No. I. On the Books commonly termed the Apocrypha.

SECTION I. On the Apocryphal Books attached to the Old Testament.

Derivation of the Term Apocrypha

Reasons why the Apocryphal Books were rejected from the Canon of Scripture:

I. They possess no Authority whatever, external or internal, to procure their Admission into the Sacred Canon

II. The Apocryphal Books were not admitted into the Canon of Scripture during the first four Centuries of the Christian Church

III. The Apocryphal Books contain many Things which are fabulous, and contrary to the Canonical Scriptures, both in Facts, Doctrines, and moral Practice

IV. They contradict all other profane Historians.

SECTION II. On the Writings usually called the Apocryphal Books of the New Testament.

I. Enumeration of these Apocryphal Writings. II. External Evidence to show that they were never considered as inspired or canonical

.

.

III. Internal Evidence
IV. These Apocryphal Books are so far from affecting
the Credibility of the genuine Books of the New
Testament, that the latter are confirmed by them

No. II. On the Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures.
I. Nature of Inspiration

II. Observations on the Inspiration of the Old Testa

cording to his Word 442 SECTION II. Predictions of Jesus Christ, relative to his Sufferings, Death, Resurrection and Ascension 457, 458 SECTION III. Prophecies by Jesus Christ, relative to the Destruction of Jerusalem

SECTION IV. That there is Salvation only through
Christ-and the Danger of rejecting it

443

458-462

ib.

443, 444 444-446

462, 463

446

VOL. I.

3 I

433

BESIDES the Scriptures of the Old Testament, which are universally acknowledged to be genuine and inspired writings, both by the Jewish and Christian churches, there are several other writings partly historical, partly ethical, and partly poetical, which are usually printed at the end of the Old Testament in the larger editions of the English Bible,—under the appellation of the "APOCRYPHA,"—that is, books not admitted into the sacred canon, being either spurious, or at least not acknowledged to be divine. The word Apocrypha is of Greek origin, and is either derived from the words & Tas putns, because the books in question were removed from the crypt, chest, ark, or other receptacle in which the sacred books were deposited, whose authority was never doubted; or more probably, from the verb ȧpurTw, to hide or conceal, because they were concealed from the generality of readers, their authority not being recognised by the church, and because they are books which are destitute of proper testimonials, their original being obscure, their authors unknown, and their character either heretical or suspected. 1. The advocates of the church of Rome, indeed, affirm that even these are divinely inspired; but it is easy to account for this assertion: these apocryphal writings serve to countenance some of the corrupt practices of that church.

The Protestant churches not only account those books to be apocryphal, and merely human compositions, which are esteemed such by the church of Rome, as the prayer of Manasseh, the third and fourth books of Esdras, the addition at the end of Job, and the hundred and fifty-first psalm; but also the books of Tobit, Judith, the additions of the book of Esther, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch the prophet, with the epistle of Jeremiah, the Song of the Three Children, the story of Susannah the Story of Bel and the Dragon, and the first and second books of Maccabees. The books here enumerated are unanimously rejected by Protestants for the following reasons:1. THEY POSSESS NO AUTHORITY WHATEVER, either exTERNAL OR INTERNAL, TO PROCURE THEIR ADMISSION INTO THE SACRED CANON.

1. Not one of them is extant in Hebrew.

With the exception of the fourth book of Esdras, which is only extant in Latin, they are all written in the Greek language, and for the most part by Alexandrian Jews.

2. They were written subsequently to the cessation of the prophetic spirit, though before the promulgation of the Gospel.2 In the prophecy of Malachi (iv. 4—6) it is intimated that after him no prophet should arise, until John the Baptist, the harbinger of the Messiah, should appear in the spirit and power of Elijah; and the

1 Augustin, contra, Faustum. lib. xi. c. 2. De Civitate Dei, lib. xv. c. 23 § 4. The passages are given at length in Dr. Lardner's Works, vol. v. p. 90. Svo.; vol. ii. p. 581. 4to. Such at least is the general opinion of commentators; but Molden. hawer has urged some reasons for thinking that some of the apocryphal books, -as Tobit, the fourth book of Esdras, and perhaps also the book of Wisdom.-were written after the birth of our Saviour, and consequently they cannot be considered as apocryphal books. His arguments are noticed in Vol. I. Part. I. Chap. VIII. §§ II. III

Jews unanimously agree that the prophetic spirit ceased with Ma lachi. The author of the book of Widson pretends that it was written by Solomon-a pretension not only manifestly false, but first place, the author, whoever he was, cites many passages from which also proves that book not to have been inspired. For, in the Isaiah and Jeremiah, who did not prophecy till many ages after the time of Solomon, and consequently the book could not have been written by him; and, secondly, it represents the Israelites (Wisd. ix. 7, 8, xv. 14.) as being in subjection to their enemies: whereas we know from the sacred writings, that they enjoyed great peace and prosperity during the reign of Solomon.

3. Not one of the writers, in direct terms, advances any claim to inspiration.

asserting their own inspiration, that some of them say what amounts On the contrary, so far are the authors of the apocryphal books from to an acknowledgement that they were not inspired. Thus, in the prologue to the book of Ecclesiasticus, the son of Sirach intreats the reader to pardon any errors he may have committed in translating the works of his grandfather Jesus into Greek. In 1 Macc. iv. 46. and ix. 27. it is confessed that there was at that time no prophet in Israel ; the second book of Maccabees (ii. 23.) is an avowed abridgment of five books originally written by Jason of Cyrene; and the author concludes with the following words, which are utterly unworthy of a person writing by inspiration.-If I have done well, and as it is filling the story, it is that which I desired; but, if slenderly and meanly, it is that which I could attain unto. (2 Macc. xv. 38.3)

4. The apocryphal books were never received into the sacred canon by the Jewish church, and therefore they were

not sanctioned by our Saviour.

a Dick's Essay on the Inspiration of the Scriptures, p. 71. The testimony of Josephus is very remarkable:-"We have not," says he, "an innumerable multitude of books among us disagreeing from and contradicting one another, but only twenty-two books, containing the records of all past times, which are justly believed to be divine. Five of them belong to Moses, which contain his laws, and the traditions concerning the origin of mankind, till his death. But as to the time from the after Xerxes, the prophets who were after Moses wrote down what was death of Moses, till the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, who reigned done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life. Our history, indeed, has been written, since Artaxerxes, very particularly; but it has not been esteemed of equal authority with the former by our forefathers, because there had not been an exact succession of prophets since that time. And how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own nation, it is evident by what we do for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add any thing to is become natural to all Jews, immediately and from their very birth, to them, to take any thing from them, or to make any change in them: but it esteem these books to contain divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and if it be necessary, willingly to die for them." Josephus contra Apion, lib. i. § 8. Josephus's testimony is related by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. lib. iii. c. ix. and x.;) and it is further worthy of remark, that the most learned Romanist writers admit that the apocryphal books were never acknowledged by the Jewish Church. See particularly Huet's Demonster. Evangelica, prop. iv. tom. i. De Libro Tobit. p. 306. De Libro Judith, p. 309. De Libris Maccabæorum, p. 460. De Canone, Librorum Sacrorum, p. 473. See also Dupin's Dissertation Préliminaira ou Prolegomènes sur, la Bible, pp. 85, 86. 89. 112. Amst. 1701. 435

II. THE APOCRYPHAL BOOKS WERE NOT ADMITTED INTO THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE DURING THE FIRST FOUR CENTURIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. They are not mentioned in the catalogue of inspired writings made by Melito, bishop of Sardis, who flourished in the second century, nor in those of Origen,2 in the third century, of Athanasius,3 Hilary,4 Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Gregory Nazianzen, Amphilochius, Jerome,9 Rufinus,10 and others of the fourth century; nor in the catalogue of canonical books recognised by the council of Laodicea, held in the same century, whose canons were received by the Catholic church; so that, as Bishop Burnet well observes, "we have the concurring sense of the whole church of God in this matter."12 To this decisive evidence against the canonical authority of the apocryphal books, we may add that they were never read in the Christian church until the fourth century; when, as Jerome informs us, they were read for example of life, and instruction of manners, but were not applied to establish any doctrine;"13 and contemporary writers state,14 that although they were not approved as canonical or inspired writings, yet some of them, particularly Judith, Wisdom, and Ecclesiasticus, were allowed to be perused by catechumens. As a proof that they were not regarded as canonical in the fifth century, Augustine relates, that when the book of Wisdom was publicly read in the church it was given to the readers of inferior ecclesiastical of ficers, who read it in a lower place than those books which were universally acknowledged to be canonical, which were read by the bishops and presbyters in a more eminent and conspicuous manner.15 To conclude:-Notwithstanding the veneration in which these books were held by the Western Church, it is evident that the same authority was never ascribed to them as to the Old and New Testament; until the last council of Trent, at its fourth session, presumed to place them all (excepting the prayer of Manasseh and the third and fourth books of Esdras) in the same rank with the inspired writings of Moses and the prophets. 16

III. THE APOCRYPHAL BOOKS CONTAIN MANY THINGS WHICH ARE FABULOUS AND CONTRADICTORY TO THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES BOTH IN FACTS, DOCTRINES, AND MORAL PRACTICE. A few instances, out of many that might be adduced, will suffice to prove this assertion.

I. FABULOUS STATEMENTS.

This river is

(2.) Baruch is said (i. 2.) to have been carried into Babylon, at the very time when Jeremiah tells us (xliii. 6, 7.) that he was carried into the land of Egypt.

(3.) The story in 1 Esdras iii. iv., besides wanting every mark of the majesty and sanctity of the Sacred Writings, contradicts Ezra's account of the return of the Jews from Babylon under Cyrus.

(4.) The first and second books of Maccabees contradict each other. for in the former (1 Macc. vi. 4-16.) Antiochus Epiphanes is said to have died in Babylon; and in the latter he is represented, first, as having been slain by the priests at Nanea, in Persia (2 Macc. 1. 13— 16.), and afterwards (ix. 28.) as dying a miserable death in a strange country among the mountains.

(5.) In the book of Tobit, the angel that is introduced (v. 12) as representing himself as being a kinsman of Tobit, in xii. 15. contredicts himself, by affirming that he is Raphael, one of the holy angels The author of this book has also added to the views of God and of Providence, delineated in the Old Testament, tenets of Assyrian er Babylonian origin. III. CONTRADICTORY DOCTRINES.

(1) Prayers for the Dead.-2 Macc. xii. 43, 44. And when he had made a gathering throughout the company, to the sum of 2000 drachms of silver, he sent it to Jerusalem to offer a sin-offering, dong therein very well and honestly: for, if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous and rain to pray for the dead. This statement contradicts the whole tenor of the Sacred Writings, which nowhere enjoin or allow of prayers for the

dead.

(2) The heathen Notion of the Transmigration of Souls, which is equally contradictory to the Bible, is asserted in Wisd. vini. 19. 20. For I was a witty child, and had a good spirit; yea, rather being good, I came into a body undefiled.

with

Scriptures, which teach that we are justified or accounted righteous (3.) Justification by the Works of the Law (in opposition to the only by faith) is taught in various parts of the apocryphal books: 2 Esdras viii. 33. The just which have many good works laid thee, shall out of their own deeds receive reward. Tobit xii. 8, 9. Prayer is good with fasting, and alms, and righteousness. Alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sins. Those that exercise alms and righteousness shall be filled with life. Ecclus iii. 3. Whoso honoureth the father maketh atonement for his sins. 30. Alms maketh an atonement for sins! XXXV. 3. To forsake righteous

lion's den.

(3.) The stories of water being converted into fire, and vice versa (2 Macc. i. 19-22), and of the Tabernacle and Ark walking after Jeremiah at the prophet's command. (2 Macc. ii. 4.)

II. CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS.

(1.) The author of the book of the Wisdom of Solomon alludes to the people of Israel as being in subjection to their enemies, which was not the case during Solomon's reign. We read, indeed, that he had enemies in the persons of Hadad, Rezon and Jeroboam (1 Kings xi. 14. 23. 25. 26), who vexed him: but we nowhere find that they subdued his people; and the schism of the ten tribes did not take place until after the death of Solomon.

This catalogue is inserted by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History,

lib. iv. c. 26.

2 Ibid. lib. vi. c. 25. p. 399.

In his Festal or Paschal epistle. See the extract in Dr. Lardner's Works, vol. iv. pp. 282-285. 8vo.; vol. ii. pp. 399, 400. 4to. Proleg. in Psalmos, p. 9. Paris, 1693. Lardner, vol. iv. p. 305. 8vo.; vol. ii. p. 413. 4to.

In his Fourth Catechetical Exercise. Ibid. vol. iv. p. 299. 8vo.; vol. li. p. 411. 4to.

p. 470. 4to. p. 473.

(4.) Sinless perfection. Ecclus. xiii. 24. Riches are good unto him that hath no sin. But what say the Scriptures? Eccles. vii. 20. There is NOT a just man upon earth, that doth good, and sinneth not Rom. iii. 23. ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God. 1 John i. 8. If we say that we have no sin we deceive ourselves, and the truth is NOT in us.

IV. IMMORAL PRACTICES

Commended in the apocryphal books, which practices are prohibited in the Scriptures.

(1.) Lying. The instances cited No. (5.) may also be adduced here. Exod. xx. 13. Thou shalt NOT kill) is related in 2 Macc. xiv. 41(2.) A desperate act of Suicide (which is expressly forbidden in 46. as a manful act, and in terms of great commendation.

the book of Judith (ix. 2-9.) in the case of the Shechemites, whose (3.) Assassination, which is equally prohibited, is commended in base murder is justly condemned in Gen. xlix. 7.

(4.) Magical Incantations, which are forbidden in Lev. xix. 26. and Deut. xviii. 10, 11, 14. are introduced in Tobit vi. 16, 17. as given by the advice of an angel of God.17

IV. Lastly, THERE ARE PASSAGES IN THE APOCRYPHAL

BOOKS, WHICH ARE SO INCONSISTENT WITH THE RELATIONS OF ALL OTHER PROFANE HISTORIANS, THAT THEY CANNOT BE ADMITTED WITHOUT MUCH GREATER EVIDENCE THAN BELONGS TO THESE BOOKS.

Thus in 1 Macc. viii. 16. it is said that the Romans "committed their government to one man every year, who ruled over all that country, and that all were obedient to that one, and that there was neither envy nor emulation amongst them."

p. 573. 4to.

10 Expositio ad Symb. Apost. Lardner, vol. v. pp. 75, 76. Svo.; vol. ii. 11 Can. 52, 60. Lardner, vol. iv. pp. 308, 309. 8vo.; vol. ii. pp. 414, 415. 4to. Besides Dr. Lardner, Bishop Cosin, in his Scholastical History of the Canon, Sir Humphrey Lynde (Via Devia or the By-way, sect. 5. pp. 266236. London Edit. 1819), and Moldenhawer (Introd. ad Vet. Test. pp. 148 -154.) have given extracts at length from the above-mentioned fathers and others, against the authority of the apocryphal books.

19 On the Sixth Article of the Anglican Church, p. 111. 6th. edit. 13 Præf. in Libr. Salomonis, Op. tom. i. pp. 938, 939. Lardner, vol. v. p. 18. 8vo.; vol. ii. p. 573. 4to.

14 The author of the Synopsis of Scripture attributed to Athanasius (see Lardner, vol. iv. p. 290.) and also the pretended Apostolical Canons. (Can. Ult.)

15 Augustin. de Predest. Sanct. lib. i. c. 14. (Op. tom. vii. p. 553. col. 2. B. Antwerp. 1576.) The passage is also given in Bishop Cosin's Scholastical History of the Canon, p. 106.

16 On this subject the reader is referred, for much curious and important information, to the Rev. G. C. Gorham's Statement subunitted to the members of the Bible Society, relative to the circulation of the apocryphal books, chap. i., and his Reply to two Letters addressed to him by Dr. Leander Von Ess. (London, 1826. 8vo.)

der, misnamed the Great, is not supported by the historians who have

recorded his last hours.

Although the Apocryphal books cannot be applied to establish any doctrine," yet "they are highly valuable as ancient writings, which throw considerable light upon the phraseology of Scripture, and upon the history of manners of the East: and as they contain many noble sentiments and useful precepts, the Anglican church, in imitation of the primitive church of Christ, doth read them for example of life and instruction of manners."18 On this account the reader will find an analysis of these books, in the second volume of this work, Part V. Chap. VIII.

1 Romanism contradictory to Scripture, pp. 47, 48.

18 It may be proper to remark, that the Anglican church does not read all the books of the apocrypha. It reads as lessons no part of either books of Esdras, or of the Maccabees, or of the additions of the book of Esther; nor does it read the prayer of Manasseh. Bp. Tomline's Elements of Christ. Theol. vol. ii. p. 199. Pfeiffer, Critica Sacra, cap. 14. (Op. tom. ii. pp. 795, 799.) Moldenhawer, Introd. ad Vet. Test. pp. 145-155. Heidegger, Enchirid. Biblicum. pp. 305-322. See also Bp. Marsh's Comoarative View of the Churches of England and Rome, pp. 78-98.