptures by the Fathers—These books not
   concealed, but partially known and referred to by enemies as well as
   friends—Citations—Ancient manuscripts—Remarks of Rennell,
   245

SECTION XIV.

   No canonical book of the New Testament has been lost,
   258

SECTION XV.

   Rules for determining what books are Apocryphal—Some account of the
   Apocryphal books which have been lost—All of them condemned by the foregoing
   rules—Reason of the abounding of such books,
   270

SECTION XVI.

   Apocryphal books which are still extant-Letter of Abgarus, King of Edessa,
   to Jesus, and his answer-Epistle to the Laodiceans—Letters of Paul to
   Seneca—Protevangelion of James—The gospel of our Saviour’s infancy—The Acts
   of Pilate—The Acts of Paul and Thecla,
   281

SECTION XVII.

   No part of the Christian Revelation handed down by unwritten tradition,
   301
   Appendix—Notes, 343
     _________________________________________________________________

PREFACE.

   IN this edition, the work has been carefully revised by the author, and many
   additions made to the testimonies adduced in the former editions; and also
   several important docuIments not contained in the former editions have been
   placed in the appendix. Some alterations have also been made in particular
   passages, but not of sufficient importance to require specification.

   In the London edition of this work by the Rev. Doctor Morison, some
   complaint was made of the want of references sufficiently distinct, to the
   authors from which the testimonies have been taken. In most cases, the works
   from which they have been derived are mentioned; and in a popular treatise
   of this kind, which has more the character of a compilation than of a work
   of original research, it is not deemed important to burden the margin with
   many notes of reference; which indeed are seldom used when most abundant.

   The author has freely availed himself of all the information within his
   reach; but the authors to whom he is especially indebted are, Cosins’s
   Scholastic History of the Canon of the Old Testament—Jones’s New Method of
   Settling the Canon of the New Testament—and Lardner’s Credibility of the
   Gospel History—The Isagoge of Buddæus—The Thesaurus Philologicus of
   Hottinger, and Prideaux’s Connection. Dr. Wordsworth’s work on the Canon of
   the Old and New Testaments, and Routh’s Reliquiæ have also been consulted.
   Several valuable works on the Canon have been published in Great Britain,
   and also in this country, since the first edition of this work; but, though
   more valuable for the scholar, none of them, in the judgment of the author,
   are such as to supersede this as a popular treatise, which can be read with
   advantage by the unlearned as well as the learned. In a Scotch edition of
   this work, a copy of which the author has seen, there is an important error
   in giving the author’s Christian name in the title page. Instead of
   Archibald, they have put Alexander; making the first and second name the
   same. The only reason for mentioning this is, lest some doubt should
   hereafter arise respecting the genuine authorship of the volume.

   As the design of this work is to ascertain where the revelation of God is to
   be found, it is assumed usually that the whole of divine revelation has been
   committed to writing. But there are many under the Christian name who
   strenuously maintain, that an important part of the revealed will of God has
   been handed down through the Church by tradition. It therefore seemed
   necessary, in order to render the work complete, to examine the claims of
   tradition; in which the author has departed from the common method of
   treating this subject. And as the Jews, as well as the Romanists, pretend to
   have received an Oral Law, handed down from Moses by tradition, a chapter
   has been devoted to this subject, and another to the traditions of the
   Church of Rome.

   As the inspiration of the gospels of Mark and Luke had been called in
   question by John David Michaelis and others, and the author could find no
   satisfactory answer to the objections of this learned writer, he felt it to
   be a duty to endeavour to vindicate these books of the New Testament, and to
   prove that they have a right to a place in the Canon; where in fact they had
   always stood. And he has been gratified to learn that his arguments on this
   subject have received the approbation of learned and pious men. The Rev. Dr.
   T. H. Home has inserted the substance of them in his “Introduction to the
   New Testament,” and the Rev. Richard Watson has extracted a part of them and
   inserted them in his Theological Dictionary.

   There never was a time when the friends of the Bible as an inspired volume
   had a more important duty to perform in its defence, than at the present.
   The assaults upon the plenary inspiration of the sacred Scriptures are,
   perhaps, more dangerous, because more plausible and insidious, than when
   divine inspiration is openly denied. On this subject the friends of
   revelation must be firm, and not yield an inch of the ground hitherto
   occupied by the orthodox. “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the
   righteous do?”

   If this volume may be in any measure useful in the defence of divine
   revelation, the author will not regret the labour bestowed upon it. With an
   humble prayer for its success he commits it to the Christian public.

   A. Alexander.

   Princeton, N. J., Jan. 1, 1851.
     _________________________________________________________________
     _________________________________________________________________

INTRODUCTION.

  THE IMPORTANCE OF ASCERTAINING THE TRUE CANON OF HOLY SCRIPTURE.

   THE Bible includes a large number of separate books, published in different
   ages, during a space of more than fifteen hundred years. Each of these books
   when first published formed a volume; or at least, the writings of each
   author were, in the beginning, distinct; and if they had continued in that
   separate form, and had been transmitted to us in many volumes instead of
   one, their authority would not, on this account, have been less, nor their
   usefulness diminished. Their collection into one volume is merely a matter
   of convenience; and if any persons choose now to publish these books in a
   separate form, they cannot with propriety be charged with casting any
   indignity on the word of God.

   Hence it appears that besides general arguments to demonstrate that the
   Bible contains a divine revelation, there is need of special proofs to
   evince that each of the books now included in that sacred volume, has a
   right to the place which it occupies; or does in reality contain a part of
   that revelation which God has given.

   If, therefore, it could be shown (which however it never can) that some
   particular book, now included in the Bible, is not authentic, the conclusion
   thence derived would only affect that single production; unless it were
   recognized as divine by the writers of the other books. The credit of the
   whole volume would not be destroyed, even if it could be proved that one
   half the books of which it consists are spurious. Infidels have much more to
   effect in overthrowing the Bible than they commonly suppose. It is incumbent
   on them to demonstrate, not only that this or that book is false, but that
   every one of these productions is destitute of evidence, that it has been
   derived from the inspiration of God.

   On the other hand, it is manifest that the advocate of divine revelation is
   bound to defend the claims of every separate portion of this volume; or to
   reject from it that part which has no evidence of a divine origin. It is
   necessary that he should be able to render a good reason why he admits any
   particular book, to form a part of the inspired volume.

   It is true that the antiquity of this collection claims for it a high degree
   of respect. The transmission of this volume to us, through so many
   centuries, as Holy Scripture, should teach us to be cautious how we question
   what is so venerable for its antiquity. But this only furnishes one
   presumptive argument in favour of each book. It by no means renders all
   further investigation unnecessary; much less, impious.

   It is easy to conceive that books not written by the inspiration of God,
   might, by some casualty or mistake, find a place in the sacred volume. In
   fact, we have a striking example of this very thing, in the Greek and Latin
   Bibles which are now in use, and held to be sacred by a large majority of
   those who are denominated Christians. These Bibles, besides the books which
   have evidence of being truly inspired, contain a number of other books, the
   claim of which to inspiration cannot be sustained by solid and satisfactory
   reasons. This inquiry, therefore, is far from being one of mere curiosity:
   it is in the highest degree practical, and concerns the conscience of every
   man capable of making the investigation. We agree, in the general, that the
   Bible is the word of God, and an authoritative rule; but the momentous
   question immediately presents itself, What belongs to the Bible? Of what
   books does this sacred volume consist? And it will not answer, to resolve to
   take it as it has come down to us, without further inquiry; for the Bible
   has come down to us, in several different forms. The Vulgate Latin Bible,
   which alone was in use for hundreds of years before the era of the
   Reformation, and also the Greek version of the Old Testament, contain many
   books not in the copies of the Hebrew Scriptures. Now, to determine which of
   these contains the whole of the inspired books given to the Jews before the
   advent of Christ and no more, requires research and accurate examination.
   The inquiry, therefore, is not optional, but forces itself upon every
   conscientious man; for as no one is at liberty to reject from the sacred
   volume one sentence, much less a whole book, of the revelation of God, so no
   one has a right to add anything to the word of God; and of consequence, no
   one may receive as divine what others have, without authority, added to the
   Holy Scriptures. Every man, therefore, according to his opportunity and
   capacity, is under a moral obligation to use his best endeavours to
   ascertain what books do, really, and of right, belong to the Bible. An error
   here, on either side, is dangerous; for, on the one hand, if we reject a
   part of divine revelation, we dishonour God, and deprive ourselves of the
   benefit which might be derived from that portion of divine truth; and on the
   other hand, we are guilty of an equal offence, and may suffer an equal
   injury, by adding spurious productions to the Holy Scriptures; for thus we
   adulterate and poison the fountain of life, and subject our consciences to
   the authority of mere men.

   I think, therefore, that the importance and necessity of this inquiry must
   be evident to every person of serious reflection. But to some it may appear
   that this matter has been long ago settled on the firmest principles; and
   that it can answer no good purpose to agitate questions, which have a
   tendency to produce doubts and misgivings in the minds of common Christians,
   rather than a confirmation of their faith. In reply to the first part of
   this objection, I would say, that it is freely admitted that this subject
   has been ably and fully discussed long ago, and in almost every age until
   the present time; and the author aims at nothing more, in this short
   treatise, than to exhibit to the sincere inquirer, who may not enjoy better
   means of information, the subject of those discussions and proofs, which
   ought to be in the possession of every Christian. His object is not to bring
   forth anything new, but to collect and condense in a narrow space, what has
   been written by the judicious and the learned, on this important subject.
   But, that discussion tends to induce doubting is a sentiment unworthy of
   Christians, who maintain that their religion is founded on the best reasons,
   and who are commanded “to give to every man a reason of the hope that is in
   them.” That faith which is weakened by discussion is mere prejudice, not
   true faith. They who receive the most important articles of their religion
   upon trust from human authority, are continually liable to be thrown into
   doubt; and the only method of obviating this evil is to dig deep and lay our
   foundation upon a rock. If this objection had any weight, it would
   discourage all attempts to establish the truth of our holy religion by
   argument; and would also damp the spirit of free inquiry on every important
   subject. It is true, however, that the first effect of free discussion may
   be to shake that easy confidence which most men entertain, that all their
   opinions are correct: but the beneficial result will be, that instead of a
   persuasion, having no other foundation than prejudice, it will generate a
   faith resting on the firm basis of evidence.

   There is, undoubtedly, among Christians, too great a disposition to
   acquiesce, without examination, in the religion of their forefathers. There
   is too great an aversion to that kind of research, which requires time and
   labour; so that many who are fully competent to examine the foundation on
   which their religion rests, never take the pains to enter on the
   investigation; and it is to be regretted, that many who are much occupied
   with speculations on abstruse points of theology, waste the energies of
   their minds on subjects which can yield them no manner of profit, while they
   neglect entirely, or but superficially attend to, points of fundamental
   importance.

   The two great questions most deserving the attention of all men, are: first,
   whether the Bible and all that it contains is from God: secondly, what are
   those truths which the Bible was intended to teach us. These two grand
   inquiries are sufficient to give occupation and vigorous exercise to
   intellectual faculties of the highest order; and they are not removed
   entirely out of the reach of plain uneducated Christians. From the fountain
   of divine truth every one may draw according to his capacity. But these
   inquiries are neglected, not so much for want of time and capacity, as
   because we take no pleasure in searching for and contemplating divine truth.
   Just in proportion as men love the truth and value the Bible, they will take
   an interest in all inquiries which relate to the authenticity, canonical
   authority, and correct interpretation of the sacred books. The time will
   come, I doubt not, when these studies will occupy the minds of thousands,
   where they now engage the attention of one. The Bible will grow into
   importance in the estimation of men, just in the same proportion as true
   religion flourishes. It will not only be the fashion to associate for
   printing and circulating the Holy Scriptures; but it will become customary
   for men of the highest literary attainments, as well as others, to study the
   sacred pages with unceasing assiduity and prayer. And, in proportion as the
   Bible is understood in its simplicity and momentous import, the mere
   doctrines of men will disappear; and the dogmas of the schools and the
   alliance with philosophy being renounced, there will be among sincere
   inquirers after truth, an increasing tendency to unity of sentiment, as well
   as unity of spirit. The pride of learning and of intellect being sacrificed,
   and all distinctions counted but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of
   Christ, a thousand knotty questions, which now cause divisions and gender
   strifes, will be forgotten; and the wonder of our more enlightened posterity
   will be, how good men could have wasted their time and their talents in such
   unprofitable speculations; and, more especially, how they could have
   permitted themselves to engage in fierce and unbrotherly contentions about
   matters of little importance.

   Then also men will no more neglect and undervalue the Scriptures, on
   pretence of possessing a brighter light within them, than that which
   emanates from the divine word. That spurious devotion which affects a
   superiority to external means and ordinances, will be exchanged for a
   simple, sincere reliance on the revealed will of God; and those assemblies
   from which the sacred volume is now excluded, while the effusions of every
   heated imagination are deemed revelations of the Spirit, will become, under
   the influence of divine truth, churches of the living God.

   In those future days of the prosperity of Zion, the service of the most high
   God will be considered by men, generally, as the noblest employment; and the
   best talents and attainments will be consecrated on the altar of God; and
   the enterprises, and the labours which they now undertake to gratify an
   avaricious, ambitious, or voluptuous disposition, will be pursued from love
   to God and man. The merchant will plan, and travel, and traffic, to obtain
   the means of propagating the gospel in foreign parts, and promoting
   Christian knowledge at home; yea, the common labourer will cheerfully endure
   toil and privation, that he may have a mite to cast into the treasury of the
   Lord.

   Now, many consider all that is given to circulate the Bible, and to send
   missionaries and tracts for the instruction of the ignorant, as so much
   wasted; but then, all expenditures will be considered as profuse and
   wasteful, which terminate in mere selfish gratification; and those funds
   will alone be reckoned useful, which are applied to promote the glory of God
   and the welfare of men.

   These, however, may appear to many as the visions of a heated imagination,
   which will never be realized; but if the same change in the views and
   sentiments of men which has been going on for thirty years past, shall
   continue to advance with the same steady pace, half a century will not have
   elapsed from the present time, before such a scene will be exhibited to the
   admiring eyes of believers, as will fully justify the foregoing
   anticipations.

   But I have wandered wide of my subject—I will now recall the attention of
   the reader to the consideration of the exceeding great importance of
   ascertaining the true Canon of Holy Scripture. This investigation may,
   indeed, appear dry and unentertaining, but every thing which bears any
   relation to the great Charter of our privileges and our hopes, ought to be
   interesting to us. It has been my object, to bring this subject not only
   more conveniently within the reach of the theological student, but also to a
   level with the capacity of the common Christian. That this work may in some
   humble degree subserve the cause of the Bible, is the sincere prayer of

   THE AUTHOR.
     _________________________________________________________________

SECTION I.

  EARLY USE AND IMPORT OF THE WORD CANON.

   THE word Canon properly signifies a rule: and it is used in this sense
   several times in the New Testament, as Gal. vi. 16; “As many as walk
   according to this rule.” Phil. iii. 16; “Let us walk by the same rule.” [1]
   But in these passages there is no reference to the Scriptures as a volume.

   The word Canon, however, was early used by the Christian Fathers to
   designate the inspired Scriptures. Irenæus, speaking of the Scriptures,
   calls them “the Canon of truth.” Clement of Alexandria, referring to a
   quotation of the gospel according to the Egyptians, says, “But they follow
   anything, rather than the true canonical gospels.” [2]

   Eusebius says of Origen, “But in the first book of his commentaries on the
   gospel of Matthew, observing the ecclesiastical Canon, he declares that he
   knew of four gospels only.”

   Athanasius, in his Festal Epistle, speaks of three sorts of books; the
   canonical—such as were allowed to be read—and such as were Apocryphal. By
   the first he evidently means such as we now call canonical.

   The Council of Laodicea ordained, “that none but canonical books should be
   read in the church; that is, the books of the Old and New Testaments.”

   Rufin, after enumerating the books of the Old and New Testaments, goes on to
   mention three classes of books. 1. Such as were included in the Canon. 2.
   Ecclesiastical, or such as were allowed to be read. 3. Apocryphal, such as
   were not permitted to be publicly read. [3]

   Jerome often speaks of the Canon of Scripture, and mentions books which
   might be read, but did not belong to the Canon. [4]

   The third Council of Carthage ordained, “That nothing beside the canonical
   Scriptures be read in the church, under the name of the divine
   Scriptures.”

   Augustine often makes mention of the canonical Scriptures, and the whole
   Canon of Scripture, meaning to designate all the sacred books of the Old and
   New Testaments. “We read of some,” says he, “that they searched the
   Scriptures daily, whether these things were so. What Scriptures, I pray,
   except the canonical Scriptures of the Law and the Prophets? To them have
   been since added, the Gospels, the Epistles of the Apostles, the Acts of the
   Apostles, and the Revelation of John.” [5]

   Chrysostom says, “They fall into great absurdities, who will not follow the
   Canon of the divine Scripture, but trust to their own reasoning.”

   Isidore of Pelusium observes, “That these things are so, we shall perceive,
   if we attend to the Canon of truth—the divine Scriptures.”

   And Leontius of Constantinople, having cited the whole catalogue of the
   books of sacred Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation, concludes, “These are
   the ancient and the new books, which are received in the church as
   canonical.”

   Eusebius informs us that Origen, in his Exposition on Matthew, “enumerates
   the books of Scripture according to the Canon of the Church.” [6]

   Epiphanius, speaking of certain heretics, says, “They received the
   apocryphal Acts of Andrew and Thomas, rejecting the Canon received by the
   Church.” [7]

   Philastrius speaks of the distinction of Canonical and Apocryphal as well
   known in his time. [8]

   From the authorities cited above, it will evidently appear, that at an early
   period the sacred Scriptures were carefully distinguished from all other
   writings, and formed a rule, which all Christians considered to be
   authoritative: and that this collection of sacred writings received the name
   of Canon. [9]

   The division of the sacred books which is most ancient and universal, is,
   into the Old Testament, and the New Testament. The apostle Paul himself lays
   a foundation for this distinction; for, in his second epistle to the
   Corinthians, 2 Cor. iii. 14, he uses the phrases Old Testament and New
   Testament; and in one instance, designates the Scriptures of the Law, by the
   former title: “For until this day,” says he, “remaineth the same veil
   untaken away in the reading of the Old Testament.”

   It is our object, in this work, to inquire into the Canon, both of the Old
   and New Testament, and to discuss all the principal questions connected with
   this subject.
     _________________________________________________________________

   [1] The word Kanōn literally signifies a reed, by which the dimensions of
   anything were measured; and hence it came figuratively to signify a rule.
   The word was used by the Greek grammarians to designate those authors who
   were considered as authority in matters of criticism: Vid. Wordsworth on the
   Canon, p. 5.

   [2] Strom. Lib. iii. p. 453.

   [3] Expositio in Symbolum Apostolorum, p. 26. After giving a catalogue both
   of the books of the Old and New Testaments, he says, “Hæc sunt quæ patres
   inter Canonem concluserunt.”

   [4] Prolog. Gal. in multis locis.

   [5] De Doctrina Christiana, vol. iii. Lib. ii. pt. 1, p. 47. Ed. Paris.
   Epist. ad Hieron, 19. Ad Paulinum, 112.

   [6] Eus. Hist. Lib. VI. c. 25.

   [7] Hæres. 61.

   [8] De Hæresibus, 40.

   [9] It cannot be denied, however, that the word Canon is not always used by
   the Fathers in the same definite sense. Sometimes, under this name, they
   include books not inspired, and this has given some plausibility to the
   Popish doctrine respecting the Apocrypha.
     _________________________________________________________________

SECTION II.

   CONSTITUTION OF THE CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT BY EZRA—THE CANON OF THE OLD
   TESTAMENT, AS IT NOW EXISTS, SANCTIONED BY CHRIST AND HIS
   APOSTLES—CATALOGUES OF THE BOOKS BY SOME OF THE EARLY FATHERS—AGREEMENT OF
   JEWS AND CHRISTIANS ON THIS SUBJECT.

   The five books of Moses were, when finished, carefully deposited by the side
   of the ark of the Covenant, Deut. xxxi. 24-26. “And it came to pass, when
   Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they
   were finished, that Moses commanded the Levites which bore the ark of the
   covenant of the Lord, saying, Take this book of the law, and put it in the
   side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there
   for a witness against thee.”

   No doubt, copies of the sacred volume were made out, before it was deposited
   in the most holy place; for as it was there inaccessible to any but the
   priests, the people generally must have remained ignorant, had there been no
   copies of the law. But we know that copies were written, for it was one of
   the laws respecting the duty of a king, when such an officer should be
   appointed, that he should write out a copy of the law with his own hand.
   Deut. xvii. 18-20, “And it shall be when he sitteth upon the throne of his
   kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book, out of that
   which is before the priests, the Levites. And it shall be with him, and he
   shall read therein, all the days of his life; that he may learn to fear the
   Lord his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes to do
   them; that his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn
   not aside from the commandment to the right hand or to the left: to the end
   that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he and his children in the
   midst of Israel.” It is related by Josephus, that by the direction of Moses,
   a copy of the law was prepared for each of the tribes of Israel.

   It seems that the book of Joshua was annexed to the volume of the
   Pentateuch; for we read that “Joshua wrote these words in the book of the
   law of God.” See Josh i. 8; xxiv. 26. And the matters contained in this book
   were of public concern to the nation, as well as those recorded in the law.
   For, as in the latter were written statutes and ordinances, to direct them
   in all matters sacred and civil; so in the former was recorded the division
   of the land among the tribes. The possession of each tribe was here
   accurately defined, so that this book served as a national deed of
   conveyance. When other books were added to the Canon, no doubt, the inspired
   men who were moved by the Holy Spirit to write them, would be careful to
   deposit copies in the sanctuary, and to have other copies put into
   circulation. But on this subject we have no precise information. We know not
   with what degree of care the sacred books were guarded, or to what extent
   copies were multiplied.

   A single fact shows that the sacred autograph of Moses had well nigh
   perished, in the idolatrous reigns of Manasseh and Amon, but was found,
   during the reign of the pious Josiah, among the rubbish of the temple. It
   cannot, however, be reasonably supposed, that there were no other copies of
   the law scattered through the nation. It does indeed seem that the young
   king had never seen the book, and was ignorant of its contents, until it was
   now read to him; but while the autograph of Moses had been misplaced, and
   buried among the ruins, many pious men might have possessed private copies.

   And although at the destruction of Jerusalem and of the temple by
   Nebuchadnezzar, this precious volume was, in all probability, destroyed with
   the ark and all the holy apparatus of the sanctuary; yet we are not to
   credit the Jewish tradition, too readily received by the Christian Fathers,
   that, on this occasion, all the copies of the Scriptures were lost, and that
   Ezra restored the whole by a miracle. This is a mere Jewish fable, depending
   on no higher authority than a passage in the fourth book of Esdras, and is
   utterly inconsistent with facts recorded in the sacred volume. We know that
   Daniel had a copy of the Scriptures, for he quotes them, and makes express
   mention of the prophecies of Jeremiah. And Ezra is called “a ready scribe in
   the law;” and it is said, in the sixth chapter of Ezra, that when the temple
   was finished, the functions of the priests and Levites were regulated, “as
   it is written in the book of Moses.” And this was many years before Ezra
   came to Jerusalem. And in the eighth chapter of Nehemiah, it is said that
   Ezra, at the request of the people, “brought the law before the
   congregation, and he read therein from the morning until mid-day. And Ezra
   opened the book in the sight of all the people.” It is evident, therefore,
   that all the copies of the Scriptures were not lost during the captivity.
   This story, no doubt, originated from two facts: the first, that the
   autographs in the temple, had been destroyed with that sacred edifice; and
   the second, that Ezra took great pains to have correct copies of the
   Scriptures prepared and circulated.

   It seems to be agreed by all, that the forming of the present Canon of the
   Old Testament should be attributed to Ezra. To assist him in this work, the
   Jewish writers inform us, that there existed in his time a great synagogue,
   consisting of one hundred and twenty men, including Daniel and his three
   friends, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego; the prophets Haggai and Zechariah;
   and also Simon the Just. But it is very absurd to suppose that all these
   lived at one time, and formed one synagogue, as they are pleased to
   represent it: for, from the time of Daniel to that of Simon the Just, no
   less than two hundred and fifty years intervened.

   It is, however, not improbable that Ezra was assisted in this great work, by
   many learned and pious men, who were cotemporary with him; and as prophets
   had always been the superintendents, as well as writers of the sacred
   volume, it is likely that the inspired men who lived at the same time as
   Ezra, would give attention to this work. But in regard to this great
   synagogue, the only thing probable is, that the men who are said to have
   belonged to it, did not live in one age, but successively, until the time of
   Simon the Just, who was made high priest about twenty-five years after the
   death of Alexander the Great. This opinion has its probability increased, by
   the consideration that the Canon of the Old Testament appears not to have
   been fully completed, until about the time of Simon the Just. Malachi seems
   to have lived after the time of Ezra, and therefore his prophecy could not
   have been added to the Canon by this eminent scribe; unless we adopt the
   opinion of the Jews, who will have Malachi to be no other than Ezra himself;
   maintaining, that while Ezra was his proper name, he received that of
   Malachi, from the circumstance of his having been sent to superintend the
   religious concerns of the Jews; for the import of that name is, a messenger,
   or one sent.

   But this is not all—in the book of Nehemiah, [10] mention is made of the
   high priest Jaddua, and of Darius Codomannus, king of Persia, both of whom
   lived at least a hundred years after the time of Ezra. In the third chapter
   of the first book of Chronicles, the genealogy of the sons of Zerubbabel is
   carried down, at least to the time of Alexander the Great. This book,
   therefore, could not have been put into the Canon by Ezra; nor much earlier
   than the time of Simon the Just. The book of Esther, also, was probably
   added during this interval.

   The probable conclusion, therefore, is that Ezra began this work, and
   collected and arranged all the sacred books which belonged to the Canon
   before his time, and that a succession of pious and learned men continued to
   pay attention to the Canon, until the whole was completed, about the time of
   Simon the Just. After which, nothing was added to the Canon of the Old
   Testament.

   Most, however, are of opinion that nothing was added after the book of
   Malachi was written, except a few names and notes; and that all the books
   belonging to the Canon of the Old Testament, were collected and inserted in
   the sacred volume by Ezra himself. And this opinion seems to be the safest,
   and is not incredible in itself. It accords also with the uniform tradition
   of the Jews, that Ezra completed the Canon of the Old Testament; and that
   after Malachi there arose no prophet who added anything to the sacred
   volume. [11]

   Whether the books were now collected into a single volume, or were bound up
   in several codices, is a question of no importance. If we can ascertain what
   books were received as canonical, it matters not in what form they were
   preserved. It seems probable, however, that the sacred books were at this
   time distributed into three volumes, the Law; the Prophets, and the
   Hagiographa. This division, we know to be as ancient as the time of our
   Saviour, for he says, “These are the words which I spake unto you while I
   was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled which are written in the
   law, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.” Luke xxiv. 44.
   Josephus also makes mention of this division, and it is by the Jews, with
   one consent, referred to Ezra, as its author.

   In establishing the Canon of the Old Testament, we might labour under
   considerable uncertainty and embarrassment, in regard to several books were
   it not that the whole of what were called “the Scriptures,” and which were
   included in the threefold division mentioned above, received the explicit
   sanction of our Lord. He was not backward to reprove the Jews for
   disobeying, misinterpreting, and adding their traditions to the Scriptures,
   but he never drops a hint that they had been unfaithful or careless in the
   preservation of the sacred books. This argument for the integrity of the
   books of the Old Testament was used by Origen, as we are informed by Jerome,
   who says: “Si aliquis dixerit Hebræos libros, a Judæis esse falsatos, audiat
   Origenem: Quod nunquam Dominus et Apostoli, qui cætera crimina in Scribis,
   de hoc crimine quod est maximum, reticuissent.” In Esai. cvi, tom. iii. p.
   63. So far from this, he refers to the Scriptures as an infallible rule,
   which “must be fulfilled,” Mark xiv. 49, and “could not be broken.” John x.
   35. “Search the Scriptures,” John v. 39, said he, “for in them ye think ye
   have eternal life, and they are they which testify of me.” The errors of the
   Sadducees are attributed to an ignorance of the Scriptures: and they are
   never mentioned but with the highest respect, and as the unerring word of
   God. The apostle Paul, also, referring principally, if not wholly, to the
   Scriptures of the Old Testament, says, “And that from a child thou hast
   known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation.
   All Scripture is given by inspiration of God.” 2 Tim. iii. 15, 16. They are
   also called by this apostle, “the oracles of God;” “the lively oracles,”
   “the word of God;” and when quotations are made from David, it is
   represented as “the Holy Ghost speaking by the mouth of David.” Acts i. 16;
   iv. 25. The testimony of Peter is not less explicit, for he says, “The
   prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake
   as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” 2 Pet. i. 21. And the apostle James
   speaks of the Scriptures with equal confidence and respect: “And receive
   with meekness,” says he, “the ingrafted word which is able to save your
   souls.” James i. 21-23. “And the Scripture was fulfilled which saith,” &c.
   “Do ye think that the Scripture saith in vain?” James iv. 5, &c.

   We have, therefore, an important point established with the utmost
   certainty, that the volume of Scripture which existed in the time of Christ
   and his apostles was uncorrupted, and was esteemed by them an infallible
   rule. Now, if we can ascertain what books were then included in the Sacred
   Volume, we shall be able to settle the Canon of the Old Testament without
   uncertainty.

   But here lies the difficulty. Neither Christ nor any of his apostles has
   given us a catalogue of the books which composed the Scriptures of the Old
   Testament. They have distinctly quoted a number of these books, and, so far,
   the evidence is complete. We know that the law, and the Prophets, and the
   Psalms were included in their Canon. But this does not ascertain,
   particularly, whether the very same books which we now find in the Old
   Testament were then found in it and no others. It is necessary then, to
   resort to other sources of information. And, happily, the Jewish historian
   Josephus furnishes us with the very information which we want; not, indeed,
   as explicitly as we could wish, but sufficiently so to lead us to a very
   satisfactory conclusion. He does not name the books of the Old Testament,
   but he numbers them, and so describes them that there is scarcely room for
   any mistake. The important passage to which we refer is in his first book
   against Apion. “We have,” says he, “only two-and-twenty books, which are
   justly believed to be of divine authority—of which five are the books of
   Moses. From the death of Moses to the reign of Artaxerxes, the son of
   Xerxes, king of Persia, the Prophets, who were the successors of Moses, have
   written in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God,
   and precepts for the regulation of human life.” Now, the five books of Moses
   are universally agreed to be Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and
   Deuteronomy. The thirteen books written by the prophets will include Joshua,
   Judges, with Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah with Lamentations,
   Ezekiel, Daniel, the twelve minor Prophets, Job, Ezra, Esther, and
   Chronicles. The four remaining books will be, Psalms, Proverbs,
   Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon, which make the whole number
   twenty-two. The Canon then existing is proved to be the same as that which
   we now possess. It would appear, indeed, that these books might more
   conveniently be reckoned twenty-four; and this is the present method of
   numbering them by the modern Jews; but formerly the number was regulated by
   that of the Hebrew alphabet, which consists of twenty-two letters: therefore
   they annexed the small book of Ruth to Judges; and probably it is a
   continuation of this book by the same author. They added, also, the
   Lamentations of Jeremiah to his prophecy, and this was natural enough. As to
   the minor prophets, which form twelve separate books in our Bibles, they
   were, anciently, always reckoned one book, so they are considered in every
   ancient catalogue, and in all quotations from them. Josephus adds, to what
   is cited above, the following: “But as to the books which have been written
   since the time of Artaxerxes until our times, they are not considered worthy
   of the same credit as the former, because they do not contain accurate
   doctrine sanctioned by the prophets.” [12]

   It will not be supposed that any change could have occurred in the Canon
   from the time of our Saviour and his apostles, to that in which Josephus
   wrote. Indeed, he may be considered the contemporary of the apostles, as he
   was born about the time of Paul’s conversion to Christianity, and was
   therefore grown up to man’s age long before the death of this apostle; and
   the apostle John probably survived him. And it must be remembered that
   Josephus is here giving his testimony to a public fact: he is declaring what
   books were received as divine by his nation; and he does it without
   hesitation or inconsistency. “We have,” says he, “only twenty-two books
   which are justly believed to be of divine authority.”

   We are able also to adduce other testimony to prove the same thing. Some of
   the early Christian Fathers, who had been brought up in Paganism, when they
   embraced Christianity, were curious in their inquiries into the Canon of the
   Old Testament; and the result of the researches of some of them still
   remains. Melito, bishop of Sardis, travelled into Judea, for the very
   purpose of satisfying himself, on this point. And although his own writings
   are lost, Eusebius has preserved his catalogue of the books of the Old
   Testament; from which it appears, that the very same books were, in his day,
   received into the Canon, as are now found in our Hebrew Bibles. In the
   catalogue of Melito, presented by Eusebius, after Proverbs, the word Wisdom
   occurs, which nearly all commentators have been of opinion is only another
   name for the same book, and not the name of the book now called “The Wisdom
   of Solomon.” There is, however, an omission of Esther and Nehemiah. As to
   the latter, it creates no difficulty, for Ezra and Nehemiah are commonly
   counted as one book; and some learned men are of opinion that Ezra being the
   author of Esther, this book also is included under the name Esdras. The
   interval between Melito and Josephus is not a hundred years, so that no
   alteration in the Canon can be reasonably supposed to have taken place in
   this period.

   Very soon after Melito, Origen furnishes us with a catalogue of the books of
   the Old Testament, which perfectly accords with our Canon, except that he
   omits the Minor Prophets; which omission must have been a mere slip of the
   pen, in him or his copyist, as it is certain that he received this as a book
   of Holy Scripture: and the number of the books of the Old Testament, given
   by him in this very place, cannot be completed without reckoning the twelve
   Minor Prophets as one.

   After Origen, we have catalogues in succession, not only by men of the first
   authority in the church, but by councils, consisting of numerous bishops,
   all which are perfectly the same as our own. It will be sufficient merely to
   refer to these sources of information. Catalogues of the books of the Old
   Testament have been given by Athanasius; by Cyril; by Augustine; by Jerome;
   by Rufin; by the council of Laodicea, in their LX. Canon; and by the council
   of Carthage. And when it is considered, that all these catalogues exactly
   correspond with our present Canon of the. Hebrew Bible, the evidence, I
   think, must appear complete to every impartial mind, that the Canon of the
   Old Testament is settled upon the clearest historical grounds. There seems
   to be nothing to be wished for further in the confirmation of this point.

   But if all this testimony had been wanting, there is still a source of
   evidence to which we might refer with the utmost confidence, as perfectly
   conclusive on this point; I mean the fact that these books have been ever
   since the time of Christ and his apostles in the keeping of both Jews and
   Christians, who have been constantly arrayed in opposition to each other; so
   that it was impossible that any change should have been made in the Canon,
   by either party, without being immediately detected by the other. And the
   conclusive evidence that no alteration in the Canon has occurred is the
   perfect agreement of these hostile parties in regard to the books of the Old
   Testament at this time. On this point, the Jew and Christian are harmonious.
   There is no complaint of addition to, or diminution of, the sacred books on
   either side. The Hebrew Bible of the Jew is the Bible of the Christian There
   is here no difference. A learned Jew and a Christian have even been united
   in publishing an excellent edition of the Hebrew Bible. [13] Now, if any
   alteration in the Canon has occurred, it must have been by the concert or
   collusion of both parties; but how absurd this idea is must be manifest to
   all.

   I acknowledge what is here said of the agreement of Christians and Jews can
   only be said in relation to Protestant Christians. For as to those of the
   Romish and Greek communions they have admitted other books into the Canon,
   which Jews and Protestants hold to be apocryphal; but these books will form
   the subject of a particular discussion, in the sequel of this work.

   The fact is important, that a short time after the Canon of the Old
   Testament was closed, a translation was made of the whole of the books into
   the Greek language. This translation was made at Alexandria, in Egypt, at
   the request, it is said, of Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of Egypt, that he
   might have a copy of these sacred books in the famous library which he was
   engaged in collecting. It is called the Septuagint, from its being made,
   according to the accounts which have been handed down, by seventy, or rather
   seventy-two men; six from each of the tribes of Israel. So many fabulous
   things have been reported concerning this version, that it is very difficult
   to ascertain the precise truth. But it is manifest from internal evidence,
   that it was not the work of one hand, nor probably of one set of
   translators: for, while some books are rendered with great accuracy, and in
   a very literal manner, others are translated with little care, and the
   meaning of the original is very imperfectly given. The probability is that
   the Pentateuch was first translated, and the other books were added from
   time to time by different hands; but when the work was once begun, it is not
   likely that it would be long before the whole was completed. Now this Greek
   version contains all the books which are found in our common Hebrew Bibles.
   It is a good witness therefore to prove that all these books were in the
   Canon when this version was made. The apocryphal books, which have long been
   connected with this version, will furnish a subject for consideration
   hereafter.

   There is, moreover, a distinct and remarkable testimony to the antiquity of
   the five books of Moses in the Samaritan Pentateuch, which has existed in a
   form entirely separate from the Jewish copies, and in a character totally
   different from that in which the Hebrew Bible has been for many ages
   written. It has also been preserved and handed down to us by a people who
   have ever been hostile to the Jews. This Pentateuch has, without doubt, been
   transmitted through a separate channel ever since the ten tribes of Israel
   were carried captive. It furnishes authentic testimony to the great
   antiquity of the books of Moses, and shows how little they have been
   corrupted during the lapse of nearly three thousand years. The Samaritans
   were the people transplanted from other countries into the places vacated by
   the captivity of the ten tribes of Israel. At first, they were all
   idolaters; but being annoyed by wild beasts, they supposed it was because
   they knew not how to worship the God of the country. They, therefore,
   requested that a priest should be sent to them of the Israelitish nation to
   instruct them. Their request was granted; and this priest, no doubt, brought
   with him a copy of the law. At one time it was doubted whether a Samaritan
   Pentateuch was in existence, but a learned man going into Palestine,
   obtained several copies. And they have also a translation of the whole into
   the Samaritan language. The Pentateuch, though Hebrew, is written in
   Samaritan characters, which many learned men think was the original Hebrew
   character.
     _________________________________________________________________

   [10] Nehemiah xii. 22.

   [11] The Jews are accustomed to call Malachi the “seal of the Prophets.”
   Jerome says: “Post Haggæum et Zachariam nullos alios Prophetas usque ad
   Johannem Baptistam videram.” That is, “After Haggai and Zacharias, even to
   the time of John the Baptist, I have found no other prophets.” In Esaiam
   xlix. 2.

   [12] Contra Apionem; Euseb. iii. 10.

   [13] See the Biblia Hebraica, edited by Leusden and Athias.
     _________________________________________________________________

SECTION III.

   APOCRYPHAL BOOKS, THEIR ORIGIN—IMPORTANCE OF DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN
   CANONICAL AND APOCRYPHAL BOOKS—SIX BOOKS OF THIS CLASS PRONOUNCED CANONICAL
   BY THE COUNCIL OF TRENT—NOT IN THE HEBREW, NOR RECEIVED BY THE JEWS, ANCIENT
   OR MODERN.

   THE word Apocrypha signifies concealed, obscure, without authority. In
   reference to the Bible, it is employed to designate such books as claim a
   place in the sacred volume, but which are not canonical. It is said to have
   been first used by Melito, bishop of Sardis.

   An inquiry into this subject cannot be uninteresting to the friends of the
   Bible; for it behoves them to ascertain, on the best evidence, what books
   belong to the sacred volume, and also, on what grounds other books are
   rejected from the Canon. This subject assumes a higher importance from the
   fact, that Christians are much divided on this point; for, some receive as
   of canonical authority, books which others reject as spurious, or consider
   merely as human compositions. On such a point every Christian should form
   his opinion upon the best information which he can obtain.

   In controversy with the Romanists this subject meets us at the very
   threshold. It is vain to dispute about particular doctrines of Scripture
   until it is determined what books are to be received as Scripture.

   This subject gave rise to a very unpleasant controversy between the British
   and Foreign Bible Society and some of the leading ministers of Scotland. The
   principle adopted at the beginning by the Bible Society was, to circulate
   nothing but the text of the Holy Scriptures, without note or comment. But in
   order to get the Scriptures into the hands of the Romanists, Bibles
   containing the Apocrypha were circulated, which proceeding gave just offence
   to the ministers of the Church of Scotland, and to the efficient auxiliaries
   of that country.

   A strong remonstrance was therefore made to the Managers of the British and
   Foreign Bible Society, and their answer not being entirely satisfactory, the
   Scotch ministers withdrew from the Society in London, and established one
   independent of the mother Society; and this breach has never been healed.
   But it is due to the British and Foreign Bible Society to state, that in
   consequence of the discussion, they adopted a correct principle for their
   future proceedings.

   The whole subject was referred to a select and learned sub-committee; who,
   after mature deliberation, brought in a report which was adopted, and led to
   the following wise resolution in the General Committee, viz. “That the funds
   of the Society be applied to the printing and circulation of the canonical
   books of Scripture to the exclusion of those books which are termed
   apocryphal; and that all copies printed, either entirely or in part, at the
   expense of the Society, and whether such copies consist of the whole or of
   any part of such books, be invariably issued bound, no other book whatever
   being bound with them; and further, that all money grants to societies or
   individuals be made only in conformity with the principle of this
   regulation.”

   “In the sacred volume, as it is to be hereafter distributed by the Society,
   there is to be nothing but divine truth, nothing but what is acknowledged by
   all Christians to be such. Of course all may unite in the work of
   distribution, even should they regard the volume as containing but part of
   the inspired writings; just as they might in the circulation of the
   Pentateuch or the Book of Psalms, or the Prophets, or the New Testament.
   Such harmonious operation would not, however, be possible, if the books of
   the apocrypha were mingled or joined with the rest; and besides, those who
   have the strongest objection to the apocrypha, are, ordinarily, those who
   are most forward in active and liberal efforts to send the word of God to
   all people.”

   This judicious decision of the Committee of the British and Foreign Bible
   Society depends for its correctness on the supposition that the books of the
   apocrypha are not canonical; for, whatever may be said about circulating a
   part of the Bible, it was undoubtedly the original object of this Society to
   print and circulate the whole of the sacred volume. Hence appears the
   practical importance of the inquiry which we have here instituted, to
   ascertain whether these books have any claim whatever to a place in the
   sacred Canon.

   At a very early period of the Christian church, great pains were taken to
   distinguish between such books as were inspired and canonical, and such as
   were written by uninspired men. It has never been doubted among Christians,
   that the canonical books only were of divine authority, and furnished an
   infallible rule of faith and practice; but it has not been agreed what books
   ought to be considered canonical and what apocryphal. In regard to those
   which have already been enumerated, as belonging to the Old Testament, there
   is a pretty general consent of Jews and Christians, of Romanists and
   Protestants; but in regard to some other books there is a wide difference of
   opinion.

   The council of Trent, in their fourth session, gave a catalogue of the books
   of the Old Testament, among which are included Tobit, Judith, Wisdom,
   Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, and two books of the Maccabees. [14] Besides, they
   include under the name Esther and Daniel, certain additional chapters, which
   are not found in the Hebrew copies. The book of Esther is made to consist of
   sixteen chapters; and prefixed to the book of Daniel, is the History of
   Susannah; the Song of the Three Children is inserted in the third chapter;
   and the History of Bel and the Dragon is added at the end of this book.
   Other books which are found in the Greek or Latin Bibles, they rejected as
   apocryphal; as the third and fourth books of Esdras; [15] the third book of
   Maccabees; the cli. Psalm; the Appendix to Job; and the Preface to
   Lamentations.

   Both these classes of books, all denominations of Protestants consider
   apocryphal; but as the English church, in her Liturgy, directs that certain
   lessons shall be read from the former, for the instruction of the people,
   but not for confirmation of doctrine, they are retained in the larger copies
   of the English Bible, but are not mingled with the canonical books, as in
   the Vulgate, but placed at the end of the Old Testament, under the title of
   Apocrypha. It is certainly to be regretted that these books are permitted to
   be included in the same volume which contains the lively oracles,—the word
   of God,—the Holy Scriptures; all of which were given by inspiration; and
   more to be regretted still, that they should be read in the church
   promiscuously with the lessons taken from the canonical books; especially as
   no notice is given to the people, that what is read from these books is
   apocryphal; and as in the Prayer Book of the Episcopal church the tables
   which refer to the lessons to be read, have this title prefixed—“Tables of
   lessons of Holy Scripture to be read at Morning and Evening Prayer,
   throughout the year.” The Rev. Doctor Wordsworth, in his work on the Canon,
   defends the practice of retaining in the Bible, and publicly reading in the
   church, certain lessons from the apocryphal books, principally because this
   was done by the ancient church; and he apologizes for the practice by
   saying, that these lessons are never read on the Lord’s day. But as he
   acknowledges that they are not inspired, and are not canonical, the
   inference is plain, that they ought not to be included in the same volume
   with canonical books, and ought not to be read as Scripture in the churches.
   Now, however good and instructive these apocryphal lessons may be, it never
   can be justified, that they should thus be put on a level with the word of
   God. [16]

   But it is our object at present to show, that none of these books, canonized
   by the Council of Trent, and inserted in our larger English Bibles, are
   canonical.

   1. The first argument by which it may be proved that these books do not
   belong to the Canon of the Old Testament, is, that they are not found in the
   Hebrew Bible. They are not written in the Hebrew language, but in the Greek,
   which was not known to the Jews, until long after inspiration had ceased,
   and the Canon of the Old Testament was closed. It is rendered probable,
   indeed, that some of them were written originally in the Chaldaic. Jerome
   testifies this to be the fact, in regard to 1 Maccabees and Ecclesiasticus;
   and he says, that he translated the book of Tobit out of Chaldee into Latin;
   but this book is now found in the Greek, and there is good reason for
   believing that it was written originally in this language. It is certain,
   however, that none of these books were composed in the pure Hebrew of the
   Old Testament.

   Hottinger, indeed, informs us, that he had seen the whole of the apocrypha
   in pure Hebrew, among the Jews; but he entertains no doubt that it was
   translated into that language, in modern times: just as the whole New
   Testament has recently been translated into pure Hebrew.

   It is the common opinion of the Jews, and of the Christian Fathers, that
   Malachi was the last of the Old Testament prophets. Books written by
   uncertain authors afterwards, have no claim to be reckoned canonical, and
   there is good reason for believing that those books were written long after
   the time of Ezra and Malachi, and some of them perhaps later than the
   commencement of the Christian era.

   2. These books, though probably written by Jews, have never been received
   into the Canon by that people. In this, the ancient and modern Jews are of
   the same mind. Josephus declares, “That no more than twenty-two books were
   received as inspired by his nation.” Philo, who refers often to the Old
   Testament in his writings, never makes the least mention of them; nor are
   they recognized in the Talmud as canonical. Not only so, but the Jewish
   Rabbies expressly reject them.

   Rabbi Azariah, speaking of these books, says, “They are received by
   Christians, not by us.”

   R. Gedaliah, after giving a catalogue of the books of the Old Testament,
   with some account of their authors, adds these words, “It is worth while to
   know, that the nations of the world wrote many other books, which are
   included in their systems of sacred books, but not in our hands.” To which
   he adds, “They say that some of these are found in the Chaldee, some in the
   Arabic, and some in the Greek language.”

   R. Azariah ascribed the book called the Wisdom of Solomon to Philo; and R.
   Gedaliah, in speaking of the same book, says, “That if Solomon ever wrote
   it, it must have been in the Syriac language, to send it to some of the
   kings in the remotest parts of the East. “But,” says he, “Ezra put his hand
   only to those books which were published by the prophets, under the guidance
   of the Holy Spirit, and written in the sacred language; and our wise men
   prudently and deliberately resolved to sanction none, but such as were
   established and confirmed by him.”

   “This book,” says he, “the Gentiles (i. e. Christians) have added to their
   Bible.” “Their wise men,” says Buxtorf, “pronounced this book to be
   apocryphal.”

   The book called Ecclesiasticus, said to be written by the son of Sirach, is
   expressly numbered among apocryphal books in the Talmud. “In the book of the
   Son of Sirach, it is forbidden to be read.”

   Manasseh Ben Israel has this observation, “Those things which are alleged
   from a verse in Ecclesiasticus are nothing to the purpose, because that is
   an apocryphal book.” Another of their writers says, “The book of the son of
   Sirach is added to our twenty-four sacred books by the Romans.” This book
   also they call extraneous, which some of the Jews prohibit to be read. With
   what face then can the Romanists pretend that this book was added to the
   Canon not long before the time of Josephus?

   “Baruch,” says one of their learned men, “is received by Christians,” (i. e.
   Romanists,) “but not by us.”

   Of Tobit, it is said in Zemach David, “Know, then, that this book of Tobias
   is one of those which Christians join with the Hagiographa.” A little
   afterwards, it is said, “Know then, that Tobit, which is among us in the
   Hebrew tongue, was translated from Latin into Hebrew by Sebastian
   Munster.” The same writer affirms of the history of Susannah, “That it is
   received by Christians but not by us.”

   The Jews, in the time of Jerome, entertained no other opinion of these books
   than those who came after them; for, in his preface to Daniel, he informs
   us, “That he had heard one of the Jewish doctors deriding the history of
   Susannah, saying, ‘It was invented by some Greek, he knew not whom.’” [17]

   The same is the opinion of the Jews respecting the other books, which we
   call apocryphal, as is manifest from all the copies of the Hebrew Bible
   extant; for, undoubtedly if they believed that any of these books were
   canonical, they would give them a place in their sacred volume. But will any
   ask, what is the opinion of the Jews to us? I answer, much on this point.
   The oracles of God were committed to them; and they preserved them with a
   religious care until the advent of Messiah. Christ never censures them for
   adding to the sacred Scriptures, nor detracting from them. Since their
   nation has been in dispersion, copies of the Old Testament in Hebrew have
   been scattered all over the world, so that it was impossible to produce a
   universal alteration in the Canon. But it is needless to argue this point,
   for it is agreed by all that these books never were received by the Jewish
   nation.

   3. The third argument against the canonical authority of these books is
   derived from the total silence respecting them in the New Testament. They
   are never quoted by Christ and his apostles. This fact, however, is disputed
   by the Romanists, and they even attempt to establish their right to a place
   in the Canon from the citations which they pretend have been made from these
   books by the apostles. They refer to Rom. xi. and Heb. xi., where they
   allege that Paul has cited passages from the Book of Wisdom. “For who hath
   known the mind of the Lord, or who hath been his counsellor?” “For before
   his translation he had this testimony that he pleased God.” But both these
   passages are taken directly from the canonical books of the Old Testament.
   The first is nearly in the words of Isaiah; and the last from the book of
   Genesis; their other examples are as wide of the mark as these, and need not
   be set down.

   It has already been shown that these books were not included in the volume
   quoted and referred to by Christ and his apostles, under the title of the
   Scriptures, and and are entirely omitted by Josephus in his account of the
   sacred books. It would seem, therefore, that in the time of Christ, and for
   some time afterwards, they were utterly unknown or wholly disregarded.
     _________________________________________________________________

   [14] See Note A.

   [15] The first and second books of Esdras are very frequently called the
   third and fourth; in which case the two canonical books, Ezra and Nehemiah,
   are reckoned the first and second: for both these books have been ascribed
   to Ezra as their author; but these are not included in the list of canonical
   books sanctioned by the Council of Trent, and therefore they do not come
   into controversy. Indeed, the second of these books is not found even in the
   Greek, but only in the Latin Vulgate, and is so replete with fables and
   false statements that it has never been esteemed of any value. They are
   both, however, retained in our larger English Bibles, and are honoured with
   the foremost place in the order of the apocryphal books.

   [16] See Tables prefixed to the Book of Common Prayer; also, the Sixth
   Article of Religion of the Episcopal Church.

   [17] See the Thesaurus Philologicus of Hottinger.
     _________________________________________________________________

SECTION IV.

   TESTIMONIES OF THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS, AND OF OTHER LEARNED MEN DOWN TO THE
   TIME OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT, RESPECTING THE APOCRYPHA.

   THE fourth argument is, that these books were not received as canonical by
   the Christian Fathers, but were expressly declared to be apocryphal.

   Justin Martyr does not cite a single passage, in all his writings, from any
   apocryphal book.

   The first catalogue of the books of the Old Testament which we have, after
   the times of the apostles, from any Christian writer, is that of Melito,
   bishop of Sardis, before the end of the second century, which is preserved
   by Eusebius. The fragment is as follows: “Melito to his brother Onesimus,
   greeting. Since you have often earnestly requested of me, in consequence of
   your love of learning, a collection of the Sacred Scriptures of the Law and
   the Prophets, and what relates to the Saviour, and concerning our whole
   faith; and since, moreover, you wish to obtain an accurate knowledge of our
   ancient books, as it respects their number and order, I have used diligence
   to accomplish this, knowing your sincere affection towards the faith, and
   your earnest desire to become acquainted with the word; and that striving
   after eternal life, your love to God induces you to prefer these to all
   other things. Wherefore, going into the East, and to the very place where
   these things were published and transacted, and having made diligent search
   after the books of the Old Testament, I now subjoin and send you the
   following catalogue:—“Five books of Moses, viz., Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus,
   Numbers, and Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of
   Chronicles, the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, or Wisdom, [18]
   Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Job, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Twelve [prophets] in
   one book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Ezra.” [19]

   Origen also says, “We should not be ignorant, that the canonical books are
   the same which the Hebrews delivered unto us, and are twenty-two in number,
   according to the number of letters of the Hebrew alphabet.” Then he sets
   down, in order, the names of the books, in Greek and Hebrew. [20]

   Athanasius, in his Synopsis, says, “All the Scriptures of us Christians are
   divinely inspired; neither are they indefinite in their number, but
   determined, and reduced into a Canon. Those of the Old Testament are,
   Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of
   Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Job, the
   twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel.” [21]

   Hilary, who was contemporary with Athanasius, and resided in France, has
   numbered the canonical books of the Old Testament, in the following manner:
   “The five books of Moses, the sixth of Joshua, the seventh of Judges,
   including Ruth, the eighth of first and second Kings, the ninth of third and
   fourth Kings; the tenth of the Chronicles, two books; the eleventh, Ezra
   (which included Nehemiah;) the twelfth, the Psalms. Proverbs, Ecclesiastes,
   and the Song of Songs, the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth; the twelve
   Prophets the sixteenth; then Isaiah and Jeremiah, including Lamentations and
   his Epistle, Daniel, Ezekiel, Job, and Esther, making up the full number of
   twenty-two.” And in his preface he adds, that “these books were thus
   numbered by our ancestors, and handed down by tradition from them.” [22]

   Gregory Nazianzen exhorts his readers to study the sacred books with
   attention, but to avoid such as were apocryphal; and then gives a list of
   the books of the Old Testament, and according to the Jewish method, makes
   the number two-and-twenty. He complains of some that mingled the apocryphal
   books with those that were inspired, “of the truth of which last,” says he,
   “we have the most perfect persuasion; therefore it seemed good to me to
   enumerate the canonical books from the beginning; and those which belong to
   the Old Testament are two-and-twenty, according to the number of the Hebrew
   alphabet, as I have understood.” Then he proceeds to say, “Let no one add to
   these divine books, nor take any thing away from them. I think it necessary
   to add this, that there are other books besides those which I have
   enumerated as constituting the Canon, which, however, do not appertain to
   it; but were proposed by the early Fathers, to be read for the sake of the
   instruction which they contain.” Then, he expressly names as belonging to
   this class, the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, and
   Tobit. [23]

   Jerome, in his Epistle to Paulinus, gives us a catalogue of the books of the
   Old Testament, exactly corresponding with that which Protestants receive:
   “Which,” says he, “we believe agreeably to the tradition of our ancestors,
   to have been inspired by the Holy Spirit.”

   Epiphanius, in his book concerning Weights and Measures, distributes the
   books of the Old Testament into four divisions of five each. “The first of
   which contains the law, next five poetical books, Job, Psalms, Proverbs,
   Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs; in the third division he places Joshua, Judges,
   including Ruth, first and second Chronicles, four books of Kings. The last
   five, the twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel. Then there
   remain two, Ezra and Esther.” Thus he makes up the number twenty-two.

   Cyril of Jerusalem, in his Catechism, exhorts his catechumen diligently to
   learn from the church, what books appertain to the Old and New Testaments,
   and he says, “Read nothing which is apocryphal. Read the Scriptures, namely,
   the twenty-two books of the Old Testament, which were translated by the
   seventy-two interpreters.” And in another place, “Meditate, as was said, in
   the twenty-two books of the Old Testament, and if you wish it, I will give
   you their names.” Here follows a catalogue, agreeing with those already
   given, except that he adds Baruch to the list. When Baruch is mentioned as
   making one book with Jeremiah, as is done by some of the Fathers, it is most
   reasonable to understand those parts of Jeremiah, in the writing of which
   Baruch was concerned, as particularly the lii. chapter; for, if we
   understand them as referring to the separate book now called Baruch, the
   number which they are so careful to preserve will be exceeded. This
   apocryphal Baruch never existed in the Hebrew, and is never mentioned
   separately by any ancient author, as Bellarmine confesses. This book was
   originally written in Greek, but our present copies differ exceedingly from
   the old Latin translation.

   The Council of Laodicea forbade the reading of any books in the churches but
   such as were canonical; and that the people might know what these were, a
   catalogue was given, answering to the Canon which we now receive.

   Origen barely mentions the Maccabees. Athanasius takes no notice of these
   books. Eusebius, in his Chronicon, speaks of the History of the Maccabees,
   and adds, “These books are not received as divine Scriptures.”

   Philastrius, an Italian bishop, who lived in the latter part of the fourth
   century, in a work on Heresy says, “It was determined by the apostles and
   their successors, that nothing should be read in the Catholic church but the
   law, prophets, evangelists,” &c.—And he complains of certain Heretics, “That
   they used the book of Wisdom, by the son of Sirach, who lived long after
   Solomon.”

   Chrysostom, a man who excelled in the knowledge of the Scriptures, declares,
   “That all the divine books of the Old Testament were originally written in
   the Hebrew tongue, and that no other books were received.” Hom. 4. in Gen.

   But Jerome, already mentioned, who had diligently studied the Hebrew
   Scriptures, by the aid of the best Jewish teachers, enters into this subject
   more fully and accurately than any of the rest of the Fathers. In his
   general Preface to his version of the Scriptures, he mentions the books
   which he had translated out of Hebrew into Latin; “All besides them,” says
   he, “must be placed among the apocryphal. Therefore, Wisdom, which is
   ascribed to Solomon, the book of Jesus the son of Sirach, Judith, Tobit and
   Pastor, are not in the Canon. I have found the first book of Maccabees in
   Hebrew, (Chaldee;) the second in Greek, and, as the style shows, it must
   have been composed in that language.” And in his Preface to Ezra and
   Nehemiah, (always reckoned one book by the Jews,) he says, “Let no one be
   disturbed that I have edited but one book under this name; nor let any one
   please himself with the dreams contained in the third and fourth apocryphal
   books ascribed to this author; for, with the Hebrews, Ezra and Nehemiah make
   but one book; and those things not contained in this are to be rejected, as
   not belonging to the Canon.” And in his preface to the books of Solomon, he
   speaks of “Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus; the former of which,” he says, “he
   found in Hebrew, (Chaldee,) but not the latter, which is never found among
   the Hebrews, but the style strongly savours of the Grecian eloquence.” He
   then adds, “As the church reads the books of Judith, Tobit, and the
   Maccabees, but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so,
   also, she may read these two books for the edification of the common people,
   but not as authority to confirm any of the doctrines of the church.”

   Again, in his preface to Jeremiah, he says, “The book of Baruch, the scribe
   of Jeremiah, is not read in Hebrew, nor esteemed canonical; therefore, I
   have passed it over.” And in his preface to Daniel, “This book among the
   Hebrews has neither the history of Susanna, nor the Song of the three
   Children, nor the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which we have retained lest
   we should appear to the unskilful to have curtailed a large part of the
   Sacred Volume.”

   In the preface to Tobit, he says, “The Hebrews cut off the book of Tobit
   from the catalogue of Divine Scriptures.” And in his preface to Judith, he
   says, “Among the Hebrews, Judith is placed among the Hagiographa, which are
   not of authority to determine controversies.”

   Rufin, in his Exposition of the Creed, observes, “That there were some books
   which were not called canonical, but received by our ancestors, as the
   Wisdom of Solomon, and another Wisdom of the Son of Sirach; of the same
   order are the books of Tobit, Judith, and the Maccabees.”

   Gregory the First, speaking of the testimony in the Maccabees, respecting
   the death of Eleazer, says, “Concerning which thing we do not act
   inordinately, although we bring our testimony from a book which is not
   canonical.”

   Augustine is the only one among the Fathers who lived within four hundred
   years after the apostles, who seems to favour the introduction of these six
   disputed books into the Canon. In his work On Christian Doctrine, he gives a
   list of the books of the Old Testament, among which he inserts Tobit,
   Judith, the two books of Maccabees, two of Esdras, Wisdom, and
   Ecclesiasticus. These two last mentioned, he says, “are called Solomon’s, on
   account of their resemblance to his writings; although it is known that one
   of them was composed by the son of Sirach: which deserves to be received
   among the prophetical books.” But this opinion he retracted afterwards. [24]

   Augustine was accustomed to the Greek and Latin Bibles, in which those books
   had been introduced, and we must suppose, unless we would make him
   contradict himself, that he meant in this place merely to enumerate the
   books then contained in the sacred volume; for in many other places he
   clearly shows that he entertained the same opinion of the books of the Old
   Testament as the other Fathers.

   In his celebrated work of “The City of God,” he expresses this opinion most
   explicitly—“In that whole period, after the return from the Babylonish
   captivity, after Malachi, Haggai, Zachariah and Ezra, they had no prophets,
   even until the time of the advent of our Saviour. As our Lord says, the law
   and the prophets were until John. And even the reprobate Jews hold that
   Haggai, Zachariah, Ezra, and Malachi, were the last books received into
   canonical authority.”

   In his commentary on the xl. Psalm, he says, “If any adversary should say
   you have forged these prophecies, let the Jewish books be produced—The Jews
   are our librarians.” And on the lvi. Psalm, “When we wish to prove to the
   Pagans that Christ was predicted, we appeal to the writings in possession of
   the Jews; they have all these Scriptures.”

   And again, in the work first cited, “The Israelitish nation, to whom the
   oracles of God were entrusted, never confounded false prophecies with the
   true, but all these writings are harmonious.” Then in another work, in
   speaking of the books of the Maccabees, he says, This writing the Jews never
   received in the same manner as the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, to
   which the Lord gave testimony as by his own witnesses.” And frequently in
   his works, he confines the canonical books to those properly included in
   this threefold division. He also repeatedly declares that the canonical
   Scriptures, which are of most eminent authority, are the books committed to
   the Jews. But in the eighteenth book of the City of God, speaking of Judith,
   he says, “Those things which are written in this book, it is said, the Jews
   have never received into the Canon of Scripture.” And in the seventeenth
   book of the same work, “There are three books of Solomon, which have been
   received into canonical authority, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles;
   the other two, Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, have been called by his name,
   through a custom which prevailed on account of their similarity to his
   writings; but the more learned are certain that they are not his; and they
   cannot be brought forward with much confidence for the conviction of
   gainsayers.”

   He allows that the Book of Wisdom may be read to the people, and ought to be
   preferred to all other tracts; but he does not insist that the testimonies
   taken from it are decisive. And respecting Ecclesiasticus, he says when
   speaking of Samuel’s prophesying after his death, “But if this book is
   objected to because it is not found in the Canon of the Jews,” &c. His
   rejection of the books of Maccabees from the Canon is repeated and explicit.
   “The calculation of the times after the restoring of the temple is not found
   in the Holy Scriptures, which are called canonical, but in certain other
   books, among which are the two books of Maccabees. The Jews do not receive
   the Maccabees as the Law and the Prophets.”

   It may be admitted, however, that Augustine entertained too high an opinion
   of these apocryphal books, but it is certain that he did not put them on a
   level with the genuine canonical books. He mentions a custom which prevailed
   in his time, from which it appears that although the apocryphal books were
   read in some of the churches, they were not read as Holy Scripture, nor put
   on a level with the canonical books; for he informs us that they were not
   permitted to be read from the same desk as the Canonical Scriptures, but
   from a lower place in the church.

   Innocent the first, who lived about the same time, is also alluded to as a
   witness to prove that these disputed books were then received into the
   Canon. But the epistle which contains his catalogue is extremely suspicious.
   No mention is made of this epistle by any writer for three hundred years
   after the death of Innocent. But it is noways necessary to our argument to
   deny that in the end of the fourth and beginning of the fifth century, some
   individuals, and perhaps some councils, received these books as canonical,
   yet there is strong evidence that this was not the opinion of the universal
   church; for in the council of Chalcedon, which is reckoned to be œcumenical,
   the Canons of the council of Laodicea which contain a catalogue of the
   genuine books of the Old Testament, are adopted. And it has been shown
   already that these apocryphal books were excluded from that catalogue.

   But it can be proved that even until the time of the meeting of the Council
   of Trent, by which these books were solemnly canonized, the most learned and
   judicious of the Popish writers adhere to the opinions of Jerome and the
   ancients; or at least make a marked distinction between these disputed books
   and those which are acknowledged to be canonical by all. A few testimonies
   from distinguished writers, from the commencement of the sixth century down
   to the era of the Reformation, shall now be given.

   It deserves to be particularly observed here that in one of the laws of the
   Emperor Justinian, concerning ecclesiastical matters, it was enacted, “That
   the Canons of the first four general councils should be received and have
   the force of laws.”

   Anastasius, patriarch of Antioch, in a work on the Creation, makes “the
   number of books which God hath appointed for his Old Testament” to be no
   more than twenty-two; although he speaks in very high terms of Wisdom and
   Ecclesiasticus.

   Leontius, a learned and accurate writer, in his book against the Sects,
   acknowledges no other canonical books of the Old Testament, but those which
   the Hebrews received; namely, twelve historical books, five prophetical,
   four of Doctrine and Instruction, and one of Psalms; making the number
   twenty-two as usual; and he makes not the least mention of any others.

   Gregory, who lived at the beginning of the seventh century, in his book of
   Morals, makes an apology for alleging a passage from the Maccabees, and
   says, “Though it be not taken from the canonical Scripture, yet it is cited
   from a book which was published for the edification of the church.”

   Isidore, bishop of Seville, divides the canonical books of the Old Testament
   into three orders, the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa; and
   afterwards adds—“There is a fourth order of books which are not in the
   Hebrew Canon of the Old Testament.” Here he names these books, and says,
   “Though the Jews rejected them as apocryphal, the church has received them
   among the canonical Scriptures.”

   John Damascene, a Syrian Presbyter, who lived early in the eighth century,
   adheres to the Hebrew Canon of the Old Testament, numbering only
   two-and-twenty books. Of Maccabees, Judith and Tobit, he says not one word;
   but he speaks of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as “elegant and virtuous
   writings, yet not to be numbered among the canonical books of Scripture,
   never having been laid up in the ark of the Covenant.”

   Venerable Bede follows the ancient method of dividing the books of the Old
   Testament into three classes; but he remarkably distinguishes the Maccabees
   from the canonical books by classing them with the writings of Josephus and
   Julius the African.

   Alcuin, the disciple of Bede, says, “The book of the son of Sirach was
   reputed an apocryphal and dubious Scripture.”

   Rupert, a learned man of the twelfth century, expressly rejects the book of
   Wisdom from the Canon.

   Peter Mauritius, after giving a catalogue of the authentic Scriptures of the
   Old Testament, adds the six disputed books, and says, “They are useful and
   commendable in the church, but are not to be placed in the same dignity with
   the rest.”

   Hugo de S. Victore, a Saxon by birth, but who resided at Paris, gives a
   catalogue of the books of the Old Testament, which includes no others but
   the two-and-twenty received from the Jews. Of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit
   and Judith, he says, “They are used in the church but not written in the
   Canon.”

   Richard de S. Victore, also of the twelfth century, in his Books of
   Collections, explicitly declares, “That there are but twenty-two books in
   the Canon; and that Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, and the
   Maccabees, are not esteemed canonical although they are read in the
   churches.”

   Peter Lombard, in his Scholastic History, enumerates the books of the Old
   Testament, thus—Five books of Moses, eight of the prophets, and nine of the
   Hagiographa, which leaves no room for these six disputed books; but in his
   preface to Tobit he says expressly, that it is “in no order of the Canon;”
   and of Judith, that “Jerome and the Hebrews place it in the apocrypha.”
   Moreover, he calls the story of Bel and the Dragon a fable, and says that
   the history of Susannah is not as true as it should be.

   In this century also lived John of Salisbury, an Englishman, a man highly
   respected in his time. In one of his Epistles, he treats this subject at
   large, and professes to follow Jerome and undoubtedly to believe that there
   are but twenty-two books in the Canon of the Old Testament, all which he
   names in order, and adds, “That neither the book of Wisdom, nor
   Ecclesiasticus, nor Judith, nor Tobit, nor the Pastor, nor the Maccabees,
   are esteemed canonical.”

   In the thirteenth century, the opinion of the learned was the same, as we
   may see by the Ordinary Gloss on the Bible, in the composition of which many
   persons were concerned, and which was high approved by all the doctors and
   pastors in the western churches. In the preface to this gloss, they are
   reproached with ignorance who hold all the books, put into the one volume of
   Scripture, in equal veneration. The difference between these books is
   asserted to be as great as between certain and doubtful works. The canonical
   books are declared, “To have been written by the inspiration of the Holy
   Ghost; but who were the authors of the others is unknown.” Then it is
   declared, “That the church permitteth the reading of the apocryphal books
   for devotion and instruction, but not for authority to decide matters of
   controversy in faith. And that there are no more than twenty-two canonical
   books of the Old Testament, and all besides are apocryphal.” 6Thus we have
   the common judgment of the church, in the thirteenth century, in direct
   opposition to the decree of the Council of Trent in the sixteenth. But this
   is not all, for when the writers of this Gloss come to the apocryphal books,
   they prefix a caution, as—“Here begins the book of Tobit, which is not in
   the Canon;”—“Here begins the book of Judith, which is not in the Canon,” and
   so of every one of them; and to confirm their opinion, they appeal to the
   Fathers.

   Hugo, the Cardinal, who lived in this century, wrote commentaries on all the
   Scriptures, which were universally esteemed; in these he constantly keeps up
   the distinction between the canonical and ecclesiastical books: and he
   explicitly declares that “Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, Judith, Tobit, and the
   Maccabees, are apocryphal,—dubious,—not canonical,—not received by the
   church for proving any matters of faith, but for information of manners.”

   Thomas Aquinas also, the most famous of the schoolmen, makes the same
   distinction between these classes of books. He maintains that the book of
   Wisdom was not held to be a part of the Canon, and ascribes it to Philo. The
   story of Bel and the Dragon, he calls a fable; and he shows clearly enough
   that he did not believe that Ecclesiasticus was of canonical authority.

   In the fourteenth century no man acquired so extensive a reputation for his
   commentaries on the Bible, as Nicholas Lyra, a converted Jew. In his preface
   to the book of Tobit, he says, ” That having commented on all the canonical
   books, from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Revelation, his intention
   now was to write on those books which are not canonical.” Here he enumerates
   Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Judith, Tobit, and the Maccabees; and then adds,
   “The canonical books are not only before these in time but in dignity and
   authority.” And again, “These are not in the Canon, but received by the
   church to be read for instruction in manners, not to be used for deciding
   controversies respecting the faith; whereas the others are of such authority
   that whatever they contain is to be held as undoubted truth.”

   The Englishman, William Occam, of Oxford, accounted the most learned doctor
   of his age, in his Dialogues, acknowledges, “That that honor is due only to
   the divine writers of Scripture, that we should esteem them free from all
   error.” Moreover, in his Prologues, he fully assents to the opinion of
   Jerome and Gregory, “That neither Judith, nor Tobit, nor the Maccabees, nor
   Wisdom, nor Ecclesiasticus, is to be received into the same place of honour
   as the inspired books; “for,” says he, “the church doth not number them
   among the canonical Scriptures.”

   In the fifteenth century, Thomas Anglicus, sometimes called the Angelical
   Doctor on account of his excellent judgment, numbers twenty-four books of
   the Old Testament, if Ruth be reckoned separately from Judges, and
   Lamentations from Jeremiah.

   Paul Burgensis, a Spanish Jew, who, after his conversion to Christianity, on
   account of his superior knowledge and piety, was advanced to be bishop of
   Burgos, wrote notes on the Bible, in which he retains the same distinction
   of books which has been so often mentioned.

   The Romanists have at last, as they suppose, found an authority for these
   disputed books in the Council of Florence, from the Acts of which they
   produce a decree in which the six disputed books are named and expressly
   said to be written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.

   Though this Canon were genuine, the authority of a council sitting in such
   circumstances, as attended the meeting of this, would have very little
   weight; but Dr. Cosins has shown that in the large copies of the acts of
   this council no such decree can be found, and that it has been foisted into
   the abridgment by some impostor who omitted something else to make room for
   it, and thus preserved the number of Canons unchanged, while the substance
   of them was altered.

   Alphonso Tostatus, bishop of Avila, who, on account of his extraordinary
   learning, was called the wonder of the world, has given a clear and decisive
   testimony on this subject. This learned man declares, “That these
   controverted books were not canonical, and that the church condemned no man
   for disobedience who did not receive them as the other Scriptures, because
   they were of uncertain origin, and it is not known that they were written by
   inspiration.” And again, “Because the church is uncertain whether heretics
   have not added to them.” This opinion he repeats in several parts of his
   works.”

   Cardinal Ximenes, the celebrated editor of the Complutensian Polyglot, in
   the preface to that work, admonishes the reader that Judith, Tobit, Wisdom,
   Ecclesiasticus, Maccabees, with the additions to Esther and Daniel, which
   are found in the Greek, are not canonical Scriptures.

   John Picus, the learned count of Mirandula, adhered firmly to the opinion of
   Jerome and the other Fathers on the subject of the Canon.

   Faber Stapulensis, a famous doctor of Paris, acknowledges that these books
   are not in the Canon.

   Ludovicus Vives, one of the most learned men of his age, in his commentaries
   on Augustine’s City of God, rejects the third and fourth books of Esdras,
   and also the history of Susannah, and Bel, as apocryphal. He speaks in such
   a manner of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus as to show that he did not esteem them
   canonical; for he makes Philo to be the author of the former, and the son of
   Sirach of the latter, who lived in the time of Ptolemy about an hundred
   years after the last of the Prophets; and of the Maccabees, he doubts
   whether Josephus was the author or not; by which he sufficiently shows that
   he did not believe that they were written by inspiration.

   But there was no man in this age who obtained so high a reputation for
   learning and critical skill as Erasmus. In his exposition of the Apostles’
   Creed and the Decalogue, he discusses this question respecting the canonical
   books, and after enumerating the usual books of the Old Testament, he says,
   “The ancient Fathers admitted no more;” but of the other books afterwards
   received into ecclesiastical use, (naming the whole which we esteem
   apocryphal,) “It is uncertain what authority should be allowed to them; but
   the canonical Scriptures are such as without controversy are believed to
   have been written by the inspiration of God.” And in his Scholia on
   Jerome’s preface to Daniel, he expresses his wonder that such stories as Bel
   and the Dragon should be publicly read in the churches. In his address to
   students of the Scriptures, he admonishes them to consider well, “That the
   church never intended to give the same authority to Tobit, Judith and
   Wisdom, which is given to the five books of Moses or the four
   Evangelists.”

   The last testimony which we shall adduce to show that these books were not
   universally nor commonly received, until the very time of the Council of
   Trent, is that of Cardinal Cajetan, the oracle of the church of Rome. In his
   commentaries on the Bible, he gives us this as the rule of the church—“That
   those books which were canonical with Jerome should be so with us; and that
   those which were not received as canonical by him should be considered as
   excluded by us.” And he says, “The church is much indebted to this Father
   for distinguishing between the books which are canonical and those which are
   not, for thus he has freed us from the reproach of the Hebrews, who
   otherwise might say that we had framed a new Canon for ourselves.” For this
   reason he would write no commentaries on these apocryphal books; “for,” says
   he, “Judith, Tobit, Maccabees, Wisdom, and the additions to Esther are all
   excluded from the Canon as insufficient to prove any matter of faith, though
   they may be read for the edifying of the people.”

   From the copious citations of testimonies which we have given, it is evident
   that the books in dispute are apocryphal, and have no right to a place in
   the Canon; and that the Council of Trent acted unwisely in decreeing, with
   an anathema annexed, that they should be received as divine. Surely no
   council can make that an inspired book which was not written by inspiration.
   Certainly these books did not belong to the Canon while the apostles lived,
   for they were unknown both to Jews and Christians. Sixtus Sinensis, a
   distinguished Romanist, acknowledges that it was long after the time of the
   apostles, that these writings came to the knowledge of the whole Christian
   church. But while this is conceded, it does not terminate the controversy,
   for among the many extraordinary claims of the Romish church, one of the
   most extraordinary is the authority to add to the Canon of Holy Scripture.
   It has been made sufficiently manifest that these apocryphal books were not
   included in the Canon during the first three centuries; and can it be
   doubted whether the Canon was fully constituted before the fourth century?
   To suppose that a Pope or a Council can make what books they please
   canonical, is too absurd to deserve a moment’s consideration. If, upon this
   principle, they could render Tobit and Judith canonical, upon the same they
   might introduce Herodotus, Livy, or even the Koran itself.
     _________________________________________________________________

   [18] Whether Melito, in his catalogue, by the word Wisdom, meant to
   designate a distinct book; or whether it was used as another name for
   Proverbs, seems doubtful. The latter has generally been understood to be the
   sense; and this accords with the understanding of the ancients; for Rufin,
   in his translation of this passage of Eusebius renders paroimiai ē sophaa
   Salomonis Proverbia, quæ est sapientia; that is, The Proverbs of Solomon,
   which is Wisdom. Pineda, a learned Romanist, says, “The word Wisdom should
   here be taken as explicative of the former, and should be understood to
   mean, The Proverbs.”

   [19] Euseb. Hist. Ecc. Lib. v. c. 24.

   [20] Origen’s catalogue of the books of the Old Testament is presented by
   Eusebius, in his Ecc. Hist. Lib. vi. c. 25.

   [21] It is a matter not agreed among the learned whether the “Synopsis”
   which has been ascribed to Athanasius was written by him. It is, however, an
   ancient work, and belongs to that age.

   [22] Proleg in Psalmos.

   [23] Epist. ad Theod. et Lib. Carm.

   [24] See Note B.
     _________________________________________________________________

SECTION V.

   INTERNAL EVIDENCE THAT THESE BOOKS ARE NOT CANONICAL—THE WRITERS NOT
   PROPHETS, AND DO NOT CLAIM TO BE INSPIRED.

   I COME now to the fifth argument to disprove the canonical authority of
   these books, which is derived from internal evidence. Books which contain
   manifest falsehoods; or which abound in silly and ridiculous stories; or
   contradict the plain and uniform doctrine of acknowledged Scripture, cannot
   be canonical. Now I will endeavour to show, that the books in dispute, are
   all, or most of them, condemned by this rule.

   In the book of Tobit, an angel of God is made to tell a palpable
   falsehood—“I am Azarias, the son of Ananias the great, and of thy
   brethren;” [25] by which Tobit was completely deceived, for he says, “Thou
   art of an honest and good stock.” Now in chapter xii. this same angel
   declares, “I am Raphael, one of the seven Holy Angels, which present the
   prayers of the saints, and go in and out before the glory of the Holy
   One.”

   Judith is represented as speaking scarcely anything but falsehood to
   Holofernes; but what is most inconsistent with the character of piety given
   her, is, that she is made to pray to the God of truth, in the following
   words, “Smite by the deceit of my lips, the servant with the prince, and the
   prince with the servant.” Who does not perceive, at once, the impiety of
   this prayer? It is a petition that he who holds in utter detestation all
   falsehood, should give efficacy to premeditated deceit. This woman, so
   celebrated for her piety, is also made to speak with commendation of the
   conduct of Simeon, in the cruel slaughter of the Shechemites; an act,
   against which God, in the Scriptures, has expressed his high displeasure.

   In the second book of Maccabees, Razis, an elder of Jerusalem, is spoken of
   with high commendation, for destroying his own life, rather than fall into
   the hands of his enemies; but, certainly, suicide is not, in any case,
   agreeable to the word of God.

   The author of the book of Wisdom, speaks in the name of Solomon, and talks
   about being appointed to build a temple in the holy mountain; whereas it has
   been proved by Jerome, that this book is falsely ascribed to Solomon.

   In the book of Tobit, we have this story: “And as they went on their journey
   they came to the river Tigris, and they lodged there; and when the young man
   went down to wash himself, a fish leaped out of the river, and would have
   devoured him. Then the angel said unto him, Take the fish. And the young man
   laid hold of the fish and drew it to land. To whom the angel said, Open the
   fish, and take the heart, and the liver, and the gall, and put them up
   safely. So the young man did as the angel commanded him, and when they had
   roasted the fish, they did eat it. Then the young man said unto the angel,
   Brother Azarias, to what use is the heart, and the liver, and the gall of
   the fish? And he said unto him, Touching the heart and the liver, if a
   devil, or an evil spirit trouble any, we must make a smoke thereof before
   the man or the woman, and the party shall be no more vexed. As for the gall,
   it is good to anoint a man that hath whiteness in his eyes; and he shall be
   healed.” [26] If this story does not savour of the fabulous, then it would
   be difficult to find anything that did.

   In the book of Baruch, there are also several things which do not appear to
   be true. Baruch is said to have read this book, in the fifth year after the
   destruction of Jerusalem, in the ears of the king, and all the people
   dwelling in Babylon, who upon hearing it, collected money and sent it to
   Jerusalem, to the priests. [27] Now Baruch, who is here alleged to have read
   this book in Babylon, is said, in the canonical Scriptures, to have been
   carried captive into Egypt, with Jeremiah, after the murder of Gedaliah.
   Jer. xliii. 6. Again, he is represented to have read in the ears of Jeconias
   the king, and of all the people; but Jeconias is known to have been shut up
   in prison, at this time, and it is nowise probable that Baruch would have
   access to him, if he even had been in Babylon. The money that was sent from
   Babylon was to enable the priests to offer sacrifices to the Lord, but the
   temple was in ruins, and there was no altar. [28]

   In the chapters added to the book of Esther, we read, that “Mardocheus, in
   the second year of Artaxerxes the Great, was a great man, being a servitor
   in the king’s court.” And in the same, “That he was also one of the captives
   which Nabuchodonosor carried from Jerusalem, with Jeconias, king of
   Judea.” Now, between these two periods, there intervened one hundred and
   fifty years; so that, if he was only fifteen years of age, when carried
   away, he must have been a servitor in the king’s court, at the age of one
   hundred and seventy-five years!

   Again, Mardocheus is represented as being “a great man in the court, in the
   second year of Artaxerxes,” before he detected the conspiracy against the
   king’s life. Now, Artaxerxes and Ahasuerus were the same, or they were not;
   if the former, this history clashes with the Scriptural account, for there
   it appears, that Mordecai was not, before this time, a courtier, or a
   conspicuous man; if the latter, then this addition is manifestly false,
   because it ascribes to Artaxerxes, what the Scriptures ascribe to another
   person.

   Moreover, this apocryphal writing places the conspiracy against the king’s
   life before the repudiation of Vashti and the marriage of Esther; but this
   is repugnant to the canonical Scriptures.

   It is also asserted, in this book, (see chap. xvi.) that Mardocheus received
   honours and rewards for the detection of the conspiracy; whereas, in the
   Canonical book of Esther, it is declared, that he received no reward. And a
   different reason is assigned, in the two books, for Haman’s hatred of
   Mordecai. In the canonical, it is his neglect of showing respect to this
   proud courtier; in the apocryphal, it is the punishment of the two eunuchs,
   who had formed the conspiracy.

   And finally, Haman, in this spurious work, is called a Macedonian; and it is
   said, that he meditated the design of transferring the Persian kingdom to
   the Macedonians. But this is utterly incredible. The kingdom of Macedon must
   have been, at that time, most obscure, and probably wholly unknown, at the
   Persian court. But this is not all: he who is here called a Macedonian, is
   in the canonical book said to be an Agagite. The proof of the apocryphal
   character of this addition to Esther, which has been adduced, is in all
   reason sufficient.

   The advocates of these books are greatly perplexed to find a place in the
   history of the Jewish nation, for the wonderful deliverance wrought by means
   of Judith. It seems strange that no allusion is made to this event in any of
   the acknowledged books of Scripture; and more unaccountable still, that
   Josephus, who was so much disposed to relate everything favourable to the
   character of his nation, should never make the least mention of it. Some
   refer this history to the period preceding the Babylonish captivity; while
   others are of opinion, that the events occurred in the time of Cambyses,
   king of Persia. But the name of the high priest here mentioned, does not
   occur with the names of the high priests contained in any of the
   genealogies. From the time of the building of the temple of Solomon, to its
   overthrow by the Assyrians, this name is not found in the list of high
   priests, as may be seen by consulting the vi. chapter of 1 Chronicles; nor,
   in the catalogue given by Josephus, in the tenth chapter of the tenth book
   of his Antiquities. That this history cannot be placed after the captivity,
   is manifest, from this circumstance, that the temple of Solomon was still
   standing when the transactions which are related in this book occurred.

   Another thing in the book of Judith, which is very suspicious, is, that
   Holofernes is represented as saying, “Tell me now, ye sons of Canaan, who
   this people is, that dwelleth in the hill country, and what are the cities
   that they inhabit.” But how can it be reconciled with known history, that a
   prince of Persia should be wholly ignorant of the Jewish people?

   It is impossible to reconcile what is said, in the close of the book, with
   any sound principles of chronology. Judith is represented as young and
   beautiful, when she slew Holofernes; but here it is said, “That she waxed
   old in her husband’s house, being an hundred and five years old. And there
   was none that made the children of Israel any more afraid, in the days of
   Judith nor a long time after her death.” In whose reign, or at what period,
   we would ask, did the Jews enjoy this long season of uninterrupted
   tranquillity?

   Some writers who are fully convinced that the history of Judith cannot be
   reconciled with authentic history, if taken literally, are of opinion, that
   it contains a beautiful allegory;—that Bethulia, (the virgin,) represents
   the church of God; that the assault of Nebuchadnezzar signifies the
   opposition of the world and its prince; that the victory obtained by a pious
   woman, is intended to teach, that the church’s deliverance is not effected
   by human might or power, but by the prayers and the piety of the saints, &c.
   This, perhaps, is the most favourable view which we can take of this
   history: but take it as you will, it is clear that the book is apocryphal,
   and has no right to a place in the sacred Canon.

   Between the first and second books of Maccabees, there is a palpable
   contradiction; for in the first book it is said, that “Judas died in the one
   hundred and fifty-second year:” but in the second, “that in the one hundred
   and eighty-eighth year, the people that were in Judea, and Judas, and the
   council, sent greeting and health unto Aristobulus.” Thus, Judas is made to
   join in sending a letter, six-and-thirty years after his death! The
   contradiction is manifest. In the same first chapter of the second book,
   there is a story inserted which has very much the air of a fable. “For when
   our fathers were led into Persia, the priests that were then devout, took
   the fire of the altar privily and hid it in a hollow place of a pit without
   water, where they kept it sure, so that the place was unknown to all men.
   Now after many years, when it pleased God, Nehemias, being sent from the
   king, of Persia, did send of the posterity of those priests that had hid it,
   to the fire: but when they told us they found no fire, but thick water, then
   commanded he them to draw it up and bring it, and when the sacrifice was
   laid on, Nehemias commanded the priests to sprinkle the wood and things laid
   thereon, with the water. When this was done and the time came that the sun
   shone, which before was hid in the clouds, a great fire was kindled.” 2 Mac.
   ix. But the Jews were not carried to Persia but to Babylon, and the rest of
   the story has no foundation, whatever, in truth.

   In the second chapter we have another fabulous story of Jeremiah’s taking
   the ark and altar, and altar of incense, to mount Pisgah, and hiding them in
   a hollow cave, and closing them up. This place Jeremiah declared should be
   unknown, “until the time that God gathered his people again together, and
   received them into mercy; when the cloud as it appeared unto Moses, should
   appear again.” 1 Mac. viii. 16.

   There is another contradiction between these books of Maccabees, in relation
   to the death of Antiochus Epiphanes. In the first, it is said, that he died
   at Elymais, in Persia, in the hundred and forty-ninth year; but, in the
   second book, it is related, that after entering Persepolis, with a view of
   overthrowing the temple and city, he was repulsed by the inhabitants; and
   while on his journey from this place, he was seized with a dreadful disease
   of the bowels, and died in the mountains. 1 Mac. vi.; 2 Mac. ix.

   Moreover, the accounts given of Nicanor, in the seventh chapter of the first
   book, and in the fourteenth and fifteenth chapters of the second book, are
   totally inconsistent. In the first book of Maccabees an erroneous account is
   given of the civil government of the Romans, where it is said, “That they
   committed their government to one man every year, who ruled over all their
   country, and that all were obedient to that one.” Whereas, it is well known,
   that no such form of government ever existed among the Romans.

   Finally, it is manifest that these books were not inspired, and therefore
   not canonical, because they were not written by prophets; but by men who
   speak of their labours in a way wholly incompatible with inspiration.

   Jerome and Eusebius were of opinion, that Josephus was the author of the
   books of the Maccabees; but it has never been supposed by any, that he was
   an inspired man; therefore, if this opinion be correct, these books are no
   more canonical, than the Antiquities, or Wars of the Jews, by the same
   author.

   It has been the constant tradition of Jews and Christians, that the spirit
   of prophecy ceased with Malachi, until the appearance of John the Baptist.
   Malachi has, on this account, been called by the Jews, “the seal of the
   prophets.”

   Josephus, in his book against Apion, after saying that it belonged to the
   prophets alone, to write inspired books, adds these words, “From the time of
   Artaxerxes, there were some among us, who wrote books even to our own times,
   but these are not of equal authority with the preceding, because the
   succession of prophets was not complete.”

   Eusebius, in giving a catalogue of the leaders of the Jews, denies that he
   can proceed any lower than Zerubbabel, “Because,” says he, “after the return
   from captivity until the advent of our Saviour, there is no book which can
   be esteemed sacred.”

   Augustine gives a similar testimony. “After Malachi the Jews had no prophet,
   during that whole period, which intervened between the return from captivity
   and the advent of our Saviour.”

   Neither does Genebrard dissent from this opinion. “From Malachi to John the
   Baptist,” says he, “no prophets existed.”

   Drusius cites the following words, from the Compiler of the Jewish History,
   “’ The rest of the discourses of Simon and his wars, and the wars of his
   brother, are they not written in the book of Joseph, the son of Gorion, and
   in the book of the Asmoneans, and in the books of the Roman kings?” Here the
   books of the Maccabees are placed between the writings of Josephus and the
   Roman history.

   The book of Wisdom does indeed claim to be the work of Solomon, an inspired
   man; but this claim furnishes the strongest ground for its condemnation. It
   is capable of the clearest proof from internal evidence, that this was the
   production of some person, probably a Hellenistic Jew, who lived long after
   the Canon of the Old Testament was completed. It contains manifest allusions
   to Grecian customs, and is tinctured with the Grecian philosophy. The manner
   in which the author praises himself is fulsome, and has no parallel in an
   inspired writer. This book has been ascribed to Philo Judæus; and if this
   conjecture be correct, doubtless it has no just claim to be considered a
   canonical book. But whoever was the author, his endeavouring to pass his
   composition off for the writing of Solomon, is sufficient to decide every
   question respecting his inspiration. If Solomon had written this book, it
   would have been found in the Jewish Canon, and in the Hebrew language. The
   writer is also guilty of shameful flattery to his own nation, which is
   entirely repugnant to the spirit of all the prophets. He has also, without
   any foundation, added many things to the sacred narration, contained in the
   canonical history; and has mingled with it much which is of the nature of
   poetical embellishment. And, indeed, the whole style of the composition
   savours too much of artificial eloquence, to be attributed to the Spirit of
   God; the constant characteristic of whose productions is, simplicity and
   sublimity.

   Ecclesiasticus, which is superior to all the other apocryphal books, was
   written by one Jesus the son of Sirach. His grandfather, of the same name,
   it seems, had written a book, which he left to his son Sirach; and he
   delivered it to his son Jesus, who took great pains to reduce it into order;
   but he no where assumes the character of a prophet himself, nor does he
   claim it for the original author, his grandfather. In the prologue, he says.
   “My grandfather, Jesus, when he had much given himself to the reading of the
   law and the prophets, and other books of our fathers, and had gotten therein
   good judgment, was drawn on also himself to write something pertaining to
   learning and wisdom, to the intent that those which are desirous to learn,
   and are addicted to these things, might profit much more, in living
   according to the law. Wherefore let me entreat you to read it with favour
   and attention, and to pardon us wherein we may seem to come short of some
   words which we have laboured to interpret. For the same things uttered in
   Hebrew, and translated into another tongue, have not the same force in them.
   For in the eight-and-thirtieth year, coming into Egypt when Euergetes was
   king, and continuing there for some time, I found a book of no small
   learning: therefore I thought it most necessary for me to bestow some
   diligence and travail to interpret it; using great watchfulness, and skill,
   in that space, to bring the book to an end,” &c. Surely there is no need of
   further arguments to prove that this modest author did not claim to be
   inspired.

   The author of the second book of the Maccabees professes to have reduced a
   work of Jason of Cyrene, consisting of five volumes, into one volume.
   Concerning which work, he says, “therefore to us that have taken upon us
   this painful labour of abridging, it was not easy, but a matter of sweat and
   watching.” Again, “leaving to the author the exact handling of every
   particular, and labouring to follow the rules of an abridgment—to stand upon
   every point, and go over things at large, and to be curious in particulars,
   belongeth to the first author of the story; but to use brevity, and avoid
   much labouring of the work, is to be granted to him that maketh an
   abridgment.” Is any thing more needed to prove that this writer did not
   profess to be inspired? If there was any inspiration in the case, it must be
   attributed to Jason of Cyrene, the original writer of the history;—but his
   work is long since lost, and we now possess only the abridgment which cost
   the writer so much labour and pains. Thus, I think it sufficiently appears,
   that the authors of these disputed books were not prophets; and that, as far
   as we can ascertain the circumstances in which they wrote, they did not lay
   claim to inspiration, but expressed themselves in such a way, as no man
   under the influence of inspiration ever did.

   The Popish writers, to evade the force of the arguments of their
   adversaries, pretend that there was a two-fold Canon; that some of the books
   of Scripture are proto-canonical; and others deutero-canonical. If, by this
   distinction, they only meant that the word Canon was often used by the
   Fathers, with great latitude, so as to include all books that were ever read
   in the churches, or that were contained in the volume of the Greek Bible,
   the distinction is correct, and signifies the same, as is often expressed,
   by calling some books sacred and canonical, and others, ecclesiastical. But
   these writers make it manifest that they mean much more than this. They wish
   to put their deutero-canonical books, on a level with the old Jewish Canon;
   and this distinction is intended to teach, that after the first Canon was
   constituted, other books were, from time to time, added: but when these
   books thus annexed to the Canon have been pronounced upon by the competent
   authority, they are to be received as of equal authority with the former.
   When this second Canon was constituted, is a matter concerning which they
   are not agreed; some pretend, that in the time of Shammai and Hillel, two
   famous rabbies, who lived before the advent of the Saviour, these books were
   added to the Canon. But why then are they not included in the Hebrew Canon?
   Why does Josephus never mention them? Why are they never quoted nor alluded
   to in the New Testament? And why did all the earlier Fathers omit to cite
   them, or expressly reject them? The difficulties of this theory being too
   prominent, the most of the advocates of the apocrypha, suppose, that these
   books, after having remained in doubt before, were received by the supreme
   authority of the church, in the fourth century. They allege, that these
   books were sanctioned by the council of Nice, and by the third council of
   Carthage, which met A. D. 397. But the story of the method pursued by the
   council of Nice, to distinguish between canonical and spurious books, is
   fabulous and ridiculous. There is nothing in the Canons of that council
   relative to these books; and certainly, they cited no authorities from them,
   in confirmation of the doctrines established by them. And as to the third
   council of Carthage, it may be asked, what authority had this provincial
   synod to determine anything for the whole church, respecting the Canon? But
   there is no certainty that this council did determine anything on the
   subject; for in the same Canon, there is mention made of Pope Boniface, as
   living at that time, whereas he did not rise to this dignity, until more
   than twenty years afterwards; in which time, three other popes occupied the
   See of Rome; so that this Canon could not have been formed by the third
   council of Carthage. And in some copies it is inserted, as the fourteenth of
   the seventh council of Carthage. However this may be, we may be confident,
   that no council of the fourth century had any authority to add to the Canon
   of Scripture, books which were not only not received before, but explicitly
   rejected as apocryphal, by most of the Fathers. Our opponents say, that
   these books were uncertain before, but now received confirmation. How could
   there be any uncertainty, in regard to these books, if the church was as
   infallible, in the first three ages, as in the fourth. These books were
   either canonical before the fourth century, or they were not: if the former,
   how came it to pass that they were not recognized by the apostles? How came
   they to be overlooked and rejected by the primitive Fathers? But if they
   were not canonical before, they must have been made canonical by the decree
   of some council. That is, the church can make that an inspired book, which
   was never given by inspiration. This absurdity was mentioned before, but it
   deserves to be repeated, because, however unreasonable it may be, it forms
   the true, and almost the only ground, on which the doctrine of the Romish
   church, in regard to these apocryphal books, rests. This is, indeed, a part
   of the Pope’s supremacy, Some of their best writers, however, deny this
   doctrine; and whatever others may pretend, it is most certain, that the
   Fathers, with one consent, believed that the Canon of sacred Scripture was
   complete in their time: they never dreamed of books not then canonical,
   becoming such, by any authority upon earth. Indeed, the idea of adding to
   the Canon, what did not, from the beginning, belong to it, never seems to
   have entered the mind of any person in former times. If this doctrine were
   correct, we might still have additions made to the Canon, and that too, of
   books which have existed for hundreds of years.

   This question may be brought to a speedy issue, with all unprejudiced
   judges. These books were either written by divine inspiration for the
   guidance of the church in matters of faith and practice, or they were not;
   if the former, they always had a right to a place in the Canon; if the
   latter, no act of a pope or council could render that divine, which was not
   so before. It would be to change the nature of a fact, than which nothing is
   more impossible.

   It is alleged, with much confidence, that the Greek Bibles, used by the
   Fathers, contained these books; and, therefore, whenever they give their
   testimony to the sacred Scriptures, these are included. This argument proves
   too much, for the third book of Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses were
   contained in these volumes, but these are rejected by the Romanists. The
   truth, however, is, that these books were not originally connected with the
   Septuagint; they were probably introduced into some of the later Greek
   versions, which were made by heretics. These versions, particularly that of
   Theodotion, came to be used promiscuously with that of the LXX; and to this
   day, the common copies contain the version of the book of Daniel by
   Theodotion, instead of that by the LXX.

   By some such means, these apocryphal books crept into the Greek Bible; but
   the early Fathers were careful to distinguish them from the canonical
   Scriptures, as we have already seen. That they were read in the churches, is
   also true; but not as Scripture; not for the confirmation of doctrine, but
   for the edification of the common people.

   Some of the Fathers, it is true, cited them as authority, but very seldom,
   and the reason which rendered it difficult for them to distinguish
   accurately between ecclesiastical and canonical books has already been
   given. These pious men were generally unacquainted with Hebrew literature,
   and finding all these books in Greek, and frequently bound up in the same
   volume with the canonical Scriptures, and observing that they contained
   excellent rules for the direction of life and the regulation of morals, they
   sometimes referred to them, and cited pass