which could not have extended to more than two centuries before that event. At what particular time each of them was written it would be difficult at Jerom, declares, that he had inquired among the Jews themselves, (namely those of Judæa) about the books of Tobit and Judith, and had learnt that those books did not then exist among them. Ἑβραῖοι τῷ Τωβίᾳ οὐ χρῶνται, οὐδὲ τῇ Ιουδήθ· οὐδὲ γὰρ ἔχουσιν αὐτὰ καὶ ἐν ἀποκρύφοις ἑβραϊστὶ, ὡς ἀπ ̓ αὐτῶν μαθόντες ἐγνώκαμεν. Ep. ad Africanum Cap. 13. tom. I. p. 26. ed Benedict. And we know that in modern times the book of Tobit has been translated into Hebrew, as appears from the editions of Fagius and Münster. That the book of Baruch had an oriental origin, must be mere conjecture, for Jerom, in his Preface to Jeremiah says, Librum autem Baruch, notarii ejus, qui apud Hebræos nec legitur nec habetur prætermisimus, (tom. I. p. 554. ed. Benedict.)—Of the book of Wisdom says Jerom, "apud Hebræos nusquam est ; quia et ipse stylus Græcam eloquentiam redolet. (Ib. p. 938.)— That no other book of Esdras, than the two first, called Ezra and Nehemiah, had either a Hebrew or a Chaldee origin, appears from Jerom's Préface to Ezra and Nehemiah. He uses even the strong expression, "nec apocryphorum tertii et quarti somniis delectetur." (Ib. p. 1106.)—Of the book of Daniel says Jerom, "apud Hebræos, nec Susannæ habes historiam, nec hymnum trium "puerorum, nec Belis draconisque fabulas." (Ib. p.990.) Indeed the Story of Susanna betrays its Greek origin by the play on the words ex and oxlou in ver. 55, and on the words πpívov and pioa in ver. 59.-That the additions made in the Septuagint to the book of Esther had any other than a Greek origin, is in the highest degree improbable. Jerom, in his Preface to the book of Esther addresses his readers in the following terms, "Tenentes "Esther Hebraicum librum per singula verba nostram transla

tionem aspicite; ut possitis agnoscere me nihil etiam augmen"tasse addendo, sed fideli testimonio simpliciter, sicut in Hebræo "habetur, historiam Hebraicam Latinæ linguæ tradidisse." (Ib. 1138.) Origen also (Ep. ad Africanum cap. 3.) mentions several of those additions by name, and describes them as wλɛíová mag' ἡμῖν κείμενα ἢ παρ' Εβραίοις. Now if the additional parts of Esther ever had existed in Hebrew, the Jews of Palestine would surely have retained them. Of the prayer of Manasses no one ever

Con

present to determine: but it is probable, that their insertion in the Septuagint took place in the same gradual manner, as the books themselves appeared and were approved. Their insertion may be ascribed to the Greek Jews, resident at Alexandria and other parts of Egypt, who were desirous of preserving every document, which had any relation to their history and religion. In the choice of the places, which they assigned to these writings in the Septuagint, they were directed partly by the subjects of those writings, partly by their relation to other writings, and partly by the periods, in which the recorded transactions were supposed to have happened. Thus the additions, which had been made to the book of Esther, they incorporated in the book itself: and in the book of Daniel they incorporated the Song of the three Children, the Story of Susanna, and that of Bel and the Dragon, as these additions appeared to be connected with the book of Daniel. For a similar reason, the book ascribed to Baruch, became an appendage to the book of Jeremiah. The Greek Esdras appeared properly connected with the translation of the Hebrew Esdras. Again, as the book of Wisdom bore the name of Solomon, it was placed after the Song of Solomon: and the Wisdom of Jesus the son of Sirach, or the book of Ecclesiasticus, was placed after the Wisdom of Solomon, in consequence of both books having a similar subject.

conjectured, that it had an oriental origin: and some writers have (mistakenly indeed) imagined that it existed not even in Greek. See Fabricii Bib. Græca, tom. III. p. 733. ed. Harles. Lastly, in respect to the second book of the Maccabees, says Jerom, "Secundus Græcus est; quod ex ipsâ quoque phrasi probari potest." (tom. I. p. 322.)

1

The books of Tobit and Judith were placed before the book of Esther. And, as the books of the Maccabees recorded the most recent events, they had the last place assigned to them in the Septuagint.How long before the birth of Christ these additional writings (which afterwards acquired the name of apocryphal writings) had obtained a place in the manuscripts of the Septuagint we do not exactly know; but the time, when they were generally written as parts of the Greek Bible, could not have commenced long before the birth of Christ. Now it cannot be denied, that the insertion of these additional writings among the books translated from the Hebrew Scriptures, shews how highly they were esteemed by the Greek Jews of Egypt, to whom the insertion may be ascribed. Yet it does not appear, that even the Egyptian Jews aseribed to them that canonical authority, which they ascribed to the books translated from the Hebrew Bible. This at least is certain, that Philo, who was himself an Egyptian Jew, and who lived in the first century, ascribed canonical authority to no other books, than those, which were contained in the Hebrew Bible, and which alone were acknowledged by the Jews of Palestine".

13 Though Philo of Alexandria must have been acquainted with such books as the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Jesus the son of Sirach, and other apocryphal books of the Old Testament, he has never quoted them, at least not for the purpose of establishing any position whatever. This is asserted by Mr. Hornemann in his Observationes ad illustrationem doctrinæ de Canone Veteris Testamenti ex Philone. Now Mr. Hornemann, who was formerly a pupil of Michaelis at Goettingen, declares in this tract, that he had carefully examined the whole of Philo's Works, for the purpose of determining this very question.

Such was the state of things, when the Greek Bible was adopted by the early Latin Church, as a kind of original for the Old Testament. And, as the Latin translater or translators were unable to discriminate between books originally Greek, and books originally Hebrew, they translated them in the mass, and received them with equal veneration (pari pietatis affectu ac reverentiâ.) Hence the celebrated Saint Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, whose reading was chiefly confined to works in his native language, regarded all the books of the Latin Version as books of canonical authority. In his treatise De Doctrinâ Christiand, he has stated what he calls the Whole Canon of Scripture,' (Totus Canon Scripturarum :) and in this Canon he expressly names the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and two books of Maccabees 14. No notice indeed is taken in this

14 Totus autem Canon Scripturarum, in quo istam considerationem versandam dicimus, his libris continetur ; quinque Moyseos, id est, Genesi, Exodo, Levitico, Numeris, Deuteronomio; et uno libro Jesu Nave; uno Judicum, uno libello, qui appellatur Ruth, qui magis ad Regnorum principium videtur pertinere : deinde quatuor Regnorum, et duobus Paralipomenon, non consequentibus, sed quasi a latere adjunctis, simulque pergentibus. Hæc est historia, quæ sibinet annexa tempora continet, atque ordinem rerum. Sunt aliæ tanquam ex diverso ordine, quæ neque huic ordini, neque inter se connectuntur: sicut est Job, et Tobias, et Esther, et Judith, et Machabæorum libri duo, et Esdræ duo, qui magis subsequi videntur ordinatam illam historiam usque ad Regnorum et Paralipomenon terminatam. Deinde Prophetæ ; in quibus David unus liber Psalmorum, et Salomonis tres, Proverbiorum, Cantica Canticorum, et Ecclesiastes. Nam illi duo libri, unus, qui Sapientia, et alius qui Ecclesiasticus inscribitur, de quadam similitudine Salomonis dicuntur; nam Jesus Sirach eos conscripsisse constantissime perhibetur; qui tamen,

quoniam

Canon, either of the apocryphal parts of Esther and Daniel, or of the book of Baruch. But as in the Latin Version the two former were constituent parts of Esther and Daniel, and Baruch was an appendage to Jeremiah, the very circumstance of his mentioning those books without an observation, shews that he received those books entire (libros ipsos integros, cum omnibus suis partibus) ".

At length in the beginning of the fifth Century a new Latin translation of the Old Testament was published by Jerom ". And this translation was

quoniam in auctoritatem recipi meruerunt, inter propheticos numerandi sunt. Augustini Opp. tom. III. P. I. p. 23. ed. Benedict. He then mentions by name each of the sixteen prophetical books; and concludes with the observation, His quadraginta quatuor libris Testamenti Veteris terminatur auctoritas.-His Canon of the New Testament, which is subjoined to his Canon of the Old Testament, is exactly the same with our own.

15 Though we are not at present concerned with the Canon of the Greek Church, it will not be superfluous to observe, that the Greek Fathers did not make such mistakes in regard to the canonical writings of the Old Testament, as the Latin Fathers. But even the Greek Fathers were sometimes led into mistakes by the use of the Septuagint, and its intermixture of apocryphal with canonical books. Modern writers on the Canon of the Old Testament have frequently attempted to explain the mistakes both of the Greek and of the Latin Fathers, by contending that, when they ascribe canonical authority to an apocryphal book, they do it only to a certain degree, or under certain limitations. Now a book is either canonical, or it is not canonical: there is no such thing as a medium. Indeed such explanations are mere subterfuges, founded on the false notion, that the Canon of the Old Testament must be regulated by the opinions of the Fathers. It must be regulated wholly and solely by the answer to the question; What books were contained in those Hebrew Scriptures, which received the sanction of our Saviour?

16 It was begun before the end of the fourth century, but not finished