TEEN books. The remaining FOUR books contain hymns to God, and instructions of life for the use of men." Here the number and the description of the books, considered of divine authority, furnish satisfactory testimony, that the canon of the Jews in the time of our Saviour corresponds entirely with ours.

At first view it might seem, that we had many more than two and twenty books in the volume of the Old Testament; but this difficulty will be easily removed, when it is considered, that the Jews always reckoned the twelve minor prophets as one book; and the book of Ruth they considered an appendage to Judges, and the Lamentations of Jeremiah an appendage to his prophecy. Thus the number will be reduced exactly to twenty-two.

We have, besides, the direct testimony of early Christian writers. MELITO, bishop of Sardis, who lived in the second century, took the trouble of making a journey into Judea, to inquire into this matter; and although his own work has not come down to us, Eusebius has preserved his catalogue of the books of the Old Testament; from which it appears that the sacred canon contained then the very same books which are now included in it.

To Melito we may add the testimony of Origen, who spent much of his time in a place near to Judea, and who was skilled in the Hebrew tongue. This learned man has left a catalogue of the books of the Old Testament, which perfectly corresponds with our canon, except that he has omitted the twelve minor prophets; which book, however, he recognizes in other places as a part of the sacred volune.

Besides having catalogues by many other of the fathers, we have the testimony of two councils; that of Laodicea, and of Carthage; both of which made out catalogues of the books of the Old Testament. which are in perfect accordance with the canon as now constituted.

If other proof were needed, it might be found in the Samaritan Pentateuch, as far as the law is concerned; and in the Septuagint version, which con

tains al .ne books which are now in the Old Testament, in the Hebrew Bibles. This version was made nearly three centuries before the birth of Christ, and had long been in general and familiar use, even in the land of Judea. It is true, that this version, as it has come down to us, while it comprehends all the books now in the canon, includes what is called the apocrypha; therefore, while it furnishes full proof that nothing has been taken away, we cannot refer to it for proof that nothing has been added. But the inquiry respecting the apocryphal books, which claim a place in the canon, will be taken up in the next chapter.

Further proof of the canon of the Old Testament might be derived from the early versions made soon after the commencement of the Christian era; particularly the Syriac, and Latin Vulgate; as also from the quotations of the early Christian writers; from the Targums, which contain a paraphrase of all the books of the Old Testament in Chaldee. And abun

dant evidence of the same thing might be drawn from the Talmud, which contains the oral law of the Jews. But as what has already been adduced is sufficient, we deem it unnecessary to multiply proofs in a matter so evident.

Having shown that our canon of the Old Testament is the same as that which existed in the time of our Saviour, to which he gave his full and emphatic approbation, it follows of course, that none of the books which ever made a part of the sacred volume have been lost. But here we are met with an objection derived from the Old Testament itself, where several books are spoken of and referred to, which cannot now be found. For example, it is said of Solomon, "that he spake three thousand proverbs, and his songs were a thousand and five. And he spake of the trees, from the cedar in Lebanon even unto the hyssop that springeth out of the wall; he spake also of beasts, and of fowl, and of creeping things, and of the fishes."*

* 1 Kings iv. 32, 33.

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 the 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

And

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. 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, oy 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 ard 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 atter 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 Dooks, 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 cir culate 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 cominitted." And