The Church doth read these as moral: and Jerom affirms the same.

The first of these is the principal proposition. And I should think no farther proof of this is absolutely needful, than that the Jews did never receive the books in question as canonical. What judgment can any one now form, which shall be compared to that of the ancient Jews? nothing can be more definite than Josephus's receiving the usual 22, and then rejecting all others.

These apocryphal books are probably not directly quoted in the New Testament: Allix speaks of St. Paul's quoting them, but I do not see of what passage of St. Paul he affirms this: and I observe, that, in the Vulgate, though there is a regular list of places of the Old Testament, which are cited in the New, there is not one citation from any of the Apocryphal Books. The Romanists, who must have made this list, would have rejoiced in any instance of Christ or his Apostles giving credit to the disputed books.

Of the early Christians I think it may be fairly said, that they prove no doctrine by them; though they sometimes introduce passages on account of some moral sentiment. That this is not giving authority to such Books, appears from St. Paul's doing the same at Athens with Heathen Poets. "It was no unusual thing," says Lardner", "for the ancient Christians

a Contra Apion i. p. 1333, ed. Hudson.

▸ Wisd. iii. 8. has been borrowed by St. Paul, 1 Cor. vi. 2. so says Allix, p. 113. borrowing is not quoting. But he says quoted, p. 74. I do not see why 1 Cor. vi. 2. may not come from Dan. vii. 22. Matt. xix. 28. Luke xxii. 30. and Rev. passim.-I should conceive rather, that Wisd. iii. 8. might come from Daniel vii. 22.

Vol. II. p. 65; end of Hermas,

Christians to quote Jewish as well as heathen books, without intending to give them any authority."

f

Those Christian writers, in early times, (suppose the first four Centuries), who give Catalogues of canonical books, may be said to omit them; though exceptions may sometimes be found of a single book or so. Bishop Burnet mentions several such catalogues; made by Melito, Origen, (quoted probably by Eusebius Hist. 6. 25), Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Hilary, Gregory of Nazianzum, and Jerom. He might, I think, have added Augustin, though he, a Latin Father, admits some of our Apocrypha: Bishop Burnet closes with the Catalogue of the Council of Laodicea, on which he dwells; and indeed its decrees are of great weight, though the prophecy of Baruch (with the Epistle of Jeremiah) is, in its Canon, not separated from the Prophecy of Jeremiah, as it is in Cyril's Catalogue. Any little exception of this kind will seem more strange to us, than it would do to the ancients, as they had not, even in the time of Augustin (who died 430), a regular established catalogue of sacred books; but were searching after them amidst a crowd of false pretenders.

Ambrose seems to have had more relish and more respect for apocryphal books, than the generality of the Christian Fathers. Lardner mentions one passage, in which he quotes Ecclesiasticus in the

a P. 110, 111, 8vo.

h

way

Melito, in some editions of Euseb. (4. 26.) calls Proverbs by the additional name, of the Wisdom of Solomon: see the note in Reading's edit. Cant. 1720.

f See Lard. II. 509.

& Lard, vol IV, p. 309.

h Vol. IV, p. 448, from Ambr. on Psal. 118, (our 119) T. I. p. 1224 E;-the passage quoted is Ecclus. ii. 5. Ps. cxviii. 153; vide humilitatem meam et erue me, or something like that :Ambrose says, one may use humilitatem meam in trials, in martyrdom, &c. as appears from Ecclesiasticus ii. 5.

way of proof; but Ecclesiasticus ii. 5. is merely moral, and testimoniis scripturarum" may only mean, the witness or weight of good moral writings. -The word Prophet he uses in a large sense, if he does not mean to make some of these books sacred; but he speaks with warmth, and unsteadily.

Ambrose was far removed from Judea, and, being converted late in life, had probably not much Jewish learning; none at all before he was Bishop; but Jerom was distinguished for Jewish learning, and is called the most learned of all the Fathers. I should think his authority decisive in our present question. In his Prefaces, which are published with the Vulgate, it is easy to see, that he expressly sets aside every one of our apocryphal books; or, if he does not set aside those, which the Church of Rome gives up, it is only because he despised them; for, in other parts of his works, he speaks of them more slightly than I could have imagined.

The reasons for rejecting some of the apocryphal books, are mentioned in the Titles, respectively. Jerom gives the same; entirely or chiefly d.

We seem now to have shewn, that the Books in question ought not to be admitted into the Canon. But our conclusion will scarce be satisfactory, unless

we

• Good moral writings, used to have the name of Scripturæ. Book i. Chap. xii. Sect. 4.

b Hurd on Prophecy, p. 221.

See Lard. Works, vol. V, p. 17-20.

a Hesther is said, in the title, not to be found in the Hebrew; so are the Song of the three Children, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon.-Wisdom is called the Wisdom of Solomon; but does not that mean an Imitation of Solonion?-The Prologue to Ecclesiasticus, by the Son of Sirach, gives us the idea of the Law and the Prophets being distinct things; and Law and the Prophets sometimes meant the whole Old Testament; and of others writing in order to second their purposes.-It' professes Ecclesiasticus, as we have it, to have been published in Greek.

we add to what is here said negatively, something of a positive or affirmative sort.

e

Although Christians might sometimes write apocryphal Books belonging to the Old Testament, yet it seems agreed, that our's were all written by Jews: even Grotius allows this, who would have wished to have them prove the works of Christians. They appear to me imitations of some part of Scripture, or something in the way of supplement, or sequel. The third and fourth Books of Esdras profess themselves to be such; they were probably written from a natural desire, in persons attached to their country, of enlarging on any interesting part of its history: and the latter of these might be a supplement to the first. The Book of Tobit reminds one of Ruth; and Judith of Deborah ; and of David and Goliath; as also of the distresses of Hezekiah from the Assyrian armies. Of Hester there can be no question.-The books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus seem evidently imitations of the works of Solomon; and Baruch's prophecy has being owing to his having been a secretary to Jeremiah:-the three writings cut off from the Book of Daniel, shew plainly to what stock they belong, and what they were intended to imitate, or fill out. The Prayer of Manasses, and we may add the Epistle of Jeremiah, may have been attempts to succeed on the credit of the fine Psalm, "By the waters of Babylon," &c.-The first Book of Maccabees has some appearance of an original narration, composed on the principle just now noticed, of relating handsomely an interesting piece of national history

the

f The first prologue to Ecclesiasticus says, that the author of that Book" did imitate Solomon."

In the 29th Chap. of Jeremiah, there is an Epistle from Jeremiah to the captives in Babylon.

the second Book of Maccabees is a supplement, as before. The latter Esdras seems to me sometimes to imitate Ezekiel's manner.

What I have farther to mention may be introduced in the way of remarks on two expressions of Bishop Burnet's. He says, with regard to the Jews, it is not pretended, that ever these books "were so much as known to them."-And afterwards," the Christian Church were for some ages an utter stranger" to them.

As to early Christians, I have refreshed my memory in Clement's first Epistle to the Corinthians, and in Polycarp's to the Philippians, which are always reckoned genuine, and I find quotations from some books of our Apocrypha, made with the same degree of exactness as those from the canonical books. In the former, Wisdom xii. 12. is quoted, and afterwards the heroism of Judith is described. In the latter, there is a quotation from Tobit, (xii. 9.)-And, though some interpolations have been suspected, I should think, from the context, that sentence about Judith unlikely to be one. Not that it proves Clement to have thought the Book of Judith on a footing with the Scriptures, because he first mentions Heathens, who have run into danger in order to save their country, and then Judith. But, supposing these passages genuine, which I see no reason to doubt, the Christian Church could not for some ages be an "utter stranger" to our Apocrypha.

b

Lardner says, in several places, that there are no quotations of apocryphal books in the Aposto

a On the Articles, p. 110, 8vo.

lic

The same thing has struck a commentator in Russel's Patres Apostolici.

Vol VI, p. 662. vol. V, p. 358, 412, &c.