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 system 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."

R. AZARIAH ascribes 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 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 "The book of the Son of Sirach is

writers says, 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, who said, 'it was invented by some Greek, he knew not whom.'"*

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

* See the Thesaurus Philologicus of Hottinger.

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 included in the volume quoted, and referred to, by Christ and his apostles, under the title of the Scriptures, 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.