We read also of "the book of Samuel the seer," and "the book of Nathan the prophet ;" and "the book of Gad the seer."* Mention is also made of the book of "Jasher;" and of the book of " the wars of the Lord," &c.t

In answer to this objection it will be sufficient to remark, that there is no evidence that these compositions of Solomon were ever written, as the text only says, that he spake these things; but supposing them to have been written, there is no evidence that they were ever intended to be a part of the sacred canon; or that these compositions were inspired: for it is not necessary to suppose that either prophets or apostles had inspiration to direct them in all matters of common life, or in writing on subjects of natural science.

But in regard to the books of certain prophets and seers, it is highly probable, that those men assisted in writing the historical books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles.

And as to the book of Jasher, and the book of th wars of the Lord, too little is known about them to authorize us to think that they formed a part of the ancient canon; unless we adopt the opinion, that we still possess them under other names. Here it may with propriety be observed, that the Hebrew word for book, is used to signify any list or genealogy; and, accordingly, it is the opinion of judicious commentators, that the "book of the wars of the Lord," was nothing but a muster-roll of the army. And the book of "Jasher" (rectitude) may have been a compend of moral rules derived from the Scriptures; or a manual (not inspired,) composed by the wise for the conduct of life. The mere mention of a book, or citation of a sentence from it, by no means gives it a place in the canon.

There is no probability that any of the canonical books could have been lost from the Old Testament, when we consider with what religious, and even superstitious care, they have been kept and transcribed by the Jewish scribes.

* 1 Chron. xxix. 29, 30.

+ 1 Sam. i. 18. Num. xxi. 14.

The Rabbis among the Jews view this matter as we do: they never complain, nor even hint, that the sacred volume had been mutilated.

And the unqualified testimony in favour of the Old Testament scriptures by Christ and his apostles, already referred to, ought to be decisive on this point, if all other evidence was wanting.

CHAPTER XVIII.

THE BOOKS DENOMINATED APOCRYPHAL HAVE NO JUST CLAIM TO A PLACE AMONG THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.

THE word Apocrypha probably signifies that which is hidden, obscure, without authority. It is employed to designate such writings as claim a place in the canon, without possessing sufficient evidence to substantiate their claims. This word is said to have been first used by Melito, bishop of Sardis, in the second century. The subject acquires great importance from the fact, that it was formerly and is now a matter of earnest controversy, between Romanists and Protestants, whether certain books which are frequently included in Greek and Latin copies of the Bible, are canonical, or should be considered apocryphal. The number of books in dispute is six, namely, TOBIT, JUDITH, WISDOM, ECCLESIASTICUs, BaRUCH, and the Two BOOKS OF MACCABEES; and also, some additional chapters annexed to the book of Esther, which are not in the Hebrew; and to the book of Daniel, the History of Susannah, and the Song of the Three Children are prefixed, and the History of Bel and the Dragon is annexed. These books, and portions of books, are likewise placed at the end of the Old Testament, in our larger English Bibles, under the name APOCRYPHA.

The council of Trent, which sat in the sixteenth

century, have given a catalogue of the canonical books of Scripture, in which those above mentioned are included; and they are inserted promiscuously with the other books, in the editions of the Latin Vulgate, and in all other versions prepared by members of the Roman Catholic Church. They consider all copies of the Bible imperfect and mutilated, in which these books are not found; and this has created a great obstacle to the circulation of the Scriptures among the people of that persuasion, as Protestant Bible societies have come to a resolution not to circulate Bibles which contain those books which they deem apocryphal.

To show that these books are not canonical, but apocryphal, the following arguments are deemed sufficient.

1. These books are not found in the Hebrew Bible; nor are they written in the Hebrew tongue, but in the Greek or Chaldaic. For the proof of this fact we have the testimony of Jerome, a competent witness, who translated several of them into Latin. There is strong reason to believe, that all these books were composed originally in the Greek language, which was unknown to the Jews until after the canon of the Old Testament was closed. It has been always the current opinion, both among Jews and Christians, that Malachi was the last of the Old Testament writers; and books written by uncertain authors after the spirit of prophecy had ceased, have no just claim to a place in the sacred canon. The date of the composition of these books cannot be accurately fixed; but that it occurred long after the time of Ezra and Malachi, there can be no ground of reasonable doubt.

2. A second argument is, that these disputed books have never been acknowledged by the Jews to be of divine authority, nor have by them been admitted into the canon; and they are the best judges of what books properly belonged to their sacred Scriptures. If these books had been of divine authority, the fact would have been known to the Jewish Church, to which "the oracles of God were committed." And

if they had ever belonged to the canon, they would not have been left out afterwards.

The opinion of the ancient and modern Jews on this point is the same; and there is among them no diversity of opinion respecting this matter. Josephus, in a passage already quoted, declares, "that no more than twenty-two books were received as inspired by his nation." And although Philo Judæus refers often to the Old Testament, and comments largely on its contents in his writings, he never makes the least mention of any one of these books.

But if the ancient Jews knew any thing of these books as a part of their sacred canon, we should certainly find it in the voluminous writings of the Talmud; but not one of these books is recognized as canonical in this great body of Jewish traditions. It may certainly be inferred, therefore, that they were not considered canonical by the ancient Jews.

And the more modern Jews are so far from acknowledging them, that their testimony is expressly against them. Rabbi Azariah says, "they are received by Christians, not by us." He means Romanists, who acknowledged them as we have seen. And Rabbi Gedaliah, as quoted by Hottinger, has the following testimony. After giving a catalogue of inspired books received by the Jews, he goes on to say, "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 are 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."

Rabbi Azariah, before mentioned, ascribes THE WISDOM OF SOLOMON to Philo. And Rabbi Gedaliah observes, "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 part of the east." "But," says he, "Ezra only put his hand to such books as were published by the prophets under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and written in the sacred language. And our wise men prudently and delib

erately resolved to sanction none but such as were established by him." "Their wise men," says Buxtorf, "pronounced this book to be apocryphal."

The book called ECCLESIASTICUS, is expressly numbered among apocryphal books in the Talmud; where it is said, "In the book of the son of Sirach it is forbidden to read." And Manasseh ben Israel, one of the most learned of the modern Jews, observes, "that those things which are alleged from a verse in Ecclesiasticus, are nothing to the purpose, because this is an apocryphal book." In the same way, they are wont to speak of all these books; and Jerome informs us, that he heard one of the Jews deriding the history of Susannah, who said it was invented by some Greek, he knew not whom." It is unnecessary to add further testimonies, because the fact that the Jews never did receive the apocrypha as a part of their canon, cannot be denied.

3. The third argument against the canonical authority of the aforementioned books, is, that they are never cited or referred to as a part of sacred Scripture, in the whole of the New Testament. We are aware that on this point we are at issue with the Roman Catholics. They even pretend to prove their right to a place in the canon, from quotations said to be made from them by Paul. One of the passages alleged is, "For who hath known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counsellor ?" And the other is, "For before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God."+ But both these passages are taken from the canonical books of the Old Testament; and there is no reason to think that the apostle had any thought of the apocrypha when he cited these texts.

1

*

4. The fourth argument against the divine authority of these books is, that they were not received as inspired by the Christian fathers; but were expressly rejected from the sacred canon, almost with one consent, by those who were best qualified to judge of their claims. In all the catalogues drawn up by

*Rom. xi. 34.

† Heb. xi. 5.