though Moses, for example, may not have written his books exactly in the manner in which they appear at present, he may still be said to have written them; and Jesus properly speaks.) A book therefore of the Old or New of what Moses wrote. The books which bear his name are undoubtedly composed from very ancient, credible, and authentic narratives, which breathe every where the very spirit of the ancient world. They are his writings, although they may have been arranged, and sometimes perhaps newly modelled, by another hand. The same may be said with respect to the writings of Homer, and many others. They were collected and modelled anew, some time after they were originally composed, and yet their authenticity as a whole remains unimpaired. Vide Wolf, Prolegg. ad Homerum.

They take pains to preserve their text, or to restore it when it has become corrupt; they shew the distinction between genuine and spurious writings, and they make collections, or lists, comprising only those which are genuine, and among these only the more eminent and distinguished. Such persons appeared anciently among the Israelites, and afterwards among Christians. And such among the Greeks were the grammarians of Alexandria, under the Ptolemies. They distinguished between the genuine and spurious works of Grecian literature, and composed catalogues (canones) of the best among the former. The books admitted into their canon were called εγκρινόμενοι (classici), and the books excluded, ixxpirouevo. The excluded writings were of course less used, and have since mostly perished. Vide Ruhnken, Historia Oratorum Græcorum critica, p. xcvi. Quintillian, (I. O.) I. 4, s. 3, and Spalding, ad h. 1. These remarks illustrate the origin of the collection of the holy scriptures.

II. The Completion of the Canon of the Old

ment after the Babylonian Exile.

common use. The canon of the Old Testament was closed as soon, certainly, as the reign of the Syrian king, Antiochus Epiphanes, and probably somewhat before. After this time the spirit of prophecy ceased, and no new writings were added to the approved collection. What was done by the Grecian grammarians under Ptolemy, towards securing the existence and literary authority of Grecian works, by the establishment of the canon of the Greek classics, was done by the Jews, after their return from exile, towards securing the existence and religious authority of Hebrew books, by the establishment of the canon of the Hebrew scriptures.

The books belonging to this collection were the only ones translated as sacred national books by the first translators of the Old Testament, the authors of the Septuagint. But to some manuscripts of this version, other books, apocryphal, as they are called, were found appended. From this circumstance some have supposed that the Egyptian Jews had a different canon from those of Palestine, and included in it the apocryphal Testa-books, as of equal authority with the rest. This was the opinion of Semler; but it cannot be shewn from Josephus or Philo that the Egyptian Jews, though they held the apocryphal books in high esteem, both before and after the commencement of the Christian era, ever thought them of equal authority with the canonical books. Philo, in the first century, does not once mention them, although Sirach wrote about 237 years before the birth of Christ. They cannot, therefore, have been counted, even by the Egyptian Jews of the first century, among the books of the Old Testament. Besides, they were never cited by the apostles, who, however, always follow the Septuagint. During the second century, Sirach was held in high esteem among the fathers; and gradually he and the other apocryphal writers obtained great authority in the churches. At a still later period they were admitted into the canon by Christian writers, who mistook their high reputation for divine authority. Vide No. III. Cf. Eichhorn, Einleitung in das A. T. Th. I., and also in die apokryphischen Schriften des A. T. Leipzig 1795; Storr, in the work above mentioned, p 71, ff.; especially Jahn, Einleitung in die göttlichen Schriften des alten Bundes, Wien, 1802. The latter work contains a full examination of the latest objections.

It is a current tradition among the Jews that the complete collection of their sacred books was made by Ezra. Another tradition, however, ascribes the establishment of the canon to Nehemiah, 2 Macc. ii. 13. But neither of these traditions is supported by sure historical evidence. It cannot be doubted, however, that in so important a work as the collection and arrangement of their sacred books, the priests, and lawyers, and all the leading men of the nation, must have been unitedly engaged, as the grainmarians of Alexandria were, in determining the Greek classics. And it is very probable that both of the distinguished men above mentioned may have had a principal share in this undertaking.

Our collection of the Old-Testament scriptures appears to have originated somewhat in the following manner:-When the Jews returned from captivity, and re-established divine worship, they collected the sacred books which they still possessed, and commenced with them a sacred library, as they had done before with the book of the law. To this collection they afterwards added the writings of Zachariah, Malachi, and other distinguished prophets and priests, who wrote during the captivity, or shortly after; and also the books of Kings, Chronicles, and other historical writings, which had been compiled from the ancient records of the nation.

The collection thus made was ever after considered complete; and the books composing it were called THE Holy ScriptureS, THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS, &c. It was now circulated by means of transcripts, and came gradually into

Can it be shewn by historical evidence that all the books which now stand in this collection belonged to it originally? Of most of these books this can be satisfactorily shewn; but respecting some particular books it cannot be ascertained from historical records, either that they belonged to the collection originally, or at what time they were received as canonical; for no complete list of all our canonical books cau

be gathered from the works of the oldest Jewish | allow to Christ the authority which he claimed writers.

The following observations, however, may enable us to come to some conclusion:-(1) We see from Sirach, xlv.—xlix., that most of these books belonged to his canon. (2) The citations which Philo, in the first century, makes from the Old Testament, shew that most of these books belonged also to his collection. (3) But Josephus has left a list of the books, of which, at his time, the collection was composed; but there is some obscurity attending the passage, Contra Apionem, I. 8, in which this catalogue is contained. We cannot be certain from this passage that Josephus intended to include the books of Chronicles, Ezra, Esther, and Nehemiah, in his catalogue; though the probability is that he did. Vide Eichhorn, Einleitung, Th. I. s. 113. (4) The frequent citations which the evangelists and prophets made from these books render it certain that most of them belonged to the canon at the time of Christ. The passage, Matt. xxiii. 35, coll. Luke, xi. 51, de- | serves to be specially noticed. Christ here declares that the Jews should be punished for the murder of all the just men who had been slain from Abel (Gen. iv. 8) to Zachariah, 2 Chron. xxiv. 21, 22. From this passage we are led to conclude that the disputed book of Chronicles not only belonged to the canon of the Old Testament at the time of Christ, but that it was then, as it is now, placed last in the collection. (5) Add to this, that these disputed books are contained, as belonging to the canon, in the Alexandrine version.

Note. Since the free inquiry respecting some of the books of the Old Testament, which Oeder published at Halle, 1771, many protestant theologians have employed themselves in suggesting doubts respecting the genuineness of some of the canonical Hebrew scriptures, and in attempting to prove them to be either spurious, uncertain, or adulterated. Among these theologians, De Wette is the latest. They commenced the attack upon the books of Esther, Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah; proceeded to Isaiah (xl.—lx.) and other prophets, and then to the books of Moses; against the genuineness of all of which they arrayed specious objections, and finally endeavoured to subvert the foundation of the whole canon of the Old Testament. The student can become acquainted with the principal modern writers who have either assailed or advocated the canon of the Old Testament, and with the principal arguments used on both sides, from Jahn's Introduction to the Old Testament, and the theological work of Storr and Flatt, which notice all, except perhaps a few of the very latest objections.

To all these objections but few Christians are able to give a satisfactory answer. But if they

|

|

for himself, and which the apostles ascribed to him, they can relieve their minds from doubts by the considerations already suggested in s. 3, II. 5, and by those which here follow.

III. The Reception of this Canon by Christians.

Since the primitive Christians received the books of the Old Testament from the Israelites, they may naturally be supposed to have admitted into their collection all the books which belonged to the canon of the contemporary Jews. It has been always said, from the earliest times of the church, that Christians received the books of the Old Testament on the simple testimony of Christ and his apostles; and whatever some Christians may think of the authority of this testimony, they must allow that it is at least important in ascertaining the canon of the Hebrew scriptures. But to this testimony it has been objected, especially in modern times, (a) that it did not extend to all the books of the Old Testament; for example, to the books of Esther, Nehemiah, &c.; and (b) that it cannot be regarded as decisive, because Christ and his apostles made it no part of their object to examine critically the history of the Hebrew scriptures; and made the Old Testament the basis of their own instructions only because it was regarded as the source of religious knowledge by the Jews among whom they taught.

But it appears from No. II. that the whole collection existed at the time of Christ and his apostles, and indeed for some time previous, and that it was approved by them. Whoever, therefore, acknowledges them to be divine teachers, must receive the books of the Old Testament on their authority. If he refuses to do this, he is either inconsistent in rejecting the authority of those whom he acknowledges to be divine teachers, or dishonest in acknowledging Christ and his apostles to be divine teachers, while he really does not believe them to be such.

After the times of the apostles, the fathers of the church disagreed with respect to the books belonging to the canon of the Old-Testament scriptures. (1) The fathers of Palestine, their disciples, and others who were acquainted with the original Hebrew, or the tradition of the Jews, composed catalogues containing all the books which belong to our Bible. This was done in the second century, by Melito, bishop of Sardis, cited in Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. IV. 26; by Origen, cited VI. 25 of the same history; by Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. IV.; by Gregory Nazianzen, Athanasius, and Epiphanius. (2) But some of the fathers included the apocryphal writings, which are usually appended to the Alexandrine version, among the canonical books. They, at least, ascribed to these writings a great

authority, and called them So although they | habentur, pro sacris et canonicis non susciperit, were never considered as divine by the Jews, et traditiones prædictas, sciens et prudens conwho lived either before or at the time of Christ, temserit, anathema sit." Sess. IV. Decr. I. and were never quoted by the writers of the The more candid and enlightened theologians New Testament or by Philo. Vide No. II. of the Romish church have, however, never alThese fathers believed the fable of the inspira-lowed quite the same authority to the apocryphal tion of the Septuagint; and finding the apocry- as to the canonical scriptures; and have adoptphal books appended to this version, and ined the convenient division of the books into prohigh repute among the Egyptian Jews of the tocanonici and deuterocanonici, in the latter of second century, they considered them, at length, which they place the apocryphal writings. as divine, and placed them on a level with the Cf. Morus, p. 38. canonical books. The Egyptian fathers, Clemens of Alexandria and Irenæus, first adopted this opinion, in which, as in many other things, they were followed by the Latin fathers. At the council at Hippo, in the year 393, in can. 36, and at the third council at Carthage, in the year 397, can. 47, the apocryphal books were, for the first time, expressly included inter scripturas canonicus. This decision was then received by the African fathers, and generally in the western church.

SECTION V.

OF THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, OR THE
COLLECTION OF THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TES-
TAMENT INTO A WHOLE.

I. Origin of this Collection.

It was natural that the first Christians, who had been in the habit of using a collection of the sacred books of the Jews, should feel induced to institute a similar collection of their own sacred books. This was the more necessary, as many spurious writings, which were ascribed to the apostles, were in circulation, and even publicly read and used in the churches. Even during the life of the apostles, such spurious writings were palmed upon them by impos

But there were some of the fathers of the Latin church who carefully distinguished the apocryphal from the canonical books. Hieronymus, in his Prologus Galeatus, says respecting the Book of Wisdom, &c., non sunt in canone. In his Præf. in libros Salomonis, he says, “Hæc duo volumina (ecclesiasticum et sapien-tors, 2 Thess. ii. 2; Col. iii. 17. In consequence tiam) legat ecclesia ad ædificationem plebis, non ad auctoritatem ecclesiasticorum dogmatum confirmandam." Hence the books properly belonging to the Old Testament were called libri canonici, and the apocryphal books, libri ecclesiastici. Rufinus, Expositio Symboli Apost., after enumerating the canonical books of the Old Testament, says, "Hæc sunt quæ patres intra canonem concluserunt, et ex quibus fidei nostræ assertiones constare voluerunt: sciendum tamen est, quod et alii libri sunt, qui non sunt canonici, sed ecclesiastici a majoribus appellati." He then enumerates them, and adds, 66 Quæ omnia legi quidem in ecclesia voluerunt, non tamen proferri ad auctoritatem ex his fidei confirmandam."

But after all, the Romish church, through ignorance of the subject, placed the apocryphal books on a level with the canonical, and even appealed to them as authority on the doctrines of the Bible. They were induced to do this the more, from the consideration that some of the peculiar doctrines of their church were favoured by some passages in these books; intercession for the dead, for example, by the passage 2 Macc. xii. 43–45. Accordingly the council at Trent, in the sixteenth century, set aside the distinction between the canonical and apocryphal books, and closed its decretal by saying, "Si quis autem libros ipsos integros, cum omnibus suis partibus, prout in ecclesia catholica legi consueverunt, et in veteri vulgata Latina editione

of these circumstances, Christians were induced very early to commence the collection of their sacred books into a complete whole, with particular reference to Christian posterity, which otherwise would have had a very groundless and disfigured Christianity. Vide Introduction, s. 7, ad finem. Into this collection only such writings were admitted as were considered to be the genuine productions of the apostles and first disciples of Christ; although many other books were still regarded as canonical, in the old ecclesiastical sense of the word, and were still publicly read in Christian assemblies. Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. III. 3, and others of the ancient fathers, said expressly that many books were ἀναγινωσκόμενοι, which were not ἐνδιάθηκοι (yxpivóμevoi.) Thus the epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the sermon of Peter, were used in Egypt; and even in the fifth century, the revelation of Peter, in Palestine.

But with respect to the manner in which this collection originated, and with respect to those who were chiefly instrumental in forming it, we can obtain only very disconnected and imperfect information from the history of the church during the first centuries. The information which we possess on these points is, however, more complete than that which relates to the canon of the Old Testament; and indeed amounts to a satisfactory degree of evidence.

In order to confirm the credibility and genuineness of the collection, it was formerly sup

posed that some inspired man must have either | which he knew to be genuine. The same was