j LIBRARY OF PRlNCerON ' FS 42004 THEOLOGICAL SEMINARV THE CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMSm, BY TOBIAS MULLEN, Bishop of Erie. " I, for my part, would not believe the Gospel, unless the authority of the Catholic Church moved me to it." S. Aug. Contra Ej). Man. Fund. 1892. FR. PUSTET, Printer to the Holy Apostolic See and the S. Congregation of Rites. FR. PUSTET & CO., NEW YORK. " Entered according to act of Cougress in the year 1888, by TOBIAS MULLEN, In the office of the Librarian of Congress at Washington." N. y. C. VROTECTORT PRINT, WEST CHESTER, N, Y. PREFACE. Western Christendom is still infested with the plague of religious controversy, a baneful heritage transmitted to the present age by certain theologians of the sixteenth century. That heritage has in too many instances led long ago to deeds of violence and bloodshed disgrace- ful not only to all who encouraged them, but particu- larly so, to those forms of religious belief in whose behalf they were perpetrated. Christians, however, convinced that those who sought in that way to force their opinions upon others, were generally unsuccessful ; and that any appeal to pains and penalties for such a purpose only exposed the inherent weakness of the cause in support of which it was made, learned at last while differing in opinion, to practice, if not mutual re- spect, at least mutual forbearance. As a consequence religious wars waged for the purpose of maintaining, or suppressing some form of Christian belief, have long ceased to embroil with each other the Kingdoms of Eu- rope, or even to affect in any way their mutual relations. There now neighbor meets neighbor and discusses the relative merits of their respective creeds, without utter- ing an offensive or even an unkind word. It is much the same in the New World. Thus the plague of con- troversy as it once raged, has (praised be God), been stayed at last, and, let us hope, forever. So far as religious strife is concerned, the present compared with any age that has passed since the six- teenth century is, therefore, eminently one of peace and good will ; one in which men generally recognize the ii Preface. good traits possessed by others, and accord to them their full rights even though not in sympathy with their doctrinal principles. Nevertheless the spirit of contro- versy still survives, and must survive, so long as truth is combated by error, and good confronted by evil. Sev- eral of the old controversies have, indeed, been almost forgotten, or been divested of the interest they once possessed. And many a creed in which its first profes- sors could discern no flaw, has been found by those, who now belong to the same sect, to be more or less incon- sistent with reason and revelation. As a symbol it no longer expresses their belief, and sooner or latter must be recast, in order to adapt it to views far too humane, too rational and too Christian for its authors to have en- tertained, much less approved, dominated as they were by polemical prejudices and the stern dictates of section- al rancor. Such movements may tend to narrow the field of controversy, but cannot close it altogether; until Christendom shall have become what it once was, and what it 'ought to be still, one fold and one shepherd. Among the many points of controversy, which have kept Christendom divided into two principal camps for nearly four hundred years, is that which forms the subject of the following volume. That controversy, like others orio^inatinsf at the same time, has been conducted by many in a way, which showed that they were more anxious for factional ascendancy than for the triumph ot divine truth. On the Catholic side of the discussion hardly has anything been written in English beyond a few pages, though the subject has been exhaustively treated by Catholic scholars. But these scholars gener- ally wrote in Latin, their works being intended princi- pally for the use of ecclesiastical students, who, when afterwards charged as Pastors with thecareof souls, would thus be prepared to teach the Faithful whatever it was necessary to know regarding the Sacred Scripture. Preface. iif However, once the Canon of Scripture was solemnly proclaimed, the unanimity with which that decision was received b)^ the Catholic laitv made it unnecessary to ex- plain to the people in detail the reasons, on which it was based ; and this the more so, as- all were aware that the contents of the Bible remained substantially unchanged. What Catholics found, for example, in the Bible of the sixteenth and subsequent centuries, they found in the Bible of the fifteenth and preceding centuries. For them therefore little instruction on the subject was necessary^ beyond what they already actually knew. They be- lieved in the Church. The Church had solemnly ap- proved, as a canon of Scripture, a catalogue of sacred books universally used by her in her divine offices al- ready for ages. In what she had thus done, she, as infalli- ble, could be no more mistaken than she was in inculcat- ing the existence and unity of God. All this the laity, as well as their teachers, knew full well. What use then in wasting time on the xvhy or the Jioiv of the de- cision in question? That decision once made, stands forever. And that is all there is about it. It was far otherwise with those, who at the time had revolted against the authority of the Church. Regard- ing the Canon of Scripture they not only disagreed with her but with each other, and their followers do so to this day. Yet they none the less prepared to assail her,^ as well on account of the Canon she had approved, as on account of other dogmas she retained but they rejected. Volume after volume was issued from the English press, with the single object of proving, that certain books in the Bible, which the Church pronounced authentic, were not only human but doctrinally and historically objec- tionable. So unscrupulous were the authors of those volumes in their statements, that subsequent writers of the same school felt compelled, as a matter of justice, to correct their misstatements, or apologize for their dishon- iv Preface. ■esty. Unfortunately the work of one of these unscrupu- lous censors, a member of the anglican episcopate, has been treated on the continent of Europe and in the United States as possessed of the highest authority on the question it discusses, its arguments being regarded as unassailable and its conclusions accepted as irrefrag- ible. Yet, a learned Professor in the Universit}' of Oxford, long ago, pointed out several gross and appar- entl}' deliberate misstatements in the work. And an- other dignitar}' in the Anglican communion, within the last ten or eleven 3'ears, warned the public against it, saying it " must be read with great caution." The discussion, which has for its subject The Canon of scripture, like almost ever}' other, which the present has inherited from the sixteenth century, has been recentlv conducted in a spirit far different from that, in which it originated, or from that which marked its history for ages afterwards. There is no longer as there once was among the advocates of the contracted Canon, a dispo- sition to deduce from the writings of any Father other conclusions than such, as are warranted by these writ- ings considered as a whole. For these advocates have discovered, and some of them have expressly admitted, that not a few of such writings are characterized by in- consistencies not to say contradictions. In fact, the canon which an}- individual Father followed is, as the most advanced critics now hold, not to be ascertained so much from isolated passages in his works or from any catalogue he may have formulated, as from the manner in which he may have referred to the books of Script- ure, and the use he has made of them throughout his writings. Nor will the reader often now find what wa? once so common among the advocates of the same con- tracted canon, writers urging against some of the Old Testament deutero-canonical books objections, which, boomerang-like, recoiling on their projectors, would if Preface. v admitted have been fatal to books in their own canon, and have furnished infidels with weapons wherewith to assail revelation in general. Writers of that class warned of their folly by critics of their own school have become all but extinct. There were several considerations which induced the writer to undertake the following- work. But they may all be reduced to two. In the first place he was anxious to counteract the effect, which the almost constant pub- lication of certain English books in Great Britain and this country, on the canon of Scripture, might have among his own people. It is well known, that the per- sistent attacks of infidels on the views held by Protes- tants regarding their Bible, has made it necessary for its defenders to vindicate, as best they may, its claim to the veneration of those who still regard it as the only infalli- ble rule of belief and practice. The volumes that have been thus written in its defence are legion, and almost every year adds to their number. To this no Christian could object. But the authors of some of these volumes, not content with attempting to establish the canonical character of the books retained in the Protestant Bible, go farther and endeavor to convince their readers that the other books contained in the Douay Bible are un- scriptural, or as they generally express it, apocryphal. Now these volumes in defence of the Protestant Bible, may be found in the shelves of many book-sellers from whom Catholics are accustomed to obtain their works of instruction and devotion, and who may thus be intro- duced to a class of literature antagonistic to divine reve- lation. To prepare such people for an introduction of that kind seemed a work of chanty and a tribute to truth. This single reason might in itself be an apology for writ- ing a work on The Canon of the Old Testament. But, in the second place, there was another reason which led to the belief, that the labor devoted to such a work might not vi Preface. be labor lost. Several of the attempts made of late by em- inent Protestant scholars to strengthen or restore that at- tachment to the Bible, which was at least once so char- acteristic of our separated brethren, exhibited on their part a strong suspicion, — the result, no doubt, of candid and independent inquiry, — that the Protestant canon of the Old Testament, after all that had been written in its favor, was really defective. Indeed it has been actually admitted at least in one instance, that that canon requires to be readjusted, though in making this admission the writer seems to have had little hope, that the readjustment would be accomplished. Another confesses that the au- thors of that canon placed thereon books which should have been excluded in favor of others, which they re- jected as apocrypJial ; while several other critics belonging to the same school, candidly allow, that the Church at the Council of Trent admitted to the canon only such books, as had been in general use from time immemorial. To as- sist such men in their efforts at grasping in its fulness the written revelation which God has made to mankind, seems to excuse, if it cannot justify, the time spent and the labor undergone in collecting and arranging the materials for the following pages. In the composition of a work like the following, as a matter of course, writers belonging to different ages and different countries had to be consulted. Often it became necessary also to reproduce some of their statements. But it will be observed, and perhaps be regretted by some that though the authors of many of these statements did not write in English, the extracts made from their works are almost invariably presented to the reader in that language alone. It would indeed have been easy to in- sert among the foot notes or in an appendix all such extracts, exactly as they appear in the works to which they belong. But to have done so would have resulted in an inconveniently bulky volume, and involved the Preface. \\\ proof-reader in serious trouble, situated as he was some five hundred miles from the printers. Besides, as in the end, there was nothing to be gained, but much certain to be lost by misrepresenting what had been written bv others, the purpose throughout has been to substitute an honest English equivalent for all such extracts. And it is hoped the reader will find, that in no instance has that purpose been forgotten. Furthermore, EngHsh readers may be divided into two classes, — those who understand other languages than English and those who do not. For the former a different course in the matter under consideration, from that which has been followed, was not necessary, as many of them are supplied with the means of testing the accuracy of the versions referred to. To the latter nothing has been lost by not being supplied with the originals of those versions, as those originals if inserted would not have been understood by them. With these preliminary remarks, the volume itself is respectfully submitted to the judgment of an impartial and intelligent public. June I2th, 1891. CONTENTS. Bible — Meaning of the word. Canon — What is implied thereby. Names of the Sacred Books. Old and New Testament —What is meant by the distinction. The Catholic Canon— Number of Books contained therein. The Sacred Books divided into several classes. Other books not Sacred— their origin and character. Of all the Books whether really or only professedly parts of the Bible, as referred to by the Fathers, a quadruple division may be made. Apocryphal — its mean- ing, how applied by early Christian writers. Ecclesiastical as used by Rufinus. Canonical and Canonized — what is and was meant there- by. Catalogues of the Sacred Books — their origin and value. Pro- tocanonical and Deuterocanonical Books — the import and origin of these terms — the Deutero-canonical Books designated. . . 1 CHAPTER II. Jewish Canon — Number and Names of Books thereon. Various enumera- tions of these Books. Jews divided their Books into three classes — the number in the first class constant, that in each of the other two classes variable, though at least in recent times the contents of their Bible always the same — how classified by the author of Ecclesiasti- cus —how by our Lord -how by Josephus. The relation of Esdras tO' the Canon as described in the Scriptures— as alleged by the Jews themselves. The earliest reference to the point found in apocryphal iv Esdras. The statement in iv Esdras considered. Degree of credit given to that statement by early Christian writers. The Scriptures not destroyed in the Babylonian captivity. . 15 CHAPTER III. Origin of their Canon as described by the Jews. The Talmud — its refer- ence to the formation of the Canon. The College of Esdras. The Sanhedrim or Great Synagogue. Its existence denied for various reasons. Josephus on the subject. Opinions of Christian writers. Why the Jewish Canon could not have been the work of Esdras. 32 X Contents. CHAPTER IV. Difference of opinion between Catholic and Protestant writers regarding the relation of Esdras to the Canon. Difficulties connected with the subject. Theories advocated by Catholic writers in reference to it — Genebrard, Serarius, Richard Simon. Huet, Frassen, Movers, Netteler, Dauko. Addis and Arnold. Theories maintained by Protestant writers, on the same subject. Prideaux and Davidson. Various reasons for believing that Esdras had nothing whatever to do with the Canon of Scripture. ...... 50 CHAPTER V. The assembly at Jamnia. Debate thereat on the Canon. Influence of the debate on Protestant opinion. Catholic behef not affected thereby, but expressed mainlj^ in three forms. The Septuagint or Alexan- drine version. Its origin, circulation and authority — In general use outside Palestine, but read even in the Synagogue at Jerusalem. Jerusalem a centre of unity for Jews throughout the world. The Temple of Leontopolis — The Jews who worshipped there recognized as orthodox at Jerusalem, while their Bible contained the Deutero Books. That same Bible delivered by t)ie Apostles to the first Christians. It, or versions of it containing the deutero books, the only Bible in the hands of Christians until 1536. The Latin Vulgate, its origin. It also contained the Deutero books according to Protestant testimony. Two points settled The bond of union between the Palestinian and Hel- lenistic Jews.. ....... 68 CHAPTER VI. The credit of formulating a canon due more to Jeremias and Nehemias than to Esdras. Its real author the Jewish high Priest. This proved by the Scriptures, the testimony of Josephus, and by the course which Jewish writers supposed was adopted in translating the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. ..... 87 CHAPTER VII. Temple at Garizim contrasted with that at Leontopolis. The former exe- crated, the latter at least tolerated by the Palestinian Jews. Towards the end of the Hebrew Theocracy the high Priests at Jerusalem guLity of awful crimes. Those at Leontopolis charged with no disorders. Probable effect of the contrast on pious Jews. Reasons for believ- ing that the books used by the Egyptian Jews were adopted by those of Palestine. A canon though incomplete in existence in the time of Moses, gradually enlarged by the high Priest. Interference of the civil power with the high Priest. The appointment to that ofSce of Contents. xi raeu without an}' title to it. As ;i consequence the canon becomes vajjue and confused among the Palestinian Jews soon after the be- ginning- of the Christian era. Until that period the books received by the Hellenists also received by the Palestinians. Then only did the Rabbins decide to mutilate their canon by excluding therefrom certain books all along used not only by the Hellenists, but by the Palestinians. 1 06 CHAPTER VIII. The decision reached at Jamnia not final. Tlie usurpers of the authority possessed alone by the high Priest of the old, but already transferred to the High Priests of the new Dispensation, still in doubt about their canon. This proved by the testimony of Melito, Justin Martyr and others. The Jews without a fixed canon from the Apostolic age until the fifth century, when they at last agreed on one which however was false. The uncertainty among the Jews about the canon in- creased by their efforts at meeting the arguments of Christians. The attempt of the Rabbins at curtailing the canon more successful than that of the Protestant Doctors. Aquila, Theodotion. and Sym- machus. ........ 125 CHAPTER IX. The Septuagint a formidable weapon in the hands of the Christians when arguing with Jews. The latter charged with attempting to cor- rupt it. What happened the Book of Esther. The Jewish Canon not now what it was in the time of Christ. The general theory ad- vocatad by Protestants on this subject. Luther tossing Esther into the P:ibe. Contradictory propositions must be maintained by all Christians who hold that the true canon of the Old Testament is to be found only in the Hebrew Bible. . . . . .141 CHAPTER X. A Second Theory proposed on the same subject Ijy Catholic critics. Was there really an Esdrine Canon, not closed however but by the author- ity of Christ and his Apostles? Testimony of the Manuscripts. In- termixture of Proto and Deutero books. Septuagint when delivered to the Church contained the Deutero books. Events in the early Christian Church at Jerusalem. Primitive sectarists though they re- pudiated some of the Proto Books, never objected to the Deutero. These considerations fatal to the tlieory in question. . . 148 CH.\PTER Xr. A Third Theory defended by Catljolic writor?. Were there two Canons— A Palestinian or Esdrine, and an Alp.vandrine— the former the work • of Esdras and Nehemias - restricted to Palestine and not closed xii Contents. until the time of the Apostles. Thelatter followed outside of Pales- tine and containing the Deutero as well as the Proto hooks ? This theory untenable on account of the communion maintained between the Palestinian and Hellenistic Jews. It is besides contradicted by the constitution of the Hebrew commonwealth. Statement of Bonfrere. The canon now used by the Jews quite different from the one they had in times immediately preceding the Christian era. 159 CHAPTER XII. Flavius Josephus— his character and writings. Extract therefrom. Value of this e.xtract in determinimg the contents of the Hebrew canon. Critics irrespective of creed unable to agree in deciding what books now in the .lewish canon found a place among tlie thirteen his- torical books, and four of hymns and counsels mentioned by Josephus. All the books on the existing Jewish Canon not made use of by Josephus in his writings. Of other books not on that canon he has copied portions. For example deutero parts of Esther, Esdras III and Machabees. The Catholic and Protestant Esther contrasted. Vicissi- tudes through which the book of Esther has passed. These vicissi- tudes accounted for. . . . . 165- CHAPTER XIII. Statement of Josephus further discussed. Succession and mission of the Prophets. Flavian •' succession of Prophets." Whence did Josephus derive his information on the subject? According to his own state- ments and those of the Scripture there were several well known prophets between the time of Artaxexes and his own age. Josephus contradicted by himself— by the writers of the New Testament- by Philo Judacns and by the authors of the Talmud. Various grades of propliecy. Meaning of the Flavian " succession of prophets " uncer- tain. Interpreted in one way these words not inconsistent with the divine origin claimed for the Deutero books. Interpreted otherwise asasourceof testimony they are of little account. And why. Rab- bins and Reformers well paired. . . . . .180 CHAPTER XIV. The Canon of the Schismatics. Wliat is meant by a Schismatic. The Syrians excepted, all Christians received at first the Scpttiagint or a version of it, and with it the Deutero books. These books ever used by the Roman See. As to them never any difference between Latins and Greeks. The Canon at the Council in Trnllo and the Council of Florence. Joasaph II Schismatical patriarch of Constantinople sends a deacon to Wittenberg. Melanchthon's letter to the patriarch. Corres- pondence between the TUbingen divines and Jeremias II, schismatical Contents. \iii patriarch of Constantinople. Four folio volumes of Lutheran ser- mons fail to make any impression on the obdurate Greeks. . . 106 CHAPTER XV. •Cyril Lucar. His birth and education — visits (Jenoa — is introduced to Protestant society — is ordained— comes in contact with the Jesuits — is made patriarch of Alexandria - favors Calvinism — opens a corres- pondence with leading Protestants — has several students (among them Metrophanes Critopulus) educated in Protestant institutions — is promoted to the Patriarchal See of Constantinople — ably sustained there by the English, Dutch, and Swedish ambassadors— troubled by the Jesuits but contrives to get rid of them — writes a confession of faith — is suspected of high treason— repeatedly degraded and re- stored— is at last arrested and strangled, his dead bod}' being thrown into the sea — soon after his death anathematized in a Greek Synod as a Lutheran. Metrophanes Critopulus writes a confession of faith — is promoted to the patriarchal See of Alexandria, and unites with other schismatical dignitaries in blasting with censure the memorj' of his unfortunate patron — Cyril Lucar. The canon of Scripture advocated by Cyril and Metrophanes. Decrees on the subject by several councils composed of Greek schismatics, not at all what Cyril's protestant patrons expected. ....... 205 CHAPTER XVL Source of Russian Ciiristianity. SS. Cyril and Methodius. Invention of the Slavonic alphabet. Slavonic version of the Scripture. It con- tained the Deutero books, the Septuagint or Vulgate being the stand- ard after which it was modelled. The progress of Christianity slow among the Russians until the end of the tenth centur}-. Vladimir, their ruler is baptized. With the aid of missionaries from Constan- tinople he accomplishes the conversion of his subjects. The Russian church at its creation in communion with Rome. Homage done to the Pope by Vladimir's grandson for his kingdom. The council of Florence. The Russian church represented thereat. The act of union adopted then by Latins and Greeks subsequently rejected by the latter. Sad picture presented under the Sultan by the proud prelates who violated the compact they had solemnly signed at Flor- ence. The act of union also repudiated by the Russians. Dismal condition of the Russian hierarchy under the Czars. The Greeks had ruptured the union which bound them to Rome. The Russians in turn broke loose ^''■om Constantinople. Present state of religion in Russia. 217 CHAPTER XVIL Russian divines on the Canon. Peter Mogila — his " Exposition of the XIV • Contents. Faith of the Russian Church." George Konissky — liis treatise " On the duty of Parish Priests." Philaret-his "Catechism." State- ments by Protestant and Catholic writers. Hody on the " Muscovite Bible." Reuss on "the Greek Bible printed at Moscow in 1821." Comely on " Russian Bibles edited and approved by the Synod of St. Petersburg in 1876." A Russian Bible printed in 1882 at St. Peters- burg with the benediction of " the Most Ploly Orthodox Synod." The Non-Jurors of Great Britain solicit recognition by the Schismat- ical Greek, and Russian churches. By the former they are required to surrender at discretion. Xegotiations with the latter finally arrest- ed by the death of Peter the Great. Similar efforts recently made by British and American Episcopalians. What followed. Bollinger invites a conference to Bonn. It is attended by a few ministers and Russo-Greeks, each one representing nobody but himself. The points discussed thereat. What came of it. A second Bonn Confer- ence. Dollingerites and Anglicans ready to barter away their creed. The Russo-Greeks instead of meeting the others half way haughtily decline to make the smallest concession. As to the canon of the Old Testament the agreement reached at Bonn when fairly interpreted favors the canomcity of the Deutero books. . . . 22S CHAPTER XVIII. The Canon of the Old Testament among the other Schismatical Commu- nities. The Nestorians. The Abyssinians. The Armenians. The Copts and others of Egypt. Tne Melchites. The Jacobites, etc. Renaudot on the question. Admissions of Walton, Wright, Welhau- sen, and Marsh. The Deutero books canonical, because the schismat- ics who so receive them, must have been taught to believe this by those who whether Apostles or successors of the Apostles were the first to deHver to them the word of God. .... 250 CHAPTER XIX. Tlie Canon among the Sects. Meaning of Sect. , The Canon among the Jewish Sects. Samaritans, Sadducees, Pharisees. The Canon among the Christian Sects of the first century— Simon Magus, Saturninus, Basilides, Cerinthus, Ebion. The Canon among the sects of the sec- ond century — Elcesaeus, Cerdo, Marcion, Tat-ian, Montanus, Apelles. The Canon among the sects of the third century— Manes, Tertullian, Simonians, Basilidians, Marcionites, Maniciieans, Nazarites, Valen- tinians, Ebionites. Cataphrygians, Alogians. Gnostics, etc. The Canon among the sects of the fourth and fifth centuries— Arians, Pelagians, Eunomians, Anomeeans, Vigilantius. The Canon among the sects from the sixth to the tenth century During this period the spirit of error was so occupied with other innovations, that the canon of Contents. xv Scripture escaped iis notice. The Canon among the sects of the eleventh century — Bosroniilists, Stephen and Lisosius. The Canon among the sects of the twelftli century — Albigenses and Cathari, "Waldensians. The Canon among the sects of the thirteenth century — Abbot Joachim, Albigensians still engaged in manufacturing a new Canon. . . . • . . . . 264 CHAPTER XX. The Canon among tlie sects from the fourteenth to the sixteenth century. John Wyckliile — effects of his errors — ignorant of Greek or Hebrew. His canon of Scripture doubtful. So also is the English translation of the Scripture he is reported to have written. The point discussed by Davidson, mentioned in Dublin Review, considered in Book of Days, referred to by Hallam, treated b}- Marsh, seriously doubted by Stevenson. The Canon among the sects of the fifteenth century. Herman Ruissvich. The Canon among the sects of the sixteenth century. A horde of heretics. The foremost Martin Luther. His surcmary rejection of many books belonging to the Old and Xew Testaments. Davidson's estimate of Martin's argument against the Apocalypse. Martin Chemnitz, Johann Brentz, the Cen- turiators of Magdeburg though favorable to Luther's views, defend the Apocalypse. Luiher, Calvin, Grotius, Scaliger, Salmasius, Sem- ler, Bolten, Michaehs make sad havoc of the Canon. Vigorous pro- tests from conservative Protestants as well as Catholics against the sacrilegious treatment of that venerable instrument. . .275 CHAPTER XXL Merits of Luther's Bible. 'Tis condemned by Emser. Luther's abuse of his censor. Luther's Bible also severely censured by his fellow reform- ers. Its deliberate perversions of the plain sense contained in the original. These perversions perpetrated to justify Luther's errors. Examples of such perversions. Calvin's Bible condemned by Dum- oulin, a French Calvinistic minister. (Ecolampadius' pronounced impious by Beza the successor of Calvin. Beza's Latin New Testa- ment denounced by Walton, Dumoulin, and MacKnight. English Protestant Bibles. Tyndale's Bible modelled after Luther's. Cover dale's " Bible . . . faithfully and truly translated " as its author boasted " out of Douche and Latin." Matthew's Bible, simply a re- vision of Tyndale's as far as the latter went, the remainder of its Old Testament being the work of John Rogers and probably Coverdale. Taverner's Bible no more than Matthew's corrected. Cranmer's Bible simply a revision of the Bible by Tyiidale and Rogers. The Geneva or Breeches Bible no more than a revision of Cranmer's Bible. xvi Contents. The Bishop's Bible but another revision of Cranmer's Bible. In all these Bibles the Deutero Books, either by the name given them or the position assigned thorn in the Old Testament, treated as inferior to the rest. ....... 291 CHAPTER XXII. The English Protestant Bibles condemned by the best English Protestant scholars. A new version ordered by King James I. It is completed in 161 1, is styled " the authorized version." Its character — the result of a compromise between the two factions of which the translators were composed. But both agreed so to pervert the sense of the orig- inal that Catholics would appear idolaters. The way this was accom- pUshed. Perverse and shameless use of the word imu'ge by King James' scholars. ....... CHAPTER XXIII. 308 The latest Revisers of " the authorized version " loath to renounce the ad- vantage so basely acquired by the anti-scriptural use of the word image. Jacob's Slieol. The New Testament of " the authorized version " mainly Martin Luther's. " Diana of the Ephesiaus'. Perversion of Mat. xix. 11. Luther's sermon on Marriage suggests a twist of I. Cor. vii. 9. '' The use of the cup " enjoined by perverting the meeting of I. Cor. xi. 27. A belief in Purgatory prevented by corrupting Luke I. 72. King James' Translators while they had one eye on the original, with the other never lost sight of the Pope. Hebrews x. 38 falsified to prove " once just, always just." Adam Clarke's remark thereon. Perver- sion of II. Tim. iii. 16. Protestant preference for Old Testament names. Silly attempt of the Reformers to perpetuate the Hebrew vocalization df Old Testament names— while the Hebrews them- selves wJien writing these names for otlier -than Hebrew scholars, adapt tlieiii to the vocalization of their readers. . . 321 CHAPTER XXIV. Nomenclature of " the autJiorized Version " less Hebraic than that of some German reformers. The Revisers of that version try to find out the system of transliteration followed by the translators. In vain, for apart from a settled purpose to make the Bible endorse protestant and condemn Catholic principles the translators had no system. Their versatility in writing names. The two factions engaged in swapping words and passages. Tlieir use or rather abuse of the words diakonos presbuteros and episcopos. Scriptural meaning of these terms — The Anglo-Saxon priost, the Latin sacerdos, the Greek Mereus and the Hebrew cohen svnonvmous. Not however, until the close of the Contents. xvii second century was the Cliristiun -priest called a sacerdos among the li-Atins or & hiereus among the Greeks. Reason for the discipline. Priest implies essentially a sacrificer. Applied to those generally re- cognized as ministers, it is unappropriate, misleading, fraudulent and false. ........ 341 CHAPTER XXV. A Reviewer of the revised version of the New Testament, who assisted in that work, reviewed. " A vast multitude of changes made in " the autliorized version." Specimens of these changes. " The authorized version" declared by a Reviser erroneous, absurd," etc., though the Revisers as a bodj' find language inadequate to depict the beauties of the volume. The translators had ample means for writing a faithful version. But that they did not propose doing. The Revisers like the Translators composed of two factions. The result also a compromise. Many archaic words and uugrammatical expressions allowed to re- remain. Public expectation of the coming revision aroused to the higliest pitch wherever the English language was spoken, but only to collapse under bitter disappointment. Book-sellers and pu"blishers for a while reap a rich harvest. But a reaction soon set in. The market became glutted — Retailers found at last copies could not be sold at any price. No demand for tlie revised version of the Old Testament when it appeared. Use made of the Revision. A question of Profit and Loss. ....... 365 CHAPTER XXVI. The Anglo Catliolic Version, commonly called the Douay Bible. An ac- count of it. Its basis the vulgate, a copy highly esteemed by Pro- testant scholars. The literary qualifications of those to whom Eng- lish readers owe the Douay Bible. The version commended by Protestant critics for " its scrupulous accuracy and fidelity." Fault found with it on account of its Hebraisms. Latinisms and Grascisms. This accounted for. Wherever the sense of the original seemed doubtful the version strictly literal. An example of this. Striking contrast between the judgment of Hallam and that of the Revisers regarding the language of the " authorized Version." In the case of words whose meaning in the original seemed obscure the authors of the Douay simply transcribed such often without any change whatever. Sindon cited as an illustration of this. Tliough honored with the sanction of not a single Bishop the Douay Version deservedly re- garded in its day as the most valuable contribution then made to Eng- lish Catholic literature. ...... 380 xviii Contents. chaptp:r XXVII. A brief account of the Revisions and editions through which the Douay Version passed in Great Britain and Ireland. Objectionable notes in the Douay Version. McNaraara's unfortunate speculation. Nary's Version of the Vulgate j^ew Testament. Witham's revision of the same. Challoner's labors on the Douay Version. Keurick and New- man on changes made in the language of the Douay Version by Chal- loner. Lingard's Translation of the four Gospels. . . 399 CHAPTER XXVIII. What has been done by Catholics for the circulation of the Scriptures in the United States. Revisions and editions of the Douay Bible there. McNamara's edition of the Douay Bible re-issued under Protestant auspices at New York. Object and failure of the speculation. French, German and Spanish Catholic Versions of the Vulgate published in the United States under Episcopal sanction. The same versions with a Cathohc Portuguese one but all mutilated or moditied in some way edited by the American bible society. An attempt to force into cir- culation among Catholics a Lutheran bible by inserting therein the title page of a German Catholic Bible. Similar tricks employed by the Protestant bible societies in the Old as well as the New world to shove among Catholics counterfeits of God's Holy Word. Some steitistics of sales of Catholic Bibles in the United States. . 413- CHAPTER XXIX. Since types were substituted for pens, Bibles multiplied by the Chu rch not only in English but in all languages spoken by Christian nations. German Catholic Bibles, French Catholic Bibles, Italian Catholic Bibles, Spanish Catholic Bibles, Portuguese Catholic Bibles, Flemish Catholic Bibles, Polish Catholic Bibles, Bohemian Catholic Bibles, Slavonian Catholic Bibles, Hungarian Catholic Bibles, Syriac Catholic Bibles, Arabic Catholic Bibles, Egyptian Catholic Bibles, Armenian Catholic Bibles. Portions of the Catholic Old and New Testament translated into some of the languages and dialects spoken by the aborigines of the New World. Under the sanction and blessing of the Church, Greek and Latin Versions of the Scriptures collated corrected and copied again and again. Look at those venerable and precious manuscripts which we still possess. Well these are generally the productions of a class of men, for whom modern sciolists have no bet- ter name than that cf " Lazy Monks." .... 435 CHAPTER XXX. The general circulation 'A the Scriptures before the invention of the Contents. xix printing press impossible for two reasons — prevalent illiteracy arising from irruptions of the Barbarians ; (examples of this illiteracy), and the enormous expense of books ; (instances of this) — Yet not only the existence but the contents of the Bible, well known all along through the public readings and explanations of the Epistles and Gospels in the Churches. Maitland's exposure of D'Aubigne's and Milner's falsehoods about Luther's pretended discoverj^ of the Bible. Yet the falsehood repeatedly edited by D'Aubigne's Protestant admirers, while allowing Maitland's masterly refutation to go out of print. This, how- ever, the- uniform policy of the party ever since it was organized by Luther. Latin very generally understood in Western Christendom un- til the lime of Luther. With it as a means of access to the V^ilgate, that sacred volume could not have been generally unknown. For long after the time of Luther Latin was the usual channel through which even Protestant scholars expressed their thoughts. A list of such scholars. A practical knowledge of Latin possessed occasionally even by ladies and laborers. ..... 446 CHAPTER XXXL The Inroduction of the Bible to England coeval with the preaching of the Gospel in that country. Statement of Gildas. Testimony of Venerable Bede. Usher on the point. Tradition regarding Venerable Bcde Alcuin and King Alfred. An early English Psalter. Cuthbert's Evangelistariura. The Rush worth Gospels. The Heptateuch of Aelfnc, Archl.isliop of Canterbury. The Deutero Books of the Old Testament in use. Anglo Saxon Psalters and Gospels preserved in British Museum and else- where, some of them as late as the twelfth century. The counterfeit Versions attributed to Wyckliffe and his associates well preserved. The why of this easily explained. But from the twelfth century to the year ] 582, the date of the Douay Version not a single scrap of any English Version by any Catholic pen remains. The why in this case furnished by the wholesale destruction to which every relic of Catholic antiquity in England was doomed by Henry VIII and his rapacious in- quisitors. Several instances of this awful sacrilege cited on the au- thority of Protestant writers, some of whom profited by it. . 462 CHAPTER XXXIL The sacred Scriptures profoundly esteemed in England while the country remained Catholic. A dilemma for Hartwell Home and all of his school. His assertion about a chasm during which the Scriptures were buried in oblivion contradicted by More, Cranmer, Fox and Common Sense. Even m the worst of times while England remained Catholic its people possessed Versions of the Gospels and Epistles, Histories of the XX Contents. Sacred Passion, Psalters and numerous ascetic books. Various in- stances of the profound esteem with which the divine Scriptuies were regarded in Catholic England. Maitland on this subject. Catholic England adorned the Bible as an unsullied Bride. Protestant England has treated it as a common Harlot. .... 473 CHAPTER XXXIII. If after the tenth century no translation of tlie Bible was made for a long time in England ; that accounted for by the inroads of the Danes, the Norman Conquest, the extinction of the Saxon language and the slow growth of a new one. But above all by the general destruc- tion of Catholic writings at the reformation. Yet Home's imaginary chasm easily filled by what must have been the literary labors of such scholars as Lanf ranc, Anselm, Langton, Grosseteste, John of Salisbury, Richard of St. Victor, etc. Home's charge that the general reading of the Scriptures was prohibited b}' " the Papal See " utterly groundless. Innocent III and the bible readers of Metz. Frederic Von Hurler's view of the case. Innocent III and tlie Albigensians. The PontifE's polic}' on that occasion vindicated. Decree by the Council of Toulouse regarding the Scriptures. Action on the same subject b_y the Council of Tarragona and the Synod of Oxford under Tliomas Arundel. Eng- lish Catholics never forbidden to read faithful versions of the Scrip- tures. Prohibitory rules on the subject temporary, local and the result of exceptional circumstances. Practice of the Apostles regarding the matter. Autocrats of the Common Scliools. Millions spent in the dis- tribution of Protestant bibles, vvhicli the recipients generally utilize for all siicli purposes as those to vvliich waste paper is applied. . 483 CHAPTER XXXIV. Bible Societies. TJieir origin and purposes. Opposed by several Anglican Bishops, and by Bretschneider with several other leading German Protestants, but encouraged by Leander Van Ess, a German Priest. The Societies condemned by several Popes. Engaged in the distribu- tion of counterfeits of Catholic Bibles. Novel method of translating the Scriptures into foreign languages. Character of these translations. The use made of them. Position assigned the Deutero Old Testament books in early Protestant bibles offensive to English dissenters, not so to continental Protestants. Karl Hildebrand Canstein's bibles an oc- casion of scandal to the Kirk O'Scotland. Strife among the Bretliren. The sixteen j-ears' Apocryphal war. A free for all fight in London, Glasgow, Edinburgh. Paris, Saltzburg, Berlin. Stockholm and Peters- burgh. Van Ess and tlie Deutero books sacrificed as a peace offering to the intolerant spirit of Scotch Presbyterianism. The difference be- Contents. xxi tween the treatment wliich the Catholic Bible receives from Catholics and that which the Protestant bible receives from Protestants v^rell expressed in the contrast between the reverential attitude of Moses as ' he stood awe-struck by the voice from the burning bush, and the daring deeds of Hell's sons when they dragged the ark into the tield of battle. . . . . ■ . . . . 499 CHAPTER XXXV. Rules of the Index regarding the reading of the Scriptures. These rules dictated by a due consideration of the evils attributable to the indis- criminate use of the Bible. The existence of these evils not only proved by Catholic writers, but admitted and deplored by intelligent Protestants, and even by the reformers themselves. The victims of indiscriminate bible reading still numerous. Composed of impostors, fanatics and fools. Modern methods of treating them. Instances of recent outrages b}'^ them in the United States. For most readers Bible histories, like those prepared for the medieval Christians, more useful and certainly less dangerous than the Bible. Declaration of the British Hierarchy in 1826, regarding the reading of the Bible. A sim- ilar Declaration the same j^ear by the Irish Hierarchy. Decree of the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore on the subject. That decree ap- proved by Pius IX, who exhorts the American Hierarchy to prepare as correct an edition as possible of the English Bible then in use. 514 CHAPTER XXXVI. Long before the invention of the printing press the Bible or portions of it translated into the language of each Christian country. While this was being done no distinction made between Protoaiid Deutero books. Germany favored with a version in the fourlli centurj'. France's earliest known version belongs to the eleventh century. Italy's first version appeared in the thirteenth century. Spain received its first in the same century. Portugal its first about the same time. Flanders received the Scriptures in its own language a few years earlier, Poland had the Bible translated into its own language not until tlie fourteenth century. Bohemia was supplied with a version of the New Testament about the beginning of the fifteenth century. Sweden had the Bible in its own language in the fourteenth century. Iceland possessed a version about a century before that. Hungary was provided with at least portions of a version about the .same time. Slavonia traces its first version to the ninth century. Ireland certainly blessed with a version in the fourteenth century and probably with versions of parts of the bible several centuries before that. All these with versions in other languages made long before the birth of Luther, or the introduction of xxii Contents. the printing press. All this accomplished under the influence of the Church in the absence of all rivalry and opposition. . . 535 CHAPTER XXXVII. The Canon of Scripture proclaimed by Protestants in their Confessions of Faith. Anglican Articles of Religion — at first 42, reduced to 39. Ar- ticle VI untrue, so admitted by Anglicans. Helvetic confession of Faith — the work of Beza. Its appeal to St. Augustine. Tlie Gallic confession of Faith — appeal to the Spirit. TJie Belgic confession of Faith — of a class with the Belgic. Waldensian confessio7i of Faith — a confessed forger}'. The Confession of the Dutch Churches appeals to the Holy Ghost. Dutchmen sharp-sighted. Ihe Westminster Confes- sion like all the others rejects the Deutero books and maintains that the other books " are the Word of God because they are the Word of God." ! The Swiss Declaration of 167.5 insists that the Hebrew text as it stands, consonants, vowels, etc., is divinely inspired ! Ac- cording to tiie foremost Protestant scholars some of the deutero books better entitled to a place on the Canon than others placed thereon by the Reformers. . . . . . . . 546 CHAPTER XXXVIII. Protestant scholars on the Protestant plan of settling the Canon. Jer- emiah Jones denounces that plan as '" folly and madness." Richard Baxter " could never boast of any such testimony or light of the Spirit " by which other Protestants pretended to distinguish between canon- ical and Apocryphal writings. Robert Barcla}' insists that " it is im- possible to prove the Canon by fhe Scriptures." John Whitaker an Anglican minister hold that it belongs to the Church to discern be- tween true and false Scripture. The Spirit a, last ditch for Protestants when hard pressed on the Canon. Calvin's Celestial Revelations. According to Presliyterian theology, the Supreme Judge in controver- sies of religion is the Holy Ghost speaking in the Scriptures. . 560 CHAPTER XXXIX. The principle on which every Protestant creed rests false and impracticable. The innovations of Luther productive of fatal fruits. Hallam on Luther"s iminonil and irreligious notions as well as his nasty and stupid brutality. Munzer and Knipperdolling. Reformers puzzled. One of two courses to be adopted. A renunciation of the right of private judgment or a return to Rome. A media via regarding the Canon proposed by Chemnitz and Bucer. Gausscn condemns the prin- ciple on which the Protestant canon rested and devises a theory of his own. That Theory as objectionable as any other Protestant theory on the subject. ........ 568 Contents. xxiii CHAPTER XL. Emanuel Swedenborg and Joe Smith on the Canon of Scripture. Svveden- borg's reveries on religion. The original Reformers curtail the Canon of their fathers. Swedenborg curtailed theirs. Tliey cut off six entire books. He more than thrice that number. His right to mutilate the Canon as good as theirs. His '' divine science of corres- pondences" as reasonable as Calvin's •"celestial revelations." Joseph Smith instead of curtailing enlarges the Protestant Canon. Brief sketch of this latest of Reformers. His book of Mormon, a composi- tion as sacred in the opinion of his followers as King James' Bible in that of its Protestant admirers. Salt Lake tlie ecclesiastical centre of the " Latter Day SaiiiL- ' as tiie Mormons call themselves. The Pro- testant countries of I'^iu'opc their recruiting grounds. Lynch law ap- plied to their missionaries in the Southern States. Polygamy enjoined on Joe by a special revelation. Mormon defence of that institution against the assaults of the "Gentiles." The treatment of the Bible among Americans. Its treatment among many belonging to the educated classes in Germany and Great Britain. . . 577 CHAPTER XLL The Deutero Books Canonical, though they as well as some others received as such by Protestants not so called by some of the early Fathers. AV hy not so called by these Fathers. The Tridentine decree on the Canon of Scripture binding on all Catholics. It ought to be so on all to uhomthe Bible is a divine revelation. The binding force of that decree rests First on the fact, that it belongs to tiie Church to decide all questions pertaining to Faith and Morals — that fact proved. Second on the statement of the Fathers declaring that the right to distinguish between canonical and uncanouical writings is inherent in the Church — that statement shown to have been made. Third on the Infallibility of the Churcli— a point which all must admit who receive the Bible as the Word of God, else their belief is irrational, as will be proved in Chapter XLII. ... . . 589 CHAPTER XLII. A rational belief in the Canon of Scripture implies tliat the Council of Trent was infallible in defining it. A canon of Scripture a collection of writings having God as its Author. Such a collection, to be taken for what it is, must be stamped by competent authority. That authority must be divine else it is insvifficient. Mere human authority mav pro- duce conviction regarding the authenticity of Imman compositions. But when there is question of divine writings such authority is quite incompetent. The Books of Scripture cannot establish their own xxiv Contents. canonicity, just as a man's will cannot demonstrate its genuineness. External testimony required in both cases. In the latter that testimoney may be human. In the former such testimony is worthless. For the documents in that case profess to be from God. Therefore, no one but God or His delegate can prove that that is the case. "Whether the con- tents of the Bible are divine or human is a point on which God is silent. But all Christians insist that they are to be received as divine. There must, therefore, be some one to assure us that they are such. And that one must have authoritj' from God to say so. That one is the Catholic Church which alone claims to speak in God's name. If thai claim be not admitted, belief in the divinity of the Bible impossible, irrational. Many reasons why in this matter the Church should be taken at her word. These reasons stated. If the Church be not mfallible, there is abso- lutely no motive for believing that there is a collection of divine writ- ings, or that this or that book belongs to it. Concluding Remarks. 614 CHAPTER I. The Bible. Philosophy furnishes abundant reasons for believing in the existence of a personal God, as a purely spiritual, infinitely perfect, and necessary Being, who has created and governs all things. Theology proves by conclusive arguments that God has revealed to mankind, principal- ly in ivriting, what they have to believe and practise. It is therefore taken for granted that both propositions are entitled to the rational assent of the reader, in order that a question suggested by the latter, and which is the subject of the present treatise, may be at once intro- duced and discussed. What is the writing in which God has made the revelation referred to ? The answer is, a volume commonly called the Bible, from the Greek word Biblos, signifying at present a book, but meaning originally the inner bark of the papyrus plant, out of which paper was made. 5zM«— small books— is sometimes used to designate the Bible. This volume claims for itself such names as the Scripture, ' the Scriptures, ' the Holy Book, ' the Holy Books, " the Book of the Lord, ' the Sacred Letters, ' but was also designated by some of the early Christian writers the Instrument, ' the Libraries, ' the Pandect, ' and the Divinely Inspired ' Mark, xii, lo. 2 Matt, xxi, 42. 3 II, Mach. viii. 23 < I. Mach. xii. 9. * Isaias, xxxiv. 16. *' II. Tim. iii. 15. ^ Tertullian contra AIarc.\,. iv. c. i. « S. Jerome, Praf. in Esther, Ep. xlix., ad Pamm., ^ 3. 3 Cassiodorus, de div., lect. c. xiv. 2 The Canon of the Old Testcunent Scriptures ] ' yet it has been more commonly referred to in ancient and modern times as the Scripture or Scriptures, often qualified by the word Holy, Sacred, or Divine. The volume in question consists of several compositions belonging to different dates, and originating with differ- ent authors, whom God employed for the purpose. Considered as a whole, and apart from all other writings, these compositions constitute what is called The Canon of Scripture; that is, a catalogue or collection of books, which the Jews always believed to have been written under divine influence, and which, with some additions. Christians have received as such. Why these books have been so called will now be made apparent. The word Canon, at present found in the speech of almost every civilized nation, has been adopted from the Greek language, and is derived from the Greek kane, or kanna, a reed or cane. It therefore signified originally 7S. straight rod ox pole, and by degrees a r2ile or line for measuring, as well as a standard or model. It was and is still used to designate conciliar and Pontifical decrees, and clerg3^men attached to cathedrals or collegiate churches are known by the name of Canons, as being on the list or catalogue of those who have special fmictions to perform in connection with such institutions. The principal part of the Mass is also called the Canon, either because that part constitutes the fixed rule according to which the Holy Sacrifice is offered, or because it con- tains a list or catalogue of those who are commemorated therein. In the Greek Scriptures the word is rarely met with, but when it does occur therein it has no reference to a catalogue or collection of sacred books. It is found in ^ Amphilochius, Cartii. ad Scleiic. Most of these names have been given to the Scriptures also by other early writers. The Canon of tlic Old Testament. 3 II. Cor. X. 13, 15, 16, where it refers to a ride, or to a//;/r for fixing boundaries ; and in Gal. vi. 16 as well as Philipp. iii. 16, implying there a doctrinal rule. And it appears that it is in this sense that the word is taken whenever it is employed by the Fathers of the first three centuries, in the West as well as in the East, the Latin Rcgula (rule) conveying the same idea as the Greek Kanon. Towards the close of the fourth century the custom of applying the word to a catalogue, or rather the entire collection of Sacred Books was introduced. For St. John Chrysostom ' among the Greeks, and SS. Jerome ^ and Augustine ^ among the Latins, seem to have been the first to employ the word for that purpose. Since then the use commonly made of the w^ord conveys the idea of an index or catologue of those books which Christians revere as the word of God, and look upon, when properly understood, as a rule or standard {\\io\x^ not the only one) of belief and practice. Hence the Books of which the Bible is composed are called canoni- cal or canonized ; and their contents Canonical Scripture, an expression consecrated by not only ancient usage, ' but Ecumenical sanction. ' The name of each ot the Sacred Books among Chris^ tians is that of the writer, or such as denotes the character of its contents, or that of the persons to whom or about whom it was written. These books are also classified under different titles, according to the period within which they were written, and the nature of the subjects treated therein. Thus such of them as were written before the coming of Christ constitute the Old Testament, those written afterwards belong to what is •called the New Testament. So far as the words Old and 1 In Act. hom. xxxiii. % 4. * Prol. Gal. '■'■ Doctr. Chris., lib. ii , c. viii., 13. ■• Cottc. Laodic, can. lix. ; Cone. vi. Carth., can. Ivii. * Cone. Trid., Sessio iv. 4 The Canon of the Old Testament. Xe7u are concerned, the distinction is obviously quite appropriate, since the one class preceded the other, not only in point of time, but by way of preparation. But why the word Testament ? As one of several answers which might be given to the question, it may be ob- served that St. Paul, II. Cor. iii. 14, refers to the Scrip- ture read by the Jews as the palaia (old) diatJieke, thus implying that there was a kaine (new) diatheke possessed by the Christians. Now diatheke, though it is sometimes used in the Scripture to express a compact or covenant, primarily signifies a testament or last will, the sense attached to it in Heb. ix. 16, &c., and it has been very appropriately so translated in many passages by the author of that incomparable copy of the divine volume — the Latin Vulgate, for many centuries the only ver- sion in circulation throughout Western Christendom — where, for that reason, the expression Old and New Testament (Vetus et Novum Testamentum) came into general use ; while its equivalent, /rt/iZzVz kai kaine diatheke, conveyed the same idea among the Christians of the East. The Catholic Canon. The following catalogue ex- hibits the books which were pronounced canonical by the Council of Trent, in its Fourth Session, on April 8, 1546. Books of the Old Testament. 1. Genesis, "| ^ i6. H. Esdras, also enticled Ne- 30. Ezechiel, 2. Exodus, I hernias, 31. Daniel, 3. Leviticus, \.% i"]. Tobias, 32. Ozee, 4. Numbers, 1 S 18. Judith, 33. Joel, 5. Deuteronomy, J I 19. Esther, 34- Amos, 6. Josue. ' ' 20. Tob, 35. Abdias, 7. judges, 21. Davidical Psalter of 15036. Jonas, 8. Ruth, Psalms, 37. "Micheas, 9. L Kings, 22. Proverbs, 38. Nahum, 10. IL Kings, 23. Ecclesiastes, 39. Habacuc. 11. HI. Kings, 24. Canticle of Canticles, 40. Sophonias, 12. IV. Kings, 25. Wisdom, 41. Aggeeus, j | 13. I. PaialipomenoD, 26. Ecclesiasticus, 42. Zacharias, | | 14. II. Paralipomenon, 27. Isaias. 43. Malachias, J i, 15. I. Esdras, 28. Jeremias with Lamentations. 44. I. Machabees, 29. Baruch, 45. II. Machabees. The Canon of the Olei Testament. Books of the New Testament. 1, Matthew, \ i? 6. Romans, 2. Mark, [ = * | 7. I. Corinthians, Luke, t oS - ^- II- Corinthians, 20. I. Peter, 21. II. Peter, 22. I. John, 23. IT. John, 24. III. John, 25. James, 26. Jude, 27. Apocalypse. 4. John, ) ?•? 9- Galatians, 5. Acts of the Apostles, 10. Ephesians, written by Luke, il. Philippians, the EvangeHst, 12. Colossians, 13. I. Thessalonians, 14. II. Thessalonians, 15. I. Timothy, 16. II. Timothy, 17. Titus. iS. Philemon, 19. Hebrews, Altogether, therefore, according to the manner in which the canonical books are enumerated in the Cath- olic Church, they amount to 72-45 of the Old Testament and 27 of the New. Christians at an early period divided the Sacreei Books into several classes, based on the character of their contents. At present they are generally classified as legal ; historical ; moral, sapiental or didactic ; and prophetical. The five Books of Moses or the Penta- teuch in the Old, and the four Gospels in the New Tes- tament, are legal. Josue and the following books as far as Psalms, together with the two Books of Machabees, in the Old Testament, and the Acts of the Apostles in the New, are historical. The Psalms, Proverbs, and the other Books as far as Isaias in the Old Testament, and the Epistles in the New, are sapiental. Isaias and the other Prophets as far as Machabees in the Old, and the Apocalypse in the New Testament, are prophetical. The legal books are so called, because in those of Moses the Old Law is contained, and the New Law is set forth in the Gospels. The historical are so desig- nated because they are a recoi-d of past events. The sapiental are thus styled, because they inculcate the highest wisdom by encouraging the practice of virtue and denouncing vice. The prophetical, as the name imports, are those in which future events are foretold. 6 The Canon of the Old Testament. These distinctions are recognized principally among- Catholics, and are both judicious and appropriate. Besides the strictly canonical books, there were in early times others, professedly religious, and written, some of them before, some of them after the commence- ment of the Christian era. Several of them have utterly disappeared, but the number still extant is quite consid- erable. The style, spirit, and contents of many among them are such, that their real character could be detected solely by the light of unerring tradition. Such clever attempts at fraud seem to have thrown a shade of suspi- cion even on some books, of whose divine origin prob- ably no one would otherwise have entertained a doubt. As a safeguard, therefore, against error in a matter so important, for several centuries after the completion of the sacred volume, ecclesiastical writers often applied to all books professing to belong to it certain terms, which expressed the opinions they had formed regarding the character of these books. These terms do not in all cases, even when used by the same writer, convey the same meaning. Yet they enable the reader to per- ceive that the writers in question generally divided all books, the intrinsically as well as merely professedly sacred, into four classes. At least, such a division is suggested by their criticisms. The hrst class consisted of those books whose canon- icity all Christians, with the exception of a few obscure sectarists, always admitted. They comprised almost all on the preceding catalogue. Second class. Those books, whose canonicity, though generally admitted, was either rejected or doubted by a few otherwise orthodox writers. They embraced all on the preceding catalogue which were not included in the first class. Third class. Those books not found in the preceding catalogue, and which, though some of the early Fathers The CiDion of the Old Testament. 7 cited them as Sacred Scripture, were even then and are now ahnost universally excluded from the canon. Fourth class. Those that were generally not only pro- nounced uncanonical, but stigmatized as absurd, heretic- al, or blasphemous. Following are some of the words by which the early writers seem to indicate the class to which, as judged by their own statements., they appear to assign the books which they had occasion to mention. It need hardly be observed that in some instances the distinctions made are not very sharply drawn. The books of the first class, besides being designated as shown above,' were said to be "■ acknotvledged by all ;'^ tneorporated or in the Testament ; ^ not eontradicted ; ^ reg- ular ; * canonized ; ® of perfect authority !' ' Those of the second class were denominated " not canonized ; * not canonical ; ' controverted ; '" ecclesiastical ; " apocryphal ; ''' of middle authority ; '' pseudepigraphal,'' '* (ascribed to the wrong author). The books of the third are described as "spurious ; "" to be repudiated ; '* apocryphal ; " of 7to authority." " The books of the fourth class are denounced as "apoc- ryphal;'^ absurd and impious ;""" to be not only repudiated but condemned ; ^' of no authority.'' ^'^ ' i". I- 2 Eusebius, E. Hist., B. iii., c. 3. 3 Ibidem. •» Ibidem, vi., c. 13. * Origen on Matthew xxvii. 9. transl. by Rufinus. « Athanasius, Fest. Ep. '' Junilius de Pari. D. Leg. 8 Athanasius, Fesi. Ep. » Greg, the Great, Mor., B. xix., c. xxi. '0 Eusebius, E. Hist., B. vi., c. 13,14; Athanas., Synopsis. '' Rufinus, Expos. Symb. '2 Jerome, Pref. to Dan. '^ Junilius, De Part. D. Leg. '■* Jerome, Pref. to Books 0/ Solomon. 1* Eusebius, E. Hist., B. iii., c. 25. '« Innocent I., Ep. Exitper. " Jerome Ep. to Lata. '* Junilius, de Part. D. Leg. 19 Origen, Pref. to Canticles. 20 Eusebius, E. Hist., B. iii., c. 25. 2' Innocent I., Ep. to Exitper. 2^ Junilius, de Part. D. Leg. 8 TJie Canon of tJie Old Testament, It is thus seen that man}^ of the terms employed by the Fathers (especially the word apocryphal), for the purpose of indicating the quality of the various books claiming, to be parts of the Sacred Scripture, do not al- ways convey the same idea, even when used by the same writers. The result has been that the belief of many of the Fathers regarding some books, either act- ually or only professedly pertaining to the divine volume, has been misunderstood by readers, who rushed at con- clusions based on one or two isolated passages in their works, instead of patiently investigating the practice as well as the statements of the authors, and then pro- nouncing judgment. As an instance of this, the use that has been made of apocrypJial may here be referred to. This word, though originally Greek, occurs but rarely in the Greek Scriptures ; and when it is met with therein, it has the same sense which pagan Greek writers had attached to it. It is found in Mark iv. 22, and is there translated secret ; in Luke viii. 17, where its English equivalent is hidden, and in Colossians ii. 3, being rendered hid, but in no case implying something worthless, objectionable, false, or spurious. Indeed, it does not seem to have been used for that purpose until- the appearance of those fictitious Gospels, Epistles, Acts, Testaments, and other similar productions of primitive Christian times, when the word wtis applied to all such writings, but probably as much to express the obscurity of their origin as the too often objectionable character of their contents. Its application by writers to books which, though belonging to the Bible, were regarded by them with suspicion, or as unfit to be generally read, followed as a matter of course. And such works are known to have been even among those pertaining to the Hebrew Canon. For Origen, in his answer to Africanus, intimates that the Jews had " Hebrew apocryphal books ; " and there is good reason for beheving that The Canon of the Old Testament. 9 Canticles and Ecclesiastes, with portions of Genesis and Ezechiel, belonged to the number. In fact, Origen states that it was said, " That among the Hebrews no one be- fore reaching the age of maturity was allowed even to hold this book (Canticles) in his hands ;" ' and St. Jerome ■' remarks, that " The Hebrews say, that this book (Eccle- siastes) might seem worthy to disappear with the other lost books of Solomon ;" besides, in his Epistle to Paulinus, he declares that " The begining and end of Ezechiel are involved in obscurities, and among the He- brews these parts and the exordium of Genesis must not be read by a man under thirty. " But the early Christian Fathers generally applied apocryphal only to such writings as were spurious, fals- ified, or heretical." And S. Jerome was the first to so designate all books supposed to belong to the Old Testament, but which he did not find in the Hebrew canon. No matter what their intrinsic merits, or the esteem in which they had been held among Christians, whatever is outside that canon " must be placed among the apocryphal," is his arbitrary ruling.^ Yet, while so deciding, he is proved by his own words to have recog- nized various and important distinctions among the books which he thus stigmatized. For Judith, which, as he admits (since he so read), " the Council of Nice computed among the Sacred Scriptures," must have had for that reason with him an authority equal to that of any book in the Hebrew canon. And Tobias, with the other books implied by him as apocryphal in his Prol. Gal., must have been in his opinion (because, to use his own words, " the Church reads them" *) far supe- rior in authority to " the dreams," as he styles them,^ ' Prologue to Canticles, c. xx. ^ On Eccles., xii. 13, 14. ^ Clem, of Alexand., Strom. L. iii., c. iv; S. Iren., contra liar. L. i. c. xx; Origen, Prolog, to Cant.; Tertull., de anim. c. ii. ■* Prol. Gal. ^ Pre/, in Libr, Salomcnis. e /^ £^(i_ ^( Neh. pnef. lO TJic Canon of the Old Testament. of apocryphal III. & IV. Esdras, or the apocryphal book of Enoch.' Ecclesiastical, as used by Rufinus, the first to distin- guish in this way a certain class of professedly Scrip- tural compositions, meant such books as were used in the Church, though not, at least universally, recognized as canonical. He was familiar with the writings of Eu- sebius, had in fact translated his Ecclesiastical History. In that work he found that Eusebius had made some distinctions in the books of Scripture, calling one class controverted, to which no doubt Rufinus considered ec- clesiastical equivalent, as that class was composed of books which, though read publicly as well as privately, were not generally received as canonical. The other terms applied by the Fathers to the books which commonly passed as Scripture are so well under- stood as to require no explanation. But canonical and canonized, although the sense generally attached to the words has been already indicated, call for a few addition- al remarks. At present canonical or canonized books nec- essarily mean only such to which the title of Scripture, or sacred, holy, divine Scripture, is applicable. Among early Christians it was otherwise ; with them canonical or canonized^xdoV-S by no means implied a fixed number of writings, to which alone the name of Scripture, sacred, holy, or divine Scripture, could be given. For there were, besides the canonical or canonized books, others, which were frequently, it might be said generally, called Scripture, even holy and divine Scripture. These ear- ly Christians, too, had a canon embracing generally all Old Testament books received as divine by the Jews,, and all New Testament books, except certain epistles and the Apocalypse; but they also honored with the name of Scripture and divine Scripture these and sev- eral other books as parts of the Old and New Testa- 1 Liberate vir. illustr.c. iv. Tlie Canon of the Old Testament. 1 1 ment ; of these others some were afterwards designated canonical, and the rest at last universally rejected as not belonging to the Scriptures, if they had ever been so re- garded. Hence canonical or canonized, so far as that term applies to books, had a meaning in primitive Christian times very different from what that term has at present. Consequently all the Christian Fathers who pro- nounced any book canonical di\^ so, because they found it in the Hebrew canon and generally treated as canonical Scripture by the Church ; while the only reason they had, in most instances, for declaring a book uncanonical was its absence from that canon, or certain doubts expressed regarding it by other writers. That such was the case is proved by the fact that many of the Fathers, whether giving a list of the sacred books, or expressing an opin- ion regarding the character of any particular book, ex- clude from the canon of the Old Testament all such books as were rejected by the Jews, though they had no hesitation on other occasions in citing several such books as sacred or divine Scripture. The absence, however, of any authentic decision on the subject by the Church suiificiently accounts for the contradiction between the theory and practice of the Fathers in ques- tion. That certain books of the Old Testament were canonical they were assured, because they all knew that these books were received as such, not only by the Jews but by the Church. Of other books included in their copies of the Old Testament some were in doubt, be- cause, while aware they were not on the Jewish Canon, they were not certain that they had been approved by the Church. And though they knew that several books professing to belong to the New Testament were uni- versally recognized as part of it, they were aware that there were others not so recognized. Of the latter, as well as those Old Testament books rejected by the Jews, some of the Fathers speak with hesitation, if the}' do not 12 TJie Canon of the Old Testament. positively exclude them from the Canon, when exhibiting a catalogue of the sacred writings; but they commonly refer to them as Scripture, or even sacred Scripture, when they have occasion to cite them ; thus showing that, while they were not absolutely sure that the books in question were canonical, they chose to treat them as integral parts of the Word of God. Books of the fourth class were never mentioned ex- cept to be condemned as absurd or pernicious. It was not so in the case of books belonging to the third class. These were always regarded at least as innocuous ; a few of them were treated with a certain degree of re- spect, even called divine b}^ some of the early Fathers. III. Esdras, for example, from about the beginning of the third century until far in the fifth, was cited as Scrip- ture by a few w^riters, ' who obtained great distinction by their learning or sanctity. The books of the second class were appealed to at all times as Scripture, by all those who had occasion to quote the sacred text, even by those from whose catalogues they were formally ex- cluded, a fact of which, however remarkable, abundant evidence will be found in their writings. Soon after the first quarter of the fourth century Greek catalogues of the Sacred Books began to appear. But these cata- logues are rarely identical. Some of them include one or more of the books of the second class among those of the first. Others exclude from the first class all those of the second, with the remark that they were not canonical, or that they were read in the Church, or that they were read to catechumens. In the last half of the same century similar efforts to catalogue the sacred books were made among the Latins, and with somewhat similar results, though with an increasing tendency to include in the divine volume all books per- ' Clement of AL, Strom. L. iii. c. xxi; S. Augustine, Civ. Dei, L. xviii. c. xxxvi. and oiliers. TJic Canon of the Old Testament. ij taining to the second class ; all of which, however, in the East as well as the West, continued from the first to be generally quoted as Scripture, even by the very authors of those catalogues from which they had been formally excluded. This remarkable antagonism between the explicit declarations of a few writers and their belief as implied in their uniform practice ceased at last, so far as Catholics were concerned, when by the decree of the Council of Trent, in the sixteenth century, the books of the second class, no less than those of the first, were de- clared canonical. Soon after, to distinguish one from the other, those belonging to the first class were called protocanonical, the first in the canon, because they have been always received in and by the Church ; and those of the second class were called deuterocanonical, second or next in the canon, because, though always received as Divine Scripture by the Church, they had not been always so received by some in the Church, a fact which rendered it necessary to pronounce them canonical at a time, of course, subsequent to that when the_ other books were received as canonical by the unanimous consent of all Christians. The division into protoca- nonical and deuterocanonical probably originated with Sixtus of Sienna, but has never been sanctioned in an}- way by the Church, she having always treated all books in the canon as divine, regardless of the order in which they had been officially placed thereon. Yet the distinction is generally made use of by Catholic writers who treat of the canon, as it facilitates the discussion of the subject. To some extent it is also recognized by Protestant writers, though by many of them the deutero- canonical books of the Old Testament, with several others once found in that part of the Bible, are des- ignated apocryphal, and the deuterocanonical books of the New Testament are grouped under the name of Antilegomena, contradicted. In the present work proto 14 The Canon of the Old Testament. and deutero, for the sake of brevity, will be substituted hereafter {or protocanonical2i\\^ deiiterocanonical. Of the deutero books, some, as just remarked, are found in the Old Testament, and others in the New. Those belonging to the former are Tobias, Judith, Esther, ' Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, First and Second Machabees, all of the third chapter of Daniel commencing with verse twenty-fourth and ending with verse ninetieth, that is, the Prayer of Azarias, the Song of the Three Children, and the two last chapters, xiii. and xiv., containing the history of Susanna and the story of Bel and the Dragon. The deutero books of the New Testament are the Epistle of St. Paul to the Hebrews, the Epistle of St. James, the Epistle of St. Jude, the second Epistle of St. Peter, the second and third Epistle of St. John, the Apocalypse, together with the last twelve verses of St. Mark's Gospel, that part of the twenty-second Chapter in St. Luke's Gospel describing the bloody sweat of the Redeemer and the visit of the comforting angel, and that part of the eighth chapter in St. John's Gospel referring to the woman taken in adultery. ' Esther is here inserted among the deutero books, for the reason that, though most CathoUc writers place it among the proto, several Fathers either considered it doubtful or excluded it from the canon. It is omitted in MeUto's catalogue, is declared not canonical in the catalogues attributed to Athanasius, is doubted by Amphilochius, is overlooked in the catalogue of Gregory Nazianzen, is omitted by Leontius, is placed among the contradicted books by Nicephorus of Constantinople, and is said to be destitute of perfect authority by Junilius. Erasmus (Explan. Symbolic Caiech. 4.), Sixtus of Sienna (Bibliotheca Sancta L. i. p. 14.), Bellarmine {de verho Dei, L. i. c. 4.), Mellini {Inst. Bible., p. i. diss. i. c. iii.), and Dixon; (G^w. Introd., c. I.) classify it with the deutero books. Several Protestant writers have denied its canonicity ; so it has been said by Whiston, who, while treating of Esther as contained in the Protestant Bible, observes himself that " no rehgious Jew could well be the author of it." (x\ote on Jos. Antiq. B. xi., c. 6, v3 I3-) It is therefore not easy to see why, when Judith, for exaniple, is placed among the deutero, Esther should be classified with the proto books, especially as the latter was at one time not included in their canon bv the Jews. CHAPTER II. The Jewish Canon. The Jews exclude from their canon not only all books of the New Testament, but all the deutero of the old, except the nine first chapters, and the three first verses of the tenth chapter, of Esther. The number of books on their canon is really thirty-nine. But, by arbitrarily reckoning in several instances as one, two or more books distinguished by different titles, and written by different authors, they have reduced these thirty-nine to ' a much less number. Josephus, the Jewish historian, who wrote about the close of the first century, is the first to say that the Hebrew Scriptures consisted of twenty-two Books. ' And St. Jerome ^ remarks that the reason of arranging the whole collection in this way was, that the number of books might correspond to the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet, which was twenty-two. It may have been for the same rea- son that the Greeks divided their Iliad and Od3'Sse_y into twenty-four books each, that being the num- ber of characters in the Greek alphabet. As arranged on this principle, the Hebrew Scriptures are enumer- ated in the following order, each book being preceded from first to last not only by its proper number, but * "I. Contra Apion.''^ % 8. ^ " Frologiis Galeatiis." i6 The Canon of the Old Testament. by its proper letter, which letter, however, is here omitted : — 1. Berescith, that is, 2. Veele Scemoth, " 3. Vajikia, " 4. Vaiedabher, " 5. Elle haddevarim, " 6. Jeosciua, '* 7. Sciophetim ve " Ruth, 8. Scemuel I. & II. " 9. JMelachim I. & II. " 10. Iescia)?hu, " 11. lirmijahu veki- '' noth. Genesis 12. lehhezkiel, that is, Ezcchiel. Exodus. 13. There-Asar, " 12 Minor Pro- pliets Book of Psalms Leviticus. 14. SepherTehil- lim, Numbers. ' 15. Misle, " Proverbs of Solomon. " Job. " Daniel. " Esdias I.&II. Deuteronomy. 16. Job, Josue. 17. Daniel, Judges and 18. Ezra, Ruth. Kings I. & II. 19. Divre hajamin " Paralipom- enon. Kings III. & 20. Esther, " Esther. IV. Isaias. 21. Koheleth, " EccleSiastes. Jeremias with 22. Scir hascirim> " Canticle of Can- Lamenta- tides. tions. In this list, each of the first hve tiames is simpi}' the first words of the book which it indicates. The remain- ing names are either those of the respective authors, or such as denote the persons or subjects treated in the corresponding books. KinotJi means Lamentations, the book being sometimes called by the Jews Echa (How), which is the first word. There-Asar means the number twelve. Divre hajamin — words of days — a diary or Journal, rendered by Latins as well as Greeks Paralipomena — things omitted, and by the English Prot- estant translators Chronicles. The meaning of the other names on the list is sufficiently indicated by the corresponding words in the English list. A second enumeration, also noticed by St. Jerome, ^ and followed by some of the Talmudic doctors, increases the number of books to twent3Mour, the letter yod 1 "Prolog. Gal.'' The Canon of the Old Testament. 1 7 being written three times instead of once, as in the former case. This enumeration separates Ruth from Judges, inserting it after Esther ; and Lamentations from Jeremias, assigning to the former the last place on the list. With these exceptions it was the same as the first, and was adopted by many Greeks, as the number of books was thus made to agree with the number of letters in their alphabet. This enumeration was also favorably regarded by some Latin writers, as they rec- ognized in it a mystical allusion to the four and twenty elders of the Apocalypse. There is still a third enumeration, which is followed among some of the more modern Jews, and augments the number of Books to twenty-seven, by adding what grammarians call the five hnial letters to the tAventy- two of wdiich the Hebrew alphabet consists. Hence results an arrangement by which Ruth is detached from Judges. Four distinct Books of Kings and two separate Books of Paralipomenon are thus obtained, to- gether with another by dividing into two books Esdras and Nehemias. In this enumeration Judges is followed by Ruth; then we have Kings L, H., HL, IV., followed by Paralipomenon I. and II., after Avhich the order is Esdras, Nehemias, Esther, Job, Psalter, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticle of Canticles, Isaias, Jeremias with Lamentations, Ezechiel, Daniel, the Prophets. The, Jews like the Christians, classify their Sacred Books, but in a manner which seems vague as well as arbitrary. The first intimation of any classification whatever among them is met with in the Prologue to the Book of Ecclesiasticus, where reference is made to the Laiv, the Prophets, and other Books. This was about two hundred and forty-five years before Christ. The fre- quent allusions to the Laiv and the Prophets in the New- Testament imply, at least, that a distinction was made i 8 . The Canon of the Old Testament. between the Books of Moses (for these were called the Law) and those of subsequent writers. And the words of Our Lord as recorded in Luke xxiv. 44, where he mentions distinctly the Lazv, the Prophets, and the Psalms, prove that in His time a triple classification, identical with that mentioned in the Prologue to Ec- clesiasticus, was recognized among the Jews ; for, ev- idently, by the Psalms Our Lord means those portions of the canon which the grandson of the author of Ec- clesiasticus included in the otJier Books. A similar classification of the Sacred Books was still made in the time of Josephus, the historian. For, after stating that the Jews had twenty -two Books, he adds that, " of them five belong to Moses .... the Prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their own times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God and precepts for the conduct of life." ' The Jews, therefore, in the time of Josephus, and at least for three centuries before that, divided the Books of their canon into three classes : first, the Laiv, or Books of Moses : second the Prophets ; third the Psalms or Hymns, which comprise the other Books, or all not in the other two classes. St. Jerome, who wrote three or four cen- turies after Josephus, testifies that in his time the Jews classified their books in the same manner, for he ob- serves that they called the five Books of Moses TJiora. the Law ; eight others were composed of Prophets, and the remaining nine constituted the Hagiographa — sacred writings. ^ It is to be observed, however, that, as the word PropJiet among the Jews might mean not only one endowed with the strictly prophetical spirit, but one, who, even writing as a historian, was guided by divine assistance, the number of books in the second class was variable, a fact which rendered the number in the third variable also, since the number belonging to the first ' " I. Contra At>ion. " 5 8. - '' Proio^:' Gal." The Canon of the Old Testament. 19 was always the same. Hence, though in the time of Josephus the books written by prophets amounted to thirteen, and the hymns to but four, the former, when St. Jerome wrote, numbered only eight, while the latter, corresponding to the Hagiographa, were represented by nine. Modern Jews generall}^ divide the Books thus : First, T/iora, the Law or five Books of Moses. Second, Neviim — the Prophets earlier and later. Third, Chetuvini — writings (sacred), rendered Hagiographa by the Greeks. But so far as is known, the following clas- sifications are all that have been made of their books by the Jews. EARLIEST CLASSIFICATION. Bo oks of the Law. 13 Books by the The Prophets. OTHER Books : 4 of Hymns. I. Genesis, I. Josue, I. Psalms of David, 2. Exodus, 2. Judges and Ruth, 2. Proverbs, 3. Leviticus, 3. Samuel, 3. Ecclesiastes, 4- Numbers, 4. Kings, 4. Canticle of Canticles^ 5- Deuteronomy. 5. Paralipomenon, 6. Esdras, 7. Esther, 8. Job, 9. Isaias, 10. Jeremias and Lamen- tations, 11. Ezechiel, 12. Daniel, 13. xii Minor Prophets. This is supposed to be the most ancient classification, and the one referred to in the Prologue to Ecclesiasticus, the New Testament, and Josephus. That some books were transferred subsequently from the second to the third class, thus causing a different distribution, is evi- dent from the catalogue given by St. Jerome in his Prol. Gal., and in which is found this — 20 The Canon of tJie Old Testament. SECOND OR LATER CLASSIFICATION. Thora: 5 Books 1. Genesis, 2. Exodus. 3. Leviticus, 4. Numbers, 5. Deuteronomy. Neviim: 8 Books. 1. Josue, 2. Judges and Ruth, 3. Samuel, 4. Melachim, 5. Isaias, [tations, 6. Jeremias with Lamen 7. Ezechiel, 8. .\ii Minor Prephets, Chetuvim: 9 Books. I. Job, 2. Psahns, 3. Proverbs, 4. Ecclesiastes, 5. Canticle of Canticles. 6. Daniel, 7. Paralipomenon, 8. L & lI.Esdras, 9. Esther. This classification is known to have been used as ear- ly as the fourth century after Christ, and to have been followed for two or three centuries afterwards. Like the first, it divided the Hebrew Scriptures into twenty- two Books, but it w^as adopted even by those who reckoned the number of books at twenty-four, and who reached that result by detaching Ruth from Judges and Lamentations from Jeremias, and placing them at the end of the Hagiographa, which was thus increased to eleven. From the preceding classification it appears that Daniel in the course of time was transferred from the Prophets to the Hagiographa, for the very ques- tionable reason that he was by profession not a prophet but a courtier. THIRD CLASSIFICATION. The Law: 5 books. The Prophets: 8 books. Hagiographa: ii books. 1. Genesis, 6. Josue, 14- Psalms, 2. Exodus, 7. Judges, 15. Proverbs, 3. Leviticus, 8. Samuel, 16. Job, 4. Numbers, • 9. Melachim, 17. Canticle of Can- 5. Deuteronomy. 10 Isaias, tides, 11. Jeremias, 18. Ruth, 12. Ezechiel, 19. Lamentations, 13. xii Minor Prophets. 20. Ecclesiastes, 21. Esther, 22. Daniel, 23. Esdras and Nehemias, 24. Paralipomenon. The Canon of the Old Test anient . 21 This classification is now very generally followed by the Jews, and is found in all the Hebrew editions of the Bible. In many of these editions twenty-seven distinct books are enumerated, a result that is attained by divid- ing Samuel and Melachim each into two books, and separating Nehemias from Esdras. This much regard- ing the manner in which the Books in the Hebrew canon are divided and classified. With regard to the origin and antiquity of their canon the Jews themselves entertain no doubt, though their belief on either point has not met with general accept- ance. This much, however, is certain, that Cyrus, king of Persia, by a public edict permitted such of the captive Jews as wished to avail themselves of the privilege to return to their own country and rebuild their temple. A vast multitude of them, therefore, assembled together, and under the conduct of Zorobabel arrived at Jerusa- lem, 536 B. C, and commenced to restore divine worship. Hardly, however, had they laid the foundations of the temple, when they were compelled to desist from the undertaking by the opposition of their enemies, the Samaritans; and it was not until 515 B. C. that the building was completed. Through the influence which he possessed at the Persian Court, Esdras, who is de- scribed as a " Priest— a ready scribe in the law of Moses, instructed in the words and commandments of the Lord and His ceremonies in Israel," ^ obtained permission from Artaxerxes Longimanus, 457 B. C, to lead back another colony of his countrymen to their native land, and there, in the name of the king of Persia, assume control in all matters, civil as well as ecclesiastical. Ten years after- wards Nehemias, another distinguished Jewish exile, was commissioned by the same monarch to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem. In the performance of this task he exhibited great energy and tact, and along with Esdras, ' Esdras vii. 6,-ii, 22 The Canon of the Old Testament. whose confidence and co-operation he enjoyed, labored to improve the condition of the people and to restore respect for the laws of Moses. After the walls had been rebuilt, the people came together and requested Esdras to read for them " the book of the law of Moses." ' And he continued to do so during the Feast of Tabernacles, which they celebrated at that time. There were present on that occasion, along with Nehemias and others, Aggeus, Zacharias, and at a later period Malachias, who all rendered con- siderable assistance to Esdras and Nehemias in re-estab- lishing the Jewish commonwealth. All that is here stated is derived from information supplied by the writings of Esdras and Nehemias, 11. Paralipomenon, and the prophecies of Agg^eus and Zacharias. Day by day, during the seven days that the feast lasted, Esdras read and interpreted the words of the Law to the people.' So far as can be inferred from the testimony of the sa- cred record itself, Esdras neither then, nor at any other time, had anything more to do with the Scriptures than what is implied by reading and explaining them. The universal belief of the Jews, however, attributes to him a work far more important than that with which he is credited in the inspired narrative. For they allege that when sent to Jerusalem he there not only read and inter- preted the Book of the Law to the people, but exerted all his energies in collecting, correcting, and arranging the sacred writings, so as to form them into one authoritative record or canon of Scripture, which, being then submitted by him to the judgment of the great Sanhedrim or Council, was by that body confirmed and declared closed ; so that nothing afterwards could be taken therefrom, or ever again be added thereto. Divested of many highl}^ improbable details, which will be noticed presently, such is the account which the ' Nehemias viii. I. 2 ibid. ix. 18, Tkc Canon of the Old Tcstauicut. 23 Jews give of the manner and occasion in which their canon was settled. Probably the earliest reference to the connection of Esdras with the formation of the Hebrew canon occurs in the fourteenth chapter of the apocryphal book IV. Esdras, written according to most critics in the first or second century after Christ, but most probably by a Jew in the first century, and soon after retouched by a Christian. It professes to have been written by Esdras, the scribe and author of I. Esdras, to whom the Jews ascribe the formation of their canon. The writer says, he was favored with a visitation from the Lord, in an- swer to whom he promises that he will go and rebuke the people ; " but " asks '' who shall admonish those who are born in the meantime ; therefore is the world placed in darkness, and those who live in it without light. For Thy law has been burned, wherefore no one knows what has been done by Thee, or what works shall commence. For, if I have found favor with Thee, instil into me Thy holy spirit ; and I will write all that has been done in the world from the beginning ; what was written as Thy law, that men may be able to find the way, and those who wish to live in the latter end may live." Then he is directed to assemble the people, and tell them that they should not look for him for forty days. He is also told to prepare many tablets, and to take with him " Sareas, Dabrias, Salemias, Echanus, and Asiel, these five, who could write rapidly. "And come hither," saith the Lord, " and I will enkindle in your heart the lamp of imderstanding, which will not be ex- tinguished until what you commence to write shall be finished. And then, all being completed, some thou shalt publish, some thou shalt deliver secretly to wise men, for to-morrow at this hour thou shalt commence to write." So the people are called together and exhort- ed bv Esdras ; then he tells them not to come or ask for 24 TJie Canon of the Old Testament. him for forty days. And he took with him the five men, and with them withdrew into a plain or field (campus). There he is presented with "a cup full as it were of wa- ter, but in color similar to fire." This he drank, and as he did so " his heart was tormented with understanding, and his breast increased by wisdom. For his spirit was preserved by memory. And his mouth was opened, and no more shut. The Most High gave understanding to the five men, and the ecstasies of the night that were spoken thev wrote, but knew not, but at night they ate bread." " But I," says Esdras, " spoke by day, and at night was not silent." And during the forty days there were written 204 books. " And it came to pass, when the forty days were accomplished, the Most High spoke, saying : the first that thou hast written give to the pub- lic, that the worthv and unworthy may read. But the last seventy thou shalt keep, that thou ma3'est deliver them to the wise men of the people. For in them is a vein of knowledge, and a fount of wisdom, and a river of knowledge. And I did so." Although it was certain that there was extant about the close of the second centuiy a Greek copy of IV. Es- dras, for it was quoted even as the work of " Esdras the Prophet" by Clement of Alexandria,' it was not known until the eighteenth century that there still existed anv copy except that which was preserved in the Latin Vul- gate of the Bible, and is the source whence the preced- ing statement has been derived. Since then, however, Arabic, Syriac, Ethiopic, and Armenian copies of the book have been found, yet differing considerably from the Latin version. To enter into a discussion about the age or origin of the book would be out of place here, especially as it could lead to no certain conclusion ; and it need only be remarked that, while most critics suppose It to have been written at some early date within the ' Strom, iii. c. xvi. Tlie Canon of the Old Testament. 25 Christian period, a few are of opinion that it was origin- ally composed in Hebrew or Chaldee, even before the commencement of the Christian era. But all are agreed that the original, whatever that was, has been better preserved in the oriental copies than in the one with which Western Christians have been familiar ; and that, at least, in the Ethiopic version there are not those evi- dences of Christian authorship, which appear in the Latin. Now, should any one conclude, after reading the book through, that there is much in it with a strong rabbin- ical flavor, he will be further confirmed in that belief, when informed that according to all the oriental copies (the Ethiopic alone admitting variations in the figures) the number of books written during the forty days was not 204, but 94. Then let him remember, that of the whole number written, 70 \vere to be reserved for pri- vate use, leaving for publication just 24, a number ex- pressly stated in the Syriac and Arabic, but omitted in the Ethiopic and Armenian as well as the Latin ; and that 24 is often the number of books found in the He- brew canon : or let him suppose that 70 here stands for 72, just as Ikx universally indicates the 72 translators of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek ; then let him deduct this from the whole number said to have been written by Pseudo Esdras, and he will have the famous 22 of the rabbinical doctors. At least he will then have some reason for believing, that he has found in IV. Es- dras the earliest written account of the attempt made by the Jews to attribute to Esdras the Scribe the honor of restoring the lost contents of the Old Testament, and of closing the canon of Scripture. What degree of credit was given to this account among the primitive Christians, it were hard to say ; nor is it certain that a similar tradition was cherished among contemporary Jews, although several grave con- siderations leave scarcely any reason to doubt it. The 26 The Canon of the Old Testament. author of IV. Esdras unmistakably betrays his Jewish extraction ; and it can hardly be supposed that he wrote otherwise than his coreligionists believed at the time. Esdras the Scribe is still believed by the Jews to have pla3-ed by far the most important part in making their canon what it is. Exaggerated, if not fabulous, state- ments in reference to the affair have been put forth by Jewish writers, as the sequel will show. And it cannot be doubted that they are responsible for many of the in- credible details, which render the account of the trans- lation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek quite pre- posterous. In fact, the writer of that account, Aris- teas, judged by his own statements, was himself a Jew. There is therefore strong presumptive evidence for insist- ing, not only that IV. Esdras was written by a Jew, but that the book expressed the belief held by the Jews at the time regarding the manner in which their canon had been formed. But whether they were influenced by the account of Pseudo Esdras, or a similar tradition prevailing among the Jews at the time, it is certain that some of the early Christian Fathers believed that at the end of the Baby- lonian captivit}^ the Hebrew Scriptures, if they had not utterly disappeared, were seriously mutilated or corrupted, and that Esdras the Scribe restored them to their former condition. As quoted by Eusebius, Ire- Uceus, who lived in the second century, states, " that God .... in the captivity of the people under Nabu- chodonosor, when the Scriptures had been corrupted, and the Jews were returning to their own country after seventy years, subsequently, in the time of Artaxerxes, King of the Persians, inspired Esdras, a priest of the tribe of Levi, to set in order again all the discourses of the preceding Prophets, and restore complete to the people the legislation by Moses." ' Clement of Alexan- ' " Eccl. Hist.,'' lib. v., c. viii. TJic Canon of tJic Old Tcstaiiicnt. 27 dria, who wrote about the end of the same century, as- serts,' " that when in the captivity of Nabuchodonosor the Scriptures were corrupted, in the time of Artaxerx- es, King of the Persians, Esdras the Levite, who was a priest, being inspired, forthwith prophetically restored all the ancient Scriptures." Tertullian, ^ who lived within the following century, declares that " when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians, it is cer- tain that the entire instrument of Jewish literature was restored by Esdras." In the Athanasian Synopsis it is said that " this is also related of Esdras, when the books had perished through the negligence of the people and the long captivity, he being an industrious and well dis- posed man, and a reader, kept them all in his possession, and at last brought them forth, and delivered them to all, and thus preserved them." And referring to the Psalms, the author of the Synopsis further observes that " Esdras formed into one book all these Psalms by w^homsoever written." St. John Chrysostom,"* who died in 407, says, that in the calamities w^hich befell the Jews " the records were burnt ; but God again inspired an- other admirable man, I mean Esdras, to publish them, and caused them to be composed out of what w^ere left." Even St. Jerome " who died a few years later, was not unwilling that Esdras should be called " the restorer of the Pentateuch." Whether more is meant by this than what is implied in the Saint's statements, that Esdras " invented other (Hebrew) letters, which we now use, * Is uncertain. In the same century Theodoret'' wrote thus : " For, when the Scriptures partly under Manas- ses were burned, partly in the time of the captiv- ity utterly perished, the blessed Esdras, a man ex- celling in virtue, and, as the affair itself declares, filled • " 5'/^tfw.," lib. i., c. xxii. ^ '■* De cult. Fism.,^'\ih i., c, iiL 3 J/i^m. via. in Ep. ad Hebr. •• *' Adv. He hid!'' % 7. •^ ''• Prol. Gai:' 6 " Explan. in Cant.,'' Fraf. 28 The Canon of the Old Testament. by the Holy Ghost, wrote out for us the necessary and salubrious Scriptures, not only the books of Moses, but Josue also. If, therefore, Esdras composed them, tran- scribing not another copy, but filled by the Holy Ghost, how could it happen that this book should contain that argument which you affirm? " Leontius of Byzantium, who belonged to the sixth century, has this account of the matter: "Esdras, when he came to Jerusalem, and found that all the books were burned when they were carried into captivity, is said to have composed from memory the 22 books, which we have enumerated above." ' In the following century St. Isidore of Seville wrote, that " after the Law had been burned by the Chaldeans, Esdras the Scribe, when the Jews returned to Jerusalem, being inspired by the divine Spirit, re- paired the library of the Old Testament, and corrected all the volumes of the Law and the Prophets, which had been corrupted by the Gentiles, and divided the Old Testament into 22 books, that there might be as many books in the Law as there were letters." ' All these statements put together go to show that from the second to the seventh century it was the belief, at least of some among the most learned Christian writers belonging to that period, that, by reason of the calamities through which the Jews had passed, it was found that on their return from the captivity of Babylon not only was the integrity of the Old Testament, so far as it had been completed, seriously affected, but its contents were mu- tilated, corrupted, burned — in fact, irrecoverably lost ; but that Esdras the Scribe, by divine assistance, was en- abled to restore them to their former condition. A story that is thus traced back to almost the first century, and in the fabrication of which a Christian could have had no interest, must have had a Jewish origin, though when and by whom the story was started it may be impossible ' '■' De Sectis." Actio ii. *J. viii. 2 <■' Etymol." L. vi, c. iii. The Canon of tJic Old Testament. 29. to say. Of the several writers who have reproduced it in one form or another, — and almost all of them have been cited above, — there is but one, St. Basil, of the fourth century, who evidently told it with IV. Esdras before him. " Here," says he, while referring to the Holy Land in his epistle to Chilo, "is t\\Q plain in which Esdras, after re- tiring from the rest, by the command of God belched forth all the divinely inspired books." But whether the belief of the other writers, who testify to the miraculous restoration of the Jewish Scriptures by Esdras the Scribe, was based on the account of Esdras IV., or on a similar fable originating with the Jews and adopted by the early Christians, but the record of which is no long- er preserved among the former, that belief must be discarded as utterly unfounded. For it is certain, that on the occasion of the Babylonian captivity all existing copies of the Hebrew Scriptures were not destroyed. It was other treasures than those stowed away in He- brew libraries that the conquerors coveted. At least there is no intimation in the inspired account of the captivity, that the captives were despoiled of their sacred literature, or were prevented from carrying the rolls that contained it to their new homes. On the con- trary, it is clearly implied that, whatever may have been the carelessness of the Jews about the preservation of their Scriptures, or the efforts of their enemies for the destruction of those Scriptures, some of the exiles not only preserved copies of these precious records, but must have devoted much time to the study of their contents. Daniel must have had such a copy, for he re- fers not onl}^ to the prophecy of Jeremias, but to " the maledictions and the curse, which is written in the Book of Moses." ' Besides, for 57 )-ears before the time when Esdras, according to the story, restored the Scriptures, the Priests and Levites were performing their respective ' Dan. ix. 2-I1. 30 The Canon of the Old Tcstavicnt. functions in the new temple at Jerusalem, " as it is writ- ten in the Book of Moses." ' But how could they do so unless they had the book ? And. if the story be true, how is it that Esdras, even while at Babylon, was known to be "a ready scribe in the law of Moses." "" Even the very passage ' on the sole strength of which it is possible to argue that Esdras restored all the books of the Script- ure when no longer in existence, exposes the absurdity of that supposition, for there the people are said to have asked " Esdras the Scribe to bring the Book of the Law of Moses, which the Lord had commanded to Israel," words which prove that the book was still well known to the people themselves, or at least that they knew it was then extant. It is certain also that Tobias, who was not a priest, nor a scribe, nor a Levite, but a simple cap- tive belonging to the tribe of Nephthali, was familiar with the writings of the prophets. * If therefore, not- withstanding all reasonable presumption to the contrary, the positive order of Moses regarding the constant study of the law by the Hebrew rulers, ^ and the read- ing of it every seven years by the priests to the peo- ple, " had been all along disregarded ; and though it were not on record that at least on one occasion the princes and Levites went forth with the Book of the Law of the Lord to instruct the people in all the cities of Ju- dea, ' yet there is evidence sufficient in the Esdrine and other canonical books belonging to the same period to place it beyond all doubt, that at the time of the captiv- ity the Sacred Scriptures still survived, that the people were by no means ignorant of their contents and there- fore that the supposition that Esdras, whether assisted by God or not, dictated them all from memory, after they had utterl)^ perished, is wholly false and unwar- 1 Esdras vi. 1 8. 2 Ibid. vii. 6. 3 Neb. viii. 1—8. ■* Tob. ii. 6; xiv. 6. •'■ Deut. xvii. 19. ^ Ibid. xxxi. lo, il. '' II. Partvl. xvii. 7-9. The Canon of the Old Testament. 31 ranted. Finally, how, it may be asked, was it possi- ble for Cyrus, King- of Persia, to have obtained a copy of the prophecy of Isaias, as Josephus ' has stated, if the Sacred Scriptures had entirely disappeared ? This single fact would ot itself effectually disprove the supposition in question. ' 'M«//^.," lib. xi., c. r., § 2. CHAPTER III. Belief of the Jews regarding the Origin of their Canon. The Jews, in ascribing the formation of their canon to Esdras, appeal to a tradition based on certain state- ments in their Talmud (Doctrine). This work consists of two parts, one called the Mishna (repetition), the other the Geraara (completion or supplement). The Mishna contains the oral law ; for the Jews believe, without however the slightest authority from the Scripture, that besides the written law Moses also received at the same time on Mount Sinai an oral or unwritten law, which was the interpretation of the written law, and constitutes the text of the Talmud. This interpretation was in- trusted by Moses to Josue, who in turn consigned it to the seventy elders, from whom it was received by the prophets, who transmitted it to the members of the Sanhedrim or Great Synagogue, from whom it passed into the custody of the Rabbins, who, on the final dis- persion of the Jews, as it was no longer possible to preserve it by oral tradition, committed it to writing, lest it might be irretrievably lost. The Gemara consists of a series of commentaries on the Mishna by several Rabbins, who wrote, some in Judea, some in Babylon. The commentaries by the former constitute what is called the Jerusalem Geraara ; those by the latter belong to what is known as the Babylonian Gemara. There are therefore two Talmuds, the Jeru- 32 The Canon of the Old Testament. 33 salem and the Babylonian, having the same Mishna or text, but different Gemaras or commentaries. The Jerusalem Talmud was completed about the third cen- tury of our era ; the other not until a later period. The entire work extends over twelve folio volumes, and is regarded by the Jews as an authoritative exposition of their religious belief and practice. Indeed, in contrast- ing it with the law written in the Pentateuch, they attach a far higher value to the former, although there is nothing in their canonical Scriptures, or in human history, to justify what is said of its origin or preserva- tion ; while at the same time it abounds in statements derogatory to the majesty of God, narratives remarkable for their absurdity, and questions as profane and impious as they are puerile and ludicrous. Whether the Talmud be an outgrowth of the fable contained in IV. Esdras may never be determined; but the written and un- written law, the idea which serves as the basis of the former work, must remind the reader of the distinctions made by Pseudo Esdras between the books which he wrote, some being for general use, others for the benefit of a special class. The tradition which ascribes to Esdras the credit of having drawn up a canon is traced to a statement in one of the oldest tracts of the Talmud, the Pirke Aboth (chapter of Fathers), which refers to the Jewish Fathers, who are supposed to have handed down the oral law, and in which it is said : " Moses received the law from Mount Sinai, and delivered it to Josue, Josue to the elders, the elders to the prophets, and the prophets delivered it to the men of the Great Synagogue. These last spake these words: 'Be cautious in pronouncing judgment ; make many disciples ; put a hedge about the law.' " If these last words refer to the entire body of Scripture, they would seem to indicate a closing of the canon, though when or where is not stated. The 34 The Canon of the Old Testament. same statement is repeated with more minuteness in another tract, belonging to the Babylonian Gemara, and entitled Baba Bathra (last gate). There the statement takes this form : " Who wrote the sacred books? Moses wrote his own book, and the section of Balaam and Job ; Josiie wrote his own book and eight verses in the law ; David wrote the book of Psalms by the ten elders, by Adam first, by Melchisedech, by Abraham, by Moses, by Heman, by Iduthiin, by Asaph, by the three children of Kore ; Jeremias wrote his own book, the Book of Kings, and Lamentations ; Ezechiel and his college wrote Isaias, Proverbs, Canticles, and Ecclesiastes ; the men of the Great Synagogue wrote Ezechiel, the twelve prophets, David, and the book of Esther ; Esdras wrote his own book, and brought the genealogies of Parali- pomenon down to his own times. And this is confirmed by the word of a master ; for Rab Juda says that he heard from a Master that Esdras did not go up from Babylon before he brought the genealogies down to his own age, but that he then went up. Who fin- ished them (the genealogies)? Nehemias, the son of Helcias." If the word wrote, wherever it occurs in the preceding extract, be taken to express the act on account of which one is considered not a copyist or compiler, but the author of a book, many of the statements made therein are simply incredible. But as the Hebrew word, which has been rendered zvrote, may in the opinion of Hebrew scholars mean what is done in arransfinsr, transcribins:, or editing what has already been written by another, it will then be possible to explain the extract in such a way that, even if it be not a record of actual facts, what it states may be accepted as not absolutely improbable. Even so, however, it is difficult to discern therein any reference to a canon of Scripture, or an authoritative collection of sacred books by Esdras or anv one else. The Canon of the Old lest anient. 35 He. like several others, is represented, as a writer, copyist, compiler, or commentator ; and Nehemias, not Esdras, is mentioned as the last who had anything- to do with the Hebrew Scriptures ; for the genealogies, which he is said to have " finished," have been brought down to the latest date contained in those Scriptures. Every name mentioned in the extract is that of a writer or compiler of some particular book or books; but not one among them is said to have written, compiled, edited, or collected together all the books referred to, so that, so far as the Talmud is concerned, there is no reason to believe that Esdras drew up or took any part in drawing up a canon of Scripture. Tt would appear that, on the strength of the Talmud's testimon}' alone, some rabbinical scholars, Elias Levita, of the sixteenth century, and others who flourished subse- quently to the completion of the Talmud, assert that Es- dras had around him a college of 120 eminent scholars for the purpose of assisting him in collecting and arranging the sacred books. Among the members were Daniel the prophet with his three companions Misac, Sidrac, and Abdenago, Aggteus, Zacharias, Simon the Just, and Esdras himself, who, according to a rabbinical opinion, was the same with the Prophet Malachias, and the first president of the college, as Simon the Just was the last. This college was in fact the Great Synagogue or San- hedrim, so it is said ; and it is further stated that all its members were living at the same time, under the reio-n of Darius Hystaspes, King of Persia, identical, as the Rabbins think, with Darius Codomanus, whom Alexan- der the Great subdued, and also with Artaxerxes, who sent Esdras and Nehemias to Jerusalem. These Jewish doctors furthermore maintain that Simon the Just was that Jeddoa the High Priest, sometimes written Jadus or Jaddua, who, according to Josephus,' met and escorted ' Aniiq., B. xi., c. viii., % 5. 36 The Canon of the Old Testament. Alexander the Great into Jerusalem.' Now, wnatever ma}^ be said of the relation between Esdras and the Hebrew canon, these and similar statements may be ranked among the collection of fables contained in the Talmud and the works of rabbinical writers. For if these statements were entitled to belief, it would follow that the Persian empire lasted only 52 years instead of 209 ; ' that Daniel must have lived considerably more than 250 years; that Simon the Just, after becoming a member of the Great Synagogue about 453 B. C, when he was at least thirty years of age, lived until 292 B. C, thus dying at the age of 191. To maintain that the first year of the reign of Cyrus was separated from the last in that of Darius Codomanus by only 52 years; that Es- dras, Daniel, Misac, Sidrac, Abdenago, Aggaeus, Zacha- rias, and Simon the Just were all contemporary with the return from Babylon, and survived until the time of Alexander the Great; that Simon the Just even outlived Alexander by 32 years, for the latter died 324 B. C, whereas the death of the former, according to rabbini- cal chronology, occurred in 292 B. C. — to maintain all these points which are either contained in, or follow from the statements of many rabbinical writers, is, it mav well be said, to disregard not onl)' the teaching of hu- man experience, but the concurrent testimon}- of sacred and profane histor3\ Furthermore, the substance of the rabbinical tradition is that Esdras is the author of the canon, he having revised, arranged, and determined the books of which it is composed, with or without the sanction of the Great Synagogue. Yet that this was not the case is directly implied by the same tradition, for, according to it, Simon the Just completed the canon by adding thereto the books of Esdras and Nehemias. Attempts have been made to account for the contradic- * Prideaux, Connexion, Part I., B. iv. v., pp. 193, 265. « Ibid., Part I. B. viii., p. 380. The Canon of the Old Testament. 37 tions, and explain away the glaring anachronisms embod- ied in the tradition current among rabbinical doctors, regarding the canon of Scripture. But these attempts are generally regarded as unsatisfactory, and will con- vince few who are guided to their own conclusions by common sense and the testimony of the Scriptures, in- stead of the fabulous statements advanced by the ad- mirers of the Talmud. No less incredible are the statements of rabbinical writers regarding the origin, authority, and functions of the Great Synagogue, to which the}' refer in the account which they give of Esdras. This Synagogue, which is said to have constituted the supreme tribunal among the Jews, is called by the Rabbins the Sanhedrim, or more correctly the Sanhedrin, a modification of the Greek Sujicdrion (a council), which seems to imply that the Great Synago^nc (another word of Greek extraction) was not established, until the successors of Alexander the Great had acquired a controlling influence in Judea. Rabbinical writers have tortured their imagination by futile efforts to enhance the credit and importance of this court, which was composed of " Priests, Levites, and Israelites whose rank entitled them to associate with Priests." ' They numbered 70, some say 72, members be- sides the High Priest, " provided he was a man endowed with wisdom." ' Ordinarily the office of president was filled by him. They further assert that the Sanhedrim was instituted by Moses, when, as directed by God, he selected 70 men to assist him in bearing tJie burden of the people;'^ and that it maintained an uninterrupted ex- istence from that time until long after the commence- ment of the Christian era, having survived all the calamities in which the Jews were involved, and even their final dispersion as a nation under the Emperor Hadrian. It is also stated that the authority possessed 1 Maimonides, " Sanhed,^^ c. 2. '* Ibid. ^ Num. xi. 16, 17. 38 The Canon of the Old Test anient. by the Sanhedrim was no less respectable than its origin and duration, being co-extensive with the civil and ecclesiastical relations of the people. Thus it received appeals from all other tribunals, interpreted the law, ordained sacred i-ites, imposed tribute, declared war, exercised the power of life and death, could call the High Priest to account, and even scourge the King when in fault. In fine, it exercised supreme legislative, executive, and judicial authorit}-. Now all this is undiluted fiction, in support of which not a single text can be produced from the Scriptures, nor a word cited from any respectable profane writer. It is true that, as Moses, at the suggestion of Jethro, appointed men as rulers over thousands, and hundreds, and fifties, and tens, to decide controversies among the people, ' he also, when instructed by God to do so, collected together 70 men of the ancients of Israel, who, it seems, were to assist him in all matters pertaining to religion. ^ Furthermore, he directed that after the conquest of Canaan judges and magistrates should be appointed in all the cities. ' Moses then adds that a king should be appointed, and prescribes the rules b}' which his polic}^ and conduct were to be regulated. But he nowhere insinuates that the seventy ancients or elders constituted a permanent organization, or were to be introduced to the land of promise and there established as an integral part of the religious or political constitution which God gave to his people. Nor can it be said that the judges and magis- trates appointed in the several cities were the successors of the 70 ancients, and thus perpetuated the existence of the tribunal instituted by Moses in the desert ; for those judges and magistrates lived too far apart from each other to maintain even the appearance of a court or council, and, in fact, are not known to have ever met together for judicial or other purposes. ' Exod. xviii. 2^. -' Xum. \i. i6. ^ Deut. xvi. i8. The Canon of the Old Testament. 39 Moses, assisted by his senate of sevent}-, exercised supreme authority. Josue, without a senate, issued his orders to priests and people, and his will was obeyed by both. ' And when he condescends to consult others, it is not a senate or the elders, but the " princes " of the people that he thus honors. ' In the turbulent times of the Judges there is no trace of any such tribunal as the Sanhedrim. Whoever during that calamitous period *' did not that which seemed right to himself '" either paid a forced obedience to the common enemy, or dis- played a precarious loyalty to the chieftain who for the time being stood forth, in the name of God, as the champion of his people. The record of Heli's adminis- tration, as well as that of Samuel's, exhibits no evidence of the results that would surely have followed from the presence and influence of any conciliar body like the Sanhedrim. Thus, when the scandalous conduct of Heli's son's was such that it " withdrew men from the sacrifice of the Lord," " there is no tribunal to call them to account. It is Heli himself who performs that un- pleasant duty." And Samuel, as is well known, went about the country every year to judge Israel, ' made war, ' appointed, anointed, rebuked, and deposed the king ' without assistance, counsel, or interference from anv one but the Lord. During the entire period extending from the death of Samuel to the captivity of Babylon, the kings, by whom he was succeeded, ruled as auto- crats, and regulated their policy on principles far dif- ferent from those which they would have followed had a Sanhedrim, like the one described b}- Jewish writers, been at hand to counsel or control them. Most of them claimed to be exempt from all restraint, except such as their own arbitrary will imposed ; and the best among ' Jos. i. 10, 16-18. ^ Ibid. ix. 15 : xiv. I. ^ Judges xyii. 6. * I. Kings, ii. 17. ^ Ibid. 23-25. « I. Kings vii. 16. ' Ibid, 10. * Ibid. x. xiii., xv. xvi. 40 The Canon of the Old Testament. them held themselves responsible to no one but God. They may have had around them, like Solomon, ' coun- sellors whose experience would be of service in great emergencies. But, like Solomon's silly son and succes- sor, they could reject their advice, and shape their policy according to the suggestions of thoughtless youth, ' or follow the course dictated by their own cap- ricious judgment. And not one among them, from the first to the last, was ever placed on trial, or, judged by their history, would have allowed himself to be ar- raigned before any court, civil or religious, composed of his own subjects. With little or no opposition or interference from any quarter, they degraded high priests, appointed judges or sat in judgment themselves, commissioned generals, declared war, made peace, con- tracted alliances, infficted capital punishment, with a will which, though in some of them upright, was gener- ally as arbitrary as that of any modern oriental despot. In a country governed by such rulers there was no room for a tribunal like the Sanhedrim of the Tal- mudists. For a long period after the return from Babylon there is no mention whatever of the Sanhedrim or any tribunal similar to it. All administrative power was at first possessed by Zorobabel, then by Esdras, and after- wards by Nehemias. And whatever measures were adopted for the restoration of the commonwealth, relig- ious worship or moral dicipline are represented as originating with and enforced by one or all of these three. There is, indeed, reason for believing that Ag- gasus and Zacharias, as prophets, rendered important assistance in rebuilding Jerusalem;' but it is nowhere said, or even insinuated, that they, of themselves or with others, constituted a court or council, much less a tribunal resembling in any wa}' the Sanhedrim of the ' III. Kings xii. 6. '^ Ibid. 14. 3 Esdras v. i; vi. 14. The Canon of the Old Testament. 4 1 Rabbins. In fact, it is not until the Christian period is reached that any reference to a Sanhedrim is met with in sacred history, the first mention of the institution be- ing found in the writings of the New Testament. ' In Matt. V. 22 Our Lord Himself is represented as referring to the Sanhedrim as an actual and well known tribunal. But its prerogatives were insignificant compared with those claimed for it by the Rabbins ; for, far from exercis- ing independent and unlimited power in religious as well as civil matters, it could only call to account persons ac- cused of violating the law of Moses, or the sanctity of the temple, as may be inferred from Matt. xxvi. 59, 6r, 65 ; Acts vi. 12, 13 ; on such offenders it could even pronounce sentence of death. But whatever may have been the extent of the powers previously possessed by the Sanhedrim, under the Roman dominion all further proceedings in criminal cases could be suspended or in- terrupted by the representative of the civil govern- ment.' Without his authority capital punishment could not be inflicted ; ' and any one judged worthy of death by the Sanhedrim could be even set at liberty by him. * Josephus, who was familiar with the laws and institu- tions of his countrymen, and has described them with great minuteness, refers to the Sanhedrim as a supreme court, which Moses directed to be established in " the holy city " for the purpose of deciding cases which the judges in the other cities might be unable to dispose of. ' But he does not say that after the occupation of Canaan and the establishment of " the holy city " the diixction of Moses in this matter was carried out. He also states, * that when endeavoring to prevent the people from en- gaging in rebellion against the Romans, he was acting under orders from the Sanhedrim in Jerusalem. And 1 Matt. xxvi. 59 ; Mark xiv. 55 ; Luke xxii. 66; Acts iv. 15; v. 21 27. 2 Acts xxiii. 23, 24. * John xviii., 3I. '' Ibid. xix. 7, 10. •'' Josephus Antiq., B. iv., c. viii, ^ 14. '' Ibid Life % 12. 42 The Canon of the Old Testament. treating of thereignof Hyrcanus II., which commenced B. C. 60, he represents the chief men of the Jews as declaring, that according to their law the life of no man could be taken who had not first been condemned to death by the Sanhedrim.' If, therefore, Josephiis can be relied on — a somewhat uncertain point, the Sanhedrim in the time of Hyrcanus was in existence, and was recognized among the Jews as the only tribunal having jurisdiction in capital cases. But whether the origin of that tri- bunal can be assigned to an earlier date is doubted by many eminent writers. 'Catholics generally are agreed that its existence before or in the time of Esdras cannot be proved. Petavius ^ (d. 1652), refers its origin to the period when Gabinius was governor of Judea, 57 B. C. Calmet ' (d. 1757) asserts that it was introduced in the Machabean period ; so does Dixon. ' Ubaldi * says that the existence of a Sanhedrim, propei-ly so called, in the time of Esdras and Nehemias is afifirmed by the Rabbins without sufficient reason. Protestant writers also very generally contend, that the Sanhedrim was founded at some date subsequent to the age of Esdras. Grotius ** (d. 1645) refers its origin to the reign of the Herods. Basnage ' (d. 1723) at first favored the opinion of Petavius, but, changing his mind, designated as the time when the Sanhedrim was founded the reign of Judas or Jonathas Machabeus, rather that of the latter. Stackhouse. " Vicar of Beenham, England, is of opinion that "the Machabees were the first institutors of the Sanhedrim." Prideaux ^ (d. 1724) states that the Sanhedrim existed before the time of Gabinius. Milman '" remarks that " Evvald a German Protestant writer of the present • Ant., B. xiv., c. ix., % 3. - De Doctr. temporum, L. ii., c. 2b. ^ De Politia et Sanhedrio Hebraorum. ■• Introd. to the S. S(i//>.-iiiK,2. '■' Introd. in S. Scrip., vol. ii. 148-1878. fi Ad I. Paral. xxi. 4. ^ Hnt. des Jitifi, L. i, c. 4. s Hist, of the Bible, p. 767.— 1846. " Comiex. ii. 292. '" Hist of the JrMs, ii. 113. — 1874. Tlic Canon of the Old Testament. 43 century, inclines to the opinion that it was founded by Ezra, but for once is not positive. Jost, a German Jew of this century, would date it from the time of Simon Machabeus. I think this the most probable date." W. L. Alexander, M. A., in Kitto's Cyclopedia (1852), states that the Sanhedrim existed before the time of H3'rca- nus II. But Professor Smith of Aberdeen ' appears cer- tain " that the whole idea that there ever was a body called the Great Synagogue holding rule in the Jewish nation is a pure fiction ; " and that the opinion that it " fixed the canon is a mere opinion of Elias Levita, a Jewish scholar contemporar}- with Luther." All, however, concur in maintaining that the statements of rabbinical writers regarding the origin, duration, and authority of the Sanhedrim, and its composition in the time of Esdras, contain gross contradictions and pal- pable anachronisms, and are therefore to be rejected as fabulous. There is no question here as to those local establishments known as synagogues, which for some time before and after the commencement of the Chris- tian era were to be found e)'ery where throughout Ju- dea, and outside its limits, wherever any large number of Jews was to be met with. The officials of these S3'na- gogiies, it is not to be denied, exercised some degree of authority over their members. They could punish of- fenders by expulsion or even scourging. ^ And when such power was exercised by them, it cannot be doubted that the Sanhedrim could, short of capital punishment, infiict severer penalties under the Roman governors. Whether there was an extradition treaty between Are- tas and the ecclesiastical authority at Jerusalem is not known, but it is a curious fact that Saul, ' armed with credentials by the High Priest to the sjmagogues at Damascus, started for that cit)' in order to arrest and 1 The O.T. in the Jewish Church, pp. 156. 157. * John ix. 22; Mai. x. 22; Acts xxii. 19. » Acts ix. 2. 44 The Canon of the Old Testament. drag to Jerusalem such Jews as had embraced the Christian religion. The origin of the local synagogues (^places or meetings appointed for religious worship) may be traced to the period of the exile, as some suppose, or, as others believe, even much farther back — the time of the Judges. But even so, it by no means follows that there was among the political or theocratic insti- tutions of the Jews a supreme court, whether it be called the Great Synagogue or Sanhedrim, maintaining an uninterrupted existence from the time of Moses until long after the final dispersion of the Jews, and clothed with unrestricted power, legislative, judicial, and execu- tive, in all that concerned ecclesiastical and civil affairs. So far from that, the disjointed and incoherent details supplied by the Rabbins, in connection with the San- hedrim in the time of Esdras particularl)% have induced almost every critic to doubt whether the body styled in the New Testament Sanhedrim or council even then existed ; and not a few to assert that it was not until long after Esdras had passed away, that even the compara- tively unimportant tribunal so called in the Gospels and other Apostolic writings was created. Yet, notwithstanding all the incredible details which the Rabbins and the author of IV. Esdras have grouped arovmd the tradition which attributes the settlement of the Hebrew canon to Esdras the Scribe, it was not until after a lapse of several centuries that any Christian writ- er ventured to express a doubt regarding the accuracy of that tradition. Thus it has been seen, that up to the- seventh century the Fathers who had occasion to refer to the subject generally regarded Esdras as the author of that canon. Nor does it appear that any one, for a long time after, believed that this opinion was even de- batable. A careful study of the subject, however, at last forced on critics a suspicion that, while the Script- ures themselves fail to supply any evidence in favor of The Canon of the Old Testament. 45 the claim advanced in behalf of Esdras, they seem to present conclusive proof that the Hebrew canon, such as it is at present, could not have been the work of Es- dras, since some of the books which it includes could not have been written before nor during his lifetime, while others refer to events that did not occur until long after he had closed his career. The Book of Nehe- mias, it can hardly be doubted, was written after the death of Esdras. The same may be said of the Book of Malachias, the last of the prophets. Both writers, though living in the time of Esdras, belonged to a later genera- tion. And even if it be admitted that Esdras commenced, and Nehemias, with Malachias, continued the work nec- essary to collect, correct, and determine the sacred books, it is certain that the Hebrew canon in its present shape was not completed by either or both of them. For, in the Book of Nehemias ' mention is made of Jeddoa, who was high priest when Alexander the Great entered Jerusalem, ^ and who survived the death of that prince two years, thus closing his career 215 years after the captivit}', that is, in 322 B. C. And even the days of Jeddoa are mentioned as already passed and " recorded," ^ as if the book had been written when Jeddoa had been already sometime dead. Besides, in I. Paral. iii. 19 — 24, the descendants of Zorobabel, the leader of the first band of captives who returned from Bab3lon, if he and the last on the list be each counted as a generation, are enu- ' merated for 12 generations, which represent at the very least a period of 300 years, bringing down the record of that famil}' to a date still later, that is to 236. B. C, when Onias 11. was high priest, being the third after Simon the Just. Thus the posterity of Zorobabel is here traced to a time about half a century after the Hebrew Scriptures had been translated into Greek, and within 70 years of the date at which the Machabean period ' Neh. xii. Ii. 2 jos. Aniiq.^ B. xi,, c. viii., § 5. ^ Neh. xii. 22. 46 The Canon of the Old Testament. commences. Whether the passages just referred to in I. Paral. and Nehemias be interpolations by an inspired pen, or the genuine statements of the authors by whom the books were written, they pi-ove that at least they could not have had Esdras or any of his contemporaries as I heir author or editor, unless it be supposed that he or some of them lived to an age attained by no mortal since the patriarchal period. As a consequence of all this, the position taken by those who maintain that " in the time of Artaxerxes, which was the age of Esdras and Nehemias, the collection of the sacred books was com- pleted by an authority which thenceforward ceased to ex- ist," ' or by those who consider " Esdras ... to be the au- thor of the canon " ' must be abandoned. Prideaux, ^ in order to meet the difficulty, affirms that I. and II. Paral., Esdras, Nehemias, Esther, and Malachias were added to the canon in the time of Simon the Just, high priest after Onias, who succeeded Jeddoa ; and his reason for so affirming is, that the books of Nehemias and probably Malachias were written after the time of Esdras, while the others were written by Esdras himself. ' If, as is generally admitted, Nehemias and Malachias were not written before or at least during the lifetime of Esdras, he certainly could not have placed them on the canon. It is by no means certain that he wrote I. and II. Paral. and Esther, though his authorship of Esdras cannot well be doubted. But why, if he wrote all these books, he could not have added them to the canon, as Prideaux thinks, is not very clear. Unconvinced by the reasoning of Prideaux, Dr. Wright of Trinity College, Dublin, candidly acknowledges, that " we have no certain evi- dence as to the authority on which, or the time when, the Jewish canon was collected, or of the cause of its closing." ^ Reuss, a recent writer, and professor in the ' Kitto's Cycl., art. Canon. ' Ibid., art. Ezra. ^ Connex., B. v. * Ibid., r.. v'ii. '■ Kitto's Tjr/., Dciitero canonical. Tiic Canon of the Old Testament. 47 university of Strasburg, asks this question : " Is it quite true, that the Hebrew canon, as we possess it, was closed before the time of the apostles?" and answers it by say- ing, " No one can prove it," ' and goes on to show " that inthetimeof Josephus the books called the Hagiographa' were not gathered into a clearly defined collection, and that certain Hebrew documents, which now form part of them, were unknown to that author." Professor Smith of Aberdeen, who wrote in 1881, states,'' that in the six- teenth century it was currently believed in the Protestant churches that " the canon was completed by the men of the Great Synagogue," a body which, he maintains, " met once for all," as stated in Neh. viii. 10, and about which " everything that is told . . . except what we read in Nehemias, is" as we have already seen, ' " pure fable of the later Jews." In view of such sentiments, expressed by men who still cherish some respect for the sacred volume, it is not to be expected that infidels and ration- alists would hesitate to go at least the same length in the same direction. Hence Spinoza ' (d. 1677) contends, that the canon of the Jews commenced by the ancient proph- ets was not completed and closed until the time of the Machabees, or the second century before Christ, while Bertholdt' and De Wette,' recent German writers, agree that the Hebrew canon was the result of no fixed plan, nor the work of any particular author, but that under the in- fluence of fortuitous circumstances it gradually and im- perceptibly assumed its present dimensions, long after the time of Esdras. The object of the schools represented by the last named writers is to get rid of the supernatural order altogether. Hence their criticism is aimed at the ' Hist, of the canon of the H. Script., pp. 9, 10. — 1884 2 " Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Ruth, LamenUtions, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Dan- iel, Esdras, Nehemias, and Chronicles." 3 Hist.of the O. T, in the Jewish Church, pp. 156, 157. ■• Supra, p. 43. " Tract. Theolog. Polit., c. x. '^ Einleit., Tome i., p. 70, etc, ' Einkit., ^ 13, 14. 48 The Canon of the Old Testament. overthrow of all testimony in favor of revelation, mira- cles, and prophecy. A Lapide (d. 1637) takes no notice of the difficulty connected with I. Paral. iii. 19-24, but discusses with his usual learning that presented in Nehemias xii., say- ing that verse 11, as well as 22, was not written by Nehemias, but by the Jewish Synagogue, then infallible or by some inspired author after the death of Nehemias ; that Nehemias could have seen Jeddoa when the latter was a child, but not after he became high priest. But even so a Lapide is compelled to suppose that " Esdras lived one hundred and forty-one years, and that Nehe- mias, like all others at the time, died after attaining a great age." It is to be observed, however, that there is nothing known with certainty regarding the age of Esdras and Nehemias at their death. According to some Jewish chronicles Esdras died the same year that Alexander the Great entered Jerusalem. According to other traditions, he died at the age of a hundred and twenty. ' Calmet, in his commentary on Nehemias xii., cites several Catholic writers, according to whom the names of Jonathan and Joadda in verse 1 1 and verses 22, 23, and 24 were added by some writer who lived after Nehemias, as the latter must have been dead before the time of Jonathan and Jeddoa. But Calmet believes that, since verse 22 is considered to have been written by Nehemias, we must suppose that Nehemias, at his death, had reached the age of one hundred and thirty-eight years, a matter not at all improbable in view of the long life of Esdras and Sanballat, who is mentioned in Nehemias xiii. 28. This looks like prov- ing one supposition by making another, a defect which seems inherent also in the explanation of a Lapide ; for the age of Esdras, Nehemias, and Sanballat is problematical. The genealogy contained in L Paral. iii. ' Kitto, Cyclopedia^ Ezra. T]ic Canon of the Old Test anient. 49 19-24 has the names of four great-grandfathers, and all these, as great-grandfathers, must have been seen by or been living in the time of Esdras or Nehemias, if these names were written by either. Calmet on this point is, therefore, compelled to say that the author of I. Paral., " as we have it, is evidently a different man from Esdras, since from Zorobabel to the tenth generation after him at least three hundred years passed, even though an average of only thirty years be assigned to each generation." It will thus be seen that, even if it be supposed, as some suggest, that the Jeddoa of the Book of Nehemias is not identical with, but one who lived earlier than the Jaddus, or Jado of Josephus ; and that Esdras, or Nehemias, or even both, lived to an unusually old age, it will be difficult to conceive how the Jewish tradition regarding the fixing and closing of the canon for all time to come can be reconciled with what is said in I. Paral. iii. and Nehemias xii. ; and the only possible way out of the difficulty will be to say, as several writers have proposed, that the verses in question were added by some inspired hand after the time of Esdras and Nehemias, just as the last chapter in the Books of Moses was not written by him, but after his death, by Josue or one of the prophets. But from adopting this hypothesis we seem again debarred by the aforesaid tradition. For, whereas it is admitted by all, that, when Moses died, there still remained an authority competent to complete his writings, and add to the canon as he left it, the tradition in question for- bids the supposition that the canon was not closed until three hundred years after the generation to which Zorobabel belonged, or until the time of Alexander the Great, the earliest period, it seems, at which the last word in the Hebrew Scriptures could have been written. CHAPTER IV. Christian Critics on the Formation of the Jew- ish Canon. The opinion which, apart from details connected with the subject, has prevailed among and is still gen- erally advocated by Catholic writers, regarding the formation of the Hebrew canon, is, that it was princi- pally the work of Esdras, and that, having been sub- mitted to the Sanhedrim of the time, it was approved by that body, but not closed for all time to come. A similar opinion was held at first by Protestants, who, however, maintained that, the prophetic spirit having ceased with Esdras, no further additions could be made to his canon. Hence, in all their editions of the Bible, although they included the deutero books, the}^ placed them by themselves at the end of the Old Testament, or between the Old and New, and under some special title, denoting either that they were of inferior authori- ty, or were not divinely inspired like the rest of the Holy Scriptures, till at last these books disappeared altogether from many Bibles published under Protes- tant auspices. But further study of the subject convinced the descendants of those who at first de- graded, then repudiated the deutero books, that the final closing of the canon in the time of Esdras could not be insisted on; and most of them adopted the opinion, that the labors of Esdras on the canon were continued after his death by several other eminent men; Simon the Just and certain members of the Great Synagogue, The Canon of the Old Testaviejit. 5 i having added to the canon some books which, not having been written before or during the Hfetime of Esdras, he could not have placed on the roll of Sacred Scriptures. At present not a few Protestant critics ' maintain, that the Hebrew canon was not completed even in the time of Simon the Just ; and that there is no evidence to show, that the canon had attained its present dimensions, until after the commencement of the Chris- tian era. There is hardly a question connected with the Christian religion, which has been the occasion of so much specu- lation as the canon of the Old Testament ; and writers of all shades of behef as well as of none, Catholics, Prot- estants, rationalists, and infidels, have taken part in its discussion. Why, it is asked, are there two canons — a long and a short one — the former advocated by Catho- lics, the latter by Protestants and Jews? Why attribute to Esdras the Jewish canon, since it embi'aces books which Esdras could never have seen, or at least state- ments which he could never have written ? Wh}', even if it be assumed that Esdras was the author of that canon, do we find the disciples of Hillel and Shammai, as late as the end of the first Christian century, disput- ing about the canonicity of certain books now found thereon ? Why is it that no inspired writer, Jewish or Christian, has even hinted that Esdras had anything whatever to do with collecting and compiling a cata- logue of sacred books ? Why all this, if the Jewish canon, as we have it, was the work of Esdras? Again, why is it that the Hellenistic or Greek-speaking Jews, for several centuries before and after the coming of Christ, made use of a translation of the Hebrew Script- ures which contained much more than is now found in the Hebrew Bible? Wh}- is it that Our Lord and His ' Hunter's Translation of Reuss's Hist, of the Canon of H. Script., 309- 314, note 339. 52 The Canon of the Old Testament. apostles often quote texts, not as read in the Hebrew Bible, but as read in that translation? Why is it that the writers of the New Testament borrow ideas and lan- guage from, if they do not actually cite books contained in that translation, but omitted in Hebrew Bibles ? Why do Josephus and Philo, both learned Jews, make use of the Scriptures contained in that translation ? Why does the former introduce as " Scripture " a text nowhere found in a proto, but contained in a deutero book ? ' Why, while some of the Fathers place the deutero books outside the canon, yet quoting them as Scripture, do others include them in the canon and cite them as di- vine ? Why all this and much more of the same sort ? These questions were the subject of occasional com- ment from almost the very dawn of Christian history ; but they can hardly be said to have received special atten- tion, or to have provoked general discussion, before the sixteenth century.. Since then, various theories have been proposed in order to account for the difificulties which these questions present. Genebrard " (d. 1597), a French Benedictine, is of opin- ion that three canons were drawn up among the Jews. The first, made in the time of Esdras and established by the Great S3aiagogue in what he calls the fifth synod. The second, made under the auspices of Eleazar, the High Priest, in a council named by Genebrard the sixth synod, and convened for the purpose of deliberating on the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures de- manded by Ptolemy, King of Egypt, and now known as the Septuagint. " It was on this occasion," says Genebrard, " that the books of Tobias, Judith, Wisdom,. Ecclesiasticus, and Baruch (unless, as seems probable, it was already on the Esdrine canon) were edited. The third canon was formed in the time of John Hyrcanus, on the occasion of the seventh S3'nod, which was con- ' II. Contra Apion., § 25. - Chron., L. 2. The Canon of the Old Testament. 53 voked in order to confirm the sect of the Pharisees, of which Hillel and Shammai were the chiefs, and to con- demn Sadoc and Barjetos, promoters of the sect called Sadducees. At that synod the two books of Machabees were placed on the canon, and the two preceding canons confirmed, in spite of the Sadducees, who, like the Sam- aritans, refused to recognize as divine any but the five Books of Moses. It is hardly necessary to observe that there is no reason whatever to suppose that such synods were ever held, and that the theory of which they form the ground-work has met with few advocates. Serarius' (d. 1609) a learned Jesuit and a native of Lorraine, after a careful study of the subject, came to the conclusion that two canons had been drawn up, one by Esdras and preserved unchanged by the Pales- tinian Jews, and another, which, besides the books in the Esdrine canon, included the deutero books, and was used by the Hellenists or foreign Jews, especially those of Alexandria, and subsequently by Our Lord and His apostles, who gave it their sanction and de- livered it to the Church. This theory was afterwards advocated by Tournemine ' (d. 1739), also a Jesuit, and other writers, not only Catholics but rationalists, Avho are mentioned by Comely, a Jesuit, and the author of a recent " Introduction to the Sacred Scripture, " in which the opinion of Serarius is ably defended. It seems also to have been embraced by Vincenzi ' and Fran- zelin. ' Richard Simon, a French Oratorian (d. 1712), main- tained ' that Esdras collected together the ancient Scrip- tures, " here and there abridging and changing," as he thought necessary ; and that " those books are no more • Proleg. c. viii. % xvi. 2 Appe7td. ad Prcrloq. Banfrerii., Art. i. Parisiis. 18S5, vol., p. 51. "^ Sessio Qitarla Cntic. Trid., Part, xi., 34. -» Dc Divina Tnid. et Sa-ipt., pp. 444, 449, note. Hist, oitiq., L. i., c. i. 54 The Canon of tJic Old Testament. than abridgments of memoirs much more extensive ; " in short, that the books on the Hebrew canon are mere- ly a compendium by Esdras of the sacred records extant in his time. The arguments advanced in support of this theory are generally considered altogether incom- petent. First, because the supposition, (it is nothing more), that that part of the Old Testament written be- f(^re the captivity of Babylon is a mere, compendium, which Esdras made of the books then extant, is opposed to the well founded and common sentiment, which has prevailed from time immemorial among Jews and Chris- tians, and is not mentioned by a single writer who pre- ceded Simon, by whom it was conceived and with whom it seems to have' died. Second, because the Sa- maritan Pentateuch, generall}- supposed to belong to a date anterior to the age of Esdras, agrees substantially with the Hebrew Pentateuch. Now, if the latter be a compendium, so must the former. That is, the compen- dium preceded the person by whom it was made, or the Samaritans allowed an enemy (for such they considered Esdras) to prepare for them an abstract of the Mosaic writings. If so, why did the}'- not also adopt his abstract of the other sacred writings ? Third, because the sup- position cannot be reconciled with the practice of Our Lord and His apostles, who are everywhere repre- sented in the New Testament, when quoting the Old, as using the very words of the writer whom they cite. Thus, when Moses, or David, or Solomon or any of the prophets is appealed to W them, the reader is given to understand that it is the language of the author named that is cited, and not that put into his mouth bv an ab- breviator. Fourth, because, were the supposition cor rect, there would be no diversity of style and treatment between one book and another, as is the case at present. Nor would the more ancient books, as they do now, con- tain archaic, pure, and unadulterated Hebrew, while the TJic Canon of the Old Testament. 55 latter books are free from all such expressions, and are written in a language which already exhibits traces of the influence exercised on it by the idioms of the various nations, with which the Jews were brought in contact after their settlement in Canaan. Fifth, because the writings, which treat of events that occurred before the time of Esdras, exhibit redundancies, repetitions, and apparent contradictions, all of which would certainly have disappeared under the treatment of such a skilful and experienced scribe as Esdras, had he undertaken to re-write or condense the whole. These considerations make it certain, that the sacred text has never been subjected to such an ordeal as the one through which it must have passed, were the theory of Simon any- thing more than a groundless conjecture. Huet, Bishop of Avranches (d. 1721), considered ' it most likely, that until the time of Christ the onl}^ canon in existence was that in which Esdras had borne by far the principal part, receiving, however, important assist- ance from Nehemias, who, as intimated, ^ gave an account of his own doings, and perhaps of those of others, adding to the canon his own book, as Esdras had added his. The canon being thus completed was approved by the Great Synagogue of the time, the only bodv competent to sanction solemnly such a work. When the storm ex- cited by the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes had subsided, Judas Machabeus " undertook the care of the sacred books, collected again those which had been lost in the war, and replenished the " library " of Nehe- mias. The Hellenists highly esteemed the deutero books, but never admitted them into their canon, nor was it until long after that the Church of Christ received them into her canon. According to Huet, therefore, the Jews, whether Palestinian or Hellenistic, had but one ' Demonst. Evang.y ed. Venet. 1733, pp. 343, 344. 2 II. Mach. ii. 13. s ibid. 14. 56 The Canon of tJic Old Testament. canon, that of which Esdras is said to be the principal au- thor ; this theor3- has been reproduced in its main features and advocated recentl)- by Professor Ubaldi of Rome. ' Frassen, a French Franciscan (d. 171 1) whose opinion ' was adopted by some other critics, seems, like Huet, to have been impressed, but in a different way, by the statement inll.Mach.ii. He supposed that a recension of the Esdrine canon was made b)' Nehemias ; and that this recension is referred to in TI. Mach. ii 13, where it is said that " these same things were set down in the memoirs and commentaries of Nehemias, when he made a h'brary and gathered together out of the countries the books of the prophets and of David, and the epistles of the Kings, concerning the holy gifts." It is also argued by those who favor this theory, that there' was another recension of the canon by Judas Machabeus, and they assisfn as a reason for this belief the statement contained in the two verses immediately after the one just cited. " In like manner Judas also gathered together all such things as were lost b}- the war we had, and they are now in our possession. Wherefore, if 3'ou want these things, send some that may fetch them." These passages were in the epistles addressed by the Jews of Jerusa- lem to their brethren in Egypt, and warrant, it is argued by the advocates of this theor}', the conclusion that the Esdrine canon was completed by the labors of Nehe- mias and Judas Machabccus, who also added to the sa- cred collection the so called deutero books, after it had been commenced by Esdras. A theor}^ similar in its main features to the preceding has been recently advanced by several German Catholic critics, as Movers, ' Neteler, * and Danko. ' These ' Ititroductio in Sac. Scripttiravi. Romse, 1878. '^ Disqids. bibliccs. 3 De uiriusgue recens. vat. Jeremia indepen. •* Die BUcher Esdra.", Nehemias, und Esther, etc. '' De .9. Script, ejtisqite interpretatione Commentarius. The Canon of the Old Testament. 57 writers are generally of opinion that the sacred books were collected, edited, and approved three times. First- by Esdras; second, by Nehemias; and third, in the time of the Machabees (II. Mach. ii. 14). The Judas men- tioned in this text Neteler supposes to have been not Judas Machabaeus, but Judas the Essene, who, according to Josephus ' was a great prophet in the time of John Hyrcanus and Aristobulus. In fact, this conjecture of Neteler was made long before by A Lapide, ^ and seems required b}' the theory, as the Machabean books record events which happened after the death of Judas Mach- abeus. Danko contends that the Jewish tradition regard- ing the Great Synagogue with Esdras at its head is a fable, because there is no mention of it in the books of Esdras and Nehemias, and it is even contradicted by Esdras ix., x. and Nehemias viii. He further insists that the sacred books were watched over by the prophets and other holy men, until the return from the exile ; and that neither Esdras nor the Great Synagogue completed the collection at that time ; although he admits that Esdras did then make a collection, a work in which, however, he had been preceded by Jeremias, as intimated in II. Mach. ii. 2. To the collection made by Esdras, Nehemias added other books. But as the genealogical statements contained in Paral. and Nehe- mias, and already referred to, ' could not have been writ- ten by either Esdras or Nehemias, these books, as well as others, appeared at a later period, and were added to the collection. " And thus it seems probable that the growth of the canon was gradual, and that it was at last finished in the time of the Machabees." Quite recently Rev. William E. Addis and Thomas Arnold, late Fellows of the Royal University of Ireland, ' Ant., B. xiii., c. xi. vS 2 ; IVars, B. i., c. iii., ^ 5. ■^ See his Commentary, ' p. 48. 58 The Canon of the Old Testament. and devoted as well as learned members of the Church, have expressed themselves regarding the canon m terms which, by many accustomed to the common opinions advocated by Catholic writers on the subject, will be considered bold, novel, and even startling. After a cursory but sufficiently searching examination of the evidence in favor of an Esdrine canon on the one hand, and of a Hellenistic canon on the other, the conclusion reached by these two critics is that, " In any case, the Christian Church never received the canon of Scripture from the Jews, because till long after the Jews had rejected Christ they had no fixed canon." This con- clusion is based principally on the now notorious fact that, as previously stated, " During the first century A. D. the canonicity of Canticles and Ecclesiasticus was still disputed in the Jewish Schools." ' Let us now see what, according to their own state- ments, has been the course of criticism among Protestant writers, regarding the canon of the Old Testament. It cannot be doubted, that the reformers and their first successors did practically accept the results of Jewish scholarship, as to the number of books in the canon. So says Professor Smith. "^ And although their great leader, Luther, expressed himself in such a way as to show that he seriously doubted, rather questioned, the canonicit}^ of Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Esther, Job, and oth- er books, according to Reuss, ^ it is certain that "in the sixteenth century " it was commonly held "in the Prot- estant churches " that " the canon was completed by a body of men known as the Great Synagogue .... and represented as a permanent council, under the presi- dency of Ezra " ' (Esdras). It was, however, not then ' Catholic Dictionary, Art. Canon of t/ie Scriplme. • The O. Tcst. in the Jewish Church, p. 46. ^ History oj the C.itinn of the H. Script., pp. 330, 331. ^ The O. Test, in the Jewish Church, p. 156. The Canon of the Old Testament. 59' perceived that there was much in the Hebrew canon which Esdras could not have written or have had in- serted. This was discovered afterwards, and some theo- ry had to be devised, in order to account for the presence in the canon of statements referring to events long subsequent to the time in which Esdras lived. Among those who undertook to do so, Prideaux, Prot- estant dean of Norwich, has been assigned a prominent place for his learning and industry, but not for his success in this particular task. In fact, Prideaux's theory, though proposed for a different purpose, is hardl}" less objectionable than that of Richard Simon, which has just been discussed. Ac- cordinof' to Prideaux, ' *' the gfreat work of Esdras was his collecting together and setting forth a correct edi- tion of the Holy Scriptures, which he labored much in, and went a great way in the perfection of it." Again, " He collected together all the books of which the Holy Scripture did then consist, and disposed them in their proper order, and settled the canon of Scripture for his time." ^ But " It is most likely that the two Books of Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, as well as Malachi, were afterwards added, in the time of Simon the Just, and that it was not till then that the Jewish canon of the Holy Scriptures was fully completed."'' More- over " Ezra .... added in several places throughout the books of this edition Avhat appeared necessarj^ for the illustrating, connecting, or completing of them ; where- in he was assisted by the same Spirit by which they were at first wrote." ^ Prideaux then mentions several passages, including the entire last chapter of Deuter- onomy, which, according to him, Esdras interpolated in the books of the Old Testament ; and adds that, " Many more instances of such interpolated passages might be ' Connexion, vol. 1., p. 270. -^ Ibid., 272, 273, 3 Ibid., 271, 272. •* Ibid., 279. ■6o The Canon of the Old Testa?nent. given." ' For all this there is not a particle of proof in the Scriptures themselves, in the statement of any re- spectable ancient writer, or in any well authenticated tradition. Besides, the presence in the sacred text of the passages mentioned, could be and has been easih' explained, without invoking a wholesale interpolation by Esdras. It is indeed hard to see in what Prideaux's gratuitous supposition (for what else is it ?) differs from that other, according to which Esdras, aided by the Holy Ghost, restored all the divine books when lost. If, as Prideaux believes, the last chapter of Deuterono- my was written by Esdras with the assistance of the holy Spirit, might not Esdras with the same assistance have written every other chapter in that particular book, or, for that matter, even all the books ? where is the difference ? The dean has not failed to inform his readers that some of the Fathers were mistaken in asserting, on the authority " of the second (fourth) apocryphal book of Esdras, that Ezra restored all the Scriptures, when lost and destroyed, by divine revela- tion." " But these Fathers might retort by asking their censor, in what does this differ from restoring the whole or portions thereof by divine " interpolation " ? Prideaux wrote in the first quarter of the last cen- tury. As an indication of the immense stride in Biblical criticism made since then by English Prot- estants, who in this department of science sound the key-note for their transatlantic coreligionists, dancing themselves, however, to the music of Protestant Ger- many, it will not be out of place to reproduce here the substance of some remarks on the canon by Rev. Samuel Davidson, professor of Biblical literature in the Independent College, Manchester. This critic, whose scholarly attainments have been highly esteemed by all, who believe that the pure word of God is to be sought ' Connexion, vol. i., p. 279. * Ibid., 270. The Canon of the Old Testament. 6r in the Protestant Bible and nowhere else; while dis- cussing the question before us, says, ' that a list of canonical books was drawn up three times : first, by Ezra ; second, by Nehemiah ; and third, at a later period, when the youngest portion of the canon consisted of Daniel (between 170 and 160 B. C), and probably of several psalms, which were inserted in different places of the collection, so as to make the whole number one hundred and fifty. The list continued open, and no stringent principle guided selection. The canon, how- ever, was not considered closed in the first century before, and the first century after Christ. The closing of the canon in the time of Ezra, or at any time before Christ, is a rabbinical fable ; the wonder is that any intelligent Protestant could ever have believed any- thing else. There were doubts about some portions, Ezekiel, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Esther, and Proverbs. And these doubts, though suppressed for a while after 32 B. C, re-appeared about A. D. 65, when all were admitted to the canon except Ecclesiastes, which was probably excluded, but, along with Canti- cles, was assigned to the Hagiographa in the Synod of Jamnia, about A. D. 90. But as the Hagiogra- pha was not read in public, with the exception of Esther, opinions of Jewish Rabbins might still differ about Canticles and Ecclesiastes, even after the Synod of Jamnia. Such, in a condensed form, but as nearly as possible in his own words, is what Dr. Davidson has written regard- ing the manner and time in which the Hebrew canon was formed. Now, before A. D. 90, any authority which the highest spiritual tribunal among the Jews possessed in order to distinguish between divine and human writ- ings, had either become absolutely extinct and disap- peared from earth, or had been transferred in its plen- i tlncylop. Britt., Canon. 62 The Canon of the Old Testament. itude to the Church. If, therefore, Davidson be right, either it is no longer possible to know what is or is not God's written word, and all discussion about the canon of Scripture is labor lost ; or, outside the Church, which succeeded the Synagogue, it is impossible for any one to say what books belong to the Bible, or whether there be a Bible at all, as that word is under- stood. . It thus appears that the Jewish tradition, which attributed to Esdras the formation as well as the com- pletion of the Hebrew canon, and which was received as unquestionable by the most eminent writers of Christian antiquity, and by them transmitted to subse- quent generations, as erabod3'ing a fact equally certain almost with any other recorded in the Scriptures, has in recent times excited hardly less doubt than the most in- credible of the many absurd details which rabbinical ex- aggeration has interwoven with it. Nor is this remark- able ; for that tradition was not committed to writing until long after Esdras had passed away. In fact, six if not seven full centuries must have intervened between his death and the earliest date at which, so far as known, any written notice of that tradition appeared. During that long interval, in the greater part of which they maintained their national existence, and enjoyed com- parative tranquillity, the Jews raised not a monument, instituted not a feast, traced not a single line in their public archives or private records, to perpetuate the recollection of the event to which the tradition in question refers ; though events in their history certainly not more important than the settlement of their canon, instead of being exposed to the danger of utter oblivion by being transmitted orally from generation to genera- tion, were duly recorded, or publicly commemorated from year to year on some day especially set apart for the purpose ; or were so interwoven with their litera- TJie Canon of tJic Old Testament. 63 ture or religion, that, so long as eitiier remained, it might be contidently appealed to for proof that such events had actually (occurred. Thus the Grecian and Eg3p- tian Jews are said b}'^ Philo ' to have assembled every )''ear at the island of Pharos, and there to have celebrat- ed by a public festival the translation of the Scriptures into Greek. And it is certain that the dedication of the Temple by Judas Machabccus. described in I. Mach. iv., was commemorated from year to year by a solemn octave, which was called the Feast of Lights by Jose- phus,' was observed in the time of Our Lord,' and appears to be still observed by the Jews. ' The Feast of Purim, or Lots, was also instituted to commemorate the deliverance of the Jews from the wicked designs of Aman, as related in the book of Esther, " and still is celebrated by the Jews."' It had its name from the lots cast b}^ Aman to fix the day for their destruction, and has been at all times religiously observed by them. Yet, of the expurgation and compilation of their sacred books by Esdras, and the authoritative sanction given to his work by the Great Synagogue at the same time, no monument was preserved, the event was honored by the institution of no festival, nor was there anvthing written or said about it before the Talmudic period. Now, from the time of Esdras until the destruction of the Jewish commonwealth, and even after that, several works, sacred and profane, were written by Jewish authors. Many of them are still extant ; as, the deutero books of the Old Testament, all the books of the New (if the Jewish extraction of Luke be admitted), together with the writings of Josephus and Philo, both of whom ' Life of Moses, B. Ii. cvii. = A7it., B. xii., c. 7, § 7. ^ John X. 22. — See also Comnient. of the Methodist Adam Clarke. * Calmet, on I. Mach. iv. 59. 5 Milman, Hist, of the Jews, Vol. i, 477; iii. 36, 449 — Calmer, Comment, on Esther, ix. ZX. "• 64 The Canon of the Old Testament. were thoroughly versed in the history and literature 01 their own nation. Yet the reader will peruse all these writings from beginning to end, without finding a single allusion to Esdras as connected in any way with the formation of the Hebrew canon ; although the Scriptures themselves are ver^/ frequently mentioned therein, thus rendering it certain that these were not only in existence, but that they were well known. In- deed, the notion of a canon or collection of sacred books bv Esdras is never once hinted at by any of these writers. Such persistent silence on the part of those who wrote the Old Testament deutero books, of those who wrote the New Testament, as well as of Josephus and Philo, especially in regard to a matter which, at least for some of them, must have had some interest, if not consider- able importance, is exceedingly singular and suggestive. Though the silence of all these writers, and indeed, so far as is known, of all other Jewish authors, from the end of the Babylonian captivity to long after the beginning of the Christian period, may amount to no more than a negative proof that the relation of Esdras to the Script- ure was nothing more than simply what is said of him therein : that " he was a ready scribe in the Law of Mo- ses ; had prepared his heart to seek the law of the Lord, and to do and to teach in Israel the commandments and judgment," as is stated in the book of which he is believed to be the author (Esdras vii. 6, 10); and that at the request of the people he brought the Book of the Law of Moses before them, and read it to them, and the Levites interpreted it to them (Nehemias viii.) — yet that proof is not to be ruled out, unless direct and positive evi- dence to the contrary be produced. And, certainly the Jewish tradition about the origin of the canon is not of a character to be treated as such. Besides, when Esdras and Nehemias were giving an account of all that had been done by the former in The Canon of tJie Old Testament. 65 rebuilding the temple, restoring religious worship and discipline, instructing the people, and reading the law to them, it must appear unaccountable that nothing is said by either about one of the most important services which Esdras is reported to have performed, that of enabling for all time to come his coreligionists to dis- tinguish with unerring certainty sacred from profane compositions, by providing them with a catalogue of those books which, to the exclusion of all others, were to be regarded as dictated b}' God himself. Nor is this all. Josephus, as is well known, not only recounts the facts recorded in the sacred history of the Jews, but comprises in his writings mau}^ statements which are not found in that history, and which he must have fab- ricated out of national vanity, or derived from the tradi- tional lore current among his countrymen. Thus he oc- cupies the entire second chapter of the twelfth book of his Antiquities with the story current among the Jews of his time about the incidents connected with the trans- lation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek — a story attributed to Aristeas, a Jew, and I'epeated by Philo, ' another Jew, before Josephus embodied it in his work. Now, can it be supposed, that such a writer would have omitted to tell his readers, that an authoritative cata- logue of the divine books was made by Esdras, had there been at the time he composed his Antiquities any ^testimony, written or traditional, to show that such was f the case ? Yet he never once refers to the matter, though he devotes the greater part of chapter v., book XT., of his Antiquities to the doings of Esdras at Babylon and Jerusalem, and even states that Esdras from morn- ing to noon read the laws of Moses to the people on the Feast of Tabernacles. When he so stated, then, if ever, he was bound to place on record the tradition which assigned to Esdras the authorship of the canon, ' Life of Moses, 6. ii. 66 The Canon of the Old Testament. had any such tradition been known to him. Once more ; when against Apion. i. 8 Josephus had occasion to make mention of the 22 books, the circumstances were such as to call for some reference to the labors of Esdras on the canon, had Josephus ever heard of these labors. That on neither occasion did he make any allusion whatever to the subject can hardly be explained in any other way, than by supposing that, though well informed about all Esdras had done in restoring the religious and political institutions of the Jews, he had never heard that Esdras had provided them with an approved canon of the Scriptures. If therefore it be true, as the Rabbins maintain, that Esdras was the author of their canon, and even worthy to have been the lawgiver if Moses had not preceded him, ' is it not surprising, that in the only three instances — in which he is referred to in his relation to the Script- ures, before the Talmudic period — once in the book which goes by his own name, once in that of Nehemias, and once in the writings of Josephus — he should be mentioned simply as« ready scribe in the Lazv of Moses, a reader of the Laiv, very skilful in the Lazv of Moses, but nowhere as the author of the canon ; that even no notice whatever should have been taken of his reported connection with the canon by any of the writers of the deutero books of the Old Testament, or of the books of the New — his name not being even mentioned in any of the former or latter, and actually omitted in the list of illustrious men con- tained in Ecclesiasticus,' while Zorobabel, Nehemias, and Simon the Just appear therein ; and that the earliest reference to him, as in anj' way concerned with or en- gaged in the formation of a canon, has to be sought in the apocryphal book called IV. Esdras ; if it be not the production of an age later than that in which the Tal- ' Bab. Sanhed., c. ii., f. 21. 2 Eccli. xlix. 1. The Canon of the Old Testament. 6y mud appeared? In other words, as before remarked, some six or seven centuries had come and gone since the generation to which Esdras belonged had passed away, before anything, so far as can now be known, had been said or written regarding the eminent services he is reported to have rendered by his labors on the sa- cred compositions of those inspired men by whom he had been preceded. On the strength of rabbinical testi- mony it was once generally believed, that Esdras substi- tuted the present Hebrew square letters for the older Semitic characters, in which the Scriptures were origi- nally written. That the change was made, is certain, but when or by whom nobod}- now knows. That he also introduced the vowel points into the text was also con- sidered indisputably certain. In fact, many Protestants believed them to be essential parts of the text. That, however, is no longer believed by any one. For it is now universally admitted, that these points were not invented until the sixth or seventh century of our era. ' Thus the traditions, which have so long clustered around the sac- red memory of Esdras, disappear one by one, till at last probably nothing will be left to take their place, except what is told in the simple but inspired words which he himself and Nehemias have written. 1 R. Cornely, S. J., Introd. in S. Scrip.,\Q\. i., pp. 241, 242. CHAPTER V. the deutero books originally included in the Jewish canon. At the very least it is, therefore, not at all certain that Esdras, with or without the Great Synagogue, was the author of the Hebrew canon. Nor is there any trustwor- thy human testimony to prove where or by whom that Canon was made ; while critics, in searching the Script- ures for light on the subject, have so far been unable to reach a common conclusion. But whereas even Rab- bins in the great assembly at Jamnia, ' about A. D. 90, felt at liberty to express doubts regarding the canonicity of Ecclesiastes and Canticles, it would seem to follow, that the collection as a whole could not have been defi- nitely settled much, if even at all, before that time. The discussion at Jamnia, as reported in the Mishna, Tract ladaini iii. 5, is worth being repeated here. "All the Hol}^ Scriptures defile'' the hands : Canticles and Ecclesiastes defile the hands. R. Judah said, Can- ticles defiles the hands, and Ecclesiastes is disputed.' R. Jose said, Ecclesiastes does not defile the hands, and Canticles is disputed. R. Simon said, Ecclesiastes belongs to the light things of the school of Shammai, ' This was a town in the territory of the tribe of Judah, where the Jews had a celebrated school and sanhedrim. It is also called Jebna or Yeiiina and Jab- neh. — Geography of Palestine, by Ritter, iii., 244. • In order to " put a hedge about the law " as directed in the Talmud (supra p. 33), and thus prevent the sacred books from being used universally or for common purposes, the Rabbins decided that their touch "defiles the hands " and food, thus communicating legal uncleanness. 68 The Canon of the Old Testament. 69 and the heavy things of the school of Hillel (i. e., the former is more strict about the matter than the latter). R. Simeon, son of Azai, said, I received it as a tradition from the seventy-two elders, that this point was decided on that day, when the ofhce was assigned to R. Eleazar, son of Azarias. R. Akiba said, by no means ; no Isra- elite has ever doubted that Canticles defiles the hands : for no day in the history of the world is to be more esteemed than that in which Israel received this book. For all the Hagiographa are sacred, but Canticles is particularly sacred. If there has been any dispute, it was about Ecclesiastes. R. Johanan, the son of Josua, the son of the father-in-law of R. Akiba, said: so, as the son of Azai said, it was disputed, and so it was decided." Similar disputes about Proverbs are found in Tr. Sabbath 30; about Ezechiel in Tr. Sabb. 13 ; about Esther, in Tr. Sanhedr. 100, etc. To impair the force of this testimon}-, it has been ob- served, that these doubts and denials no more prove that the canonicity of the books in question was not admitted by the Jews at the time, than does the rejec- tion of Job, Canticles, and Proverbs by Theodore of Mopsuestia prove, that these books were not then in the Christian canon. This answer, however, is quite incom- petent. For Theodore in life was known as a heretic on other points, and as such publicly condemned after death by the Fifth Ecumenical council ; whereas the rab- binical disputants who wrangled over and denied the canonicity of Canticles, Ecclesiastes, etc., were regarded as otherwise orthodox by their own brethren. In consequence of the controversies now known to have been carried on among the Rabbins regarding the canon at so late a period, Protestant writers, to whom at first the rejection of the entire Old Testament would have appeared hardly less impious than the denial of an Esdrine canon, are now very generally disposed 70 The Canon of the Old Testament. to hold, that the Old Testament canon was not definitely " fixed until the close of the first century." ' Thus, in a matter to them of prime importance, there have been three theories among the Reformers and their descend- ants. First, it was believed that the Old Testament canon was the work of Esdras. Second, that, though principally the work of Esdras, it continued to grow under the care of other authorized persons, until brought to its present condition. Thii-d, as now held by the most advanced Protestant critics, it was not sealed, settled, and approved by the Jews until about the end of the first century after Christ. For Catholics the ques- tion has very little importance, as their creed is regu- lated, not by what this or that book says, but by what the Church teaches. Nor is it likely that they would feel much interest in its discussion, were it not that attempts at repudiating writings proclaimed divine by the Church have forced on them the duty of defending their canonicity. In doing so they have expressed a variety of opinions. But all these opinions may be reduced to three, with some shades of difference, partic- ularly in the details of the first. One is that held (as already explained) b}- Genebrard, Frassen, Huet, Danko, Neteler, Movers, Ubaldi and others. All these critics believe, that until the time of Our Lord there had been but one canon, that canon according to some being the present Hebrew or Palestinian canon, which, however, was superseded by the Hellenistic or Alexandrian, when Our Lord and His Apostles delivered the latter to the Church ; according to others of the same school being, indeed, the present Hebrew canon, enlarged, however, by the addition of the deutero books, which were inserted therein b}' competent authority before the time of Our Lord. A second opinion is that there were two canons, one the Palestinian, comprising the books now in the ' The Old Testament m the Jervish Church, p. 154. TJie Canon of the Old Testament. yi Hebrew canon, another the Alexandrian, being the Pal- estinian enlarged by the addition of the deutero books. This opinion, as we have seen, is advocated by Serarius, Tournemine, Vincenzi, Franzeli«, as well as others (the latest of whom is Cornely), and even some non-Catholic critics. A third opinion, which has been advanced by the writers of The Catholic Dictionary, is too recent to have attracted much attention, but may in time be considered equally probable with either of the other two, if it does not supersede both. Its advocates deny that the Jews had a fixed canon until long after the time of Christ ; and in confirmation of their denial remind their readers, that it is in evidence that even after the time of Christ the canonicity of several books now found in the Hebrew Old Testament was a subject of dispute among rabbinical teachers, which would not have been the case, had there been at the timei, a Hebrew canon ; that, although no quotations from the Old Testament deutero books are found in the New Testament, just as several Old Testament proto books are not once cited by the writers of the New Testament, yet allusions in the New Testament to these deutero books are frequent and unmistakable ; that out of about 350 quotations from the Old Testament in the New, 300 are from LXX, which contains the deutero books ; that the New Tes- tament will be searched in vain for any list of Old Tes- tament books received b}' Our Lord and His apostles ; and that it is proved from tradition that the full list of Old Testament books, including the deutero, was author- ized by the apostles. There is not certainly in Script- ure nor in tradition anything to prove, that before the time of Christ there was a definite number of sacred writings universally received as such by the Jews. They had some that were well known and recognized among them as divine ; yet it is certain they had others, which are now in their canon, but which were not 72 ' The Canon of the Old Testament. placed thereon by them, until many years after the commencement of the Christian era. Indeed, the canon of the Church, embracing both the Old and New Testa- ment deutero as well aS proto books, may have been settled before anything of the kind was done for their Scriptures by the Jews, who may have been induced to move at last in this matter by the example of their Christian neighbors, who had adopted the Alexandrian canon. Just here, therefore, seems to be the proper place for some remarks on the Old Testament, which, con- taining the Alexandrian canon, circulated among the Hellenists for over two hundred years before the com- ins: of Our Lord. That volume, divested of all the fabulous details with which the Jews have endeavored to embellish its origin, and which even some of the early Christians regarded as sober histor}-, is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, and contains, besides, some other books, originally written in Greek by Jewish authors. It was made in Alexandria, Egypt, — being therefore sometimes called the Alexandrian ver- sion— was commenced hardly, if anv, later than 290 B. C, and was completed at least very soon after. All this is certain. But it is also called the Septuagint — LXX — because it is said to have been made by 72 — in round numbers 70— interpreters, six from each of the twelve tribes of Israel, whom Eleazar the High Priest, at the request of king Ptolemy Philadelphus, sent from Jerusa- lem for the purpose. Though originally intended to meet a want felt principally by the Jews of Alexandria, who were ignorant not onlv of Hebrew, but of the language which had superseded it in Palestine, and in which the Hebrew Scriptures were there explained to the people, the Septuagint, as Protestant writers admit," ' Scaliger, Animnd. in Euseb. : Walton, Proleg. ix. 15; Piideaux, Conin-x- ion. I'ait II., B. i., p. 40; Davidson, on Septiias;., Kitlo's Cycl. The Canon of the Old Testament. 73 was soon spread abroad, and read by the Jews in the synagogues throughout Egypt, the whole of Asia, and Northern Africa. And while this was the case, these Jews were recognized as orthodox b}'- their brethren in Jerusalem, as is evident from the letters addressed by the latter to their brethren in Eg3^pt, and found in II. Mach., a book written, according to the best Prot- estant critics, ' about 150 B. C. That this version was known to and tolerated, if not approved, by the highest ecclesiastical authority in Jerusalem, may be inferred from the fact that, as Adam Clarke, a learned Methodist minister, confesses in his Conniieiitary on Acts vii. 14, St. Stephen quoted the Septuagintin his defence before the council at Jerusalem, without a word of reproof from his judges or accusers. Walton" goes even farther, declaring that " the authoritv of this version be- came so great .... even in the city of Jerusalem, that it was read publicly in the Synagogue ; " that '' Philo," a learned Jew of Alexandria, "and Josephus," a native of Jerusalem, a priest and a professed member of the strictest Jewish sect — the Pharisees — " quoted it " in their writings ; ^ that " Josephus, contra Apion., cited some passages from the deutero books ; * that " the apostles and evangelists follow it in quoting the Scriptures, and in their writings, as it were, consecrated it ; " * and that " the apostles delivered it to the Church, when by it they had subjugated the world to Christ." ' Davidson asserts, ' when speaking of the Septuagint, that Philo and Josephus adopted it ; and it was universally re- ceived by the early Christians. Even the Talmud makes honorable mention of its origin." Prideaux, as notorious for his anti-Catholic prejudices, as he was re- 1 Prideaux, Con., Part II., B. iii., p. 127; Kitto's Cycl., II. Mach. 2 Proleg. ix. 2. ^ Ibid. 15. 4 Ibid. ix. 13. * Ibid. 56. « Ibid. ' Kitto's Cycl., Sept. 74 The Canon of the Old TcstamoLt. markable for his literar)- industry, tells ' his readers that " when the Septuagint was completed, the Jews of Alexandria had the stated lessons read out of it in their synagogues, and they had copies of it at home, for their own private use ; " ' although, as he correctly observes, afterwards, " as it grew into use among the Christians, it grew out of credit with the Jews,"' the reason being, that the latter were unable to answer the arguments based upon it by the advocates of the Chris- tian religion, and at last, in the second century, substi- tuted another Greek translation, prepared by Aquila, one of their own proselytes, and a renegade from Christianity. Stackhouse, also referring to the subject, remarks that of this kind of Jews (Hellenists), we are told, there w^ere great numbers in Jerusalem, where there was a synagogue particularly appointed for such as understood no other language than Greek, and where the version of the LXX was constantly read in their assemblies." * There is therefore enough and more than enough of testimony b)'^ the most respectable Protestant writers, to make it certain, that the onl}- copy of the Scriptures in use among the Hellenists, wherever they found them- selves, in or out of Palestine, from the third century B. C. to the second A. D., was the Septuagint. There is also at hand abundant testimony of the same character to prove, that those Jews who, whether at home or abroad, read and studied the Scriptures in this version, maintained not only friendly relations but religious communion with the ecclesiastical authorities at Jerusa- lem. In fact, this follows necessarily from the preceding testimony itself. For, the Septuagint could not have been " read publicly in the synagogue " at Jerusalem, nor would " a synagogue have been appointed " there ' Con., Part II., B. i., 40. "^ Ibid. 3 Ibid. 41. •• Hist, of the Piblc, p. I061. TJic Canon of the Old Testament. 75 for " the constant reading of the Lxx " to or by those who " understood no other language than Greek," had not these Greek-speaking Jews, or Hellenists, ' enjoved religious fellowship with the people of Jerusalem, and those who there directed public worship or occupied the chair of Moses. For all Jews, abroad as well as at home, Jerusalem was a center of unity, and "all the Jews throughout the habitable earth, and those that worshipped God, nay, even those of Asia and Europe, sent their contributions to it, and this from ancient times."' The generosit}^ displayed by Alexander, Alabarch at Alexandria, who manifested his piety as a Jew by enriching nine gates of the Temple at Jerusalem with silver and gold, ' must have had many imitators among Jews of his class, everywhere. Indeed, Dr. Davidson has no hesitation in saying that " the Jews of Egypt looked upon Jerusalem as their city, and the Sanhedrim of Jerusalem as their ecclesiastical rulers." ' It is true that Onias, the legitimate high priest, having been driven out of Jerusalem, had in the nome of Helio- polis in Egypt erected at Leontopolis a temple, in which religious worship was performed ; and that the stricter Jews may have regarded the innovation as schismatical, at least in its tendency ; yet even they appear to have extended to it a certain degree of toleration, while the bare mention of the temple at Garizim was certain to excite a feeling of contempt and horror in the soul of every orthodox Israelite. At any rate, as Professor Smith has said, speaking of the Hellenists, "there is not ^ From Hellenes, — Gv&ek'^,. - Josephus, Ant.. B. xiv. c. vii. 3; B. xvi. c. vi. ^ 2-7: B. xviii. c. ix. § i. ' Origin of tliis word doubtful ; it is applied to the chief magistrate of the Jews at Alexan'ria. and though it may sometimes mean a tax collector, it is here probably synonymous with ethnarch, a deputy governor. As an apparent com- pound of alios and a/rlie, it Would seem to mean •' a ruler of the foreign element in a population." '' Jos., IFars, 15. v., c. v.. § 3; Aiil.. B. xx., c. v., § 2. ■'' Kitto's Cyclop., Seplnagint. 76 The Canon of the Old Testament. the slightest evidence that they were regarded as heretics, using an inferior Bible, or in any way falling short of all the requisites of true Judaism, ... In the time of Christ there were many Hellenistic Jews in Jeru- salem, with synagogues of their own, where the Greek version was in regular use .... Hellenists and Hebrews, the Septuagint and the original text, met at Jerusalem without schism or controversy. The divergencies of the Septuagint must have been patent to all Jerusalem, yet we find no attempt to condemn or suppress the ver- sion." * Elsewhere he tells us, " Josephus, though an orthodox Pharisee, makes use of the LXX, even where it departs from the Hebrew (I. Esdras).'" Any one, in fact, who reads what Josephus has" written in Book XL, chapter iii., of his Antiquities, will find that he follows the account he found in IH. Esdras, rather than that contained in the Hebrew I. Esdras. Is it not possible that the Historian meant to include III. Esdras instead of I. Esdras among " the twenty-two divine books," which he mentions, while writing against Apion ? ^ This, however, by the way. For the point here under con- sideration has been fairly well proved, namely, that the Hellenists were recognized at Jerusalem as orthodox Jews. Indeed, to be convinced that such was the case, the reader need only consult the Acts of the Apostles ii., vi., ix. But is there any reason for believing, that the copy of the Scriptures used by the Hellenists, thus clearly shown to have been in communion with the supreme religious authorit)^ at Jerusalem, included the deutero books ? Yes, the very best of reasons, if conclusions derived from the admissions of learned Protestants, nay, even the positive statements of such critics to that effect, ' The Old T. ill the Jewish Church, pp. 100, loi. ^ Ibid. 402. » B. i., s^ 8 The Canon of the Old Testament. jy can be appealed to as a proof of the fact. That there is such testimony at hand, the following references will place beyond doubt. Walton ' tells his readers that " the apocryphal (as he calls the deutero) books, as they were the productions or different authors, were written at different times, some in Hebrew, some in Greek ; and though they were first received by the Hellenists, nevertheless, when they were compacted into one vol- ume cannot be precisely assigned. This, however, is clear, that the Church received them from the Hellenis- tic Jews." If the Hellenists were the first to receive these books, and the Church received them from the Hellenists, then certainly the latter, before and at the commencement of the Christian era at the latest, while recognized as consistent Jews at Jerusalem, had the deutero books in their copies of the Old Testament ; and not only in those copies, but mixed among the proto books ; not separated from them or added by way of an appendix, but inserted here and there as integral parts of one volume, just as they appear at present in all printed copies, and even in the most ancient manuscripts, as the Vatican, Alexandrian, Sinaitic, and Parcisian. And no unprejudiced reader, after examining one of these copies, could reach any other conclusion, than that in point of authority the deutero were considered in no way inferior to the proto books. Dr. Davidson^ is therefore compelled to admit that " the very way in which apocryphal (so he calls the deutero) are inserted among canonical books in the Alexandrian version, shows the equal rank assigned to both." Throughout the East, as well as the West, all Bibles in the hands of Christians generally contained the deutero interspersed among the proto books, up till the sixteenth century. For it was not until 1526 that Lonicer, in his edition of the Septuagint, with sacrilegious hands separated the ■* Prolog, ix. 13. - Encycl. Biitl., Canon. y% The Canon of the Old Testament. deutero books from those in the Jewish canon. His example was soon followed by a countryman of con- genial spirit, Martin Luther, who in his translation placed the deutero scriptures between the Old and New Testa- ment. Indeed, Martin seems to have entertained this project as early as 1523, when he commenced the pub- lication of his translation in parts. At all events, after his translation appeared, the arrangement which he has the credit of inventing, against the unanimous pro- test of Christian antiquity, was preserved generally in all Protestant Bibles till 1827, when the absolute ex- clusion of the deutero books from the Bible was decreed by the London Bible Society, after a long and acrimo- nious controversy with the branch societies, especially of the Scotch Kirk. This arbitrary decision was vehe- mently, but unsuccessfully, opposed by the continental societies and many prominent Protestant ministers. It is remarkable that from first to last not one among the dis- putants even seems to have suspected, that Esther should have been excluded w^ith the other deutero books ; for, whether the reader be guided by Jewish or Christian tradition, he will find that Esther's claim to proto canon- icalness is no better than that of any among those books. The remark of Vossius is somewhat to the point, as tend- ing to show that the Hebrew canon had by no means that fixed, definite character, with which it is so often credited. Having occasion to refer to the additions in the book of Esther, that writer says, ' " Because that book in not a few places includes more in the Greek translation than in the Hebrew, it is commonly sup- posed that these additions have been made by the Greek interpreter. I, however, have a far different opinion, nor do I doubt but that the discrepancy in question resulted from the fact, that the Hebrews had two editions, one larger, the other smaller." These ad- ' Vincenzii Sessio quarta Cone. Trid., pars, ii., p. 35. The Canon of the Old Testament. 79 ditions were therefore, if Vossius be correct, not only in the Septuagint before it was adopted by the Chris- tians, but even in the Hebrew Old Testament at the time it was translated into Greek, about or not long after 290 B. C. And might not the other deutero books, at least such of them as were then written, have been found at the same time on what was generally con- sidered the roll of sacred Scriptures ? But in that hypothesis, a by no means improbable one, since it is implied in the admission of Vossius, what becomes of the story about the Esdrine origin of the Old Testament canon ? Again, in deciding' whether the Old Testament, as used by the Hellenists, included the deutero Scriptures, due attention should be paid to the contents of the Old Latin Vulgate or Veins Itala, as it is sometimes called. It was, as all know, simply a Latin version of the Septua- gint, made in the very infancy of the Church. " Some,'" says Walton,' " have not hesitated to refer it to a disciple of the apostles .... and though they assert this without authority, it is probable, nevertheless, that it was in use at the very commencement of the Church, since a Latin church could not be without a Latin version, and the Roman church, which has always held the chief place among the churches, and was most tenacious of ancient traditions, received that version into common use." Now let the reader turn to Kitto's Cyclopedia, ' a Prot- estant work, and he will find that this remarkable Latin version contained all the deutero books. Then, if he asks how or whence did they get thei-e, the only possible answer is, from the Septuagint. It follows, therefore, that when the Septuagint passed from the Hel- lenists to the Christians, that is, in the very origin of the Christian religion, it included the deutero Scriptures • Prolog. X. i. ' Vulgate, pp. 922, 923. 8o The Canon of the Old Testament. among its other contents ; that is, the Bible used b}' Hel- lenists before the commencement of the Christian era comprised not only the books now found on the Hebrew canon, but those others, which Jews and Protestants have rejected as apocryphal, but which the Church from the beginning has venerated equally with the rest as the word of God. The remarks of Marsh (d. 1839), Anglican Bishop of Peterborough, on this subject, are as suggestive as they are candid. " The Council of Trent," says he, ' " declared no other books to be sacred and canonical than such as had existed from the earliest ages of Christianit}', not onlv in the Latin version of the Old Testament, but even in the ancient Greek version, which is known by the name of the Septuagint .... In the manuscript of the Septuagint there is the same intermixture of canonical and apocryphal (deutero) books, as in the manuscripts of the Latin version." It is added that " the ecclesiastical (deutero) books were generally written within a period which could not have extended to more than two centu- ries before the birth of Christ. In the choice of the places which were assigned them by the Greek Jews resident in Alexandria and other parts of Egypt, who probably added these books to the Septuagint, according as the}- became gradually approved of, they were directed part- ly by the subject, partly by their relations to other books, and partly by the periods in which the recorded transactions took place." After this, what further need is there of testimony, since these books were not only added to, but approved, and intermingled among the other books on the present Jewish canon b}' Jews who were admitted, as it appears, to full religious fellowship at Jerusalem. But let us hear the evidence of one more Protestant witness, a comparatively recent writer, Rev. W. W. ' Comparative View. p. 89, The Canon of the Old Testament. 8 1 Wright, iM. A, LL. D., of Trinity College, Dublin. " These books, " says Dr. Wright, referring to the (leutero, in an article contributed to Kitto's Cyclopedia on Deiiterocanonical, " seem to have been included in the copies of the Septuagint, which was generally made use of by the sacred writers of the New Testament. It does not appear whether the apostles gave any cautions against the reading of these books, and it has even been supposed that they have referred to them." Then, alter giving a list of some twenty passages found in the deutero books, and to which the writers of the New Testament are " supposed " to have " referred," Dr. Wright adds: " The only copies of the Scriptures in ex- istence for the first three hundred years after Christ, either among the Jews or Christians of Greece, Italy, or Africa, contained these books without any mark of dis- tinction that we know of." Two points, therefore, are settled, so far as Protestant testimony can do it. First, the Septuagint containing the deutero books was the copy of the sacred Scriptures used publicly and privately by the Hellenistic Jews everywhere, for nearly three centuries before the time of Christ, and, indeed, for nearly two centuries after that. Second, while doing so, those Jews were in communion with the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem, and were there treated not only as members of the same race, but as genuine professors of the same religion. It is hardly necessary to say, that the first point is not only admitted but insisted on by every Catholic writer who has ever discussed the subject of the canon. Indeed, it would be easy to show that these same Catholic writers who argue that there was up till the time of Christ but one canon, the Palestinian, contend that the Septuagint contained the deutero books, and that these, though not before that canonized, were highly venerated by the Jews. In proof of this it is quite sufficient to appeal to 82 The Canon of tJie Old Testament. Hiiet ' and Ubaldi,'^ both of whom contend that until the time of Christ the only canon was the Palestinian. The second point is not onl}- conceded, but insisted on by Catholic critics. Jahn maintains "that the Jews, wher- ever found throughout the world, constituted one soci- ety, haying- as a bond of union the temple of Jerusalem, to which they sent every year half a shekel, and to which on feast days all came who could, while those who could not, sent gifts and sacrifices to be offered there. Even this bond of union was maintained by the Egyptian Jews, who had a temple at Leontopolis, and who, neyertheless, visited not rarely the Temple at Jerusalem."' Vincenzi* declares, that "the Egyptian Jews, though a temple was erected at Leontopolis, did not fail to observe the duties of their religion, or to live in concord with their Palestinian brethren ; " and argues from the prologue to Ecclesiasticus, the epistle Purim in the Book of Esther, the visit of the seventy-two Elders of Judea to Egypt to translate the Hebrew Scripture for Ptolemy, and from II. Mach. i., that " the Alexandrian Jews maintained with those of Jerusalem fellowship and unity in the observance of the laws." Ubaldi^ points to Esther xi. i, etc., and II. Mach. i., as proof that " perfect communion, mutual prayers, com- munication of feasts, delivery of sacred books, prevailed between the two classes of Jews," those of Palestine and those of Alexandria. Even Huet, ' whose theory has found such a learned advocate in Ubaldi, while cit- ing the words contained in II. Mach. ii., recognizes the fact, that " the Hellenists, to whom these words were written, consulted the Synagogue of Jerusalem * Demonst. Evang.^ p. 344. ' Introd. in S. Script., vol. ii., 187. 3 Migne, Saipt. Cursui, Toni. ii., col. 1009, 1014. ■* Sessio Quarta Cone. Trie/., Pars, ii., pp. 25, 26. 5 Introd. in S Scrip., vol. ii., 192. 6 Demonst. Evung., p. 344. The Canon of the Old Testament. 83 about divine things, and followed its decrees." In fact, those who with Huet believe that the Jews, whether Palestinian or Hellenistic, never had any canon but the Palestinian, insist on the close communion between the two classes of Jews as an argument in favor of their theory, alleging that, as it is certain that there was a Palestinian canon identical with the existing Hebrew canon, according to Josephus and the tradition of the Jews, the Hellenists, as being in communion with the central authority at Jerusalem, could not have had a dif- ferent one ; and therefore, that the existence of an Alexandrian canon, different from the one followed in Judea, is contradicted by well established facts. Here it may be observed, by the way, that in the present enquiry facts are exceedingly rare, and those just men tioned, when punctured, would probably collapse into conjectures. But Comely ' meets this argument of the Huet School in the following manner: The communion admitted to exist between the Palestinians and Helle- nists did not prevent the latter, especially such of them as lived in Egypt, from performing the most solemn acts of religion in the temple of Leontopolis, although to do so was positively forbidden by the Law of Moses. ' Then, why might they not, without rupturing the religious bond which connected them with Jerusalem, adopt a few books in addition to those revered as sacred by their Palestinian brothers ; for, in doing so they violated no part of the Mosaic Law. This was clear; but it was not so clear that the erection of a temple at Leontopolis was not an infraction of that Law. In fact, as will be seen hereafter,' Rabbins writing, however, long- after the final dispersion of the Jews, have declared that priests who had ofihciated in the temple of Onias were not permitted to offer in the Temple of Jerusalem. 1 Introd. in S. Scrip., vol. i., p. 53. '■2 Deut. xii. 3 p 105. 84 TJie Canon of the Old Testament. At all events, if the unanimous verdict of Catholic and Protestant critics be Avorth anything, it is certain that the Hellenists used a copy of the Scriptures containing- the deutero books, and were nevertheless considered entitled to all the privileges accorded to the most orthodox Jews. In other words, the}' were admitted to full spiritual fellowship by the ecclesiastical authorities at Jerusalem, were there allowed to take part in the public worship at the Temple, to present their offerings, to perform their sacrifices, to frequent their own syna- gogue, and there listen to the reading of the Alexandrian version with a degree of license as ample as that under which the native Jews assembled to hear the Scriptures read in their mother tongue. And all this, while both at Jesusalem and elsewhere these Hellenists learned and read privately and publicly the Scriptures, not in He- brew or Aramaic, but in Greek, and that in a translation whose contents had been so arranged as to ignore any distinction between the writings of Solomon and the com- positions of the Son of Sirach, and obliterate all difference between the documents that contained the history of the kings who ruled over Juda and Israel, and those which recorded the brave deeds of the Machabean patriots. This, too, although Ecclesiasticus, Machabees, and some other books in the translation were, if the Rabbins and their Christian pupils are to be believed, ranked by the spiritual authorities at Jerusalem, among those pro- fane productions which never had been, and never could be honored by a place in that sacred roll which con- stituted their canon of Scripture. All this, in view of the rigid principles that regulated the conduct of the Palestinian Jews, in whatever concerned religious belief and pi-actice, is not only marvellous but inexplicable ; unless it be supposed that the Jews at that time had no fixed canon, or if they had, that the deutero books were then included in it. The Canon of the Old Testament. 85 Moreover, it is well known that, besides the canon- ical books, the Jews possessed many others, to some of which allusion is made in the Old Testament ; of these others all— a few excepted — have perished. It cannot be doubted, that among all those books were writings equal in authority to those that survived, and writings, too, on whose character it would be hard to pass judg- ment, and writings, besides, which, when examined, would have at once betrayed their human origin. But are w^e to believe that there was no means provided for separating the tares and the chaff from the good grain in this undigested mass of literature; that all who were able to read could satisfy their thirst for know- ledge, by possessing such portions of the whole collection as choice or accident placed in their hands, without any one to guide them in making a selection; and that, when the only sanction for insisting on the purity of public and private morals, for duly performing the sac- red functions of religion, and for maintaining the civil and ecclesiastical polity of the theocracy, was derived from written records, and that sanction itself w^as uni- versally recognized as divine, there was no way by W'hich it could be decided, which of these records themselves were divine and which human ? To ask such a question is to expose its absurdity ; especially since the Jews, as will be showm, had always at hand, from the time of Moses until the coming of Christ, a tribunal divinely constituted for the purpose of de- ciding all doubts and disputes referring to religious belief or practice, and, of course, for the further pur- pose of distinguishing between scripture and scripture ; so that all who cared, might, whenever a book appeared, know whether it had God or man for its author. With these considerations before us, it would, therefore, seem unreasonable to doubt, that from the time of Moses until the coming of Christ the Jews had a canon ; that 86 TJie Canon of the Old Testament. that canon, as soon as the Alexandrian version was gen- erally adopted by the Hellenists, contained the deutero books ; and that these books remained therein with the common consent and approval of all Jews, who, however, compelled by stress of controversy, decided, probably soon after the commencement of the Christian era, on rejecting them as uncanonical.* For this view con- siderable evidence has been produced already, and more will be submitted as the discussion proceeds. ' In order to meet the arguments by which it was proved that Christ was the Messiah, the Rabbins were forced to eliminate from their canon such of the deutero books as the Christians cited in behalf of that dogma; for example, the Book of Wisdom. This, however, the Rabbins could not consistently do, without also excluding the other deutero books which, like "Wisdom," were either not written in Hebrew, or even not written until long after inspiration had ceased— the age of Esdras — as they arbitrarily declared. Grant them all this, and it at least follows, as a necessary consequence, that the New Testa- ment cannot have had God for its author. The Reformers accepted the rab- binical premises ; but as their position compelled them to ignore every rule of logic, they, with characteristic inconsistency, rejected the conclusion to which these premises inevitably lead, CHAPTER VI. THE JEWISH CANON, THE WORK OF THE JEWISH HIGH PRIEST, To return to Esdras : if the question concerning the origin of the Old Testament canon be decided, as it ought to be, by the Scriptures themselves so far as that is possible, and not by a rabbinical tradition so recent as compared with its subject, and so fabulous in many of its details as to be absolutely incredible, the honor of having been the first and the only one to draw up a canon does not belong to him. For it was Moses who laid the foundation of the canon, by directing that the Tables of the Law ' should be deposited in, and Deuteron- omy ^ beside, the ark of the covenant. Neither can the credit of having continued or completed the canon be claimed for Esdras. For while, according to the Script- ure, Jeremias and Nehemias had something to do in its extension, Judas the Essene is entitled to the glory of having completed it. So, at least, it is said (as already remarked) by many interpreters. Thus, while all that the Scriptures have to say about the labors of Esdras on their contents is that " the children of Israel .... spoke to Esdras the Scribe to bring the Book o the Law of Mo- ses," and he did so ; " and he read it plainlv in the street that was before the water gate, from the morning until mid-day : " ' these same Scriptures speak of the " de- scriptions of Jeremias the prophet; " how " he gave charge to them that were carried away into captivity ; " ' Ex. XXV. l6. ^ Deut. xxxi. 26. ^ Neh. viii. I, 2, 3. 88 The Canon of the Old Testament. how " he gave them the law, that the}- should not forget the commandments of the Lord, and that they should not err in their minds .... and with other such like speeches exhorted them that they would not remove the law from their heart. It was also contained in the same writing how the Prophet," etc' These same Scriptures also make mention of '' the memoires and commentaries of Nehemias, and how he made a library, and gathered together out of the countries the books both of the Prophets, and of David, and the epistles of the Kings, and concerning the holv gifts." ^ This looks like the work which the author of a canon would have to do. And finally, these same Scriptures declare, that " Judas also gathered together all such things as were lost by the war." ' These things were evidently such records as Nehemias in the preceding verse is said to have cor- rected. Now, is it not more reasonable (it may be, indeed, it has been said) to conclude on such scriptural testimo- n}', that Moses laid the foundation of a canon, that it was continued b}^ Jeremias and Nehemias, and at last brought to completion by Judas the Essene, " a prophet who never missed the truth in his predictions," ^ than to argue, on the strength of a rabbinical legend unrecorded and unknown for several centuries after the supposed fact with which it deals must have occurred, that the formation of the canon is either partially or principally the work of Esdras? This question would elicit un- doubtedly an afifirmative answer from many modern crit- ics. But there is among them quite a large number still, whose studies as well as respect for a theory, venerable at least for its antiquity, would induce them to protest against even the suspicion that suggests such a ques- tion. Moreover, it must be admitted, that, while the silence of the Scripture, as well as the very questionable ' II. Mach. ii. 1,-4. ' Ibid. 13. 2 Ibid. 14. * Josephus, Aniiq., B. xiii., c. xi., % 2. The Canon of the Old Testament. 89 character of the Jewish tradition, must forever render it exceedingly doubtful whether Esdras is entitled to any credit as the principal author of the canon, the opinion that Jeremias, or Nehemias, or Judas the Essene contrib- uted to make the Jewish canon what it is, deserves hardly any consideration, as it rests on nothing better than a forced construction put upon a few texts of Scripture. In view, however, of the fact, that the law of Moses conferred on the High Priest plenary authority to render a definitive judgment in all controversies that were brought before him, it is quite unnecessar}-, nay, unscriptural, to look beyond the latter venerable person- age for the author of the canon, whatever may be the books of which it is composed. In fact, to do so is to disregard the plain sense of the Scripture, and engage in an inquir}- which the experience of centuries shows must be conducted on purely conjectural grounds, and can therefore lead to no certain nor even probable result. That law ordained, that, when among the children of Israel there should arise "a hard and doubt- ful matter in judgment between blood and blood, cause and cause, lepros)' and leprosy," and when it should happen " that the words of the judges within thv gates do vary," then the litigants were to "go up to the place which the Lord thy God shall choose. And .... come to the priests of the Levitical race, and to the judge that shall be at that time ; and shall ask of them, and they shall show the truth of the judgment." And the litigants were further directed to " do whatsoever they shall say that preside in the place which the Lord shall choose, and what they shall teach. . . According to his law;" and it was further ordered that all should " follow their sentence, " and " neither .... decline to the right hand nor to the left hand." Finally, it was de- creed that whosoever " will be proud, and refuse to QO TJic Canon of tJic Old Testament. obey the commandment of the priest who ministereth at that time to the Lord thy God, and the decree of the iudge, that man shall die, " and all are commanded thus to " take away the evil from Israel." ' The powers conferred on the High Priest by this or- dinance are so ample, that, no matter how it may be interpreted, it seems impossible, so long as the plain obvious sense of the words in which it is couched is at- tended to, to reach any other conclusion, than that the High Priest was infallible in his official decisions. In- deed, it would be easy to prove this ; and easy, too, to show that all the texts cited to the contrary by those critics who claim infallibility each for himself, but will not allow it even in God's anointed Supreme Pontiff, go to demonstrate, not that the Jewish High Priest was not infallible, but that he was not impeccable. ^ The ques- tion, however, is one which can only be alluded to here incidentally, as it is outside the range of the present dis- cussion. For the purpose of that discussion it is enough to know, that God through his servant Moses directed that the jurisdiction of the High Priest should be su- preme, and his decision final in all matters pertaining to religion. And what matters pertaining to the Jewish religion could be of more importance to all than the general estimate to be placed on those writings which either actually contained, or falsely professed to contain, the sanctions and credentials on which that religion based its claims to universal respect and obedience ? That the Jews believed there were among them two classes of books, divine and human, is proved by the fact that at last, but too late for their decision to be of any account, they approved some books and condemned others. Who, throughout their entire history, from the commence- ment of their literature until the close of their national existence, was to draw the line of distinction between ' Deut. xvii. 8-12. - Becanus, AnaLgy of the Scrip., ch. xi. The Ca-non of the Old Tcshniieii/. 91 the two classes of compositions ? For that Hue of distinc- tion had to be drawn on account of the reasons alleged above. ' Not the scribes, as there is nothing said about them before the time of David. No, nor the prophets. For, although references to them arc quite frequent in all parts of the Scripture, there is nothing of a judicial nature in their office. Besides, in the fundamental law, or divine constitution, under which the Jews lived, there is not a single ordinance intimating in any way that the right to decide what was or was not divine Scripture belonged to scribe or prophet. There is only one man to whom, according to that constitution, such prerogative belonged, as inherent in his office, and that man was the High Priest for the time being. That authority to place, from time to time, on the same list with the books composing the Pentateuch such other compositions as he might consider written under similar influence, was given to the High Priest, there can therefore be no doubt ; as is evident, not only from the ordinance of Moses cited above, but from the preceding as well as the following considerations. The discovery made by Helcias, ■ when he found in the Temple what was probably the very Law as written by Moses, or at least what was then apparently a rare copy of it, may seem altogether irrelevant in the present discussion. But let the reader have the patience to ex- amine the account as a critic, then say what he thinks. Here are the facts. Helcias was High Priest. His profound veneration for the volume which, consciously or otherwise, he had rescued from the secure obscurity to which, in order to preserve it from profanation, him- self or a predecessor had consigned it, is quite apparent. 'He recognizes it at once, long reading and careful study of its contents having, of course, enabled him to identify it without any difficulty. But perhaps the volume was J .Supra p. 85. • 2 IV. Kings xxii. 8; II. Paral. xxxiv. 14. 92 Tlie Canon of the Old Testament. gotten up for the occasion ? An infidel might say so. But Saphan the Scribe, and Josias the King, and Ahi- cam, and Achabor, and Asaia, and Holda the Prophetess, and all the ancients of Juda and Jerusalem, and all the priests and prophets, (including, very likely, Sophonias and even Jeremias,) and all the people both great and little, as the Scripture asserts, thought otherwise, and unhesitatingly received the volume "as " the Book of the Law of the Lord by the hand of Moses." But why? Because the High Priest had so declared ; and because they knew that Moses had appointed the High Priest to pronounce a definitive judgment between Scripture and Scripture, as well as between leprosy and leprosy, and that death was the penalt}' of disobeying that judg- ment. Although some commentators are of a different opinion, it is difficult to understand how the book could have been even a copy of the original, and not the very autograph of Moses himself. Josias, the King, is sur- prised, in fact terrified, while hearing it read. Had he never before heard the fearful judgments pronounced by Closes against those, who transgressed the Law of the Lord ? Had he already been engaged six ' j^ears in a con- stant effort to extirpate idolatry in his kingdom and even beyond its limits, without having read or heard read the onh^ written law which justified his proceedings? No, that cannot be supposed. The monarch was troubled and alarmed, not by what was read, but by the belief that he was listening to the appalling denunciations of crime not only in the very words whiqh he had often read and heard before, but in the very words which Moses had traced with his own pen, and in the very volume in which Moses had written them, some eight hundred years be- fore. An aged volume, undoubtedly, but only about half as old as some volumes (the Vatican copy of the Septuagint, for example) preserved among Christians, ' II. Paral. xxxiv. 3, 8. The Canon of the Old Testament. 93- whose care of the Scriptures is certainly not greater than that taken of them by the Jews. Whether the book which excited the consternation of Josias was the orig- inal or a copy, is, however, a matter of no consequence. It was duly authenticated as genuine, and practically declared the essential germ, of which the future canon was to be the natural outgrowth. But authenticated and declared by whom? By the High Priest, whose judgment in the case was accepted as final, not only by all scribes, prophets, and Jews then and subsequently, but by Christians in every age. It is useless to argue with any one who cannot find in the inspired account of this remarkable affair prima facie evidence, that it was the prerogative of the High Priest to decide, whether, as books appeared, they were canonical or apocryphal, divine or human. No doubt, the plenary powers with which the High Priest was invested by Moses, in all matters pertaining to religion, were too often ignored and practically dis- regarded by the Jews and their rulers. But so, too, occasionally were the plainest and gravest duties pre- scribed by the law. Yet, as no one concludes that a duty is no longer binding because it is sometimes vio- lated, so it will not do to say that the powers placed in the hands of the High Priest— rather claimed for him in the present discussion for reasons already assigned — were either not given, or if given had ceased ; because, so far as known, they were exercised but rarely, or because many instances might be cited in which their enforcement in other matters besides the Scripture — a subject in the treatment of which the Jewish Pontiff seems to have long enjoyed the utmost liberty — was not admitted or was violently suspended by the disturbed state of the theocracy, or by the arbitrar}^ Avill of the petty despots who usurped supreme power in Church as well as State. Yet even these despots hardlv ever ap- 94 The Canon of the Old Testament. peared disposed to interfere in the exercise of the power inherent in the Jewish Pontificate, unless when such exercise seemed likely to frustrate their own ambitious designs; while those pious princes who sought the will of God and the happiness of their subjects, fostered rather than curbed the powers placed in the custody of the high Priest. Of this we have an example in the history of Josaphat, King of Juda, who preceded Josias b)' about two hundred years. This virtuous prince, anxious to correct evils resulting from the policy of his wicked predecessors, undertook a reformation in the civil and ecclesiastical affairs of his kingdom, his inten- tion being to re-organize both as far as possible accord- insf to the constitution which Moses had traced. Among the arrangements which he introduced, or rather the Mosaic institutions which he restored, was the Pontificate as created and outlined in Deuteronom}'. For, addressing the priestly class, he says : "And Amari- as the Priest, your High Priest, shall be chief in the things which regard God." ' Now, say, is there any- thing which regards God more than controversies about the canon of Scripture, that is, disputes about what God has or has not written? And, in fact, it seems that it was principally religious controversies of all kinds, in- cluding, of course, such as referred to the Scriptures, with which the priests were occupied. And therefore Ezechiel, treating of their rights and duties, says: " When there shall be controversy, they shall stand in my judg- ment, and shall judge." " And of these priests, the High Priest was chief. As such he was supreme judge, the others ranking as assessors or counsellors. To his ac- tion as supreme judge, or president in the last court of appeal, no opposition was probably offered by the civil power, unless when that action was likel)^ to thwart the will of the temporal ruler. And as questions regarding ' II. Paral. xix. Ii. ■ Ez. xliv. 24. The Canon of the Old Testament. 95 the canonicity of writings, whatever might be the deci- sion, were not likely to excite the fears or interfere with the projects of that ruler, the High Priest, in taking cog- nizance of such cases, ^vas, it may be supposed, free to give judgment according to his own honest convictions, while, when the temporal sovereignty and spiritual su- premacy were, as often happened after the captivity, united in him, he enjoyed a degree of liberty which, even apart from the divine sanction, on which, according to popular belief, his authority was based, must have gone far in securing for his decisions universal confidence and respect. The view here advocated is further confirmed by Josephus, who, while sketching the constitution drawn up by Moses, says that there were to " be seven men to judge in every city," each judge being allotted " two ministers .... out of the tribe of Levi." .... But if these judges be unable to give a just«sentence .... let them- send the cause undetermined to the holy city, and let the High Priest and the Prophet and the Sanhe- drim, after meeting together, determine as it shall seem good to thern." ' This was evidently a court in which the High Priest acted as supreme judge. Elsewhere ^ Josephus, discussing the same subject, states, that the constitution under which the Jews lived " permits the priests in general to be the administrators of the princi- pal affairs, and withal intrusts the government over the other priests to the chief priest. . . . These men had the main care of the law and of the other parts of the peo- ple's conduct committed to them ; for they were the priests who were ordained to be the inspectors of all, and the judges of doubtful cases." And " His [God's] priests are to be continually about His worship, over whom he that is the first by birth is to be their ruler perpetually. His business must be to offer sacrifices to God, together with those priests who are joined with him, to see that the • Antiq., I'., iv., c. 8, 14. " B. II. Contra Apion , ^ 22. 96 TJie Canon of the Old Testament. laws be observed, to determine controversies." ' This is clear, to the point, and decisive. It is, therefore, evi- dent, that the right to determine what books were divine, and therefore to be placed on the canon, belonged to the High Priest; and that, when in this or any other question, concerning religious belief or practice espec- ially, controversies arose that could not be otherwise settled, they were finally and definitively decided by a judicial sentence, pronounced or approved by him. Thus it seems that God had appointed the same means for establishing a canon of Scripture and securing unity of faith in the Old Dispensation, as He was pleased to sanction for the same purposes in the New. Engaged, as we are, in examining what were the re- lations of the High Priest to the Sacred Scriptures, and what he had to do with the Old Testament, before its custody was usurped by scribes and Rabbins, it seems quite in order to inquire, whether and to what extent he was supposed by the Jews to have been concerned in the production of the LXX. To review the history of that celebrated version, as it has been told by Jewish writers, Aristeas, Aristobulus, Philo, Josephus, and after them some of the Christian Fathers, is outside the scope of the present work. The reader is supposed to know, that modern criticism has very generally rejected many of the details comprised in that history, though it has to admit the main facts, around which these details have been grouped — that the Hebrew Scriptures were trans- lated into Greek nearly three centuries before Christ, several books written originally in Greek having been added to the collection then or soon after, and that that translation was the work of several Jews, Palestinian or Egyptian, possibly both. These facts are all fully proved, not only by the exist- ence of the translation itself, which, ever since it was ' [os. Contra Apion., B. ii. 51 24. The Canon of the Old Testament. 97 made, has been well known to Jews, to Gentiles, and from the day of Pentecost to Christians wherever found, but especiall}^ by the unanimous testimony of the Jewish writers named above. As, however, that testimony is about to be appealed to for another pur- pose, it seems proper, in the first place, to state what is known about these writers. Aristeas, who, according to his own statement, lived in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, 284-246 B. C, and was an officer in the body guard of that monarch, is the first writer to refer to the translation of the He- brew Scriptures into Greek, an undertaking in the pro- motion of which, accordmg to his own account, he himself took an active part. That account is contained in a letter still extant, addressed to his brother Poly- crates. In that letter, the only document claiming Aristeas as its author, the writer describes in consid- able detail the various steps taken by command of Ptolemy Philadelphus, as advised by his librarian De- metrius Phalereus, in order to obtain a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures for the library alreadv founded by Ptolemy at Alexandria. Throughout his letter Aris- teas writes as if he were a pagan. But the knowledge which he therein displays of Jewish laws, customs, and rites, as well as the great interest he took in improving the condition of the Jews in Egypt, fully warrant the conjecture that he himself belonged to the same race. Aristobulus, the first after Aristeas to mention the Greek translation, was, according to Eusebius,a Jew and a peripatetic philosopher. He is also said to have been preceptor to Ptolemy Philometer, who succeeded to the throne of Egypt in 175 B. C, and to have written a commentary on the five Books of Moses. This com- mentary, which he dedicated to his royal pupil, has long since perished, and all that remains of it are a few ^8 The Canon of the Old Testament. brief extracts preserved in the writings of Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius. From the extract made by Clement ' it appears that, accordmg to Aristobulus, while referring to the writing of the LXX as suggested by Demetrius Phalereus, a Greek translation of at least a part of the Hebrew Scriptures had been made before the reign of Alexander and the Persians. The extract preserved by Eusebius ^ agrees substantially with this. For, as represented by Eusebius, Aristobulus expressed himself thus : " For even before Demetrius Phalereus, and even long before the reign of Alexander and the Persians, all the Hebrew writings had been translated into Greek." It is thus seen that the writing of the Septuagint is mentioned at least incidentall}- b}- Aristo- bulus, who refers it to the period designated in the letter of Aristeas. The former, however, beyond this meagre allusion to the enterprise which secured to the Jews of Egypt a copy of the Scriptures in their vernacular, gives not a single detail connected with the afifair. He was a prominent Jewish priest, for it can hardly be doubted that he is the same person named in II. Mach. i. ID., and one may well believe, that in his writings, which, with the exceptions above referred to, have all been lost, he gave a detailed account of the origin of that Greek version of the Hebrew Scriptures, so long and so justly prized by all of his race in Egypt and other countries where Greek was understood. Philo Judasus, a Platonic philosopher, already noticed in these pages, a native of Alexandria, who flourished in the first Christian centur}^ and a Jewish priest ca- cording to St. Jerome, ^ in his account of the Septua- gint, gives ■* some particulars omitted in that of Aris- teas. Josephus in his statements ' agrees generally with I Strom. V. I., c. xxii. -^ Prepar. Ev., 1, xiii., c. xii. ^ De Jlris Illust. c. xi. < Dc Vita Mpysis 1. ii. ^ Antiq. B. xii., c. ii. The Canon of the Old Testament. 99 what is told us by Aristeas about the origin of the LX\. To argue in support of the proposition at the head of this chapter, regarding the relation of the High Priest to the canon of Scripture, by appealing also to the au- thority of the Jewish writers who have described the origin of the LXX, will probably be a surprise to some critics. No credit, it will be said, should be given to what these writers have stated. Have they not been convicted of gross exaggeration, if not positive falsehood ? Besides, if all their statements were true, not one word that they have said has any bearing on the question at issue. Patience, kind reader. Those writers were all Jews, one, if not three, certainly belonging to the priest- hood, and he a member of the strictest Jewish sect. All they have told us has been told with the feelings, tra- ditions, and convictions of -Jews; therefore, though the account they have given us may be false in man}' and even important particulars, credit must be given them for truthfully stating what steps, they believed, must have been taken, in initiating and carrying through the undertaking which the}^ describe. Passing by, therefore, all they tell us about what Demetrius Phalereus did in founding a library at Alexandria under the auspices of Ptolem}^ Philadelphus, and the liberal measures adopted b}" the latter for improving the condition of the Jews in Egypt, let us see what these Jewish writers say was done, rather what they believed should have been done, in order to secure competent translators and a correct copy of the Hebrew Scriptures: for without both a reliable translation in Greek, such as Ptolemy desired and the Egyptian Jews required, could not be expected. Translators and Hebrew copies of the Scriptures might indeed have been easily obtained among the Jews who were then settled in Egypt. For it cannot be supposed, that there were not in Egypt at that time several Jews familiar with Hebrew and Greek, and possessing copies -of the Hebrew Scriptures. Many of their forefathers, lOO TJie Canon of t)ic Old Tcstauiciit. while captives in Babylon, are known to have understood Chaldee, while retaining the use of their mother tongue and the sacred records written in that tongue. And in these respects the condition of the Jews in Babylon could not have been more favorable than that of their descendants under Ptolem}- Philadelphus in Egj'pt. But evidently, according to the belief of those Jews who have given an account of the first known attempt at translating the Hebrew Scriptures, linguists possess- ing the necessar}' qualifications for that task, and an au- thentic copy of these Scriptures for their use while en- gaged thereon, were to be obtained only at Jerusalem, and from no one there but the High Priest. For this reason the reader is informed, that an embassy, in which Aristeas took part, was commissioned by Ptolemy to proceed to Jerusalem and there obtain from the High Priest whatever was necessary for the contemplated translation. About the embassy there can be no doubt. It is mentioned and described by Aristeas, Philo, and Josephus. Even Humphrey Hody, who considers the account of Aristeas fabulous, and, had the Septuagint per- ished before his own time, would probably have denied that such a version ever existed, admits ' that the Pal- estinian and Hellenistic Jews all believed that Ptol- emy Philadelphus did really send an embassy to the High Priest for a copy of the Hebrew Scriptures and Jewish scholars to translate them into Greek. Nor is this all ; for, as Calmet- has observed, Joseph ben Gorion, a Jewish writer supposed to have lived in the ninth century of our era, states that the High Priest, whose name he does not give, sent 70 elders, among whom was Eleazar,^ who was cruelly put to death under Antiochus Epiphanes. And furthermore, the Samaritans, always ready to claim a share in every measure that redounded 1 De Bibl. Text, 137, 220. "^ Dissert, de Vers. Sept. Intirp. ^ I^- ^^'ich- vi. The Canon of the 0/d Tesfennent. loi to the credit of the Jews, assert in their chronicle, or book of Josue as it is also called, that Philadelphus sent for their \\ig\\ Pi-iest Aaron with the most eminent men ot their community ; and also sent for Eleazar, the High Priest of the Jews, with their most learned doctors, in order that each party might make a Greek translation of the divine Law. And when the two translations were found to differ in some places, the king approved the version of the Samaritans, whom he honored with valu- able gifts, forbidding at the same time the Jews even to set foot on the sacred mount of Garizim. ' The Jewish High Priest, according to our three Jew- ish witnesses, being informed of the wishes of Ptolemy, and no doubt of the urgent necessity felt by the Egyp- tian Jews for the Scriptures in the only language, prob- ably, which most of them understood, appointed com- petent interpreters, whom he despatched to Alexandria with a copy of the Scriptures, selected by himself, which copy the interpreters were to translate into Greek. When the interpreters had completed their task, it was found to have been so faithfuUv executed, that the ver- sion received the unqualified approval of Ptolemy, was deposited in his librar}', and long served as a standard for those copies of the Scriptures which were used bv all those Jews in Egypt and elsewhere who understood Greek alone, or who preferred to study their inspired records in that lanofuagre. The interpreters, having been royally entertained and rewarded for their labors, were allowed to return home, where, of course, they gave a report of all they had done to the High Priest, who may be supposed to have hon- ored with his sanction the version they had written in Alexandria, though the account is silent on this point. That, however, is immaterial. The work done, to have been done right, should, as the Jewish writers believed, have been done by the dulv accredited agents of the ' Calniet, Disaerl de I'crs. S,'pt. Intnf. 102 The Canon of the Old Testament. High Priest. And as it was done by them, it was really his work. He never protested against or condemned it. So, whatever may have become of it afterwards, and whether well or ill founded the objections which in the course of time the Jews made to it, the LXX, when it first came before the public, was, it may be said, stamped with the Imprimatur of their High Priest Eleazar, from whom Ptolemy is reported to have obtained the interpreters as well as the Hebrew copy on which they worked. Let the reader bear in mind, that in what is here said there is no intention to maintain that the affair was conducted as the Jewish writers have stated, but sim- ply to insist on the course which they believed must have been followed to bring such an enterprise to a satisfactory conclusion. These writers were evidently of the opinion that, when a translation of the Scriptures was needed, the High-Priest was the only person who could be approached on the subject, as it belonged to him to appoint the interpreters and select a cop)' from which a version was to be made. By the very fact that he selected a particular copy, it follows that he authen- ticated that copy, and that that copy was to be received as genuine by the interpreters and all those in whose interests the Greek version was written, pagans as well as Jews. In other words, the Jewish historians of the LXX believed that that version, in order to be what was expected, a veritable equivalent in Greek for the Hebrew Scriptures, must have been made from a He- brew copy containing books whose canonicity then and there was officially declared by the very act of the High Priest, or, if so declared already b}' one of his predecessors, officially recognized by that act. Now, as it is not unreasonable to suppose that these historians fairly represented the general sentiment of the Jews at the time (indeed we have seen that such was the case), it proves that the Jews then commonly believed The Canon of the Old Testament. 103 that it was the exckisive right of the High Priest, in ad- dition to other questions which came within his jurisdic- tion, to decide as supreme judge what books were or were not to be received as canonical. This rieht of course, he must have exercised, not only after maturely considering the question himself, but after consultinp" such others within reach— priests, prophets, sanhedrim, (if such body existed), all, in fine, whom he supposed qualified to give advice in the case. Again, at the time the Alexandrian version was made, the Jews whose homes were in Egypt were united in the closest bonds of religious communion with those Jews who lived in Palestine. Egyptians and Palestinians— the principal, it may be said, the only two classes of Jews at the time, in fact, differed only in language and country, so far as is now known. They worshipped in the same Temple— that of Jerusalem, professed the same belief, practised the same ceremonies, observed the same feasts, and, as all admit, had at that time the same sacred books. Now, therefore, as those of Egypt, ac- cording to the testimony of their own writers, (for two out of the three named above belonged to that country), believed that it was the prerogative of the High Priest to decide whether a book was canonical or not, it is not to be supposed that the Jews of Palestine thought other- wise : even were we unable to cite in proof of a com- mon belief on the point the evidence of Josephus, one of themselves. For in a little more than a century after- wards, Onias, whose right to the chief priesthood was incontestable, but who, instead of being allowed to oc- cupy that dignity peaceably, was compelled to seek a refuge in Egypt, succeeded in erecting there a temple, with the permission of Ptolemy Philometer. It was mod- elled after the temple of Jerusalem, and was served by priests and Levites, Onias himself being High Priest. * As a religious centre for the Jews residing in Egypt ' Jos., A)itiq., B. xiii., c.iii., ^ 1-3; Wars, W. i., c. i., ^ I;B. vii., c. x., § ?. 3. I04 TJic Canon of the Old Testament. it seems to have filled an important purpose for many years, until further access to it was forbidden the Jews, and, its doors having been closed by an imperial decree in the reign of Vespasian,' it disappeared from history. In the service of that temple the Septuagint, then by no means a rare or a new book, but the only cop)- of the Scriptures which the worshippers understood, must have had a conspicuous place, while those worshippers continued to send, as we have seen, contributions to, and to offer sacrifice in the Temple of Jerusalem, maintaining all the time religious communion with their brethren there. Prideaux, "" however, asserts that no Jew outside of Egypt " acknowledged the temple in Egypt at all, or any other but that of Jerusalem only, but looked on all those as schismatics that sacrificed anywhere else." For this statement he offers no proof, and although the Law of Moses directed that sacrifice should be no- where offered '' but in the place which the Lord shall choose," " it has alread}^ been shown by the testi- mony of Josephus '' that offerings for the temple of Jerusalem were received from the Jews of Egypt as well as everywhere else," which would not have been the case had these Egyptian Jews been considered schismatics, or even in any wa}' unworthy of recognition b}- those who had the right to pronounce judgment on the or- thodoxy of all who professed to follow the Law of Moses. The Samaritan Jews professed to follow that law. In fact, it was the only part of the Old Testament that they retained or cared to possess. They also had a priest- ' Joseph., Wars, B. vii.. c. x., ^ 4. ' Connex. vol. ii. 128. '> Deut. xii. 11. •* Supra, p. 75. •■* It appears from a remarkable statement of Cicero, in his defense of Lucius Flaccus, that annual contributions flowed into the treasury of the temple at Jerusalem from Italy and all the provinces of the empire— being the pious tribute paid to their religion by the Jews then found in almost every country. To such a degree was this lavish expenditure carried, that, lest the resources of the provinces might be exhausted, it was found necessary in some inslances to issue edicts agiinst the practice. Tlie Cano/i of the Old Testament. 105 hood of the Aaronic stock, but they neither sacrificed in nor made offeringsto the temple of Jerusalem; they were not even tolerated there, nor was any gift at their hands received there, because they were considered schismatics; and the Jews of Egypt, had they been regarded in the same light, would have been treated in the same way. But it is not to be denied, that the temple of Onias may have been regarded with no favor by the zealots at Jerus- alem. In fact, Jost, a German Jew writing in the present century, affirmed that in the older Mishna it is said : " Priests who have ofificiated in the temple of Onias cannot officiate in Jerusalem; they are looked upon as priests who have infirmities; they may participate and eat of the offer- ings, but cannot offer." ' Not a single hint, however, to this effect is found in any work written while the temple of Onias was standing. On the contrary, it appears from II. Machabees, that fraternal intercourse with the Jews of Egypt was assiduously cultivated by the Jews of Jerusa- lem, and even Josephus, though he frequently refers to Onias, his priests, temple, and the manner in w^hich it was fitted up, insinuates bv no word that those who officiated there were judged unworthy to officiate at Jerusalem. Be- sides, both temples had disappeared long before the oldest writers of the Mishna could have known by actual experi- ence how the priests belonging to one were treated in the other. In view, therefore, of the divine ordinance defining the prerogatives of the High-Priest — in view of the inspired statements subsequently made in relation to that point — in view of the belief implied in the account given by sev- eral Jewish winters regarding the means employed for preparing a Greek version of the Hebrew Scriptures — and in view^ of the fact that the Hellenists all along i-ecog- nized as orthodox Jews in Jerusalem, adopted that ver- sion under the conviction that it had the sanction of the High-Priest, it may surely be regarded as certain, that by divine appointment it belonged to him to draw the line between sacred and profane compositions, in other words to regulate the Canon of Scripture. ' Milman, Hist, of th: Jezos. ii.. p. 34, imte i. CHAPTER VII. At the coming of Christ the Jews had a fixed Canon. That Canon included, besides what is NOW contained in the Hebrew Bible, all that THEN belonged TO THE ALEXANDRINE VERSION. From first to last, unbroken religious communion and fraternal relations were cherished between the Jews of Egypt and those of Palestine. But by both those who belonged to Samaria were treated as outside the pale of the Jewish church, as appears from the Old Testa- ment,' the Gospel ^ and Josephus ; ^ while their temple on Mount Garizim was execrated as a refuge of rene- gades, and a place unworthy of any consideration." It was far otherwise with regard to the temple at Leonto- polis ; for it was not only frequented and venerated by the Egyptian Jews and other Hellenists, but at the very least tolerated, if not sanctioned, b\' the highest ecclesias- tical authority at Jerusalem. To account for so marked a distinction made by the Palestinian Jews between the temple at Garizim and that at Leontopolis, may not be an easy matter, although all admit that it existed, and was at all times rigidl}* enforced. Yet, it seems that a ready explanation may be found in the difference of the causes which led to the creation of the two sanctuaries. The former was the work of an apostate, and was sought as an asylum by all who, being actuated by his spirit, would no longer be tolerated at Jerusalem. The latter ' Nehem. iv. 8. ^ Antiq.^ B. xiii., c. iii., % 4;B. xx., c. vi., § I. "^ John iv. 9. ■• Ibid., B. xi., c. viii; B. xiii., c. iii., % 4. The Canon of the Old Testament. 107 claimed as its founder one whose right to the High Priest- hood nobody disputed, and was intended by him, not as a refuge for outcasts, but as a shrine where all who found themselves by choice or necessity in Egypt could worship after the same form, as their fathers had done before them. As such it had been started, and as such it was continued, until the Emperor Vespasian, fearing that it might become a rallying point for the subjugated but still turbulent Jews, directed that it should be shut up. While it stood, was it not possible, some might have said, that Onias, being the only rightful heir to the chair of Aaron, might have carried with him to Egypt all the authorit}' belonging to Aaron's office, and trans- mitted it to those who succeeded him at Leontopolis ? Besides, it might have been argued, that the ordinance of Moses prohibiting sacrifice, unless in the place which God should choose, referred only to the land of Canaan. In that case, while the temple in Garizim was clearly unlaw- ful, that at Leontopolis could not be considered schis- matical nor even irregular. x\dd to this the flagrant dis- orders, which, as all know who have read the Books of Machabees, the works of Josephus, or even the four Gospels, disgraced the conduct of many of the High Priests at Jerusalem. Ambition and avarice, sacrilege and simonv, murder and rapine, drunkenness and con- cubinage, apostas}' and paganism, are among the crimes laid to the charge of several who, from the compvdsory flight of Onias until the final destruction of the Jewish commonwealth, right or wrong, occupied the highest position in the Temple of Jerusalem. And to the black list of enormities entered up against them must be added the perpetration of atrocities, to the honor of humanity, rare among any class of men, but specially revolting in a minister of God — matricide,' fratricide ' and the indis- criminate slaughter of hundreds of Jewish women and ' Jos., Anliq., B. xiii., c. xi., ^ I. - Ibid., B. xi., c. vii., $ I. io8 The Canon of the Old Testament. children.' The office often carried with it supreme au- thority in civil affairs, and was not unfrequently disposed of to the highest bidder.' And for some time before the city was besieged by Titus, a band of assassins, who tyrannized over the inhabitants, without an}^ regard to the right of succession or the qualifications which the office required in its occupant, appointed whomsoever they pleased. The last to fill the office was Phannias, a mere rustic, though of the line of Aaron, but selected for it by lot, as the assassins had directed.^ Vacancies in the High Priesthood were often caused by expulsion as well as death. So that, though at first there could be but one High Priest, in the course of the time, and especi- ally towards the end of the theocracy, the coexistence of several High Priests was a common affair. Appoint- ments and removals were arbitrarily made, not only by the native princes, but even by foreign potentates, who from time to time extended their sway over Palestine ; ' and the selections on such occasions were not always in the line of regular succession, nor even from the tribe of Levi.^ No wonder that dire portents of impending calamities were seen at Jerusalem. ' Surely, good men (and there were still many such) must have asked themselves, is God about to abandon his sanctuary, or has He already done so ; and are we henceforth to look to the temple of Onias as the seat of His majesty, and the hallowed spot where He has placed His name ? For so far as known, while the conduct of the High Priest at Jerusalem must have been too often a stumbling block and a reproach to God's peo- ple; that of Onias and his successors was not unworthy of the brightest period in the histor}' of those dignitarie«, who exercised the authority of the supreme pontificate ' Joseph. Antiq. B. xiii., c. xiv., § \-zWars, B. i., c. iv., ^ 6. - II. Mach. iv. 28. 24. * Jos., Wars., B. iv., c. iii., v^ 6-8. ^ JT. Mach iv. 7, 8, 24. '-' Ibid., iii. 4; iv. 23-29. * Jo.s., Wars. B. vi.. c. v., § 3. The Cation of the Old Testament, 109 in Solomon's gorgeous Temple, or in the less pretentious shrine (A the wandering tabernacle. While such was the state of religion among the Jews in Palestine and Egypt, those of the latter country had gradually adojU- ed the additions made to the Septuagint as left by the interpreters, and duly authorized by the High Priest at Jerusalem when crimes among those who ministered lo the Lord were there comparativel}' unknown. Strange would it not be, if in the circumstances the Palestinian Jews failed to follow the example thus set by their Egyptian brethren, especially as no word of warning, protest, or prohibition was uttered by High Priest or Sanhedrim? That the Palestinian Jews did actually embrace in their canon all the books comprised in the Old Testament used b}' the Hellenists, cannot, of course, be absolutely demonstrated. But the facts all point that way. And if there ever was a case in which presump- tive evidence leads to a morally certain conclusion, sure- ly the case before us is such. For in it all the circum- stances are of a nature to indicate, that if there was among the Jews at the time a canon of Scripture, as that Wvord is now understood, that canon was necessarily one, and that 07ie no other than the one which the apostles found among the Hellenists and delivered to the churches which they planted. It has been seen in the course of the present work, that there is abundant evidence to prove that the Jews, ever since their final dispersion as a nation, have held : first, that from the time of Moses onward they possessed a canon of Scripture, or what is equivalent, a collection of books regarded by them as divine ; and second, that that canon was completed and closed by Esdras the Scribe. The hrst of these points is and has been agreed on by all Christians who believe that the Bible was written by men inspired for that pur pose. The second is admitted, even insisted on. by most I lo TJie Canon of the Old Testament. Protestants ; who, however, to avoid chronological diffi- culties, say, that the canon was not closed until probably more than a century after the time of Esdras, when Simon the Just brought it to its present condition; after which, they assert, no further additions were or could be made to it. But as the second point stands, it has been absolutely rejected by all Catholics. For, while some, probably by far the greater number among them, have at all times believed that the canon now received by the Jews was principally the work of Esdras, but neither com- pleted nor closed before the Christian era, when it was what it still is, being, however, then under apostolic sanction enlarged by the addition of the deutero books ; and others insist, that besides the present or Palestinian canon there was an Alexandrine canon, which was re- ceived by the Hellenists, it being identical with the one ap- proved by the Council of Trent ; and others again are of opinion that the Esdrine canon received additions from time to time, until it assumed the dimensions of the Alexandrine canon, the onl}- one in use at last among the Palestinians as well as Hellenists, — a few, with several Protestant critics, now contend, that until after the apostles had commenced their labors, the Jews had no well defined canon of Scripture. Then and not before (say these) did the Jews decide on adopting the one which they now follow. Enough having been said already on the second point for which the Jews contend, it is now proposed to con- sider whether, consistently with all the facts in the case, it can be maintained, that until the apostolic age the Jews had no fixed canon, or whether these facts are such as to prove the verv contrary. In entering on this inquiry we are necessaril}^ confronted by the first point insisted on by the Jews and conceded by most Christ- ians, that the former have had a canon ot Scriptures from the time of Moses up to the present, incomplete The Canon of tJie Old Test anient . 1 1 r at first as is implied, and not closed until long after- wards. But a word or two on this part of the subject is all that is needed, since the point is one which no Christian with a due respect for the Bible will disjuite. Moses, we learn, after writing the Law,' delivered it to the priests and all the elders of Israel, telling them to read it every seventh year, in the hearing of all Israel, and then commanded the Levites, who carried the ark, to place it beside the ark. Of course, they did so. He further directed,^ that, when a king should be appointed, he, from a copy provided by the priests, should write out the Law, have it with him, and read it all the days of his life, so that he might thus keep God's words and ceremonies, which were commanded in it. That these directions were not altogether disregarded is proved by what is said of Josaphat, ^ Josias, * and others. ' And that the people, even after the captivity, still remembered that their fathers had been accustomed to hear the Law read, is implied in the request made to Esdras." To this volume containing the law must be added probably the Book of Josue, which, or at least part of which, the author wrote in the volume of the Law of the Lord. ' Thus Josue and Moses ' are both represented as writers, each in the work of which, according to the almost unanimous belief of Jews and Christians, he was the author. Now, at least portions of what had been writ- ten by them were carefully deposited for the use of fu- ture generations in the holiest place, within the pi-ecincts of the tabernacle or temple. The writings of which these ' Deut. xxxi. 9, lo, ii. 25, 26. According to Cornely (Introd. spec, in L. S. V. T.. ii., 42.) by "Law"' is here meant the entire Pentateuch. 2 Deut. xvii. 18, 19, 3 n Paral. xvii. ■* IV. Kings xxii. 16: xxiii. 2; II. Paral. xxxiv. 24, 30, 31. ^ Nehem. viii. 3, 18; ix. 3; xiii. i : II. Mach. viii. 23. * Nehem. viii. i. " Josue xxiv. 26. ^ Exodus xxiv. 4, 7; xxxiv. 27, 28; Num. xxxiii. 2; Deut. xxviii. 58; xxxi. 9, 22, 24. 1 1 2 Tlie Canon cf the Old Testament. portions were extracts — the Pentateuch and Josue — were regarded by the Jews with the greatest venera- tion ; in fact, were considered by them divine. It could not be otherwise. For their authors were proved by their acts to have possessed divine authority. Those among the Jews who were contemporary with Moses and Josue had the same reason for believing their writ- ings to be divine, as the first Christians had for conclud- ing that the Gospels were dictated by the H0I3' Ghost. Here, then, we have the germ, as it were, of the sacred canon, and of this germ the High Priest, and he alone, was the official guardian. For Moses had directed, that no one but him should enter into the Holy of Holies, where the Ark with the Book of the Law beside it was kept, and him but once a year. ' Thus the onl}' man who could identify the venerable record, allow it to be tran- scribed, or verify a copy of it, was the High Priest — an- other and a by no means frivolous reason for believing, that not only the care of the Sacred Scriptures was en- trusted to the High Priest, but that the final judgment as to their canonicity was pronounced by him. Of course, therefore, when the time seemed propitious for repro- ducing and enforcing the Law once more, Helcias had no difficulty in finding it, for as its official custodian he knew where it had been hidden away to save it from destruction or desecration. And of course, too, when at the suggestion of his Jewish counsellors, Ptolemy Philadelphus decided on securing a Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures, he, instructed bv the Jews of his court, understood well that the High Priest was the only one from whom competent interpreters and a correct Hebrew copy of those Scriptures could be ob- tained. This, however, by the way, as something beside the scope of the pi-esent remarks. It is evident from what has been said above, that, ' Lev. xvi. 2 34. Heb. ix. 7; Josephus, II. Contra Ap., % 8. The Canon of the Old Testament. 113 when the Pentateuch was finished, and at least that part of it which to its author seemed the most important was deposited by the side of the Ark, the Jews had a canon, incomplete indeed, but soon enlarged by the ad- dition of the book of Josue, and designed to comprise the contributions of other inspired writers, until God's holy purpose in communicating with mankind in this way should be fulfilled. It seems most likely, that be- fore the revolt of the ten tribes no book had been, or at least was publicly known, to have been added to this nucleus of a canon ; else the Samaritan bible would contain more than a moderately correct copy of the Pentateuch, and what may be called a grotesque book of Josue. ' The schimatics would, of course, have ex- cluded from their bible not only the writings of Solo- mon, against whose arbitrary rule they had protested,, but such books of kings as might have been then writ- ten ; since in them they would have found a history of the house of David, in which the}- no longer desired to. have any part. But they could have no objection to include in their bible Judges and Ruth, as these books contained records in whose study and preservation they had an equal interest with the two tribes, which re- mained lo3'al to Roboam. There is, therefore, good reason for believing, that at the time of the schism, the only books generally received as canonical were the five of Moses and that of Josue. That before that time, how- ever, as well as after, many books were written is cer- tain. Solomon's books, of course, preceded the schism, and the same remark, no doubt, applies to Judges, Ruth, and the early portion of Kings ; though the canoni- city of all these was not then decided, or not publicl}' known. The other books belong to various subsequent ' If it be true, as Josephus says (I. against Apioii., $ 6), and there seems to be no reason to doubt it, the writing of the national records was committed to the high priests and prophets, many records besides those of Moses and Josue must have been already written before the death of Solomon. ] 1 4 TIic Canon of the Old Testament. dates ; and the time when, as well asthe authority by which, they were placed on the canon is still a matter of dispute. It is well known that collections of writings were made among the Jews from time to time. ' In fact, the very principles on which Jewish society was based ren- dered this necessary. For these writings very general- ly contained genealogical tables or statements, by which the position and rights of each family and its relations to other families had to be determined. And therefore, whenever the country was disturbed by military opera- tions, the priests, as soon as peace was restored, by col- lating, examining, and rewriting these records; repaired whatever injury they had received during the preceding period of strife. ' That this was probably often neces- sary appears from the fact, that the invaders of Judea seem to have well understood that the patriotism of the inhabitants was -inspired and sustained in a great meas- ure by their sacred literature, and they, therefore, " cut in pieces, and burnt with fire the Books of the Law of God," and even " put to death every one with whom the books of the Testament of the Lord were found. " ' That on such occasions some portions of the sacred literature possessed by the Jews must have perished, can hardly be doubted, especially since in what is left of it the names of books now no longer extant are frequently mentioned. That many of the Hebrew books, which escaped the blind malice of the Gentiles and the many dangers incidental to written records, belonged to that class of Scripture now rejected by all Christians as apocr3^phal, while a fair proportion of the whole was worthy of a place on the same catalogue with the earliest contributions to the canon, few will venture to deny. And therefore all the circumstances warrant the belief ' II. Mach. ii. 13, 14. * Josephus, I. Contra Apion., ^7. * I. Mach. i. 59, 60. TJic Canon of the Old Testament. 115 that the collections, which i)ious and learned men from age to ag-e made of the Hebrew writings, comprised books that were divine, books that at the time were doubtful, and books that were purely human. But that such an incongruous mixture should remain an}- length of time without sifting, and thus at last be popularly re- garded as God's holy word, is not consistent with that constant care of divine Providence, which, in all the vicissitudes that befell the Jews, preserved among them the only true religion, and had already selected their records as the channels through which He was to com- municate His will and a knowledge of Himself to all nations. There must have been at hand, all through from Moses to the Messiah, a means for separatino- the divine from the human in all such collections. And there was, that means being the supreme authoritv vested in the High Priest, and by which he was enabled to pass upon and decide definitively the constituent parts of the canon. True, it cannot be proved, that the books written before the captivity were alreadv collected into a canon when that calamity occurred, any more than it can be shown, that the first collection of the kind was made in the time of Esdras. But all the circumstances point that way. The books were in existence. The court, whose duty it was to pronounce judgment on their merits, was still in session. And the impending crisis was of a nature to require, that before its consummation the people (if the matter had not been already attended to) should be provided with copies of the divine records, or at least told what books they were to receive as such during their captivity. The theory, therefore, that the Jews had no fixed ■canon until long after they rejected Christ, may be dis- missed as inconsistent with all the facts in the case. Besides, no one doubts that the Jews, from the time of Moses, have always believed that they possessed written 1 1 6 The Canon of the Old Testament. records, and that they considered these records divine. Their writers both sacred and profane have often so stated. The fact is abundantly attested, for instance, in the works of Josephus and Philo. And the Old Testa- ment is full of references to the same fact. ' Besides, it appears from the Prologue to Ecclesiasticus, that al- ready more than a century before the time of Christ those records consisted of books divided into three classes, "the law, the prophets, and the rest of the books," this last class comprising all such books as might be designated "psalms," as seems implied in the words of Our Lord where he refers to the things that *' are written in the Law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms." ' Josephus, also, who wrote near the end of the first centur}^ recognizes the same classifi- cation, when he speaks of the five books by Moses, thirteen by the prophets, and four containing h3a-nns and moral precepts. ^ It is therefore certain, that long before the theocracy became extinct, such authoritative action had been taken regarding the books, that it was well known, not only how many classes they were com- posed of, but how many belonged to each class; though it is not said what particular books were included in the last two classes. /\ny doubt, however, on this point is cleared up by the actual contents of that copy of the Old Testament, which the apostles left with the churches wiiich they founded. It cannot, therefore, be admitted consistently with these considerations, that the Jews had no certain well- defined canon until after the time of Christ ; and the only reason for such a supposition, after all, is found in the doubts said to have been expressed b}- some Rabbins ' Ex. xxiv. 7; Deut. xxviii. 58; Jos. viii. 31; 1. Kings x. 25; I. Paral. xxix. 29; Nehem viii. i; I. Mach. i. 59; xii. 2; II. Macli. viii. 23, with many other texts. ■^ Luke xxiv. 44. s I. Contra Apioii., § 8. The Canon of the Old Testament. 117 shortly before, and on the occasion of the convention at Jamnia, ' about A. D. 90. It may, indeed, be granted that there was some, even considerable difference of opinion among- the Jewish doctors at that time. For nothing else was to be expected, even if it be supposed that the Alexandrine canon had been approved by Ele- azar, or some of his immediate successors in the High Priesthood at Jerusalem. Historians, both sacred and profane, have drawn an appalling picture of the gross abuses connected with the appointment of, and of the atrocious crimes committed by those men wdio filled, rather disgraced, the office of High Priest at Jerusalem for some years before the subversion of the Jewish .commonwealth. ' These historians w^ere themselves Jews, and eye-witnesses of many of the scenes which they describe. For a long time ofter the institution of the High Priesthood, its occupant retained his office during life. But towards the last, the removals became so frequent that the co-existence of several who had performed the functions of High Priest followed as a matter of course. Josephus makes mention of one who in the time of Herod was " made High Priest for a sin- gle day." =* In B. C. 36, Ananelus w^as the first Hie-h Priest appointed by Herod, who soon after substituted for him his own brother-in-law Aristobulus, a boy not seventeen years of age. But Herod, having put him to death, reappointed Ananelus.* All this happened in the inside of three years. After Herod's death, his arbi- trary manner of filling the office of High Priest was continued by the Roman governors, but they had no recourse to his summary method of dispatching that official. Thns, A. D. 21, Annas was removed to make ' Supra, p, 68. ^ Supra, pp. 107, 108. 3 Anliq., H. xvii.. c. vi., ^ 4. ^ Ibid., B. XV., c. ii., ^ 4; c. iii., % i; c. ii., ^S 6; c. iii.. % 3: 1 1 8 The Canon of the Old Testament. room for Ishmael. The next year Eleazar was directed to take the place of Ishmael. The following 3'ear Elea- zar was deposed, and the office given to Simon. And the very next year Simon had to step down in favor of Joseph, called Caiphas.' That is four High Priests in so many years. From the commencement ot the reign of Herod until the destruction of the Temple there had been an interval of 107 years. During that period the number of High Priests was twenty-eight.'' Now, if it be supposed that every one of these was appointed, or succeeded to the office, immediately on the death or removal of his predecessor, the duration of each incum- bency would average only a little more than three years and nine months. This fact, together with the influences under which, according to the Jewish histori- an, and the testimony recorded in the inspired books of Machabees, vacancies were made and filled in the office of the High Priesthood, shows very clearly that its occupants, besides being too often notoriously in- competent, had neither the liberty nor the leisure, and much less the securit}- necessar}- for a full and faithful discharge of all the duties pertaining to their sacred trust. That trust, if attended to at all, must in its most important features have been discharged by others, whose acts in the case, as done in violation of the ordi- nance by Moses, would be null and void. But by whom and how were such acts done ? for that they were done there is no doubt. The whom and the how in the matter are clearly indicated in the New Testament,^ and the writings of Josephus. ' It thus appears, that for at least almost a centurv before the time of Christ, and until the destruction of Jerusalem, the supreme authority in religious matters, and at times ' Ibid., xviii., c. ii., ^2. - Ibid., B. xx. , ex. ' Matt. xxvi. 59; Mark xvi. r, seq. ^ Life, ^ 12; Atitiq., \i. xiv., c. ix., § 3; " Wars,"' B. ii., c. xx., $ 5; 1'.. iv., c. v., § 4. The Canon of the Old Tcslixnicnt. \ 19 in court affairs, was exercised by a tribunal known among the Jews as the Sanhedrim or Council. As it was modelled upon the institution founded by Moses, ' the Sanhedrim,— which held its sessions in Jerusalem, decid- ed in causes of the highest importance, and received appeals from the subordinate councils, consisting each of seven judges in the other cities,— was composed of seventy members. These included chief priests, an- cients, and scribes.-' The chief priests were the heads of the sacerdotal families or courses.' The ancients, or elders, were at first probably heads of tribes, but to- wards the end of the theocracy they seem to have been those .members of the Sanhedrim who, being neither chief Priests nor scribes, were considered qualified to occupy seats in the same court with them, on account of their knowledge, experience, and respectability. The scribes acted as secretaries, notaries, copyists, expoun- ders of the Scripture, lawyers, and teachers, and are first mentioned in the time of David, although long before that there must have been men who discharged some of the functions which they exercised. But as readers and expounders of the Scriptures they claimed Esdras as the founder of their profession. The other two clas- ses of which the Sanhedrim was composed, ti-aced their origin as far back as the age of Moses. Besides the Essenes, a Jewish sect remarkable for the ascetic life of its members, there were two other sects among: the Jews — the Pharisees and Sadducees. Their origin is uncertain, but they are known to have been disturbing- elements in Jewish society about B. C. 108, in the reign of John Hyrcanus." The Pharisees overlaid Gods written w^ord with puerile and false traditions ; while the Sadducees, if they did not reject all of that word ex- ' Num. xi. 16. '^ Mark xv. i; Luke xxii, 66 seq. ^ Dixon, Inlrod. to S. Script., II, 12 1. ^ Jos., Antiq., B. xiii., c. x., ij 5 ; IV. Mach. vii. 120 The Canon of tJic Old Testament. cept what was written b}- Moses, perverted its meaning like the Pharisees, saying " there is no resurrection, neither angel nor spirit." ' One part of the Sanhedrim seems to have been made up of Pharisees, the other of Sad- ducees ; at least, that appears to have been the case on the occasion of one session.^ And though religiously and po- litically opposed to each other, they made common cause against Christ ' and his religion in its infancy." As among the Pharisees in general respect for the tradition of the ancients was insisted on as an indispensable part of re- ligion, the same tenet had its advocates among the scribes.^ And while the sympathies of some among the latter were probablv enlisted on the side of the Phari- sees, others among them, there is little doubt, looked with favor on the principles professed by the Sadducees. For, the errors and abuses advocated and practised by either sect seem to have been tolerated, if not approved, by all whose learning and social position raised them above the level occupied by the common people. Of these errors and abuses the scribes, however, are repre- sented in the Gospel as not only apologists, but strenu- ous defenders ; and therefore the}- are very justly included in the woes and bewares launched by our Lord against both sects." Yet, though the Pharisees were notorious for their hypocrisy and pride, and the Sanhedrim, in which they possessed great, if not a controlling influence, is known to have utterly disregard- ed the ordinary restraints of moderation and justice in many of its proceedings, what is said of Nicodemus, ' Joseph of x^rimathea, * and Gamaliel' shows that there were men in each body free from the sins which pre- vailed among a majority of their associates. Some of ' Acts xxiii. 8. ' Acts xxiii. 6. ' Matt xvi. i seq. * Acts xxiii. 6. ^ Matt. xv. i, 2.. •^ Ibid. xvi. 6; xxiii.; Luke xx. 46. ' John iii. i — 9 • vii. 50, 54; xix. 39. « Matt, xxvii. 57, 60; Mark xv. 43, 46. ' Acts v. 34, 39. The Canoji of the Old Testament. 121 the priests were Pharisees ; Josephus, himself a priest, was a member of the sect ; ' so was Jozar, another priest.^ Very probably others of the priestly stock were Saddu- cees; Caiphas the High Priest, who condemned Our Lord, likely belonged to that sect.' But it is certain that Ana- nias, another High Priest, who in the year 62 had St. James the Less stoned to death; w^as a Sadducee." But enough. Long before the date just mentioned High Priest and Sanhedrim, to the crimes of which they were but too often guilty, had added those of heresy and blasphemy, thus showing, that the light of heaven had been already withdrawn from them. And the ap- palling cry of " Let us go hence," which is said to have greeted the ears of the priests, as they entered by night the inner court of the temple,' simply announced that all was finished, and that the last act in a tragedy which had commenced in a gradual corruption of revealed re- ligion, and culminated in the rejection of the Messiah by God's own people, was about to close with their ex- tinction as a nation, and their seeming reprobation as a race. Here might be the proper place for discussing the relations of the High Priest to the Sanhedrim, in or- der to ascertain whether, as Milman' and others say, " the Sanhedrim .... usurped in some degree upon the authority of the High Priest " or^ as Calmet ' with some critics believes, the judicial authority attached originally to the office of the latter remained intact to the last. Such discussion here, however, is uncalled for, as the object of the present argument can be reached without wasting time in considering a point, about which emi- nent writers are not agreed. For, whether or not the Sanhedrim had encroached on the authority inherent in ' Life, § i., 2, '^ Ibid. § 39. ■' Acts iv. I ; v. 17. •* Jos., Antiq., B. xx. c. ix., § i. •'' Ibid., IVars, B. vi., c. v., § 3. •"' Ilisl. of the Jti.vs, ii.. 1 15. ' Dissert, de Pol. et Sanhed. Hebr. 122 The Canon of tJic Old Testament. the Hiofh Priest's office — when it is remembered, that for some time before the destruction of the Temple, and even before the coming of Christ, that office was in some instances a matter of bargain and sale, at times conferred on a favorite by the predominant political faction or the secular prince, even though a pagan ; that the successful competitor was not always entitled to it by right of succession or even descent from Aaron ; and that his tenure of the dignity depended not so much on his own good conduct, as on the caprice of the civil rul- er, or the intrigues of violent parties struggling for su- premacv — the conclusion must be, that the judicial acts of the High Priest were so tainted as to be generally doubtful, — it might be said, unquestionablv invalid. It does not appear that from the time of Eleazar the High Priest, who provided Ptolemy Philadelphus with a copy of the Hebrew Scriptures and interpreters to translate it into Greek, until the advent of the Redeemer, the compass of the Sacred Scriptures occasioned any discussion among Palestinians and Hellenists; though it is well known that the books constituting the divine collection were all held in great veneration, and care- fully studied by both classes of Jews. Nor is there any- thing to show that between the two classes, or the mem- bers of either, this point was at any time within the period mentioned a subject of controversy ; on the con- trary, there is good reason to believe that it was one on which, as yet, no diversitv of sentiment had been con- ceived, much less expressed. For the Jewish writers, whether sacred or profane, who flourished during the interval in question, make no reference whatever to any disagreement of the kind. Now, while this wasthe case, the Alexandrine version, with all the deutero books, was in constant use among the Jews throughout the Roman Empire, and even in the hands of all who, understanding Greek, continued to reside in Palestine. But no one The Caiuvi of the Old Tcsiauicnt. 12;^ can say, what books in the meantime were contained in the Hebrew Bible, with the exception of the five Books of Moses, which constituted the first class. For the terms applied to the other two classes — the prophets, and the rest of the psalms or hymns — are too vague for any one to draw up an exact list of them. The attempt has been made, but hardly any two of those who did so have reached the same result. Nevertheless, the very general use made of the Greek version, with itsdeutero books, by all Greek-speaking Jews, together with the acquiescence in, not to say the sanction of, this practice b}- those Jews who, either from choice or necessity, read the Scriptures in the Hebrew, — elders and scribes, Phari- sees and Sadducees, Levites and priests, chief priests. Sanhedrim, and High Priests, — render it morally certain, that that version with all belongnig to it was universally approved by the Jewish Church. In fact, it was not un- til far in the second century, that any objection was made by any section of Jews to the use of the Greek version ; nor was it until some time in the sixth century that it was finally rejected by the Hellenists. Indeed, the rabbinical Doctors had disputed about the canoni- city of some books now in the Hebrew Bible, long be- fore they condemned as unlawful the use of the Septua- gint. These disputes originated in a diversity of senti- ment between two schools, founded or headed, one by Rabbi Hillel, the other by Rabbi Shammai, members of the Sanhedrim, and the only ones spared by Herod, when he put to death all belonging to that body. As stated in a preceding page,' in order to preserve due reverence for, and prevent the unnecessary use of the sacred books, it had been decided that to touch them de- filed the hands. This rendered it necessary to declare what books were sacred, so that all might know when, after handling books, the ceremony of purifying the 1 Note 2, p. 68. 1 24 The Cano)i of the Old Tesiament. hands had or had not to be performed. But the at- tempt to clear up such an abstruse point in rabbinical casuistry developed discordant views among the Doctors. The strife was occasioned by Canticles and Ecclesiastes, whose power to defile the hands some advocated while others denied. At last, however, in an assembl}' held at Jamnia, about A. D. 90, the controversy was brought to a close b)^ a decision declaring, that defilement was the fate in store for all hands that touched either book. And thus, at last, if the Jewish writers are to be believed, their canon was brought to its present condition. At ■least, this conclusion follows from their own statement' CHAPTER VIII. The Canon approved by the High Priest and cur- rent AMONG THE JeWS UNTIL THE COMING OF CHRIST, MUTILATED BY THE RaBBINS WITHIN THE CHRISTIAN PERIOD, IN THAT CONDITION FOLLOWED EVER SINCE BY THE Jews, and finally imposed on the Reform- ers BY THEIR Rabbinical teachers. The conclusion just stated is not correct, because it seems taken for granted, that by the action had at Jamnia every book now belonging to the Jewish canon, and about which there had been any doubt, was then officially placed thereon. But this was not the case. For, had it been so, MeHto ' Bishop of Sardis, when giving, about the middle of the second century, a list of books on the Jewish, rather rabbinical canon, ' would not have omitted, as he has done, all mention of the book of Esther. And no doubt Esther, with the other deutero books, were the very " many scriptures," which, according to St. Justin Martyr, a contemporary of Melito, the Jews " completely wiped out of the transla- tion which was made by the Elders who were with Ptolemy." ' St. Justin adds, that " it is only a short time since they were wiped out," ' as if the spread of the Christian religion had driven the Jews to this sacri- ' Eusebius, £cc/. Hist., B. iv., c. 26. 2 From the time that the divinely appointed superintendence of the High Priest over the canon was usurped, the canon became unsettled, and was sup- planted by what is properly called the rabbinical canon, which was by no means the genuine Jewish canon. 3 Dialog, with Tryplio, § 71. " Ibid.,§. 72. 126 The Canon of the Old Testament. legious act, in order to maintain their ground. But, he continues, such as have been quoted out of the Script- ures spared by the Jews " are more than enough to prove the points in dispute, besides tJiose ivJiicJi lue have retained^ ^ As much as to say, that until recently there had been one, and but one, common collection of sacred Scriptures, out of which, however, the Jews had dropped some, while the Christians retained them all. Origen, who lived about a century later, while enumerating the books on the Jewish canon in his time, includes among them not only " Jeremias with Lamentations," but " his Epistle" — the last chapter at least, if not the entire book, of Baruch, the whole of which has since disappeared from the Jewish canon. Origen further remarks, that he found among the Jews, though outside the other books, Machabees, " which are inscribed Sarbeth Sarbane EV "—probably the sceptre of the prince of the sons of God." In a part ' of the Apostolical Constitutions, which is supposed to have been written about the middle of the third century, it is stated that the Jews on the c^nth of the month Gorpiceus assemble together and read the Lamentations of Jeremias and Baruch. This testimonv, as well as that of Origen just cited, convinced WiUiam Whiston, a learned Anglican theologian, that the book of Baruch was canonical. ■* Hilary of Poitiers, who flourished in the fourth century, corroborates the state- ments of Origen and the Apostolical Constitutions. For, while enumerating the books on the Jewish canon in the Prologue to his Explanation of the Psalms, when he comes to Jeremias, he says, "Jeremias with Lamenta- tions, and Epistle," and he further remarks that to some (Jews, for it is of them he speaks) it seemed proper, by adding Tobias and Judith, to increase the 22 books to 24, that being the number of letters in the Greek alpha- ' Ibid., § 73. ■^ Euseb., Reel. Hist., B. vi., c. 25. ' B, V , c. 20. ■» Kitto'o Cxil. on Baiiich. TJie Canon of the Old Testament. 127 bet. Referring to these two books, St. Jerome, who wrote in the fifth centur}-, affirms in his Prologues, that Tobias, though separated from the catalogue of divine Scripture by the Jews, was placed by them among the Hagiographa, and Judith was read by them also among the Hagiographa. E})iphanius, whose life was also prolonged to the fifth century, remarks ' even more distinctly than is done by Origen, that the Jews consid- ered Baruch part of Jeremias; "up to that time when they (the Jews) returifed from the Babylonian captivity, they (says he) had these prophets and books of prophets. The first is the Book of Genesis Jeremias the Proph- et with Lamentations, and epistles as well of him as of Baruch." Epiphanius further observes, that, although Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus were not numbered among the Scriptures, and were not therefore placed in the Ark of the Covenant, they were regarded as "useful and profitable," ' of course, by the Hebrews, for it is of them he is speaking. St. Isidore of Seville, who wrote about the beginning of the seventh century, has a remarkable statement about the rejection of Wisdom by the Jews. He says that the Hebrews, as one of the wise men remembers, received the book among the canonical Scriptures, but that after crucifying Christ they remem- bered, that the book contained proofs of His divine mission, and therefore, after consulting together, they excluded it from the prophetic volume, lest the Chris- tians might make use of it to reproach them with hav- ing sacrilegiously put the Messiah to death. ^ This mass of testimony renders it certain, that from the first to about the beginning of the fifth century the Jews had no fixed canon. Temple, altar, and High Priesthood had disappeared, and so had the canon. The class of teachers who from Moses downwards had ex- 1 L. I., torn. I., Hier., viii.. no. vi. (Migne).- 2 Tract. De Mens, ct Pond., c. iv. 3 De Ecclfsiastuis Officiis L. i.e. xii. 128 The Canon of the Old Testament. pounded the law, and decided what books were to be added to the collection which he left, had ceased to exist, and their place was taken by the men who laid the foundations of the Talmud. The result of their labors in attempting to agree on a canon is before us. The first century had almost closed, before all discussion regarding the canonicity of Ecclesiastes and Canticles had ceased among them. It was only towards the dawn of the third century, that they allowed Esther to be placed among the inspired books. Before- that a stran- ger might visit their schools in Palestine, and obtain a catalogue of all contained in their Old Testament. But he would have failed to find therein any mention of Esther, while, were he living a century later, such a visit would have convinced him, that that book, and even Baruch, were considered strictly canonical among the rabbinical doctors. The other deutero books, too, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and Machahees, it appears from the evidence, were treated by the Jews with a certain degree of consideration, if not veneration ; they had them, and they read them with some hope of profit or advantage from doing so. Whether they be- lieved these books to be divine or not cannot be known, but as they were allowed to have and to read them, it ma}' reasonably be inferred that they recognized no differ- ence between them and the other sacred books, espe- cially as the opinions of their self-constituted teachers were uncertain, fluctuating, and even discordant on the subject. But what a change in a matter of so great im- portance. During New Testament times, or at any period before that, an inquirer will search in vain for any sign of doubt, hesitation, discussion, or controversy regarding the compass of written revelation. Up to near the close of the first century, the canon among all classes of Jews appears a fixed fact ; but from that date until some period in the fifth century, it seems to have The La /I oil of the Old Testament. 129 been treated in rabbinical circles as a sort of sliding scale, or an unknown quantity. Two causes appear to have brought about this result. First, as the sacerdo- tal class no longer existed, or at least found it no longer possible to perform its functions, it became necessary that other arrangements, besides those hitherto employed for the purpose, should be made for the preservation of the Sacred Scriptures, as well as for the solution of all questions referring thereto. Of course, their studies and pursuits pointed to the scribes, as the only profession qualified to take charge of the inspired collection, stili intact and the most precious relic of the fallen theocra- cy. Indeed, the Gospels -show very clearly, that the scribes had already in the time of our Lord assumed or, usurped the care of the Scriptures ; while the Rab- bins, the learned masters belonging to that class of Jews, are known by their own statements to have subsequent Iv carried on with each other the prolonged contest, which left the Jewish canon as we have it to-day. But the Gospels make it equally clear, that, however qualified the scribes may have been by their learn- ing to guard the precious deposit which the course of events had placed in their keeping, their senseless ven- eration for the oral law, erroneously supposed to have been received from Moses, rendered them incapable of succeeding in the task they had undertaken. It is that oral law, or the comments" thereon, or what passed as such at the time, that our Lord denounces as " the tradition of men. " ' And it is the advocates of that system whom he stigmatizes as " blind and leaders of the blind. "^ For with them, in matters of practice, that oral law was at least equal in authority to the writ- ten. Indeed, one needs no better proof than what is furnished in the Gospel, to be convinced; that the tradi- tions, of which the former consisted, too often served as ' Mark vii. 8. '^ Matt. xv. 14. 130 TJic Canon of the Old Testament. a valid excuse for violating the spirit and even the letter of the written revelation.' Of that revelation these men could not be faithful guardians or interpreters, to whom its Author tauntingly said ; " Well do you make void the commandments of God, that you may keep your own tradition. " " Is it any wonder that the canon, whether practically or formally determined by the Jewish Church while its members still constituted an organized commu- nity in Palestine, should have been regarded as an open question by such teachers for centuries after the syna- gogue had taken the place of the Temple, and the author- ity of the High Priest, though really abolished, had been assumed by the Rabbins ; and that, when at last these agreed on a canon, that canon should be found to differ materially from the one which the apostles, as Jews, had I'eceived from the Jewish Church for their own use, and which they, of course, afterwards placed in the hands of their Christian converts ? But there was another reason which, more than an}-- thing else, contributed to the uncertainty and fluctuation of the rabbinical canon for some centuries after the commencement of our era, and resulted at last in* its permanent mutilation. Justin Mart^'r, so far as known, is the first, but by no means the only Christian writer, who charges the Jews with curtailing the Scriptures. His words given above are such as to show, that already- in his time they had made considerable progress in the unholy work, though Melito's testimony renders it cer- tain that, when he wrote (it could not have been very long after Justin), that work was still being prosecuted, but far from complete. We know, besides, from the statements of Justin and later Fathei-s, that the canon as it stood at the time, at least among Christians, was a cause of great embarrassment to the Jews, who found 1 Matt. xii. 1-8; XV. 1-20; xxiii.; Mark vii. I-23. - Mark vii. 9. The Caiioii of the Old Testament. 131 it impossible to answer the arguments advanced against their tenets, unless by denying the canonicity of many of the texts on which those arguments were based. And this was the coui-se adopted by Trypho in his dialogue with Justin. Trypho's experience was not exception- al. He probably was not the first, as he was not the last, Jewish controversialist who felt the necessity of maintaining his own ground in this wa}^ against his Christian antagonist. For, during long centuries the champions of the two religions seldom met, without en- gaging in tilts of the kind. On such occasions Trypho's tactics were so often employed, that it became the Christian to ascertain first, which of his books would be rejected by his opponent. In fact, he was accustomed to do so. There appears, therefore, no reason for doubting that the controversies between the Christians and Jews early convinced the latter, or rather their leaders, that it was necessary to shape anew their can- on, in order to deprive the former of many of the Scriptural proofs, to which they appealed with stunning effect, when the relative merits of the two religions were the points discussed. But inasmuch as the Sep- tuagint alone was current wherever Greek was under- stood (and that was generally wherever Jews were found outside of Palestine, and even there it was current side by side with the Hebrew Bible, w^hatever the latter contained at the time), the rabbinical doctors must have found it extremely difficult to agree on a definite collection of Scriptures, and to convince their followers that there was nothing wrong in excluding certain books from that collection. There certainly can be no doubt, that at the time when the religious authorities at Jerusalem were brought face to face with Christianity as distinct from Judaism, and as not only multiplying " the number of its disciples in Jerusalem," but even adding to its ranks " a 132 The Canon of tJic Old Testament. multitude also of priests," ' and therefore a " heresy " * to be stamped out by all means, fair or foul, the Septua- gint was, it may be said, universally used outside Pales- tine, and very generally even in that country, while .the range of the Hebrew was necessarily very limited, being restricted mostly to Palestine. Without resorting to what has been already said on the subject, the reader will find in the Acts of the Apostles, ' written at the time, enough to convince him that the circulation here claimed for the Septuagint among the Jews in the Apos- tolic age is not at all exaggerated. The point is admitted by Protestant writers, though their principles compel them to depreciate that version as compared with the original. Hence, Professor Smith asserts that " in the times of the New Testament the Greek and Hebrew Bibles w^ere current side by side ; and men like the Apostles, who knew both languages, used either text indifferently." ^ And Humphrey Hody ^ argues on the authority of Tertullian," Justin Martvr,' and the Jerusa- lem Gemara,** that the Sacred Scriptures were read out of the Septuagint in the synagogues by the Hellenists. To supplant that copy with another of less compass, even though written in Greek, and thus withdraw from the peo- ple " many Scriptures," ^ to which they were so long ac- customed, was therefore a task which, in their actual circumstances, might well have seemed hopeless to those who endeavored in this way to prevent the dispersed Jewish communities from being engulphed in the rising tide of aggressive Christianity. None can better appre- ciate the difficulty of such a task than a modern Prot- ' Acts vi. 7. -' Ibid, xxiv, I4. ^ Kenrick, on Acts ii. 18; vii. 14; viii. 33; xiii. 34-41. ■• The O. Test, in the Je'wish Church, p. 102. '" De Bibl. Text., pp. 224-227. •^ Apol. c. iS. " Ad Grireos Cohort, p. 14. Apol. 2. pag. 72. Dial, cum Tryph. p. 297. 298. ■■* Sotah. c. 7. « Justin M. Dial, cum Tryph. § 71. TJic Canon of the Old Testament. 133 estant. For he knows that the founders of his religion, more than three hundred years ago, attempted, as in- structed b}' their rabbinical teachei's, to mutilate the contents of the inspired volume, which, up to their own time, had circulated throughout Christendom ; and that constant efforts in the same direction have been made ever since by the leaders of Protestant thought. But he also well knows, that only among the Protestants in Great Britain and America has the attempt been even partially successful, and that not until the present cen- tury. For on the continent of Europe Protestant Bibles still generally include the books, which the reformers rejected. ' Yet, for mutilating the word of God the Protestants were much better equipped than the Jews, The former had the use of the printing press, the mod- ern postal service, the willing co-operation of secular rulers, and above all the advantage resulting from a very common belief, — which all who embraced it soon, but too late to retrace their steps, found to be mistaken, — that the movement was destined to secure for the con- science liberty of belief, and for the individual freedom from all restraint. On the other hand, the Jews, dis- persed, persecuted, and destitute of all such resources, had nothing to depend upon for success, beyond the wonderful activity and personal influence of their Rab- bins, their own fanatical devotion to these fanatical lead- ers, and the growing conviction among them, that the only way to answer the arguments of the Christians was to contract the canon, by excluding therefrom as many as possible of those books from which the Christians drew their pi-oofs. Yet, that they accomplished, not very long after they had decided on its necessity ; ' Am. Encycl. iii. 235.— Baron Karl Hildebrand Catistein's Bible has the deu- tero intermingled with the proto books. Thirty y?ars ago over 5,000,000 copies in the German language had been sold, besides those in the Bohemian language. — Ibid iv. 379. The sale, no doubt, still continues. 1 34 The Canon of the Old Testament. whereas the Protestants, after devoting centuries to the same task, are not now even convinced, that it was either wise or expedient to undertake it in the first place. Remarkable, however, is the coincidence of purpose and plan proposed by Jews and Protestants in this matter. The former endeavored to justify their rejection of the Messiah by excluding certain books from the canon; the latter sought to excuse their denial of doctrines taught b}' the Church of the Messiah, by placing these same books also outside the canon. And to complete the parallel, as the Jews, in order to with- draw from the use of the Old Septuagint all who among them read the Scriptures in Greek, and to have a Greek text of their own, with which they might meet the arguments of the Christians, had a new Greek ver- sion made of the Hebrew Bible as it stood in the second centur}", not as it existed about five hundred years before, when the seventy interpreters translated it for tiieir Alexandrian brethren, so the Protestants, to wean their followers from the venerable Vulgate, and provide them with texts offensive as well as defensive in their contro- versies with Catholics, prepared for them translations of the Hebrew Bible, not of the second century, — for there was not then nor is there now any such older than the tenth century,— but of that Bible as they found it in the sixteenth century. Age is said to improve the quality of wine, but is admitted for many reasons to be deleterious to all documents, printed or writ- ten, especially when they have been often copied, as was the case with the Scriptures. The text, therefore, from which the Protestants translated, must have been far inferior to that from which the Vulgate, twelve hun- dred, and the Septuagint, nearly two thousand years before, had been executed. Aquila, who prepared the Greek version for the Jews in the second century, had, therefore, before him a He- TJic Canon of the Old Testament. 135 brew text much purer than the one which Luther followed in the sixteenth. And as he understood Greek well, it being probably his vernacular, and was, besides, a much better Hebrew scholar than Luther, whose efforts as a translator were ridiculed by contemporary critics, he may with good reason be supposed to have creditably executed his task. According to the testimony of the Fathers and some fragments, which alone remain of his translation, he seems to have adhered closely, even slavishly, to the literal sense of the words, so that it has been remarked his work somewhat resembled a diction- ary. Yet, as Luther's German in many passages repre- sented his own errors, not the true sense of the Hebrew which he undertook to interpret, Aquila's Greek, being intended solely to provide the Jews with such a text as would enable them to maintain their position better on the principal point at issue between them and their Christian opponents, some of the Fathers, who had seen his translation, probably not without good reason, charged him with misinterpreting the sense of the Mes- sianic passages in the original. A native of Sinope, in Pontus, Aquila, while still a pagan, was appointed by his kinsman, the Emperor Hadrian, to rebuild Jerusalem. Admiring the virtues practised by the Christians whom he met there, he asked and obtained baptism ; but persisting in the practice of astrology, to which he had been addicted before his conversion, he was excommunicated. Smart- ing under this disgrace, he resolved to embrace Judaism, became a proselyte, and was circumcised. At that time the most celebrated Rabbi among the Jews was the fiery but unfortunate Akiba, who, for the part he took in the last disastrous rebellion of his people against the Romans, was fla3-ed alive in the reign of Hadrian. A disciple of Akiba, Aquila acquired a thorough knowledge of He- brew; and being already familiar with Greek, he under- 136 TJie Canon of tJic Old Testament. took to supply the Jews with such a Greek translation as they could substitute for the Septuagint and appeal to with confidence, when discussing with Christians the question of the Messiahship. " From no honest motive did he, " sa3S Epiphanius, ' "engage in this enterprise; his object was to falsify certain texts of the Scriptures, by impugning the seventy interpreters, in order to mis- represent the passages contained in the Old Testament reg"ardin2r Christ." Two other Greek translations, writ- ten from other motives, appeared soon afterwards : one less literal, but more akin than Aquila's to the Septua- gint ; its author was Theodotion ; the other rather a paraphrase than a version by Symmachus. The religious record of both these interpreters resembled somewhat that of Aquila. Besides these three, there were in early Christian times three other Greek versions from the He- brew, but their authors are unknown, and there mav have been others, of which no record remains. The memory of these six, however, has been preserved by the use which Origen made of them, when preparing his Hexaplar edition of the Septuagint. Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus most probablv omitted several, but certainly not all of the deutero Scriptures, as Franzelin " has shown. Of the versions prepared b^' these three interpreters, that of Aquila, as it was intended to fill a want felt by the Jews from the beginning of the second century, generally super- seded the use of the Septuagint among them. So that, though the appearance of the latter had been hailed wnth joy in the beginning, and even annually celebrated, according to Philo, ' by a festival at Alexandria, whose Jewish residents, with manv others, as if to venerate the spot where it had been written, as well as to thank God for so great a gift, flocked to the place where the inter- ' De Pond, el Mens. c. xv. *JZ> the Alexandrine canon. Then say, does it not seem to follow, that that canon, and that canon alone, had at the time-the sanction of the priestly as well as the lay ele- ment among all the Jews, whether residing inside or outside the limits of Palestine ? And now a last word as to the connection which, Esdras the Scribe is said to have had with the origin of the He- brew canon. It is evident from what has been already ' Chapters v. & vi. 1 62 The Canon of the Old Tcstainoit. said on that subject, that, though the rabbinical tradition, which attributes the canon to Esdras as its principal author, has been generally credited so far as the sub- stance of that tradition is concerned; it proves, when confronted with the Scriptures and the uninspired works of Jewish as well as of Christian writers, to be by no means satisfactor}'^; and is in fact contradicted by the Hebrew constitution itself, as framed by Moses in the book of Deuteronomy, and referred to in other books of the Old Testament written subsequently. That consti- tution, as we have seen, so long as the Hebrew com- monwealth existed, provided a certain and well defined method for distinguishing between sacred and profane compositions. And no tradition, however venerable in other respects, that is invoked for the purpose of super- seding that method is entitled to any consideration. In fact, what the Rabbins say about the relation of Esdras and the men of the great Sanhedrim to their canon is simply one of their many legends, and is misnamed when called a tradition, for such it is not in the theological sense attached to that word. For example, the substitution of Sunda}', as a day consecrated to the service of God, by the founders of the Christian religion, for Saturday, the day so sanctified among the Jews, is a tradition; but essentially different not only in its object but in its na- ture from the one in question. Thus the former is invested with the characteristics of universality and perpetuit)'. For it is clearly discernible in the customs of all Christendom, in the laws of all Christian nations, in the belief of all Christian people, in the writings of theologians, in the sermons of preachers, in the ex- hortations of ascetics, in the canons of councils, in the decrees of Popes, etc., away back through all ages, from the present to that of the apostles, who, although they left no written rule enjoining the change, are rightly believed to have made it. Whereas the latter, intensely TJie Canon of the Old TcsttDncnt. 163 local and suspiciously late, is never heard of outside rabbinical circles, till it appears in the Talmud, a work- replete with fables and absurdities; not a word of which had been written until at least some six centuries after the time when, according to the story, Esdras had executed the task with which he is credited by the Jews. In concluding these remarks on the origin and com- pass of the Old Testament canon, it is pertinent to transcribe here the following statement by a writer, whose opinion on that subject is entitled to the greatest respect. " Authority to establish a canon of sacred books without doubt belonged to the High Priest of the Hebrews after consulting the elders and the San- hedrim , for, if it was the duty of the High Priest and priests to judge between leprosy and leprosy (Lev.xiii.), indeed, if it was the duty of the High Priest to decide any controversy concerning the law, when any doubt had arisen (Lev. xvii.), without doubt it belonged to him also to establish such a canon of divine books, since this matter was the most important of all ; so that it is not remark- able, that also in the Church the authority to establish a canon of this kind has resided in one pontiff, either with or without a council." ' Is it not remarkable, that a view so reasonable, so consistent with the Mosaic legislation, and so well cal- culated to solve all difficulties connected with the canon has not been more generally embraced? And that most (it might be said all) of those who have discussed that question, whether they hold that until the time of Christ the Jews had but one canon, or two, overlook the fact, that according to all the evidence on the case the canon now used by the Jews, and known as the rabbinical be- cause invented by the Rabbins long after the}- had ' Jacobi Bonfrerii Prccloquia in totam Scrip. Sacram, cap. iii., % vi.; Migne, cur. comp. S. Scrip., Tome I., p. 12. 1 64 The Canon of the Old Testament. rejected the Messiah, is quite different from the one which the Jews followed in pre-Christian times, what- ever that one may have been? CHAPTER XII. Testimony of Flavius Josephus, the Jewish His- torian. That the deutero books were never in any way recog- nized by the Jews as entitled to a place in the canon, is maintained by many Christian critics, in consequence of a statement by the Jewish historian Josephus. The works of this writer are now in such a condition, that it is not always an easy matter to ascertain the genuine text. Besides, it is admitted that, whether discussing matters pertaining to the Jewish religion, or dealing with histor- ical subjects, he is not always to be trusted. Nor does it appear that, though as a Pharisee he belonged to one of the strictest sects among the Jews, his general course was influenced more by a sense of duty than by the baser dictates of human policy. The Jewish priest (for such he was) who, when directed by Vespasian, hesi- tated not to marry a captive woman, thus knowinglv violating the law of Moses, must have had little regard for his religious principles or personal honor ; at least not so much as for the favors which it was in the power of his imperial patrons to bestow. It is true that priests were not forbidden to marry a captive woman ; ' but Josephus, following the construction put upon the Law of Moses,^ probably by the Pharisees, has twice said ' that priests were not permitted to contract such a mar- riage. This much by way of introduction to the follow- ing extract from the Jewish historian. ' Life, % 75- ^ Lev. xxi. 7, 14. ^ Antiq. B. iii., c. xii., 4 2;!. Contra Apion., 7. 165 i66 The Canon of tJic Old Testament. " For we have not myriads of discordant and contra- dictory books, but only two and twenty, containing the record of all time, and rightly believed to be divine. And of these, five are the books of Moses, comprising the laws, and the tradition of the human race down to his death. This period was a little short of three thou- sand years. But from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes, King of Persia, who succeeded Xerxes, the prophets compiled the history of their own times in thirteen books. The other four contain hymns to God and counsels of life to men. But from Artaxerxes to our times all events have indeed been written down ; but these later books are not deemed worthy of the same credit, because there has been no exact succession of prophets." ^ This is the earliest notice we have, that the books re- ceived by the Jews as divine amounted to 22, a number fixed upon, not because there were actually so many sacred Hebrew books, or authors of these books, for that could not be proved, but because, as Origen'^ was the first to remark, there were 22 letters in the Hebrew alphabet. As we have seen already, these books were sometimes also reckoned 24 or 27, the Hebrew letters being in either case so arranged that the number of books corresponded with that of the letters. So that this correspondence would, no doubt, have been pre- served, had the rabbinical doctors been able to devise a good reason for augmenting the number of books, say, to 50. Indeed, if the number of books were to be determined, not by the number of letters in the He- brew alphabet, but by the number of distinct treatises on the rabbinical canon, or bv the number of authors whose writings find a place in that canon, there is no reason for supposing that the result would be 22, 24, or 27. By such an arbitrary enumeration as the one adopted by the ' I. Contra Apion., § 8. ' Euseb., Hist, B. vi., c. 25. The Carnvi of the Old Testament. 167 Rabbins, it would be easy to show that the Christian canon of the Old Testament, embracing 45 books, might be re- duced to 22 or even less. This number 22 has been the cause of more confusion and discordance among Chris- tian writers in regard to the canon, than any other fic- tion manufactured by the Rabbins while expatiating on that subject. All who, in arguing that the Jews had never any can- on but the imperfect one which they have now, appeal to the authority of Josephus as evidenced in the pre- ceding extract, appear to regard it as unquestionable that Josephus meant to say, that the Jewish canon as it existed in his time was exactly similar to that now fol- lowed by the rabbinical teachers and their Protestant pupils ; or, if it .be too absurd to say that Josephus, writing in the first century, foresaw what canon the Jews would follow in the nineteenth, that the canon described by Josephus is identical with that now followed by Jews and Protestants. But this interpretation of Josephus' statement is false, absolutely false, for three reasons : First, because Josephus has described no canon, nor named a single book, nor named the author of any book or books, Moses and his books alone excepted. He has really said nothing in his statement which would justify any one in concluding, that, with the exception of the five books of Moses, any one of his 22 is now found in the rabbinical canon. Second, because we have seen, ' that from some time before Josephus wrote until far in the fourth century, the Hebrew canon was not what it is at present. And third, because a strict construction of the words of Josephus, such as every writer should be bound by, will show not only that the conclusion generally drawn from his statement is unwarranted, but that he meant to say that several, if not all, of the deutero books were included in the 22 believed to be divine. For, if ' Supra, ch. ix. i68 The Canon of the Old Testament. the 22 books contain, as he says they do, " the record of all time," they must contain the record of the entire period from the creation to the time when Josephus wrote. Now, as the rabbinical canon includes only such books as deal with events which transpired be- tween the creation and the time of Malachias, the author of the latest ' book in that canon, the compass of the Flavian 22 books must be much wider than that of the canon indicated. May it not therefore be concluded that those 22 books included such as were contained in the Septuagint, but omitted in the Hebrew copies cur- rent among the Rabbins ? The only possible repl}- that can be made to all this by those, who contend that the statement of Josephus proves that the canon in his time was the same as the one which the Jews have now, is that, as Josephus ex- cluded from the collection of divine books all written after the reign of iVrtaxerxes, and as the deutero books were not written until after that time, they were not counted by Josephus among the twenty-two. But this reply takes for granted two points, which cannot, but must be proved, before the identity of the present rab- binical canon and the Flavian collection can be admitted. These two points are : First, is it true that Josepus has excluded from his twenty-two books all written after the reign of Artaxerxes ? Second, is it true that all the deu tero books were written after the reign of Artaxerxes? Both questions may be met with an unqualified negative. For, first, judged b}' his own words " from Artaxerxes to our times events have been indeed written down," it is only historical books written after the time of Artaxerxes, that Josepus sa3's " were not deemed worthy of the same credit," as those written before. The only books, there- fore, excluded by Josepus as having been written after the reign of Artaxerxes are historical, and as the two ' Kitto's Cyclop., art. Malachi. TJie Canon of tJic Old Testament. 169 books of Machabees are the only historical books known certainly to have been written snbseqiiently to that date, these are the only two deutero books for which no place can be found in the Flavian canon, while the Flavian statement " not deemed worthy of the same credit, be- cause there has been no exact succession of prophets " is not by any means inconsistent with the divine charac- ter of the two books in question, nor does it prove that Josephus himself regarded them as mere human com- positions. Second, it is not at all certain, that all the deutero books were written after the reign of Artaxerxes. Ba- ruch was written long before. Whether Tobias and Judith were written before or after is a matter of doubt. Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and, as just remarked, I. and II. Machabees were written after. It is therefore certain that it is not true, that all the deutero books were writ- ten after the reign of Artaxerxes, while of those known to have been written after that time. Wisdom and Eccle- siasticus, not being historical, were not, according to Josephus, excluded from the divine twenty-two. It does not, therefore, by any means follow from the statement of Josephus, that his twenty-two books constituted a col- lection identical with that contained in the existing rab- binical canon. Moreover, Josephus says that " from the death of Moses until the reign of Artaxerxes the prophets compiled the history of their own times in thirteen books." It there- fore follows, if Josephus be right, that the rabbini- cal canon was finished at a period not later than the reis-n of Artaxerxes. Is that so ? Far from it, for it has been seen already,' that there are in some of these books statements which could not have been written before the time of Alexander the Great, that is, almost a cen- tury after the reign of Artaxerxes had closed. Josephus 1 Supra, ch. iii. 1 70 TJie Canon of the Old Testament. may have written as he learned from the tradition of the Pharisees. But that he was mistaken in this matter there can be no doubt. Mistaken also, very much mistaken, are those writers who, to use the words of Professor Smith, ' declare that " we can affirm with practical certainty, that the twenty- two books of Josephus are those of the present Hebrew canon." For if this were so,the Flavian two and twenty would contain no more nor no less than what is con- tained in that canon. And critics, in enumerating the books supposed to have been referred to by Josephus, would not only follow the same order, but be able to show that each one of the twenty-two is identical with one in the Hebrew canon. All this would be the case were the Flavian collection, as most Protestant writers affirm, identical with the Hebrew canon, or what is the same, the Protestant Old Testament. But it is far other- wise. Of course, all critics are agreed that " the five of Moses " are the Pentateuch. But as soon as it is at- tempted to identify the other seventeen the discordance begins. Hody " finds in the Protestant canon a book corresponding to each of the Flavian thirteen, and be- lieves that Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles are the other four mentioned by Josephus. Prideaux ^ fills the bill in a different way, for he follows a different order, and is unable to find room for I. and II. Paralipom- enon among the Flavian two and twenty. Havercamp ■* proposes two ways of making the tally, each different from the two preceding, particularly in that he checks off the Flavian four books of hymns and counsels by Psalms, book No. i ; Job, book No 2 ; Proverbs, book No. 3 ; and Ecclesiastes with Canticles, book No. 4. Whiston strikes out for himself, by asserting that Baruch ' Hist, of the Old Test, in the Jewish Church, p. 149. "^ De Bibl. Text., p. 644. ^ Connex., ii. p. 272. ^ Josepus, ii. 441. Tiie Canon of the Old Testament. lyi is " canonical ; " ' that apocryphal III. Esdras instead of 1. Edras was included in the Flavian twenty-two, and that I. Esdras and Canticles were never seen by Josephus. '" Haneberg is of opinion, that the Flavian twenty-two did not include I. and II. Paralipomenon, Esdras, and Esther, but in this is opposed by Franzelin ' and Cornely. ' Danko '' is unable to recognize Job as one of the Flavian two and twenty. It is therefore evident, at all events; that we cannot afifirm with any certainty, practical or otherwise, that all of the Flavian twenty-two books are those of our present Hebrew canon. But has not Josephus in the compilation of his works made use of all the books on the Hebrew canon? He has not, for all were not suited to his purposes. But suppose he has, though Whiston, as we have just seen, is confident that Josephus never even saw some of them, that does not prove that his twenty-two books are identical with those contained in that canon, unless those who say so can show that Josephus has not made the same use of certain other scriptural or quasi scrip- tural books, which are not on that canon, as he has of those which belong to it. But this the}^ cannot do. For Josephus has actually copied the contents of several such books, without even hinting that they were other than divine. Thus, all who have read the works of Josephus are aware that the three first chapters of Book XI. of his Antiquities are composed almost from begmning to end of what he read in III. Esdras, that he has also incorporated in his Antiqjiities (Book XL, c. vi., § 4) Esther xii., and in the same work (Book XL, c. vi., § 6) the first letter of Artaxerxes contained in Esther xiii,, and in Antiquities {^ook XL, c. vi., § 12) the substance of the second letter of Artaxerxes, found in Esther xvi. ' Note Jos. Aniiq., B. x., c. ix., ^S i. '^ Note Jos. Contra Apion., B. i., $ 8. * De Div. Tract, et Scrip, p. 395. ■■ Introd. in S. Scrip, i. p. 46. * In S. Scrip, i. p. 18. 172 TJie Canon of the Old Testament. All these statements, remember, are contained, not in proto, but in deutero Esther. Besides many of the ma- terials on which Josephus worked while engaged in the twelfth and thirteenth chapters of his Antiquities, the first Book of his Wars of the Jews, and his work on the MacJia- bees, or the Empire of Reason, have been drawn from the deutero books of Machabees. All these Scriptures Jo- sephus has copied without intimating in any way, that in point of authority he considered them inferior to the two and twenty divine books. It must, however, be ad- mitted that, according to what he has said while writing Contra Apion. (B. i. § 8), Machabees, having been written after the reign of Artaxerxes, did not in his opinion deserve the same credit as the twenty-two books. But this cannot be said of Esdras III., which, although its age is unknown, deals with events which preceded the reign of Artaxerxes, and for that reason seems to have been used by Josephus, who, there is everj^ reason to believe, included it among the twenty-two. That Josephus really included III. Esdras among the twenty-two books believed to be divine is, however, rendered extremely probable only by the use he has made of it, and the date of the events which it describes. But in addition to these two reasons, which also hold with regard to deutero Esther, there is the further fact that Joseph ben Gorion, a Jewish writer of the ninth century, has included deutero Esther in his Jewish history. ^ These considerations will at least warrant the conclusion that that part of Esther was well known to Jewish scholars, and treated by them as belonging to the authentic records of their race. But there is another argument, which, besides confirming this conclusion, renders it certain, so far as certainty is possible in such matters, that deutero Esther was considered divine by the Jews before and in the time of Josephus. This .argument will now be submitted. ' B. ii., c. 2. (Calmet, Prolegoin. in Libnim Esther.'^ The Canon of the Old Testament. 173- The reader is aware thatj Esther of the Protestant. Bible from beginning to end, and Esther of the Catholic Bible from the beginning to the end of verse third, chapter tenth, are substantially identical, both being trans- lations from the Hebrew, the former by King James's theologians, the latter by St. Jerome. At the end of verse third, chapter tenth, the Latin Vulgate has a note by St. Jerome, stating that all of the book which pre- ceded that verse had been translated by him from the Hebrew, and that what followed that verse he had found in the old Latin version made from the Greek, and made, as we have already seen, in the infancy of the Church. It thus happens that verse third of chapter X. is followed by ten more verses, thus completing that chapter, and by six more chapters. All these St. Jerome, because he did not find them in the existing Hebrew, removed to the end of the book, wrenching them from the places they held in the old Latin version, and still hold in the Greek, where, however, they present a continuous and well con- nected narrative. In order that this may be better under- stood, here is shown the manner, in which the Greek Esther, of which the old Latin was a version, has been arranged in the Vulgate left by St. Jerome. Greek. Vulgate. Chapter XL 2-12; XII. 1-6. II. «* III. 1-15 ; XIII. 1-7. IV. 1-8; XV. 2-3 ; IV. 9-17; XIII. 8-18 : XIV. 1-19. " XV. 4-19 ; V. 3-14. " VI. VII. VIII. 1-13; XVI. 1-24; VIII. 14-17. IX. X. 1-13; XI. I. Now, in the Vulgate Esther, the first verse of chapter XI. is the subscription appended at the end of the Greek Chapter I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. \rTTT V 1 11 IX. X. 174 The Canon of the Old Testament. Esther, by some Alexandrian Jew, in which it is stated, that, " in the fourth year of the reign of Ptolemy and Cleopatra, Dositheus, who said he was a priest, and of the Levitical race, and Ptolemy his son, brought this epistle of Purim, which they said Lysimachus had trans- lated in Jerusalem." This subscription is found in the end of the Alexandrian as well as the Vatican Codex, and imports that the Book of Esther, or, as it is here called the " Epistle of Purim (lots) ' with its deutero as well as proto parts, as they are preserved in the Septua- gint, after having been translated into Greek at Jerusa- lem by a certain Lysimachus, was brought to the Alex- andrian Jews by one Dositheus, a priest, and his son Ptolem}', in the fourth year of the reign of Ptolemv and Cleopatra. In this inquirj' it is a point of some interest to ascertain what Ptolemy is here meant. But this is not so easily done, as Ptolemy was a common name for the kings of Egypt, and the wives of at least five of them, who reigned between 205 and 43 B. C, were called Cleopatra. Whatever Ptolemy is meant, it is evi- dent, however, from the subscription that there was no attempt at the time to obstruct the intercourse which the Jews of Jerusalem were always anxious to maintain with those of Alexandria, and that the latter had reason to regard as a friend the Ptolemy then reigning, while their treatment by man}- of the other Ptolemies was too often cruel and oppressive. There is, in fact, but one Ptolemy whose character and relations with his Jewish subjects correspond with the presumption suggested by the subscription. That is Ptolemy Philometer, who first reigned conjointl}^ with his mother. Queen Cleopatra, during his minority, and afterwards with his wife Cleo- patra, from 180 to 146 B. C. He was a prince of a humane, generous, and tolerant disposition, and is said to have conferred many favors on the Jews, by whom he 1 Esther ix. 26, 32. The Canon of the Old Testament. 175 with his army, while marching- through their countr}- to Syria, was well received, he in turn presenting many valuable gifts to their High Priest Jonathan. ' Besides, he appears to have felt considerable interest in the Jewish Scriptures ; for Aristobulus, a Jew who had lived about the same time, a priest, probably one of the LXX interpreters, and it may be the same to whom the Jerusalem Jews wrote an epistle,' is said to have pre- pared for him a commentary on the Laws of Moses.' Furthermore, it was Ptolemy Philometer who, with Queen Cleopatra, permitted Onias, the fugitive successor to the high priesthood, to erect a temple in Egypt, and ad- judicated the dispute between the Jews and the Samari- tans, each party maintaining that its own temple alone was sanctioned by the Law of Moses. * Joseph us " also states that two Jews, Onias and Dositheus, the former perhaps the founder of the Judaso-Egyptian temple, the latter, it may be, the same who, possfbly under the au- spices of Ptolemy Philometer, brought the Greek Esther to Alexandria, wei-e placed by that prince and Queen Cleopatra in important military positions, to the signal advantage both of the country and the royal family. ' As to Lysimachus, the interpreter, who translated Esther from Hebrew into Greek, with, remember, all its deutero parts, as stated in the subscription to the Greek Esther, it is known that in the early part of the reign of Ptolemy Philometer the High Priest at Jeru- salem was named Lysimachus, 'and was there killed in an insurrection in 171 B. C. But whether he was the same Lysimachus with him to whom we are indebted for the Greek copy of Esther cannot be said, although his age, 1 I. Mach. xi. ; Jos., Antiq.^ B. xiii., c. iv., § 5. 2 II. Mach. i. 10. 3 Euseb. Prep. Evangel., B. Vlf., c. xiii. * Jos., Antiq., B. XIII.. c. iii., § i-4, 5 \\ Contra Apion., § 5. ^ In 89 B. C. Clieleias and Ananias, sons ()f Onias, were in command of the forces of Queen Cleopatrii. ]os., Antiq., B. XIII., c. x., ^4, ' II. Mach. iv. 29, 42. I "jf) The Canon of the Old Testament. his position, and his knowledge of Greek, as implied in his Grecian name, would render the supposition plausible. But whatever may be said of the preceding conjectures, there is no reason to doubt, that the Ptolemy of the sub- scription is Ptolemy Philometer, and in this conclusion almost all critics, Protestant as well Catholic, are agreed. So that the Greek Esther, with all its deutero parts, must have been brought into Alexandria about 177 B. C, and as it had been translated at Jerusalem before that, it must have been known to the Jews there. And since it is certain that it, as soon as received at Alexandria, was enrolled among the other Scriptures by the Jews who were there settled, it follows that it was considered part of their Old Testament b}' the Jews of Jerusalem ; other- wise the former would not have placed it among the divine books. It was, besides, known to and used by Josephus. And since, as we have seen, he has incor- porated its contents in his works, without making any distinction between those portions common to it and the existing Hebrew copy on the one hand, and what the former has and the latter has not on the other, he must have considered that the entire book, as he found it in the Septuagint, was divine, and therefore a part of the twenty-two which the Jews received in his time. These facts prove that Esther, deutero as well as proto, was in the Jewish canon in 177 B. C, Lysimachus having before that translated it into Greek for the use of the Hellenists, and that it was still on that canon when Josephus wrote in the latter part of the first Christian century. Indeed, all Protestant critics con- tend that proto Esther was one of the Flavian twenty- two divine books, and Catholic critics are very general- ly of the same opinion, though not unanimous, in holding that Esther as it stood on the Hebrew canon comprised the deutero portion of that volume. But it has been shown, that about the middle of the second The Canon of the Old Testament. \ yy century Esther, whether proto or deutcro, was not one of the sacred books in the possession of the Palestinian Jews, and that after having been lost or discarded for some time, it was found again on their canon, with, however, an aspect so wordly, and in a condition so mutilated, that a Protestant writer is forced to confess that " no religious Jews could well be the authors of It.'" These vicissitudes which the book of Esther has ex- perienced among the Jews are thus accounted for : ' From the time that the feast of Purim, as directed in Esther, ' was observed by the Jews, the book was read in the synagogues on the day appointed for the purpose. The celebration at first was probably conducted as a re- ligious solemnity at which all assembled, not only to hear the inspired account in which the providential deliverance of the Jews from the murderous plot of Aman was described, but to return thanks to God for the protection then extended to his people. But the festival, from being an occasion of pious joy and thanks- giving, became by degrees a day of dissipation and revelry, and its yearly recurrence only served to show that the feast of Purim, though in its origin calculated to foster devout and patriotic sentiments among the Jews, only tended as time went on to excite their worst passions, and encourage among them bacchanalian or- gies under the sanction of religion. ' It was the custom for the whole congregation, when the name of Mor- dechai occurred in the reading of Esther, to exclaim Blessed be Mordeehai ; and when they heard the name of Aman pronounced, to say May his name perish, at the same time stamping with their feet, clapping their ' Whiston, Note on Jos. Atitiq., B. xi. c. vi. § 13. ' Vide Comely, Hist, ct Cntica Introd. in V. T. Lihros Sacros. Volumen IT., ii., 407, who, with other Cathoh'c writers, in this matter follows J. B. de Rossi'. 2 Esther ix., 27, etc. ; x. 13. 1 78 The Canon of the Old Testament. hands, hissing, and pounding the walls andbenches with stones or mallets. Plays and masquerades were in- dulged in. Notwithstanding the prohibition of Moses, ' each sex assumed sometimes the dress of the other, and it was lawful to drink to such a degree that the wor- shippers, unable any longer to discriminate between Mordechai and Aman, showered blessings upon, or hurled curses at either indiscriminately. * Now the Greek Esther, which undoubtedly is identical with the Hebrew Esther at the first appearance of the latter, is an edifying book, as much so probably as any other of the historical books in the Old Testament. The efficacy of fasting and prayer is well exemplified therein ; sor- row for sin is feelingly expressed, and God's holy name is often reverently mentioned, his power magnified, his mercy extolled, and his protection earnestly invoked in it. To read such a book, under such circumstances as were connected with the celebration of the feast of Purim, must have presented an awful spectacle to de- vout Jews, and nothing less than a profanation to such among them as still believed that Judaism of an}- kind Avas far superior to the highest form of refined paganism. At least so the Rabbins seemed to think. Foi% after having at first excluded Esther from the canon either actually or practically b}' forbidding the reading of it, the}^ afterwards restored it to the canon, but so changed that it could be read at the feast of Purim without shocking the devout feelings of the more religious who shared in the celebration. Possibly it was not in the power of the Rabbins to correct the gross abuses which disgraced the occasion. At all events, Theodosius II. seems to have been the first to institute measures for that purpose, when, in order to prevent the violent and indecent scenes often witnessed at the time of Purim, ' Deut. xxii. 5. '^ Prid., Cotinex., i., 263; Kitto's Cycl. (Purim); Milman, Hist, of the Jews, iii. 36. The Canon of the Old Testament. 179 an imperial decree ' was made on the subject. This was in the fifth century. But Esther had ah"eady been withdrawn from and restored to the Hebrew canon, after having- been so mutilated that amidst the excesses of Purim it could be very appropriately read. It thus happens that any one may peruse the Hebrew Esther from beginning to end without even once meeting with the hoi}' name of God, the Rabbins having carefuUj^ excluded from it all those sections in which any refer- ence is made to the Deity, that it might be thus adapted to the style in which the feast of Purim was kept. Al- though, therefore, not justly chargeable with corrupt- ing the sacred text, all the circumstances go to prove that they have been guilty of mutilating the contents of the sacred volume. ' Codex Theodos., xvi., De Judceis, (1. l8: Milman, Hist, of the Jews, vol. iii. 36). CHAPTER XIII. Further Remarks on the Testimony of Josephus. Some remarks remain to be made on the last clause in the statement of Josephus, before a correct estimate can be made regarding the value of his testimony, so far as that testimony relates to the deutero books. The clause in question is " From Artaxerxes to our times, all events have indeed been written down, but these later books are not deemed worthy of the same credit, because there has been no exact succession of prophets." It is not necessary here to engage in any explanation of* the functions performed by the prophets, as the subject is fully discussed in vol. IV. of Migne's Cursus Scrip- tures, A Lapide's Proem to the Prophets, and Calmet's Prolegomena to the Prophets. Let it therefore be ob- served at once, that the word succession in the above clause is ill-chosen, being misleading and incorrect. For it implies that prophet succeeded prophet, as regu- larly as high priest followed high priest ; that the position occupied by the prophets, instead of being an intermittent gift immediately bestowed by God, was a permanent ofihce, vacancies in which were filled by right of inheritance, or some one of the methods employed in such cases; and that from Moses, rather Adam, to Artaxerxes there had been an uninterrupted line of prophets, just as there had been a regular series of pontiffs from Aaron to the fall of the Temple. Strange would it not be, had the succession of the prophets, at 180 TJie Canon of the Old Testament. 1 8 1 least as inspired writers, for the word in its less re- stricted sense included such, been closed so long before that of the high priests ? For writers of that class were hardly less necessary after than before the reign of Artaxerxes. Besides, Josephus' " succession of proph- ets " sadl}' disturbs the picture which the Scriptures, and even he himself, have drawn of those remarkable characters, who issued forth from time to time to give their contemporaries a glimpse of the future, and thus reveal to a sinful generation the certain chastise- ments that awaited its misdeeds. They were called by God for special purposes, and under exceptional con- ditions. And when each of them disappeared, the mission which he filled might or might not, according to circumstances, be filled by another called forth in the same way. There were periods in which the labors of the prophets seem never to have been interrupted ; such was that from the reign of Ozias, King of Juda, till about the closing years of Neheraias, an interval of about three hundred years. Of these prophets there were seventeen, Osee being first and Malachias last. Several of them lived at the same time, and the prophet- ic utterances of each are contained in a book which goes by his name. But there were times when there was no prophet to be found, and regarding which to use the word succession would be an abuse of language. For, from Josue to Samuel, a period of three hundred years, the only person who is mentioned as possessed of the prophetic spirit was Debora. ' In the early part of Samuel's career there could have been no prophet, " for the word of the Lord was precious in these da3's, there was no manifest vision ;" ^ and when the three children were surrounded by the flames of the fiery furnace, among the many national calamities which they de- plored, was the want of a prophet. ^ The successmi, ' Judges iv. 4. ^ I. Kings iii. i . ' Dan. iii. 38. 1 82 The Canon of the Old Testament. therefore, mentioned by Josephus may be classified among the vain traditions of the Pharisees, though, if the Rabbins are to be believed, there was such a succes- sion from Adam to Malachias. Lest, however, Josephus may have been misinter- preted in the preceding remarks, let us, for the sake of argument, agree with Walton, ' that the Jewish historian discredited all books written after Artaxerxes, simply " because they were not written by prophets, or men divinely inspired ; " or let us accept the only other con- struction that can be put on the Flavian clause, " be- cause it is not certain that there were any prophets after the time of Artaxerxes." If the Waltonian interpreta- tion be correct, how, it may be asked, did Josephus know, that of all books belonging to dates subsequent to Artaxerxes not one was written by a prophet or a man divinely inspired; that, while the book of Ruth, for instance, was the work of some such author, that of Judith was not? No High Priest, no Prophet, no Council, no inspired writer has declared that the Sacred Scriptures were all written between the time of Moses and the reign of Artaxerxes, or that books written after were less authoritative than those written during that interval. If, therefore, the Flavian clause means what Walton says it does, the allegation contained in that clause rests on no authority other than Josephus him- self, a writer whose testimony on other points cannot, as all admit, be always reconciled with the authority of the Old Testament, even when he professes to follow it. Besides, as interpreted by Walton, the statement of Josephus would imply, that books among the Jews, after Artaxerxes, were no longer written by prophets, or men inspired ; a conclusion which, though a Jew may in- sist on, a Christian cannot grant. For it is certain that even in Old Testament times, and four full centuries after ' Proleg. iv. 5. The Canon of the Old Testament. 183 the death of Artaxerxes, the Benedieta tu oi Elizabeth, ' the Magnifieat of JMarj,'^ and the Betiediettis of Zachary, ' all profoundly prophetic utterances, were pronounced by persons tilled with the same Holy Spirit by whom the ancient prophets were enlightened. If Josephus intended to say, that there were no proph- ets after the reign of Artaxerxes, or even that it was uncertain whether there were any prophets after that time, he is contradicted by himself, by the inspired writers of the New Testament, by Philo, and the Tal- mudic and rabbinical doctors. By himself : for he says of the Hign Priest John Hyrcanus : " he it was who alone had three of the most desirable things : the gov- ernment of his nation, and the high priesthood, and the gift of propheey, for the Deity conversed with him, and he was not ignorant of anything that was to come afterwards;"' that, " God came to discourse with him," and that when " he was alone in the temple, as high priest offering incense," he received a divine communi- cation, which on coming out of the Temple he an- nounced to all the people, and which proved to be true.' Such communications were made through the breast-plate worn by the High Priest, but, according to Josephus, ceased two hundred years before he wrote his Antiquities, ' that is, one hundred years before Christ, but long after the time of Artaxerxes. Judas the Essene was also another prophet, and one " who never missed the truth in his predictions." ' So were Pollio ' and Manahen," both of whom lived as late as the time of Herod the Great. Even as late as the time of Josephus there were some who undertook " to tell things to come .... and it is but seldom that they miss in their predictions." '" In fact, so far were the Jews from admitting that the 1 Luke i. 42. " Ibid. 46. 3 Ibid. 68. ' IVars, B. i., c. ii., $ 8. s Antiq., B. xiii., c. x., g 3. '• Antiq., B. iii., c viii. § 9. 1 Ibid., B. xiii., c. xi., Jj 2. ** Ibid., B. xv., c. i., § i. " Ibid., c. x., § 5 '0 [Vais, li. ii., c. viii. j; 12. 184 J^iie Canon of the Old Testament. gift of prophec}' had been withdrawn from them after the reign of Artaxerxes, that it seems that in the time of Herod the Great the Pharisees " were believed to have the foreknowledge of things to come by divine inspiration." ' Josephus is, therefore, contradicted by himself. And his contradiction of himself is confirmed by those numerous statements in the Books of Macha- bees, from which it appears, that during the period included in these Books the miraculous occurrences and divine manifestations, by which the whole previous history of the Jews had been signalized, had by no means ceased. But Josephus is also contradicted by the writers of the New Testament, and in fact must be contradicetd bv all who believe in that inspired volume. For, accord- ing to those whose writings are contained in it, Zacha- ry " prophesied," ^ his wife " Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost," ^ and her youthful cousin Mary at the same time, in saying '' Henceforth all generations shall call me blessed,"' uttered a prophecy the literal fulfil- ment of which has been in the past, and will be in the future witnessed in ever}' age. This prophesying took place, too, while the Jewish Church was still standing; and before Christ was born. After that glorious event it is said of Simeon that "the Holy Ghost was in him. And he had secured an answer from the Holy Ghost. . . . And he came by the Spirit into the temple," ' where he recognized the Child Jesus, and foretold the future not only of that Child but of His Mother Mary, Anna the " prophetess" being also present on the occasion. Indeed, it is certain that if Josephus meant to say, that after the reign of Artaxerxes prophets and prophesying ceased, he expressed an opinion directly contrary to that held by the Jews generally, for the whole people were per- 1 Antiquities, B. xvii., c. ii., § 4. 2 Luke i. 67. ^ Ibid. 41. •• Ibid. 48. ' Ibid. ii. 25. The Canon of tJic Old Testament. 185 suaded that John the Baptist, for example, was a prophet. ' Josephus wrote as taught by the Pharisees. But even they seem to have thought it possible for a prophet to rise except in Galilee. " And St. John, who reflected the belief of conscientious Jews better than Josephus or any Pharisee, appears from his Gospel (xi. 5 1) to have thought that Caiphas the High Priest, even when engaged in a wicked conspiracy, actually " prophesied." During the life of Our Lord, therefore, prophets were not wanting. Nor did they cease after that, as the Apostolic writings amply testify. Agabus, for example, is called a " proph- et " ^ and proved himself such b) foretelling what really happened afterwards to St. Paul. Indeed, he had already shown that he was entitled to the name when he" signi- fied by the Spirit that there should be a great famine over the whole world, \vhich came to pass under Claudius." That there were at the same time other " prophets " is de- clared in the preceding verse ; and Adam Clarke, a Prot- estant commentator, in his note on it declares, that they " were wwdi^r divine inspiration, and foretold future events." Had he studied the lives of the post-apostolic saints with the same care and freedom from prejudice, he could have easily found evidence to prove, that the prophetic spirit possessed by the Church in the beginning \vas not withdrawn from her. Josephus is also contradicted by Philo, the Alexandri- an Jew, born probably not long before the Christian era. For, describing the origin of the Septuagint, the latter says,' that the interpreters were divinely inspired, hav- ing every word throughout the version dictated to them by the Holy Ghost. What bearing this must have on the testimony of Josephus will be understood when it is remembered that the Septuagint was made more than a century after the reign of Artaxerxes, and at least three ' Luke. XX. 6. ^ John vii. 52. 3 Acts xxi. 10 ; xi. 28. 4 /)^ y^^^ Movsis, lib. II. i86 TJie Canon of tJic Old Testament. full centuries before Josephus wrote. It is not neces- sary to add, that what Philo has said regarding the in- fluence, under which the Septuagint was written, was believed by several of the early Christian Fathers. It is also in evidence, that if Josephus meant to say that afler the reign of Artaxerxes there were no proph- ets, or that it was uncertain whether there were any such, he is contradicted by the Talmudic and rabbini- cal writers. But before proof of this is submitted, a word or two must be said about the belief of these writers re- garding prophecy. They distinguish a great many grades of prophecy, but these distinctions are often so finel}' drawn as to escape the grasp of ordinary intel- lects. And in fact they may all be reduced to three, as is done by Duvoisin,' on whose statements the following remarks are based. The three grades of prophecy, as described by rabbinical writers, are prophecy by the Holy Ghost, prophecy by Urim and Thummim, and prophecy by Bath Kol — daughter of a voice or daughter voice. In all of these grades the Rabbins make several distinctions,*which simph' indicate the various wa3-s in which divine communications may be made in each grade. The first and highest gi'ade is by the Holy Ghost, such as Moses was favored with, who while awake perceived the I'evelation in his mind without angelic intervention, not enigmatically but clearly, and unlike other prophets remaining unaffected by horror, undisturbed bv terror, and unassailed by languor, and speaking as a friend with a friend, and being invested whenever he wished with the Holy Ghost, and constantly possessed of the proph- et's gift."* The next highest grade of prophecy is that by Urim and Thumim, the breast-plate worn b}' the High Priest, by looking on which he was enabled to receive divine revelations. Maimonides ^ has described the ' Ohsoi'al. 'm Pug. Fidei Raymundi Martini, loi, 102. ^ -Nfaimonides in Tract. De Fund. Legis, c. 7. ' In yad CJnizakah, book on vessels of the Sanctuary, c. 10. TJic Canon of the Old Testament. 187 manner in which the High Priest prophesied by Urim and Thummim. He also in the same place says that these two grades of prophecy ceased- in the time of the second temple; although the Urmi and Thummim were used therein to complete the vestments worn by the High Priest, but not for the purpose of receiving in this way communications, because the Holy Ghost was not there. The third and lowest grade of prophecy was called by the Jews Bath Kol — daughter of a voice, or daughter- voice, — and took the place of the other two grades, when they had ceased after the erection of the second temple. Duvoisin ' cites several rabbinical writers in order to explain what is meant by it. Thus one ^ says, that it is not a voice from heaven, but one proceeding from the midst of such a voice, as happens for instance when a person, after a strong blow on something, hears from a distance a sound from a sound thus produced. And an- other' says that, according to the belief of R. Moses, it is Bath Kol, when a man is possessed of such a vivid im- agination that he thinks he hears a voice outside his soul. Such, R. Moses believes, was the visitation ac- corded to Hagar, and Manoah* with his wife, none of whom was a prophet; but the word which they heard, or which came into their mind, was like Bath Kol (of which our sages make mention), which is of such a na- ture that it can happen to one not prepared for prophe- cv. Again, sometimes the divine will is not manifested to man, neither by prophecy nor by a prophet, but by divine inspiration, such as the inspiration of Abigail, that she should go forth to meet David. David himself knew that the inspiration was divine, for he therefore said : Blessed be the Lord the God of Israel, Who sent this day to vieet nie!' In fine, Ubaldi, ' appeals to such Jewish ' p. 102. - En Is7-ael ad Tract. Talviud. •' R. Schemthob. C. 42, T. 2. More Nebochim. " Nabal. here named from Maon where he lived. f' I. Kings XXV., 32; Sepher Ikkarim. " Introd. in S. Script., li. 428. 1 88 Tlie Canon of t lie Old Testavient. writers as Juda the Levite, author of the book of Cozri, written more than ten hundred years ago, to Maimoni- des, Bechai, Abarbanel, etc., to prove that, after all other grades of prophecy had ceased in the second temple, as the Jews say, Bath Kol continued and was really divine inspiration. Prideaux ' ridicules Bath Kol, comparing it to the divination practised among the heathen, and en- deavors to prove his opinion by citing one of the many fabulous incidents with which the Talmud abounds. But he forgot that the incident is dated after, not before the birth of Christ, and consequently that the communi- cation in question came, if it came at all, from Beelzebub, not from Bath Kol. It thus becomes evident, that accordingto the Jewish writers there were several grades of prophecy, and that what was spoken or written by a prophet was more or less authoritative, according to the kind of inspiration with which he was favored. For this reason the writings of Moses were of the highest authority, and treated with a degree of respect not accorded to those of other proph- ets, which were considered of less authority, as emanating- from a lower grade of prophecv ; while writings which owed their origin to the mysterious influence exercised by Bath Kol were not considered worthy of the same credit as those of the two preceding classes, but 3-et could not be excluded from the collection of sacred writings, because like them the}' had been after all supernaturally dictated. And just as writings of the second class were still divine, though not considered worthy of the same credit as those of the first, so writ- ings of the third class — generall}' the result of communi- cations made by Bath Kol, — were also still divine, though not deemed worthy of the same credit as those of the second. Possibly this may have been what was meant by Josephus. when he said that books written after the ' Connex., ii., 215. The Canon of the Old Testament. 189 reign of Artaxcrxes were not deemed worthy of the same credit as those written up till that time. How- ever this may be, the supposition seems warranted by the fact that, as we have seen, he has made the same use of the former as he has of the latter. Tt may be that Josephus was induced to express himself as he did in reference to the prophets, because he believed that after the reign of Artaxerxes there were no prophets so emi- nently such, as those who appeared before that time, as Isaias, Jeremias, Ezechiel, etc., who under the most extra- ordinary circumstances w^ere commissioned by God to awaken the piety of His people, and announce the calam- ities that would befall them as a nation, unless they re- pented of their iniquities. If this was the meaning of Josephus, he was no doubt correct, for it must be ad- mitted that after the time specified no prophet appeared whose vocation was attested by such ample credentials, or rendered so necessary by the conditions of the times, as that of those whose mission immediately preceded and continued to the end of the captivity. In this case the statement of Josephus would be quite consistent with the divine origin claimed for the deutero books. For no one pretends, at least it cannot be shown, that even all the proto books were written by prophets of this eminent class, or authors inspired in the same way and to the same degree, since to write some of these books it certainly was not necessary that the authors should have been able to predict future events, or to have been prophets in the strict sense of the word, but solely that they should have been moved to write, and while doing so, guided by the Holy Ghost. If therefore a prophet inspired, but unable to forecast the future, could write a divine book before- the reign of Artaxerxes, why should not a prophet of the same class have been able to write a divine book after that time? What was possible before was possible after that igo The Canon of the Old Testament. > 71. Tlic Canon of the Old Tcstainoit. 193 that though, in answer to Trypho's challenge, he con- sidered that charge proved by referring to only a few- texts bearing on the question at issue, but which the Jews had misinterpreted, it implies that he believed the Jewish teachei's guilty, not merely of misrepresenting the sense of single texts, but of' having eliminated entire books and portions of books from the sacred volume. It therefore follows, that the Synagogue, perceiving that the rapid diffusion of Christian principles, not only in Judea, but wherever Greek was spoken, was due in a great measure to the use that was made of the Septua- gint, and observing that the doctrines inculcated in the deutero books found their logical development in the Christian Scriptures, concluded at last in self defense to withdraw the sanction or toleration all along enjoyed by the Alexandrine version and all that version con- tained. Thus that version, so long used for private devotion and the liturgical services of the Synagogue^ was at last anathematized; and as a Greek translation had become necessar}- for almost all Jews, whether in or out of Judea; the Septuagint was soon supplanted among them by other translations in the same language, enjoying rabbinical sanction and generally devoid of all those ob- jectionable books, of which all Hebrew copies had beeui carefully withdrawn, or which had been originally writ- ten in the unlucky but inevitable language of the Greeks. Such action, finally consummated at a time when the light, which had so long guided the High Priest of the Old Law, had been alread}^ transfen-ed to the High Priest of the New, with a flame not only brighter, but inextinguishable, could bind no one but those who con- sented to be bound by it But from that day to this, not one of the deutero books has ever been found on the Hebrew canon, or considered worthy of a place thereon by a single rabbinical writer. B}- the time that Josephus wrote, though both he and 194 ^/^^ Canon of the Old Testament. Philo cited the Septuagint even where it differs from the Hebrew,' the opposition to the Alexandrine version had probably been commenced by the Jewish teachers. Among the various plans adopted by them for suppres- sing that version, at least among their own people, was the declaration that, as Professor Smith has observed, it was a sin to read its deutero books, ^ and no doubt the further declaration, that books written after the reign of Artaxerxes were not so worthy of credit as those written before. So that the remark of Josephus about the former class of books may be true, if intended to apply to the opinion taught by the rabbinical doctors of his own age ; but it by no means expresses the prac- tical belief which prevailed among them during the whole previous period, in which the Alexandrine version, with all its contents, was universally used by all Jews who understood Greek, whether in or out of Palestine. For from nearly three centuries before, and until far in the first century after the birth of Christ, by these same doctors, as we have already seen, that venerable version was tolerated if not approved in Jerusalem as well as in Alexandria, and, indeed, wherever else Greek was the only language in which the Jews could read or understand the Scriptures. Had not Professor Smith good reason for asserting, when speaking of " the Rabbins of Pales- tine," that " Their tradition, therefore, does not conclu- sively determine the question of the canon " ? ^ Yet he is forced to confess, " that the early Protestants, for reasons very intelligible at their time, were content simpl}- to accept the canon as it came to them from the Jews," ' the principal reason being, because " the Reformers and their successors, up to the present time, when all our Protestant versions were fixed, were for all purposes of 1 Walton, Prolog., ix. 37. 'i The Old Test in ike Jew. Church, p. 154. 3 Ibid., p. 147. •* Ibid. The Canon of the Old Testament. 195 learning in the hands of the Rabbins." ' Who will say that in this case the two parties — the Rabbins and the Reformers — the teachers and the pupils, were not well paired ? But what a confession ! Can anything be conceived more disgraceful or humiliating than the position, in which the Reformers thus placed themselves ? How the crafty Rabbins must have chuckled, when they succeeded in imposing their own mutilated canon on their Protestant dupes ! • Ibid., 44. CHAPTER XIV. The Canon among the Schismatical Greeks. We have next to inquire what canon has been adopted bv schismatics. By schismatics are here meant the members of those religious communities which, unhke many ancient and modern sects, profess generally the creed, and practise the religious worship approved by the Church, but are excluded from her communion, because they refuse to recognize the supremacy of the Pope, and persist in maintaining that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father alone, or that the Redeemer has but one nature, or one will, or a double personality. It is to be observed, however, that schism, which is a rupture of communion with the visible head of the Church, leads sooner or later to heresy, the sin commit- ted by those who reject one or more of the doctrines taught by the Church. So that the schismatic, if not a heretic in the first instance, usually becomes such in the end. But as the word is here applied it designates the great body of the Greeks, the Jacobites, the Copts, the Abyssinians, the Nestorians, the Armenians, and the Russians, most of whom; while professing almost all the doctrines of the Church; now, in consequence of the change in their creed, refuse to hear the voice of her chief Pastor. Among sevei'al of them the work of con- version from paganism to Christianity commenced in the first century. Among all of them, except the Rus- sians, who were not brought into the Christian fold until TJic Canon of the O. T. among the Schisniaties. 197 the ninth century, the cross was planted not later than the fourth centur}-. Along with the Gospel, they all received the Old Testament as contained in the Septua- gint; which had been current among the Hellenists; and even at least tolerated, if not approved, by the Palestinians, for three full centuries before the apostles delivered it to their converts; or if not in the actual Septuagint, in versions from it into the various lan- guages spoken by these converts. And as kingdom after kingdom took its place in the Christian common- wealth, it was at once supplied with a copy of the Septuagint, or such a version thereof as would bring to the knowledge of its people the divine truths which the Septuagint contained. Thus the copies of the sacred Scripture distributed from the beginning throughout Christendom contained all those books found on the Tridentine canon, the only exception being that Syriac version called the Peschito, which, having been made from the Hebrew probably in the first century, if not before, by a converted or an unconverted Jew, was adopted by the Christians of Syria. As a Svriac equi- valent for the Hebrew Bible, it contained only such books as were extant in Hebrew, and therefore exhibited a less extended canon than that contained in the Septua- gint. It comprised only the proto books, but it may well be doubted whether those, among whom it was current, believed that those books alone constituted the canon of the Old Testament. For it is well known that this Syriac version, before the time of St. Ephrem (d. 379), was enlarged by the addition of the books which the Septuagint had, but it had not. It has indeed already been shown ' that the Septuagint, when it was delivered by the apostles to the Christian churches, contained not only the books on the present Hebrew canon, but the deutero portions of the Old ' Chapters v., x. 198 The Canon of tJic Old Testament Testament. In fact, along with the faith each nation re- ceived a copy of the Alexandrine version, or a transla- tion of it, and no other, from those who were engaged in propagating the principles of the Gospel. And whether those who were so engaged were the apostles or their legitimate successors immediate or remote, this acceptance of the Alexandrine version, together with the Christian creed by all nations, till then pagan, continued up to the sixteenth century. Yet, while the faith was thus extending the limits of its empire in all directions, no authoritative voice was raised to warn the faithful that the copy of the Old Testament which all were using, East and West, contained anything but the genuine word of God, or that any book therein was less vener- able, less scriptural, than what was contained in the Hebrew original. What is here insisted on is admitted by the most eminent Protestant writers. But to put the matter beyond all doubt, it is necessary to produce here the testimony of some of these writers who have expressed themselves on the point now under consideration, though in doing so we may have, perhaps, to repeat some statements already made. Walton, ' referring to the deutero books, sa3'S, that " the Church received these books with the rest of the Scriptures from the Hellenistic Jews." If from the Hellenistic Jews, it must have been by the hands of her founders, the apos- tles, several of whom, if not all, in their use of and in their relation to the Septuagint, were Hellenists. He has no doubt, that the Septuagint, in which the Chris- tians were first introduced to these books, is the only one of the early Greek versions that has come down to our time. " The Septuagint," he remarks," " as it was public- ly used in the synagogues and the churches, and is still the only one read in the churches, is the only one 1 Prolog, ix., 13. 2 ji^id^ ig_ Among the Schisj/iatics. igg that remains at this day." And " this version (the Septuagint) was and still is in constant use, espec- ially in the Greek Church." ' Furthermore, " the Christian Church and her chief doctors, by whom the version of the Seventy was greatly esteemed, read it, or versions of it (the first Syriac alone excepted), publicly in the churches. It was it they publicly explained to the people ; it was on it they commented ; it was by it they crushed the heresies and errors of their day. It was it they illustrated in their writings ; some of them, as was the case with St. Augustine, knew not even whether there was another version besides the Greek." - He further affirms, ' that " the Greek Church, as it had no other from the beginning, has preserved the same (Septuagint) to the present time, nor even were it united to the Roman Church, would it have any other, as we have just learned from the principal writers of the Roman Church." The Greek Church here referred to is the schismatical. It has had all along the Septua- gint and no other copy of the Scriptures, and it has it still. In admitting this, Walton grants all for which we contend, that the schismatical Greeks, from the time they became Christians, while they were united in commun- ion with the Roman Pontiff, and since they sepai'ated from that communion, have at all times revered the deu- tero books as the word of God. We will see, as we proceed, that Walton's statement is proved by the solemn and reiterated decisions of the highest ecclesias- tical tribunals among those schismatical Greeks. But let us hear Prideaux, a writer whose pen was in- capable of tracing a single civil word on those occasions, when his subject or spleen induced him to notice the " Romanists " or " Papists ," as he usually designated the members of the Catholic Church. " The Evangelists and Apostles (says he), who were the hoi}' penmen of ' Ibid., 35. ^ Ibid.. 40. « Ibid., 56. 200 Tlie Canon of the Old Testament- the New Testament Scriptures, all quoted out of it (the Septuagint), and so did all the primitive Fathers after them. All the Greek churches used it, and the Latins had no other copy of those Scriptures in their language till Jerome's time, but what was translated from it. Whatsoever comments were written on any part of them, this was alwa^'S the text, and the explications were made according to it ; and when other nations were con- verted to Christianity, and had those Scriptures trans- lated for their use into their several languages, these versions were all made from the Septuagint, as the Illv- rian, the Gothic, the Arabic, the Ethiopic, the Arme- nian, and the Syriac. " ' Little did Prideaux suspect that in writing thus he was condemning King James' Version, and commending the Vulgate of the " Roman- ists." For the Septuagint and all the versions made from it contained the deutero books ; and the Latins, as well after as before Jerome's time, had no other copies of the Scriptures than those, which included these same books ; whereas these books, after being first degraded in the English as well as in the other Protestant Bibles, were very generally flung overboard at last b}^ the editors of these Bibles, This was at least logical, for the reformers could not well protest against the religion of their forefathers without rejecting the canon of Chris- tian antiquity. Another learned Protestant'' admits " that the only copies of the Scriptures in existence for the first three hundred years after Christ, either among the Jews or Christians of Greece, Italy, or Africa, con- tained these books (the deutero) without an}- mark or distinction that we know of. " This is as much as to sa}', that for the first three centuries, throughout Chris- tendom, or the greatest part of it, the faithful were allowed by their teachers to regard the deutero as of ' Connexion, part ii., p. 40. * Dr. Wright, Trinity College, Dublin, Kitto's Cyclop., art. Deuteron. Among the Schismatics. 201 equal authorit}' with the proto books. And it is certain, that until the sixteenth century no distinction had been made between the two classes of books, by any conven- tion of ecclesiastics whose judgment any Christian was bound to respect. Professor W. Robertson Smith, ' re- ferring to the Septuagint, frankly confesses, " that it spread contemporaneously with the preaching of the Gospel through all parts of Christendom where Greek was understood. " And let it be here observed that the Septuagmt, containing, be it remembered, every one of the deutero books, has all along ever since been used " wherever Greek was understood. " It mattered not whether the Christians, who were brought to the knowledge of God's written word through the medium of that language, admitted or rejected the supremacy of the Roman Pontiff ; it was always Ihe Septuagint as we now have it that circulated among them. They might object to this or that doctrine, this or that practice ap- proved by the Latin Church. But as Christian communi- ties, they never rejected a single book contained in the copy of the Old Testament used by that Church. It is well known that the Roman See, as represented by its Bishop, and to which the entire East, until a por- tion of it was involved in schism, as well as the entire West looked for guidance, has, ever since its institu- tion, ignored any distinction between the proto and deutero writings. This will be shown as we proceed. And it is well known, also, that in this matter there never has been any difference of opinion between Latin and Greek especially, whether united under the same Pastor, or constituting distinct ecclesiastical organiza- tions. In fact, when, as was often the case, thev met in council to adjust doctrinal or disciplinarv difficulties, the canon of Scripture never appears to have provoked discussion, as if a common belief on the point rendered ' The Old Testament in ihe Jeiuish Church, p. 33. 202 TJic Canon of tJie Old Testament such discussion unnecessary. But when one of the parties bv itself or both together believed that the time had come for an explicit declaration regarding- the canon, it is worth}- of notice, that what was taught at Rome on that subject was reechoed at Constantinople. It was so in the seventh century, at the Council in Trullo, ' when the Carthaginian canons, " one of which included the deutero Scriptures among the canonical books, were reaffirmed. It was so also in the fifteenth century, at the Council of Florence, where Latins and Greeks were, in the instructions prepared for thejacob- ites, directed that the deutero as well as the proto books should be received as written under " the inspii'ation of the Holy Ghost." To the canon then proclaimed the Greeks have never since objected, although hardly had the Council concluded its labors, when they made their last plunge into schism. The canon sanctioned at Florence was again affirmed in the following century at Trent, but with greater sol- emnity, because demanded by more urgent circumstanc- es. But its publication called forth no word of protest or disapproval from the Greek schismatical Church, although efforts were made and frequently repeated since by the reformers and their successors to infect its hierarchy with their own spirit as well as their own errors. Prompted by curiosity, if not by a less excus- able motive, Joasaph II., patriarch of Constantinople, early in the last half of the sixteenth centur}-, sent Demetrius M3'sias, a deacon, to Wittenberg, to learn the principles of Protestantism at its very birth-place. ^ He received from Melanchthon a Greek translation of the Augsburg confession, by Dolscius, who was a good Greek scholar, and, as a disciple, devoted to Melanchthon. Along with this document was a letter addressed by ' Beveridge, Synodikon Can., vol., i. p., 158. - Cone, in Tniih, Canon II. ^ Alzog, Manual of Church Hist., iianslat. by I'al)i>ch and ISyrne, Vol., iii.,. P- 463- Amo}ig the Schismatics. 205 Melanchthon to the Patriarch and congratulating that dignitary, in that " God had preserved the Eastern Church, surrounded by enemies so numerous and so hostile, to the Christian name," and assuring him, that Protestants had remained loyal to Holy Writ, to the Synods and Fathers of the Greek Church, eschewing all the errors anathematized by it, and condemning the superstitious practices and idolatrous worship introduced by ignorant Latin monks. The Patriarch was therefore also requested not to pay attention to any evil reports which might reach him regarding the Protestants. However, the report of Deacon Demetrius on the state of religion in the hot-bed of German Protestantism must have convinced the Patriarch, that the adoption of its principles was not likely to improve the morals of his flock, for he returned no answer to the letter of Melanch- thon. Several years afterwards, 1573-1575,' the Tiibingen divines Jacob Andrea and Martin Crucius, a proficient in Greek, undismayed by the failure of Melanchthon, sent by David Ungnad, an ardent admirer of the Refor- mation and representative of the Emperor Maximilian II. at the sublime Porte, a communication to the Patri- arch Jeremias II. After some delay the Patriarch sent an answer emphatically repudiating the distinctive teachings of Protestantism, and calling upon those who believed them to adopt the doctrines contained in the Bible, the seven holy synods, the writings of the Fathers, and whatever the Church holds, be it written or unwrit- ten. The intrepid divines rejoined in a letter of an explanatory and controversial character. To this the Patriarch replied, 1581, requesting his Tubingen corre- spondents to spare him any further annoyance, and entreating them to renounce principles at variance with Christian truth, and certain to excite the vengeance of ' Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, vol. i. p. 50. 204 ^'^^^' Canon of the O. T. among the Schismaties. Heaven against those who professed them. Eleven of the distinguished divines of Wiirtemberg undertook to renew the correspondence, but to their plan for a union between Greeks and Protestants the indignant Patri- arch made no reply. The irrepressible Crucius, fondly hoping that his knowledge of Greek might make an impression on the obdurate hearts of the haughty Orien- tals, had translated into their language, for the special benefit of their religious teachers, as man}- Lutheran sermons as would fill four folio volumes. These were dul}^ forwarded to the Patriarch. What was done with them we are unable to say. But the Greek Sj'nod of Jerusalem (1672), after stigmatizing Calvin's sys'tem as pestiferous, and Luther's principles as the ravings of a madman, vehemently denounced the schemes of Crucius and the Tiibingen fraternity as an insidious and impu- dent attempt at introducing among the simple Orientals a creed which the Greek Church abhorred as strange and heretical. * ^ 1\\\\\\\\q\, Momcinenta Fidei Eccl. Orient., Pars, i., pp. 330-733. CHAPTER XV. The Canon of Cyril Lucar and Metrophanes Cri- TOPULus Condemned by the Greek Schismatics. Notwithstanding all their efforts to secure the encour- agement or sympathy of the Greek schismatics, the Protestants, therefore, at the end of the sixteenth cen- tury found that their mutilatad canon of Scripture, as well as their other innovations, was not more likely to be tolerated at Constantinople than at Rome. Hardly, however, had the seventeenth century dawned on Chris- tendom, when a man appeared who, as Protestants generally believed, was destined either to bring about a union between them and the Greeks, or divest the creed of Photius of all that rendered it unpalatable to the vitiated taste of Lutherans, Calvinists, Anglicans, and other sectarists who had recently protested against what they complacently called the corruptions of Rome. This man was Cyril Lucar, who was born in Candia, the ancient Crete, then under the government of Venice. The date of his birth is uncertain. But writers who have studied his history assign that event to 1 568 or 1 572. The milder rule under which the Candians lived, as compared with that of Constantinople and other places governed by the Turks, had probably attracted many learned Greeks, and thus placed within the reach of Cyril the means of acquiring at least an elementary education. To complete his studies he went to Padua, which also belonged to the Republic of Venice. Here as in his native island his preceptors were ardently 2o6 The Canon of the Old Testament attached to that party among the Greeks, which was opposed to all reconciliation with Rome. On leaving Padua Cyril visited Genoa and other points where Protestant principles prevailed, being everywhere greeted with a cordial welcome by the advocates of the Reformation, and inspiring them with the hope that he was a vessel of election for purging Greece of superstition, and providing its benighted peo- ple with evangelical religion. Bidding farewell to his many friends of the Protestant persuasion, he proceeded to Alexandria, where he was ordained priest by the Pa- triarch Melitius Pega, an uncompromising enemy of the Papacy. Cyril, after having been employed in various ways, and brought at least on one occasion into contact with the Jesuits, against whom he conceived an impla- cable hatred, was at last, on the death of Melitius, pro- moted in 1602 to the patriarchal throne of Alexandria. Elevated to this lofty position he decided on exercising his personal and official influence in the consummation of a project, which he seems to have long contemplated — the adoption of Calvinism in some form by the schis- matical Greeks. With this object in view he opened a correspondence with Cornelius Von Hagen, Dutch am- bassador at Constantinople, David le Leu de Wilhelm, a Dutch statesman, John Uytenbogaert, the Calvinist minister at the Hague, and George Abbot, Anglican archbishop of Canterbury. Abbot, at the request of Cyril, succeeded in inducing King James to admit to the Universit}' of Oxford Metrophanes Critopulus, a native of Berea, who, after studying there, was on his return to spend some time in Germany, in order to be fully equipped for assisting in the evangelization of Greece. The indefatigable Cyril, it seems, had, besides Metro- phanes, several other young Greeks studying in Protes- tant universities, ' and destined to take part in the labors of the same mission. ' Schaff. C^-eeds of Christendom, vol. i., p. 55. Avtong the Schismatics. 207 In 161 3, a vacancy having occurred in the See of Con- stantinople, when the Patriarch Timothy was driven into exile, Cyril was one of the candidates for the office, which was conferred by the Sultan on the highest bid- der. But the deposed Timoth}-, having contrived to placate the Sultan by a more pi^incely donation than Cyril was able to offer, was restored. The latter, however, had only a few years to wait for the coveted prize. For on the death of Timothy, Cyril was appointed his successor, in 1621. Possessed of the highest ecclesias- tical dignity which the schismatical Greek Church could bestow, or the Sublime Porte confirm, Cyril de- termined to use all the influence which his position gave him, in order to revolutionize the creed of his wretched countrymen. In this he was abl}' sustained by the am- bassadors of England, Holland, and Sweden at Constan- tinople. The English and Swedish monarchs, in fact, the whole of Protestant Europe, watched his movements with an interest which nothing but a common cause of the greatest importance could have evoked; and money was not wanting, when that commodity was in demand, to promote the success of the scheme to which Cyril had devoted his life. Cyril was soon enabled by his friends to establish a printing press in Constantinople, an advantage which rendered it easy for him to inoculate with his views all whom he could not reach with his voice. The prospect was almost as favorable as he or his patrons in England and Germany could desire. But there were circumstances which boded no good to him- self or his cause. The Jesuits, who were present in Constantinople, charged with the interests of the Catho- lic Church, and protected by the French ambassador, opposed with all their influence the policy of Cyril ; and a powerful party of Greek schismatics, when they un- derstood the ultimate purpose of that policy, prepared to resist to the utmost the consummation of the aposta- 2o8 The Canon of tJie Old Testament sy, in which he proposed to involve his unhappy coun- try. In 1628, however, the friends of Cyril contrived to have the Jesuits expelled from Constantinople, and he, now relieved of their annoyance, felt comparatively free to pursue his own course. Christendom was therefore astounded, in 1629, by the appearance of his " Confession of Faith," a work dedicated to Cornelius Von Hagen, Dutch ambassador to the Porte. A Latin translation of it was published the same year at Geneva, with the name of " Cyril, Patriarch of Constantinople," as its author. There was no Christian creed with which it was identical, although it closely resembled Calvinism. Although no longer annoyed by the unwelcome presence of the Jesuits, Cyril, having now shown his hand, found that his troubles were co'nstantly increasing. He had by his bold denial of doctrines, which they held sacred, excited against himself the indignation of the most dis- tinguished persons belonging to his own communion. And he had every reason to believe, that the Turkish government, though treating with sovereign contempt his effort at engrafting Protestant tenets on the creed of the Greek Chureh, was not indisposed to suspect him of treasonable designs against the State. Deposed one day, perhaps to be restored the next by the influ- ence of the Protestant ambassadors at Constantinople, or by a judicious use of money, the magic power of which on a Turkish ofificial no one understood better than Cyril, that miserable man experienced hardly a day's peace after he had thrown off the mask. At length, in 1633, the opposition among the members of his own Church became so violent, that he was de- posed. And after an unsuccessful effort of Cyril Con- tari, Bishop of Berea, to purchase the succession, it was disposed of to Anastasius, Bishop of Thessalonica, ior sixty thousand dollars. Cyril Lucar, however, was A inoiig the Schismatics. 209 soon restored by the Sultan on the payment of a still larger price, seventy thousand dollars. But the follow- ing year he was again compelled to vacate the patriarch- ate in favor of Cyril Contari, who had been defeated by Anastasius. As soon as Contari was in possession of the See, he convened a synod in which he anathematized Lucar as a Lutheran, and openly declared his own sub- mission to the See of Rome, and his intention of send- ing Lucar a prisoner to the Pope. But Contari himself was soon deposed through the influence of those who still adhered to the fortunes of Lucar, who was restored in 1636. But the end of the latter, after having been five times deposed, with often the penalty of exile added, and five times restored, was fast approaching. Accused of inciting the Cossacks to plunder the town of Azoff, he was found guilty of high treason, and his enemies in June 1638 obtained from the Sultan a war- rant for his execution. Arrested on the twenty-sixth of that month by the Janissaries, he was placed by them on board a boat, under the pretence of being carried into exile. Perceiving, when out of sight of land, that death, not exile, awaited him, he knelt and prayed earnestly. Then the executioners, having put the bow- string around his neck, completed their horrible task, and threw his body into the sea. It was picked up by some fishermen and restored to his friends, by whom it was decently buried. But the malice of his enemies did not cease with his life. They complained to the governor of the city, by whose order the corpse was disinterred and again thrown into the sea ; washed on shore by the billows, it was again buried on one of the islands in the bay of Nicomedia. Such is a brief sum- mary of what we have been told by two Protestant writers,' regarding the checkered career and tragic end 1 Neale, Anglican minister, Hist, of the Holy Eastern Church; Kimmcl, Licentiate of Jena, Mumimenta Fidei Eccl. Orientalis. 2IO TJie Canon of the Old Testament of one of the most remarkable men, whom the Greek schism lias produced. Metrophanes Critopulus, after leaving England, spent some time among the Lutherans in Germany, and while there, at their request, he too drew up a confession of faith, which, like Cyril's, professes to be an exposition of the doctrines held by the Eastern Church. But as they contradict each other, one of them must be false. In- deed, both were proved to be so when that Eastern Church subsequently, through her sj^nods, put forth her own Confession of Faith. The confession of INIetro- phanes is quite a treatise, being about ten times larger than that of Cyril. It leans towards Lutheranism, while Cyril's to a certain extent is Calvinistic, but nei- ther represents the creed of any sect that ever existed before or since. Hi\d Cyril and his disciple succeeded in introducing their doctrines among the Greeks, Greece undoubtedly would soon have been invaded by a swarm of sects difTering from, but as numerous as those, which overran the countries plagued by Protes- tantism. Metrophanes, after parting with his Lutheran friends, returned to Greece, where he succeeded C}' ril in the patriarchal See of Alexandria ; of his subsequent career nothing almost is known beyond the remarkable fact, that, when in 1638 Cyril Contari, the patriarch, convened a synod at Constantinople to anathematize the errors of Cyril, the ungrateful Metrophanes joined with the said Contari and Theophanes, patriarch of Jerusa- lem, twenty-four archbishops, and many other dignitar- ies, in the condemnation of his unfortunate patron. ' He had probably been convinced by the downfall of that patron, that there was no room in Greece for here- sies imported from Geneva or Wittenberg. 3 Schaft, Creeds of Christendom, vol. i. p. 53 ; Kimmel. Mon.. Pref. to Part ii. p. viii ; Neale, Hist, of the Holy Eastern Churchy vol. ii.. pp. 459-461 ; Alzog, Manual of Universal Hist.^ iii. 467 A vwng the Schisjiiaiics. 2 1 1 Cyril, among his other errors, had said, while treating of the Scriptures : " But the books which we call Apo- crypha are so named, because they have not received from the Holy Spirit the same authority as those which are correctly and undoubtedly canonical, of which number are the Pentateuch of Moses, and the Hagiographa, and the Prophets which the Synod of Laodicea directed to be read from the twenty-two books of the Old Testament. " Then follows a correct summary of the New Testament books. Metrophanes, after enumerating the Old Testament books which are contained in the Hebrew^ canon, and indicating all belonging to the New Testament, remarks : " But the other books which some wish to catalogue with the Holy Scripture, as Tobias, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach, Baruch, and the books of Machabees, we indeed do not think are to be neglected. For they contain many moral principles, worthy of a great deal of praise. But the Church of Christ never received them as canonical, as many, es- pecially St. Gregory the Theologian, and St. Am- philochius, and last of all St. John Damascene, testify. Wherefore we do not attempt to establish our doctrines out of those, but out of the thirty-three canonical books, which we call Inspired and Holy Scripture. " He had just said that the canonical books amounted to thirty- three, but said so solely to fabricate a mystical relation between them and the thirt3'-three years of the mortal life spent by the Redeemer on earth — ridiculous trifling with a solemn subject ! Why not say that the canonical books amount to only three, because He spent three days in the grave ; or better still, to forty, because He fasted forty days or remained on earth forty days after His ascension? Metrophanes seems to have been a simple layman, when he committed his errors to paper, and never afterwards on his return to Greece, when 212 Tlic Canon of tJic Old Testament promoted to ecclesiastical honor, to have proposed them to the acceptance of any one. He therefore prob- ably was allowed to die in peace, while his patron Cyril, because he had brought disgrace on the patriar- chal dignity as a teacher of heresy, was persecuted in life and anathematized in death b}' the outraged mem- bers of his own flock. Let us now see what was done by the Greeks, in reference to the teaching of Cyril Lucar, regarding the canon of the Old Testament, after the Synod of Con- stantinople, held in 1638, under his successor, Cyril Contari had, as we have seen, condemned Lucar's views within three months after the awful death of the latter. In 1642 Parthenius, who had succeeded Cyril Contari, convened a council in Constantinople. Its acts are sometimes confounded with those of the Synod held soon after at Jassy, in Moldavia, because the latter adopted as its own the decrees contained in a synodal letter addressed to it by the council under Parthenius. These decrees, as well as other papers connected with the Synod of Jassy, the whole being preceded by the decrees of the Council of Constantinople, are incorpo- rated in the acts of the Council of Jerusalem, held on March 16, 1672, under Dositheus, the schismatical Patri- arch of that city. In the xviii. or last decree belonging to the synodal letter just mentioned, it is said that Cyril Lucar had embodied in his confession certain questions no better than the confession itself, " Inas- much as he also, as above, not only rejects the interpre- tations given b}^ our Fathers to the Scripture, but ex- punges some of its books, which holy and ceuiiienical eoitncils have received as canonical^ ' The books referred to are, of course, those which Cyril had called apocry- phal. The proceedings of the Council of Constantinople were subscribed by three Patriarchs, twenty-one bishops,, ' Kimmel, Moniitnenta Fidel, Part i. p. 415-416. A inojig the Schismatics. 2 1 3 and twenty-three others ; those of the Council of Jassy by Partheniiis, Patriarch of Constantinople, Peter Mog- ilas, ' metropoHtan of Kiew, eight Bishops, thirty-five synodal officials, some of whom were bishops, and other persons of great dignity. The controversy which originated with Cyril Lucar constitutes by itself quite a literature ; and although many documents connected with it have already been published, many still remain unedited and will probabl}' ever remain so. One such seems to have been first cited by an English writer in Dixon's Introduction to the Sacred Scripture. - It is one of a collection preserved in Paris, containing the proceedings of the Greek Church in reference to the innovations attempted by C3'ril, and formerly belonging to the library of St. Germain de Pres. It was signed July 18, 1671, at Pera, a suburb of Constantinople, by seven archbishops of the Greek Church, Bartholomew of Heraclea, Jerome of Chalcedon, Methodius of Pisidia, Metrophanesof Cyzicum, Anthon}' of Athens, Joachim of Rhodes, Neophite of Nicomedia. In it the condemnation of Cyril by the Council of Constantinople under Parthenius is approved, and in the fourteenth article it is declared, " that the books of Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, and the Machabees make part of the Holv ^Scripture, and are not to be rejected as profane." Another Synod, bearing the date of January 1672, ^ was held in Constantinople under Dionvsius. then patri- arch of that city. Its purpose seems to have been to satisfy certain enquiries made in consequence of doubts excited by the teaching of Cvril's partisans, although throughout the instructions given to dissipate those doubts the name of Cyril is not once mentioned. About to conclude what the}' had to say to their flocks, the bishops remark, " with regard to the scriptural books, 1 Or Mogila. ^ Vol. i. p. 30. ■^ Kimmel Monnmeuta, Part ii. j). 214. 214 T^^^'^ Canon of the Old Testament we find that they have been enumerated in various ways by the Apostolic canons, and the holy Synods in Laodi- cea and Carthage, the constitutions of Clement being excluded, since the second canon of the Sixth Synod removes them, because they had been corrupted by the heretics, as is known to every one who cares to inquire and learn what books are admitted. Such books, there- fore, of the Old Testament as are not comprised in the enumeration of writers on theological subjects are not for that reason rejected as profane and unhallowed, but are treated as precious and excellent, and not at all to be despised." Then follow the subscriptions of Dionysius and several other bishops. ' We must now call attention to the testimony rendered by another council of Greek bishops already referred to, that of Jerusalem, held in 1672, under Dositheus, then patriarch of that city. Following the example set b}' the Council of Jassy, it anathematized, not C3'ril Lucar,. but all the errors contained in the confession published as his, and all who favored or professed those errors. For, in fact, in both councils the confession was treated as a Calvinistic forger)^. And the Council of Jerusalem actually cited several passages from sermons and homi- lies of Cyril, to prove that, in the writings known to be his, his teaching was directl}^ opposed to that found in the confession, the authorship of which, while it was never claimed, was, however, never disavowed by him. In this way the Council shows, for instance, that Cyril had treated Tobias, Wisdom, and the history of Susanna as Sacred Scripture, and intimated that it would be easy to multiply such evidence b}' extracts from the homilies of Cyril then at hand. But taking up the third question in the confession attributed to Cyril, "What books do you call Sacred Scripture?" the Council answers it by distinctly declaring, that " FoHowing the rule of the ' Kimmel, Monumoila, Part ii., 225. A inong the Schismatics. 2 1 5 Catholic Church we call all those books Sarced Script- ure, which Cyril, copying the Synod of Laodicea, enumerates, and in addition to them those which he foolishly and ignorantly, or rather maliciously, pro- nounced apocryphal, to wit the wisdom of Solomon, Judith, Tobias, the History of the Dragon, the History of Susanna, the Machabees, the Wisdom of Sirach. For we judge these genuine parts of the Scripture along with the other genuine books of the divine Scripture, because ancient custom and most of all the Catholic Church has handed it down that the sacred Gospels are genuine, and that the other books of the Scripture are genuine, and that these beyond all doubt are parts of the Holy Scripture ; and the denial of these latter (books) is the rejection of the former. But if it seems that all have not been always catalogued by all, these, neverthe- less, are numbered and catalogued with all the Scripture by synods, and by the most ancient and approved theologians of the Catholic Church. All which books we both judge to be canonical, and confess to be sacred Scripture." The decrees of this Council are signed by Dositheus, patriarch of Jerusalem, and by sixty-eight Eastern bishops and ecclesiastics, including some who represented the Russian Church. ' Further evidence is hardly necessary to prove what no one familiar with the agitation which the career of Cyril Lucar occasioned, will deny — that then and subse- quently the Greek hierarchy was unanimous in maintain- ing the canonicity of the Old Testament deutero books ; yet the reader will, it is hoped, hear patiently two other witnesses, whom Ubaldi, while discussing this subject, has introduced.' One is Macharius, the schismatical pa- triarch of Antioch, who, according to Renaudot,' in 1671 ' Kimmel, Monumenla Fidei, Part i. pp. 487, 488. ' Introd. in S. Script., i., 341. ^ La perpetititi del a foi, Tom. iii., 531 {Ed Paris, 1704.) 2i6 The Canon of the Old Testament. denounced the errors of the Calvinists, and severely con- demned the Protestants generally for having expunged from the canon the Apocalypse, the Epistle of James, and the books of Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and Machabees. " But we," he sa)'s, " receive and read all these in the pure, holy, and orthodox Church." The other witness is Neophyte, schismatical patriarch of x\n- tioch, who, on May 3, 1673, at the request of De Nointel French ambassador to the Sublime Porte, subscribed, in the name of all the bishops and priests belonging to his patriarchate, a profession of faith against the innovations of Protestants. In that profession of faith it is declared, that " we receive all the divine books which the Holy Fathers and councils have received. Of this number are Tobias, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Ba- ruch, and Machabees ; and we believe the words of these books to be the word of God." ' Since then the belief of the Greek schismatics regard- ing the canon of Scripture has remained unchanged. Thus the impious project which Cyril was the first among his countrvmen to conceive, while it precipitated his own ruin, led to results which his Protestant abettors had good reason to deplore. For the unanimous pro- test which that project evoked throughout the East> proved to the world that the principles of the Protes- tant creed were as thoroughly detested among the Greeks as among the Latins, and that the Tridentine canon with its deutero books was not more a matter of faith in Rome than in Constantino|)lc, Jerusalem, Anti- och, and wherever else communities were found pro- fessing the creed which Cyril Lucar attempted to corrupt. ' La Perpet. de la foi, Tom. iii. p. 547, CHAPTER XVI. Conversion of the Slavonians.— Origin of the SCHISMATICAL RuSSO-GREEK ChURCH. It is somewhat doubtful whether the first to preach the Gospel among the Russians were missionaries from Rome or Constantinople. Heard,' a recent Protestant writer, who as consul-general of the United States for Russia had ample opportunity for ascertaining the tra- ditional belief of the Russian people on the subject, states that it is generally held by them that " St. Antho- ny the Great, or the Roman,'' during the persecution ex- cited by the Iconoclasts, who began to disturb the peace of the Church in the early part of the eighth century, was borne on a rock from " the Tiber " to Novogorod, a Russian city of great antiquity. There he was received by St. Nitika, the metropolitan of a church already es- tablished in the place, and joined with him in prayers, each being miraculously enabled to understand the lan- guage of the other. The ruler of the city gave Anthony land on which to build the celebrated monastery named after its holy founder. And " the boat of stone still excites the devotion of the worshippers, and the palm branches in the chapel are still as green as when brought from Rome by Anthony." This would imply that the germ of Christianity was planted in Russia by the combined la- bors of Latins and Greeks. If, however, an attempt was then made to introduce Christian principles to that part of Europe, it must have 1 The Russian Church and Russian Dissent, p. 13, New V) 6-324. ^ Ibid, p. 45. 230 TJie Canon of the Old Testament lem, dated at Constantinople, Nov. 20, 1662, and con- taining a history of its composition. ' This preface is followed by a statement of Parthenius, patriarch of Constantinople, dated March 11, 1643, and approving the contents of the catechism as found in the Greek text. ' The statement is signed by Parthenius, the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, and twenty-two other Greek prelates. Mogila's catechism was approved again by the Council of Jerusalem in 1672," and is therefore regarded as an authoritative exposition of the creed taught by the schismatical Greek and Russian Churches. It has served as a model for several catechisms v.' ritten since by Russian divines, and it does not appear that in any of them the deutero books were treated with less respect than they received in it, though in the latest of such works, and that even by the highest dignitary in the Russian Church, these books might seem to be treated with less consideration than the others belonging to the Old Tes~ tament. But before referring more directly to the most recent of Russian catechisms, there is another Russian book we must mention, one which, not only on account of its age, but because it was intended for aspirants to the clerical state, is first entitled to the reader's attention. An English translation of it is contained in a work on " The Doctrine of the Russian Church, by the Rev. R. W. Blackmore, B. A., formerly of Merton College, Oxford, Chaplain to the Russian Company at Cronstadt. Aberdeen, 1845." 'The book which Mr. Blackmore has translated is a treatise " On the Duty of Parish Priests," by George Konissky (d. 1795), archbishop of Mogileff and White Russia, and a member of the Russian Sjmod. The treatise, we are told by the translator, has been adopted by the whole Russian Church. It gives no cat- ' Kimmel, Momtmenta, Part I., p. 52. - Ibid., p. 336. Among the Schismatics. 231 alogue of the sacred books, but informs the reader' that he will find them enumerated in various works, amonj^ others " the Council of Carthage," which is well known to have included all the books approved by the Council of Trent. But the treatise is well provided with cita- tions from the Scripture, and among those citations are several from the deutero books, some of them, too, adduced for the purpose of establishing doctrine. SiracJi (Ecclesiasticus) i., 23; ii., 11, is cited in chap- ter xxxiii., p. 220. Then we have in chapter xlix., p. 235, ''And nozv, O Lord, I take not this my sister to be my wife for lust, but uprightly " (Tob. viii., 7), words which the priest is recommended to impress on the minds of those who are about to be married. In chapter liii., p. 269, where the Scriptures are frequently quoted, the words, " The sacrifice to God is a contrite spirit : a contrite and humble heart God tvill not despise^' are attrib- uted to Ps. li., 17, and Ecclesiasticus ^xy., 17. In chapter xvi., part ii., p. 281, it is said that the priest ought " to pray also for the departed, in the hope and faith of the resurre'ction of them that sleep ; of this we have a certain assurance both from the Scripture and also from Christ's holy Church in apostolical and primitive times." Then the author proceeds to the proof by citing Baruch : " O Lord,'' he says, ''Almighty, TJion God of Lsrael, hear now the prayer of the dead Israelites .... and remember not the iniquities of our fore fat Jiers (ch. iii., 4, 5). In the second book of Machabees it is written : All tJiereforc, praising the righteous judgment of the Lord, betook themselves unto prayer, praying that the sins committed might be blotted out .... zvhereupon He made a reconciliation for the dead, that they might be loosed from their sin " (ch. xii., 41 — 46). After this several Fathers are appealed to in support of the same holy doctrine. Has it ever been known that a writer who rejected the Tridentine canon made use of ' p. 163. 232 The Canon of the Old Testament such citations as these? No Protestant could do so without repudiating his own canon. Whatever may be the errors of the Russian schismatical Church, the re- jection of the deutero books is not one of them. Out- side the circle of conglomerate Protestantism that error finds not a single defender at this moment. A few lines above it was said that in the latest Russian catechism the deutero books might seem to be treated with less consideration than the other Old Testament books. That remark applied to the catechism written by Philaret, metropolitan of Moscow (d. 1867). A trans- lation of that catechism is contained in Blackmore's book mentioned above ; we are thus able to ascertain the treatment which the deutero Scriptures received from one of the latest and highest ecclesiastical writers in the Russian Church. Philaret was for a long time a member of " the Holy Governing Synod " at St. Petersburg, even when metropolitan of Moscow ; but the Czar Nicholas, displeased with his votes at the meetings of that body, at last intimated to him that he would be better emplo3-ed in his own diocese. Philaret took the hint and withdrew to Moscow, no dcnibt glad that he was not suspended or even degraded bv the pope of all the Russias. His catechism is entitled " The Longer Catechism of the Orthodox Catholic Church of the East, examined and approved by the most Holy Governing Synod, and published for the use of schools, and of all orthodox Christians, by order of his Imperial Majesty. Moscow, at the Synodal Press, 1839." ^'^ f'"-"" points the catechism is opposed to the teaching of the Catholic Church. Defining the Church, it ignores the supremacv of the Pope. Referring to the Holy Ghost, it states that He proceeds from the Father alone. Treating of Baptism, it insists on a trine immersion as essential, thus differing from the Greeks, and, perhaps, excludes the deutero books from the canon. We say perhaps, for it A nwng the Sch isviatics. 233 is not quite certain, as the following references show , that it reall}- docs so: " Q. How many are the books of the Old Testament? A. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Athanasius the Great, and St. John Damascene reckon them at twenty-tiuo, agreeing therein with the Jews, who so reckon them in the original Hebrew tongue. Athanas. Ep. xxxix.,^ De Test., J. Damasc, Theol., I. iv., c. 17 . . . ." ''Q. How do St. Cyril and St. Athanasius enumerate the books of the Old Testament ? " "^ The answer to this question is an enumeration of the 22 books as they are found in the Protestant Bible, the First and Second Samuel of the latter being called First and Second Kings by Philaret, vvho has Paralipomenon instead of Chroni- cles. Again, "^. Why is there no notice taken, in this enu- meration of the books of the Old Testament, of the book otthe Wisdom of the Son of Sirach, and of certain others ? A. Because they do not exist in the Hebrew. Q. How are we to regard these last-named books? A. Athana- sius the Great says that they have been appointed of the Fathers to be read by prosel3^tes for admission into the Church." ^ This is all that is said on the subject. In the enumeration of the books by Philaret, Esther and I. Esdras, as well as II. Esdras or Nehemias are men- tioned, but Baruch is omitted. In doing so Philaret has contradicted his own witnesses. For Esther is called non-canonical in the Athanasian Festal Epistle and Synopsis, while Esdras and Nehemias are omitted in the Athanasian Festal Epistle and Synopsis, and Baruch is included among the twenty-two by the Athanasian Festal Epistle and by Cyril, though overlooked by Philaret. Whether these mistakes of Philaret are to be attributed to ignorance or malice we cannot say. At any rate, it may reasonably be doubted, whether Philaret meant to exclude the deutero books from the I Otherwise called the Festal Epistle. ^ P. 38. ' P 38, 39- 234 The Canon of the Old Test ame tit roll of Sacred Scriptures. For he has appealed in his catechism more than once to the authority of Machabees. Thus speaking of prayers for the dead, ' he says that the doctrine is grounded " on the constant tradition of the Catholic Church, the sources of which ma}^ be seen in the Church of the Old Testament. Judas Machabceus offered sacrifice for his men that had fallen (II. Mach. xii. 43)." Machabees must therefore belong to the Church of the Old Testament. Again, speaking of the special duties which children owe to their parents, he says," " that children are bound after the death of their parents, as well as during their lives, to pray for the salvation of their souls," and cites as authority for this II. Mach. xii. 43-44, Jerem. xxxv. 18, 19, as if these two books were of equal authority. Indeed, in all these Russian catechisms, as well as in the collections of con- ciliar decrees condemning the errors of Cyril Lucar — de- crees enacted by Russians as well as Greeks — the deutero books, when they contain any text applicable to the mat- ter in hand, are cited indiscriminately with the other parts of the Bible. This was the general, indeed, the universal rule at the time ; and the writings of Philaret seem to offer no exception, for, not only in his Cate- chism, but in his othei compositions which we have seen, he cites, where it suits him, the deutero just as he does the proto books of the Old Testament. Thus, in a volume of select sermons by him, published in London in 1883, he cites Wisdom in Sermons viii. xiv., xv., xxi., twice as the production of Solomon ; and cites Ecclesi- asticus in Sermons xxiii., xxvii., these being the only two of the deutero books containing texts adapted to the as- cetic and devotional character of the sermons. So far, therefore, as a conclusion can be drawn from the use made of the deutero books by the Russian theolo- gians, it cannot reasonably be denied, that the canonicity ' P. 99. ' P- 131- Among the Schisinatics. 235. of these books is admitted bv them. In fact, this infer- ence is warranted by the statement of Humphrey Hody> the Oxford professor, who in 1705 remarked,' that the Muscovite Bible, which is a translation of iihe Septuagint, contains all the deutero books mixed among the proto, and the apocryphal books III. and IV. Esdrasand III.Mach- abees. This mixture of proto and deutero books in the Russian Bible, no doubt, existed from the time when the Scriptures were first translated into the Russian lan- guage. It could not be otherwise, since that Bible is a version of the Septuagint, in which the deutero books were always contained, at least away back to the time when the apostles delivered it to their converts, and in- deed long before there was a Christian to receive it. And as used by the Greeks, the Septuagint includes these books still. For Reuss, Protestant professor in the Uni- versity of Strasburg, after adverting to the abortive at- tempt of Cyril Lucar to induce the Greeks to adopt a mutilated canon by citing the doubtful authority of the Council of Laodicea, and to the condemnation of Cyril by the Greek Council of Jerusalem, remarks,^ " So far as I am acquainted with the modern theological literature of the Greeks, no voice has been raised to make appeal from the Fathers of Jerusalem to those of Laodicea. I have before me a splendid quarto edition of the Greek Bible printed at Moscow, in 1 821, by the order and under the auspices of the Holy Synod of the Russian Empire. It contains all the text of the Septuagint, and even more ; for we find in it two recensions of Ezra, and four books of the Machabees." In a note he observes, that the edi- tion contains Baruch, the Epistle of Jeremias, deutero Esther, and deutero Daniel. Of course it does, and all the other deutero books intermingled with the proto Scriptures. Doubtless this edition served as a sort of standard for the current Russian Bible published by the » De Bibl. Text., p. 650. - Hist, of the Canon of the H. Script., p. 287. 236 The Canon of the Old Testament Synod at St. Petersburg^the body through which the Czar governs the whole Russian Church. Better still, Cornely states,' that Russian Bibles of the edition ap- proved by the " Synod of St. Petersburg," in 1876, contain not only the deutero books in their proper places, but even the Prayer of Manasses attached to II. Paralipome- non, III. Esdras after I. and II. Esdras, and IV. Esdras after the two books of Machabees ; and adds, this is the case in the edition of 1876, approved by the Synod of St. Petersburg. But best of all, the present writer has at this moment before him a Russian Bible published in 1882 at St. Petersburg, with "the benediction of the Holy Orthodox Synod." As far as II. Paralipomenon inclusive the order of the books is the same therein as in the Latin Vulgate. To II. Paralipomenon is attached the Prayer of Manasses. Then follow I., II., and III. Esdras, Tobias, Judith, Esther with its deutero parts. Job, etc. ; Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus follow the books of Solo- mon. After the prophecy of Jeremias, we have his Lamentations, then his Epistle, which in the Latin Vul- gate is the sixth chapter of Baruch, then the five chapters of Baruch, then Daniel with its deutero parts. Last of all and after the Minor Prophets, we have I, and II. Machabees, which is followed by III. Machabees, and that by IV. Esdras, which closes the series of Old Testament books. It is generally known that among Catholics may be found copies of the Vulgate contain- ing the Prayer of Manasses, and III. and IV. Esdras, and probably copies of the Septuagint containing, besides these apocr3^pha, III. Machabees. But it is also known, at least by Catholics, that these books are there with- out being considered by the Church as a part of the canon. Russian Christians, at least the educated among them, cannot have forgotten what was done by the i-epresentatives of their Church at Jerusalem and Jassy. '^ Introd. hi S. Scrip, vol. i., p. I2I. AmoJig the Schismatics. 237 Russian Christians may therefore very reasonably be supposed to cling to the old belief, that the deutero books are canonical, and to retain in their Bibles cer- tain apocryphal writings, because, like Catholics, they consider these writings of some value, and therefore to be retained in the sacred volume as the best means of consulting for their preservation, without, however, as- signing them a place on the canon, Cornely ' is of opinion that Philaret favored the error of Cyril Lucar regard- ing the canon. But Cyril discarded the deutero books altogether, declining to make any use of them in his con. fession ; whereas Philaret, as we have seen, has often employed them in his writings, and in the same way and for the same purpose as he has availed himself of the proto Scriptures. The. authors of " A Catholic Dictionary," in an article on " the Russian Chvirch," observe, that within the present century the works of English and German Prot- estants bave been much read and used by Russian scholars, and that Philaret was the founder of a school devoted to the study of such works. How far this may be so we have no means of judging further than that Philaret was little known in Germany, though much ad- mired in England, where some of his writings were translated and published. He was often called upon by English travellers anxious to bring about a union be- tween Anglicanism and Russianism, and he may have listened to their propositions with courtesy. But so far from meeting them half way, as the silly enthusiasts ex- pected, it does not appear that he was at any time dis- posed to make them the slightest concession. Indeed, he dared not do so. To modify the creed of the Rus- sian Church belongs to the Czar, and the Czar alone. But though Philaret in his views and conduct may have failed to have attained the high standard established at ' Introd. in S. Sci'ipt., Vol. i., p. 121. 238 The Canon of tlic Old Testament Jassj and Jerusalem, where Calvinism and Luthei-anism received, as, thev deserved, no quarter, Russian ortho- doxy will probably before long reassert its former un- compromising character, as a taste for the study of the ancient Fathers and their own early writers appears to be now cultivated by many among the younger mem- bers of the Russian clerg}-. These remarks on the past and present of the Russian Church would be incomplete without something more than a passing allusion to the efforts made by membsrs of the Anglican communion, in order to obtain recogni- tion from the Eastern schismatics, especiall}' those be- longing to the Russian Church. We therefore now propose devoting a few paragraphs to that subject, while some of those who took part in the last attempt of the kind are still living. After James II. was superseded on the throne of Eng- land by William and Mar)% those of the beneficed cler- gy who refused to violate their oath of allegiance to the former by swearing fealty to the latter incurred the penalties of suspension and deprivation, and were called "Non-Jurors." The spirit by which the}- were actu- ated long survived them, and in 171 7 those who inherited it, and were unwilling to transfer their allegiance from the representative of the Stuarts to the house of Han- over, under a sense of loneliness turned to the East for sympathy and companionship, hoping to obtain from that quarter some assurance of recognition denied them at home. The persecuted petitioners were four Protes- tant bishops, two belonging to England, and two to Scotland, namely (for in their appeal such are their re- spective signatures) — " Jeremias, Primus Anglire Episco- pus; Archibaldus, Scoto-Britanniae Episcopus ; Jacobus, Scoto-Britanniae Episcopus ; Thomas, Angliae Episco- pus— The Catholic Remnant in Britain," as they, mourn- ing over the afflictions of Sion, patheticall}' called them- Among t lie Schismatics. 239 selves. To matter of fact Britishers the project must have seemed quixotic, and so it may at first have been considered by those who engaged in it. But the}- were encouraged to make the experiment by an Egyptian schismatical bishop, then in England begging relief for the miserable patriarchate of Alexandria. Not, how- ever, until 1723 did they receive an answer from the Greek patriarchs, and then they were told by these digni- taries that, " Those who are disposed to agree with us on the Divine doctrines of the othordox faith must neces- sarily follow and submit to what has been defined and determined by ancient Fathers and the holy ecumenical synods, from the time of the Apostles and their holy suc- cessors, the Fathers of our Church, to this time. We sav, they must submit to them with sincerity and obedi- ence, and without any scruple or dispute. And this is a sufficient answer to what you have written." For the forlorn " Catholic Remnant in Britain," this was a peremp- torv summons to lay down their arms and surrender at discretion. Along with their Ultimatum the patri- archs sent a copy of the decrees passed by the Council of Jerusalem in 1672, thus notifying the British " Remnant " that they would have to renounce, along with their other errors, the mutilated canon of Scripture which had been foisted on them and their countrymen ; for all the books which the reformers had rejected had been pronounced canonical at the Council of Jerusalem.' "The Remnant" were treated with more considera- tion by the Russians. For " the Most Holy Governing Synod " of St. Petersburg, in transmitting the Ultima- tum of the Eastern patriarchs, proposed, in the name of the Czar, then Peter the Great, " to the Most Reverend Bishops of the Remnant of the Catholic Church in Great Britain, our brethren most beloved of the Lord," that they should send two delegates to Russia, to hold a 1 Vide supra, c. xiv., and Kimmel's Moniimenta, Part I. p. 467. 240 The Canon of tJie Old Testament friendly conference in the name and spirit of Christ, with two others to be appointed by the Russian Church, that thus it ma}- be more easily ascertained what may be conceded by one to the other, and what may be for con- science' sake absolutely denied." The conference, howev- er, was never held, as the death of Peter the Great, in 1725, put a stop to further negotiations. It may be, however, that the Russian authorities ceased to give the matter any attention, in consequence of a letter from Wake, Anglican archbishop of Canterbury, to the Patriarch of Jerusalem, in which the writer, besides other offensive names applied to the " Remnant," denounced them as schismatics, as if he were not such himself or something worse. However, among the Eastern patriarchs all Anglicans, including Wake, and the " Remnant," were accused of being Lutheran-Calvinists, while among the Russians they were represented as infected with the same " German heresy " which had already been con- demned by the orthodox Church. So ended the first effort on the part of English Episcopalianism to frater- nize with the Greek schism. Its failure was probably at- tributed in England to the character and standing of the men who inaugurated the movement. From the English establishment or the English crown they had no au- thority to open negotiations with Greeks or Russians; consequently nothing but disappointment was to be ex- pected. Should, however, that venerable establishment condescend at any time to extend the right hand of fellow- ship to her sisters at Constantinople and St. Petersburg, the courtesy was sure to be reciprocated. And Angli- cans, Greeks, and Russians, if not united in the bond of a common creed, would become brethren in the Lord. These fond anticipations, if entertained (and of this there is little doubt), were not put to the test until after the first half of the present century had been passed. Patrological studies had already engaged the attention Among the Schismatics. 241 of several among the leading minds of the Church of Eng- land ; the Oxford movement had opened up a new field of enquiry, and given prominence to several questions, which were soon regarded as critical tests of revealed truth. Were Anglican ministei's real priests ? Were Anglican bishops successors of the apostles ? Were the Anglican sacraments anything more than mere cere- monies? Had the Anglican establishment any jurisdic- tion, except what it derived from the crown ? were questions which with many others pressed for a soku tion. Meanwhile members, high and low, learned and unlearned, belonging to the established Church, were leaving it for Rome, convinced that the former was nothing more than a creature of the state ; and many who still remained in it maintained theii position only by abandoning the studies which had aroused their sus. picions, or by doing violence to their conscience. How was an end to be put to this painful state of doubt and uncertaint}- ? How was the tide of conversion from Anglicanism to Catholicity to be checked ? Only in one way, as the defenders of Anglicanism believed, by convincing its members, that, if not the true Church, it was a branch of it. But how was this to be done ? By effecting (so these defenders said) intercommunion be- tween the Anglican and Russo-Greek Churches, which latter, having valid sacraments, a valid priesthood, an apostolic origin, all, in fine, that is necessary to constitute a Church, could remedy all the defects inherent in the English establishment. In this view of the case the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States, as deriving her descent from the Anglican establishment, cordially sympathized, and whatever may be said about the influx of Russo-Greeks into the United States, or a desire to secure the right of interment for Angli- can travellers, as motives for bringing about some sort ot union between Episcopalians on the one hand 242 The Caiion of the Old Ttstai/icfit and Greeks on the other, the real reason of the move- ment towards such imion, which ccjmmenced in 1862, was, as just stated, to satisf}' the craving of large num- bers in the Episcopalian ranks for something with more of the characteristics of a Christian Church than what they possessed under that name. True, such an arrange- ment might place Churchmen in dangerous proximity to the Czar or Grand Turk. But even the latter was less to be dreaded than the Pope. In furtherance, therefore, of this scheme, at the gener- al convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church held in New York, October 1862, a joint committe was ap- pointed '* to consider the expediency of opening com- munication with the Russo-Greek Church, to collect authentic information upon the subject, and to report to the next General Convention." On July ist of the fol- lowing year, the Convocation of Canterbury appointed a similar committee looking to " such ecclesiastical inter- communion with the Orthodox East, as should enable the laity and clergy of either Church to join in the sacraments and offices of the other, without forfeiting the communion of their own Church." The Episcopal Church of Scotland also encouraged the movement, the success of which, it was hoped, would secure Angli- cans the world over valid baptism and a valid ministr}-. The two committees corresponded with each other, and from time to time reported progress to their superiors. An Eastern Church association was formed in England, and another in the United States, for the purpose of obtaining and publishing information on the doctrines and worship of the Russo-Greek Church ; visits were made to Russia ; fraternal letters and courtesies were exchanged, and informal conferences were held between Anglican and Russian dignitaries in London, St. Peters- burg, and Moscow. All very amusing, especially as any union between Anglican heresy and Russian schism A mo ng the ScJi is uia t ics. 243 would have required the sanction of the Queen of Enofland and the Autocrat of all the Russias. Not to be outdone by their transatlantic cousins in fraternal greetings and Christian courtesies, American Episco- palians allowed a Russian ex-priest of doubtful anteced- ents to celebrate Mass in Trinity Chapel, New York, on the anniversary of the coronation of Czar Alexander II., March 2d, 1865. The sanction or even toleration of Anglicanism by the Russo-Greek Christians was not, however, to be bartered away for such manifestations of courtesy. They declined to grant anything beyond the privilege of sepulture to Anglicans in consecrated ground, with- out, however, any proprietary rights. Some were willing to admit that the Anglican Church, by retaining episcopacy and some respect for antiquity, " attached her bark by a strong cable to the ship of the Catholic Church, while the other Protestants, having cut this cable, drifted out to sea ; " yet they could recognize in the long run no essential difference between Anglicanism and the other Protestant sects. They found strange novelties in the Thirty-nine Articles ; article nineteen, which asserts that the Churches of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred, was particularly objectionable to them. Thej^ expressed serious doubts about the validit}' of Anglican orders, on account of the flaw in Parker's con- secration. They condemned all those Anglican ministers and bishops who, in violation of St. Paul's prohibition (I. Tim. iii. 2.), indulged in the lascivious luxury of second marriage. They refused to recognize the valid- ity of Anglican baptism, because not administered with a trine immersion. It (jf course followed that they hardly knew whether Anglicans were Christians or pagans. Before a proposition for intercommunion could be entertained, the Anglicans were given to understand, that they would have to omit the Filioque in their creed 244 T^^^ Canon of the Old Testament recognize the Seventh Ecumenical Council, invoke the Blessed Virgin, venerate sacred images, pray for the dead, believe in the seven sacraments, practise trine immersion, accept the doctrine of transubstantiation, and admit that the sacrifice of the Mass can be offered for the living and the dead. These unpalatable discov- eries were made by Episcopalians in the course of a correspondence with Greek and Russian dignitaries,- from about 1864 to 1870, and have been described by a Protestant writer, ' whose account of this, as well as of another similar subsequent movement to which we now call attention, has been consulted by us. Hardly had the Episcopalians recovered from the shock inflicted by the censorious and dictatorial tone with which their overtures for intercommunion were received by the haughty Russo-Greeks, when they were inspired with fresh hopes of success on learning that the famous Dr. Dollinger of Munich had invited a conference of divines favorable to the reunion of Christ- endom, to meet and consider the best means for pro- moting so laudable an object. The Doctor had been disappointed in his attempt to formulate a successful protest against the teaching of the Vatican Council. For he had found that that protest had been reechoed by none but a contemptible number of bad self-styled Old Catholics among his countrymen, while almost all who had admired him as a scholar now shunned him as an apostate. But he hoped by an appeal to heretics, schismatics, and infidels outside Germany to induce some of them to unite on a few Christian prin- ciples, as well as on a denial of distinctively Catholic truths, and thus convince the world that he and they, though essentially differing in all else, really constituted a new sect. Here, again, however, he was doomed to disappointment. ' Schaff's Creeds of Christendom, ii., 545, seq. Among the Schismatics. 245 The conference out of which the reunion of Christen- dom was to be effected was held in Bonn, September 14- 16, 1874, and was composed of about forty members: Greeks and Russians, as named, to the number of four ; a number of English Episcopalians, of whom some are mentioned by name ; four American Episcopalians, whose names have been also chronicled ; and a large contin- gent of Old Catholics, all Germans, among whom Dr. Dollinger and the so called bishop Reinkens deserve special mention. Besides Reinkens there were present two other so-called bishops, Browne of Winchester, England, and Kerfoot of Pittsburg, United States. All the rest seem to have been members of the clerical fraternity ranking as priests, preachers, and professors. From such a galaxy of learning and dignity Dr. Dollin- ger was called to the chair, the bishops occupying seats among the rank and file, while several Lutheran and Evangelical theologians and ministers, attracted by the novelty of the scene, were present, but merely as spec- tators, to witness the proceedings. The members do not appear to have represented any person or any creed ex- cept themselves and their own individual opinions. For, Germans, Greeks, Russians, English, and Americans, they were all without any credentials from the religious organizations to which they belonged respectively. The first point discussed, probably on the demand of the Russo-Greek members, was the procession of the Holy Ghost. In disposing of this question the confer- ence, in order to placate Eastern prejudice, went so far as to " agree that the way in which the Filioqiic was in- serted in the Nicene Creed was illegal, " expressing at the same time a wish that " the whole Church would consider whether the Creed could be restored to its primitive form without sacrificing any true doctrine ex- pressed in the present Western form." This much con- ceded to the Greeks and Russians, the)% no doubt, con- 246 The Canon of the Old TcsUDncnt sented to take part in the discussion of the fourteen? articles subsequently passed upon by the conference, and decided, at least so far as can be judged from the account before us, by a majority of the members. These articles treated of the Scriptures, Justification, Salvation, works of Supererogation, Number of the Sacraments, Tradition, Episcopal Succession in the An- glican Church, Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, Confession, Indulgences, Prayers for the dead, and the Mass, and all of them savored more or less of t'he heretical spirit in which they were conceived. Among the questions discussed at the Bonn Confer- ence was the canon of Scripture. On this point it was decided by the members "• that the apocryphal or deu- tero-canonical books of the Old Testament have not the same canonicity as the books contained in the Hebrew canon." Dollinger and Reinkens voted in favor of an article declaring " that the Church of England, and the Churches derived through her, have maintained un- broken the Episcopal succession." This must have been extremely gratifying to the Anglican members, but was offset by the unpleasant announcement, that the Greeks and Russians, as they had serious doubts on the point' declined to express an opinion before further examina- tion ; that examination was never made. Again Dollin- ger and Reinkens had no hesitation in denying the Im- maculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin, though Canon Liddon of St. Paul's, London, was willing to tol- erate it as a " pious opinion." A second Bonn conference, with a similar purpose, was held August 10-16, 1875. On that occasion a protest was presented, on the part of certain English Episco- palians, against the language which had been used in the previous conference regarding the Eucharist, as being inconsistent " with the language of the English Book of Common Prayer." Canon Liddon dissented uliitom: tilt-' Schisuuxiics. 247 from the protest. Dollinger and Reinkens maintained a discreet silence. It was evident that the Anjjlicans, who, in order to obtain some sort of recognition from Old Catholics, Russians, and Greeks, had been so profuse in exchanging fraternal greetings with these foreigners, were not of one mind themselves. At this second con- ference, the old Catholics, Oi'ientals, and Anglicans agreed: 1° to accept the ecumenical synods and doc- trinal decisions of the ancient undivided Church ; 2° To acknowledge that the addition of the Filioque to the symbol did not take place in an ecclesiastically regular manner; 3° To accept what was taught regarding the Holy Spirit by the Fathers of the undi- vided Church ; 4°To reject every form of expression im- plying the existence of two principles, or beginnings, or causes in the Trinity. Yet the Orientals were not satis- fied, but insisted on a more explicit admission of their doctrine regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit. To propitiate them the reckless DoUingerites and obse- quious Anglicans consented to adopt, as an addition to the four preceding articles, six others, based on the in- terpretation which the Orientals were pleased to put upon certain statements of St. John Damascene, in ref- erence to the question at issue ; although the teaching of this Father on that question has been shown to be consis- tent with that of not only several Latin but of several Greek Fathers, who wrote long before his time, and in- sisted that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle. Following are some of the propositions which the imperious Orientals compelled their abject petitioners from the West to adopt. " The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. The H0I3' Spirit proceeds not from the Son. The Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father through the Son," with more of the same sort. Well might Professor Schaff, ' after giving an ac, ' The Creeds of Christendotn, i., 78. 248 TJic Canon of the Old Testament count of the proceedings at Bonn, remark : " The Filioquc was surrendered as a peace-offering to the Orientals ; but the Orientals made no concession on their part." Yet it has never been heard, that any Anglican who consented to this disgraceful surrender was ever called to account for his base betrayal of a fundamental principle in the creed of his Church. It is unnecessary to add what is well known to all, that the Bonn Conferences brought the Anglicans and the Orientals no nearer to each other than they ever were. Intercommunion with Anglican- ism is not and never has been sought by the Russo-Greek Church. And the only condition on which that Church would agree to such an arrangement, is an absolute sur- render, not only of the Filioqne, but of all else whicli makes Anglicanism what it is. Anglicans, however, still cherish the delusion that the Orientals will meet them half way. In fact, Anglicans seem never to come to- gether in any number without discussing the subject. Even in the last Lambeth Conference, ' held in 1888, and composed of bishops from all countries where Episco- palians are found, a committee was appointed to con- sider the Anglican communion in relation to the Eastern Churches, and to the Old Catholics, a party now all but extinct. It is to be observed that the canon of Scripture, according to the order in which the articles adopted in the first conference at Bonn are given, was the first question considered, as if the members desired at the start to agree upon the books whence they were to draw their proofs. In this matter there is little doubt that the Orientals also succeeded in having their own way, for while the article on " the Canon and the Apo- crypha " contradicts the Anglican " Book of Common Prayer," and is in no way inconsistent with any pub- 1 Statementof Anglican Bishop Potter, New York, in N'ew York Times, Ang. 13, 1888. Among tJic Schismatics. 249 lished belief of the Old Catholics, who were prepai"ed to admit or deny anything, provided that by doing so a union of all heresies could be effected, it harmonized suf- ficiently with the teaching of the Russo-Greek Church. At first sight it seems vague and ambiguous. But to declare, as it does, that the deutero books of the Old Testament have not the same canonicity as the proto is not denying but asserting the canonicity of the former. For, if a book be canonical at all, it cannot be more or less canonical than another that is so absolutely, since there are no degrees in canonicity, a book being either canonical or non-canonical. The conference, therefore, must have agreed, at the dictation of the Orientals, perhaps convinced by their arguments, to admit the canonicity of the deutero books. And if, by declaring that the deutero books of the Old Testament have not the same canonicity as those contained in the Hebrew canon, the conventicle at Bonn intended to say that the canonicity of the latter was declared by the Synagogue, and that of the former by the Christian Church (the only meaning of which the language there used is suscep- tible) no one can object to the statement ; wdiile it is to be supposed that the conference itself, being composed of Christians, believed that the judgment of the Church in this or any other matter was at least as authoritative as that of the highest tribunal among the Jews. CHAPTER XVIII. The Old Testament Canon in use among other SCHISMATICAL BODIES IN THE EaST. Besides the schismatical Greeks and Russians, there are among the Orientals other, smaller Christian com- munities, whose separation from the Church occurred at a much earlier date : as, the Nestorians, Copts or Egyp- tians, Jacobites, Abyssinians or Ethiopians. Yet all of these, it is well known, include the deutero books in the collection of inspired Scriptures which they still possess. That the canon m use among the Nestorians comprises these books is proved by the testimony of Ebed Jesu, a Nestorian bishop (d. 1318), in his " Admirable Tract con- taining the Divine Books," etc' — a work in Syriac, trans- lated into Latin b}^ Abraham Echellensis, a Svrian writer (d. 1664). Another Latin translation of the same Tract has been given by Joseph Simon Assemani, also a Syrian writer (d. 1768), in his Bibliotheca Orioitalis^^ wherein it is remarked, ' that Benassal and Abulbarcatus, collectors of canons belonging to the Egyptian or Coptic Church, enumerate among the sacred books; Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Esther, Judith, Tobias. A learned writer on the Dublin Review,^ describing the belief and practice of the members belonging to the Coptic CJinrcJi, declares : " that they do no reject any of the sacred writings which we (Catholics) receive as canonical." Assemani,^ " states, that Gregorv Barhebr^eus, otherwise called ' PP- 3' 5- ° ^ol. III., p. 5, seq. ^ Ibid. p. 6, note. " Vol. XXVIII., p. 328. 5 Bibl. orient., vol. iii., 4, note. A//io//ir the Schismatics. 551 Abulfaragius (Aboulfaradje), [d. 1286) Mafrian or Pii- mate of the Jacobites, in a work entitled Horrciini Mysterio- rutn, has expounded many of the sacred books. A list Nat. Alex. Hist. Eccl Tom. iii., p 24, Bergier- « Nat. Alex. Hist. Eccl. Tom. iii., p. 285. Among the Scctarists. 267 2. Cerdo spurned the entire Old Testament ; and of the New he admitted only the Gospel of St. Luke, and not even all of that. ' 3. Marcion did not believe that the Old Testament was inspired by God. Of the four Gospels he received only that of St. Luke, rejecting, however, the two first chapters thereof. He admitted but ten epistles of St. Paul, but excluded therefrom whatever could not be reconciled with his own errors. ^ 4. Tatian taught that the law of Moses was not insti- tuted by God, but by the eon who created the world. ' He wrote a concordance of the four Gospels, since known as the Gospel of Tatian, ^ and ranked among the apocryphal books. In it he suppressed all those passages of the genuine Gospels which prove that the Son of God was sprung from David according to the flesh. ' 5. Montanus boasted that he himself was the Paraclete, and encouraged two lewd women, Priscilla and Maxima, to sanction his wicked doctrines b}^ uttering false proph- ecies. ^ 6. Apelles taught that the oracular utterances of the prophecies proceeded from a spirit that contradicted itself. ' THE CANON AMONG THE SECTS OF THE THIRD CENTURY. I. Manes professed to find such contradictions between the Old and New Testament, that he maintained they could not have been produced by the same God. * He therefore attributed the prophets, and in fact the whole of the former, to the evil principle, and claiming to be the Paraclete promised by Christ, he began to propagate his errors. 1 Beigier, Nat. Alex., Hist. Eccl, Tom. iii., p. 285. ^ Bergier. 3 Liguori, Hist, of Heresies. Vol. i. p. 10. " Fabricius, Codex Apocryph. N. T., Vol. i., pp. 349i 378. 5 Bergier. « Nat. Alex. Hist. Eccl. Tom. iii. p. 290. ' Ibid. p. 293. * Bergier. 268 Tlie Canon of the Old Testament 2. TertuUian attributed to Barnabas the Epistle of St, Paul to the Hebrews,' and contended that the say- ings of Priscilla and Maxima, the false prophetesses of Montanus, should supersede the teaching of St. Paul with regard to the lawfulness of contracting a second marriage. * From the sectarists already mentioned, and others who did not directly assail written revelation, sprang up innumerable swarms of heretics during the first three centuries — Simonians, Basilidians, Marcionites, Manicheans, Nazarites, Valentinians, Ebionites, Cata- phrygians, Alogians, Gnostics, etc. — all repudiating and abusing the word of God, or such parts thereof as mani- festly condemned their own absurd and impious theories, and even in many instances fabricating gospels, epistles, prophecies, revelations, and visions in support of the blasphemous opinions which they advocated as funda- mental principles of the Christian religion. The wildest chimeras of a disordered brain, or the vilest conceptions of a corrupt heart, were mingled with the parables of Our Lord, the utterances of the prophets, and the writ- ings of the Apostles. It was held that some of the prophecies were spoken by angels, and others b)' Satan. One Gospel would be received and all the others with St. Paul be flung aside, or a Gospel as well as St. Paul's writings impiously curtailed. Yet St. Paul had his de- fenders among the sectarists, for some of them con- tended that he alone knew the truth. By some of them the Gospel of St. John and the Apocalypse were ruth- lessly repudiated. To others the writings of the Proph- ets and Apostles were the only apocryphal Scriptures ; of course it was the duty of all who so believed to promulgate such doctrine as contradicted Prophets and Apostles, and this was faithfully done. In fact, the Old ' Nat. Alex. Hist. Eccl. Tom. iii., p. 308. ^ Rohrbacher, Hist. Univer. De LEgl., Tom. v., p. 332. Among tJic Scctarists. 269 Testament as well as the New met with scant reverence among the new lights of the time, by whom it was con- sidered that Ecclesiastes, written by Solomon when henpecked by strange women, could not have been divinely dictated. The Canticle of Canticles, too, was rejected as an impious song by some early as well as later heretics. To all this horrible profanation, and blasphemous perversion of God's holy word, must be added attempts at counterfeiting the contents of the Old Testament, and the Gospels and Epistles of the New. Even the Psalms of David, which from the beginning were used in the public service of the Church, were in one instance superseded by hymns chanted in honor, not of God, but of the impious wretch Paul of Samosata, who dared usurp God's own place in God's own sanc- tuary. Not a few of those primitive heretics were con- verted Jews, who as Christians were strongly tinc- tured with their early prejudices. The only Gospel which they received was that of St. Matthew; and Apostate, not Apostle, was the name by which St. Paul was known among them. St. Irenaeus, ' Eusebius, ^ Philastrius, ' Epiphanius, ' Augustine, ° and other early Christian writers, show that all those heretics who endeavored to corrupt the faith of the primitive Church, when they did not actually repudiate the divine Script- ures; so corrupted, interpolated, and mutilated them, that they hardly retained any resemblance to the sacred records intended by God for the instruction of mankind. But this treatment of the Bible has been a characteristic of Christian sects at all times, modern as well as ancient. 1 Advoc. Haeres., L. I., c. i., xvii., xxii., xxvi.; L, III., c. ii., xi., xii., xiii. (^Bibl. Max. V. Pair.') - Hist. Eccl., B. III., c. 28. iv., c. 22, 29. v., c. 13, iS, 28. vi., c. 12. 38. vii., c. 25, 30. ^ Haeres. 13, 40. {Bibl. Max. V. Pair.) * In hacres., 66. 5 De Moribus, Eccl. Caih. Contra Faustum, etc.. passim. 270 TJie Canon of the Old Testament THE CANON AMONG THE SECTS OF THE FOURTH AND FIFTH CENTURIES. Unfortunately for the peace and prosperit}- of Chris- tendom, heresy, with the close of the third century, ceased not its attacks on the faith, though it changed its tactics. For, instead of openly denying the authority of Scripture, or substituting for it human compositions, it took issue with those conclusions which reason, guided by the teaching of the Church, deduced from the principles proclaimed by the Scripture. Donatists, Arians, Pelagians, Nestorians, Eut3'chians, JMonophy- sites, etc., waged incessant war on dogma and morals throughout the fourth and fifth centuries, and some of them long after. Yet, with the exception of St. Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews, at first admitted but afterwards rejected ' by the Arians, and the Book of Wisdom, repudiated by the Pelagians or rather Semipel- agians, "" not a word was said by any of the sects against a single book on the canon of either Testament. The Eunomians, however, in the fourth century contended, that the writings of their founder Eunomius were more authoritative than the Gospels ; ' and when hard pressed by texts from the Prophets or Apostles, the AnoniEeans, who like the Eunomians were nothing but an i\rian fac- tion, replied, that the Prophets and Apostles had written as mere men. " In the same century the Priscillianists appealed to aprocryphal books in support of their errors. ^ In the fifth century Vigilantius, in order to prove one of his heretical opinions, cited as canonical the apocryphal Fourth Book of Esdras. ° 1 Theodoret, Preface to Ep. to Hebr. 2 Augustine, Pradest. SS., L. i., c. I4. 3 Hierony. Liber adversus Vigilantium. ■• Nat. Alex. Hist. Eccl. Tom. iv., p. 54. '"> Lisruoii, Hist. ofHeres., Vol. i., \\ 90; Nat. Ale.\. Hist. Eccl. Tom. iV., p. 66. ^ II id , T. m v.. p. 13. Among t lie Sect ari St s. 271 THE CANON AMONG THE SECTS, FROM THE SIXTH TO THE TENTH CENTURY, INCLUSIVE. Whether the anti-Christian spirit of heresy was other- wise occupied, or had found that further efforts in those ages to upset the common belief in the supernatural origin of the books on the canon must end in failure, it allowed five centuries to pass without renewing the contest in that direction. But most of the old errors in disguise, and new ones under attractive forms, all, how- ever, when unmasked, hideous, absurd, arrogant, aggres- sive, or blasphemous, continued to unsettle the minds of men, and disturb the peace of Christendom. THE CANON AMONG THE SECTS OF THE ELEVENTH CEN- TURY. Not until the eleventh century had been reached, was there any direct and notable assault made on the canon of Scripture, or on the divine authority of either Testa- ment. In the early part of that century the Bogomilists, (Bulgarian for the beloved of God), who were followers of an errorist named Basil, a physician under a monk's habit, rejected the Books of Moses and the rest of the Sacred Scripture, except the Psalter, the 16 Prophets, the Acts of the Apostles, their Epistles, and the Apoca- lypse. ' In the same centur}' two ecclesiastics of France, Stephen and Lisosius, taught that all the Scriptures say about the Trinity and the creation of the world is mere nonsense, as the heavens and the earth are from eternity, and never had a beginning. '^ THE CANON AMONG THE SECTS OF THE TWELFTH CEN- TURY. The Albigenses and Cathari generally reprobated the Old Testament as the work of the devil ; but it seems that a few of them rejected only the Law and the his- ' Nat. Alex. Hist. Ecrl. Tom. vi., p. 479. 2 Liguori, Hist.-of Heres., Vol. i., p. 247. 272 TJie Canon of the Old Testament torical books. While such was the treatment which the Old Testament received among these heretics, they disdained not to consult apocryphal books, as the Vis- ion of Isaias, for the purpose of edification. Instead, however, of rejecting or mutilating the New Testament as they did the Old, they added to its contents, by inserting therein a fifteenth Epistle of St. Paul, and a work attributed to John the Apostle. ' The same cen- turv also witnessed the birth of the Waldensian sect, which, like the two preceding, as well as all others before and since, was soon divided and subdivided into innumerable factions, so that it is difficult, in- deed impossible, to trace the history or define the creeds of these mediaeval sectarists. All that can be said about the views, rather errors, of the VValdenses regarding the Bible, is that, though they made a very bad use of it, they do not appear to have rejected an^^ of its books. The writer whom we have last cited, though a Protestant, frankly admits, while referring to the " Waldenses," " that the common opinion, which gives them the honor of having made a careful separa- tion between the apocryphal (deutero) of the Old Testa- ment, and the (proto) canonical books, is false and erroneous in every point. . . . The Waldenses of the middle ages were acquainted, and could be acquainted, with the Vulgate onl}-, as it was genei"ally received in their time," " when, as now it contained the deutero books. We are further informed on the same page that " of the few supposed Waldensian manuscripts of the New Testament there are two which also contain Wis- dom and Ecclcsiasticnsy ^ It was through the Walden- 1 'K&\x%%, Hist, of the Canon of the H. 6"., pp. ,263, 264. In the twelfth century the Publicani, foreign sectarians supposed to be connected with the Albigen- ses or Waldensians, appeared in England. They rejected all the Scriptures except the Gospels and canonical Epistles. The Truth about John Wyckliffe, P- 195- - Reuss. Hist, of the Canon of the H. S- p. 264. ^ Ibid. Among the Scctarists. 273 sians that the Reformers of the sixteenth century endeavored to connect themselves with Christian an- tiquity. But the attempt was a failure, for Waldensian- ism differed as much from common Protestantism, as (even more than) Calvinism differed from Church of Englandism. Besides, had it been shown that Walden- sianism was Protestantism, how could the latter have cleared at a single bound the gaping chasm which separated the twelfth century from the Apostolic age ? Reuss, when he made the preceding admissions, de- clared that he did so " for the sake of historical truth." All other Protestants, as well as he, knew that the deutero books were never separated from, but remained mixed among the proto books of the Old Testament until the time of Luther. But few of these Protestants have had the candor to denounce the denial of that his- torical fact as '' false and erroneous in every point." THE CANON AMONG THE SECTS OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY. In this centur}^ an anonymous defender of Abbot Joachim, w^ho had broached certain errors, which he afterwards recanted, wrote a book entitled the Eternal Gospel. It contained several heretical propositions : among others, that the doctrine of Joachim was supe- rior to that of Christ, and therefore to that of the Old Testament ; that the Gospel of Christ is not to edifica- tion ; that, as the Old Testament had been, so should the New be, cancelled ; and that after the year 1260 it should no longer have authority. ' In the same century the Albigensians were engaged in making what they no doubt considered improvements in their creed. They already believed that there were two creators, one benevolent, the" other malevolent. To the latter they, as we have seen, ascribed the Old Testament, ' Natalis Alexander, Hist. Ecclesiastica Vet. et Nov. Test., Tom.vii.. p. jS. 274 The Canon of the O. T. atnong the Sectarists. which, as a matter of course, they rejected, except such parts as they found in the New Testament, which the}- attributed to the former. But in the course of time they devised other impious tenets regarding God, and for reasons which they professed to find in the Old Testa- ment called its author " a liar and a homicide." * 1 Nat. Alex. Hist. Eccl. Tom. vii., p. 66. CHAPTER XX. The Canon among the Sects from the Fourteenth TO THE Sixteenth Century. We have now reached that period in the early part of which Wyckliffe lived, flourished, and afflicted England, and not only England, but a great part of Europe, with his pernicious errors. For there is no doubt that he planted the seed which in the next two centuries grew up and ripened into a harvest of infidelity, disorder, and crime, wherever English influence extended, or the En- glish language was understood, or English writings were translated into the speech of any other country. There were at the time, as there had always been and always will be advocates of heretical opinions. Wyck- liffe seems to have been the only man of his age who, be- sides propounding doctrines so monstrous that Protes- tants, to their credit, would now be ashamed to defend them, is said to have repudiated that Canon of the Old Testament, which Christendom both East and West re- vered as divine. But that he really did so may never- theless be doubted, Wyckliffe, however, although on linguistic grounds wholly incompetent for such a task, is commonly sup- posed to have written an English translation of the Bible — the first book of the kind, according to many Protestants, that ever appeared in that language. In this supposed translation Dr. Wright' of Trinity college ' Kitto's Cycl.^ Deuiero canonical, I., p. 556. 2/6 The Canon of the Old Testament says that Wyckliffe " substituted another prologue for Jerome's, wherein, after enumerating the ' twenty-five * books of the Hebrew canon, he adds — ' Whatever book is in the Old Testament, besides these twenty-five, shall be set among the Apocr3'pha, that is, without authority of belief. Now the words here attributed to Wyckliffe are part of the Preface of " an uncertain tract," as Hody ' calls it, referring to the books contained in the Sacred Scriptures and written in Old Enghsh. Hody has cop- ied the preface, and from it it appears that the writer considered that the Old Testament was composed sole- ly of the books on the Hebrew canon, which he divides into 25 instead of 22 or 24 ; that he followed Jerome's Prologus Galeatus, and that, as Judith was taken " for a book of Holy Scripture " by the Council of Nice, he was willing to add it to the number, and by separating Nehemiasfrom Esdras, to make of the whole " 27 books of belief." Hody adds that in the first fly leaf of the book is written : " This book seems to have been writ- ten by John Wyckliffe," and that the handwriting is that of Obadias Walker, a Catholic. Hody's conclusion is that the preface in question was written by some one else than Wyckliffe. So far there is nothing, therefore, to prove, that Wyckliffe's crimes against religion in- cluded any attempt at mutilating the canon. And if he ever translated the Bible or any part of it, his transla- tion was but the translation of a translation — that made by St. Jerome. For he knew no language except that^ of his native land and Latin. His ignorance of Greek, as well as of Hebrew, a fact admitted by his eulogists, ^ to say nothing of that other consideration, that in his time and long before his countrymen had the Scriptures in their own language, ^ renders it extremely doubtful 1 De Bibl. 7>a-^., p. 658. 2 Kitto Cycl., Versions. 3 Chamber's Book of Days, i., 162; Sir Thomas More, Archbp. Cranmer^ vide Lingard. Hist, oj Eng., iii., 155, note. Among the Scctarists. 277 that he had the temerity— though he had a large supply of that commodity— or considered it necessary, to under- take a translation of the Bible. Regarding the supposed translation of Wyckliffe, there is much uncertainty, as is evident from an article on versions' by Dr. Davidson. This writer assumes as a fact that such a work was really written, and that it ^'was finished about the year 1380," but adds that " according to Baber, another version was made in the fourteenth century, posterior to Wyckliffe's, with which it is frequently confounded," and "it may be doubted, whether Wyckliffe's version has yet been pubhshed even as regards the New Testament, " while " the Old Testament has not yet been published, but it is now in course of publication." Eight years after this state- ment was made, the readers of the Dublin Review were informed that Wyckliffe's " version of the Bible had recently been published." Yet, for the reasons already stated, and others to be submitted, it must seem extremely doubtful whether the heresiarch was the author of the version just men- tioned, or whether he ever wrote any version at all. Probably the most he did do in the matter was to avail himself of the English versions then in existence, ^nd thus prepare one or more editions adapted to his own principles, have them copied, and distributed by those firebrands he had in his service, whom he called poor priests, and whom, after being trained in his own school, he sent in all directions to propagate his heretical doc- trines, and excite a spirit of sedition among the people. It must be admitted that Wyckliffe and his apostles, in their efforts to accomplish a religious and political rev- olution among their countrymen, met with remarkable success. This is too well attested by the violent and widespread opposition to civil as well as ecclesiastical 1 Kitto's Cyclop. ■' Vol. XXXV, p. 420, year 1853. 278 The Canon of the Old Testament authority, which convulsed English society, even before the awful death which put an end to the turbulent ca- reer of the wretched apostate. The English versions made before Wyckliffe's time being not now extant, it is impossible to say whether the translation published as his is an original work, or one manufactured from materials which he found at hand in the English translations which had been already written. The latter supposition is probably the correct one, if the conjecture that Wyckliffe had anything what- ever, to do in preparing a new English version of the Bible be not wholly preposterous. Even were it in our power to compare the translations of older writers with that ascribed to Wyckliffe, we should look in vain for evidences to prove that the latter was actually executed by him. In fact, Dr. Davidson hesitates to say that Wyckliffe was the author of the version commonly at- tributed to him. " There are (says this writer) indica- tions of his (Wyckliffe's) having had assistance in the work perhaps from various individuals." ' And the Dr. concludes that "The subject, however, is involved in considerable doubt ; and he that trusts to the com- mon account given of this earl}- reformer as a translator of the Bible maj' probably be misled in his opinions. " " Yet Lingard, adopting " the common opinion, " says " Wycliffe made a new translation." ' But in this mat- ter the celebrated historian seems for once to have dismissed his witnesses without the usual cross-exam- ination. For Protestant writers, who have carefully weighed all the evidence in the case, and must as Prot- estants have been disposed to grant Wyckliffe all that is claimed for him by " common opinion," express them- selves on the subject, as we have just seen, with consid- erable hesitation. Besides, Chamber's Book of Days, a work written under Protestant influence, and much lat- ' Kitto's Cyclop.. Fersion. * Ibid //isl. of England^ Vol. iii., p. 155. Among the Scctarists. 279 er than Lingard'd History, refers to Wyckliffe as a translator with the same reserve which marks the state- ment of Davidson. Referring to a translation of the Bible into English, which was made in the latter half of the fourteenth century, the Book of Days says, it " is known as Wyckliffe's Bible, as being the work of that reformer himself, or, at least, of his followers. There are two texts of the English version, differing consider- ably from each other, which are printed side by side in the edition in 3 vols, quarto edited by Forshall and Madden." ' Both texts could not have proceeded from Wyckliffe. And where is the evidence that he is the author of either ? Although Hallam, ^ writing about 1840, refers, like some others, to " The translation of Wicliffe " without any apparent doubt that such a work was or had been actually in existence, later writers are by no means so positive in their remarks on the subject. Thus Mr. George F. Marsh, an American, who has devoted much attention to the question in his Lectures on the English Language, pubhshed in 1863, although an ardent Protes- tant, as shown by his frequent use of Popish and Romish, expresses himself regarding the supposed translation of Wyckliffe in a way to confirm, rather than dissipate, the suspicions of a reader disposed to doubt that a Wyck- iiffian version of the Bible into English ever existed. For, after rejecting' the supposition of some " that the name of Wycliffe was but a myth, the impersonation of a school of reformers, " Mr. Marsh adds : " Still, the extreme uncertainty of the evidence which identifies any existing manuscript as an actual production of the translator Wycliffe, and the great stylistic differences between the xvorks usually ascribed to him, require us to use great caution in speaking of the characteristics of • Vol i., p. 162. * Literature of Europe, Part I., ch. iii., ^ 53. 28o The Canon of t lie Old Testament his diction." ' Elsewhere Mr. Marsh calls attention to several remarkable facts which he discovered while examining Wyckliffe's supposed version and the genu- ine writings of that reformer. We thus learn that " The language of Wycliffe's Testament differs nearly as much from the religious prose writings of his contem- porary and follower, Chaucer, as does that of our own Bible from the best models of literary composition in the present day ; and it is a still more remarkable and important fact, that the style which Wyckliffe himself employs in his controversial and other original works is a very different one from that in which he clothed his translation."^ The natural conclusion to be drawn from this is, that the translation attributed to Wyckliffe is not his, but that of an older writer, and that Sir Thomas More was right when he said, there were Eng- lish translations of the Sacred Scriptures long before the time of Wyckliffe. This conclusion, though per- ceived by Mr. Marsh, is not admitted by him. But his reasons for rejecting it will bring conviction to few unprejudiced minds. Another very suggestive fact is, as remarked by Mr. Marsh, that " The translations of the texts cited by Wychffe himself, in the controver- sial works most confidently ascribed to him, by no means agree literally with the version of the New Tes- tament, and of a part of the Old, which he is beheved to have executed." ^ Does it not therefore seem to follow that the author of these " controversial works " could not have written the translation in question? The learned lecturer does his best to meet thisdifificulty, but with very moderate success. Again our respected fel- low citizen tells us that " There is a good deal of diffi- culty in identifying any extant manuscript as certainly the work of Wycliffe; but there are several which are 1 First Series, p. 167, note. - Ibid., pp. 625, 626. 3 Second Series, ibid., p. 340, note. Among tJie Scctarists. 281 ascribed to him with ever}- appearance of probability.' Are not, therefore, Wyckhffe's admirers asking too much when they would have people receive as a translation of that ecclesiastical demagogue one of the two texts which Messrs. Forshall and Madden have condescended to prepare for the public. Referring to this edition, Mr. Marsh observes that " the older text, from Genesis to BarucJi iii. 20, is believed to be the work of Hereford, " an English ecclesiastic ; the remainder of the Old Tes- tament and Apocrypha is supposed, and the whole of the New Testament almost certainly known to have been translated by Wycliffe, while the later text of the entire Bible is ascribed to Purvey." ' Whether Wyck- liffe translated the Bible, or any part of it, is therefore a question which, in view of all the evidence, seems to demand a negative answer. But it does not appear that he, like his modern apologists, must plead guilty of mu- tilating the canon of Scripture. Even Hereford and Purvey, his misguided associates, recoiled from such a sacrilegious act. For the version attributed to them or at least to Hereford contains, "all the Apocry- phal Books, so called, excepting the fourth book of Esdras." ' That John de Wyckliffe, however, impelled by disappointed ambition, attempted to overturn altar and throne by a sacrilegious use of the Bible, and that his efforts in that di- rection were, though long after his death, for a time completely successful, few who have studied the history of England will venture to deny. When the preceding sketch of Wyckliffe was almost completed, it was learned that a work just referred to, ' Second Series, p. 366. 2 At first a Wyckliffite, but afterwards reconciled to the Church. The Truth ■about John Wyclif, by J. Stevenson, S.J., p. 121. — 3 Second Series, p. 344. — Purvey was another Wycklifiite. < The Truth about John Wyclif, 106. 282 The Canon of the Old Testament The "Truth about John Wyclif," London, 1885, had appeared. The name of the learned writer has been al- ready mentioned. Referring to Wyckliffe's connection with the version commonly ascribed to him, this writ- er says : " If any portion of the undertaking belongs to him, it is the version of the New Testament, and even on this point his Oxford editors, Forshall and Madden, speak with considerable reserve. . . Possibly, then, he took no active part in the translation of the entire New Testament; certainly he had nothing to do with the version of the Old Testament. . . Perhaps the version of the New Testament may be his, perhaps not; certainl)- no more." ' Such is the conclusion reached by a con- scientious critic, after a careful study of the life and la- bors of W3xkliffe as portrayed by Wyckliffe's contem- poraries, and those now engaged in editing his works. Thus modern research leads to the exposure, one by one, of the many fictions which constitute the substra- tum on which the Protestant system rests. THE CANON AMONG THE SECTS OF THE FIFTEENTH CEN- TURY. This century also verified the words of St. Paul, when he declared that " there must be also heresies.'"' For it contributed its full quota to the black list of turbulent and obstinate innovators, who have in every age con- spired against divine truth. In that quota, however, there appears but one who, besides his other assaults on the common belief of Christendom, boldly attacked the sacred document by which, as interpreted by the Church, that belief had all along been maintained. That one was Herman Ruissvich, a Batavian by birth. His career commenced in the fifteenth and extended into the sixteenth century. He was condemned for his errors in 1499, ^"d died soon after, having obstinately contended ' 77ie Tnith about John Wyclif, pp. lo6, 107. - I. Cor. xi. 19. Among tJic Scctarists. 285 that the faith of Christians was a fable, the Bible an ab- surd fiction, and the Gospel a vain delusion. ^ THE CANON AMONG THE SECTS OF THE SIXTEENTH CEN- TURY. Herman was succeeded by a horde of heretics, whose principles were less repulsive and blasphemous, and thus better calculated to corrupt the faith and morals of Christendom, by imposing on the credulity and flat- tering the passions of mankind. In a work like the present, mention can be made only of such in that horde, as made themselves notorious by rejecting that canon which they as well as their forefathers had been taught to revere, as the only true catalogue of inspired books. Foremost in the horde is Martin Luther, whose true pat- ronymic was Luder, which Martin, on account of its vul- gar meaning, exchanged for a more euphonious name, by which he has since been known. This remarkable man was born of humble but pious Catholic parents at Eisleben, Upper Saxony, in the year 1483. He became an Augustinian monk in 1505, was ordained priest in 1507, but afterwards divested himself of his religious habit and violated his monastic vows. Among the er- rors he broached were the opinions, which he propound- ed in reference to the Sacred Scriptures. In 1526, although his knowledge of Hebrew and Greek was far from extensive,^ he commenced a German translation of the Bible from the languages in which it was originally written, a work which he completed in 1534, placing the deutero books of the Old Testament by themselves, be- tween it and the New, under the title of " Apocrypha; that is, Books which are not to be considered as equal to Holy Scripture, and yet are useful and good to read." * 1 Nat. Alex., Hist. Ecclesiast. Tom. viii., p. lOO. 2 Hallam, Literature of Europe, Part I., c. vi., § 37. ^ Kitto's CycL, Deutero canonical. 284 The Canon of the Old Testament Moreover, Luther throughout his prefaces, one of which, in imitation of St. Jerome, he prefixed to each of the books in his German translation, as well as throughout his other Avritings, has expressed himself in such a way as to con- vince his readers that there were several proto books of the Old Testament, and deutero in the New, whose canonicity he either openly denied or doubted. Thus, although he retained Esther on the roll of sacred books, he is accused of having held that it was not entitled to a place therein ; and the charge appears to be well founded ; for in his Table Talk he declared to his confi- dential friends in his own arbitrary style : " The Book of Esther I toss into the Elbe." " I am so an enem)- to the Book of Esther, that I would it did not exist ; for it Judaizes too much, and hath in it a great deal of heathen- ish naughtiness." ' Again " Job (which he preserved in his German Old Testament) may have thought what is written in his book, but he did not pronounce these discourses. A man does not speak thus when he is tried." ' What Luther thought of the writings of Solo- mon may be inferred from the following. " The Prov- erbs of Solomon are (he says) a book of good works ; they are collected by others, who wrote them when the king, at table or elsewhere, had just uttered his maxims. There are added the teachings of wise doctors." ^ Speak- ing of'Ecclesiastes, " This book (he remarks) ought to be more complete ; it wants many things ; it has neither boots nor spurs, and rides in simple sandals, as I used to do when I was still in the convent. Solomon is not its author, etc." * " Ecclesiastes and Canticles (he continues) are, besides, books not of one piece ; there is no order in these books ; all is confused in them, which fact is ex- plained by their origin. For, Canticles, too, were com- posed by others from the sayings of Solomon." ' In his » Kitto's Cycl., Esther. ' Reuss, Hist, of the Canon of the H. S., p. 33 1. ^ Ibid. p. 330. •• Ibid. s Ibid. A mong the Sectarists. 285 work De Scrv. Arbit. addressed to Erasmus, speaking oi the Hebrew canon, "■ which canon (he remarks) you do not a little reproach, when you compare the Proverbs and the Love-song, as you sneeringly call it, with the two Books of Esdras, and Judith, Susannah, the Dragon, and the Book of Esther ; but though they have this last in their canon, it is in my judgment (he says) more worthy than all of being excluded from the canon." ' With the most liberal construction that can be put on his language, it is impossible to reach any other conclusion than that Luther did not believe that the books of Solomon were dictated by the Holy Ghost, and that Esther was canon- ical. His apologists would have us believe that, when he said, " Esther was more worthy than all of being ex- cluded from the canon," he meant Esther of the Septua- gint. But in vain ; for Luther, when he so \vrote, was referring to the Hebrew, not the Septuagint Old Testa- ment. Indeed, it is difficult to suppose that Luther's view of the Old Testament was that, which any class of Christians ever entertained. Thus he says : " The Books of Kings are a hundred thousand steps in advance of those of Chronicles, and they also deserve more credit. Still, they are only the calendar of the Jews containing the list of their kings and their kind of government." ^ Ordinary readers supposed that these books also con- tainedan account of God's dealings with his chosen peo- ple. Again, "■ Moses and the prophets preached, but w^e do not there hear God himself. . . . When God himself speaks to men, they hear nothing but grace and merc3^" ^ Most people, Protestants as well as Catholics, have always believed that, whether it was Moses or ih.Q proph- ets who preached, it was God Himself who did ihtpreaeh- ing, and then it was graee and vierey that were heard. Is there not good reason for suspecting, that Luther's 1 Kitto's Cycl.. Esther. 2 Reuss, Hist, of the Canon of the H. S., p. 331. ^ Ibid. 286 The Canon of the Old Testament canon of the Old Testament was determined more by an arbitrary and capricious will, than by a critical and deliberate judgment? Luther's canon of the New Testament seems to have been regulated on the same principle, indeed more so ; for, having, while promulgating his canon of the Old Testament, substituted abject submission to rabbinical authority for the obedience which by his vows he owed to the Church, it is surprising that, at the dictation of his Jewish teachers, he did not utterly repudiate the Christian Scriptures. There was one book, however, in these Scriptui-es for which he seems to have entertained a Satanic hatred, the Epistle of St. James. " This epistle (says he) in comparison with the writings of John, Paul, and Peter, is a right strawy epistle, being destitute of an evangelic character." ' Referring to this criti- cism, a learned Protestant writer ^ is constrained to sav that Luther " was influenced not so much bv historico- critical, as by dogmatic views." Such "views" were too often at the bottom of Luther's conclusions. Ever since he had broken his solemn vows to God, he seems to have determined on extirpating throughout Chris- tendom what all but himself considered good works. And as they constituted a large part of the ingredients in the pill compounded by St. James, it was not to be expected that the genial ex-monk, who had taken unto himself a wife, and had granted ^ two to a princely patron, would taste, much less gulp down, such nauseous medicine without a strong protest. Hence, in his pref- ace to James and John, he querulously remarks, that " this James does nothing but urge on to the law and its works, and writes so confusedly and inconsistently, that ' Preface to the New Testament. " Dr. Wright of Trinity College, Dublin, on Epistle of St. James, in Kitto's ■Cycl. 3 Bossuet's Variations. B. VI. Among the Scctarists. 287 it appears to me like as if some good pious man got hold of a number of sayings from the Apostles' follow- ers, and then flung them on paper; or it is probably written by some one after the Apostles' preaching." ' Luther therefore could not have held that the Epistle of St. James was divine. Reuss' admits that Luther " thought himself bound " by the views which he advocated " to dispute the can- onical dignity .... of the Epistles of James and Jude, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Apocalypse. He did not, indeed, suppress them in his editions, but from the first he relegated them to the end of the volume ; and in the tables of the contents placed at the top, he separated their titles from those of the books reputed to be canonical, all the more significant, that the twenty- three first alone were numbered, while the four last were not." And Luther's futile reasons for this novel and un-Christian arrangement were, " the Epistle of James derives justification from works; in interpreting the Old Testament it contradicts Paul; it does not speak of Christ, His death, His resurrection. His Spirit ; it speaks of a law of liberty, while we know from Paul that with the law are associated bondage, sin, anger, death. The Epistle to the Hebrews in three places (ch. vi., X., xii.) refuses repentance to sinners after baptism contrary to all the gospels and to all Paul's epistles. The Epistle of Jude, also, when judged by what is fundamental in the Christian faith, is useless. In the Apocalypse there are only images and visions .... threats and promises .... while no one knows what he means, and after all, Christ is neither taught nor ac^ knowledged. It may be compared to the Fourth Book of Esdras; the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is not perceptible in it." ' > Kitto's CycL. James. * Hist, of the Canon of the H. S., p. 325. 2 Ibid., pp. 326, 327. 288 TJie Canon of the Old Testament After reading Luther's argument against the Apoca- lypse, Dr. Davidson remarked : " This reasoning is mani- festly so inconsequential, and the style of criticism so bold, as to render animadversion unnecessary." ' By several Protestant critics, both in Germany and England, it is supposed that the Epistle to the Hebrews was not written by St. Paul but by Apollo, a conjecture for which they are indebted to Luther. ^ Luther's transla- tion determined the form and tone of the Bible in almost all Protestant countries, and long retained his prefaces at the head of each book. There are some editions in which these four books, Epistle of James, Epistle of Jude, Hebrews, and the Apocalypse, to all of which Luther ob- jected, are set apart by themselves and stigmatized Apo- crypJia. In fact, what Protestants call the Antilcgonicna (deutero of the New Testament), that is, the books just mentioned, as well as the Second Epistle of Peter and the Second and Third of John, are headed by the words " Apocrypha of the New Testament" '^ in the Lunenberg edition of Luther's Bible, published in 1618, that is, sixty-eight years after Luther's death. * Luther's view of the deutero books in the Old as well as the New Testament was adopted b}' Martin Chemnitz,'* and Johann Brentz, " both leading German reformers, who, though somewhat younger than Luther, belonged to the same century ; and by many other less brilliant lights, whose belief must have been considerably influ- enced by the critical remarks contained in Luther's prefaces. Even the centuriators of Magdeburg were favorably impressed by Luther's views. They, how- ever, with other Lutherans, strenuously defended the canonicity of the Apocalypse, that book being then 1 Kitto's Cycl., Vol. II., p. 619. * Ibid., I., p. 826. * Reuss, Hist, of the Canon of the S. S., p. 338. 4 Kitto's Cyct., II., p. 508. ■'' Examen, Sessio VI., Cone. Trid. •> Conf. Wittenberg. Among the Sect arists. 289 considered by all good Protestants the most useful in the entire Bible, and absolutely indispensable to the success of their cause; as no one could read it, so they believed, without being convinced that Rome was the Apocalyptic Babylon, and the Pope that veritable anti- Christ revealed to St. John. John Calvin, a contemporary of Luther, though with him equally opposed to the deutero books of the Old Testament, was more indulgent to those of the New, yet he seemed to have been somewhat doubtful about the Second Epistle of Peter, for he observes with regard to it that " notwithstanding some affinity in style, the dis- crepancies between it and the former (I. Peter) are such as to indicate that they had not the same author." ' Since Calvin's time it has been rejected by several learned Protestants, as Grotius, Scaliger, Salmasius, Semler, etc. ° Bolten, Grotius, Michaelis, and others, following in the steps of Luther, have also called in question the apostohc origin, if not the canonicity of the Epistle of Jude. ' In fact, there is not any of the deutero books belonging to the New Testamement whose divine origin has not been denied by Protestant writers, especially in Germany ; while the Bible as a whole has been assailed by non-Catholic scholars wher- ever Protestantism has a following, in a spirit of criti- cism decidedly more worthy of avowed infidels than professing Christians. While, thus, on the one hand, Protestant biblicists have been endeavoring to reduce not a few of the sacred books to the level of profane writings, others of the same class have been exerting their talents to prove that certain compositions, con- fessed at all times to be purely human, were of equal authority with anything the Apostles had wi"itten. The apostolical canons and constitutions, for example, = Comment, in Ep. Cath. * Kitto's CycL, Vol. II., p. 508. 3 IbicL, p. 172. 290 The Canon of the O. T. among the Seetarists. with the various liturgies ascribed to St. Peter and St. Mark, and published by Fabricius in his Codex Apocry- phus Nov. Testanienti, are considered by the learned . William Whiston, ' and the equally learned John Ernest Grabe/ the former an Anglican minister, the latter originally a Lutheran, as authoritative as any of the books attributed to the apostles. When the frenzied opposition exhibited b}- Protes- tants to all ecclesiastical authorit}-, on their separation from the Catholic Church, had somewhat subsided, they began to perceive that Luther and his associates had gone too far in their attempts at remodelling that can- on of Scripture which their fathers had followed ever since they became Christians. The deutero books of the New Testament were, therefore, everywhere gradu- ally restored to their proper position. But those of the Old, though commonly admitted to be of some practical use, even if merel}- human, were excluded from the canon, but generally inserted by themselves between the Old and New Testament under the title of Hagio- grapha, or more frequentlv Apocrypha. Even this scant honor was too often grudged them. At the present time, though the annual production of English Protes- tant Bibles is simpl}- immense, most Protestants whose vernacular is English live and die without ever having seen a copy containing these books. It was also soon perceived by those who adopted the principles of Luther that the versions of Scripture which their teach- ers had prepared for their use, whether through the ignorance or malice of the translators, misrepresented the original in many important particulars. In fact, this discovery was made while many of the translators were still alive, and not onl}- led to bitter recriminations among those gentlemen themselves, but called forth vigorous protests from Protestants as well as Catholics. ' Primitive Christianity. - Spicilegium. CHAPTER XXI. The Canon of the Old Testament among the Prot- estants OF THE Sixteenth Century.— Their Versions of the Bible. Regarding the estimate made by INIartin Luther of several books of the Scripture, proto as well as deutero, the examination has been purposely restricted through- out to the voluntary statements submitted by Protes- tant witnesses. And it is now for each reader to constitute himself a court and say, whether and to what extent the said Luther has offended against the sacred majesty of God's own word. The next point to be dis- cussed is the merits of the version prepared by Luther. This to be succeeded by a few remarks on some of the more pretentious versions, which followed fast and thick, as soon as Luther, in his own way, had prodigal- ly given the Bible to the people. The subject is one in which both sides are supposed to have no little interest. It is but right, therefore, that on it Catholics as well as Protestants should be granted a hearing. Hardly had Luther's translation seen the light, when it was condemned by his old antagonist Emser, a schol- ar not more distinguished for his devotion to Catholic principles than for his thorough knowledge of Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. This accomplished critic declared that Luther had falsified the sacred text in almost every page, and that his version contained nearly fourteen hun- dred errors and corruptions. The stormy temper of the translator was aroused, and he hurled at his remorseless 292 . The Canon of the Old Testament censor the coarsest epithets in his foul vocalubary — " ass, blockhead, imp of Satan," etc. * " I dont care (screamed Luther) for the Popish asses, because they are unable to appreciate my labors." ' Yet he afterwards corrected several of the errors which Emser and others had ex- posed.^ It was bad enough to be thus severely handled by his Catholic adversaries. But, worse still, Luther's translation was condemned by the very men who were embarked in the same cause with himself. Martin Bucer, a zealous advocate of the new doctrines, did not hesitate to say that " Luther's mistakes in translating and explaining the Scriptures were manifest and not a few." ' Zuinglius, another reformer, " publicly announced that Luther's version corrupted the word of God ; " but Lu- ther had his revenge in this instance, for " the Lutherans said the same of the version by Zuinglius." Leusden's criticism was equally severe with that of Bucer and Zuinglius. "It swarmed (according to him) with errors." Aldigondius was still more sweeping in his condemna- tion of the new German Bible by Luther ; " I will freely confess (these are his words) that among all the versions of all translators none has appeared to me to differ so much from the Hebrew verity as the version of Luther." K translation of Luther's Bible into Dutch was made soon after its appearance for the use of Protestants who spoke that language, But in 161 8-19 this Dutch Bible was formally condemned by the Synod of Dort, which at the same time directed that a new version in Dutch should be made from the original. These facts have all been presented in 'Dixon's Introeinction to the Sacred Script^ires. ^ Such was the verdict pronounced on the version of Luther by many who lived at the same time or soon after, and who had adopted either completely or par- ' Audin, Life of Luther, c. xxiv. ' Ibid. ^ Ibid. ^ Ibid. ^ Trevtxn's Amicable Discuss. ,\q\ i., p. 127 (note). 6 Vol. I., pp. 209., 210. And Protestant Versions of tJic Bible. 293 tially the religious system of which Luther was the found- er. A subsequent generation of German Protestants has confirmed that verdict, for in 1836 several Lutheran consistories expressed a wish for an entire revision of Luther's Bible .' In fact, the Old Testament, as contained in that Bible, has long since generally ceased to be under- stood by the ordinary German reader, while in its New Testament the Epistles have become obscure. "" Luther's order and arrangement of the books in the New Testa- ment seem to have been preserved, up to the present time, without, however, his prefaces, which are no longer found in current German Protestant Bibles, but have been several times published by themselves.'' Luther's Old Testament, barring its mistranslations, is strictly Jewish, not by any means such as ever had been current among Christians, though probably equal to any executed by the early reformers. But Luther's New Testament is neither Protestant nor Catholic. Certainly not Protestant, because he assigned an infe- rior position to four of its books, which Protestants gen- erally place in the same rank with the rest. And assur- edly not Catholic, not only for this reason, but because it abounds with so many and such grave corruptions as to render it a base German counterfeit of the origin- al text. These corruptions, at least many of them, cannot be imputed to the ignorance of the translator, though it is admitted, as we have seen, that Luther's knowledge of Greek as well as of Hebrew was not extensive ; no, they are to be attributed to his own bad faith, and a wicked purpose of perverting the sense of the Scripture, in or- der to justify the errors he taught and the profiigate career on which he had entered. For, though it was not until late in life that he commenced the study of He- ' Audin, Life of Luther, c. xxiv. ' Ibid. ^ Reuss, Hist, of the Canon of the H. S., p. 338. 294 T^^^'- Canon of the Old Testament brew and Greek, his familiarity with these languages must have been such that, had he made an honest use of other means at hand, he could have executed a substan-^ tially correct version of the Bible, which all admit his is not. Thus it has been remarked ' that he had re- course to the Vulgate in rendering difficult passages, that he translated the deutero books almost word for word from it, that he made use of an old German Cath- olic translation of the Vulgate, availed himself of the Latin interlinear translation of Sanctes Pagninus, and above all, that he derived great assistance from the learned commentaries of a converted Jew who lived in the fourteenth century, Nicholas de Lyra. It is for this reason that it has been commonly said, and as common- ly admitted by critics, " Si Lyra non lyrasset, Luther- us non saltasset, vel Lutherus delirasset." It is a play upon the word " Lyra," intimating that, if Nicholas de Lyra had not written his commentaries, Luther would have cut a sorry figure as a translator, or would have made a fool of himself. That, as it was, he distinguished himself in the latter capacity, not many who have stud- ied his life or read his writings will be disposed to deny. With all the facilities which he possessed for writing a correct translation, Luther in many instances failed to produce a German equivalent for the texts that lay be- fore him. He entered on his task not with the desire of providing his countr3a"nen with a more faithful version of the Scriptures than they already possessed, but with the deliberate purpose of inoculating them with the virus of his own errors, by preparing for them a version in which those errors should be actually sanctioned by the w^ord of God as misinterpreted by him. Hence he not unfrequently compelled the original, not only to speak a language which it neither expresses nor implies, but to convey a sense which it directly contradicts. ' Comely, Introd. in . Scrip., I., p. 490. And Protestant Versions of the Bible. 295 And all this in order- to extort from that sacred original a proof, that the wicked doctrines which he undertook to defend were contained in the Scriptures. How- ever, as those doctrines were antagonistic rather to the principles enunciated in the Christian than to any truth expressed in the Jewish Scriptures, Luther's perversions of the sacred text are especially flagrant, brazen, and barefaced in the New Testament. To illustrate this, it is to be observed that Luther taught, that among other points on which the whole of Christendom East and West had been mistaken up to his time, were the observance of clerical celibacy and the belief that good works were necessary to salvation. He therefore undertook to prove, that in these as well as other matters of belief and practice, the Church was in error. And his proof brought conviction to all who believed that, in the base counterfeit he had substituted for the Bible, they found the word of God. Take for example his treatment of L Cor. ix. 5, where the literal sense of the passage is, " Have we not the right to lead about a sister zvoman, as also the rest of the apostles? etc Luther found here a chance of proving one of his favorite doctrines, and he determined to mistranslate one word, and interpolate another ; so he rendered it thus: " Have we not power to lead about a sister /^r a wife, like the rest of the apostles?" his object being to show that St. Paul and the other apostles all had wives, and consequently that clerical celibacy was condemned by apostolic practice. It was not enough for him to substitute zvife for woman, the common meaning of ^;///^. but he must represent St. Paul as claiming the right to consort with the sister in question, as with his own wife whereas it is so clear from L Cor. vii. 7 that St. Paul had no wife, that a Protestant commentator con- fesses that St. Paul was unmarried." ' In most Protestant 1 Adam Clark, on I. Cor. vii. 7. 296 The Canoji of the Old Test avi cut translations the text which Luther falsified is mistrans- lated, but not so grossly as in Luther's Bible. In King- James's version, of which Luther's perverted Bible was the basis, the clause in question is "a sister a xvifc. In the latest revision of that version, for it had to be often corrected, it is "a wife that is a believer." Possibly, when the next revision of the so called Authorised J^ersion is made, zw man wiW be as it ought to be substituted for wife. For gune, as just remarked, unless otherwise im- plied in the context, means simply a woman, whether married or single. Thus St. Peter, Luke xxii. 57. ' ac- costs ?LSgiinai — woman — the //^rt:/ Rt. Rev. Dr. Corcoran. " Vol. IV., ,No. 15 ; Vol. V., No. 20. ^ Pre/ace to a Translation of the Apostolical Epistles. — S^e also Dixon, A ■Gen. Introd. to the S. Scrip.. I., p. 208. And Protestant Versions of the Bible. 303 to regulate the Bible by their creed, instead of shaping their creed by the Bible. Now, as the creed of no Prot- estant country ever was, or is now, a constant quanti- ty, the Protestant Bible, wherever it has appeared or whatever its language, has undergone more changes than any book that was ever written. But it is time to turn our attention to some of the attempts made by the English reformers to supph' their followers with what they called the word of God, especially as the Protestant Bibles described in the preceding remarks will enable the read- er to form a fair estimate of the other versions pre- pared b}' the reformers in the continent of Europe. All the English Protestant versions contained without any distinction the deutero books of the New Testa- ment, which are generally designated the Antilegomcna by Protestant writers. It was not so, however, with the deutero books of the Old Testament. These, when in- serted in the same volume with the other books, were commonly assigned such a position, or given such a ti- tle, as implied that they were of inferior authority. In fact, this arrangement, when the books in question were not absolutel}' excluded from the volume supposed to contain the Holy Scriptures, was adopted in all Protes- tant translations. Nor need this be a matter of sur- prise. For Professor Smith * confesses that " the re- formers and their successors, up to the time when all Protestant versions were fixed, were for all purposes of learning in the hands of Rabbins." But what are we to think of versions with which the enemies of Christ and of the Christian religion had anything to do ? Tyndale's Bible. — William Tyndale, an apostate priest, was the first to attempt an English Protestant translation. Compelled to abandon England, he fled to the Continent. And no sooner had he landed at Ham- burg than he hastened to greet Luther at Wittenberg. * 1 The O. T. in the Jewish Church, p. 44. ^ Encycl. Britt., English Bible. 304 The Canon of the Old Testament There he probably commenced his translation of the New Testament. And in it he adopted Luther's pref- aces to the several books, as well as many of Luther's annotations. The translation was printed at Cologne, in 1526, and appeared the same year in England. He also translated the Five Books of Moses, Jonas, and, ac- cording to some, other parts of the Old Testament, as far as the end of Paralipomena. Hallam,^ after observing that Luther's translation " is more renowned for the purity of its German idiom than for its adherence to the original text," admits that it was "from this translation, however, and from the Latin Vulgate, the English one of Tyndale. ... is avowedly taken." His reason for say- ing so being that Tyndale was ignorant of Hebrew, and had but a slight, if any, knowledge of Greek. Sir Thomas More, in a notice of Tyndale's translation, says that in it such old Christian vv^ords as church, priest, anoint- ing, consecrating, sacraments, ceremonies, were changed into congregation, seniors, smearing, cJiarming, ceremo- nies, witcJicraft. ^ It will thus be perceived that Tyn- dale's vocabulary as a translator differed altogether, not only from that of the Catholic versions current in Eng- land at the time, but from that of the Protestant version used there at present. Permitted by God to take part in preparing the way for Puritanism, he therefore con- cluded that the most effectual way to succeed in that unholy mission was not only to corrupt the Bible of his countrymen, but to cheat them out of that form of speech which, so long as they r-etained, they would prob- ably have remained Catholics. Had he been spared to complete his version of the Old Testament, it can hardly be doubted,that its deutero books would have been treat- ed by him with as little consideration as they received from his friend and adviser at Wittenberg. ' Encycl. Britt., English Bible. - Liicrat. of Europe, Part I., p. 380. 3 Milner's Anyiuer to Crier's Reply (Ward's Errata'). And Protestant Versions of t lie Bible. 305 Coverdale's Bible.— Miles Coverdale, like Luther an apostate Augustinian friar, and afterwards for a few 3'ears Anglican bishop of Exeter under Edward VI., translated the entire Bible into English. It was pub- lished in 1 536, and was the first to receive royal authority. The defects of Tyndale's Bible, besides its incomplete- ness, had probably been found to be such that the re- formers demanded another more in accordance with the original text, perhaps w^ith their own motley belief. The title of Coverdale's Bible was " Biblia. The Bible, that is, the Holy Scripture of the Okie and New Testament, faithfully and truly translated out of Douche and Latyn into Englishe, MDXXXV." Hallam ' has therefore very truthfully remarked, that Coverdale's Bible " is avowedly taken" from Luther's translation and the Lat- in Vulsrate. Dr. Davidson, ' in an article on Versions, says of Coverdale's Bible that, "although the author had the benefit of Tyndale's, his work must be consid- ered inferior. In addition to ihe culpable obsequious- ness of Coverdale, he was not so well skilled in the orig- inal languages of the Scriptures, and had therefore to rely on the German and Latin." It was therefore from bad to worse, when English Protestants betook them- selves for a rule of faith from Tyndale's Bible to Cover- dale's. In the latter the deutero books of the Old Testament were divided from the proto and printed separately, with the exception of Baruch, ' which was allowed to retain its place, until another edition appeared in 1550, when it was ranked among the deutero. These books were called by Coverdale in his Bible " The Vol- ume of the Book called the Hagiographa." Matthew's Bible, — so called probably because a person of that name had most to do in its preparation, was published in 1537. It was simply a revision of Tyn- ' Literature of Europe, Part L, p. 380. - Kitto's Cycl., IL, 918. ^ Ibid., I., 556. 3o6 TJic Canon of the Old Testament dale's as far as the latter went, the remainder of the Old Testament having been translated by John Rogers, alias Matthew, with perhaps some assistance from Cover- dale's. In it the deutero books of the Old Testament were separated from the others, and entitled, " The volume of the book called Hagiographa." It contains Olivetan's preface in Calvin's version, wherein the Old Testament deutero books are referred to rather disre- spectfully. Taverner's Bible, — the work of Richard Tavern er, was published in 1539. It was nothing more than the Matthew Bible corrected. Cranmer's Bible, — so named because published, in 1539, underthe auspices of the notorious Anglican Arch- bishop of Canterbury, went through several editions, each, like all the preceding Bibles, proving b}^ its appear- ance that, notwithstanding all that had been done to satisfy the cravings of British Protestants for the Script- ures, England had not yet secured the pure word of God. Indeed, this was admitted b}^ the most learned Protestants in the country at the time. In Cranmer's Bible the Ohvetan preface was retained, and " the volume of the book called Hagiographa " prefixed to the col- lection of Old Testament deutero books. But in the edi- tion of 1549 Apocrypha was substituted for Hagiographa. Cranmer's Bible is no more than the translation of Tyn- dale and Rogers ' revised, with a prologue by Cranmer. On account of its size it was also called the Great Bible. The Geneva or Breeches Bible, as it is sometimes called, because in Gen. iii. 7 the translator had substituted breeches for apron, was printed in 1560, at Geneva, and is the work of William Whittingham, Antony Gibby, and Thomas Sampson, all fugitive reformers. In it the deu- tero books of the Old Testament are printed separately, with a preface, in which they are treated with much ' Allibone's Dictionary of Authors. A nd Protestant Versions of the Bible. 307 reverence, though not considered sufficiently authorita- tive to establish any point of Christian doctrine. In the parallel passages which the margin of this translation contains, references are even made to the deutero books. The Geneva Bible was not an original work but a re- vision of the Great Bible. ' The Bishops' Bible, — otherwise called Parker's, was published in 1568, under the superintendence of Matthew Parker, Anglican Archbishop of Canterbur}-. There were fifteen translators emplo_yed upon it, and eight of them being bishops, it was called the Bishops' Bible. It, too, was a revision of the Great Bible, as appears b}- one of the rules laid down for the guidance of the translators, ' who, however, were to consult the Hebrew and Greek originals. The Olivetan preface was omitted in the Bishops' Bible. But the deutero books of the Old Tes^ tament, or, as they were then generall}' designated, the Apocrypha, appeared therein by themselves under that title, being thus, as in all other English Protestant Bibles, excluded from what the reformers considered the pure word of God. 1 EncycL Britt., Blunt on En^. Bible. 2 jbij. CHAPTER XXII. The English Protestant Bible. All these English translations, revisions, and editions having been made like those by the continental reform- ers for the purpose of extorting from the Bible a reason, or at least an apolog}^ for the violent suppression of the religion which the people of England had all along pro- fessed, they simply reflected the opinions of their authors, not the doctrines which God had revealed in the Divine Scriptures. Brought out one after another in rapid suc- cession, these counterfeit copies of the Word of God unsettled the minds of their readers, who, as instructed by their teachers, supposed themselves authorized to interpret the Scriptures each one for himself ; and believ- ing that the book placed in their hands contained the very words, or at least the exact doctrines, which the Holy Ghost had communicated to mankind, they organ- ized themselves into innumerable conflicting sects, which soon developed into mutually hostile factions, whose struggles for supremacy hardly ceased, even when al- tar and throne had been overturned, and a Church estab- lished with a creed so comprehensive, yet so indefinite, as to embrace, so far as that was possible, all existing shades of Protestant belief. There were, however, not wanting men entitled to a respectful hearing, by their learning and social position, who protested vehemently against the profanation and corruption of the sacred text bv such unscrupulous 308 The Canon of the O. T. and English Protestant Bible . 309 translators as the Tyndales, Coverdales, etc., of the time. Among those who so protested were ministers of the gospel, statesmen, and university professors, all staunch advocates of the reformation. Thus a number of peti- tioners who addressed " his most excellent majesty, King James L," on the subject, comp-lained " that our trans- lation of the Psalms, comprised in our Book of Com- mon Prayer, doth, in addition, subtraction, and al- teration, differ from the truth of the Hebrew in at least two hundred places." The ministei's of Lincoln Diocese also urged on the royal attention, while refer- ring to the Protestant Bible then in use, that it " is a trans- lation that takes away from the text, that adds to the text, and that, sometimes, to the changing or obscuring of the meaning of the Holy Ghost ; " they denounced it still further as " a translation which is absurd and sense- less, perverting in many places the meaning of the Holy Ghost." Hugh Broughton, a minister, the most accom- plished Hebrew scholar of his time and thoroughly versed in Rabbinical learning, in his advertisements of corruptions, tells the Anglican bishops " that their pub- lic translation of Scriptures into English is such, that it perverts the text of the Old Testament in eight hun- dred and forty eight places, and that it causes millions of millions to reject the New Testament, and to run to eternal flames." King James, as he is reported to have said, had surely good reason to complain " that he could never see a Bible well translated into English." These statements, and many more of the same character, with the proper references, will be found in Ward's Errata. " Corrupt," " absurd," " senseless," " contrary," and *' perverting the meaning of the Holy Ghost " are the words used by learned Protestant writers to character- ize the Protestant translations of the Bible prepared for the use of the English people. King James's Bible.— Convinced that so far no modern 3IO Tiic Canon of tJie Old Testament translation deserving that name had been made of the Scriptures, King James I. directed that a new version from the original languages of the Bible should be writ- ten, and care taken to correct the corruptions which previous English translators had introduced into the text. Fort3*-seven learned men were selected for the purpose, and rules laid down for their guidance by the king. Four or five years were spent b}^ them on the task. And the New, or, as it is often called, the authorized version, or King James's Bible — the same having been ever since used by all English speaking Protestants — was published in 1611. In it, as already stated, the deutero books of the Old Testament were separated from the others, and under the title of ApoerypJia ap- pended to "that part of the Bible. At present the " authorized " version is usually published without them. Of this version Dr. Davidson, often cited in the present work, said in 1845 • " It need scarcely be stated that King James's translators have failed to apprehend the true meaning in many passages. Of the merit attaching to their version a considerable share belongs to Tyndale. Parker's Bible was the professed basis, and that was a i"evision of Cranmer's. Cranmer's Bible was a revision of Matthew's, or, in other words, of Tyndale's. Thus King James's translation resolves itself, in no small meas- ure, into Tyndale's." ' But long before this criticism appeared it had been conclusively shown that King James's translators not only " failed to apprehend the true meaning in many pass- ages," but that they wilfully, shamelessly, and criminally mistranslated almost innumerable texts, with the obvious intention of persuading their readers that the Protestant religion was sanctioned and the Catholic religion con- demned by the Bible. For, having been selected on account of their knowledge of the languages in which 1 Kittos CycL, Vol. II., p. 919. A7id English Protestant Bible. 3 i i the Bible was originally written, it is not to be supposed that " they failed to apprehend the true meaning " of the text in passages which the merest tyro in those languages, at least with the assistance of the Vulgate and other early versions, could easily interpret. Yet there are many such passages which those learned linguists mistranslated, and generally in a sense favor- able to their own religious belief, and condemnator}- of certain doctrines taught by the Catholic Church. Let any unprejudiced reader consult Ward's Errata of the Protestant Bible, and he will be convinced that in these remarks the faults, of which King James's translators were guilty, have not been exaggerated. And though many of the falsifications which Ward in 1688 exposed to public reprobation had, as he admitted, been corrected before that, and others have been corrected since, quite a number still remain to prove that the men, who made the last English Protestant version of the Bible, basely and criminally abused the trust reposed in them, and imposed on all English speaking Protestants throughout the world what is in many respects nothing but a men- dacious parody of God's holy word. That it is such can be very easily shown. But before citing a few out of the many instances in which these translators wilfully perverted the meaning of the text before them; in oi'der to convince all into whose hands their version might fall, that Protestantism was the religion of the Bible, and Catholicity a gross superstition condemned by the Bible; we must say a word or two regarding the men, whose labors on the Bible were for manv ages to regu- late in a great measure the religious views of Protes- tants, wherever the English language should be spoken. The translators consisted mainly of two factions bitter- ly opposed to each other, but ready for the time being to forget their differences and unite for the success of any scheme contrived for the extermination of what they re- 312 The Canon of the Old Testament garded the common enemy, Popery, as they designated the Catholic religion. These two factions were Angli- cans and Puritans, or Episcopalians and Calvinists, the former the defenders and the latter the opponents of prelacy. The Anglicans professed a heresy which had its origin in England ; the Puritans advocated another, which had been imported from Geneva. Their version was the outgrowth of all the Protestant Bibles which had circulated in Ens^land since the time of Tvndale, whose Bible served as a basis for it, as it had done for all the rest. But the authors of King James's version had a more difficult task to perform than had fallen to the lot of those who had preceded them in the same field of labor. The latter wrote each in the interest of one party; the former had to consult the prejudices not only of two main factions, but of the several cliques belong- ing to each of these. Their Bible, therefore, was a com- promise, while it retained the anti-Catholic tone peculiar to all those Bibles of which it was a development. These Bibles, one and all, had been prepared for the purpose of rendering the doctrines and practices of the Church, her worship and her ministers, odious to the peo- ple of England. And special care had been taken by their authors to so distort the meaning of the original wherever it was possible, that the simple reader must necessarily believe, or at least suspect, that the faith of Catholics either could not be established by the Script- ure or was condemned b}' it. These perversions of the truth, as contained in the Bible, passed into King James's version; and they remain there, many of them, to this day; and may be found even in the latest revision which has been made of that version. From the first, the purpose of Tvndale, Coverdale, and all who followed in their wake, was to twist text after text in order to show that Catholics were idolaters. Even the royal stripling Edward VI., prompted by his trainer, disdained not to A nd EnglisJi Protestant Bible. 3 1 3 take part in the unholy and uncharitable work; for he collected all the texts he could find against idols, and in an essa}^ on the subject expressed his astonishment " that so many people have dared to commit idolatry by viakijig and adoring images^ ^ What wonder that a proclamation was issued at the time directing that all images be de- stroyed ? ' With every government, from that of Henry VIII. down to the present century (that of Mary excepted), against them, with the popular Bible against them, and with public feeling, the consequence of these two causes, against them, need we be surprised at the hue and cry of which Catholics have been the object for so many ages in England. Their enemies of all sects and parties then argued against them after this fashion — a fashion as simple as it was successful. Idolaters are not to be tolerated. But Catholics are idolaters. Therefore Catholics are not to be tolerated. To most people the Major proposition would appear self-evident. In fact, it is plainly laid down in Deut. xiii. 6-17. The Minor was demonstrated by innumerable texts in the Protestant (not Jewish) Bible, like Ex. xx. 4. Lev. xxxvi. i, Deut. xxvii. 15, where it is forbidden by God to make graven and molten images, and the maker of such images is cursed. Now Catholics confessedly not only make, but worsJiip such images, and even pro- fess that the worship of images, or, to use their own words, the cidtns imaginum, is a part of their religion. It follows therefore by all the rules of logic that Catholics are idolaters, and as such are to be punished as directed in Deut. xiii., of at least, if they do not conform to the worship established by act of Parliament, that they should be exterminated, as under Henry VIII., Edward VI., Queen Elizabeth, Cromwell, etc., by fines, confisca- ' Bossuet's Variations, Vol. i., p. 264. 3 '3 ■^ Lingard, Hist, of England. Vol. v.. p. 129 314 The Cajion of the Old Testament tion, exile, imprisonment, the gibbet, and the heads- man's axe. While wrestling with this sj^llogism, the Catholics of the time may or may not have discussed the Major pro- position ; at all events, in the issue forced upon them it was immaterial. But they stoutly and successfully de- nied the Minor, as they do still. First, because the word worship (cultus), though sometimes improperly used to express the honor due to God, is very commonly em- ployed to signify the respect paid to a creature. Thus in the AngHcan marriage service the bridegroom says to his bride, " with my body I thee ivorshipT And the civil magistrate is addressed in England with the word " your zvorship " or " Right ivorshipfiil^' this last sign of respect being sometimes paid even to women of exalted rank. It is in this sense that the word zuorship is used, when its object is holy images or God's saints, as the Council of Trent, ' the highest authority in the CathoHc Church, has taught. Second, because, to remove all ambiguity on the subject, our theologians distinguish three kinds oizvorship: — Latvia, the divine worship due to God alone, and of which no mere creature is worthy. To offer this worship to any creature is idolatry (Latria of idols). Dulia, that inferior worship offered to a creature, as the saints, their relics or images, or any person, on account of his virtues, office, etc. It was this which Josue offered to the angel. ^ And Hyperdiilia, a higher kind of that dulia with which the saints are honored, and to which the Mother of God as the hoHest of all creatures is alone entitled. Catholics are there- fore not idolaters because they worship holy images ; since, while doing so, it is not latria but dulia they offer to those objects. To kiss the Bible or swear by it is dulia, and what Protestant scruples to worship God's holy word in this way, or would not treat as an insult 1 Sessio XXV. '^ Josue v. 14. A nd English Protestant Bible. 3 1 5 or a slander the charge that his act is idolatry ? Be- sides, the veneration paid by Catholics to holy images is offered to God as its ultimate object— God, without whom nothing would be holy or worthy of worship.— Third, Cathohcs deny the Minor proposition, because it is not alone infamously slanderous, but flagrantly blas- phemous ; for it insults the Holy Ghost, the author of the Sacred Scriptures, as well as calumniates Catholics themselves. This is retorting the argument with a ven- geance. But the proof is at hand, and is now submit- ted, as the first instance in which King James's translat- ors,- following the bad example of Tyndale and Co., perverted the meaning of the Bible to establish a false- hood and perpetuate a calumny. No I.— In Exod. XX. 4, xxxi. 4, Lev. xix. 4, xxvi. i, Deut. xxvii. 15, and dozens of other places, the royal translat- ors interpolated or retained image or images, which they knew right well was not in the original. For in- stance, the original of the verse last named is, as literally rendered, "Cursed is the man who makes ^graven or a molten— tV^sit two words expressing exactly and respec- tively the two Hebrew words pesel and massecah, and being correctly represented in the Septuagint hy ghtpton and choneuton, and in the Vulgate by sculptile and confla- tile. It is unnecessary to say, that the authors of the Septuagint, at least, were in a position to ascertain the sense of the original far better than it was possible for the Anglican translators to do. The former, living in the third century before Christ, had the use of much older and more varied manuscripts. They were all Jews, and all, of course, competent Hebrew scholars, while the latter, whatever their knowledge of Hebrew, were re- stricted to a class of manuscripts modified after a Rabbini- cal archetype, which can be traced no further back than the first century, ' the oldest of said manuscripts being 1 Smith, The Old Test, in the Jewish Church, pp. 74, 75- 3 1 6 The Cano7i of the Old Testament dated A. D. 916, ' and all of them originating with and modified by the Masoretic doctors. Well would it have been for the credit of our Anglican translators had they in the texts referred to, and indeed in many others, followed the Greek and Latin versions, and left the words sculpt He and con flat ilc just as they found them, or if not, anglicized them by sculpture and casting, terms quite intelligible to English readers. No doubt they could and should have adopted the "■ a grav- en or a molten tiling" of the Douay Bible, or, if they dis- dained to copy the rendering of Catholic scholars, though that rendering i-eproduced exactly in English what was expressed in the Hebrew, they might have written " a graven or a molten figure, or emblem, or ob- ject, or representation. But so fastidious were the}- in the choice of words whenever the text referred to idol- atry, that in the whole range of the English language they could find but one adapted to their taste. No one can blame them for endeavoring to fill the hiatus. Catholics had already filled it with " thing," a word which left the sense of the original undecided, just as it had been left by the inspired writer. For a translator has no right to commit a writer, whose work he under- takes to reproduce in another language, to an idea which that writer has not expressed. And this rule is to be closely followed, indeed, admits of no exception, when a translator assumes the duty of making known to others what God has written in a language not un- derstood by them. But our Protestant translators of the Hebrew Bible thought otherwise, at least they acted otherwise. For they gave their readers to understand that the inspired writer had written image, where he had written nothing of the kind, although he had in his language a good equivalent. Thus, when wishing to express the idea ' Pref. to last Rev. of King James's Bible, note. And EnglisJi Protestant Bible. 317 conveyed by image, he had already written tselem.' vSo, although the}' had in their own language several synony- mous words, they rejected them all for image, that being the only one by which, with the aid of a falsified text, they hoped to convict of idolatry the Catholics, on ac- count of the veneration these cherished for sacred images. And every time the translators inserted that word, where another would have served as well and far better; and where the inspired pensman had not written it, they knew right well that the covering of the tabernacle con- tained " interwoven images of cJiernbim ; " and that its en- trance " was closed by a splendid curtain, in which figures were woven," while ''figures of cJierubim were woven in the curtain which separated the sanctuary from the holy of holies; " ° and that over the ark of the covenant there " were two cherubim." ' They knew, too, that God had directed that a brazen serpent * should be erected, at the sight of which image those bitten by ser- pents were to be cured. They were also well aware that in God's holy temple at Jerusalem, besides the im- mense images of the two cherubim over the ark, there were several other such images, and even images oi oxen, lions, etc. ^ Of all this the English Protestant translat- ors of the Bible were fully cognizant. Yet, wherever they met with the Hebrew equivalent for graven and molten in passages forbidding the use of such material for idolatrous purposes, they take care to add the word image — no doubt presuming, that their simple readers; unable to perceive that, while idolatrous images were forbidden in one part of the Bible, images connected with the worship of the true God were permitted in another: and, perhaps incapable, without previous instruction, of distinguishing between the two classes of iniages, would ' Gen. i. 26. See A Lapide's Com. - Kitto's Cycl. (Tabernacle). ' Ibid. Ex. xxxvii. 7. 317 "• Num. xxi. 9. 5 III. Kings vi. vii. 3i8 The Canon of the Old Testament rise from the perusal of the first part of the Bible with the conviction that the use of images for any purpose whatever and under all possible circumstances was sim- ply idolatrv, and that the class of so-called Christians known as Catholics, but known also as worshippers of images, were after all nothing but idolaters. That con- viction, in fact, was actually produced, and has been long cherished by a large class of Protestants. Indeed, it ma}' be doubted whether it has been universally discarded by them. At all events, its propagation, if not its origin, is to be placed to the credit of the men who wrote that English version, which has circulated among Protestants since the beginning of the seventeenth century. An apologist might plead in behalf of those men their early training, the first lesson of which inculcated the belief that Catholic worship was i-ank idolatr)' ; the state of public opinion, according to which, so far as Catholics were concerned, persecution was at worst but an act of stern justice, and toleration an unmerited and impolitic privilege ; and the general circulation of false and anti-Catholic Bibles, from whose text it would not have been safe for the translators to have deviated ver}- much. To all this there is a ready and satisfactory answer. No combination of circumstances can excuse, much less justify, a wilful and systematic misrepresentation of what is contained in the holy Scriptures. And this is the offence with which King James's translators have been charged all along, ever since their Bible was pub- lished— a serious offence, no matter from what quarter it proceeds, but particularl}' so when committed by a prominent body of Christian ministers. That any of them ever formally plead guilty to this grave charge does not appear. But it is certain that the official chiefs in the Anglican communion, those charged with the care of the Anglican version, have more than once and in And English Protestant Bible. 319 several instances corrected in it errors which were the result not only of human frailt}' but of bad faith. For to nothing but bad faith can be attributed the insertion, without any reason or authorit}*, of the particular word image m almost every passage prohibiting the practice of idolatry. Yet all such passages remain to this day (wnth one exception, to be immediately indicated) just as the translatoi'S left them, as if those who make use of this version, and who alone can make the necessary cor- rections, were determined to retain as long as possible the dishonest advantage resulting from a standing and glaring perversion of the word of God. Now it was evident to the authors of said versions, as it is evident to every reader of the original or of any of the an- cient versions of that original, that it was not a mere image, however or of whatever made, that was forbidden by God, but any thitig or object whatever, however made or fashioned, or " the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath," or " of those things that are in the waters under the earth," 'if that thing or things, though a stock or a stone, were made use of to be adored — the use of such thing or tiling's, be it any image or likeness whatever, being permitted when not employed for idolatrous purposes. That there might be no mistake about the matter, the Scriptures in- formed the Anglican translators, as they informed all who read them, that Moses and Solomon, inspired by God, made no scruple of introducing, the one into the tabernacle, the other into the temple, many things inter- dicted in Ex. XX., thus indicating that the use of such things, though forbidden as objects of idolatry, was approved by God when employed as adjuncts of his own religion. This evident truth is further confirmed by the fact that eidolon (idol) is sometimes 'used as an equivalent ior graven and molten bv the LXX, who certain- 1 Infra p 322. ^ Exod. xx. 4. 5. ^ Ibid.; Is. xxx, 22, 320 TJic Canon of the Old Testament. \\ understood what was implied in the corresponding Hebrew words much better than the Anglican transla- tors, who had the Greek interpretation before them, and on whom this broad hint of these old Alexandrian Jews should not have been lost, for clearl)- they thus meant to remind all future interpreters, whether ro\-al or plebeian, that not alone images, but all things w^hatsoever were forbidden, onh', however, when they were used as idols. But the royal translators were not disposed to lis- ten to reason, justice, or truth. The old Chuixh, which they had deserted to share in the plunder which fol- lowed her suppression, or to indulge propensities on which she imposed restraint, still bleeding as she w^as from the cruel wounds inflicted bv the fangs of the tigress Elizabeth, must be maligned. And a traves- ty of the Bible is prepared, as the most effectual means of accomplishing that iniquitous purpose. Therefore, although it is forbidden to adore a stick or a stone, sculp- tured or not, a Inmp of native ore, or any mass of mineral, wrought or unwrought, cast or uncast, or any object in heaven, or earth, or under the earth, it is only, say the English interpreters in their spurious Bible, an image that is forbidden; their wicked purpose being to convict the down-trodden Catholics of idolatry, by the testi- mony of what they proposed as the pure word of God ; because images were found in churches devoted to Catholic worship, just as they were found on the taber- nacle erected by Moses and in the temple built by Solomon. CHAPTER XXIII. The English Protestant Bible, Continued. When in 1870 it was resolved, at the convocation of Canterbury, to undertake a new revision of King James's Bible, as a matter urgentW demanded by those many errors, offensive to Chrjstian piety which, whether wil- ful or not, notwithstanding many previous revisions, still made that production, as all intelligent readers knew, not an English version but an Anglican mistranslation of the Bible : it was hoped that many, and, at least,the most glaring perversions, which polluted its pages, would be removed ; and that after a period of nearly three cen- turies Anglican ministers would at last provide English speaking Protestants with a Bible that would at all events convey the substantial sense of the original. The revisers must have been well aware, that the transla- tors, swayed by their dogmatic prejudices, had through- out appended to graven and molten the word image, for no other purpose than to confirm their readers in the absurd and malignant belief that Catholics were idola- ters. This slander, and the unholy attempt to substan- tiate it by perverting the word of God, had been exposed again and again by competent critics, who had revnewed the work of the translators. Yet the revisers, as if loath to surrender an advantage obtained by such infamous and impious means, seem to have allowed all the passages prostituted to a purpose so vile and dishonor- able to remain as they found them, with one solitary exception, which occurs in Lev. xxvi. i. That verse in 322 The Canon of the Old Testament the original contains tlie word MatzebaJi — Stclen in Greek, Titulos in Latin, — the meanin": of all these words beinof in plain English eoluvin or pillar. But the translators had rendered it a standing image, and in their version it remains so to this day, a standing image of their malig- nity against the Catholic Church and of the fraud prac- tised by them on all whom they persuaded to receive their version as the Bible. The revisers in this instance, however, — why ? it is hard to say, — thought fit to employ the correct English word, and therefore substituted for the base counterfeit issued from the royal mint the gen- uine equivalent of the Hebrew. So that in the new revision of the Protestant Old Testament a Protestant will now read pillar instead of standing image as before. But why did not the revisers do in every other case of the kind what they did in this? Or did they retain every- where else the foisted ^v^ord image, in order that such of their readers as were unable to consult the original text in the Hebrew Bible, or some of the ancient versions thereof, might still be persuaded by the omission of the revisers to correct the cognate falsifications, that the charge of idolatry had been proved against the Catholic Church, as almost all the texts cited by Protestants for the purpose have been left as they stood by a body of critics selected from among the foremost Protestant scholars in Great Britain and the United States, for the purpose of correcting all mistakes in the English Prot- estant Bible. The authors of the English Protestant version have in several passages mistranslated the word Sheol, by ren- dering it sometimes grave, sometimes pit, although at other times hell. ' The LXX translate it Hades, and theVul- gate Infernus — these words generallv meaning hell, or the abode of departed spirits not in heaven ; although in the Scriptures the Hebrew, as well as the Greek and Latin 1 Ptef (oRevisio}iof O. T. And Eiig/ish Protestant Bible. 323 word, has often been taken to signify grave or death. But the meaning of the Hebrew, as well as of the. other two words, may be generally inferred with absolute cer- tainty from the context. This is particularly the case in the first passage where S/icol occurs, namely, Gen. xxxvii. 35. Thus Jacob, being shown the bloody coat of Joseph, exclaims in his grief : " An evil wild beast hath eaten him, a beast hath devoured Joseph. ... I will go down to my son into Shcol (hell), mourning." Jacob supposed that Joseph was dead, and his body eaten by some wild beast. All the circumstances prove, that when the former said he would "go down to " the latter "into Shcor' he must have meant he/l. For, by going to Joseph, he could not have meant Joseph's body, then (if not already digested) in the stomach of some " evil beast " (as he supposed), and not in a grave. By " going to Joseph" he therefore intended to say " to the soul of Joseph." But where was the soul of Joseph ? Not in the orave: no, nor in heaven.' Where then? Tn hell, or, if you please, in the abode of departed spirits. But what place was that ? Not the Jielloi the damned, but a place distinct from it, as well as from heaven ; for no one will say that Jacob supposed that the soul of his son was yet in heaven, much less among the eternally reprobate. Jacob, therefore, believed in the existence of a place in the other world, designed as a residence for those holy souls which, saved by their faith and good works from the doom of the wicked, were patiently waiting until heaven should be opened to them by the expected Re- deemer. Their abode is known among Catholics as Lvnbo, or Abraham" s bosom." Lest this evident conclu- sion might be drawn from the text, and the existence of more conditions of being than two in the future world might thus be established, together with the probability that there is such a place there as purgatory. King 1 Vide T"lin iii. 13 ; F-ph. iv. 8. - A Lapidc on l.ukc xvi. 22. 324 The Canon of the Old Testament James's translators have represented Sheol as the grave, as if Jacob's language were absurd, although in other texts thej had no hesitation in rendering Sheol by the word hell. The latest revisers, however, though they seem to have perceived the nonsense which the transla- tors had put in the mouth of Jacob, left grave in the text, and, probably to save their own credit, placed Sheol in the margin, remarking as they did so that Sheol is " the name of the abode of the dead." But that is hell, for in hell as in heaven there is more than one man- sion. This truth, however, the Revisers had not the can- dor to admit, and lest their readers might do so, allowed a word which they knew to be false and ridiculous to remain still in the translation which thev undertook to correct. These few examples, out of many of the same sort, will enable the reader to form a correct opinion regard- ing the moral character of the motives, under which the English translators of the Protestant Old Testament discharged the duty assigned them by his most gracious majesty King James L Their version is full of errors, resulting not only from Avant of knowledge, but from the absence of all intention to present fairly the meaning- of all such texts, as bore in anv way on points of contro- versy between themselves and their Catholic fellow- subjects. Several of these errors; after others, which had long done duty in advancing the Protestant cause, had been removed; have disappeared in the recent revision, though they still hold their position in the yet current old Protestant Bible. But that revision seems deficient, not only in thoroughness but even in honesty. For in any honest revision the meaning of Sheol, for example, would be decided not by dogmatic views, but by the context. Now let us see what sort of a New Testament the Anglican translators prepared for English Protestant readers. And English Protestant Bible. 325 The character of that translation wliich was made of the New Testament under the auspices of King James 1., and published in 161 1, is fairly enough described by its most recent revisers, when, after remarking in their preface to it, that " That translation was the work of many hands and of several generations," they naively acknowledge that " The foundation was laid by Wil- liam Tyndale. His translation of the New Testament was the true primary version. The versions that fol- lowed were either substantially reproductions of Tyn- dale's translation in its final shape, or revisions of versions that had been themselves almost entirely based on it." Now we have seen ' that Tyndale's translation, so far as it differed from the Vulgate, was Luther's German New Testament done into the Anglo-Saxon of that time. Since it thus appears that the English Protestant New Testament is mainly Martin Luther's New Testament reproduced in another language, and already discussed in the present work, it almost seems a w'aste of time to cull a few out of the many character- istics wdiich distinguish that reproduction, for the pur- pose of showing that it is not unAvorthy the fallen monk from whom it derives its origin. Yet, inasmuch as the fact, that it has been alwa3S and is now received bv English speaking Protestants in the Old and New^ World as a faithful, indeed the only, " authorized version " of the Greek original, is nothing less than a challenge to all other English speaking people, a few remarks re- garding its claims ma)^ not be inopportime. These remarks will be restricted to but a few out of many defects, which, it is believed, prove King James's New Testament to be not onl}' an incorrect but a dishonest version of the sacred volume, which it claims to repre- sent. I. It has just been seen how profuse the "authorized ' Supra., p. 304. 326 The Canon of tJie Old Testament version," like all the earlier Eno^lish Protestant Bibles, from which it has descended, is in the use of image, which, hardly ever in season, but generally out of season, it thrusts into the reluctant text of the Old Testament. This generous prodigality of so serviceable an interpo- lation is less marked, at least now, in the New Testament of that version. Yet even there may be detected traces of the lavish hand with which it has been dispensed in the Old. Take for example Acts xix. 35, where the original, as literally rendered, is: ''What man is there that knoweth not that the city of the Ephesians is a worshipper of the great Diana, and of the fallen from Jupiter}'' {(jYQek, Diopetojis ; Y wX^^te, Jovisqiie prolis \ Douay Bible, Jupiter s offspring.) The last words of the text in the " authorized version " are : " and of the image Avhich fell down from Jupiter," although image is not at all expressed in the original, and even Protestant writers ' often call the idol worshipped by the Ephesians a statue or 2i figure. But as image had proved itself so useful a word already, the preference was given to it after it had been decided to add to the text. And the revisers allowed that word to retain the place into which it had been foisted, as if they, too, could occasionally stoop to the base means employed by the translators for traducing the worship of their Catholic forefathers. Another outrageous falsification of the text perpetrated by the Protestant translators, and for the same unholy purpose, occurs in Romans xi. 4, where the Greek, as honestly rendered, says : " I have left to m3^self seven thousand men, that have not bent the knee to Baal."'' Here again was a glorious chance for King James's trans- lators, and they utilized it by substituting " to the image of Baal" for the two last words. This was too much even for the revisers ; so, to their credit be it spoken, they ' Kitto's Cycl.: Artemis, Ephesus. And Euglisli Protestant Bible. 327 quietly condemned the shameless dishonesty of the; translators, b}' restoring the true rendering. 2. Now let the reader who has some knowledge of Greek look at Mat. xix. 11. There he will find words pronounced thus, " on panics chorousi ton logon touton air hois didotai, " and will agree that the Douay Bible re- produces them faithfully, and that the following ver- sion, substantially identical with that of the Douay Bible, is a word-for-word rendering of the text, — " All men do not take this word, but they to whom it is given." In the English Protestant or " authorized version it is : " All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given," the variation arising from the meaning given to chorousi. But about that meaning there is not even room for controversy. For chorco, of which cJioronsi in the text is the indicative mood, third person plural, means primarily to make or give room or place, as in Mark ii. 2 ; then, as a consequence, to take or receive, as in Matt. xix. II, II. Cor. vii. 2 ; and to contain or hold, as in John ii. 6., xxi. 25. Now, bring the two versions into juxtaposition, that they may thus be more convenientlv contrasted. Cathot Tr \ " ^^ "^^'^ ^° "^^ '■^^^ '■^^'■^ word, but they to whom it is \ given." p < "All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it \ is given." Thus it is seen that, except as between do not and can- not, the two versions may be considered substantially identical. But it is evident that between do not and can- not there is quite a difference. The former expresses an omission to act, the latter a want of ability to act. Now let the Greek grammarian apply his rules, and he will say without hesitation that on panics chorousi me^ns "all men do not take or receive," and that by no principle of interpretation can it be made to yield " all men cattfiot receive or take ; " for, whatever else is implied in chorousi^ 328 The Canon of the Old Testa inciU there is no allusion in it to power or ability ; with the negative on it refers solel}' to an omission to act or to do so and so. Were it otherwise, Our Lord (or St. Mat- thew, who has repeated His words), in the next verse, when employing f//f?r^, would not have used in conjunc- tion with it a word expressing ability, as " Ho dunanienos chorein, choreito,^' — " He that can take let him take it," — or, as the Protestant version reads, " He that is able to receive let him receive it." Indeed if King James's scholars have rightly interpreted cJiorousi, the Greek text last cited should stand thus, " Ho chorei, choreito, " for this will mean, " He that is able to receive, let him re- ceive." Finally, these royal interpreters, in gratifying their intolerant instincts, have not only, as we have seen, corrupted the text, but while engaged in this to them congenial work, they have plainly contradicted themselves. For they say that in the first text choreo means to be able to receive, and that the same w^ord in the second text means no more than to receive. The latest revision of the English Protestant Bible has left Matt, xix. II unchanged, except that it substitutes the but of the Rhemish version for the save of the former. No one can be mistaken as to the motive which prompted the falsification of the sacred text, in the case just referred to. The authors of that falsification had read Luther's sermon on marriage, or had adopted the principles proclaimed in that and other scandalous pro- ductions of the German reformer. By nature and edu- cation, these authors were therefore opposed to clerical celibacy and the continence so highly commended in the Gospel and the writings of St. Paul. But was it not possible, by corrupting the sacred text as Luther had done, to show that the Catholic Church was in er- ror in these as well as other points? Those who wrote the English Protestant version of the Bible thought so. They not only thought so, but did so. And thus, up to And English Protestant Bible. 329 the present day, the New Testament which they pre- pared for their followers represents, as we have just seen. Our Lord Himself teaching a doctrine which He condemned, and uttering words His divine lips never pronounced. 3. A similar motive has led to a similar corruption in I. Cor. vii. 9, where, according to the original, the Rhemish version has " But if they do not contain them- selves, let them marry," whereas the English Protestant version has " But if they cannot contain, let them mar- ry." Now, cannot here is as unauthorized as it is in the text just discussed ; it is a sheer interpolation, and noth ing else ; not being contained in that auk enkrateuontai of the original, which has occasioned the variation between the Catholic and Protestant versions in this instance. For, since Liddell and Scott, Oxford Protes tant scholars, one if not both belonging to the Anglican ministry, and therefore to Protestants unobjectionable authorities, state in their Lexicon that enkrateuontai is a verb "dep. mid.," meaning "to exercise self-control, N. r.," and since the word in the Greek New Testament is in the indicative mood, present tense, third person plu- ral, it must therefore, according to Liddell and Scott, mean "they exercise self-control;" but this in sense is the same as the Catholic version with the oiik (not) of the original — " they do not contain themselves." There is therefore no room for the Protestant cannot in the text. There it is a false and unauthorized exotic. These impious attempts to pervert the meaning ot tht Script- ures, as well as the unauthorized restriction put in I. Cor. ix. 5 on the force of gnnaika, ' which, as appears from the context, means a zvoman, not a wife, as the Prot- estant New Testament has it, convict King James's translators of a deliberate purpose to falsify the origi- nal, in order that from it thus falsified they might draw ' Supra, 295. 330 The Canon of the Old Testament arguments against the moral principles inculcated by the Church, and be able to cite Scriptural texts in favor of the uxorious proclivities in which they and their ministerial brethren indulged without scruple. The revisers were not satisfied with the text under discussion as it stood in the " authorized version." So they sub- stituted for it " But if they have not continency." This, though an improvement, falls short of the original, im- plying as it does that the ability to exercise continency, self-control, self-restraint, has been withheld from some, whereas the original clearly enough teaches that the omission to "contain themselves" results not from a want of ability, but from a want of will. 4. The necessity of Communion under both kinds was and is insisted on by Protestants of all denominations, who were also unanimous in their condemnation of the Church for administering Communion only under one kind. But it was felt b}' them that Scriptural texts were required to justify this novelty, and not finding any such that suited their purpose, they decided on manufacturing something adapted to the emergency. So, by a slight change in the meaning of one little word consisting of but one little letter, they succeeded in se- curing the authority of St. Paul for what they called " the use of the cup." This feat of legerdemain was performed by the authors of the Protestant New Tes- tament while translating I. Cor. xi. 27, where the Cath- olic reads: "Whosoever shall eat this bread or drink the chalice, etc." Here the Protestant translators, un- deterred by the awful majesty of God's holy word, in- terpreted b}' anei the Greek word signifying or, making the text read thus: "Whosoever shall eat this bread and diX'wiV. this cup, etc.," although in the only four other places where the same Greek disjunctive certainly oc- curs in the same chapter, they, having no sinister pur- pose to serve, had already rendered the word by or. Ayid EnglisJi Frottstant Bible. 331 The revisers, however, in this instance, have corrected the authorized version by substituting or for and, thus practically confessing that their predecessors hesitated not to corrupt the word of God whenever controver- sial considerations tempted them to do so, and that every educated Protestant throughout the world, then and since, who without a protest read these corrup- tions has shared in thp sacrilege. 5. In Luke i. 72 occurs another perversion perpetrated by the authors of the English Protestant New Testa- ment. The words in the Rhemish New Testament, as usual, coincide with the original, and have in fact been practically adopted by the revisers of the " authorized version." For the purpose of comparison, the three renderings are here presented together. Rhemish Translation, — " To perform mercy to our fathers." Protestant Translation,-, j " 'i)^ peffo™ the mercy promised to our ' \ fathers. Revision of same, — "To sliow mercy towards our fathers." Between the Rhemish translators and the revisers in this instance the difference is very little, yet there is not complete agreement between them, because, while the former, according to their custom, adhere closely to the original by rendering poicsai literally, and thus writing "to perform," the latter interpret the same word b}^ "to show," a sense in which it is rai*ely, if ever, found. Yet as " to show mercy " is practically S)monymous with " to perform mercy," both versions may be considered iden- tical ; but both differ very materially from the version of King James's translators. These translators, while engaged on their task, seem to have kept one eye on the copy before them and the other on the Pope ; and very likely not a line, nor even a word, was written by them without considering beforehand what its effect would be on the quarrel between England and Rome. When they came to the above text they must have paused be- 332 TJie Canon of the Old Testament fore proceeding with their work. For the text was one which, if rendered literally, no one could read without being convinced, or at least suspecting, that the " fa- thers" already dead needed "mercy;" and that "the Lord God of Israel " ' was prepared " to perform " it to them. But where were those fathers ? Not in heaven, where mercy is sw^allowed up in joy. And assuredly not in the hell of the damned, where mercy could not reach them. They must therefore have been in a place between both, or neither the one nor the other. What? In Limbo or Purgatory ? Why, certainly. In one or the other, — maybe both, according to their condition at death. But how were the readers of the " authorized version " to be saved from such a conclusion ? Oh, well, as usual, by corrupting the text, and deftly slipping in the word " promised ; " as if the assurance of mercy made to the fathers while living meant, that it w^ould be all right with the children, after the mystery of re- demption should be consummated. Is not this plan of getting out of a difficulty worthy of the men w^ho de- vised it? Could Cerinthus, Marcion, or Tatian have done better? 6. Many of those selected by royal appointment for preparing a Protestant translation of the Bible were strongly imbued with the stern principles of unmitigated Calvinism. And the " authorized version " in several passages clearly reflects the influence, which they exer- cised in shaping its contents. Between them and the more conversative Episcopalians the work of inter- preting was a game of give and take, and the result, as already remarked, has been a compromise. Each party seems to have experienced considerable difficul- ty, not only in overcoming the opposition of the other to certain renderings, but in reconciling the Bible with its own creed. But both, by the tactics they em- '■ Verse 68. And English Protestant Bible. 335 ployed on the language of the Bible, and by the convic- tion that their task, if ever completed, demanded mutu- al concessions, were equal to all such occasions. Thus every problem that presented itself in the course of their labors was solved to the satisfaction of their credu- lous and confiding followers, by inserting a word here, changing another there, and generally treating the Bible as a volume whose contents, when they condemned, should be compelled to sanction Protestant principles, and when they favored Catholic belief should be so dis- torted as to make it appear that that belief was opposed to the Word of God. We have had several examples of this already. Here is another. It occurs in Hebrews x. 38. That the corruption which the English Protestant translators have perpetrated in this instance may be clearly apprehended, the Catholic version and Protes- tant version, with the last revisi(Mi, are here placed side by side. S " My just man liveth by faith, but if he withdraw him- Cath. Version,— j ^^^jf^ ^j^ ^^^i gh^ll not delight in him." ?>■ The Canon of the Old Testament and deacons. They could not have administered Bap- tism nor the Lord's Supper, nor solemnized marriage, nor visited the sick, nor exhorted those present at a funer- al " to consider the frailty of life." For, all these ofihces, and many others, are performed by ministers or pastors, not by elders, who are chosen " for the purpose of exercis- ing government and discipline in conjunction with pas- tors," ' of whom, in the case before us, there was not one on hand, and consequently nothing to do for the elders, whom the " authorized version " says Paul and Barna- bas ordained. It is true that, since the " authorized version " was written, several sects have sprung up among English speaking Protestants. These, unlike the Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and others who were represented among the translators of that version, are not responsible for its faults, unless so far as a failure to protest against those faults might involve responsibility. Some of these, sects have, others, perhaps influenced b}' the Episcopa- lians, have not elders. In only one, the Episcopal Meth- odists, does it appear that the elders are " ordained," the ceremony being performed by a bishop, who, how- ever, as such is one of a class the first of which was ordained by a simple Anglican minister. But even if it be supposed that such elders have been all ordained by ministers having authority for that purpose, their ordi- nation has been such as to raise them no higher at most than respectabje laymen. For in some cases, as among the Presbyterians, the ceremon}- consists principally of a prayer by the minister. And even if among some sects it includes the laying on of hands, many of the adjuncts peculiar to it, as described in the Scriptures, are wanting, so that it cannot be supposed to confer on those who re- ceive it any spiritual gift, grace, or power whatever. ' The Form of Govemmeni of tlw Preshylcrian Church in tJie U. S A., ch's v., v., xiii. — Directory for Worship, ch's vii., viii., xi., xii., xiii. A)id English ProtcstiDit Bible. 351 These adjuncts are, as indicated in the Scriptures, ' pray- er and fasting, the latter a practice seldom, if ever, em- ployed outside the Catholic Church for ordination or any other purpose, but strictly enforced by her at each quarterl}^ recurrence of the Ember days, when the Sac- rament of Orders is usually administered. Prayer and fasting, however, even with the chcirotonia, ^ stretching forth of hands, and with the epithcsis ton chciron, ' imposi- tion of hands, which are one and the same act, or rather parts of one and the same act, as may be seen whenever holy orders are conferred in the Catholic Church, do not constitute a Christian minister of any kind. For this pur- pose an ordainer is needed who, besides doing as just explained, inherits by regular succession at least a por- tion of the power conferred by Our Lord on his Apostles. And it is only then that the grace, which was in Timothy by the imposition of St. Pauls hands,' is communicated in ordination. Were it not so, the rite of ordination, if per- formed by Simon Magus, would have produced the same effect as if administered by Simon Peter. It is unneces- sary to add that a Protestant minister, whatever his rank, having (perhaps without any fault of his own) no connec- tion with that venerable line to which the powers of the Christian priesthood have been divinely communi- cated, and through which they are preserved, is incapa- ble of promoting by ordination any one even to the lowest grade of that priesthood. He himself, should he by the mercy of God be converted from his errors, after being very probably baptized, would be treated by the Church as a Christian laic, unless Divine grace called him to the sacred ministry; when, however, in every step he might take, from tonsure to holy orders, his pre- vious ordination, bv whomsoever conferred, would be regarded as null and void. But enough has been said to ' Acts vi. 6; xiii. 3; xiv. 22. - Acts xiv. 22; II. Cor. viii. 19. ' Acts vi. 6; xiii. 3; I. Tim. iv. 14; II. Tim. i. 6. ' IbitL 3 52 TJie Canon of the Old Testament prove, that in the verse which has occasioned these re. marks, there is nothing which would justify a translator in YQndeYing presbuteroiis " elders." On the contrary, all the circumstances combine to attest that it was not mere laymen (for in the beginning of the seventeenth century "elders" were generally regarded as nothing more by Protestants) but priests at least, or, if you will have it so, ordained ministers, who were commissioned by apostol- ic authority to preach, administer sacraments, perform divine service, — in a word, to do whatever was necessary for the salvation of those over whom they were placed, and to labor for the propagation of the faith in the same way and with the same means as SS. Paul and Barna- bas had done. That a careful study of the other five verses in which prcsbuteros is found, or of the context in which the word occurs, will lead to the same conclusion, there is no reason to doubt. In fact, what in Titus i. 5 Titus is directed to do, is exactly the same thing which Paul and Barnabas had already done elsewhere, according to Acts xiv. 22 ; and, as in the latter case we have seen that presbuteroi constituted a grade of ecclesiastics higher than elders, so in the former case presbuteroi must, for the same reason, also designate a class of ecclesiastics whose duties demanded a far greater degree of authority than that recognized by any Protestant denomination in elders -aX. the time,thatthe authorized version was written. And as to James v. 14, ihere the use of the word elders, as an equivalent for presbuteroi, is perhaps the boldest attempt of the kind made by King Jam.es's translators to pervert the plain sense of the original. For the princi- pal effect of the sacred rite divinely enjoined in that passage by St. James, whether that rite be or be not con- sidered a sacrament, is one with the production of which a mere elder, as regarded by the two principal parties whose votes determined the character of the " author- And English Protestant Bible. 353 ized version," could have had nothing to do ; namely, the forgiveness of sins. This grace was conferred on the sick man through the ministrations of the presbiiteroi brought in by him, these ministrations consisting of prajnng over him and anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. Now, if this holy ordinance — for Jioly it is, since it is fol- lowed by the pardon of sin — may be administered by one, who has no authority even for visiting the sick — for the right to do so is reserved to ordained ministers ' — it follows that the institution of the Christian ministry is to be attributed to superstition, not to divine appoint- ment. For the Christian ministry, as all hold, has been ordained by God principally in order that sin and its sad consequences may be removed by the agency of that ministry. But here we have a case in which, accord- ing to the " authorized version," an elder, that is one who is not a minister, a bishop, or pastor, ' can adminis- ter an ordinance, which cleanses from all sin a Christian in the most critical moment of his Hfe, when perhaps he is about to appear before the judgment seat of God. Thus every Christian, who accepts the "authorized ver- sion " as a true copy of the Scripture, is compelled, either to admit that the word elders, which that version substitutes for the presbnteroiis of St. James, is a false translation, or to conclude that the Christian ministry is a snare, a delusion, a fraud. The passage, as it stands, shows that the ceremony which it describes is as much a sacrament as either of those, which Protestants generally admit, baptism, for example. It has been " ordained by Christ," otherwise its administration would not have been enjoined by an Apostle, nor could it, when conferred, secure the for- giveness of sins. It " is a certain and effectual sign of grace." ' In fact, there is in it the pardon of sins, so St. ' Presbyterian Directoty for Worship, c. xii. - Ibid., passim. * Episcopalian Book of Common Prayer, Articles of Religion, Art. xxv. 354 T^^^'^ Canon of the Old Tcstaine?it James assures us. There is also in it " a spiritual or sacramental union between the sign (the anointing) and the thing signified," ' the cure of the wounds inflicted on the soul by " sins." Protestant writers, of course, reject the obvious import of the text, and allege that the anointing with oil was " recommended as a natural means of restoring health," and that any spiritual bene- fit to be gained by the ceremony should be attributed to "the prayer of faith." For, as they further argue, " oil in Judea was celebrated for its sanative qualities," and " was and is frequently used in the East as a means of cure in very dangerous diseases." ^ But the pardon of sins is mentioned by St. James as the consequence of all that, not of a part of what, was to be done by the presbuteroi when brought in by the sick man — their anointing of and praying over him. What is said b}' Protestant writers about the curative effects of oil, and its general use in Judea and elsewhere, is true. The same remarks, however, apply in a much greater degree to the importance, general use, and sanative properties of water. In fact, as one of the necessaries of life for man and beast, especially in those countries where the Jews resided, it has been and is still a matter of pro- found consideration ; and we know that as early as the patriarchal period it was often an object of contention, and a subject of solemn treaties between the chieftains of that time, and their respective followers. ' In fact, among all people it was ever of far more importance than oil; and this was especialh^ the case among the Jews, who not only used water like other nations for drinking, cooking, washing, and preserving health, but employed it in almost innumerable waN-s for religious ^ The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A., ch. xxvii., 2. 2 Clarke in loco; Kitto's CycL, Anointing. 3 Gen. xiii. lo; xxi. 14-16, 19 25, etc.; xxiv. il, 15. etc.; xxvi. 14, etc.; xxix. 2, etc. And English Protestant Bible. 355 purposes ; for without it the ablutions and purifications perscribed by the law, under which they lived, could not be performed. Now, water, as is generally believed by all Christians, is an essential element in the adminis- tration of baptism, whatever may be the effects of that rite. But if the Protestant interpretation of James V. 14, 15 be correct, may it not be proved in the same way that water has nothing to do with baptism, and that that sacred ordinance, whether intended as a means by which those who receive it " are grafted into the Church," ' or as a sign and seal of the covenant of grace," ' is duly fulfilled, not by the application of water, which is recommended merely as a means for promot- ing cleanliness and health, but by " the prayer of faith " implied in the words with which the rite is performed. Besides, it is an intolerable tax on human credulity to ask men to believe that, after the entire Church, East and West, had all along been mistaken about the meaning of James v. 14, 15, the credit of discovering the true sense of that passage w^as reserved for a few expounders in the sixteenth century, who, without authority from any source, in heaven or on earth, had each constructed a new creed for himself and such as were willing to follow him. The disciples of these expounders are al- ways ready to appeal to the practice of the early Church, when that practice coincides with their own. But when it does not, then their practice according to their new be- lief is more authoritative than that of Christian antiquity; and they even distort the Scripture and misinterpret its meaning, to convince their dupes that they are right. Such dishonest inconsistency is too glaring to escape the notice of any one not wilfully blind. Barclay, the learned Quaker, when answering their arguments drawn from the practice of the primitive Church in favor of 1 Common Pravcr, Articles of Religion, Art, xxvii. •^ Presbyl. Con/, of Faith, ch. xxviii. 356 The Canon of tlu Old Tcstainoit what they call "the Lord's Supper," had therefore good reason for asking: " How come they to pass over far more positive commands of the Apostles, as matters of no moment as. . . James v. 14, where it is expressly com- manded, That tJie sick be anointed ivitJi oil in the name of the Lord. " ' No one can deny that elder of the " authorized ver- sion," like its equivalent senior of the Vulgate "axx^ ancient of the Rhemish version, faithfully preserves the primitive sense oi presbtiteros employed by the inspired writers of the New Testament. But since it has pleased King James's translators in several, and their Revisers in all instances, after the example of the Rhemish translators, to insert in the English text bishop, not overseer, for the episkopos of the original, and has seemed good to both to render the diakonos of the original not by its radical meaning servant, but b}^ deacon, the form it has assumed in ecclesiastical language {bishop and deacon being re- spectively regular English derivatives of the Greek episkopos and diokonos), does it not seem strange that the English Protestant translators shoidd have rendered presbuteros by elder, instead of by priest, the English legitimate descendant of presbuteros? At least the}^ should have done so, wherever the word presbuteros is applied to an official in the Christian Church. This seems to have been the rule followed by the writers who translated the New Testament into English at Rheims. And had that rule been adopted b}' those^ who prepared the English Protestant version, or by the revisers of that version, one ver}- serious blemish which still disfigures that work would never have appeared, or, after having appeared, would, in the last attempt made to expurgate the work, have been summarily re- moved. Y or priest is as much a derivative oi presbuteros ' Apology, Prop, xiii., ^ viii. p. 479. London Edition, 1780- And English Protestant Bible. 357 as bishop is of cpiskopos, or deacon of diakonos, and what is more, was as thoroughly domesticated in the English language, when the " authorized version" was written, as either of the other words. In fact, there is no reason to doubt that, in one form or othei",it was assigned a place in the vernacular of England, when the people of that countr}' embraced the Christian religion, and has main- tained its ground in that vernacular up to the present time. ¥oY priost ' was the name, by which the ecclesiastic who said Mass, administered five out of the seven sac- raments, and preached the Gospel with authority, was known to the people of England in Anglo Saxon times. He was also called "the Mass priest,"" probably on ac- count of the principal function he performed. What he performed this function on, was, as now, an " altar," and among the articles he used while ofificiating thereat were "a chalice " and " a chasuble." ^ That was as early as 833. Gildas the Wise, who flourished in the sixth centur}^ speaks of the priests (sacerdotes) " extending their hands at venerable altars over the most hoi}' sacri- fices of Christ." ' Now read the prayer recited, according to an Anglo Saxon Pontifical of the eighth century, and written in Anglo Saxon characters, by a bishop when conferring priestly orders on a candidate. '' Do Thou, O Lord, infuse the hand of Thy benediction over this Thy servant, whom we dedicate to the honor of the presbyterj' (presbyterii), that he may preserve the gift of Thy ministry pure and immaculate, and through the service of Thy people may transform by an immaculate benedic- tion the body and blood of Thy Son.'' ' And say, if the ser- vant here mentioned was not on the conclusion of the I l.ingard, Ang/o .Saxon Church, ]). 56, note 73. etc. 3 Maitland. The Dark Ages, \^. 29. 3 Ibid., p. 242. ^ Bibliotheca Max. Patritin. viii p. 716. s Lingard, Ang. Sax. Church, note X. p. 29;; ori^innl in Latin. 358 Tlic Canon of the Old Testament. ceremony ?i priest, a real sacrificing priest, •ix.'s, that word is understood among Catholics, what in the world was he? That the Anglo Saxon woxdi priest {^priest or presbyter) meant a sacrificing priest, there can be no doubt whatever, for among Anglo Saxon Christians saecrd was an alter- nate for priest." And sacerd'is simply Anglo Saxon for the Latin sacerdos, which always meant in Christian as well as pagan times a sacrificing priest. Besides, Gildas the Wise, already cited, who wrote in Latin, applies sacerdo- tinni (priesthood) and presbytcrinin (presbytery) to the same state or office. The conclusion here insisted on is actually forced on our acceptance by the writers, who have flourished all along among the Christians of the West; or rather and better by the conciliar decrees pro- mulgated in that part of the Church Universal. Lo(jk for example at canon seventy-five of the Council of El- vira, in Spain, one of the earliest councils held in West- ern Christendom, being dated 305 or 306. The heading of that canon is " concerning those who accuse bishops and priests (sacerdotes)." Then the canon itself com- mences thus : '' If any one shall bring false charges against a bishop, or a priest (presbyterum), etc." " The Council, therefore, considered sacerdos and presbyter (priest) convertible terms. And it would be easy to prove that this was the case everywhere in the West. From canon I. of the Council of Ancyra, a city of Gala- tia, held in 314, it appears that it was forbidden /'r^'j-/''//'/r;'- oiis (we are now examining the practice of Eastern Chris- tendom) under certain circumstances to sacrifice {pros- pJiereiri). ' The presbntcros, therefore, was not only what the Latins called a sacerdos, but among the Greeks what they called a Jiicreus, the proper Greek name for a sacri- ficer. For the same reason the presbntcros could not have been what the Episcopalians call a priest, a name ' Lingard, Anglo Saxon C/nnr/i, p. 56, note 73, 74. C I. I'eter ii. 5. '^ Ibid. 9. '^ Apoc. v. 10. 362 Tlic Canon of the Old Testament that there is no distinction between the priest and other Christians ; the former is really a priest not only in name but by his office ; the latter are priests only in a metaphorical sense, whether as to name or to office. God, through Moses, said to the children of Israel, " 3'ou shall be to me a priestl}' kingdom," ' yet it is well known that among the children of Israel the actual priesthood, with all its rights and privileges, was jealousiv restricted to the descendants of Aaron. To assert, therefore, that all Christians constitute a priesthood, or are priests, is not to deny that that there is among them a special priesthood, whose members are invested with special authority and perform functions peculiar to themselves. Besides, it is clear from many passages in the Old Tes- tament " that a special priesthood was to be instituted among the Gentiles and was to last forever. But though, as age succeeded age, the existence of a Christian priesthood, as the word is now understood in the Catholic Church, was a patent and recognized fact wherever the Christian religion was professed in Great Britain or elsewhere, and thus demonstrated the fulfil- ment of the prophecy just referred to, the w 0x6. priest had been rendered by the English reformers so odious to the English people, that it seems remarkable it did not become, like many another word, utterly obso- lete in the English language. It is true that the An- glican establishment, as it arranged its clergy, had among them a class the members of which were designated priests. But popular usage pronounced the arrange- ment a fraud and a delusion, and those aspirants to the name as well as the honor, which none but a genuine Christian priest can justly claim, were generally recognized by no other title than that of ministers. In fact, not until very recently has a very small section of the class ventured to assume the name of priests; nor ^ Ex. xix. 6. * Is. Ixvii. 21; Jerem. xxxiii. 18. And English Protest ant Bible. 363 are they ever so called except by themselves and a few followers, who like them belong to what is known as the " ritualistic school." The assumption, of course, was quite unwarranted, and must appear so to every reader who reflects that, as an intelligent Protestant writer has observed, " Priest is used to express the Greek Jiicreus and the Latin sacerdos, which in general signifies a sacri- ficer." ' But the Anglicans among King James's trans- lators were in no condition to resist the will of their fanatical associates, the ordination of whose preachers, elders, and deacons was as respectable and legitimate as that of their own bishops, priests, and deacons. So, elder, not priest, popped up in the "authorized version," wherever preshnteros, whether it meant a Jewish or Christian minister, appeared in the original. Men who had done their best to almost exterminate the last real priest and abolish his sacrifiee in England, and had sub- stituted for him a counterfeit, whose popular name was not what they without right or reason claimed for him, could not consistently contend with their radical associ- ates that the presbnteros of the New Testament should, in any case, be represented in the Protestant translation by its legitimate derivative, priest. So, wherever pres- bnteros was found in the original Greek, they submitted as gracefully as the)^ could to the interpretation dictated b}^ those who detested prelacy only a little less than Popery, and were considered unnecessarily tolerant when they did not denounce all priests as ministers of Antichrist. But since the translators to whom Prot- estants are indebted for the " authorized version " have all through selected elder as the correct equivalent for presbnteros, and the latest revisers of that version have adopted the same rendering, does it not seem remark- able that the presbnterion (priesthood) of T. Tim. iv., 14 should have been rendered /rr^^j'/^rj by the translators, ' Worcester's Dictionary. 364 The Canon of tJic Old Testament. instead of eldersliip, as good an Anglo-Saxon word as elder; and that the inconsistency should not have been removed by the revisers. But this, like man}- other blemishes of the same sort, was probably inevitable in a work executed by a class of scholars composed principal- ly of two factions, each of which was mainly concerned in making the word of God reecho it own views, and thus has contributed to make the English Protestant Bible what it is, a volume replete with not only unintentional but deliberate perversions of the original. CHAPTER XXV. A Reviser on the last Revision of the Protes- tant New Testament. — Reception of the Re- vision BY Protestant Readers. The translators devoted seven years to the task as- signed them by King James, and the revisers fourteen to the self-imposed duty of correcting the mistakes made bv the translators. Yet the version is still far from being what it might, indeed what it ought, to be. We should rather say, what it certainly would have been in the first place, had it been executed, or in the last placed revised, by scholars more anxious to reproduce in English the spirit and sense of the original, than to make that origi- nal subservient to the propagation of their own dogmat- ic views. That the translators performed their task in an unfaithful, as well as unsatisfactory manner, is abun- dantly proved, not only by the preceding remarks, but by the admission of the revisers in the introductions to the Old and New Testament, and by the voluntary statements ' of Dr. Alexander Roberts himself, one of the English revisers. This writer notifies his readers in one place, ^ thAt, because the revisers made use of an amended Greek text, " a vast multitude of changes will be found in the Revised English Version" of the New Testament. Next he reminds them ' of " the entire omission of the doxology of the Lord's Prayer at Matt, vi. 13," so that all English speaking Protestants have * Companion of the Revised Vers, of the N. T. 2 Ch. iii. ^ Ch. v. .■«>5 366 Tlic Canon of tJic Old Testament been all along adding to that prayer words which the Lord never dictated. Indeed, they are likely to continue the practice, as the revision of the authorized version will probably never be generally adopted by them. In the same chapter Dr. Roberts, for various reasons satis- factory to himself, concludes that Mark xvi. 9-20 " is not the immediate production of St. Mark," yet, strange to say, " is, nevertheless, possessed of canonical authori- ty." And he adds that " John vii. 53, viii. 11, stands on much the same footing" and " is probably. ... no part of St. John's Gospel." Now, when it is further stated in the same chapter that '' I. John v. 7, 8, bearing upon what is known as ' the heavenly witnesses ' has been omitted in the Revised Version," it must be admitted that either the revisers wish to withdraw several im- portant passages of the Holy Scripture from Protes- tants, or that the latter, in their simplicity, have all along been imposed upon by King James's translators, who, either through ignorance or malice, have inserted in the authorized version a number of paragraphs which were never written by an Apostle or other inspired author. Add to all this, that the same writer ' confesses that " there are cases in which they (the translators) have gone quite astray in the meaning assigned to the Greek." Of this he gives ample proof. Thus of one rendering he is compelled to confess, " it is certain this is quite a mistake ; " of another, it " completely perverts the mean- ing." In another case he says, " the authorized version is a very inexact rendering of the Greek verb." Again, referring to Luke ix. 32, he admits that "this verse is quite misrepresented by the authorized version." Of John ix. 17 he observes that "here the authorized version is scarcely intelligible." Acts ii. 3, - " the author- ized version is here quite wrong. Acts iii. 19, 20, — 1 Ch. i., Oil the Coyrection of Mistakes in the Meaning of Greek Ifonfs. And Revisers on the English Protestant Version. 367 *' an impossible translation here occurs in the authorized version." Acts xxvi. 28, — " it is with some reluctance that we here abandon the rendering of the authorized ver- sion." Rom. iii. 25, — here the rendering of the author- ized version, " besides being ahnost unintelligible. ... is an utterly impossible version of the Greek." Thus the unsparing but honest critic continues to expose the pfross faults of the authorized version book bv book ot its New Testament, from St. Matthew's Gospel to the Apocalypse of St. John, so that his Protestant readers must find it impossible to escape the conclusion, that the volume, which they supposed to be inspired, is after all but a clumsy counterfeit of God's holy word. Dr. Roberts furthermore asserts in the chapter where the preceding extracts are found, that in one instance " the authorized version contradicts itself," and he proves the charge. Impossible, erroneous, absurd, zvrong. etc., are the qualifying terms applied to the manner, in which a great many texts have been rendered in the authorized ver- sion. But enough has been said on the gross mistakes, of which the translators were guilty in the meaning of Greek words. The critic of the authorized version next proceeds to point out the corrections, which the revisers had to make of the mistakes committed by the translators in Greek grammar. And, inexact, ignorant, guilty of every possible variety of error, blundering, exaggerated, misstating of faets, ineonsistent, eonfused, mistranslating, erroneous, impossible are among the expressions, by which he char- acterizes the blunders of the translators in this part of their work. Dr. Roberts's Companion is supplemented by a lengthy statement from a member of the American Committee on "the English Version of 161 1, the Canter- bury Revision of 1870, the American cooperation in that revision, the Constitution of the American Commit- tee, the Relation of the American and English Commit- 368 The Canon of the Old Testament tees, and the American part in the joint work." Then follows a list of American suggestions adopted. Another list of American suggestions rejected is appended, ac- cording to agreement, to the New Testament itself. But few of the suggestions made by the Americans were adopted by the English Committee, which, having inaugurated the work as well as provided for its publi- cation, claimed, at least exercised, the right of deciding its character. As just observed, the readings, render- ings, and changes proposed by the American revisers, but rejected by their English associates, are printed at the end of the New Testament and number at least some 300. A similar list of suggestions made by the Ameri- cans on the version of the Old Testament, but rejected by the Anglicans, is published by mutual agreement at the end of the Old Testament, and shows that in nearly 800 instances the emendations, which seemed to our countrymen necessary for correcting or improving the English Protestant Old Testament, were considered unsatisfactory by the English Committee. Many of the changes proposed by the Americans, whether in the Old or New Testament, deserved little consideration. But not a few of them, had they been adopted, would have rendered the Revised Version much less objectionable and certainly much more intelligible than it is. The Americans exhibited a commendable desire to have the version not only corrected but modernized, yet many of their suggestions savor strongly of the radical princi- ples avowed by the Puritans, whose influence is percept- ible all through that version. The English revisers, re- strained by their traditional respect, even for the blunders and perversions of King James's Bible, and ap- prehending lest wholesale changes in the text, such as a due regard for the original demanded, might seriously affect their liturgical books, declined in several instances to correct errors which they must have perceived to be And Revisers on tJte English Protcstcvit Version. 369 gross and misleadini^. Both committees seem to have decided at tlie start, to ignore ahnost every one of the corruptions introduced into the authorized version by its authors for the express purpose of sanctioning their own religious behef, as distinguished from the creed of the Catholic Cluirch. The Enghsh, as well as the American revisers, can hardly find language sufficient to express thein admira- tion of the authorized version. Yet it is evident not only from what has been said in the preceding pages of the present work, but from the voluntary admission of the revisers themselves, that the faults of that version are multitudinous and grave, and withal clearly betray a fixed pu2-pose of misrepresenting the sense of the origi- nal, whenever that sense conflicted with the religious belief of the translators. Some of its faults may no doubt be attributed to ignorance, but these must be ex- ceedingly few ; since, besides various other sources of in, formation, they had access to and actually made use of the Rhemish version of the New Testament published iu 1582, and of the Douay version of the Old Testament,, which made its appearance in 1610. This English Cath- olic" version of the Bible was made by learned refugees from England. All reference to it is omitted in the enumeration of the English versions, which, King James's translators say, they consulted while preparing the au- thorized version. But that, while engaged on that ver- sion, they profited by the labors of those scholars who had already provided the Catholics of England with an excellent Bible, is sufficiently attested by the version it, self. Indeed, the fact is admitted in the preface to " the Revised Version" of the New Testament, and in the *' Companion to the Revised Version." ' And there is no reason to doubt that, had King James's translators gen- erally followed the Douay Version, the convocation of ' P. 157, note. 3/0 The Canon of the Old Testament Canterbury would have been saved the trouble of inau- gurating a movement for the purpose of expurgating the English Protestant Bible of the errors and cor- ruptions by which its pages are defiled; though even then it might have been found necessary to remove from that Bible various typographical mistakes, and a vast number of variations, almost 24000 of the latter having been discovered by a committee of the American Bible Society, while examining only six different edi- tions of the authorized version. ' As already remarked, the English revisers were not at all disposed to go as far as their American colabor- ers in removing the very objectionable features, which both recognized in their common Bible. Many words in that book are no longer English, and ai-e no longer understood by common readers. Some are used, if used at all in writing or conversation, only by persons lost to all sense of shame and delicacy ; others are used in such a way as to bid defiance to the plainest principles of syntax. Against all such monstrosities the American revisers protested, but protested in vain. Hence Eng- lish speaking Protestants still read in their Bible zvhich instead of who, where the reference is to persons or even to God, Matt. vi. 9; astonied instead of astonished, Is. lii. 14 ; and must be shocked when, instead of Jiarlot and its correlative terms, they come across words which would defile the pages of any modern book. Ex- amples of this will be found in the authorized, even re- vised version, at Lev. xxi. 7, Deut. xxiii. 17, Pro v. vi. 26, xxiii. 27, etc. The minister who may have to read these and similar passages to his congregation, as well as the congregation itself which listens to him, are to be pitied. Then we have the unintelligible word lian sub- stituted by the revisers for the plain word lain of the ver- sion in Num. v. 20; and in Exod. xxxix. i-^.ouches, ap- ' Co'iipaiiiot! to ihc Revised Veisioit., p. i6o, note. And Revisers on the English Protest ani I'ersion. 371 parently unknown to common English readers,instcad of settings. The English revisers made a remarkable change in Gen. xv. 2. There the authorized version had " Elie- zer of Damascus." But " Dammesek Eliezer" was sub- stituted for it. The Americans insisted that in this place no change should be made in the authorized version, but were overruled. They also endeavored in Num. iv. 9 and II. Paral. iv. 21 to have tongs replaced by snuffers, but failed, though the}- were right. In I, Kings xxx. 13 they tried to introduce ago for agone ; but the Anglicans were inexorable ; also occurrence instead oioccurrent in III. Kings V. 4, but were again foiled ; and xiv. 3, cakes for cracknels — in vain, however. Strange, is it not, that they did not propose crackers as a substitute ? The word is in common use and fairly well expresses what was once meant by the now obsolete word cracknels, which the obstinate English refused to surrender. Our fellow cit- izens also proposed attired instead of tired in IV. Kings ix. 30, but the old word still holds its ground. And in II. Paral. xxxvi. 3 fined instead of amerced. But the amendment was rejected. Siieezings instead of neezings, in Job xli. 18, met a similar fate. Betray for bezvray, Is. xvi. 3 ; rely for stay, Is. xxxi. i ; in Nahum ii. 7 beating for tabering (a word which has escaped the lexicographers) ; all these substitutes, as well as many others tending to render the authorized version at least intelligible, were rejected and relegated to an appendix. The suggestions of the American Committee regard- ing what it considered necessary corrections of the New Testament in the authorized version, were, like those it subsequently made in reference to the Old Testament, some of them adopted. But a great number, some of them commendable, others quite objectionable, were assigned, as had been agreed upon, to an appendix, where the intelligent reader is enabled to pass upon their merits. It seems, however, that, as the Americans con- 372 The Canon of the Old Testament sented that all of their suggestions not satisfactory to the Anglicans should be relegated to an appendix ; the Anglicans should have condescended to group together in the same way all of theirs, which were not approved by the Americans. But as the latter seem to have per- ceived nothing unfair in the arrangement actually car- ried out, a disinterested critic has no right to complain. Among the obsolete words which occur in the New Testament of the authorized version, and the meaning of which few English readers now understand, \skolpen for helped, in Luke i. 54. Here the revisers made no change. To this may be added zvot. This word is found, for ex- ample, in Acts vii. 40, and there belongs to a quotation from Ex. xxxii. i ; knoiv is its modern equivalent. The translators of King James, having employed zuot in Exo- dus, at least consistently made use of it in Acts. But the Anglican revisers, although deploring the incon- sistencies of the translators, after substituting knoiv for wot in Exodus, have very inconsistently retained ivot in Acts. While castingthe mote out of their brother's eye, they forgot to remove the beam from their own. Wist for knezv still obscures the sense of Acts xxiii. 5 in the re- vised as well as the authorized version. And no intelli- gible word has been substituted by the revisers for hal- ing, which King James's translat(jrs wrote in Acts viii. 3, and which might well have been replaced by dragging, as found in the Rhemish version. When the English revisers decided on retaining all such obsolete and bar- barous words, they should at least have explained them in the foot-notes which accompanv their work. Then look at the impropriety of using of ior by, as in Matt. iii. 13, 14 and elsewhere, a construction so frequent in the authorized version and even in its revision ; twain for two, as in Matt. v. 41, and so left in the revision ; meat iorfood, in Matt. vi. 25, where the revisers substituted the proper word ; for before the infinitive mood, as for to be scen^ And Revisers on t/ie English Protestant Version, t^-ji Matt, xxiii. 5, a solecism retained by tiie revisers ; his applied to a tree, in INIatt. xxiv. 32, but for some reason or other replaced by h.cr in the revision ; thev be for they arc, a construction so frequent that it is unneces- sary to cite examples ; spake for spoke, as in John vii. 13 and elsewhere; every ivJiit instead of ^vho/e, as in John vii. 23. Besides, far too much use has been made of italics in the authorized version. They were in- tended to supplv something supposed to be wanting in the original. But their employment for any such pur- pose is an assumption of authority hardly to be tolerated in any translator. King James's translators have exer- cised it quite too often, and not always for the develop- ment of the true sense contained in the original. In John viii. 6 they have interpolated in this way quite a sentence, as though he heard them int. These words have been very properly omitted b}- the revisers, for there is nothing like them expressed or implied in the original. Even were the authorized version a fair equivalent of the original which it claims to represent, the few ex- amples already cited, and which could be indefinitely multiplied, prove that it is not by any means adapted to the intellectual wants of that comparatively large class of Protestant readers which, possessed of only a common education, sincerely desires to obtain a kncnvledge of God's revealed word. This same remark applies, but of course with less force, to the recent revision of that version. It must therefore be an occasion of profound regret to all classes of Protestants that, when the grave and numerous defects of King James's Bible were gener- ally felt, and often publiclv acknowledged by the learned among its readers, and as a consequence Protestant scholars in Great Britain and the United States under- took a revision of that Bible, these revisers failed not only to correct many of its statements in which it out- rageously falsified the sacred originals, but to substitute 374 The Canon of tJie Old Testament intelligible English for the almost innumerable obsolete words and expressions with which it abounds. English speaking Protestants in the Old World and the New, when it was known that the work of revision had been decided on, at least all of them who, without being high- ly educated, were able to read, did not anticipate any change in the sense of the authorized version, for they believed that ever)- sentence it contained was as true as anything which Moses or the Prophets or the Apostles ever wrote, or even the Lord Himself ever spoke. But they certainly did expect that its language would be so intelligible, that in order to thorougly understand it they Avould be no longer compelled to provide themselves with a dictionary containing such Anglo-Saxon words as were still current in some districts of England about the be- ginning of the seventeenth century, but have long ceased to be spoken, indeed, are no longer understood, even by many well-educated people. Such Catholics, also, as might have taken any interest in the matter, no doubt entertained the same expectation. For to them it must have seemed quite inconsistent, indeed intolera- ble, that scholars who as controversialists charged the Church of Rome, untruthfully, however, with withold- ing the Scriptures fi'om Catholics, should themselves persist any longer in providing their followers with no other copy of the Bible than one which was not only false, but couched in a language much of which was not understood by those followers for several preceding generations. These hopes of what the revision would be, and in- deed should have been, so far as concerned its idiom, proved fallacious. Yet they secured an immense demand for the New Testament revision, which was the first part of the work published. As- soon as it appeared, in 1881, it was placed for sale in almost every citv and town in the United States, and met with readv pur- And Revisers on the English Protestant Version. 373 chasers. The ])ublic curiosity to examine it was almost universal. And every one who shared in the feeling could have it gratified for a mere trifle — ten, fifteen, or twenty-five cents at most. In the language of the trade, no book had ever such a run. Tiavellers in i-ailroad cars and steamboats, guests at hotels, visitors at places of public resort, found it within easy reach, and, if not carried away by the curiosit}- that had seized on almost all, had the volume thrust upon them. No dime novel had ever such success among common readers, while those whose tastes craved something more solid than fictitious literature, devoted for a while, and probably many of them for the first time in their lives, their lei- sure moments to the perusal of what was presented to them as the New Testament, a book of which they might have heard, but which very likely they had never before read or even opened. The excitement, however, soon subsided. The market had been glutted. And book- sellers, having discerned to their grief that the demand fell far short of the supply, were glad to dispose of the stock on hand at any price. Practically the book had ceased to be saleable, and. present indications render it extremely improbable that the revision, whether for private or public use, will ever supplant the original version among English speaking Protestants. When in 1885 the revision of the Old Testament was published, its appearance attracted very little attention. The Protestant public had been sadly disappointed in its expectations regarding the revision of the New. In that part of the work the revisers had consulted their own views, not the wishes and wants of their readers. Many of the latter seem to have read and studied that part carefully from beginning to end before the comple- tion of the Old Testament revision was announced, and even to have studiously compared it with their old family bibles. The}' communicated the results of their inves- 3/6 TJie Canon of the Old Testament ligation to the public press, and in several instances ap- pear to have been shocked at the to them unexpected and startling changes made in a work which they supposed incapable of improvement, and which they honestly re- garded as an immovable foundation, whereon to rest their religious belief. Nor were they in any way loath to express themselves, as if thev felt that the ground on which they were standing had suddenh' given wa}' ; one of these honest, plodding investigators, for example, as- tounded at the discovery he had made, startled the read- ers of a paper which enjoyed his patronage bv telling them that in Rev. viii. 13. the revisers had substituted an eagle for the angel of King James's translation ; what effect this announcement had on those who read it is not known. But the unsophisticated critic was right. For King James's translators, in this instance, had been im- posed upon by Coverdale's Bible, when they should have been guided by the authorit}- of the Rhemish New Testament and the best manuscripts. Other critics, more or less competent to decide on the merits of the revi- sion, commented in the same way on many of the mutila- tions, corrections, and changes which, as already indicat- ed in the preceding pages of the present work, were made by the revisers in the course of their labors. The sale of the revised Old Testament was therefore dull and unprofitable, as compared with that of the New. In fact, very few of the laity secured copies of the former. Their experience had taught them a lesson, and they profited by it. Ministers, by tacit or express agreement among themselves, frequently read portions of the re- vised New Testament to their congregations. But the members, it is understood, still reverently cling to the antiquated fetich which their forefathers set up, and will probably never accept in its stead the substitute pro- posed by the Convocation of Canterbury. Intelligent Protestants, who, like the revisers of the And RcvistTS on the English Protcstaiil Wrsion. i" authorized version, are aware of the many important differences between it and the Bible, even as preserved in the existing Hebrew and Greek, and who are thor- oughly conversant with the effects produced by that ver- sion, as well as others originating in the Reformation, may well seriously doubt whether much, if anything, has been gained to Christian society in consequence of that religious movement. The loss is patent ; the gain, where is it? Time was when Christendom presented a united front against infidelity and all forms of religious error; when throughout the West as well as the East the professors of the Christian religion had but one creed, sat under the same pulpit, and knelt around thc same altar. That was the golden age of Christian faith. It ceased, but not entirely, until fraudulent travesties, instead of honest translations, of the Holy Scriptures were placed by the reformers in the hands of all, and every one who could read was told that to interpret those counterfeits of the divine oracles was his inalienable rip-ht. One of these travesties has been the subject of the preceding remarks. The foundation of its New Testament was, as the revisers admit, ' laid by Tyndale, whose version was cast in the same mould with Luther's, while its Old Testament was modelled principally after that of Coverdale, whose " Bible," according to the title prefixed to it by himself, was " faithfully translated out of Douch ' and Latyn into English, MDXXXV." =" Pre- vious to the period in which those perversions of God's holy word appeared, the people of England, in matters of religion, were as a nation of one mind and of one speech. But what a change since ! What domestic wars ! What political contests ! What religious strife ! What rabid fanaticism ! What multitudes driven into 1 See their Preface to New Testament. - Luther's German Bible. ' Title-page of Cuverdale".s Bible in edition preserved in the Earl of I.eices- cr"s library at Holkham. 3/8 - The Canon of the Old Testament exile, impoverished, imprisoned, tortured, butchered, gibbeted, and all to a great extent in consequence of dishonest versions made of the Bible, and made for the purpose of maintaining errors never before broached, or broached only to be condemned by the Christian Church. Besides, is it too much to say that, had it not been for the jealousy and strife fostered, if not engendered, by such versions, India, China, and Japan would have long since been converted to the Christian faith ; that the dark continent of Africa would have been evangel- ized and civilized ; that the arms of Europe, united by common interests as well as a common Bible, would have crushed out Tslamism, or confined it to the home of the wild hordes which were the first to embrace it ; and that the savage aborigines of the lands discovered in recent times w^ould have been, most of them, already organized into prosperous communities or powerful kingdoms? These results would not be greater than those which, under the benign influence of a common creed and a uniform Bible, attested the wonderful prog- ress of Christianity from the first to the fourth cen- tury, in spite of the combined forces of Judaism and Gentilism ; and there can hardly be a doubt that the former results, commencing with the sixteenth, would have been accomplished by the close of the nineteenth century, had it not been for the dissensions fanned into destructive flames, if not into life, by the unfaithful and ill-omened version of Martin Luther and that other, pro- duced by his worthy English imitators Tyndale, Cover- dale, and Co. Here, then, we have on the one hand the actual and probable losses resulting to the cause of Christianity and civilization from the baneful influence of King James's translation in particular, because its in- fluence was not merly insular or continental, but cosmo- politan to a certain extent. But where, on the other And Revisers on the EnglisJi Protestant I'ersion. 379 hand, are we to look for the profits which man, as a member of society or as a pilgrim for eternity, has de- rived from that or all other translations produced by the Reformation? If it and they had never been writ- ten, would the state of human society be worse than it now actually is? Rather, would not many a page of human history, instead of redounding as at present to the disgrace of Christianity, be filled with a brilliant record of noble deeds done to elevate the human race, and of glorious sacrifices perfornied for the sake of our com- mon Lord ? CHAPTER XXVI. The Anglo-Catholic Bible. Since the religious revolution which wrenched Eng- land from the centre of ecclesiastical unity, the Catho- lics of that country, and those who speak the same language elsewhere, have, so far as the Scriptures are concerned, been much better provided for than those Protestants who, whether from choice or necessity, were restricted to the use of such a translation as had been executed under the auspices of King James I. For, though the Rheims version of the New Testament, and the Douay version of the Old, were not free from defects, those defects, unlike the intentional perversions in the English Protestant Bible, were in no instance the result of a settled purpose on the part of the translators to extort from the sacred text arguments favorable to their own belief, or condemnatory of doctrines which they rejected. The New Testament of this version was published at Rheims in 1582, and the Old at Douay in 1609-1610, both being the work of Dr. Martin Gregory, who was a convert, and had been educated at St. John's College, Oxford. In preparing the version he was as- sisted by Dr. William (afterwards Cardinal) Allen, Dr. Richard Bristow, and John Reynolds, all of them, like Martin himself, trained at the University of Oxford. Their version is commonly called the Douay Bible, although, while its Old Testament was published at Douay, its New Testament was published at Rheims. The reason why it was so, was this. The EngHsh Col- The Doiiay Bible. 381 lege was founded at Douay in 1568 by the efforts of Cardinal Allen, but on account of political troubles was removed some years afterwards to Rhcims, whence the translators, having published their New Testament, re- turned with the college to Douay and there completed and published their Old Testament. To the entii-e ver- sion were added notes ; those on the New Testament were written by Bristow and Allen ; those on the Old, by Dr. Thomas Worthington. This Anglo-Catholic Bible was a translation of the Latin Vulgate, the best model, no doubt, in the opinion of its authors, which could have been selected for their purpose, not only because for many centuries it had been universally used throughout the West, but for the more special reason that the Council of Trent had declared that it was to be held for authentic. Some have expressed the opinion that the Latin Vulgate is almost coeval with the Apostles, its Old Testament hav- ing been translated fi-om the Septuagint, and its New from the original Greek, both being retouched by St. Jerome about the close of the fourth century. Others believe that it is a mixture of that earliest translation, of the corrections made therein by St. Jerome accord- ing to the Hexaplar text of the Septuagint, of St. Je- rome's own version, and of the corrections made by him :n the text of the New Testament. The common opin- ion, however, is, that our present Vulgate is that actual version which was the work of St. Jerome, he having translated the protocanonical books of the Old Testa- ment from the Hebrew, with Tobias an'd Judith from the Chaldee, and having with the aid of Greek manu- scripts corrected the text of the existing Latin New Testament, but leaving the books of Wisdom, Ecclesias- ticus, Baruch, the two books of Machabees, with deu- tero Esther and Daniel, as he found them in the Old Latin Bible, which had all along been current through- 382 The Canon of the Old Testament. out the West. This Latin Bible, which preceded the age of St. Jerome by about two centuries, was called by him Vulgata, ' by St. Augustine Itala, ' and by St. Gregory the Great Vetiis. ' That, with the exception of the few books retained from it and just mentioned, the existing Vulgate is the production of St. Jerome, seems morally certain; else, why should Jerome's prefaces have been all along prefixed to the books, until near the end of the six- teenth centur}', when it was directed by the Sovereign Pontiff that these prefaces should be collected together and prefixed or appended to the sacred volume as they are generally now found, and thus all extraneous matter be separated effectually from the divine text. This single reason, though not the only one that could be urged, should remove all doubt with regard to a Hiero- nymian authorship. But whether the existing Vulgate be the exclusive work of St. Jerome or not, it is evident that, even apart from the solemn sanction given it by the Church, no more faithful copy of the Scriptures as at first dictated by the Holy Ghost could have been selected by the Anglo-Catholic translators, as a standard in prosecuting the task they had undertaken. For it was the out- growth of manuscripts, Hebrew, Chaldaic, and Greek, which had been written, studied, and collated, more than a thousand years before, by men familiar with the lan- guages in which the revealed word had been originally communicated. Of the two last classes of manuscripts it would be difficult to prove, that any older than the fourth century'remained when King James's translation was written. But it is certain that not a single one of the first, near so old as that, remained at that time, at least in the hands of Christians. At present there is none to be found older than the tenth century. King ' In cap. xiv., 29. xliv. 5, 6. Isaise. * De Doci. Christ. L. ii. c. 15. ^ Ep. ad I.eandrum ante Mor. prtefix. c. v. The Doiiay Bible. 383 James's translators, therefore, had to rely on Hebrew manuscripts more recent by several, probably twelve, centuries than those after which the Vulgate was mod- elled. The full significance of this fact will be best understood by those who are aware of the many mis- takes which transcribers may make, and that the last of a succession of copies of any particular document, especiall}' when no longer extant, is likely to be the most inaccurate of the entire series. As a matter of course, the Vulgate has therefore been assigned a high rank among existing copies of the Sa- cred Scripture, not only by Catholic but by Protestant critics. Indeed, it would be an easy matter to cite a long list of the latter who have recognized the emi- nent merits of the Vulgate. But a CathoHc writer is spared this trouble by Protestant critics who have treated the subject. Thus Brian Walton, Anglican bish- op of Chester, after a learned dissertation on the Vulgate, says: ' " But although we may not recognize it as divine, we admit that it is to be highly esteemed and not to be easily found fault with, both because of its antiquity and the general use which the Western Church has made of it for a thousand years, as also on account of the learning and fidelity of Jerome, whom we recognize as its princi- pal author, and whom the most learned Protestants gratefully extol for the eminent services he rendered to the Church." Walton then, in confirmation of this statement, appeals to the testimony of Theodore Beza, the successor of Calvin; John Boys, Prebendary of Ely, who assisted in writing King James's translation, and was one of the six divines appointed to revise that trans- lation when completed; Paul Fagius, appointed by Cran- mer to teach Hebrew in Cambridge ; Louis de Dieu, prin- cipal of one of the colleges at Leyden and professor of the University ; and Hugh Grotius, one of the most * Pro leg., X. 3^4 ^/^^' Canon of the Old Tcstaimnt learned v, Hters belonging to the sixteenth century. Dr. Wright of Trinity College, writing long after Walton, has thus referred to the Vulgate : " The most learned and judicious Protestants (Mill, Proleg. ; Bengel, Appara- tus ; Lachman, Pre/.) justly conspire in holding it in a high degree of veneration." ' In regard to the New Testa- ment of the Vulgate he cites Dr. Campbell, a learned Scotch Presbyterian divine, who died in 1796, and re- marks that, " Dr. Campbell {on the Gospels) considers that, as the last part of the Vulgate was completed fourteen hundred-years ago, and from manuscripts older probably than any now extant, and at a time, too, when the mod- ern controversies were unknown, the Council of Trent acted rightly in giving the preference to this (the Vulgate New Testament), which he designates a good and faith- ful version, remarkable for purity and perspicuity." " To this array of testimony may be added the name of one who died in 1862, Thomas Hart well Home, whose authority on all Biblical questions is almost supreme among Protestants. This writer cites the authority of Richard Simon, the learned Oratorian, to show " that the more ancient the Greek manuscripts and other ver- sions arc, the more closelv do they agree with the Vul- gate, which has, in consequence, been more justly appre- ciated." ^ And Mr. Home himself adds : " The Latin Vulgate preserves many true readings, where the mod- ern Hebrew copies are corrupt." Besides, it is in evi- dence that King James's translators sometimes followed " the Vulgate in opposition to both " ' Stephen's and Beza's editions, and that wherever they seem to have fol- lowed a reading which is not found in the principal ' Kitto's Cycl., Vulgate. ^ Inirod. to the Critical Study of the Scriptures, vol. II., p. 239. 3 Histoire Critique, etc. •* Scrivener's Supplement to Authorized Version, Kitto's Cycl., II., p. 927. The Dona J Bible, -Sc editions of the Greek text, " their rendering may prob- ably be traced to the Latin Vulgate." ' It must, therefore, be admitted that, when Dr. Greg- pry Martin and his associates undertook to provide their countrymen with a version, they could hardly have had a better copy of the Bible than the one which they pro- posed to translate. It may also be admitted, that they were all adm'irably equipped for the task on which they entered. For, while the others were by their education well qualified to assist him, Martin himself, who' per- formed the principal part of the work, was distinguished by his knowledge of Hebrew and Greek (a fact publicly recognized sometime before at the university of Oxford), - and, while connected with the English College at Douay and at Rheims, was professor of Hebrew and Scripture in that institution. But this point need not be insisted on, as it is generally admitted by eminent Protestant writers, all of whom appear to re-echo the sentiment ex- pressed by one of their own number, who says that " the Remish divines (who were evidently men of learning and ability) may occasionally do us good service, by furnishing some happy phrase or form of expression, which had eluded the diligence of their more reputable predecessors." ' Can it be that the critic's last words refer to Tyndale and Coverdale, who translated from "the Douche and Latyn." If so, his admission is the more valuable. A less cynical critic declares, ' that the English version of the Vulgate " is highly commendable for its scrupulous accuracy and fidelity, which cannot be predicated of all translations from the Vulgate in other languages." And certainly not of "the Holy Bible containing the Old and New Testaments trans- 1 Preface to Revision of A nth. Version of N. Test. ^ Dixon, Introd., etc., Dissert, ix. =• Scrivener, Supplement to Auth. Version, Kiito's Cycl., II., p. 926. " Rev. W. Wright, LI..D., Trinity College, (Kitto's CycL, II., p. 926). 386 The Canon of the Old Tcstauioit. lated out of all the original tongues by His Majesty's special command." The translators to whose learning and industry Eng- lish literature is indebted for the Douay Bible, while prosecuting their laborious task, diligently consulted the Hebrew and Greek originals, deviating from each only so far as a due respect for the text of the Vulgate rendered necessary. The consequence has been that, though, to quote Mr. Scrivener again, ' " in justice it must be observed, that no case of wilful perversion of Script- ure has ever been brought home to the Rhemish trans- laters," yet another Protestant writer, Dr. Samuel Davidson, had, it must be confessed, good reason to re- mark that in the " Anglo-Rhemish version many of the original Hebrew and Greek words are retained, so that simplicity and perspicuity are sacrificed." Had the Doctor added that the phraseology of that version, on account of the Latinisms which appeared in it, was, like the Authorized Version, in many places obscure to ordinary readers, he would have been by no means h}-- percritical. But when he further stated that " it has been conjectured that this (the retention of Hebrew and Greek words) was done to render it (the version) as ob- scure as possible to the people," he should have candidly informed all who so conjectured, that they were mis- taken ; that all obscurities were afterwards removed from the version; that their own version is not free from ob- scurities ; that in St. Paul's " Epistles. . . . are certain things hard to be understood," not only by the people but by the learned — a fault from which, if it be such, it has not pleased God to preserve even " the other Script- ures," ^ and that, if intentional obscurity in this case were even a demonstrated fact, instead of being as it is a patent impudent fiction, it would not be so grave an offence against the sacred majesty of God's word as the gross, ' Suppl. to Aiith. Vers. ■ II. Pet. iii. 16. riic Doiiay Bible. 387 deliberate perversions of that word which occur in al- most every chapter of King James's New Testament particularly. The appearance of Hebrew, Greek, and Anglicized Latin words in the Douay Bible is, however, easily ac- counted for by the following circumstances, so that it is preposterous to suspect that the translators had any intention of withholding the Scriptures from the knowl- edge of the people. That they wrote any sort of ver- sion whatever proves indeed that they had no such in- tention. But their censor seems to have forgotten that they had been driven into exile by a Protestant govern- ment, which denied to Catholics even the poor boon of toleration; that they had to struggle with poverty ' while at Douay or Rheims, where they were principally en- gaged in preparing priests, rather martyrs, for the Eng- lish mission ; that long and continuous absence from England, during which Latin or French was the principal medium of communication with those around them, must have rendered it difficult for them to express themselves correctly in their mother-tongue as spoken at the time ; and that in their preface they distinctly notify their read- ers that they religiously retain the phrases word for word, " for fear of missing or restraining the sense of the Holy Ghost to the fantasie." As a proof of this they refer to such phrases as // emoi kai soi, gunai{]o\\n ii. 4), which they render, " what to Me and thee, woman ? explaining it, however, in a note thus: " what hast thou to do with Me?" The text of the Douay Version in this instance was a strictly literal translation of the original, which Bishop Kenrick rendered : " Woman, what hast thou to do with Me ? " and the Authorized Version, as well as its revisers, " Woman, what have I to do with thee ? " The Ancrlo-Catholic translators had, as their work as well as ' In their preface they pathetically assign " lack of means " as the reason why Iwenty-eighl years were occupied in preparing the translation. 388 The Canon of the Old Testament. their words show, their fears and their scruples. But the entire version of the Anglo-Protestant translators too well attests that they were troubled with no feeling of the kind. It was once not unusual to find Protestant critics urg- ing serious charges of incompetency or dishonesty aofainst the writers of the x\no:lo-Catholic translation oi the Vulgate. One of these critics was Hart well Home. But the grave charges which he brought against them in the seventh edition of his Introduetion, having been proved false, were omitted in the eighth of the same work. ' At present no respectable Protestant scholar would risk his reputation by saying anything more un- favorable of the Dona}' Bible than that its language is un- English — a charge which an}- Catholic may admit, and one, by the way, to which, as ever}- impartial Protestant will allow, the Authorized Version itself is also manifestly open. Well indeed would it be for the latter, if no more serious fault could be proved against it. Yet the Hebra- isms, Grascisms, and Latinisms which imparted a foreign aspect to the English of the Douay Bible, besides being a result of the overscrupulous fidelity with which Dr. Martin and his colleagues endeavored to preserve the exact sense of the original, have been much, indeed very much, exaggerated. Here are a few specimens which have been collected together by a modern Protestant crit- ic. " Sindon (Mark xv. 46), zelators (Acts xx. 20), priE- linition (Eph. iii. 2), contristate (iv. 30), agnition (Philem. 16.), repropitiate (Heb. ii. 17), With such hosts God is promerited (xiii. 16)." ^ Now, all these words, except 1 Kitto's Cyct., II., p. 926. noie. 2 For the accuracy of these references by Dr Wright, he alone is responsible; some, if not all of them, are inaccurate. The Douay translators, generally ex- plain all such words in their notes, or at the end of the New Testament, in a list of "Hard wordes explicated;''' several of the words selected above for condemnation by a Protestant critic are found in that list, the others are prob ably explicated in the notes. Such trifles, however, are beneath the notice of a Protestant critic writing as a controversialist. TJic Donay Bible. 389 two, zclators and rcpropitiatc, were used by respectable English writers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, as any one may learn by consulting Worcester's Dic- tionary, and it is quite likely that a thoi'ough examina- tion of contemporary literature would show that the two words not catalogued by Worcester were also then in use. According to him zcalant occurs in the writings of Bacon. It thus appears that the Anglo-Catholic translators of the Vulgate, anxious to transfer to their Bible the full sense of that version, retained in many instances, prob- ably wherever it was possible, the Vulgate's ver}- words in an anglicized form, difficult, no doubt, to the common reader, but generally understood and employed by the best English writers of the time. England had already been flooded with spurious versions of the Vulgate written by Tyndale and Coverdale, with the assistance of Martin Luther's Douche, in a dialect with which the lower classes were long familiar. And it may have seemed to the exiled Catholic translators, that the best way to counteract the evil was to bring the Vulgate as near as possible to the capacity of educated readers, not only by rendering it literall}-, but by retaining its verv words, so far as the actual stage which the English lang- uage had reached would permit. The leaders, thus en- abled to perceive the true character of the Bibles imposed on the country, would, it may have been hoped, be in a position to convince the common people, who looked to them for guidance, that the Bibles with which the}- had been supplied so plentifully were only base counterfeits of the word of God. But whether such reasoning had or had not anything to do with determining the character of the Douay version, it is well known that at the time a great number of Latin words were struggling for adoption into the English language, and that several succeeded, i-etaining to this day the position then as- 390 Tlic Canon of the Old Testament. signed them. But not a few, like the specimens given above, after a brief trial, have been discarded by writers and speakers. Unfortunately for the popularity of the Douav version, it contained manv such words, current enough in England when it was written, but since con- signed to oblivion, though still well understood by edu- cated readers, the class to which, it would seem, the Anglo- Catholic translators particularly addressed themselves. The Douay Bible, therefore, must have been read, if read at all, principally by persons qualified by their education to test its fidelity. On the other hand, the idiom of King James's Bible being a widespread provin- cial dialect, originating long before probably in North- amptonshire,' that Bible had as its readers generallv only such as were unable to decide on its merits or defects by comparing it with " the original tongues," from which it professes in its title page to have been " translated." Its circulation was not, of course, confined to that class. For it as well as the versions prepared by T3^ndale and Coverdale, with the various other Bibles descended from those versions and published in England before 1611, were patronized by many to whom, on account of their previous studies, their real character could have been no secret. But it was not to be expected, even if they took the trouble to ascertain that character, that men who owed all that they were and all that they owned to a re- ligious revolution, started, pushed forward, and consum- mated to a great extent by the Protestant Bible, would condemn, whatever its faults, the agent to which they were principall}^ indebted for their worldly prosperity. Indeed, it would have required a superhuman effort for competent critics, whose all depended on the maintenance of the svstem in favor of which that book was conceived, written, and put in circulation,to have declared what they honestlv thought of the volume. Whoever might tell the ' Marsh's Lectures oil the English Language, First Series, p. 622. The Donay Bible. 3yi truth about it, it was their interest to defend it, and they did so in most instances without blush or hesitation. Even at this day the revisers of the authorized ver- sion, while confessing and correcting a few of its many faults, are not ashamed to say in reference to what thev call " this noble translation," " The longer we have been engaged upon it, the more we have learned to admire its simplicity, its dignity, its power, its happy turns of ex- pression, its general accuracy, and we must not fail to add, the music of its cadences and the felicities of its rhythm." ' Such is the extravagant and fulsome lan- guage itddressed to the readers of the authorized ver- sion, who generally know no better, by those who find in that version the surest support of those opinions on whose perpetuation their all in this world depends. And this language has been repeated so often, so confi- dently, and with such a semblance of weighty authority, that Protestants ver}- generally believe it, and few Prot- estant writers have the courage to criticise, much less to contradict it. But here and there may be found one with sufificient independence to utter a word of feeble dissent. Mr, Hallam, for example, without, however, daring to decide whether the authorized version is " con- formable to the original text," hazards a few remarks regarding its " style," which, he says, " is in general so enthusiastically praised, that no one is permitted either to qualif\% or even explain the grounds of his approba- tion. . . . but .... it is not the language of the reign of James I. It may in the eyes of many be a better English, but it is not the English of Daniel, or Raleigh, or Bacon, as any one may easily perceive. It abounds, in fact, es- pecially in the Old Testament, wuth obsolete phraseolo- gy, and with single words long since abandoned or retained only in provincial use." ^ Need we wonder that ' Preface to New Revision, p. 9. * Literature of Europe, Part II., ch. ii., p. 445. 392 The Canon of tJie Old Testament. this "style" was not selected by the Anglo-Catholic translators of the Vulgate ? Or is anj- one aware that it was ever adopted or imitated by any writer or speaker except an irreverent newspaper jester, or Joe Smith, who had the phraseology of his book of Mormon fash- ioned after the same vulgar dialect which served as a matrix for the style of the authorized version ? Uncouth, unfaithful, barbarous, and extremely anti- quated as King James's translation is in far too many, passages, no reader, unless one whose imagination has been subjected to a due course of ministerial discipline, could discover in it what its well-paid and enthusiastic admirers are pleased to call " its dignity, its general ac- curacy, the music of its cadences, and the felicities of its rhythm." The truth is, that with an impartial English audience, and a merely tolerant English government, the Douay Bible, at least as revised soon after its ap- pearance, when its Hebrew, Greek, and Latin words were replaced by current English, would have long since supplanted its pampered and dishonest rival, wherever the English language was spoken. This re- sult would have been brought about by the ordinary oper- ation of the general law, which, unless in exceptional cir- cumstances, always secures the survival of the fittest. The Douay Bible has been so modernized by frequent recensions, that existing copies of it look more like a new translation of the Vulgate than a revision of an old ver- sion. Expurgated its text never has been, so far as the sense is concerned, because, strictly speaking, there was nothing therein to expurgate. But what a herculean task awaits the enterprising scholar who will undertake to modernize the English Protestant Bible, and expur- gate its text from all the corruptions which, notwith- standing the work of its latest revisers, still render that version quite objectionable. Besides, who would have the courage to engage in such a task, with the cheerless TIic Doitay Bible. 393 prospect before him. that those whose knowledge of God's word he woidd thus propose to promote, have such an inveterate and irrational attachment to their hereditary Bible, that they would fail to adopt his cor- rections or even thank him for his labors. The principal, in fact, the only valid objection that could be made against the text of the Douay Bible as it left the hands of its authors, was the retention of so many words exactly or almost as they were written in the original. Yet, for this the Douay divines mav have had good reason. At least it is possible to conjecture such reason, without charging them with a deliberate purpose of rendering their version as obscure as possi- ble, a charge as absurd as it is malicious. For, if that had been their purpose, would it not have been bet- ter promoted by leaving the Church's authentic copy of the Scriptures, as the Church herself had left it, in Latin. That would have rendered the Scriptures much more obscure to the people than the course which the Douay divines took. To them the meaning of many of the words in the original may have seemed obscure. Indeed, not a few of them still baffle the skill of the best commentators. And when they met with them, what were the Anglo-Catholic translators to do? Substitute definite English words for all such, and thus commit themselves, as King James's translators did, to a render- ing which further investigation might show to be incor- rect? No, as conscientious translators they could take no such liberty with the text before them, and so they decided sometimes to transfer to their version a word just, or almost, as they found it in the original, rather than impose on their readers a rendering of whose accuracy they were not assured themselves. Our separated brethren have had good reason to wish, that the translators of their Bible had been equally scrupu- lous. Had the latter translators emulated the fidelity 394 The Canon of the Old Testament. with which the sense of the Vulgate was transferred to the Douay Bible, a Canterbury revision, because un- necessary, would probably have never been heard of. As a consequence of the rule thus imposed on the authors of the Douay version by their profound respect for the sense of the original, the reader is referred to the first among the specimens of what are called, by a Protestant critic, " the barbarous words and phrases " employed in that version, and indicated in a preceding page ; namely, the word Sindon. This word has been applied in the original Greek, as well as in the Vulgate, by the hrst three Gospels to the shroud or winding sheet provided for Our Lord's body, after being taken down from the cross. Whatever was the material out of which the Sindon there mentioned was made, the tex- tile fabric used on the same occasion is called in the fourth Gospel by its Greek name othonion, rendered no doubt correctly by the Vulgate linteis (linen cloths), by the Rhemish New Testament linnen elotJies. Although the reference in the first three Gospels is to the winding sheet, while in the last it is probably to the strips or bandages in which the body and limbs were swathed to keep " the mixture of myrrh and aloes" in place, the writers (3f the Douay version had good reason to doubt whether Sindon meant the same material as othonion (lin- en). If it did, why did Matthew, Mark, and Luke employ it instead of othonion'^ Was it not better to re- tain Sindon, just as it stood in the Greek and Latin, and leave the readers of the Douay Bible to interpret it as they pleased, especially as the word was then current among respectable English writers? So Dr. Martin and his colleagues appear to have thought. So at least they did. That they were mistaken, it would be difficult to prove, although a different course has been taken by all other English translators, Catholic as well as Protestant, whose renderings of the two The Donay Bible. 395 words, in the passages referred to, substantially agree with each other, as appears from the following ex- hibit, where, for the convenience of the mere English reader, Sindon is written in the nominative case, though it may be found in the Greek and Latin text in some other case. Matt, xxvii. 59. Mark xv. 46. LUKE XXIII. 53. ! John xix. 40. Greek. Sindon. Sindon , twice. Sindon. Othoniois. Latin. Sindou. Sindon, ttvice. Sindon. linteis. Kenrick. linen cloth. fine linen, twice. linen cloth. linen cloths. Corerdole. lynnen cloth. \ lynuen cloth, j. 1 twice. C lynnen cloth. lynnen clothes. Author. Vers. linen cloth. flne linen, linen linen. linen cloths. Rev. of Ant. i Vers. 1 linen cloth. ( linen cloth, ' 1 twice. ( linen cloth. linen cloths. Why Kenrick, in rendering Mark, inserts the word pie does not appear, ' although his translation of the Vul- gate, rather his revision of the Douay version, is fur- nished with copious and learned notes. All of them, in rendering Matthew, have before /inen cloth the word clean, for it is in the Greek and Latin ; St. Mark, as just indicated, has in the Greek Sindoti twice in the same verse, once Sindona in the accusative case, once Sindoni in the dative. And the authorized version renders the first Sindona " l^ne linen ; " but, as if to keep up its well earned reputation for gross inconsistency, it renders the second Sindoni simply " linen." The substantial agreement thus existing among trans- lators in interpreting Sindon by the word ''linen;' seems to prove that the writers to whom the Douay version owes its origin were mistaken in leaving Sindon as they found it, instead of rendering it " linen." That, however, is not so clear ; for, while the rendering of the former leaves the mere English reader under the impression that all four evangelists apply the same . Unless he was anxious, for some reason known to himself, to follow in this instance the authorized version. 396 The Canon of the Old Testament. term to the cloths used in the burial of Our Lord's body, the rendering of the latter, by showing that the expression of St. John was different from that of the other three evangelists, guards the reader against the false inference that the description given by the four evangelists is one and the same. It is true, there was some reason for beheving that the cloths provided by Joseph of Arimathea for Our Lord's burial were all lin- en, as those used for similar purposes in Egypt were of that material, a fact placed be3ond all doubt when mummy cloths were examined with the aid of the mi- croscope. It would therefore seem to follow that those translators who represented b}" the English word linen the Sindon of the evangelists were right, and that the Douay divines were wrong in retaining Sindon in their translation ; 3^et an apologist of the Douay divines might be permitted to remark that, though the microscope has shown that the material of the mummy cloths was linen, it appears that this was not universallv the case, as it has been ascertained, in one instance at least, that " the mummy cloth of a child was formed of cotton, not of linen, as is the case wnth adult mummies." ' Were there question, therefore, about an Egyptian instead of a Jewish sepulture, Sindon might, but would not necessari- ly have to, be rendei"ed " linen." Besides, while embalm- ing appears to have been universally practised in Egvpt from the earliest times, and only ceased there about the sixth or seventh century of our era, there is no evidence to show that the custom was ever observed in Palestine to any extent. The "jam foetet" of the Gospel proves that the body of Lazarus, who appears to have been re- spectably connected, was not embalmed. And even when some operation designated embalming was per- formed among the Jews, it was altogether different from what was known by the same name among the Egyp- ' Kitto's Cycl.. vol. I., p. 474. Many mummies have been found wrapt in woolen cloth; that of Myceiinus, an Egyptian Sovereign, was found encased in siirb i-;in'('vi'l. J Kc>nrir]-"s 4 inirnt F.QV^f 'mder th:' P/nrao/is. pp. Ill, liS. The Douay Bible. 397 tians. The former, when tU^ne, simply retarded, the lat- ter absolutely prevented, the process of decomposition. Besides, if the Palestinian method of embalming had been identical with the Egyptian, why should it be concluded that the textile fabric used on the occasion by the Jews was the same in all respects as that in which Egyptian mummies are now found encased. Furthermore, it does not appear that the Egyptians, in preparing their dead for burial, made use of such a cloth as the Sindoji of the first three Gospels, which seems to have been a sheet in which Our Lord's body was wrapped when taken down from the cross, and in which it was laid while being swathed with the othouiois, linen bandages, before being consigned to the sepulchre. If these bandages were of linen, like the cerement of an Egyptian mummv, the Sindon of the Evangelists need not have been of the same material. Finally, and this should have some weight in deciding the question, a writer whose opinion is entitled to great respect, and who has devoted much attention to the names by which the various cloths were known to the ancients, states that '^ Sindon was t\\e geno'al term for every fine stuff; so that it was even applied to woolen fabrics. . . . Sindon was therefore any stuff of a very fine texture, and might be applied to modern Cashmere and Jerbee shawls, as well as to muslin and cambric." ' It is therefore at least far from certain, that, when the Douay divines decided on copying instead of translat- ing Si)idon, they were mistaken. But whatever be the merits or faults of their version, it was not honored by the imprimatur of a single bishop, much less by any formal approbation of the Holy See. It could boast of no higher recommendation than that of a few theologians connected with the College and Cathedral of Rheims and 1 Rawlinson's /i'>wa'c/«j, II., p. 122, note 6. 398 The Canon of the Old Testament. the University of Douay.' The Rheims version was first published in a quarto volume, and the Douay in two quarto volumes. » A Catholic Dictionary (Douay Bible). CHAPTER XXVll. Editions and Revisions of the Douay Bible in Great Britain and Ireland, with other Cath- olic VERSIONS executed FOR BOTH COUNTRIES. Of this version, consisting of the Old and New Testa- ment, and commonly called the Douay Bible, there have been several editions and revisions. And since it ap- peared, there have been two independent English trans- lations ot the Vulgate New Testament made by Cath- olic writers. The following details on the subject have been derived from various sources. ' In 1600 a second edition of the Rheims New Testa- ment appeared in quarto, with some alterations and cor- rections. In 162 1 it was brought to a third edition in i6mo. In 1633 a fourth edition in quarto was issued. In 1635 there was pubHshed a second edition of the Old Testament in quarto, without alterations or correc- tions. In 1738 a fifth edition of the New Testament in folio was put forth, the spelling being modernized, and the text as well as the notes slightly altered. In 1788 a sixth edition of the New Testament (folio) was published in Liverpool, with the original preface and notes. 1 Dixon, Introd. to the S. .S'.-Kenrick, General Introd. to the N. Test.— Newman's Essay on the Kheims and Douay Version of the H. S.-Bibliographi- cal Account of Cath. Bibles, Testaments, and other portions of Set ipttire trans- lated from the Latin Vulgate and published in the United States. By John Gilmary Shea, \A..V). -Dublin R,-v., vol. I., article ix. sua 400 TJie Canon of the Old Testament, In i8i6 as well as in 1818 an attempt was made to cir- culate among the Irish Catholics copies of the Douay version ccjntaining the objectionable notes by which it was at first accompanied. But on both occasions the vigorous opposition o£ the Irish hierarchy rendered the attempt abortive. These attempts originated in a plan conceived in 181 3 by one McNamara, a book-seller of Cork. His purpose was, as a source of personal profit, to reproduce in elegant style the Douay Bible, as it left the hands of the translators. Not finding in Cork the neces- sary facilities for such a work, and being himself pos- sessed of very limited resources, he induced a respecta- ble Protestant by the name of Cummings, engaged in the same business in Dublin, to have the book printed in the latter cit}-. The approbation of Dr. Troy, Archbish- op of Dublin, was asked and readily granted, that prel- ate supposing that the Bible was to be nothing more than a handsome reprint of one published under his sanc- tion by R. Cross in 179 1 ' and further stipulating that, to guard the purity of the text, the proof-sheets should be revised by Rev. P. A. Walsh, a Catholic clerg3man of Dublin. McNamara, having obtained a considerable number of subscribers among the bishops, priests, and laity, commenced publishing the book in numbers. But before it was completed he became bankrupt. Cum- mings, his assignee, having on his hands many unsold copies of the numbers already published, in order to in- demnify himself, decided to utilize these by printing the remainder, and thus place the entire work in the market. This he accomplished, and the Bible was published in 1 8 16. In the mean time McNamara, no way discouraged by his failure, resolved to have an exact copy of his for- mer work printed. He commenced this second enterprise in 181 7, publishing the edition as before in numbers, on the covers of which he copied the list of original sub- ' Infrn, p. 410. The Doiiay and other Anglo-Catholic Wrsions. 401 scribers, to which he added the names of others which he had procured subsequently He succeeded in pub- Hshing his Bible in 181 8. It, as well as the one already published two years before, contained all the objection- able notes belonging to the original Douay Bible. It is difficult to say whether this happened through an over- sight on the part of Father Walsh, or through the bad faith of the publishers. But there is no doubt that in this matter the instructions of Dr. Troy were disre- garded. Many of the notes in question, having been in- spired in a great measure by the wrongs inflicted on the writers by the British Government, w^ere still very dis- tasteful to the advocates of English supremacy in Ireland, and \vere seized upon, as soon as they appeared in the editions of McNamara and Cummings, as an argument against Catholic emancipation,' a question which at the time engrossed public attention. To add to the difificul- ties of the situation, so far as the advocates of emancipa- tion were concerned, Cummings, being a Protestant, and fearing lest the appearance of his name on the title-page of the Bible he proposed publishing would prevent its. circulation among the Catholics of Ireland, substituted,, with his consent however, that of a well-known Dublin Catholic publisher, Richard Coyne. To complicate mat- ters still further, this very Bible of Cummings was also published at the same time by Keating and Brown in London, for private circulation, as was said, in Ireland. A very unfavorable criticism on the Bible, published over the name of Cojme, appeared in a British periodical, and Dr. Troy's attention was thus directed in the latter part of 18 1 7 to the character of its contents. Indignant at the manner in w^hich his sanction had been abused, he immediately issued a circular, in which the edition of 1816 was condemned. The effect of this condemnation ' As if Cummings, a Protestant, wasconspinng with other Catholic printers against the stability of the British throne. 402 The Canon of the Old Testament. was fatal to the circulation, not only of that edition, but of that brought out by McNamara in 1818. The latter publisher, to escape the force of the condemnation, tried to secure the sale of his Bible by changing some of its leaves, but even then it could not find readers. Cum- mings, unable to find purchasers, was compelled to export to America the copies then remaining on his hands, some 500. The speculation was a most unfortunate one for McNamara and Cummings, and was probably the last at- tempt that was made, at least in Europe, to preserve from oblivion the acrimonious annotations with which the persecuted divines of Rheims had accompanied their English version of the Vulgate New Testament. We shall meet with McNamara's Bible further on. ' Notwithstanding the many editions through which the Douay Bible had passed, and the occasional efforts made to improve it, towards the close of the seventeenth century it was generally felt among Catholics that on account of its antiquated language, its obsolete words, and its faulty spelling, an independent translation of the Vulgate should be made, and the sense of the Scriptures thus conveyed as correctly as possible to Eng- lish readers. Convinced of this, Cornelius Nary, an Irishman, Doctor of Laws of the University of Paris, and parish priest of St. Michan's, Dublin, in 1709 published in London a new translation of the Vulgate New Tes- tament. It had the approbation of four Irish divines of Paris and of Dublin, and was republished in 171 7. Actuated by a similar motive, Dr. Witham, an English divine, and president of Douay College, wrote another new translation of the Vulgate New Testament, with learned notes. It was published in 1730, having been approved by t)r. Challoner with other divines attached to the Doua}' College, and passed through a second edi- tion. Neither it, however, nor Nary's, its predecessor, ' See next cliapter. Tlie Douay and other Anglo-Catholic Wrsioiis. 403 seems to have been received with favor. Fur, both were superseded by the revision of the Rheims New Testament in duodecimo, which Dr. Challoner, whose memory as vicar-aiX)Stolic of the London district is still grateful- ly venerated by English Catholics, published in 1749. The illustrious prelate appears to have engaged in this enterprise from the same considerations in which the two independent translations mentioned above originat- ed. But their failure to secure popularity convinced him that the demand of the Catholic public was not to be satisfied by substituting a distinct version for the old one, but by modernizing the language and style of the latter. In 1750, he brought out an edition of the entire Bible, including, therefore, a second edition of the New Testament. A third edition of the latter was issued by him in 1752. This was followed, in 1763-64, by a second edition of his revision of the entire Bible, which brought the New Testament to a fourth edition. In 1772, he had a fifth edition of the latter printed ; it being succeeded, in 1777, by a sixth edition, the last which he lived to pre- pare, for he died soon after, in his ninetieth year, hav- ing devoted much of the last thirty years of his life to the further improvement of his revision of the Douay version. The notes which Dr. Challoner inserted in his ver- sion were comparatively few, but judicious and inoffen- sive. His alterations, however, of the Douay text, though not deviating from the sense of the Douay ver- sion, were considerable, his principal object being to render that version intelligible to ordinary readers. In that he succeeded ; but it may be doubted whether the phraseological and verbal changes introduced by him compensated for the loss thus sustained by the original in energy and impressiveness. Kenrick says, he is thought to have weakened the style by his inversion of words, an opinion shared by Cardinal Newman. In 404 The Canon of the Old Testament. fact, his revision might be regarded as a translation of the Vulgate, rather than a recension of the Doua}- Bible. Yet it was favorably received, and has ever since been the standard of the many editions of the Douay Old Testament and the Rheims New Testament published in England, Ireland, Scotland, and the United States. So that it cannot be said that the Douay Bible any longer exists among English speaking Catholics as the received version of the Vulgate. Dr. Henr}^ Colton, Anglican archdeacon of Cashed 1855, was the first to remark that alterations made by Dr. Challoner in the Doua}- Bible were in the direction of the Protestant version. And it has been said by other Protestant writers that, according to Cardinal Newman, Dr. Challoner's revision approximated to that version. This is hardly a fair statement of the opinion expressed by his Eminence. It would be more correct to say that he has in a certain measure tested the accu- racy of the statement put forth b}- the archdeacon, and has thus been led to observe that, besides inverting the order in which the words occur in the Douay version, and occa- sionally substituting modern words for those of that ver- sion, several examples of all which the Cardinal gives,, " There seems no desire to substitute Saxon words for Latin, for ' set forth ' is altered into ' declare ' ; nor, per- haps, to approach the Protestant version, though there often is an approach in fact, from the editor's desire to improve the English of his own text." The Cardinal again observes that, allowing for the connection between the Douay and the Challoner, " Challoner's version is even nearer to the Protestant than it is to the Douay ; nearer, that is, not in grammatical structure, but in phraseolog}?^ and diction." This, in reference to the Douay Old Testament. With regard to the Rheims New Testament, the same illustrious writer says, that Challoner " could not be unfaithful to the Vulgate; he The Donay ami other Anglo-Catliolie Versions. 405 never would leave its literal sense for the Protestant text, which, on the other hand, is translated from the Greek ; " that in several instances, which are ad- duced, he keeps to the Rheims, though " in one case, where the Rheims is with the Greek, he leaves it for the Protestant, which is not faithful to the Greek, viz. eis ten katapausin' (Heb. x. 3)— Rheims "into the rest," Protestant " into rest," Challoner " into rest." The latest revisers of the Protestant version have since confessed this mistake by attempting to cancel it. The Douay Bible up to the time of Dr. Challoner le- mained substantially as it had been written. There had indeed been a second edition of its Old Testament, but, as we have seen, without alterations or corrections. There had also been during the same period five edi- tions of its New Testament. But it seems that only in the last of these, 1738, was there any attempt at im- provement, and that attempt resulted only in moderniz- ing the spelling, and making a few verbal alterations, leaving the New Testament almost what it was in the edition of 1600. In the meantime, many alterations had been made in the Protestant version, not only, as is known, to correct its wilful or accidental errors, but ik^ doubt to render it more readable. Dr. Challoner, in undertaking his revision, proposed not only to modern- ize, but to popularize the Douay Bible. In doing so it must necessarily have happened that, even though he might not have so intended, his phraseology in many instances coincided with that of the Protestant version, then a fair standard of the popular style, with which he wished the diction of the Douay Bible to harmonize. Cardinal Newman has selected at hazard Psalm Hi. in order to exemplify the nature of the variations be- tween the Douay version, the Protestant version, and Challoner's revision of the former. There are in the seven verses of which that Psalm consists twenty-seven 4o6 The Canon of the Old Testament. variations. In all of these the sense is the same, except one, in which Challoner, of course, agrees with the Douay, which, being derived from manuscripts far old- er than those accessible to King James's translators, is more reliable than the Protestant version. D. here re- presents the Douay version, P. the Protestant, and C. Challoner's version. 1. Cases where P. followes D., and C. has its own rendering, 3 2. " " D., P., and C. all disagree, 6 3. " " D., P., and C. all agree, 2 4. •' " P. differs from D., and C. follows D., 8 5. " " P. differs from D., and C. follows P., 8 27 D.' P. and C. are translations oi one original. For the Vulgate, of which D. and C. may be regarded as distinct versions, is practically identical with the Hebrew of tiie Old Testament and the Greek of the New. It is not, therefore, surprising that all three versions in many cases, where they extract the same sense from the ori- ginal, should express that sense sometimes in the same words, somtimes in different words. For it is alwa3^s s<:) in two or more independent translations of the same work into the same language. And no one would have a right to say that the more modern of any two such translations was intended to follow the other, because some of the renderings bv the former are identical with some of the other. Now let the reader bear this in mind while examining the preceding examples, then say, supposing many of Challoner's alterations are in the direction of the Protestant version, — is it fair to con- clude or to insinuate that the alterations in Challoner's revision, or in any of the editions prepared by himself or by others, were suggested by anything found in King James's Bible ? Challoner's revision of the Douay and Rheims version was the first English Catholic Bible which received episcopal sanction; for, being a vicar The Douay and other A nglo-Calholk I \rshms. 407 apostolic when tlie first revision ..( that version ap- peared, he was a bishop himself at that time. The efforts to provide English speaking Cathohcs with the best possible copies of the Holy Scripture dul not end with the life of Dr. Challoner. For besides h,s revision and the various editions made of it by himself, not only numerous other editions of it,-some dunng his life, most of them subsequently,-but independent revisions of the Douay Bible, and, at least in one m- stance, a direct translation of the four Gospels from the Greek have been issued under ecclesiastical sanction or from Catholic sources. To begin with Great Bnta.n, there is Dr. Hay's Bible, so called because printed in Edinburg.in ,76., under the inspection of the then Rev., afterwards Right Rev. Dr. Hay, one of the \ .cars Apostolic of Scotland, and quite favorably known by his many useful writings. His Bible consisted of five volumes .2mo. In .804-1805 it was reprinted n l8u raanv copies of it were imported to and disposed of in Ire- land' At the same time a Dublin publisher brought out I'ts New Testament, Archbishops Troy and Murray being among the subscribers. Another edition of this New Testament made its appearance also in Dublin, in 18 14. And it probably supplied the text to an edition printed at Belfast in ,817. 'This Bible generally follows Chal- loner's. . , , 4.- .f Dr Gibson's Bible.-Ih 1816-17, with the sanction of Dr Gibson, another Bible, which closely followed ChaU loner's, was published at Liverpool in folio. And in 18^2 a reprint of it, also in folio, was made in London. It was published a third time in London, in folio, under the sanction of Dr. Bramston, then vicar apostolic. POYNTER'S New TESTAMENT-appeared in 1815, with an address by Dr. Poynter and under the supenntend- ence of Rev. Dr. Rigby, afterwards vicar apostohc of the London District. The text agrees with that of Chal- 4o8 The Canon of the Old Tcstainenl . loner. In 1818 a new-edition of it was prepared by Rc\. Mr. Horrabin, under the sanction of Dr. Poynter. It was in i2mo., and sold at a very low price, in order to place it within reach of the poorer class. Between 1824 and 1 841 four more editions of it, one of which was printed in Dublin with the Imprimatur of the four Irish Archbishops, were brought out. Haydock's Bible, — so called after its editor, Rev. George Leo Haydock, was published in 1811-12 and 1 8 14, in Manchester and Dublin, folio. It is abundantly provided with useful notes, and generall}- adheres to Challoner's text. In 1822 it was republished in octavo in Dublin with shorter notes. Two years later another edition of it was issued. In 1845-48 it was reproduced with unabridged notes in Edinburg and London, with the approbation of the Scotch vicars apostolic, their coad- jutors, and several archbishops and bishops of Ireland. In 1853 an edition of it in quarto, with abridged notes, was prepared by Very Rev. Dr. Husenbeth, with the ap- probation of his own superior. Dr. Waring, and the vicars apostolic of Great Britain. Syer's Bible. — When the original edition of Hay- dock's Bible was being prepared, there were two publish- ers, who were also printers, Mr. Haydock and Oswald Syers, the latter as well as the former apparently inter- ested in the enterprise. Haydock employed his own brother, Rev. George Leo Haydock, as editor and anno- tator, while Syer succeded in issuing a rival Bible, also accompanied with notes, but without anv preface or any intimation as to the quarter whence the notes were derived. Its text generally coincides with that of Chal- loner. It was published in Manchester, in 1811-13. The Glasgow Bible. — This was an edition in 8vo of one published by Dr. Murray of Dublin. It was brought out at Glasgow in 1833-36, with the approbation of the vicars apostolic of England and Scotland. The Doiiay and otJicy- Angh-Catholic ]'ersions. 409 Dr. Lingard's Four Gospels. — Among those who labored in Great Britain for promoting- a knowledge of the Scriptures among their Catholic countrymen, the name of Dr. Lingard, the celebrated historian, deserves honorable mention. His translation of the Four Gospels from the Greek, with notes critical and explanatory, was published anonj-mousl}- in 1836. Cardinal Wiseman's Bible.— This edition, printed in 8vo in London, in the year 1847, has the approbation of Dr. Walsh, Vicar Apostolic, and Dr. Wiseman, his coad- jutor. The text, instead of adhering to Dr. Challoner's, rather follows that of Dr. Troy, of which more immedi- ately. The preceding list of Catholic Bibles and parts there- of published in Great Britian, since the appearance of the Douay version, is not exhausted. But it is as com- plete as it was possible to make it with the means at hand. The efforts made by the ecclesiastical authorities in Ireland to provide the people of that country with gen- uine copies of the Holy Scripture now call for attention. It has already been seen that these authorities not only gladly availed themselves of the earliest English trans- lation of the Vulgate made by English refugees in France, and of subsequent editions of it issued in Great Britain, but were the first to recognize the linguistic defects of that translation, by proposing a substitute, and actually publishing an independent version of the Vul- gate New Testament. In fact, the members of the Irish hierarchy, almost as soon as a relaxation of the penal laws against their religion permitted them to adopt measures for the dissemination of the Scriptures.- had editions of the Douay version published throughout the country. And the following brief statement will show, that their zeal and success in the performance of this part of their duty increased, according as the restric- 4IO The Canon of tJie Old Testament. tions imposed on the practice and profession of their belief by an intolerant government were gradually removed. Dr. Troy's Bible.— In 1783 Rev. Bernard McMahon, a Dublin priest, published his first edition of the New Testament, in 12 mo, with the formal approbation of his archbishop, Dr. Carpenter. It was made on the basis of Dr. Challoner's, but still with considerable changes of text. In 1 79 1 the same clergyman was selected by Dr. Troy to superintend an edition of the whole Bible in quarto. From the approbation of Archbishop Troy it appears, that this edition w^as " carefully collated with the Clementine Vulgate, the Douay Old Testament of 1609, the Rheims New Testament of 1582, and with the London Old and New Testament of 1752, approved English versions." In 1794 it was reprinted in folio. There followed, in 1803, another edition of the Ncav Tes- tament in i2mo; and in 1810 still another, also in i2mo. In 1820, with the approbation of Dr. Troy, an edition of the New Testament, distinct from the series of which Rev. B. McMahon was the reviser, made its appearance. There are no notes appended to the chapters or verses, the sacred text standing absolutely by itself, though a supplement is added wnth the usual notes, which, accord- ing to the discretion of the publisher, might or might not be bound up wath it. This was no doubt done in order to reduce the cost as much as possible, and thus enable the poor to secure copies. Of this edition 20,000 copies were struck off. In 1825 copies of it were reissued in London. Its text is said to agree exactly with Challon- er's second edition of 1750. Dr. Murray's Bible. — Archbishop Murray of Dublin, in 1825, had an edition of the Bible in 8vo published and stereotyped. Fresh impressions of it were produced from time to time in 1829, 33, 40, 44, 47, etc. The impres- sion of '47 is in the possession of the present writer. The Donay and other Anglo-Catholic Versions. 411 Tn fact, the reprinting of this and several of the other Bibles current in Ireland, England, and the United States is in almost constant operation, and the price is generally so low that every Catholic household finds it an easy matter to provide itself with a copy of the whole Bible, or at least of the New Testament. The text of Dr. Murray's Bible generally follows that of Dr. Challoner's. It has given so much satisfaction, that it has been selected as a sort of standard for some editions since issued, both in Great Britain and Ireland. The notes are few and brief, but the references quite numer- ous. Dr. Blake's New Testament. — This edition in 8vo. was brought out at Newry, in 1838, and appears to adopt the text of Dr. Murray, agreeing with the early editions of Dr. Challoner. It was reprinted in Belfast, 1846-47. Dr. Denvir's Bible. — Bishop Denvir commenced his series of New Testaments about 1836. Fresh issues are dated 1839, 4^> 43' 45' ^'^cl nearly every succeeding year. They were extremely cheap, having been struck off from stereotype plates. A copy now at hand, and dated 1839, contains the letter of Pius V. recommending " the read- ing of the Holy Scripture," and is followed by the assur- ance that it was diligently compared with the Latin Vul- gate, and by the approbation of " f C. Denvir, D.D.R.C. Bishop of Down and Connor." The preface is b}' Rev. Daniel Curoe, P.P., Randalstown. In it the reader is in- formed that, " in compliance with the request of two dis- tinguished prelates," probably Archbishop Crolly of Armagh, and Bishop Denvir just mentioned, " under whose sanction extremely cheap editions have been executed in Belfast, publishers of the first respectability have furnished an authentic statement recording the sale of three hundred thousand copies of the Douay Version." The text of this series very generally agrees with Dr. Murray's. The same bishop had the whole 412 The Canon of the Old Testament. Bible published in 1839. ^" another issue of Bibles his name appears in conjunction with Dr. CroUy's, in 1846 and 52. Dr. McHale's New Testament. — Both the text and notes of this edition, it is said, agree with Dr. Murray's Bible, published in 1825. CHAPTER XXVIII. Editions and Revisions of the Douay Bible in the United States, and of Various other Versions OF the Vulgate made into other Languages than English, and Republished there. It now remains to be seen what has been done in the United States to provide English speaking Catholics with the word of God. It cannot be doubted that many of the early Catholic colonists, from Great Britain and Ireland, brought with them to this country the Bible, which they possessed in their native land. For the Bible, or at least the New Testament, as well as the prayer book, the catechism, crucifix, and rosary gen- erally constitute a part of the appurtenances found in every Catholic household, however humble. But as about the close of the last century our native Catholic citizens, together with the immigrant Catholics from the different countries of the Old World, and the con- verted Indians, did not amount to 40,000, ' and a hier- archy had not yet been instituted, it is not to be won- dered at that no publisher had sufificient courage or enterprise to undertake an American edition of the Douay Bible, or of any other Bible based upon it. Right Rev. John Carroll, a native of Maryland, who had been appointed Prefect Apostolic by Pius VI. in 1784, was, on Nov. 6, 1789, appointed Bishop of Baltimore, with the entire territory belonging to the United States 1 The nieranhyof the Cath. Church in the United States, p. 53. By John Gilmary Shea, LL. D. 413 414 ^/^^' Canon of the Old Tcstanioit. for his diocese. His consecration took place in England, August 15 of the following year; and in the same year the first American Catholic Bible was published. Ever since, from time to time, as the following brief details will show, edition after edition has issued from the press of the country, as abundantly and as cheaply as the Avants and means of the faithful demanded. Carey's Quarto Bible, 1790, Philadelphia. Printed and sold by Carey, Stewart & Co., MDCCXC. It is, as far as the text is concerned, a reprint of Challoner's second edition of the Bible. It contained the approba- tion of the first edition of the Old Testament, the ap- probation of the first edition of the New Testament by the University of Rheims, and the approbation of the cor- rected edition of the New Testament published in 1750. In 1 791 Dr. Troy's edition of the whole Bible ap- peared, and as it had given very general satisfaction, Carey, some years later, issued a reprint of it also, which is designated: Carey's Quarto Bible; 1805, Philadelphia. Published by Matthew Carey, No. 122 Market Street, Oct. 15, MDCCCV. It is a reproduction of Dr. Troy's fifth Dublin edition, with maps of Palestine and the land of Moriah, including illustrations of persons and scenes mentioned in the New Testament. Carey's Quarto Testament deserves distinct mention, as Carey struck off, separately, copies of the New Testament contained in his Quarto Bible of 1805. Duffy's New Testament. — In 1817 W. Duffy pub- lished an edition of the New Testament in i2mo, at Georgetown. It contained in Latin the approbation given to the original Douay Bible by the Universities of Rheims and Douay, and was published with the per- mission of " Leonard, Archbishop of Baltimore," who declared that, " it had been found strictly conformable to the Dublin edition of the same work printed in 1811, and also that printed in 18 14." The publisher of this The Dotiay and ot Iter ]\^rsions of the ]^nlgatc in the U. S. 415 Georgetown edition announced in some of the copies his intention of issuing an edition of the entire Bible, a project which, it seems, was never completed, but it led to the following edition in 1824. Cummiskey's Octavo Bible, 1824. — This edition was published at Philadelphia by Eugene Cummiskey and stereotyped by J. Howe. It was sanctioned and rec- ommended by " Henrv Conwell, Bishop of Philadelphia," declaring that it had " been carefully copied from the fifth Dublin edition." Later impressions contained the approbations of Bishop Kenrick, who succeeded Dr. Conwell, Archbishop Eccleston of Baltimore, and Bish- op Hughes of New York. Cummiskey'.s Octavo New Testament, 1824, — de- serves to be mentioned, as it was published and sold separately from the whole Bible printed the same year. Cummiskey's Quarto Bible, 1824. — This edition was also brought out at Philadelphia, with the approba- tion of Dr. Conwell. The text follows Dr. Troy's Bible, and is accompanied by Dr. Challoner's annotations, and the volume is embellished with illustrations of scenes described therein. Cummiskey's Folio Haydock, Philadelphia, 1825. — This is a reprint of Haydock's Bible, Manchester, 181 1- 14, fol. It has the original approbation of the latter, as well as that of Dr. Conwell. Besides the sacred text, it contains much useful and pertinent matter, and is em- bellished with several superb engravings. Cummiskey's New Testament in 32mo, 1829. Phil- adelphia. Stereotyped by J. Conner, New York. This edition claims to be "published with permission." The text is mainly that of Challoner's published in 1752, as we are informed, though the editor says it is " From the fifth Dublin edition." Cummiskey's Duodecimo New Testament, Phila- delphia, supposed to belong to 1829, stereotyped by J, 4 1 6 The Canon of the Old Testament. Conner, New York, and approved by Bishop Con well. — The text mainly follows Dr. Challoner's of 1749. Lucas's Duodecimo New Testament was published at Baltimore, by Fielding Lucas Jr., approved and recom- mended by Archbishop Whitfield. It was printed from the plates of Cummiskey's duodecimo of 1829, and of course follows the same text. Lucas's 32MO, New Testament with annotations and references, was issued at Baltimore by the same pub- Hsher and approved by the same authority. In other respects it is the same as Cummiskey's 32mo, from the plates of which it is printed. The Devereux New Testament, Utica, 1829, " Ap^ proved by the Right. Rev. John Dubois, Catholic Bish- op of New York." — This edition was stereotyped and printed at Utica by William Williams, for the proprie- tors, at whose instance and expense the enterprise was started and completed, in order to provide the Catholic schools of Utica with cheap copies of the New Testa- ment. The text is that of Challoner's, belonging to the year 1750, and is taken from the Dublin edition of 1820; copies of the year 1840 have the name of Thomas Davis. Lucas's Quarto Bible, Baltimore, 1832. — This is print- ed from the plates of Cummiskey's quarto. It omits ap- probation of Bishop of Philadelphia, and some other matters preceding the text of the Old Testament. In other respects it conforms to Cummiskey's of 1824. Doyle's Octavo Bible, New York, 1833. — Published by John Doyle with the approbation of the Right Rev. John Dubois, Catholic Bishop of New York, and stereo- typed by Conner and Cooke. The text is that of Dr. Murray, of 1825. The American Protestant Octavo Reprint of the Rheims New Testament, 1834. The source and purpose of this edition are such that it demands more than a pass- ing notice. Here, then, are the contents of its title-page : The Doiiay and other Versions of the Vulgate in the U. S. 417 " The I New Testament | of Our | Lord and Saviour I Jesus Christ, | translated out of the Latin Vulgate, | diligently compared with the original Greek, | and first published by | the English College of Rheims, [ Anno. 1582. I With the I original preface, | arguments and ta- bles, I marginal notes | and | annotations. | To which are now added | an introductory essay, | and a j complete topical and textual index. | New York ; | Published by Jonathan Leavitt | 182 Broadway. | Boston : Crock- er & Brewster, | 47 Washington Street. | 1834 (p. 2.) Copyright. (pp. 3-4) Notice, Recommendations, and Certificate. (p. 5-8) Introductory Address. 458 pp. Sigs., 1-39. The McNAMARAand Cum.mings edition of 18 16, which is referred to in a preceding page, '■ had been prepared in Ireland at a time of great pohtico-religious excitement, consequent on the efforts of the Catholics to secure constitutional emancipation from the civil and eccle- siastical disabilities, of which they had been the victims for centuries. This tardy act of justice was strenuous- ly opposed throughout Great Britain and Ireland by a powerful and intolerant party in and out of Parliament, and every scheme was welcomed by it which seemed likely to result unfavorably to the just claims of an op- pressed people. Itinerant preachers, some of them men of respectable attainments, were employed to arouse the latent loyalty of Irish Protestants. The C(mtents of Catholic prayer books, the cases discussed in Dens' theology, the notes of the Rhemish New Testament, etc., were all ransacked for arguments to prove that the principles of the Catholic religion were dangerous to the State and irredeemably wicked. And as if to establish this conclusion out of the very mouths of those whose position called for its refutation, priests here and there ' p. 400. 41 8 The Canon of t lie Old Testament. were challenged to defend their creed pubHclj against those mercenary crusaders, who came prepared, so they said, to prove that creed a monstrous mass of superstition ; and common Protestantism, with all its variations and contradictions, the religion of the Gospel. Rencontres between priests and preachers became quite common. All over Ireland public meetings were announced and held, at which the relative merits of the two religions were discussed, several of these discussions being con- sidered of such importance that the speeches of the re- spective champions appeared in the local newspapers. In other cases the proceedings were published in book form. That was so in reference to the memorable dis- cussion which took place in Dublin between Pope and Maguire in 1827, and lasted six days. It was also so, when in 1828, at Londonderr}^ an oral discussion was carried on, for six days also, between six Catholic clergymen on one side and an equal number of Prot- estant ministers on the other. Copies of the former discussion can easily be obtained. But those of the lat- ter are exceedingl}' rare, as the book has been long since out of print. On such occasions, the champions of Prot- estantism rarely neglected to avail themselves of the annotations appended to the text of the original Rheims New Testament. Those annotations had been always objectionable to Irish and English Catholics, as the}- misrepresented their principles and had been, soon after they appeared, disavowed by them, although with the exception of its Latinisms no fault was found with the translation itself. But fortunatel}^ for the success of those ardent Protestants who were opposed to Catholic emancipation, McNamara and Cummings had published an edition of the Rheims New Testament with those original annotations, which had long ceased to appear in connection with that volume. That edition became at once one of the most serviceable weapons (so they The Douay and other Versions of the Vulgate in the U. 5. 419 thought) in the hands of those who believed that bare toleration for their religion was the only privilege that could be safely granted to the Catholics of Great Britain and Ireland Irish Protestants are a good deal more hearty in their hatred of the Catholic religion, and much more unscru- pulous in their use of means for opposing it, than English Protestants. The feelings of the former in this respect have been inherited by a large number of their descendants in the United States, where they contrive in some measure, to inoculate otherwise just and liberal neighbors with the virus that runs in their own veins. Opposed, like their fathers before them, to religious toleration, they seemed to have watched with consider- able interest the progress of the struggle for liberty of conscience in Ireland and Great Britain, and no doubt were somewhat disappointed at the partial victory ob- tained there in 1829 by the advocates of equal civil and religious rights. Hitherto there was nothing to indicate, that American Catholics would ever constitute more than a mere frac- tion of the population. They were too contemptible in number and influence to deserve notice, much less to excite opposition. But before the doors of the Britisli Parliament were thrown open to Catholics, and the strug- gle for religious equality was thus more than half over in Ireland and Great Britain, a Catholic hierarchy com- posed of an Archbishop and eleven bishops had already been established in the United States ; where, moreover, the increase of the Catholic population, of Catholic churches, of Catholic educational institutions, and of Catholic religious communities had been so sudden, so prodigious, as to excite alarm among those who believed, or pretended to think, that the growth of the Catholic Church in any countrv was dangerous to civil and relig- ious liberty. There were persons who thought or said 420 The Canon of the Old Testament. so then. There are some who think or say so still, as if Christian civilization and Christian liberty were not the creation of the Catholic Church, or could be established or maintained on other principles than those which dis- tinguish her teaching. Well, it happened about the time when it was per- ceived that American Catholicity was likely to become an important factor in shaping the future of the Repub- lic, that the political and religious controversies which grew out of the struggle for religious liberty in Ireland were still fresh in the minds of those ardent patriots, Avho believed that this is and should be a Protestant country, and that the spread of the Catholic religion should be placed under such restrictions as would relieve the minds of every loyal citizen from all appre- hension regarding the safety of our free institutions. Something, therefore, according to the views which those devoted guardians of the Republic entertained, had to be done. It is unnecessary here, however, to state what shape that something did actually take. But it was to be expected, that some of the means resorted to in Ireland and England for resisting what was called Catholic aggression, would be adopted here. A regular fusillade from the Protestant press was opened along the whole line. Rev. John Breckenridge, a Presbyterian preacher, as the champion of conglomerate Protestant- ism, challenged the then Rev. John Hughes. A written discussion followed in 1830, which was kept up for some time in the public papers, and at last led, in 1834, to an oral controversy between the two, in Philadelphia. The West caught the contagion, and the Purcell and Camp- bell controversy in 1837, with others of less note. East and West, followed. In fact, there were few large cities throughout the Union where an effort was not made to excite hostility to the Catholic Church, by appealing to the passions and prejudices of the masses. In the Irish TJu Douay and other ]^crsions of tJic ]'ulgatciiithe U. S. 421 campaign against Catholic emancipation, the opponents of that measure had made good use of the original Rheims New Testament, and why should not their friends on this side of the Atlantic avail themselves ol the same weapon in pushing forward the unholy crusade in which they were engaged. An edition, therefore, of this New Testament, with its original objectionable an- notations, appeared at New York, under Protestant auspices, in the year 1834; although the leaders of the enterprise must have been well aware that Bishop Doyle, who died in that year, while under oath, and representing the sentiments of the Irish hierarchy before a committee of the House of Lords, declared, when asked, " You consider yourselves pledged to all matters contained in these notes? " '* No, not by any means; on the contrary, there were notes affixed, I believe, to the Rhemish Testament, which were most objectionable ; and, on being presented to us, we caused them to be expunged." As stated in a preceding page, this American Prot- estant edition of the Rhemish New Testament, besides the text and notes, contained some fresh matter, for which it was indebted to the industry of the zealous gentlemen who were the first as well as the last to in- troduce it to American readers. This extraneous mat- ter consisted principalh' of a notice, recommendations, certificate, and introductory address. The notice and recommendations bear the signatures of over a hundred Protestant clergymen. The certificate is signed " John Breckenridge; William C. Brownlee, D.D. ; Thomas De Witt, D.D.; Duncan Dunbar; Archibald Maclay ; William Patton" — and declares, '' after examination we do hereby certifv that the present reprint is an exact and faithful copy of the original work, without abridgment or addi- tion, exce})t that the Latin of a few phrases, which were translated bv the annotators, and some uninipor- 422 The Canon of the Old Testament. tant expletive words, were undesignedly omitted." As the edition was intended not to edify, but to insult Catholics, and foster the unkind feelings with which they were regarded at the time by not a few of their fellow-citizens, its reverend sponsoi"s hesitate not to use such opprobrious language as Papists, Popish, RoviisJi, and Romanists, when referring to the Church, her doctrines, or her members. Nor were they any way loath, when introducing that edition, to substitute fiction for fact, or to impose on the credulity of their readers by positive statements regarding matters about which they themselves, judged by those statements, knew as little as those in whose interest or for whose stratification thev wrote. Thus they speak of the English College at Rheims as a Jesuit College, and the writers of the Eng- lish translation of the Vulgate New Testament prepared at Rheims as Jesuits, whereas the Jesuits had nothing to do with that College or that translation. The for- mer was conducted and the latter written by English secular priests connected neither with the Jesuits nor an)- other religious order. The word Jesuit, however, was a handy one. under the circumstances. For, at the time it was as serviceable among anti-Romanists as bug- bear among the timid inmates of the nurser)^ at all times. In the introductory address, which brought the veri- table Rheims New Testament and its awful notes to the knowledge of the American Protestant public, the refer- ence to the McNamara Bible was also quite mislead- ing, and the reader left in ignorance of the fact that that edition, which at the time of the strugo:le for Catholic emancipation furnished a useful topic for inflaming the public mind, was started as a speculation by a Catholic book-seller and a Protestant printer; and on the failure of the former was completed by the latter, who, accord- ing to Archdeacon Cotton, sent most of the copies to America. Drawing on the inexhaustible resources of The Doiiay and otJicr ]\-rsions of the 1 ^ulgate in the U. S. 423 their own imagination, the writers of the introduction further inform the American Protestant public, that only mutilated Bibles were permitted to be published and sold among Catholics in this country, while European copies were constantly imported and privately sold to the initiated only, who had to obtain an order for that purpose from the vicar-generals of the different dioceses. In no diocese was there ever such a rule or custom, and no man, Catholic or Protestant, here or elsewhere, has ever seen a mutilated English Bible, except mutilated copies of the one " translated out of the original tongues by his Majesty's special command," such mutilated copies being often put in circulation here among those English speaking non-Catholics who profess some one of the creeds manufactured in the sixteenth and follow- ing centuries, or profess no creed in particular. The American Protestant edition of the Rheims New Testa- ment, like the McNamara Bible, was probably a failure. Though stereotyped, no doubt in anticipation of an im- mense sale, it was never reprinted, and, like man}- other productions of polemical rancor, has long since sunk in- to utter oblivion. Lucas's Octavo Bible,— 1837, published by Fielding Lucas, Baltimore, and containing annotations of Dr. Challoner, was a reprint of Dr. Troy's Bible of 179 1. It had the approbation of the Provincial Council, consist- ing of the Archbishop of Baltimore and nine bishops. CuMMisKEv's Duodecimo New Testament, — 1840, was published at Philadelphia, by Eugene Cummiskey, with the approbation of the Right Rev. Francis Patrick Kenrick, and the Right Rev. John Hughes. The text is from Murray's 1825. Sadlier's Duodecimo New Testament, — 1842, pub- lished by D. & J. Sadlier, New York, is from the plates of the Devereux edition, L^tica. It has the approbation of Dr. Dubois; later editions have that of Dr. Hughes. 424 TJic Canon of the Old Testament. DuMGAx's Octavo Bible, — 1844, was published at New York by Edward Dunigan, with the approbation of the Right Rev. John Hughes, Bishop of New York. It contains several steel plates, illustrative of scriptural scenes and personages. It is from the last London and Dublin editions, the plates used being those of Doyle's octavo of 1833. Sadlier's Quarto Bible, — 1845, published by D. & J. Sadlier, New York, with the approbation of the Right Rev. Bishop Hughes. It is revised and corrected accord- ing to the Clementine edition of the Vulgate, contains Dr. Challoner's annotations, with Ward's Errata, and is a verbatim reprint of Cummiskey's quarto of 1824. It is embellished with a number of steel engravings. Later editions have the approbation of Archbishops Hughes, Kenrick, Purcell, and Bishops John McCloskey, Fitz- patrick, Timon. Dunigan'.s i8mo New Testament,— 1845, published by Edward Dunigan. New York, and approved by the Most Rev. John Hughes, Archbishop of New York. It was printed from the plates of a Belfast edition. Sub- sequent impressions were made by Edward Dunigan & Brother. Hewett's Illustrated Octavo New Testament, 1848-50, from the Latin Vulgate, and diligently com- pared with the original Greek. — This edition was illu- minated after original designs by*W. H. Hewett, Esq., New York; Hewett & Spooner, 106 Liberty Street; John J. Reed, Printer, 16 Spruce Street. It received a flattering approval from Right Rev. John Hughes, Bishop of New York, and recommendations from Arch- bishop Eccleston, Baltimore ; Bishops Kenrick, Rappe, Blanc, Reynolds, Whelan. It does not follow the Rheims version or Challoner's revision of that version. It was edited bv Rev. James McMahon, and conforms to the division of verses in the Clementine edition of the The Douayand otJicr Versions of the ]'iilgate in the U. S. 425 Vulgate. The editor availed himself of the Greek, and of the li<^ht which Hebrew throws on the Hebraisms in St. Paul. Kenrick's Four Gospf.ls,— published by Edward Dunigan & Brother, 1849, New York. This edition, translated from the Latin Vulgate, and diligently com- pared with the original Greek text, was intended as a revision of the Rheraish translation by the Right Rev- Francis Patrick Kenrick, Bishop of Philadelphia, after- wards Archbishop of Baltimore. The learned prelate has enhanced the value of this revision by copious notes, critical and explanatory, and a map of Palestine. Tallis's Folio Bible,— 1850, was never completed. It was undertaken by the house of Tallis, Willoughby & Co., London and New York, and entitled " The Holy Bible, translated from the Latin Vulgate, diligently compared with the Hebrew and the Greek, and other editions in various languages. . . . The whole revised by the Rev. Geo. L. Haydock, V. G." It is also stated that this edition is recommended to the Catholic community by the Archbishop of New York. It was designed as a reprint of Dr. Hamill's edition, which appeared in Dub- lin in 1822. Kenrick's— edition of the Acts of the Apostles, Epis- tles of St. Paul, the Catholic Epistles, and the Apocalypse, with notes critical and explanatory, published by Edward Dunigan & Brother, New York, 1851. This is a revi- sion of the Rhemish translation by Rt. Rev. Francis Patrick Kenrick, then Bishop of Philadelphia, and con- tains in front of the title page a map of the countries travelled by the Apostles. Kenrick's— edition of the Psalms, Book of Wisdom, and Canticle of Canticles, with notes critical and explan- atory, published by Lucas Brothers, Baltimore, 1857. This is a revised and corrected edition of the Douay version, bv Dr. Kenrick when archbishop of Baltimore. 4-6 The Canon of the Old Testament. Kenrick's — edition of the Book of Job and the Proph- ets, with notes critical and explanatory, published by Kelly, Hedian & Piet, Baltimore, 1859, being a revised edition of the Douay version by Dr. Kenrick, Archbishop of Baltimore. Kenrick's — edition of the Pentateuch with notes crit- ical and explanatory, published by Kelly, Hedian & Piet, Baltimore, i860. This edition is also by the Arch- bishop of Baltimore, having been translated from the Vulgate and diligently compared with the original text, and is a revision of the Douay version. Kenrick's — edition of the Historical Books of the Old Testament, with notes critical and explanatory, published by Kelly, Hedian & Piet, Baltimore, i860. This has been derived by the same undefatigable prelate from the same sources as the preceding, and like it is a revision of the Douay version. Kenrick's — second edition of his New Testament, with notes critical and explanatory ; published by Kelly, Hedian & Piet, Baltimore, 1862. This, as stated, is a revised and corrected edition of the one already issued by Archbishop Kenrick, and which consisted of two vol- umes, the first published in 1849, the second in 1851. Archbishop Kenrick's revision of the Douay and Rheims version of the Vulgate is a very valuable contri- bution to Biblical literature. Its style is pure, simple, and dignified, and the notes with which it is enriched are judicious, learned, and instructive. Shea's Pocket Bible, — published by D. & J. Sadlier, New York, 1871. This edition was the work of the dis- tinguished scholar John Gilmary Shea, LL.D., w^ho, in preparing it, followed Challoner's original edition of 1750, correctmg only manifest misprints and supplying omis- sions. Mr. Shea compared his edition three times with the Latin text, the last collation being completed after the plates were cast, when, unfortunately, his proofs TJie Doiiay and oiJur Versions of the Vulgate in the U. S. 427 were destroyed by a tire which occurred in the printing- office. The most serious misprints and omissions were, however, carefully attended to subsequently. Besides the English American editions of the Sacred Scripture enumerated already, others in various foreign languages were also published in the United States under Catholic auspices. Thus — An edition of De Sacy's French translation of the Vul- gate New Testament, printed by J. T. Buckingham and approved by "John, Bishop of Boston," appeared in Boston in 18 10, with the title : " Le Nouveau Testament de Notre Seigneur Jesus Christ en Frangais sur la Vul- gate; traduction de L. M. de Sacy. Revue sur les meil- leures editions, vol. I. or II., Boston : De I'imprimerie de J. T. Buckingham, 18 10. Sadlier's German Bible, 1850. — This was a stereo- typed edition of Allioli's German version of the Vulgate. It had the approbation of Bishop Hughes, but contained only extracts from the notes appended to the text by the translator. Its title was: "Die Heilige Schrift iibersetzt aus dem Lateinischen Urtext. Mit der Ge- nehmigung des Rt. Rev. Dr. Hughes, Bischof von New York. Engraving, Johannes der Taufer. New York, D. & J. Sadlier. Die Heilige Schrift des Alten Testamentes. — Aus der Vulgata mit Bezug auf den Grundtext neu iibersetzt, von Dr. Joseph Franz Allioli, mit einer Aus- wahl seiner Anmerkungen. Herausgegeben von einem Priester der Versammlung des allerheiligsten Erlosers, mit Gutheissung und Approbation des HochwUrdigsten Bischofs von New York, Dr. Johannes Hughes. New York: D. & J. Sadlier, No. 58 Gold-Strasse ; Boston: No. 72 Federal Strasse. Stereotypic und Druck von H. Ludwig & Comp., No. 70 Vesey Strasse. 1850. Die Heilige Schrift des Neuen Testamentes.— Aus der Vulo^ata mit Bezue(/ta ("Ver- sions); Dublin Revieiv,v6i. I.; Dixon's /;//;%/. . vol. I.; Cornely s Introd., vol. I.; and Danko's Introd., vol. I. Calliolic Printed BibLs i?i Foreign Languages. 443 Scriptures within reach of all in the Old World, 'were witnessed in the New, as soon as it was opened to the zeal of her missionaries. Even Protestant writers bear testimony to this fact. Thus Thomas Hartwell Home, D.D., an English divine, who died in 1862, and grudg- ingly recognizes any good feature in the policy of the Church, admits, ' that Benedict Fernandez, a Domini- can friar and vicar of Mixteca, in New Spain, trans- lated the Epistles and Gospels into the Indian language spoken in that province ; that Didacus de S. Maria, an- other Dominican friar, and vicar of the province of Mexico, who died in 1579, also translated the same por- tions of the New Testament into the Mexican tongue or general language of the country ; that Louis Rodri- guez, a Franciscan friar, translated into the same lan- guage the Proverbs of Solomon, and other fragments of Scripture ; and that Arnoldo Basacio, also a Francis- can friar, translated into the idiom of the Western Indians the Epistles and Gospels appointed to be read for the whole year. Undoubtedly the writer, who has called the attention of English Protestant readers to these facts, would have had far more to say to the credit of the Dominican and Franciscan Fathers, as well as other Catholic missionaries who labored in the same field, had it not been that their efforts in rendering the Sacred Scriptures accessible to the Indians were in many instances thwarted by the civil authorities, and seriously impeded by the difficulties arising from the great variet}' of idioms among the native tribes of the New World. For the spirit by which the missionaries were actuated was that which had all along preserved the Scriptures entire, and had already pro))agated them throughout every part of the civilized world in languages which rendered them, in a manner, intelligible to any one w^ho was able to read. ' Appendix to Introd., vol. II., p. I20. 444 The Canon of the Old Testament. It is therefore evident that, since the printing press was invented, or at least since it was improved to such a degree as to render the publication of books a speedy, exact, and inexpensive operation as compared with the old method emplo3'ed for the same purpose, the Church has done all that it was possible for her to do in supply- ing the laity with the word of God, by means of ver- sions in the different languages spoken throughout the Christian world. And for the first five centuries after she commenced her divine mission, as a consequence of her approval, her blessing, and even her instructions, the Greek and Latin versions of the Bible, after having been diiigently corrected, had been copied again and again by innumerable hands. In fact, from age to age many of the secular clergy, and great numbers of those who, under a rule approved by the Church, sought in her monasteries a safe retreat from the dangers of the world, consecrated their lives to the labor of illuminat- ing, expounding, or transcribing the Sacred Scriptures. And it is to the patient industry of these devoted men (" laz}'^ monks," you know) ' that the present generation is indebted for most if not all of those early manuscript copies of the Bible, which still withstand the wear and tear incidental to all the works of man. Thus it could not be a difficult matter for any one living within the Roman Empire, when Latin and Greek were ver)' gen- erally understood, to procure such a copy of the Script- ures as he. if educated, could understand ; while in those countries where a different language was spoken, as Syria, Egypt, Ethiopia, Arabia, Armenia, Persia, Slavonia, etc., versions of the Septuagint or Vulgate were (it is well ' Such of our separated brethren as know not the profound ignorance and absolute inertia that prevailed long ago among the inmates of monastic institu- tions had better read what has been written in 1845, " On the Dark Ages, by- Rev. S. R. Maitland, D.D., F.R.S., and F.S.A., Librarian to his Grace, the ■CProtestant) Archbishop of Canterbury," England. Catholic Printed Bibles in Forcijrn Languages. 445 known) under the benign influence of the Church made for the use of the inhabitants, ahnost as soon as they be- came Christians. But as, with the irruptions of the Bar- barians into the Roman Empire in the fifth and following centuries, all institutions of learning were crushed under the merciless tread of those rude invaders, half pagan, half Christian, Western Christendom, which they prin- cipally ravaged and afterwards occupied, might, when compared with its present condition, be regarded as more or less uncivilized and uneducated until probably the fourteenth century, when through the agencies employed by the Church order was brought out of chaos, human society at last reconstructed on an endur- ing basis, and the language of each people adapted to the creation of a national literature. Until that stage of progress had been reached, it was neither necessary nor possible for the Church to adopt such measures as would place in the hands of every one a copy of the Scriptures which he could understand; though it is certain, as we shall see, that even then all classes or Christians had it in their power to become familiar with, at least, the leading doctrinal and moral principles contained in the Scriptures. CHAPTER XXX. Before the Invention of the Printing Press, va- rious CAUSES contributed TO RESTRICT THE CIR- CULATION OF THE Bible. Its Existence and its Contents, however, through the influence of THE Church, were so familiar to all, that at NO TIME could IT BE CALLED AN UNKNOWN BOOK. First, then, it was not necessary for the Church to provide every one with a copy of the Scriptures. For, in order that such a copy should have been of any use to its possessor, he must have been able to read. Now, for several centuries after the invasion and occupancy of the Western Empire by the barbarians, illiteracy was so general there, that, if we exclude the clerg}', we shall find few even among the upper and wealthier classes of society who could read. Education as now understood seems to have been the exception, not the rule, during that time, so that it is certain that persons who could not understand a book written in their own language were to be met with in the ranks of the nobility, and among the highest officials of the State. The Emperor Charle- magne, who died in the ninth century, though a munili- cent patron of letters, " according to a very plain testi- mony, was incapable of writing." ' Yet when, somewhat earlier, the gloom was thickest, according to the author- ity just cited, Ireland "both drew students from the Continent, and sent forth men of comparative eminence ' Hallam, The MUdh- Ages, ch. ix., pnrt i., p. 480. 446 The Bible before the Printing Press. 447 into its schools and churciies." ' The Continent must indeed have stood in need of educators, when Heribaud, Comte Du Palais under Lewis II., in 823 signed a charter thus : " The sign of me, Herbaud, Count of the Sacred Palace, who was there, and made the sign of the cross, because I was ignorant of letters." ' Even several cen- turies later prominent personages are met with equally destitute of education. Bertrand du Guesclin, who lived in the fourteenth centur}', though Constable of France, and, as his biographer says, " the greatest sol- dier of his age," according to the same authoritv. "like all the nobles of that time, never knew how to read or wiite." ^ Two hundred years afterwards another Con- stable of France, Anne de Montmorency, the undisput- ed head of the French nobility, was not possessed of greater literary attainments than had fallen to the lot of Bertrand. ' Even more exalted dignitaries were not better educated than these two noblemen. Frederic Barbarossa, Emperor of Germany in the twelfth century, could not read, nor Philip the Hard}', King of France in the following century, nor John, King of Bohemia in the fourteenth century, ' when Louis of Bavaria, Emper- or of Germany, stood forth a worthy successor of Bar- barossa in ferocity and illiteracy. ^ " Before the end ot the eleventh century, and especially after the ninth, it was rare," says Hallam, " to find laymen in France who could read and write. The case was probably not better anywhere else except in Italy." ' This sweeping charge of ignorance must, of course, include England. For VVithred, King of Kent, who reigned from 671 to 725, made use of this formula in attaching his signature ' Literature of Europe, vol. I., part i., ch. i., p. 29. 2 Maitland, The Dark Ages. p. 11. ^ Dublin Review, vol. III., 429. •• Ibid. ^ Ilallam, The Middle Ages, c. ix., Part i, p. 479, n. 3. 6 Rohrbacher, Hist. De L'Eglise, Tom. XX., p. 270. 1 Hallam, Literature of Europe, Part, i., c. p. 71. 448 The Camvi of the Old Testavie)it. to one of his charte?-s : " 1 Withred, King of Kent, have confirmed all of the foregoing, to which, after having been dictated by me, 1 have, because ignorant of letters, attached the sign of the holy Cross with my own hand." ' That the number of Withred's subjects or countrymen who were better educated than himself was for a long time comparatively small, is proved by the exemption from punishment, or arrest of judgment after conviction, granted to criminals capable of reading, an act calculated to encourage learning and not formally repealed till 1706.^ In fact, Englishmen holding positions of honor and trust, as appears from the public records, were designated uiarksDieii in a sense no longer attached to the word. Worcester and Webster agi'ee in saying that, besides the ordinary meaning, which 7iiarksiHan now conveys, it also indicated a person " who, not being able to write, marks his name " with a cross as a substitute for his written signature. The orig- inal " solemn League and Covenant " subscribed in 1637, and preserved in the British Museum, exhibits quite an array of viarksnien, all of whom, from their horror of Popery, left the cross unfinished, signing their name with a T instead of a f. ' Shakespeare's father, though chief alderman of Stratford, like man}^ others even of higher rank than his at the time, could not write his own name ; ' nor could the trustees of his marriage contract with Anne Hathway, in 1582, though otherwise most respectable people. ' Hallam, " summing up his conclusions regarding the illiterac}' that prevailed in Europe " for many centuries," declares that " it was rare for a layman of whatever rank to know how to sign his name." It may therefore be regarded as certain that ' Maitland's Dark Ages, p. ii. " Blackstone, book iv., ch. 28. ^ Dublin Review, vol. III., p. 430. ■* Am. Ettcyl. s Dub. Revierv, III., 430. 6 The Middle Ages, ch, i.\., part i., p. 479. The Bible before the Printing Press. 449 for a \o\v^ period after the disniptioii of the Western Empire, the various races which established their homes on its ruins were generally uneducated, as the word is now understood, though in point of morality they were fully equal if not superior to their {)resent descendants, and, while in general intelligence inferior to them, not b}' any means ranking beneath them in the possession of essential knowledge. Even Mr. Maitland, an Anglican minister, and a writer well qualified by his studies to speak on the subject, honestly confesses that he " cannot tell why, in things pertaining to the kingdom of God, and on which man can be enlightened onlv by the Word and Spirit of God, they might not be as truly and even as full}- enlightened as any of mankind before or after their time." ' But, unable as most of them were to read, the translation of the Bible into their own language or jargon could have been of no use whatever to the Christians of those times, and therefore any eff(^i"t of tlic Church in that direction was in no sense necessarv. Yet it must not be supposed that she left them in utter ignorance of the Bible, or of its sacred contents, for they were never present at divine worship without having portions of it read by the officiating priest, who, besides, was bound by canonical law to in- terpret and explain to them at least the Epistles and Gospels, on such occasions as they w^ere accustomed to assemble together at church. But, in the second place, had the laity been able to read, it was not possible to provide them with the Scriptures on account of the fabulous prices which books at the time commanded. The reproduction of an original work, by the tedious process of copying then in use, involved so much labor and expense, that even moderate libraries, if possessed at all outside of relig- ious establishments, were only to be found among the ' The Dark A^es, p. ;^'^, note. 45(J Tlie Canon of the Old Testament. educated and wealthy. Bo(^ks were exceedingly' scarce, because, except among the clergy, they found few readers, and because those few readers generall}- found that books could be procured onl}' at a cost far beyond their means. What that cost was, it is impossible to de- termine exactly. But in a particular case it must have been regulated by the necessities of the seller, the eagerness of the purchaser, the intrinsic value of the book itself, the material on which it was written, the style of its binding, its chirography, its fidelity, actual condition, etc. The most that can be said on the point is that, while writers who have carefully examined it differ very widely in their estimates, they all agree in saying that the price of books before the printing press superseded the transcriber was much, even far, greater than it was afterwards. The following extracts from the Dublin Review will, however, give the reader a more correct idea of the prices at which books were sold be- fore the introduction of the printing press than he could form from the preceding vague statements. " Ames, /;/ his History of the English Press (Lond., 1749, 4to), says * I have a folio manuscript in French, called Roman de la Rose, on the last leaf of which is wrote Cest ly ver cos- ta au Palais de Paris quarante couronnes d'or sans men- tyr'' {Dibdins Typogr. Antiq., \o\. I., p. 11). This sum is valued by Ames at £ 33, 6 s., 8d. ; but it is consider- ably more. M. Petit Radel, {Recherches snr les Biblio- thcques, Paris, 18 19, 8vo.) writes: ' Au treizieme siecle, le prix moyen des livres., non surcharges d'ornements, etait de quatre a cinque cents francs d'aujourd'hui.' The common price of a missal was five mal'ks, equal to the yearly revenue of a vicar or curate. Tozvnleys Illustra- tions of Biblical Literature (vol. II., p. 82), and Chevillier, the Parisian printer, in his Histoire de V Impri))ierie (Paris, 1694, 4to), says, that Louis XI. was obliged to pledge 1 Vol. III., p. 430. The Bible before the Printing Press. 451 a quantity of plate, in addition to the joint bond of a nobleman, as security for the loan of a ti-anslation of the Arabic Physician, Rhasis." A writer in the American Encyclopedia ' remarks, that " Stow e says, that in 1274 a Bible finely written sold for fifty marks, about ;^34, when wheat was 3s. 4d. a quarter, and labor id. a day." No doubt some prices quite exceptional were paid for books occasionally. One such case is commented on by Maitland, ^ who endeavors to account for it, without, however, denying the fact that at the time books were extremely rare and dear, a necessary consequence of the slow and expensive process by which copies were produced. Maitland, indeed, is " incHned to suppose that at this day (1845) a copy of our English Bible, paid for at the rate at which law stationers pay their writers for common fair-copy on paper, w^ould cost between sixty and seventy pounds for the writing only ; and farther, that the scribe must be both expert and industrious to perform the task in much less than ten months" ' When, therefore, Richard of Bury, chancellor of Eng- land, gave the Abbot of St. Alban's fift}- pounds weight of silver for some thirt}' or fort}- volumes; when, in the fifteenth century, Humphre}', duke of Gloucester, pre- sented to the University of Oxford six hundred books, including one hundred and twent}' estimated at one thousand pounds, and Peter Lombard's Liber Se^itentia- rum, about the begj-innino^ of the fourteenth centurv, cost thirty shillings — nearly equivalent now to forty pounds^ (that is, two hundred dollars), it must be conceded that manuscripts then rated a good deal higher than printed books do now. Hallam is of opinion that in the middle ages " books were in real value very considerably dearer (that is, in the ratio of several units to one) than at pres- ' Vol.III., p. 496. 2 Dark Ages, p. 61. ' P. 202. •• Hallam. Middle Ages. ch. ix.. i^ait ii., p. 641, note 5, and p. 642. 452 The Cano)i of the Old Testament. eiit," ' and that " the price of books was diminished by four fifths after the invention of printing." ^ Since it thus appears that the people generally, until a comparative!}'- recent period, could not read, and the few who could had not the means to pay for Bibles, it was therefore neither necessary nor possible for the Church to place the Scriptures within the reach of all. Yet it is not to be supposed that the Bible was by any means a rare book ; on the contrar}', there is evidence at hand to prove that of all books ever written it has been the most frequently read, transcribed, and translated, even during those ages when, as Protestants commonly believe, it was unknown, or, if known, known only to the clergy, and studiously concealed from the laity in the impenetrable secrecy of an unknown tongue. Let us therefore, with the assistance of respectable Protestant as well as Catholic writers, endeavor to re- fute the false statements made on the subject by several Protestant historians of the Reformation, and still be- lieved by many whose knowledge of that religious revo- lution has been derived exclusively from such sources. Among those who have earned an unenviable notoriety by retailing statements of the kind. Merle D'Aubigne (d. 1872), a Swiss minister, who professes to derive his information from such devoted disciples and credulous admirers of Martin Luther as John Mathesius and Mel- chior Adams, deserves especial mention. He has w-rit- ten a history of the Reformation^ in French, which soon after its appearance was translated into English, and pub- lished in London. It has already passed through several editions in England and this country, and is generally regarded b}- Protestants as a standard authority on the 1 Literature of Eiuope, Part i., cli. ii., § 24, p. 122, note I. 452 '^ Literature of Europe, Part i., ch. iii., 6 147, p. 253. •' See its errors exposed and refuted by Archbishop Spaulding in bis Hist, of the Prot. Reformation. The Bible before tJie Printing Press. 453 subject of which it treats. The author represents the Bible as an unknown book in the time of Luther. Isaac Mihier, Anglican dean of Carlisle (d. 1820), had with some variations told the same stor}- before him. And most Protestants believe it to be as triie asan\thing tliey read in the Gospels. There are, however, some honorable exceptions, among them being Rev. S. R. Maitland, a minister of the Church of England and librararian to the Archbishop of Canterbury. His position in the latter capacity enabled him to take a more correct view of tiie so called Dark Ages than is generally presented by Prot- estant writers, and he has given expression to that view in a Series of Essays YinhXished in London in 1844. D'Au- bigne, professing to have derived iiis information from the early disciples and biographers of Luther, had told a blood-curdling story about "the indescribable feelings" with whicli Luther, when a student at the university of Erfurth, in his twentieth year, for the first time gazed on the Bible, a book which he discovered by chance in tiie library.' Luther's great luck, however, did not end here, for his historian tells us that, after he had entered the Augustinian convent at Erfurth, " he found another Bible fastened by a chain." Valuable books, even the Sacred Scriptures, were often secured in this way against bibliokleptics.' But D'Aubigne appears to em- phasize the matter, as if the purpose of those who chained the Bible was to prevent it from being read. Had that been their intention, would they not have put it under lock and key. or destroyed it out- right ? It was the wonderful discovery of the Bible by Luther, as described by D'Aubigne. which provoked the just and withering criticism of Maitland. The latter, after exposing some of the innumerable fallacies and false- ' D'Aubigne, vol. I., p. 131; lh\^\., p. 132. » Vide Maitland, Dark A^-^ ]). 2S6. 454 '^^^'^ Canon of the Old Tcstanioit. hoods which the persistent calumnies of such writers as Robertson, the historian, succeeded in inducing the Protestant pubHc to accept as real facts characteristic of mediaeval times, especially those times comprised within the dark ages, proceeds thus : — " I am not such an enthusiast as to suppose that a series of paper in a magazine, desultory and superficial, as I sincerely acknowledge these to be, can do much to stop the repetition of falsehood long established, widely circulated, and maintained with all the tenacity of party prejudice. If I were, the occurrences of almost every day would, I hope, teach me wisdom. While these sheets have been going through the press, they have brought me a specimen quite worthy of Robertson, and so much to our present purpose that I cannot help no- ticing it. Even since the foregoing paragraph was written, a proof sheet has come from the printing office, wrapped in a waste quarter of a sheet of a book which I do not know that I have seen, but the name of which I have often heard, and which, I have reason to believe, has been somewhat popular of late. The head-line of the page before me is : The University. n' v T^uir-x-c-'c T? i.'T.v-,T3Ar vn-ir^^- Discovery. Luther's Piety. ^ ALBKxNE S KLI-ORMAl IO^. ^^^ ^^^^^ "Among the contents of the page thus headed, and in the column under" Discovery. The Bible," we find the following passage relating to Luther : " — " * The young student passed at the university librarv every moment he could snatch from his academic duties. Books were still rare, and it was a high privilege in his eyes to be enabled to profit by the treasures collected in that vast collection. One day (he had been studying two years at Erfurth, and was twenty years of age) he opened one after another several books in the library, in order to become acquainted with their authors. A The Bible before the Printing Press. 455 volume he opens in its turn a-i rests his attention. He has seen nothing like it to this moment. He reads the title — it is a Bible! a rare book, unknown in those davs. His interest is excited to a high degree ; he is overcome with wonder at finding more in the volume tlinn those fragments of the Gospels and Epistles uhich the Church had selected to be read in the temples every Sunda\- throughout the year. Till then, he had supposed these constituted the entire word of God; and now, behold. how many pages, how many chapters, how many books, of which he had not before a notion.'' " Is it not odd that Luther had not bv some chance or other heard of the Psalms? — But there is no use in criticising such nonsense. Such it must appear to every moderately informed reader, but he will not appreciate its absurdity until he is informed that on the same page this precious historian has informed his readers, that in the course of the two preceding years Luther had ' ap- plied himself to learn the philosophy of the middle ages in the writings of Occam, Scot, Bonaventure, and Thomas Aquinas ; ' — of course, none of these poor creat- ures knew anything about the Bible. " The fact, however, to which I have so repeatedly alluded is simpl}- this — the writings of the dark ages are, if I may use the expression, viadc of the Scriptures. I do not merely mean that the writers constantly quoted the Scriptures, and appealed to them as authorities on all occasions, as other writers have d(jne since their day — though they did this, and it is a strong proof ot their authority with them — but 1 mean that they thought and spoke and wrote the thoughts and words and phrases of the Bible, and that they did this constantly and habituallv. as the natural mode of expressing them- selves. They did it, too, not exclusively in theologi- cal or ecclesiastical matters, but in histories, biographies, ' Diirk .-iQ-fS, pp. 467, 470. 456 The Canon of the Old Testament. familiar letters, legal instruments, and documents of ev- ery description." Maitland in a note adds the following remarks regard- ing the account which Dean JNIilner had given of Luther's wonderful " Discover}'." " After I had written this I was curious to see how Milner (in this case, the Dean) had stated the matter ; and I was surprised to find the following passage, with the capitals as I here give it : — " ' In the second year after Luther had entered into the monastery, he accidental!}' met with a Latin Bible in the librarv. Tt proved to him a treasure. Then he first discovered that there were MORE Scripture passages extant than those which were read to the people : for the Scriptures were at that time very little known to the world ' (vol. IV., p. 324). Really, one hardly knows how to meet such statements, but will the reader be so good as to remember that we are not now talking of the Dark Ages, but of a period when Xkio. press had been half a century in operation ; and will he give a moment's re- flection to the following statement, which I believe to be correct, and which cannot, I think, be so far inaccu- rate as to affect the argument. To say nothing oi parts of the Bible, or of books whose place is uncertain, we know of at least tiventy different editicms of the lohole Latin Bible printed in Germany only, before Luther was born. These had issued from Augsburg, Strasburg, Cologne, Ulm, Mentz (two), Basle (four), Nuremberg (ten), and were dispersed through Germany, I repeat, before Luther was born ; and I may add that before that event there was a printing press at work in this very town of Erfurth, where, more than twentv years af- ter, he is said to have made his ' discoverv.' Some may ask, what was the Pope about all this time ? Truly, one would think he must have been off his guard ; but as to these German performances, he might have found TJic Bible before the Pi intuig Press. 457 emplovment nearer home, if he had looked for it. Be- fore Luther was born, the Bible had been printed in Rome, and the printers had had the assurance to me- morialize his Holiness, praying that he would help them off with some copies. Itliad jicen [printed, too, at Naples, Florence, and Piacenza ; and Venice alone had furnished eleven editions. No doubt we should be within the truth, if we were to say that beside the multitude of manuscript copies, not yet fallen into disuse, the press had issued fifty different editions of the whole Latin Bible, to say nothing of Psalters, New Testaments, or other parts. And yet, more than twenty years after, we find a young man, who had received 'a very liberal education,' who, ' had made great proficiency in his stud- ies at Magdeburg, Eisenach, and Erfurt,' and who, never- theless, did not know what a Bible was, simph- because 'the Bible was unknown in those da3-s.' " ' The stor)% therefore, about the Bible being unknown in the time of Luther, and of its discover}' by that worthv, is simply one of the many slanders concocted b}' the early reformers, for the purpose of justifying their opposition to ecclesiastical authority and of gain- ing adherents to their apostasy. Such reckless slan- ders had done good service in dragging whole nations into heresy and keeping them there, and for this reason historical romancers, emulous of the infamy achieved by D'x^ubigne and Milner, have repeated again and again the harrowing tale told by these two writers, until many an otherwise honest Protestant is convinced, that it would be absurd to call it in question. Nor was it until Protestantism had secured a firm footing in Europe, and its permanency had become apparently an assured fact, that Protestant critics, like Maitland, had the candor to acknowledge that that tale was untrue in all its de- tails, though most of them must have known well that 1 Dark Ages, p. 469. 458 J li(^ Canon of tJic Old Testament. such was the case. This, however, is simply a specimen of the agencies employed to establish the Protestant religion, and perpetuate pc^pular prejudice against the Catholic Church. It was onh' , however, bv the force of persistent false- hood that the delusion was kept up so long among the Protestant masses. For none but tlie most ignorant, such, for example, as believe whatever their teachers say, if said against the Church, could have had, if they cared to hear both sides, the slightest reason for suppos- ing or suspecting that the Bible in the time of Luther was an vmknown book. ' On the contrar}-, the evidence that such was not the case, and that the Church neither then nor formerly was opposed to the circulation of the Script- ure, was within reach of almost every one who could read or write his own name. For, not to mention the venerable Syriac and other translations, which long be- fore Luther's time had been made into the languages of Christendom, and of some of which we will have more to say immediately, there was, besides the Greek Bible, which had existed, part long before, and part from the beginning of Christianity, and was intelligible to the greater part of Christians in the East, as it still is to man}^ of them, — the Latin Vulgate, coeval, it may be said, with the Apostles, and universally used throughout the West. And let it not be said that Western Christendom might as well have been without a Bible, if it had none but one written in Latin. For Dr. Davidson, a stalwart Protestant, declares, that " Latin. ... in the fourteenth century was all but universal." ' He might have added, ' For the ignorance that prevails on this subject among Protestants, their teachers or leaders are alone responsible; thus, while edition after edition of D'Aubigne's History has been issued by them in the most attractive style, they have allowed Maitland's work to get out of print, so that it is not to be found now in any Protestant book-store. -' Kitto's Cvflopt-dia, vol. II., p. 917. See on this point Ilallam, Litcra- The Bible before the Piiutiiii^ Press. 459 that it was coinnionlv imdcrstood by all educated per- sons, was more or less known by the common ])eoi)le even as late as the time of Luther, and in some coun- tries did not become obsolete until long after that fallen monk had passed to his account. In fact, the Latin language continued to be used in codes and edicts under the Byzantine rulers until the Eastern emperor was com- pelled to abandon all claims to supremacy in the West. But in the West itself Latin was taught in almost every school and college, and remained the only chamiel through which writers on ecclesiastical, political, scien- tific, and historical subjects generally gave expression to their thoughts. In all parliamentary, judicial, administi'ative, and diplomatic affairs, the proceedings were mostly conducted in Latin and recorded in the same language. For such purposes the rude idioms spoken by the Goths, Vandals, Lombards, and other barbarous races recently established in Europe, were altogether unfit — and the consequence was the gen- eral adoption of the Latin language as the one already most in use, and therefore, on that account as well as because it had attained its full growth, the only form of speech in which it was possible to maintain internation- al intercourse, or conduct business between the subjects of the same government. Among those uncouth invad- ers who had crushed out Roman supremacy in the West, Latin, if not generally spoken, was soon very gen- erally employed in all matters pertaining to affairs of state. In fact, until the middle of the sixteenth cen- tury it remained the official language of the French courts. As late as that period it was written and spok- en evervwhere by theologians and savants with a fluency and purity not altogether unworthy ol the Augustan age. And as early as the eighth century Eng- tare of Europe. Part iii., ch. i ; Am Encycl. (Latin) ; Encycl. Brill. (Latin); Spa'ding. Hist, of Pnt. Rcf., vol. I., p. 294. 460 The Canon of the Old Testament. lish ladies must have possessed considerable knowledge of Latin. For some of them composed works and car- ried on their correspondence in that language. ' Even now there is hardly a language spoken in Europe or America that is not largely indebted to it. The very peasantry in some parts of Europe were until recently imbued with some knowledge of it. Indeed, it has been truly said that in Poland, for instance, not much more than a century ago, it was still spoken " b}^ the coachman as well as the bishop." And in Hungarv it remained the language of the diet and count}- assemblies until far in the present century. In German v and Holland, at the present time, books on scientific subjects are often still composed in it. Besides, it is not so ver}- long since English Protestant writers gave it the preference in discussing questions which interested none but the learned. Even the list of Protestant authors who com- posed their most celebrated works in Latin extends from the sixteenth to the present century, thus connect- ing the present age with that in" which Luther com- menced to bellow in bad Latin. Amcjng others whose names are foiuid in that list are John Drusius, Lewis de Dieu, Hugh Grotius, Solomon Glassius, John Le Clerc, Daniel and Nicholas Heinsius, father and son, the celebrated Vossius with his four less distinguished rela- tives, John Gottlob Carpzov, John Henry Pareau, John David Michaelis, the Rosenmiillers, father and son, all of Germany or Holland ; Claudius Salmasius of France ; Francis Bacon, Brian Walton, John Milton, Humphrey Hody, Isaac Newton, Robert L(Avth, George Bull, Thomas Burnet of England ; John Pinkerton (d. 1826), who wrote in Latin his Lives of the Saints of Scot- land; Emanuel Swedenborg of Sweden, etc. It thus ap- pears that the several nations which arose out of the ruins of the Roman Empire in Europe had, while pass- ' Lingard, Anglo Saxon Church, p. 1S9, note 4. The Bible before the Priiiniijr Press. 461 ing from Paganism to Christianity, become more or less familiar with the language then (^and still) used by the Church while she was engaged in converting and civiliz- ing them. It is, therefore, evident that, had the Protes- tant part of Western Christendom up to the present time been without anv other means of access to the Scriptures than that afforded bv tlie Latin Vulgate, it woidd be untrue to say, as D'Aid)igne and Milner ha\e done, that the Bible was an unknown book when the reformation commenced. For up to that time the laity knew even a good deal more about the language of the Vulgate than since,, although, as just seen, severai ot them in the interval, while writing, preferred it to their own. The very fact, therefore, that the Bible approved as a standard by the Catholic Church has been all along written and printed, whether before or since the Refor- mation, in a language understood by all educated per- sons, is a sufificient answer to those who say that she is opposed to the circulation of the Scriptures. But let him who has any doubt on this subject remember that it has alreadv been shown that, hardly had the printing press been invented, when it was employed by the Church to provide each Catholic nation with a version of the Scripture in its own language — then say, is it not untrue and unjust to impute to the Church any inten- tion to withhold from the people the Word of God as contained in the Bible ? CHAPTER XXXI. Ample testimony still at hand to prove that, when THE Church introduced Christianity to Eng- land, SHE placed English versions of the Scripture in the hands of the people, though most of the records containing that testi- mony perished in the wholesale destruction to which the english libraries were con- SIGNED BY THE Protestant reformers. But let us push the inquiry farther back, as all has not been said that can be said on the subject of the pre- ceding chapter. For it can be easily shown, so far at least as England is concerned, that, although the records of early Christianity in that country are extremely meagre, there is good reason to believe that the preaching of the Gospel to its pagan inhabitants was soon followed, if not accompanied, by the introduction of the Scriptures. That the entire Bible was translated into their vernacular from the first cannot be proved. But that portions of it were thus rendered intelligible to such of the people as could read, not long after they embraced the faith, is so certain, that the fact is maintained generally by Protestant writers * and denied by nobody who has examined the evidence. Gildas, who belonged to the sixth century, is the ear- liest British writer cited in connection with this subject. While describing the Diocletian persecution, as it raged ' Vide Home, Inirod, to the Study of the S. Script., ![., p. 246 ; Blunt, on English Pihle. Engl. Catli. lUblc Coeval ivith litii^l. Christianity. 463 in England most probabl}' not more than a century after the introduction of Cliristianitv, he remarks that " all the copies of Scripture that could be foinid were burned in the streets." ' This was aboul the beginiiiui;- of the lourth century. And by that .time the Scriptures must have been rather widely distributed among the people of England, as a few copies would hardly have attracted the attention or aroused the vengeance of the perse- cutors. It cannot be proved, indeed, that any of the copies then consigned to the flames were writtten in the vernacular, but that some of them were ma}- be fairly supposed, both because the}' were destroyed as instruments employed in propagating the Christian re- ligion, which would imply that they were understood by the people, and because it a})])ears that not long af- ter translations of at least certain portions of the Bible were in existence among British Christians. And this is the opinion of an Anglican minister " who has care- fully studied the subject. For the Venerable Bede, in his Ecclesiastical History, "^ says, that St. Aidan, Bishop of Lindisfarne (d. 651), em- ployed all whom he had about him, laymen as well as cler- gy, in reading the Scriptures or learning the Psalms. It need hardly be observed that in this case the laymen ot Northumbria unable to read "the Latin Vulgate must have had a version in their own language. From the narrative of the same venerable writer, ' we also learn that Ccedmon, a lay-monk of Whitby (d. 680). who had, when an illiterate stable-boy, gained distinction as a poet, composed a metrical version of several parts of the Old and New Testament from English translations provided for him by the monks, who understood Latin. According to Usher, ' Eadfrith, Bishop of Lindisfarne 1 Bibliothc'ca Maxima Palriini, Tom. viii., p. 708. i Blunl, English Bible. ' K. III. cli. v. 4 Ecil. Hist. B. iv., ch. xxiv. •' IVorks, XII. 464 The Ca)ioH of the Old Testament (d. 72 1), is said to have translated most of the sacred books, and a similar tradition prevails regarding the Venerable Bede (d. 735), Alcuin (d. 804), and King Al- fred (d. 901). Of these works the earliest one extant is an English Psalter, the first fifty psalms of which are in prose, and the rest in verse, it having been written bv Aldhelm, long Abbot of Malmesbur}-, and at his death, in 709, Bishop of Sherborne. A copy of it is preserved in the National Library at Paris. It was printed at Ox- ford, in 1835, and is regarded as one of the earliest mon- uments of the English language now in existence. Next in date, so far as can be ascertained, is the vol- ume known as the Lindisfarne or St. Cuthbert's Evan- gelistarium ' and preserved in the British Museum. It was written in Latin by Eadfrith about 680, and illumin- ated by Ethelwold, afterwards, 724-740, Bishop of Lin- disfarne. Still later an interlinear English translation was added by Ealdred, probably the monk wh(j was subsequently (724-740) Bishop of Chester le Street. This rare copy of the Gospels was published in 1857, and also in 1854-65. Another, similar volume, of a somewhat later date, and known as the Rush worth Gospels, is preserved in the Bodleian library. It is the production of Mac Re- gol, an Irish scribe, about 820. The Enghsh translation is given between the Latin lines, having been inserted about a century afterwards b)^ a scribe named Owen and one Faerman, a priest of Harewood. In the tenth century there was in circulation a trans- lation of the first seven books of the Old Testament, which had been made by Aelfric, Archbishop of Canter- bury, from 994 to 1005. This Heptateuch was probably only part of the Old Testament, perhaps of the entire English Bible, by the same hand, as translations of the ' Alban Butler. Lives of the Saints, March 20 ; Lingard, Anglo Saxon Chuirh. ]■). ifii. And li)igl. Cath. Bible Cocval :cifh Hug. Clinsiianiiy. 465 books of Kings, Esther, Job, Judith, Machabces, and the four Gospels, belonging to the same date, are still extant. Copies of the Heptateuch are to be found in the British Museum and Bodleian library. A copy of the Gospels exists in the library of Corpus Christi, Cam- bridge. The Heptateuch was printed in 1698. What remains of this old version justifies the supposition, that when it was made, the deutero books were believed by the people of England to belong to the Bible. There are, besides, many copies of the. Anglo-Saxon Psalter and Gospels in the British Museum, in the li- braries of Oxford and Cambridge, and elsewhere. Some of them have the Anglo-Saxon translation between the lines of the Latin Vulgate, others contain only that translation. Some of these Psalters were written as late as the twelfth century, thus implying, as has been re- marked, that what is understood generally as Anglo- vSaxon was in use long after the Norman conquest, and even when medieval English had to a certain extent supplanted the preceding form of speech. Wlwt was done to preserve a knowledge of the Script- ures among the people of England from the period we have now reached until 1582, when the Rheims New Testament appeared, it is impossible to say. We know, indeed, that from the latter part of the fourteenth cen- tury, when Wickliffe and his associates were the first to attempt the propagation of error in England, with the aid of corrupt versions of God's written revelation, un- til the year 161 1, when King James's version aj)peared, several such versions, all intended for the same purpose, were made ; for nearly all of them in a more oi" less com- plete state remain to this day. They helped to perpet- uate the creed forced on the people of England by Henry VHI. and his successors; and the care with which they have been all along preserved shows, that they have been well repaid for the service the\- rcii- 466 The Canon of the Old Testament dered to national apostasy. Before that apostasy was consummated, and while the struggle between truth and error was still in progress, not only must there have been many old Catholic versions extant, but, it ma}" be reasonably supposed, new ones were written ; since the advance of error rendered that more necessary than ever. Emulous, however, of the infamy achieved by the satellites of Diocletian, who burned the Scriptures in the streets, the so-called reformers of religion seem to have taken good care that not a single scrap of any Catholic Bible on which the)' could lay their hands, nor any written relic of the religion professed by their forefathers, should ever reach posterity. All this is in- deed confessed by some of themselves. Thus John Bale, a protege of the notorious Cromwell and a base apostate, who was afterwards appointed Protestant bishop of Ossory in Ireland, writing in 1549, says: "I judge this to be true, and utter it with heaviness, that neither the Britons under the Romans and Saxons, nor y^et the English people under the Danes and Normans, had ever such damage of their learned monuments, as we have seen in our time." The Protestant writer who copies this humiliating confession candidly adds: " About that time, among hundreds of other libraries, those of the city of London and of the University of Oxford entirely disappeared, the very book-shelves of the latter being sold for firewood. ' The only name which Layton, one of the royal com- missioners whom Henry VIII. employed for suppress- ing religious communities and plundering libraries, has for the precious contents of the latter is, " Dunce." In his report to " Sec. Cromwell regarding the progress of the barbarous work in which he was engaged at Oxford University, this worthy says: "We found all the great quadrant-court full of the leaves of Dunce, the » Rev. J. H. Blunt, English Bible. And EnoI. Cat /I. Hiblc Coeval zcit/i Engl. Clinstianity. 467 winds blowiiiir them into every corner, and there \vc found one Mr. Greenfield, of Buckinghamshire, gather- ing part of the said book-leaves (as he said) therewith to make him scuels, or blaunshears (inclosures or fenc- es), to keep the deer within the wood, thereby to have the better cry with his hounds. " ' What an irreparable injury must have been inflicted on the interests of Christian literature, when Henry's vandals were let loose on those precious repositories, where were garnered the various results produced by the studies of the best minds, which had been devoted to the advancement of divine and human knowledge I Those royal delegates, says Anthony Wood ' (d. 1695), permitted or directed the libraries fitted with innumer- able works both native and foreign to be despoiled at Oxford. " Hence a great multitude of MSS. having no mark of superstition about them (unless it were to be found in the red letters on their titles) were adjudged to the flames, or the vilest purposes; works of scholas- tic theology were sold off among those exercising the lowest description of arts ; and those which contained circles or diagrams it was thought good to mutilate or burn, as containing proofs of the magical nature of their contents." Dr. Bliss, Fellow of St. John's College, Ox- ford (d. 1857), i"^ his edition of Wood's work just cited, has drawn an equally sad picture of the ravages com- mitted at Oxford by Henry's delegates. "The mischief committed at this time," says he, "can hardly be con- ceived. I have seen several fine old chronicles and vol- umes of miscellaneous literature mutilated, because the illuminations were supposed by the reforming visitors to represent popes and saints, wiien they were really intended for the portraits of Kings and warriors ; nay, 1 Maitland, Dark Ages, p. 276. - A Protestant Graduate of Meiton College, Oxford. '^^^ f list, and Antiq. of Oxford, B. I , p. 271, Oxford edition. 1674. 468 TJic Canon of tJie Old Testament some were absolutely mathematical figures! The mal- ice of those barbarians was only equalled by their igno- rance." ' Oxford was not the onh' place that felt the malice of these barbarians. Instigated b}' their brutal sovereign, as well as by their own hope of plunder and their hypocrit- ical horror of what they called poper}-, these sacrilegious wretches pushed their investigations wherever there was anything to steal, or any object suggestive of Eng- land's former faith to profane, mutilate, or destroy. "Whole libraries," says an authority quoted by Mr. Maitland,'^ "were destroyed, or made waste paper of, or consumed for the vilest purposes. The splendid and magnificent x\bbey of Malmesbury, which possessed some of the finest manuscripts in the kingdom, was ran- sacked, and its treasures either sold or burnt to serve the commonest purposes of life. An antiquary who trav- elled through that town, many years after the dissolu- tion, relates, that he saw broken windows patched up with remnants of the most valuable MSS. on vellum, and that the bakers had not even then consumed the stores they had accumulated, in heating their ovens." Anthony Wood, ^ quoted above, says : '' As to the abbeys and convents, while their destruction was in progress, such little care was taken of the books col- lected therein, that Bale,' the greatest enemy the Catholics ever had, bitterly complained about it to Edward VI. ^ since they who got and purchased the re- ligious houses at the dissolution of them took the libra- ries as a part of the bargain and booty — reserving of those ' Maitland, Dariz .-i^i^vs, p. 284. nole 6. * Ibid. p. 218. nole 9. 3 //isL and Aniiq. 0/ Oxford, B. I., p. 272. ■• Cited supra, p. 466. ft What follows is the version of Spelman, a Protestant. See his Hisi. (Uid Fate of Sacrilege, p. 1 13, Lend. ed. of 18S8, a work written aV)Out the middle of the seventeenth century. Wood's work was written in English orig- inally, but was afterwards translated into Latin. It is that Latin translation which is now before us. And Eiigi Cath. Bible Coeval wi/fi Engl. Christianity. 469 libraiy books some to serve their jakcs, some to scou.- their candlesticks, and some to rub their boots; som • they sold to the grocers and soapsellers, and some the)- sent over the sea to the book binders. And after, he also addeth, I knew a merchantman, which all this time shall be nameless, that bought the contents of two noble libraries for forty shillings each, a shame it is to be spoken: this stuff hath he occasioned instead of grey 'paper b}^ the space of more than these ten years, and jet he hath enough for many years to come." These extracts from the books of prominent Protes- tants, who knew well what they were writing about, will after all give the reader only an imperfect idea of the wholesale destruction to which the rojal commis- sioners consigned every scrap of paper or vellum, written or printed, when it was supposed, right or wrong, to be the work of a Catholic. For it is to be re- membered that at the time, as was the case long after, many a zealous reformer unofficially promoted the suc- cess of the fanatical crusade against literature. An Angli- can bishop, whose name is not given, is said, for example, by a distinguished Protestant writer of the seventeenth centui-y, to have burned all the registers and docu- ments of his see, with the avowed purpose of thus get- ting rid of popery. ' Yet, as we have already seen, some literary relics of former ages escaped the general wreck, in which the English libraries were involved at the Re- formation. That some of Bede's works and a few others survive must be attributed to the vigilance with which they were guarded by their Catholic ])ossessors. or to the malignant stupidity of the royal plunderers, who may have believed, what not a few Protestants have since asserted, that these works were written by men who professed the same principles with themselves. At all events, it was such a belief, well founded however ' Maitlnnd, Park Agrs, p. 499. 470 The Cano)i of tlic Old Tcstaificiit in that particular case, which preserved for the benefit of common Protestantism works attributed to or proceed- ing from Wyckliffe, Purve}', Hereford, Tyndale, Cover- dale, and others — prose writers or versifiers — who were contemporary with some of those notorious characters. That among the works which disappeared in the de- struction of the public and private libraries of England during the reign of Henry VIII. were many English Bibles, cannot be doubted. Thev must have been then in existence, as the practice of translating the Scriptures into the language of the common people commenced, as we have seen, at a very early period. Besides, the use of translations in England, long before the time of Henry VIII., is placed be)^ond all controversy by the testimony of writers, Protestant as well as Catholic, all Englishmen and belonging to the same century that witnessed the crimes of that infamous monarch. Sir Thomas Moore (d. 1535) declares* that "the whole Bible was, long before W3'ckliffe's da3's, by virtuous and learned men translated into the English tongue, and by good and godly people with devotion and soberness well and reverently read." This statement is fully con- firmed b)' the Protestant Archbishop Cranmer (d. 1556), who writes, - that the Holy Bible was " translated and read in the Saxon tongue, which at that time was our mother tongue " (that is, some hundreds of jears before he wrote ^), " whereof there remaineth divers copies, found in old abbeys, of such antique manner of writing and speaking, that few men now be able to read and understand them. And when this language waxed old and out of common usage, because folk should not lack the fruit of reading, it was again translated into the newer language, whereof vet also many copies remain, and be daily found."' No good Protestant will qucs- ' Dial, iii., 14. -' r>r/. to Author. J\-rsioii of 154O. :* Blunt, Eii^^Ush Bible. And lingl. Cath. Bible Coeval with liiigl. Christianity. 471 tion the accuracy of any statement made by such a man as Cranmer, and as little will he be disposed to reject the evidence of John Fox, commonly known as the Eno-. lish martyrologist, who died in 1 587. Now, this same old Fox, in his dedication to an edition of the Auirlo-Saxon Gospels, dehberately deposeth that, " If histoiies be well examined, we shall find, both before the Conquest and after as w^ell as before John Wyckliffe was born, as since, the whole body of the Scriptures by sundry men translated into our country-tongue." That is conclusive. But what became of all those translations, or of the "divers copies" which remained as late as 1540, when Cranmer wrote? They, answ^ers ' Rev. J. H. Blunt, an English Protestant, "doubtless disappeared in the vast and ruthless destruction of libraries which took place a few 3'ears after that date." And then the men of the new^ creed, who entered into possession of the rifled sanctuaries, where those libraries had been reverently preser\'ed for so many ages, turned round and upbraided those of the old creed with having deprived the people of the Bible ! For a long time this impudent calumny did good service to the cause of common Protestantism. Nor was it easy for Catholics to refute it, as the de- struction of their religious books had been so tiiorough, that they were able to point to only a few fragments of former versions as evidence that the Church had at all times provided their forefathers \vith the Holy Script- ures in their own language. But the exposui"e of the calumny has already been so complete, that no respect- able writer would now venture to risk his reputation by repeating it. Among the versions which disap- peared at the destruction of the libraries, was undoubt- edly that of John de Trevisa, Vicar of Berkele}', Glou- cester, a contemporary of VV3xkliffe. Hart well Home* ' English Bible. 2 Bibl. .4pp. to Vol. II, 0/ In/rod. to Sliuly of the .'^criptiins, p. 63. 4/2 The Canon of tlie Old Testament. doubts that he ever made one. But his onl\' reason for doing so is the supposition that it was never printed. Such a doubt can have no weight against the testimony of Anthonv Wood, who plainly asserts that Trevisa translated the Holy Bible into the vernacular," ' an as- sertion which is confirmed by the testimony of other respectable writers. " Besides, Trevisa's version may have been written before the printing press was brought into general use in England. Doubtless other works, written as well after as before his, have never been and never will be printed. Many of them, when the English libraries were looted by Henry's myrmidons, were, as we have too good reason to know, doomed to the flames or treated as rubbish. Such, probably, was the fate which befell the version of Trevisa. 1 Hist, and Antiq. of Oxford, B. II., p. 95. « Vide Dublin Rev., vol. I., p. 38^. CHAPTER XXXII. In England the Scriptures Never Buried in Obliv- ion WHILE THE COUNTRY REMAINED CATHOLIC. Home, in the part of his work just cited, ' states that "Christianity was planted in Britain in the first cen- tury," but seems to think that the British had no "translation of the Scriptures in their own language, earlier than the eighth century."' It appears, therefore, that this writer, a highly respected one among many of those readers for whom he composed his work, be- lieved with some others of his profession, that Christi- anity was introduced into England, and planted there, long before its people were supplied with the Bible. Be it so, notwithstanding all the evidence we have to the contrary. But what follows ? Why ! that Christian- ity was planted in Britain by one of the x\postles, or by one of their disciples ; otherwise the planting could not have occurred in the first century. The advocates of this theory, until lately a very common one among zealous Protestants, must therefore hold that a Church was organized and continued among the Britons for several centuries, without any of its members having ever seen a Bible in their own language, though that Church had been planted by x\postolic teachers, and maintained afterwards by the regular successors of those teachers. Either, then, the Bible was translated before the eighth century into the language of the Britons, and in that case every vestige of that British version has long since utterly perished and been for- i P. 246. 474 riic Canon of the Old Testament, gotten, or the Apostolic men who first preached Chris- tianity in Britain during the first centurj^ as well as the subsequent generations of preachers for the next seven centuries, failed to provide those British Christians with the Bible — the omission resulting, of course, from the fact that those preachers believed that the Britons could be very good Christians, though they lived and died without ever seeing a Bible. For those who share Mr. Home's opinion the dilemma must be a rather per- plexing affair. It is not easy to see how they can es- cape being gored, whatever horn they take hold of. For, British translations of the Scripture made and pre- served during the first seven centuries must have been made and preserved under the auspices of the Catho- lic Church, thus proving that, contrary to common Protestant belief, she encourages the reading of the Scriptures by the people. On the other hand, the or- ganization and perpetuation of genuine Christian com- munities in Britain for seven centuries without the Scriptures would demonstrate, what no thorough Prot- estant would admit, that pure Christianity without the Bible is possible. In the same part ' of the work which is the subject of the preceding remarks, the learned author observes, af- ter enumerating so far as known the Saxon versions made from the eighth to the tenth century, that " A chasm of several centuries ensued, during which the Sacred Scriptures appear to have been buried in obliv- ion, the general reading of them being prohibited by the Papal See," two positive statements, which de- serve to be separately and seriously considered. The chasm referred to, if real, not imaginar}-, must have ex- tended from the date of .Flfric's translation, which is assigned to the end of the tenth century by Mr. Home, as far as the year \2go, when, as he states, "^ an English ' P. 6;,. •■ 1'. 03. Engl. Catli. Bible Coeval with Engl. Christ laiiity. 475 translation of the Bible is said by Archbishop Usher to have appeared. Now the existence of any chasm at that or any other time since England became Christian is flatly contradicted, as we have just seen, by the con- cordant testimony of More, Cranmer, and Fox. For this reason alone the chasm theory must be rejected as ut- terly untenable. And though, in consequence of the ruthless manner in which the English libraries were swept out of existence by the Protestant retormers, there be no evidence now at hand to prove, that any new English translation of the Bible was made within the period included in the supposed chasm, we have no more right to suspect, that at that time the Scriptures were buried in oblixion, than we have to say, that from the beginning of the seventeenth centurv until the present time the Bible has remained an unknown book amoin-- the descendants of English reformers, because during that period the Bible has never been translated into their language. The latter assertion would be pronounced preposterous, since King James's translation has remained in use among English Protestants ever since it first ap- peared. Then, why not reject the former assertion as equally preposterous, seeing, we are assured bv respect- able and disinterested witnesses, that both before and since the time of Wyckliffe, and even up to the period of the Reformation, the Scriptures were translated again and again into the language of the English ; in fact, as often as the changes in that language rendered that nec- essarv. And if during any protracted period, while England remained Catholic, the work of translating the Scriptures, which seems to have been rarelv, if at all, interrupted, was suspended, may it not be reasonably supp(«ed, that translations already made sufficed for the wants of the people, until the exigencies of the language demanded, or more favorable circumstances facilitated the execution of othci's. l^\en at the worst of times, 4/6 The Cano)i of the Old Tcstaiiwjit during the revolutions and devastations caused by Romans and Saxons, by Danes and Normans, it would be untrue to say, that the Scriptures were buried in ob- livion, since the people must have been always familiar- ized with the Scriptures by means of translations made at least of detached books, of the Gospels and Epistles in the Missal, not to speak of English narratives of the Passion of Our Lord, or some other part if not the whole of His life, and of the many English Psalters known to have existed from the earliest times, as well as numer- ous pious tracts intended for the instruction of all classes. Those fragments of all such writings which have come down to us from various dates, between the close of the seventh and end of the twelfth centurv, — and thev are by no means rare or apocr3'phal, — stamp as unreal, unhistor- ical, and absurd the gratuitous supposition, that in Cath- olic England the Scriptures were at any time buried in oblivion. Those writings, too, besides furnishing satis- factory reasons for believing, thatiit no period wei"e the Scriptures treated with indifference or consigned to ob- livion in Catholic England, clearly prove bv their con- tents, whether fragmentary or complete, that no attempt was made there to corrupt or mutilate the Bible, until the country was wrenched from the Centre of Unity by the arbitrary proceedings of a monarch, whose brutal cruelty was only equalled by his beastly instincts. Be- sides the versions already mentioned, there are two English translations of the Psalter, which, as well as tiie translation of Trevisa, bring us close if not fully up to the period when the first attempt to infuse an un-Cath- olic spirit into an English Bible was made by Wyckliffe or his associates, about the middle of the fourteenth century. Of these two Psalters several copies are still preserved. One was written bv William de Schorham, who was vicar of Chart Sutton, in Kent, in the year 1320. The other was the work of Richard Rolle. (d. 1349), an Engl. Lath. Bible Coeval icitJi Engl. Christianity. 4-7 Augustinian })ricst, and comiiioiil}' called the llerniit ot Hampole, near Doncaster, York. He wrote a commen- tary on the Psalms, and having consented to translate it into English, he inserted in the translation an English version of the Psalms, the Latin of which had been in- corporated in the original. He was also the author of several ascetic tracts, some of which, at least, have been published in the Bibliotheca Maxima Patruni, Tome XXVI. In these tracts he cites the proto and deutero books of the Old Testament indiscriminately, thus show- ins: that in his time no distinction was made between the two classes of books in P^ngland. The facts cited in the preceding paragraph abundant- ly prove, that for several centuries after the tenth, in- deed, it might be said up to the Reformation, the Script- ures received in England as much attention as was shown them there at any time before or since. Nay, more; for during those centuries they seem to have been more highly prized than at any previous or subse- quent period, if the degree of esteem in which they were held is to be measured by the amount of care and expense bestowed on their embellishment, or by the rank they held among the most precious objects pos- sessed bv the Church, or by the fact that they were pre- sented as valuable gifts from one Christian to another. To show the value attached to the Scriptures in the ages of which we are speaking, let us cull a few out of the many facts which, as bearing on this point, Mait- land has collected together. Brethevold," who became Bishop of Salisbury perhaps in x\.D. 1006, sent two copies of the Gospels to the monastery of Glastonbury, where he had himself been a monk. We may be sure the gift was a valuable one, intended, as it no doubt was, to express the alTection which the prelate retained for the community of which he had been a member. And ' Dark .-iges, p. 2 10. 478 TJic Canon of the Old Testament, we may be sure it was highly esteemed b}" his former brethren, although Maitland warns us, that we are not to suppose that the monastery had no copy of the Gos- pels,— quite a superfluous hint however, as the monks had a good deal of the Gospels and a large amount of the other Scriptures in their Missals, Breviaries, etc. In the vear 1141. Hide Abbe}-, near Winchester, was burned. The monks afterwards gathered out of the ashes sixtv pounds of silver and fifteen pounds of gold. The silver and gold, or at least a good part of it, had been probably used in ornamenting the Scriptures, though on this point the historian is silent. For we are told that a monk of Clugni, who was afterwards placed in charge of the Abbey, stripped ten copies of the Gospels of the gold, silver, and J^reeions gems with which they were adorned.' We are also informed that Ralph, Bishop of Roches- ter, in 1 1 14 gave a " textum pulchre decoratum " to his church. Maitland here is not sure that " textus " means a copv of one or more of the Gospels. But of this there is no doubt, for, according to Migne's Lexicon of MednEval Latinit)\ the gift was a beautifuUv gilt vianuseript eopy of the Gospels." Walter, a subsequent bishop of the same see, appoint- ed in 1 148, also donated a golden manuscript copy of the Gospels.' John, Bishop of Bath in 1 160, when bequeathing to the blessed Apostle St. Peter and to his servants, the monks, his collection of ecclesiastical ornaments, must have left several copies of the Gospels to the Abbey church, and must have valued these copies very highly, for he eniunerated them among the most precious arti- cles which a bishop has to dispose of at his death, thus: " In crosses, in copies of the Gospels, in chalices, etc." Here, Maitland savs," the reader will observe, that these 1 Dark Ages, 220. - P. 209. ^ Ibid. Enoi. Caih. Bible Coeval ivitlt Engl. Christ lanity. 479 costly books were considered as a part of the treasure of the Church rather than merely as books ; and, indeed, the Bisliop bequeathed them as a distinct legacy from his whole library (plenarium armarium meum),' which he also gave to the Church.-" In fact, these " books seem to have been considered by the Bishop at least as equally valuable with the crosses which he used, or the consecrated chalices with which he (jITered the holy sacrifice. About 1098, Godfrey, Abbot of Malmesbury, in order to pay the tax imposed by William Rufus for the pur- chase of Normandy, stripped no less than twelve copies of the Gospels. Even in this case the very coverings must have been valuable. And the language in which William the historian, who died about 11 50, refers t(j it, shows that the act of the Abbot was regarded as a des- ecration of the Scriptures. " He did it," says William, " by the advice of the most wicked, whom I might name, if the participation of others in sin would lessen the crime of the principal." ' Who, after reading this, will say that the Bible in England was treated witii less re- spect than it receives there now ? William de Longchamp, who became bishop of Elv in 1 190. had contributed one hundrcfl and sixty marks towards the redemption of William Rufus, held a pris- oner by the duke of Austria, and to raise the amount pawned tJiirteen copies of the Gospels, including one of great value, which had belonged to King Edgar.' At a visitation of the treasury of St. Paul's, in 1205, by Ralph de Baudoke, or Baldock, the dean (afterwards bishop) of London, it was found to contain ticelve copies of the Gospels, all adorned with silver, some with gild- ing, pearls, ?i\-\d^ge>ns ; and another, called ' a wooden codex ' Dark Ai^es, p. 200. -' Ibid., p. 21S. ■' \\m\. * Tcxtui lii^nens desuper oinntus platis argcnteis (ienuialis cum subtili tii- phoriij in > uptrioii limho contiiieiis xi. cajisas cum reli'iuiis iliideni de>.criptis. 480 The Canon of the Old Testament. of tlie Gospels, which was ornamented with siher gilt plates, had a delicate triphorium on the upper edge, and contained eleven relic cases with a description of the relics. Besides these Gospels, there were six Epis- lolaries, four Evangelistaries — books containing the Epis- tles "and Gospels belonging to the Missal — ^two Bibles, one in ancient, the other in modern letters, — the latter consisting of two volumes, — a glossed copy of the Epis- tles of St. Paul, the same of the Gospels of St. Luke and St. John, two copies of St. Matthew and St. Mark with the commentary of St. Thomas Aquinas, and the twelve prophets, glossed."' Finally, according to the Saxon Chronicle, King Edgar took the coronotion oath, in 1066, on what is called " Christ's book," no doubt the Hcjlv Gospels, which, be- ing publicl}- employed on such an occasion, could not have been entirely unknown. And this old Saxon chronicler has more than once shown in the course of his work, that he himself was no stranger to the Script- ures, thus implying that those for whom he wrote at least knew that there was such a book as- the Bible, and that, when they read in the Chronicle how the church warden Wyar, in the year 1070, carried awav by night from the monastery of Peterborough all that he could, gospels, mass robes, cassocks, etc., they did not run to the abbot or sacristan asking what in the world was meant by gospe/s. Yet ordinary curiosity would have prompted the poor, ignorant creatures to do so, had the cruel Pope already consigned the Scriptures to the grave of oblivion. We are further informed "" that about 11 20 the com- munity belonging to the Convent of Saint Edmondsbur}-, in Suffolk, had determined to have a grand copy of the Bible written and illuminated, though nothing is said by Warton or anv one else about the disinterment of ' Diiri- .li^'fs. ]i. 211. " Ibid., p. 494. Engl. Cath. Bible Coeval with lingl. Christianity. 481 the forgotten tlociinient. Aiul the sersices (j1 "one Master Hugh, no doubt an expert scribe, were secured. But no material was found in that part of the country good enough to transcribe thereon the Word of God, or to display the perfection which Hugh had attained in his profession. So a superior article of })archnient or vellum was ordered from Scotland, and the grand Bible was written, much, of course, to the chagrin of the churl- ish Pope." How the enlightened people of England could so long stand those stupid emissaries of the Pope, the bishops, who carried out the order of their foreign master pro- hibiting the reading of the Scriptures, is more than any one in this progressive age can imagine. Only think of Wulstan, Bishop of Worcester, in the early part of the eleventh century, and a fair sample of all his Right Rev. brethren, at the time repeating the whole Psalter on his journeys, to keep his attendant clerks from such vain talk as is the common snare of travellers, and, whether " ly- ing, standing, walking, sitting, having always a psalm on his lips, always Christ in his heart." ' All this, remem- ber, to show that it was sinful to read the Scriptures. To be serious, is it any wonder, let us ask, that a- minister of the church of England, after carefully exam- ining the records of the so called Dark Ages, should say :'' " I do not recollect any instance in which it is recorded that the Scriptures, or any part ot them, were treated w^ith indignity or with less than profound respect. 1 know of no case in which they were intentionally de- faced or destroyed (except, as I have just stated, for their rich covers), though I have met with, and hope to produce several instances, in some of which they were the only, and in others almost the only books which were preserved through the revolutions of the monas- teries to which they belonged, and all the ravages of hre, I Dark Ages, p. 46.J. "' I'^'^' ' P- 220. 482 The Canon of the Old Testament. pillage, carelessness, or whatever else had swept away all the others. I know .... of nothing which Avoiild lead me to suppose that any human craft or power was exercised to prevent the reading, the multiplication, the diffusion of the Word of God " ? We have now seen, with the aid of Protestant writers, that when England was Catholic she revered and adorned the Bible as an un- sullied bride. And we have already found by the com- bined testimony of Catholic and Protestant critics, that since England turned Protestant, the life of the Bible there has been that of a harlot. But it is not true that the Bible has at any time been treated in that country as if already a corpse or a tenant of the tomb. CHAPTER XXXIII. The reading of the Scriptures, whether in the Original OR Modern Languages, Never generally Prohibited by the Church. But in particular cases a local prohibition to that effect was sometimes necessary. It may be that no translation of the Scriptures was written for a long time in England after the tenth cen- tury. But even if such had been the case, it would, it seems, be very easy to account for it by the character of the times and the rapid changes through which the vernacular was passing. For from almost the middle of the ninth century until late in the thirteenth, the state of affairs in England was such as to seriously interfere with Hterary pursuits of any kind. Thus, from the former period until near the close of the eleventh cen- tury, the inroads of the Danes had been frequent, u^ide- spread, and most disastrous. Pagans to a man almost as long as their inroads continued, they seem to have been actuated on those occasions by a ferocious hatred of ever)'thing Christian; whenever the spirit of conquest or the hope of plunder attracted them to England, they, as far as their ravages extended, burned churches and monasteries, not even sparing the lives of the inoffensive inmates found in the latter, or of the wi-ctched inhabi- tants who fied to the former f(jr safety. Churches, especially those which ranked as cathedrals, and mon- asteries, were the sources of wliatever culture and learn- 484 The Canon of tlic Old Tcsiannnt. ing England possessed at the time. Their destruction^ a calamity of frequent occurrence at that period, must have effectually checked, at least for a time, all literary enterprise on the part of those whose duty it was to |)romote the cause of general enlightenment. Long, however, before the Danes had abandoned all hope of establishing themselves in England, that country Avas invaded by the Normans, in 1066 ; and in the bloody battle of Hastings, which was fought soon after, Harold, the English monarch, lost his life, William, surnamed the Conqueror, won a crown, and the Saxon population was placed at the mercy of an alien race. From that mo- ment may be dated the first step towards the extinction of the Saxon language, already modified to some extent by that of the Danes. It was still spoken, of course, by the natives. But Norman French, the language of the conquerors, was employed in the laws of the realm, the proceedings of parliament, the royal palace, and the courts of justice. At last the two languages, like the races that spoke them, coalesced, and the result has been modern English ; a plant which, however, had to pass through several stages of development before it attained its present growth. In fact, though its origin may be traced away back to the middle of the thirteenth century, it was not until the sixteenth that it was so far improved as to be intelligible to those who read or write it at the present day. The dialect spoken in England from the middle of the twelfth to the middle of the thirteenth century has so many characteristics of Saxon and English, that it is called semi-Saxon by philologists. It is therefore evident, that for several centuries after the Norman conquest the language spoken by the people was in a state of transition, so that books in that language, though understood by those living when they were written, could be of little use to any one a century or even half a century later, while Tlic Bible not prohibited by the Chureh. 4S3 the idioms were so varied, that writings originating in one part of the coiuitry were more or less unintelligible in another. Translations of the Bible, if then made, must have rapidl}- superseded each other. Certainly, no trace has yet been found of an English translation of the Scriptures belonging to any date between the end of the tenth and the close of the thir- teenth century. But that, especially in view of the general destruction, to which all Catholic writings, theological or Scriptural, were consigned at the Refor- mation, not to speak of the previous accidents to which they were exposed, by no means proves that no such translation had been made. xAnd much less is it a reason why we should suspect that Mr. Maitland's memory deceived him, or that his researches among the eccle- siastical records of England were incomplete, when as a result of these reseaiches he announced: " I do not recol- lect an3Mnstancein which it is recorded, that the Script- ures or any part of them were treated .... with less than profound respect."" ' And we are to remember that he wishes every general statement or remark that he may offer to be applied to the period extending from A.D. 800 to A.D. 1200, without, however, considering himself precluded from the use of earlier or later records ; and that his records refer generally to Western Europe as well as to England. ' Besides, to assert or insinuate, that, because not a fragment remains to prove that any translation of the Bible was made for several centuries after the tenth, the Scriptures were then buried in ob- lition, is not only contradicted but refuted by a recent Protestant writer of England, ' who, after stating what ■every one knows, "that the vernacular tongue of the country (England) had been so altered by its contact with the French spoken by the upper classes as to make new translations of the Scripture necessary " (this rc- 1 Dark Ages, p. 220. - Ibid . \\ 5. ^ Rev. J. H. Blunt. English Bible. 486 The Canon of the Old Testament. mark refers t(3 the period between the Conquest and the time of Wyckliffe), appeals t(3 the authority of Cranmer, More, and Fox, ' to show that such translations were actuall}' written. No more unfounded statement was ever advanced than the one we are combating. It was quite easy for the writer who made it to have filled up his chasm with Saxon versions, some of which must have been used long after the tenth century, or with the always numerous copies of the Vulgate in Latin, a language with which at the time all educated persons in England, as else- where, were more or less familiar. Had this pile of pure Biblical material been insufficient for his purpose, the writer certainly had at hand a vast accumulation con- sisting of other materials, such as Missals, Commentaries, Homilies, Rituals, Pontificals, etc., all teeming with the Scriptures, and, even though no better than trash in his eyes, yet, being intensely Biblical, really good enough for closing the gaping chasm his imagination has conjured up. Strange that, wdiile studying the ecclesiastical his- tory of his country, it never occurred to him, that the chasm in question, if not closed or cleared in any other way, could at least be spanned with such illustrious men as Lanfranc, Anselm, Langton, all primates of England, Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln, John of Salisbury, Richard of St. Victor, a Scotchman, and other eminent British scholars, who flourished between the tenth and thirteenth centuries. Was it possible, that the Scrip- tures could have been buried in oblivion, while such ecclesiastics shed a lustre on the country of their birth or adoption by the sanctity of their lives, by the extent of their learning, and by their devotion to the spiritual inter- ests of those over whom they had been placed as pastors? Surely, Grosseteste, who in his time was remarkable for the care with which he watched over his flock, and so ' Mde supra, p. Xl^- The Bible not prohibited hv (he Chine/i. 4S7 distinguished for learning, that Roger Bacon declared liim perfect in divine and human knowledge, ' -would not have allowed the Scriptures to be utterly forgotten. A prelate who, like him, endeavored to })reserve from oblivion, or at least to bring to the knowledge of Western Christendom, the apocryphal Testament of the Tivelve Pa- triarchs, by translating it into Latin, " was not the man to permit the canonical Scriptures to be treated witii indifference or lost sight of by his people. In this con- nection it is also worthy of remark, that the division of the Bible into chapters has been attributed to two of the other prelates just named — Laniranc and Langton. Bale, Protestant bishop of Ossory, we are told by a Protestant critic, ' " with great appearance of probability ascribes these divisions to Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury." And although it is now generally ad- mitted that the real author of that arrangement was Cardinal Hugo de Sancto Caro, ' about the middle of the thirteenth century, the fact that Bale, who preceded Home about three centuries, supposed that an arch- bishop of Canterbury, before the end of the period in- cluded in Home's chasm, felt sufficient interest in the Scriptures to divide them into chapters, or was compe- tent for such a task, proves that, when Bale wrote, no Protestant suspected that there had been in the eccle- siastical history of England a period of several centuries, commencing with the end of the tenth, during which the Scriptures were buried in oblivion. Anselm, John of Salisbury, Richard of St. Victor, like the three just men- tioned, and not a few others belonging to the period be- tween the tenth and thirteenth centuries, all of whom were either born in Great Britain or spent a great part of their lives there, have left behind them works which fully attest, that the Bible was witi^ all of them a favorite ' Lingard, HiU. of England, v..l. ii., p. 248. - Kitto's Cycl., vol. II., p. 631. :i 11-,],^ p ^,7. ' Priileaux, Con., vol. T., p. 276. 488 The Canon of t/ic Old Testament. stud} . In fact, while looking over their works, anv reader cannot but be convinced, that the principal ob- ject which they had in view, as writers, was very gener- ally the elucidation of the sacred text, as a means of propagating divine truth and promoting the cause of Christian morals. To insinuate that the Scriptures were treated by such men, or by those over whom they had any control, that is, the entire population of England, with less than profound respect, is an outrage on com- mon sense and a libel on the illustrious dead. But it w^as not enough to cooly assume that the Script- ures in England " were buried in oblivion" for several centuries after the tenth ; the blame for that dreadful state of affairs must be laid at the door of " the Papal See." This statement is even more gratuitous than the other, w^hich finds a semblance of probability in the act- ual absence of any vestige of a translation made within three centuries after the tenth, w^hereas, as we shall see, it was not until the fifteenth century that the reading of translations of the Scriptures into the vernacular of the English was forbidden. And when the prohibition to that effect was issued, it was not aimed at all transla- tions in general, but a certain class deservedly suspected, and was, besides, the work of an English council, not a decree of " the Papal See." In fact, there is nothing whatever to warrant the state- ment now under consideration, except the policy al- leged by a certain class of writers to have been pursued by Innocent III., who was Pope from 1 198 to 12 16. But from no act or word of that great Pontiff can it be shown, that the general reading of the Scriptures was prohibited by him. Indeed, the charge, if made against any Pope, is false. But let us examine the grounds on which it is urged, particularly against Innocent. It ap- pears that the year after the election of Innocent, the Bishop of Metz wrote to him, complaining that some The Bible not prohibited by the Chureh. 489 persons in his diocese, having procured a French trans- lation of the Gospels, the Epistles of St. Paul, the Psal- ter, and the commentaries of St. Gregory the Great on the Book of Job, met in secret, men and women, for the purpose of reading and explaining the Scriptures and expounding the mysteries of the faith; and that they treated with contempt the ecclesiastics, who declined to take any part in their clandestine proceedings. Such are the principal points dwelt on by Innocent ' in his answer to the Bishop. Innocent, " Though" holding (we use his own words) that " the desire to know the Scripture and receive edification from reading it is lau- dable," expresses his displeasure at the manner in which it was done in this instance, and disapproves of "simple and ignorant persons" attempting to explain the m)-s- teries of the faith, " since it is not given to ever}- one to understand them," or to interpret the " Sacred Script- ures," which " conceal a sense so profound" that " even the learned do not always succeed in expounding it." He also recommends the Bishop to communicate his in- structions to those for whom the}' were intended, to ascertain the author of the translation, the motives that led to its execution, as well as the use that was made of it, and to forward to himself a report on the subject. What the result was, we are not informed. Opposition to legitimate authority seems to have ceased, as there is no further reference to the matter. At all events, there is nothing in the proceedings, from beginning to end. so far as can now be known, to justify any writer in assert- ing that the reading of the Scriptures in the vulgar or original tongues was then "prohibited by the Papal See." But it is hardly necessary for a Catholic writer to un- dertake the task of vindicating the conduct of Innocent, in connection with the affair of Metz. For that has been 1 Tom. I., Epist. 141, 142. 490 TJic Canon of the Old Testament. done in a way to silence his accusers by Dr. Frederic von Hurter, minister of the Calvinistic church at Schaff- hausen, Switzerland, a writer whose studies in this and bther departments of ecclesiastical history contributed to his renunciation of the heresy in which he had been edu- cated. This distinguished scholar, reviewing the corre- spondence to which we have just referred, sa)^s, " With- out regard to the epoch when these letters were written, they have been considered as an evidence of a spirit hostile to the light. They have been appealed to for the purpose of proving that the Pope sought to pro- scribe the study of the holy Scripture. But the letter addressed to the inhabitants of Metz, and many others already cited, sufficiently prove that, instead of propos- ing to himself such an object, he wished on the contrarv that the faithful should be instructed by means of the Holy Scripture. He did not disapprove so much of the translation into the vulgar tongue, as of an attempt made by an unknown hand, unprovided with the ability and necessar}' right to execute it. If we nevertheless reflect on the profound veneration entertained then for the Holy Scripture, considered as the Divine Word, the scruple expressed by Innocent regarding this transla- tion should appear to us by no means blamable. Be- sides, when we consider that those who attacked the Church often availed themselves of the sacred text bad- ly understood or falsely interpreted, we shall no longer be surprised at the declaration of the Pope, especially if we reflect on his duties as head of Christendom, — du- ties which impose on him the task of guarding the in- tegrity of the Sacred Word," ' Dr. Hurter's conclusion that Innocent's disapprobation had not for its object a translation in the vulgar tongue, but the justly suspi- cious origin of a particular translation in the same vulgar tongue, is corroborated by the fact that, as we shall see, ' Geschichte Papst Innocenz des Dritlen und seiner Zeit-genossen, B. 13. The Bible not prohibited by the Chitreh. 491 translations of the Scriptures in that very tongue had been made long before, as they are still made, without any protest or remonstrance from, but rather with the knowledge and consent of the actual occupant of "the Papal See." As we are engaged on the policy pursued by Innocent in relation to an obscure class of errorists, who appeared in the early part of his pontificate, this seems the proper place for a brief reference to his treatment of the Albi- gensians at a later period, as it constitutes the principal count in the indictment of which his accusers have made him the object. Of the Albigensians little may be said here. They are charged, and not unjustly, with grave crimes, as well as grave errors, which had already re- sulted in grave disorders, and if unchecked were cer- tain to lead to more disastrous consequences. Innocent, desirous of recalling them to a sense of duty by gentle means, commissioned some monks to imdertake their conversion by instructing them in the principles of Christian belief and practice. But their labors not hav- ing been blessed with the success which was expected, they were succeeded by two papal legates, who, barefoot and practising Apostolic poverty, travelled up and down the country inhabited by the Albigensians, endeavoring to reform the obstinate sectarists by word and example. At last, one of the legates having been brutally assassi- nated by the agents of these desperate fanatics, the crisis demanded the application of drastic measures, as religion and society had to be saved at any cost. So Innocent seems to have thought, and the war commenced. The crusade, as the struggle was called, ended with the over- throw of the Albigensians and their protectors. While it lasted, frightful excesses are said to have been commit- ted, which, though common to both sides, stained the glory of those who professed to tight as champions of the faith. When Innocent heard of these excesses, he 492 The Canon of the Old Testainetit. was oppressed with grief at the thought that such deeds of violence should have been committed in the name of religion. Nor could it have been any mitigation of his sorrow to reflect, that both sides were responsible for the atrocities which disgraced the sanguinary contest. D:-. Hurter here may be allowed to determine the de- gree of responsibiUt}' which attaches to Innocent for the manner in which the crusade was conducted. " Al- though (says this disinterested critic) great excesses may have been committed in the South of France against humanity and justice, in the course of these six years, and although the forces sent thither to re-establish the authorit)' of the Church carried on instead a war of indiscriminate rapine, still Innocent cannot be held re- sponsible for either. His orders were not carried out, and he was led by false reports to take measures which he would never have taken, had he known the true state of affairs. " ' Mr. Home, ' who in this instance adopts the statement of Hallam, ' informs his readers, that " the Council of Toulouse, in 1229, prohibited the laity from possessing the Scriptures, and this prohibition was frequently re- peated upon subsequent occasions. " It is certainly true that the council of Toulouse, which, however, was no more than a diocesan, or at most a provincial synod, whose decrees were purely local in their range, did pro- hibit the reading of the Scripture in the vulgar tongue by the laity, except the Psalter, Breviary, and Office of Our Blessed Lady. But wh}' ? As the only means of checking the spread of those dangerous principles pro- fessed by the Albigensians, and of preventing the crimi- nal excesses to which the history of the times shows that those principles inevitably led. The sectarists, w^hose conduct was the occasion of this prohibition, had 1 Innocent III., vol. II., p. 692. - Bibliographical App., p. 56. 3 The Middle Ages, ch. ix., Part. II., p. 573. The Bible not prohibited by the Chureh. 493 obtained a French translation of the Scriptnres prepared expressly for the purpose of sanctioning their dangerous tenets and countenancing their unlawful proceedings. To the civil and ecclesiastical authorities it appeared that the only remedy for the evil was to prohibit the circulation of the Bible in the vernacular, and it yet re- mains to be proved that they were mistaken. All men have certain rights, but when any class exercises these rights, (even that of reading the Scriptures, if they claim it), in such a way as to infringe on the rights of others, or imperil the peace of the community, they can- not complain, if society, for its own safety, abridges these rights by withdrawing such of them as they in- sist on exercising in a manner detrimental to it or to those whom it is bound to protect in the lawful and orderly exercise of their rights. It is possible the dis- turbances at Toulouse might have been dealt with in a more gentle and tolerant style. But this point is one about which a Catholic need feel no concern. It is enough for him to know that the prohibition in ques- tion, so far from affecting the Church universal, onlv applied to a single province in France, and even there ceased to be enforced when the circumstances which led to its adoption no longer existed. This remark is also applicable to the action taken at a council held at Tarragona, in Spain, in the year 1234, when the reading of the Scriptures in the vernacular was also forbidden for similar reasons. But it was not until the fifteenth centur}', that any decree of the kind was published in England, and then only as a means of suppressing the dangerous spirit excited by Lollardism, the turbulent offspring of the notorious Wvckliffe. The year 1408, in fact, marks the earliest date at which any action was taken by the ecclesiastical authorities in England with the purpose of formally forbidding the laity lo read unapproved Xx?^x\<&\?i\\ovL^ of the Scripture. In that vear a 494 ^/'^ Canon of the Old Testament. synod was convened at Oxford under the presidency of Thomas Arundel, Archbishop of Canterbury, in which the version infected with the errors of Wyckliffe was condemned, and it was further decreed, that no one should in future without license translate the Scripture into the vernacular, or read a translation in the vernac- ular, ''until," as Labbe ' according to Ubaldi ' has it, " such translation shall have been approved b}' the ordinary of the place, or, if it be necessary, by a provin- cial council." That Arundel himself approved the read- ing of the Scriptures by the laity, provided the copy was authentic, appears from the fact, that in 1394, while preaching a funeral oration over " the good Queen Ann " of Bohemia, consort of Richard IT., he praised her for her diligence in reading the four Gospels in English. It thus appears that all along in England the laity had enjoyed unrestricted the liberty of reading the Scrip- tures in those translations which, as we have seen, they always had at hand. And it is certain they never would have been denied the privilege, had it not been that alread}' spurious Bibles, intended to corrupt their faith, were being hawked among them, unable as many of them were to distinguish between the genuine article and its many counterfeits. Indeed, the English Catholics still possess and exercise the right of reading approved tran- slations of the Bible, as their fathers did before them, and will to the end of time. And we may be sure that all in- telligent and well disposed persons among the latter when they understood that it was unlawful to read versions issued by \V3xkliffe and his followers, treated the decree on the subject with profound respect. For it is not pre- tended that Wyckliffe was a great saint or a great scholar. But if he had been both, no man in his senses would have said then or would say now, that hisintepretation of the Bible was to be preferred to that of the universal ^ Tom. xi., pag. 2095 - luliod. in S. Stripi., iii., 462. The Bible not prohibited by the Chureli. 495 Church. Otherwise, we would have to hold tiiat an ex- position of the Civil Constituti(jn by any smart lawyer might be of more weight than one sanctioned by the entire Judiciary. It is evident that the regulations made regarding the reading of the Scriptures by the councils referred to above, were adopted under very exceptional circum- stances, were applied to particular localities, and were intended to correct what were considered flagrant evils by all except a comparatively small class of persons, with whom those evils originated, or by whom they were encouraged. So far, however, the Church as such had declined to place any general restriction on the reading of approved versions in any language by the laity, or to take any action implying i-egret that she had all along encouraged the practice. Yet it cannot be doubted that, had she believed the interests of Christen- dom required it, she could have withheld the Scriptures in any form from the laity. They can claim from her only what is necessary to save their souls, ana as the reading of the Scriptures is not necessary for this pur- pose, many at all times having gone to heaven without a Bible, and many, who had one and read it, having failed to reach there, the lait}- would be deprived of nothing that they are entitled to, were she to forbid them the reading of the Divine Word, and confine herself to its exposition, oral teaching, the celebration of public worship, and the administration of the sacraments. Would it not be difficult to prove, that the Apostles did anything more than this for the salvation of the laity ? The New Testament is the only volume which they, so far as we know, have written, and several among them contributed nothing to it. But neither these nor the authors of the volume appear to have considered it nec- essary to leave a copy of it, or of the Old Testament, with each of their converts. In fact, without a miracle 496 The Canon of the Old Testament. they could not have done so, and nobody supposes that any such miracle was ever wrought by them, though miracles were plenty enough at the time. The Church, however, never withheld from the laity the privilege of reading the Bible in the vernacular, for she has always believed that, when not abused, the exercise of the privi- lege is calculated to edify and enlighten the mind, as well as to promote the cause of virtue. But when Bibles in which the original text is wilfully corrupted, and its meaning is wilfully perverted for sectarian pur- poses, as was the case with those peddled around by the Albigensians in France, the Lollards in England, and the Jews in Spain ' as well as the Lutherans in Ger- many, the}' are to be classified as false and dangerous books. And an}^ pastor of souls is bound to forbid the reading of them by his flock. Even a Protestant minis- ter would be regarded as unfaithful to the duties for which he is paid by his employers, were he to allow what he considers corrupt copies of the Scripture to be introduced among his congregation. And it is well known that such of these employers as insist on the reading of the Bible in the common school of which they happen to be directors (and who among them in such a position does not include this juvenile exercise in the curriculum ?), would permit the teacher to substitute the . Douay for the Jacobite Bible, even though the teacher and the majority of the pupils might prefer the former. In acting thus, the poor man invested with a little brief authority believes he is doing right, though he dare not swear to it, if his idea of an oath is that of most Christians. Yet he is horrified at hearing that this or that priest has condemned the use of the Prot- estant Bible in the public schools ; and when told that the priest, who fully comprehends the nature of an oath, is prepared to swear that the Protestant Bible cannot be ' Balmes Catholicity and Protestantism Compared, p. 215. The Bible not proliibitcd by the Church. ^07 read wilhout sin by a Catliolic, instead ol susi)cctin,-; that he himself may be mistaken, our autocrat of the common school is only further horrified on beinj^r so in- formed. But it could not well be otherwise among that class of the Christian laity to which this specimen of modern enlightenment belongs, inheriting as it does the princi- ples and traditions of the Reformation, and taught to be- lieve that its Bible is the best book that was ever printed, and the truest version of the original Scriptures that was ever written, if not an actual apograph of these Scriptures or the very autograph of their inspired authors. Many of those, who rank as leaders of this Christian laity, know better, for they are cognizant of all the facts by which it has already been shown,' that, while that version abounds in wilful perversions of the sacred text, and of gross misconceptions of its meanino-, "no wilful perversion of its meaning has ever been brought home " to those who wrote the Douay Bible. Those leaders also know, what most of their followers appear to be ignorant of, that those Pnjtestants, whose zeal is only equalled by their wealth, and who, persuaded that the reading and possession of the Scripture is indispensable to the propagation and maintenance of Christianity, have expended millions upon millions in distributing the Scriptures all over the world, yet have never been able to reach an agreement regarding the Bible to be approved for the use of the heathen abroad and the pagans at home. Nevertheless the said leaders are as ready as those whom they guide, to frown down, wherever they have the control, any attempt to substi- tute another English version for what is now known as King James's Bible, or to dispense with the latter alto- gether in public institutions. To them, as to the rank and file of their followers, there is nothing in heaven ' Chapters xx.-xxiii. 498 The Canon of the Old Testament. above, or on the earth beneath, or in the waters under the earth, equal to the authorized version. So they say, and so they write, yet knowing all the while, that that version bristles with blunders and corruptions, some few of which, for shame's sake, a recent commission tried to remove, but current editions still retain ; and that the Bible societies could never be induced to unite in adopt- ing a common standard copy of the Scriptures for pro- moting the object of their organization — the conversion of the entire world to that extremely mutable and in- definable religious system implied in the word Protes- tantism. If those Bible Societies have, as Mr. Marshall has shown in his incomparable work on Christian Mis- sions, been a good deal less successful in the salvation of souls than in the expenditure of vast sums, and the gratuitous distribution of millions of Bibles and religious tracts often consigned to all such purposes for which waste paper is useful, they have at least been quite ser- viceable in convincing the world, that Protestants find it as difificult to agree on adopting a common standard of the Bible as in uniting in the profession of a common creed. A word or two is, therefore, now called for in reference to the origin, object, and operations of Bible Societies. CHAPTER XXXIV. The Bible Societies and the ArocRVPiiAL War. It was not until near the end of the seventeenth cen- tnrv, that any thing was done by English Protestants to shake off the religious lethargy into which they had sunk, when the civil and ecclesiastical commotions con- sequent on the Reformation had subsided. About that period efforts were made to re-awaken some religious feel- ing in the population, great numbers of which were prob- ably Christian in nothing but the name. Books of in- struction and other means, including the circulation of the Scriptures, were employed for the purpose, with the aid and under the direction of societies which the cir- cumstances had called into existence. But it was not until 1804, that what was then called and is still known as tJic British and Foreign Bible Society was organized in London, for the exclusive purpose of promoting the circulation of the Protestant Bible at home and abroad. Auxiliary societies were so(mi formed in other parts of Great Bi-itain. And in a short time similar or- o-anizations, with numerous branches, were established at several points on the continent of Europe. In the United States the first Bible Society was founded in 1808, an example which in the course of time was fol- lowed by several of the principal cities in this country. From the following statistics the reader may form an estimate of the total receipts and expenditures of these societies since their organization. But if he wishes to 500 Ihc Canon of the Old Testament. know what has been accompUshed by them, or what use is generally made of the Bibles and religious tracts which they dispose of, and especiall}' such as they distrib- ute gratuitousl}', he will have to consult Mr. Marshall's Christian Missions, a work by James Laird Patterson,' or some other book bv a disinterested writer, who refers to the subject even only incidentally. In one year, for example, that of 1874, the receipts of the British and Foreign Bible Society from all sources were i^ 217, 390, — 13s. id. — something more than a million dol- lars, its disbursements during that time amounting to about twenty-five thousand dollars less. In the same year there were issued from the Society's depots at home and abroad 2,619,427 Bibles, Testaments, and de- tached books of the Bible. The number of such publi- cations during the first 30 years of its existence was almost 74 millions, involving an expenditure of about $ 38,750,000. The receipts of the American Bible Society during the 3'ear ending May 1888 were $ 523,910.50, the expenses in that year being $499,998.75. In the same year there were 1,274,036 copies of the Scriptures printed and purchased by the Society. 904, 1 79 volumes were issued from the Bible house, and 533,261 in foreign lands, making a total of 1,437,440. Of these, 369,714 were Bibles; 598,515, New Testaments ; and 469,21 1, portions of the Bible. There have been 584,603 Bibles, Testaments, and portions circulated in foreign lands. During the seventy years in which the American Society has been in existence previous to 1888, its issues amount to 46,877, 646. For the distribution of its publications, at home and abroad, the Societv both here and in England employs a large corps of agents, preachers, mission- aries, pedagogues, colporteurs, etc., in whose support, as well as in the publication and transport of its Bibles, ' Journal of a Tour in Egypt, Palestine, Syria, and Gieece. The tourist left Enghind a Puseyite. and returned a Catholic. Operations of iJic Bible Societies. 501 Testaments, and religious tracts, its revenue is expended, which revenue is derived from the sale of its issues, from the contributions of its members, from collections among Protestant congregations, and from numennis bequests ; while the enthusiastic patrons, instead of ex- pressing surprise at the little that has been done with so much money, still cherish the hope that the millennium is at hand, and the whole world about to be converted to what they understand by the Religion of the Bible. Both having the same object in view, and employing generally the same means to obtain it, there may have been a bond, of sympathy between i\\Q British and Foreign Bible Soeiety and the Ameriean Bible 5^r/V/j', but apparently none what- ever between these two on the one hand, and the Amer- iean and Foreign Bible Soeiety on the other, though its ob- ject is the same as theirs. It owes its origin to a seces- sion of the Baptists from the American Bible Society, and was estabHshed in 1837, but had its own ranks thinned by a secession in 1850, when a number of mem- bers withdrew and organized the Ameriean Bible Union. This comprised mainly Baptists, having members not only in many parts of the United States, but in Canada, Great Britain, and generally wherever the English language is spoken. The receipts, and of course the ex- penditures, as well as the operations of these two socie- ties, which originated in a secession, have fallen far short of the astounding figures reached hy the British and For- eign Bible Soeiety and the Ameriean Bible Society. The cause of this disunion among brethren will be explained further on. Here it may be remarked, that if one were to express correctly the feeling existing between the two former societies, or between them and the two latter, he would probablv have to select a much sti-onger word than emulation. It would, however, be a mistake to suppose that, when the first Bible Societv was formed in Knirland f(^r the 502 TJie Canon of tJie Old Testament. sole purpose of circulating at home the authorized ver- sion of the Scriptures in the languages of the United Kingdom, and abroad the best ancient and received versions, or, when it is necessar\^ and practicable, new translations from the Hebrew and Greek, the project was universally approved by Protestants. For it failed to receive the sanction of several Anglican bishops and ministers, among whom may be mentioned Marsh,. Bishop of Peterborough. These, dreading the effect which association with dissenters would produce on members of the Establishment, condemned the funda- mental law of the Society, according to wdiich its Bibles were to be published without note or comment, and, be- sides, insisted that the Book of Common Prayer should be given along with the Bible. Many also complained of the serious errors said to have been made in several of the translations. The rigorists also demanded that all who deny the doctrines of the Trinity should be ex- cluded from the society, and this, being refused, led to the formation of what is known as TJie Trinitarian So- ciety, whose held of operations has been comparatively limited. In fact, the Protestant Bible Society has exhib- ited the same tendency to divide and subdivide which has been a characteristic of the Protestant religion throughout its entire histor\'. The British and Foreign Bible Society also met with decided opposition among some leading Protestants in Germany. Bretschneider, superior councillor of the consistory, and other Protes- tant divines condemned its methods. But, strange to say while the Society in England and on the Continent had to contend with the opposition offered by members of the Protestant ministry, it received what to it must have been unexpected encouragement from a few Catholics in Germany, among whom Leander Van Ess, a professor in the university of Marburg, w^here he was also parish priest, attained rather unenviable notoriety by the views operations of the Bible Societies. 503 which he published on the subject. But. these views, as well as the arguments by which he endeavored to con- firm them, were condemned and refuted by Binterim Kistemacher and other learned Catholic writers among his own countrymen. As a reward for his services to them, even the friends of the Bible Society in the end re- ferred to him in language savoring much more of dis- pleasure and censure than of gratitude and admiration. ' In the account so far given of the Bible Societies, a Catholic will perceive that they early exhibited symp- toms which called forth the interference of the Supreme Pastor. That interference was never withheld on anv occasion when there was reason to apprehend danger to the faith from that quarter. Thus these societies were condemned by Pius VII., in a Brief dated 29 June 1816 and addressed to the Bishop of Gnesen; and condemned a second time by the same Pontiff on September 3d of the same year, in another Brief addressed to the Bishop of Mohilew. The condemnation was renewed by Leo XII., in an Encyclical of May 3, 1824, and renewed again in an Encyclical by Pius VIII., dated May 24, 1829. Gregorv XVI issued a similar condemnation in an En- cyclical dated May 8, 1844; and on November 9, 1846, Pius IX. reiterated the condemnation pronoimced h\ so many of his predecessors. We shall see, as we proceed, that besides those dangerous tendencies of the Bible Societies which the preceding remarks have brought to view, there were others exhibited by those associations so opposed to the integrity of the Sacred Scripture and the purity of divine faith, as to compel the sternest de- nunciation from the highest tribunal in the Church. We have seen already, while enumerating the French, Spanish, and Portuguese Catholic versions, which were published under the auspices of the Bible Societies in I Vide Morrison's " Preface to New Edition of Alexander's Canon of Script.,'" p. XV. 504 flic Canon of the Old Testament. the United States, that all the notes and comments be- longing to those versions were omitted. Wiecki's Po- lish Catholic version, as well as the others, was treated in the same way in Europe according to Ubaldi, ' who remarks further, that in all the editions of Catholic ver- sions which were issued by the Bible Societies the deu- tero books were excluded from the Old Testament, the object, of course, being to persuade Catholics, among whom the agents of the Societies scattered their vitiated Bibles, that each reader had the right to interpret the sacred text as he pleased, and was not to consider the deutero books of the Old Testament parts of the inspired volume. This of itself fully warranted the condemna- tion of the Hoi}' See. These misguided zealots would have informed any one about to learn a trade or a pro- fession, that, besides the tools the use of which he had to learn, or the books the contents of which he had to read, he also required an instructor. But in the matter of religion, the most difficult as well as the most impor- tant of all pursuits, they acted on the erroneous assump- tion that no instructor was necessary. There was the Bible, not by an}- means a full, clear, and methodical trea- tise on the science of religion, and still less so as the Bi- ble Societies made it. But according to them, to be a full-fledged Christian, a man had nothing to do but read it! Besides, whether it was that the scholars the}- em- ployed for the purpose were incompetent or dishonest, the translations which were made by order of the So- cieties were, as many Protestants have admitted, some of them inaccurate: but not onlv that, they were often ludicrous, and in some instances so repugnant to Chris- tian feeling, that they might well be characterized blas- phemous. This last remark is fuUv justified by the ex- tracts which a contributor to the Dublin Rcvieic '^ has ' IiilroJ. ill S. Scrip., III., 4SS. ' Vol. XLL., article v. operations of tJic Bible Societies. 505 made from these translations. lUit how couhl it liavc been otherwise, when men claiming to be the cream of Christendom scrupled not to circulate as the Word of God translations made after the following method, a method, there is reason to believe, employed in other countries besides that in which it is stated to have been actually made use of. In India, when it is proposed by the Baptists to translate the Scriptures into the various languages of that country, several Pandits, or men con- versant with these languages, are assembled in the hall of the establishment belonging to the missionaries of Singapore. There the Pandits are placed in a circle, the centre of which is occupied by a Pandit versed in Hindostanee, a language, with which the others are su]3- posed to be familiar, and in English, of which the Pandit himself ought to have a profound knowledge. As soon as the Mahratta, Seikh, Guzarat, Orissa, Burmah, etc.. Pandits have prepared their writing materials, a mis- sionary, or anv other European or Anglo-Asiatic, reads word b}' word a verse in the English text, and the verse thus read word by word is repeated word by woi'd in Hindostanee bv the Pandit in the centre, and as he does so, the other Pandits around him put it down word by word, each in his own language or particular dialect; and in this way the translation is completed. ' The Bible Societies exultingh' boast that they have translated the Scriptures into more than two hundred languages and dialects. But there is nothing in this to be proud of or to boast about, rather much, ver}- much, to inspire with shame and confusion all who have in any way contributed to such outrages on God's holv word. Besides, the patrons of these Societies have good reason to ask why, when such a handy way of translating the Bible has been invented, there is not already, after eighty- four years of unremitting effort and lavish expenditure, 1 Comely. Infrod. in S. ScnfL, I . 495. 5o6 The Canon of t lie Old Testament. a version of the Scripture in every language, dialect, id- iom, and jargon now spoken bv mankind? But serious- ly, can the reader look for an}^ other result than that many of the translations prepared by the Bible Societies are calculated to provoke ridicule among people of common sense, and indignation among those who duly revere the Divine Scriptures, at the manner in which the Bible has been burlesqued so long and so often in recent times by its pi^ofessed friends ; and not only bur- lesqued b}' tliese friends, but exposed by them still to profanation at the hands of the heathen, a charge long ago brought and proved against them by Mr. Marshall. ' For at this writing it is stated in the New York press ' that " In many parts of China, the Bibles given by the missionaries are used in the manufacture of cheap boot soles." Their history proves that our dissenting brethren have never been able to agree in professing a common symbol of belief. That histor}' also demonstrates, that they are as incapable of uniting in the acceptance of a common Bible. For most of the schisms, which divided into opposing sections the associations formed for the purpose of disseminating the Scriptures, originated in a difference of views regarding the Bible which was to be adopted as a standard. In fact, it was for this reason that the Baptists, for instance, as we have seen, separated from the primitive organization and established what they named " The American and Foreign Bible Socie- ty." In this case the parent society, called " The Amer- ican Bible Society," had refused aid to the Bengalee and Burmese versions, because its Baptist members, desiring to have these versions consistent with Baptist principles, had translated baptize by a word representing immerse. A secession by the Baptists followed, they very justly supposing, that they had as good a right to ' Christian Missions. ' Tribune, of 18S9, cited by Erie Herald.^ May 24, 1889. operations of the Bible Soeieties. 507 thus inoculate with their principles the natives of India, as King James's translators had to inoculate in the same way the people of Great Britain with their own com- promised opinions. Not long ago the latter ti-anslatioii was, as we know, revised by committees of English and American scholars determined to adhere to it as an English standard copy of the Scriptures. So the strenu- ous leaders of the Baptist persuasion, believing that the}', too, should have a revision of the English Protes- tant Bible, actually undertook one. Indeed, the work is already far advanced, and when completed will no doubt differ veiy essentially from the copy wiiich most other Protestants follow as a ride of belief. The quar- rel is an unseemly one, bvit it had and will have the ef- fect of stimulating the brethren on both sides to greater efforts in supplying the home and the foreign market Avith a greater variety and a more abundant supply of Bibles. It also emphasized the fact, that the descend- ants of the reformers are not more divided about a creed than they are about a Bible. The unpleasant episode connected with the Baptist Bible was but the result of a principle which had already led to a far more serious controversy among the friends of the Bible in Europe, and proved that, in the Old World as well as the New, these friends found it impossible to agree on the selec- tion of any particular Bible, whether for their own use or that of the heathen. At the time that the British Bible Society undertook to provide all mankind with copies of what it considered the pure word of God, Protestant Bibles, particularly on the continent of Europe, generally contained the deutero books of the Old Testament under the name of Apocrvpha,and inserted, though not invariably, between the Old and New Testament. For they were tt^ be found sometimes intermingled with the others, as they are now and ever have been in Catholic Bibles. Xo 5o8 The Canon of the Old Testament. doubt, many English Protestant Bibles in the beginning of the present centur}- contained those books. Indeed, there is no reason to suppose that even at this time they have entirely disappeared, though the}' have ceased to be printed. A place was assigned them under the title of Apocrypha in all the early English Protestant versions at the end of the Old Testament. In Matthew's Bible and Cranmer's they were even called Hagiographa, but as Apocrypha they passed into King James's version, and were generall}' included in all the Protestant Bibles printed in England, at least until about the close of the seventeenth centur}-. In fact, several of these books are, so used in her public services bv the Anglican Church, as to show that, whatever mav be her theory regarding them, practically she recognizes no distinction between them and the rest. ^ But among the English dissenters the books in question, even if found there, were treated with no consideration. Continental Protestantism, how- ever, excelled even conservative Anglicanism in the favorable, even reverential view, with which it regarded those books. It is true, Luther and his associates treated them as unscriptural, relegating them as Apocrvpha to the end of his Old Testament. He endeavored at the same time to excite suspicion or contempt against sev- eral proto books of the Old Testament and deutero in the New. But his arbitrary proceeding in the former case was hardly less offensive, even to Lutherans, than his equally arbitrary proceeding in the latter case. Thus among Lutherans and all other sects on the continent the New Testament remained as Luther found it in the Church, and the same remark, if the common practice outside of Great Britain be meant, is applicable to the Old Testament. For the Continental Protestants had, all of them, the deutero books in their Old Testament. And though these books may there still bear the brand ' Vide Kitto's Cyclop., I., pp. 522. 557; II., pp. 186, S76. operations of the Bible Societies. 509 o{ Apocrypha witli which [.uthcr had stamped them, it may be truly said that the common people particularly, finding them in the volume which they called the Bible, received them as part of it. and therefore as sacred or canonical scripture. But whether this be generally so now or not, Karl Hildebrand Canstein, an earnest Protestant, who died at Berlin, in 17 19, after founding in Halle a Bible Society long- belore such an institution was thought of in England, actuall}- mixed in the German and Bohemian Bibles, which he published at a very low price for the conven- ience of the people, the deutero among the proto books of the Old Testament, as if he did not himself believe and did not wish anv one else to believe, that there was any difference whatever between the two classes of books. The enterprise which he started has been, it is understood, continued to the present time. And it was the Bible which he was the first to issue that the Ger- man societies afftliated to " The British and Foreign Bible Society " purchased for circulation. Thus, with- out anv objection on the part of the Society at London, where probably the matter was regarded as unimportant, the deutero books of the Old Testament were included in the Bibles distributed throughout Germany. A knowledge of this fact, however, seems to have excited intense feeling in Scotland, and the central authority in consequence addressed, in 181 1, a request to the auxil- iary branches, advising them to exclude the deutero books from their Bibles. But this action gave so much offense to those affected by it, that it was soon cancelled. This vacillating policy of the parent society only served to inflame both factions more and more, without satisfy- ing either, and led soon after to that protracted and bitter struggle between the combatants, which was known at the time as the apocryphal war. On one side it was alleged that the books in question had been trans- 5IO The Canon of tJic Old Test anient. lated by Protestant divines, and even appointed by the Anglican establishment to be read in the churches. On the other it was afifirmed that those books were not inspired, a fact demonstrated bv their contents, and consequently did not belong to the canon. To this it was replied that the catalogue of so-called canonical books was not itself inspired nor an article of faith, and that the verv same objections urged against thedeutero books could be turned against many of the others. Convocation maintained a discreet and dignified silence during the long and bitter contest between the Lutheran Consistory and the Scotch Kirk. The deutero books being generally- defended bv representatives of the former, and opposed by champions of the latter. That contest was commenced in 1811, and was conducted with such obstinacy on the part of the defenders, and so much violence b}- the assailants, that disinterested spec- tators must have supposed, that both belligerent part- ies believed, that life, libert}-, and independence, all that is dear in this world or precious in the next, was staked on the issue. But they were simply engaged in manu- facturing conclusive testimon}' in order to prove to intel- ligent people that for Protestants to agree in saying what constitutes the Bible, is a sheer impossibility. It was also learned that for a while Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese Bibles containing the detested books were published with the permission and even assistance of the central Society. This was more than the Scotch element coidd stand, and a serious rupture seemed inevitable. To prevent such a calamitv, it was decided that the funds of the society should be expended onh^ in the publication of Bibles in which the disputed books were omitted, and that, if the branch societies published those books, the}' should do so at their own expense. The course of affairs had been for some time unfavorable to the plans of Van Ess, but this last blow was likely to upset them alto Operatiotis of fhc Bible Societies. 5 1 \ g-ether. However, he proposed to the society, tliat lie would continue to pul)lish his Bible, provided he re- ceived assistance, and woidd include in it the deutero books at his own expense. On these conditions he ac- tually succeeded in obtaining a grant of ^,'500 in i inherit, unless legal measures were taken. It ajjpeared from the evidence given by her folUnvers, that the\- looked upon her as the third person of the Trinity, a fact placed beyond all doubt, at least in their opinion, as an angel, which a{)peared at one of their meetings, bore a scroll, on which was written in golden letters, that Mira Mitta was the daughter of Jehovah and the sister of the Saviour. The evidence further showed that every Sun- day religious service was held in the second story of the house, which part was fitted up as a place of wor- ship. Mira, of course, as the third person of the Trinity, being surmounted with a brilliant ci-o\vn, encircled with a bejewelled girdle, and arrayed in a loose silken robe, preached to her devoted followers, who abjectly bowed before her. In 1889, Schweinfurth, already intnxluced to the reader in 1885, was heard from at different dates. April 28, a Mrs. Kinnehan, professing to be a Presbyterian, but who had recently become a Beekmanite, was placed on trial for blasphemy, apostasy, and heresy, before a Pres- byterian court at Chicago. She had stated in public, that she believed Christ had appeared on earth in the person of Schweinfurth. She refused to have any coun- sel, saying she was able to defend herself. When asked to swear, she declined to do so, arguing from the Bible that it was proper to swear not at all. She insisted that she had been taught by the Presbyterian Church, that Christ was coming on earth, and she was now fully satisfied that Schweinfurth was Christ. The court de- cided that she should be expelled. On the following day, a large delegation of Beekman- ites from St. Charles, Minnesota, who had witnessed the dedication of a Temple in honor of Schweinfurth at Rockford, Illinois, returned home. They were highly elated with their visit, fully believing tliat they were the apostles of Christ (Schweinfurth), conuiiissioned to 524 The Canon of t lie Old Testament. convert the Gentiles, as they called all other Christians. Impressed with this belief, they divided themselves into three delegations of three each, for the purpose of visiting the prayer-meetings held by their neighbors, and there preaching the new Christ. The neighbors, however, so rushed the proceedings, that Schweinfurth's apostles found it impossible to get in a word. And in one instance, the preacher, as soon as the exercises were concluded, made haste to get his horse and car- riage and drove off with his wife, whom, at the end of the meeting, the Beekmanites were bombarding with arguments in favor of Schweinfurthism. May 3, in the Associated Press reports it was stated, that Dr. J. S. Wilkins, of Chicago, was soon to begin suit for $25,000 against Schweinfurth, for alienating his wife's affections, she having recently embraced Schwein- furth's rehgion. Ma}' 8, The White Caps, a secret organization formed for the purpose of employing Lynch law against parties who cannot be reached through the courts, notified Schweinfurth to leave Rockford and vicinity within ten days, under the penalt}^ of being tarred and feathered, and roasted ahve. They claimed that he was breaking up families. But he employed a night-watchman, bought guns and dogs, preparing to give the White Caps a hot reception. About the last mentioned date, Schweinfurth's estab- lishment, which is about five miles distant from Rock- ford, Illinois, was visited by a newspaper reporter, according to whom, Schweinfurth's propert}' amounts to $500,000, derived from the offerings of his disciples. His house is magnificently furnished, and is large enough to accommodate a hundred persons. Such of his followers as live there, are engaged in the raising of blooded stock on his lands. His community consists of about fifty females, and twelve or fifteen men, who at- Effects of Iiidiscriininatc Bible Reading. 525 tend to the rough work. The self-styled Christ was interviewed by the reporter, when the following dia- logue occurred : "Are you Christ ?" " I am. I am more than Christ, I am the perfect man, and also God. I possess the attributes of Jesus the Sinless, and have His spirit ; and more than that, I am the Almighty Himself." " This, then, is your second advent on earth? " "■ It is, and I am accomplishing untold good. The time is not far off, when I shall make such manifestations of my divinity and power as will startle the world, and will bring believers to me by thousands and tens of thousands." Further questioning brought out the additional facts, that Schweinfurth claimed to possess unlimited power, asserted that he could move from place to place in spite of all obstructions, raise the dead to life, cure diseases, and do all the miraculous things he performed when as Christ he was on earth before. He also stated that he would remain in his present body many years, and when that body would pass into the corruption of death, his spirit would enter into another body and still live on earth. He denied that free love was practised in his community. Some of the members were married, others single ; but all who lived with him became pure like himself, who never experienced the passions of men. Asked if he had on his hands the marks made by the nails at his crucifixion when first on earth, he answered that he did not claim that his material physique had not chajiged and put on new flesh ; on the contrary, new material sub- stance had covered the point of the torturing instru- ments. Requested to give a sketch of his early life, he said that he was born of German parentage in Marion, Ohio, in 1853. and had studied for and entered the Methodist ministry, but soon became so dissatisfied 526 The Canon of the Old Testament. with the un-Christ-like course of his ministerial associates, that he could not feel of them, though among them. " In December, 1877, I met Dorinda Helen Fletcher Beekman, the bride of Christ. She was my spiritual Mary. She gave to the world its Jesus and its Lord." Yet this bold blasphemer, and his followers, not only read the Protestant Bible, but, of course, are prepared to justify their impiety by what they find therein. Every century since the fifteenth has had its Schweinfurth, all using the same text book as the Rockford reformer.* The above list of follies, freaks, vagaries, and crimes resulting from the unrestricted use of the Bible, without note or comment to explain passages, which the simple and ignorant may interpret literally to their own detri- ment, or that of others, might be enlarged to almost an}- extent. The victims of delusions traceable to this source are so common, that nobody is surprised on reading in the public press that something silly, ridiculous, or even criminal has been done here or there, under an im- pulse derived from the intemperate use of the Bible. Some of these deluded creatures are placed where they can do no harm to themselves or any one else. Othei's among them, suspected of being more of the rogue than the fool, are driven out of the neighborhood which ' August 16, 1890, a mass meeting of indignant citizens was held at Rock- ford, in order to devise means to get rid of Schweinfurth. He was denounced as a fraud, a blasplienier, and an impostor. One of his apostles was present to defend him, and maintained that the doctrines and practices of the Beek- manites were all founded on the Bible, a book which he had brought along to prove that point. But the citizens thought they knew better, and passed a resolution calling on Schweinfurth to leave, without further notice. Subse- quently, the .Slate Attorney, in his charge to the Grand Jury for the October term of the Circuit Court, called on that body to investigate the charges against Schweinfurth, and the Sheriff, as directed, gave notice to the inmates of "heaven," as the home of the sect is called, to appear before the Grand Jury. The in- mates, or at least some of them, did so appear on Oct. 9. The Grand Jury, however, declined to authorize further proceedings at the time. But the end is not yet. I Effects of Indiscriiniiiatc Bible Reading. 527 they infest, or are shot clown by infuriated mobs. It would be quite tedious to recount the manifold symp- toms exhibited by the plague of Bible readin<;-. Im»i- these symptoms vary indefinitely, according- to times and places. But quite recently this plague has assumed a new phase, in the form of what is called by the initiated, the prayer cure, or faith cure, or Christian science, — a system of pathology, which dispenses altogether with the services of a regular physician, and in which the practitioner has recourse to prayer and the reading of the Bible, as an infallible cure for all manner of diseases to which human nature is subject. To these two or three specifics are sometimes added by those, who be- long to this new school of medicine, w^hat in their tech- nology is designated, the laying on of hands and anoint- ing : that is, the Biblical operator, who may be a ladv or a gentleman, imposes hands and rubs with oil the person of the patient. But whether the manipulation and anoint- ing refer to the entire body of the latter, or onlv the part affected, is not w^ell understood, nor is it known whether any specific oil is necessarily used. It is well known that this practice has already led to se- rious results, wdiere, for example, the patient and friends, placing implicit confidence in its success, occasionalh' al- low the disease to take its course without applying to any other means of cure than those mentioned, and death ensues ; or when, as sometimes happens, those con- cerned in the case, on being practically convinced by the progress which the malady has reached, that it will not yield to their treatment, consent to employ a regular phy- sician, the latter sees at once that he has been called too late to be of any service. In some cases, where children have become victims of this pernicious delusion, their parents have been called to account by the civil author- ities as more or less responsible for the sad results that have followed. But it is hard to deal with such people; 528 The Canon of tJic Old Testament. and the most that any court can do with them is to ap- peal to what little reason they have left, and to assure them that a repetition of the offence may involve them in serious consequences. They will, if allowed to do so, quote text after text of Scripture, to prove that the prayer cure has the sanction of the Bible; but those who are charged \\ath the maintenance of law, whether Prot- estants or Catholics, would not likely listen to the argu- ments of such lunatics. There is, therefore, among our dissenting brethren, and there would be among ourselves, perhaps, were it not for the laws of the Church, a very large class of persons half educated, earnest, and honest, who devote much of their time to reading the good book, as they call the Bible, but being without a competent guide, mistake its meaning, and thus wrest the Scriptures to their own destruction ; or finding that it has failed, to act as a talis- man against all evils incidental to human existence, fling * it from them as worse than worthless. Aside from the ' On 'May 31, 1889, Johnstown, in this State, was overwhelmed by a dehige. resulting from the bursting of a dam above the city. Out of a population of some 20,000, about 30U0 lest their lives; various statements regarding the dis- aster and its consequences were published at the time. On June 6, a few days after the dreadful occurrence, one such statement appeared in the New York Times, a secular paper whose religious sympathies are Protestant. In that statement made by a representative of the pa) er in Johnstown at the time, it was assertel of the people there, that " Many of them have thrown away their Bibles, and, since the disaster, have openly burned them. They mnke no con- cealment of this. . . A lady who had lost her husband and four children was gath- ering together relics of her home, when she cnme across the family Bible con- taining the record of her birth, marriage, and the birtlis of her children. A stranger happened to pass, and, tearing the records out, she proffered the book to him. The man happened to be a clergyman. ' Do you realize, madam, what you are doing?' ' Perfectly,' was the reply; ' T have no further use for that book. I have always tried to be a consistent Christian woman. I brought up my four girls as strictly as I was, but I cannot read that book any more.' The clergyman called on her the next day. She would not see him. At his request some of her friends visited her; she simply explained the circumstances, and refused to enter into any argument." Effects of Indiscrimi)iatc Bible Rcadiiii;-. 529 fact that the Bible, as most Protestants will admit, con- tains passages which cannot be read by man}- withoni moral contagion, it is evident that the holy and pro- foundly mysterious volume should never be placed in the hands of the class just referred to, without some use- ful note upon or explanation of all such texts as they might misinterpret to their ow^n i-uin. Indeed, some of the class are so mentally constituted, that it is not only unjust but quite unsafe to allow- the naked Scriptures, even when honestly translated, to circulate among them. In fact, for all of them, selections from the Bible adapted to their capacity, or perhaps, better still, a histor)- com- posed of the contents of the Bible and prepared by a competent scholar, would be much preferable to the Bible itself. There are now, and probabl}' have been always in the Church, such books as the former, as well as the latter. Bible histories, particularly, when judiciously composed, are for ordinary readers far more instructive than the Bible as a whole, and, besides being free from the dangerously suggestive passages contained in it, can be safely recommended to persons of every age and condition. To this class of w^orks belong several which were written in medieval times, and are still to be found in the libraries ; such, for example, as Berchoire's Reper- torium, Marchesini's Matuinoi rectus, and Peter Comes- tor's Scholastic History, which last maintained for many ages its well-merited popularity. It is true, these works were all written in Latin, and (it might be said) were practicall}- of little use. But we are to remember that, at the time they were written, Latin w^as very generally understood by all, educated persons, so that almost c\ery one who had learned to read might derive instruction from their perusal. The Latin in which they were writ- ten was often used as a means of correspondence by others besides bishops and priests. Even ladies availed themselves of it for that purpose. We have still quite 530 The Canon of the Old Testament. a collection of letters written in Latin by St. Hildegarde to popes, bishops, priests, la}men and ladies, with others written by them to her in the same language. * Thus we find, that Christians in those early times were pro- vided by the Church, as her members are at this day, not only with versions of the Bible, which each one able to read could understand, but with books which con- tained a connected account of everything recorded in the Bible, and were written in a language with which all who had received an education were more or less familiar. And these books were of such a character, that, unlike the Bible, they could be read without danger of moral contamination or mental insanit}'. Yet the malicious fable invented by the early biogra- phers of Luther, that the Bible was an unknown book when that apostate monk threw off his cowl and violated his vows, has been unblushingl}^ repeated by his follow- ers ever since, and no amount of testimony to the con- trary can induce some of them to withdraw the calum- ny, much less apologize for it. In Great Britain and Ireland, everybody who cared to inquire, knew from the beginning that the circulation of the Bible among their flocks was not only sanctioned butactually encouraged by the Catholic clergy. Yet large numbers of Protestants there still persisted in believing and even publicly pro- claiming the truth of the slanderous statement, which, after being fabricated by Luther's historians, was im- ported into England. As all other means had failed to convince the Protestant public, that in this as well as many other matters pertaining to Catholic belief and practice its confidence had been shamefully abused bv its teachers, the English and Scotch hierarch}' in 1826 put forth a Declaration of Catholic principles, accom- panied by an Address from the British Catholics to their Protestant fellow-countrymen, which bore the signatures ' Vide Bibliotheca Maxima Patriim, Tom. xxiii. Effects of Indiscriminate Bible Reading. 531 of ten Catholic peers, nine Catliolic baronets, and ncarh a hundred Catholic gentlemen of great respectabiiit \ . Both documents were deposited in the British Museum, that they might remain there as a standing testimony of Catholic belief, and a solemn protest against the foul means employed by the traducers of that belief. The following from the Declaration, refers to the subject (jii which we are now engaged, and speaks for itself: '*As to translations of the Holy Scriptures into mod- ern languages, the Catholic Church requires, that none should be put into the hands of the faithful, but such as are acknowledged by ecclesiastical authority to be ac- curate, and conformable to the sense of the original. There never was a general law of the Catholic Church prohibiting the reading of authorized translations of the Scriptures; but, considering. that many, by their igno- rance and evil dispositions, have perverted the meaning of the sacred text to their own destruction, the Catholic Church has thought it prudent to make a regulation that the faithful should be guided in this matter by the advice of their respective pastors." " The Catholics in England of mature years, have permission to read authentic and approved translations of the Holy Scriptures, with explanatory notes, and are exhorted to read them in the spirit of piety, humility, and obedience." " Pope Pius VII., in a Rescript dated April 18, 1820, and addressed to the vicars-apostolic in England, earn- estly exhorts them to confirm the people committed to their spiritual care in faith and good works, and to that end to encourage them to read books of pious in- struction, and particularly the Holy Scriptures, in trans- lations approved by ecclesiastical authority; because, to those who are well disposed, nothing can be more useful, more consoling, or more animating, tiian the reading of the Sacred Scrii)tures; understood in their 532 The Canon of the Old Testament. true sense, they serve to confirm the faith, to support the hope, and to inflame the charity of the true Chris- tian." The archbishops and bishops of Ireland, in the same year, published a similar Declaration of Principles, in which, among other statements, they affirmed, that " The Catholics in Ireland of mature years are permitted to read authentic and approved translations of the Holy Scriptures, with explanatory notes, and are exhorted to use them in the spirit of piety, humility, and obedi- ence." There never has been a country, whether exclusively or partiall}' Catholic, whose hierarchy with their flocks would hesitate to subscribe to the sentiments expressed in these extracts. These statements, when they were made, were widely published throughout Great Britain and Ireland. They, as already remarked, were even de- posited permanently in a public institution, where they were accessible to all who cared to read them, as it their authors feared not to challenge contradiction ; yet after that Protestant writers were to be found who maintained that the Church was opposed to the circula- tion of the Scriptures. And well it would be for the credit of the religion which these writers professed, if as a class they had already become extinct, wherever the English language is spoken. For surely there is nothing but disgrace to be gained in the end by the re- petition of a statement, which enlightened Protestant critics have long since rejected as false. The few, who from time to time still try to fan into flames the smoul- dering embers of religious bigotry b}^ a reproduction of this threadbare slander, can in most matters be just, generous, courteous, and truthful ; but the moment they undertake to deal with the doctrine and discipline of the Church, all these humane characteristics disappear, so that Catholics are no way surprised on finding these operations of Bible Soeieties. 533 gentlemen making- use of language in reference even to the First Bishop of Christendom, which they would be too polite to employ when writing about the Grand Lama. It is quite possible that, notwithstanding all that has been done by Catholic writers who have preceded us to prove that American Catholics have been amply provided by the direction of their pastors with various editions of the zvhole Bible, a privilege denied to their followers by the reformers, there may still be found in this countrv a few of that once numerous class of ])cr- sons who, inheriting the prejudices introduced froTii Great Britain and Ireland by their forefathers, still be- lieve that the general reading of the wScriptures is forbid- den by the Pope, the bishops and the priests carr3'ing out his instructions in the matter. For the information, therefore, of all such we beg to direct attention to the following decree of the Second Plenai-y Council of Balti- more in 1866, remarking, as we do so, that this decree was simplv the re-enactment of one passed in a previous council held in the same city. " We direct therefore that the Douay version, which has been received in all the churches whose members speak the English language, be retained by all means. But the bishops will take care that all editions of that version, both of the Old and New Testament, shall hereafter be made after the most approved copy, to be designated by themselves, and. shall be provided with notes taken only from the Holy Fathers of the Church or learned Catholic writers." ' Perhaps that decree was displeasing to the Pope. Like all decrees of similar councils, that one, before becoming law, had to be submitted to him. Did he condemn it ? Quite the contrary. For, in replying to the President of the Council, he said that, " a revision of the Douay version seems opportune ; and although the Holy Sec • Cone. Phn. Ball. IT., Ada el Decreta, pp. 14, 15. 534 Tf^^ Canon of tJte Old Testameiit. is averse to sanctioning versions of the kind with its approbation, it considers you will perform a work in itself useful and conformable to the wishes of the Balti- more Council of 1858, if, after inviting the assistance of divines familiar with biblical science, and collecting togeth'er not only various editions of the Douay version, but even other English versions besides the Douay version, if such be extant, and employing other means specified in the decree, your Grace would undertake the correction of the aforesaid version." * ' Cone. Flen. Bait. 11.^ p. cxxxviii. CHAPTER XXXVI. Not only in England but in all other Christian Countries was the Bible translated into the Vernacular of each long before the invention OF the Printing Press, the deutero books being IN EACH CASE MIXED AMONG THE OTHERS. So far we have endeavored to ascertain all that has been done by the Church, from first to last, to give the Bible to the people of England and others elsewhere speaking the same language. The result is before the reader. And, although the records of her action in ages preceding the Reformation is far from complete, on account of the wholesale destruction to which those records were consigned at the latter period, that result shows that during those ages the reading of the Script- ures in the Latin Vulgate, or in such authentic transla- tions as existed at the time, instead of being forbidden in Great Britain, was actually encouraged there by the ecclesiastical authorities. We have also seen what has been done bv the Church to secure the same privilege for the other nations of Western Christendom since the time when the printing press was substituted for the pen, in multiplying copies of the sacred volume. And we now propose to glance at the various efforts which were made under her auspices or after her example, before that time, to bring the Scriptures to the knowl- edge of those other nations by the same means.-versions in the vernacular of each. Let us begin with- Germany.-Ahont the middle of the fourth centurv 536 536 The Canon of the Old Testament. Ulphilas (Little Wolf), a bishop of the Moeso-Goths (now Wallachians), a German tribe, translated the Script- ures into their language, a dialect of the Gothic from which modern German is derived. Of this Gothic Old Testament nothing but a few fragments of II. Esdras or Nehemias have been preserved, though portions of the other books have been discovered. Of the New Testa- ment belonorino- to this version a o:reat deal has been printed in detached parts, several of them having been discovered by the indefatigable Cardinal Mali. Ulphilas translated his Old Testament from the Septuagint, and his New from Greek manuscripts. Another version in the German of his time was made by order of Charle- magne, and Louis the Debonair is said to have caused another German version to have been made soon after. And Otfrid about the same time wrote a rhythmical paraphrase of the Gospels in German, which is still ex- tant. In fact, the appearance of new versions from time to time seems to have kept pace with the progress of the language. For we find among the earliest books printed a German translation of the Scriptures dated 1466, which had been made some time previously by an unknown writer. Two printed copies of this Bible, without any date, are preserved in the Senatorial library of Leipsic, one having in writing the date 1467. This Bible, besides these editions, was republished at least sixteen times, with improvements, before 1534, the year in which Luther's translation appeared. Franee. — So far as known, the earliest attempt at trans- lating the Scriptures into French resulted in the execu- tion of a version of the books of Kings and MacJiabecs re- ferred by Le Long to the eleventh century. Several manuscript versions of the Psalms still survive, which are supposed to have been made in the twelfth century. "In the eleventh and twelfth centuries," says Hallam,' ' Middle Ages, part ii., p. 573. The Printing Press preceded by various Wrsions. 537 "we find translations of the Psalms, Job, Kin^^s, and Macliabecs in French." Jean de Vignes, at the reqnest of Jane of Burgundy Queen of Philip, King of France, translated the Epistles and Gospels of the Missal. A catalogue of the library collected by Charles V., King of France, and dated 1373, contains a notice of a volume comprising the books of Proverbs, Psalms, Wisdom, Ecclesiastes, Ecciesiastieus, Isaias, and eighteen chapters of Jeremias. In the same century, and by order of the same monarch, Raoul de Presles translated the Bible into French as far as Psalms or Proverbs. Italy. — The first version of the Scriptures into Italian appears to have been made in the latter part of the thir- teenth century by James a Voragine, a Dominican monk, afterwards Archbishop of Genoa. But the Italians may be said to have possessed all along before that in the Latin Vulgate a Bible in their vei-nacular. Spain.— 'In the reign of Alfonso the Wise (d. 1284) the Bible by his direction was translated into the Castilian dialect. Reference has already been made ' to another Spanish version, printed in 1478, but written about 1405, and therefore several 3'ears before the printing press was introduced. It was the work of a Carthusian monk, Boniface Ferrer, if not of his sainted brother Vincent, who at least assisted in its preparation, and died in 1419. Indeed, according to the testimony of Carranza, Arch- bishop of Toledo (d. 1576), as quoted by Balmcz, " it ap- pears that the Scriptures were translated in Spain into the vulgar tongue "by order of the Catholic sovereigns, at the time when the Moors and Jews were allowed to live among the Christians according to their own law." Portugal. — As early as the reign of John, surnamed the Great, who governed the country from 1385 to 1433, the New Testament was translated into Portuguese, accord- ing to the historian, Emanuel Sousa. ^ Supra, p. 440. - Protestantism and Catholicity Compared, p. 215. 538 The Canon of the Old Testament. Flanders. — From a fragment of a manuscript Bible written at Worcester, in 1210, it is learned, as we are told by Usher, that the Bible had been translated into Flemish before that time. Poland. — About the close of the fourteenth century the Bible was translated into the Polish language by order of St. Hedwige, wife of King Ladislaus IV.; and during the same reign there seems to have been a second version by And. Jassowitz. Bohemia. — As John Huss in one of his controversial tracts alludes to a Bohemian New Testament, a version of at least that part of the Scriptures in the Bohemian language must have been made, at all events, about the beginning of the fifteenth century, if not earlier. Szveden. — A Swedish version of the Bible was made in the fourteenth century by the direction of Sweden's sainted Queen Brigitte. /eeland.— J on:is Arnagrimus, one of the disciples of the celebrated astronomer, Tycho Brahe, mentions an Ice- landic version which must have been made as early as 1279, for it was extant at that time. Hinigary. — We learn from Danko,' that according to an ancient author of a life of Blessed Margaret, daugh- ter of Bela IV. (d. 1270), she was accustomed to read the Psalms and Passion of Our Lord in her own vernacular. A manuscript copy of a version of the Scriptures in the Hungarian language, made by Thomas and Valentine, Friars Minor, in the fourteenth century, is still preserved at Vienna. It contains the books of Ruth, JuditJi, Esther, Baruch, part of Daniel, part of Malachias, and the other Minor Prophets complete, but is in a mutilated condi- tion. The version has been made from the Latin Vul- gate, and is provided with Jerome's prologues. There is reason to believe, that it at first comprised the other sacred books, for there is preserved at Munich another ' De S. Script., vol. I., jj. 244, etc. The Printing Press preceded by 1 'a r ions I 'ersions. 539 manuscript, containing a Hungarian vcrsi(^n of the four Gospels bj the same authors. Fragments of a Hunga- rian version, which some suppose to have proceeded from the same source, are to be found in a manuscript be- longing to the episcopal library of Alba Carolina, a town and bishop's see in Transylvania. These frag- ments consist of a mutilated translation of Job and the Psalms, together with portions of the Gospels and Epis- tles by a later hand. Friar Bartholy,a man of noble ex- traction and a member of the order of St. Paul the Hermit, sometime before 1456 (for he died in that year), translated the entire Bible into the Hungarian lanefuaire. The people of Hungary, therefore, like the Cathohcs of other countries, had the Bible in their own language long before the invention of the printing press. Sclavonia. — In the ninth century SS. Cyril and Metho- dius, brothers, whose feast by the direction of the pres- ent Sovereign Pontiff is celebrated on the fifth of July, translated the Sacred Scriptures into the language of the Slavonians (Bulgarians). The version was made from the Septuagint cop}- of the Old Testament and from Greek manuscripts of the New. It is to be observed, however, that according to some critics, Cyril and Methodius translated into Slavonian only certain por- tions of Scriptures. Yet, existing manuscripts show that a complete version was made in that language not later than the fourteenth century.' The two sainted missionaries, who were the first to present the Scriptures in a language which was the basis of the various dialects spoken by the Moravians, Bohemians, Poles, Mucovitcs. Russians, Bosnians, Servians, Croatians, and Bulgarians, converted to the faith several of the tribes in the neigh- borhood of those among whom they principally labored. They also invented the Slavonian alphabet, and trans- lated the Liturgy into the Slavonian tongues, which, 1 Danko De S. Script., vol. I., p. 239. 540 TJic Canon of the Old Testament. besides the Latin, Greek, Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopian, and Armenian, is the only one in which the Church allows the divine offices to be performed. But these are all dead languages. Ireland. — What was done in earl}^ times to provide the people of Ireland with the Scriptures in their ver- nacular we have no means of ascertaining. If Hallam, a writer not disposed to indulge in extravagant praise of Ireland, felt justified in saying that in the sev- enth century, " When France and Italy had sunk in deeper ignorance, the Irish monasteries stood certainly in a very respectable position," and that, " that island both drew students from the Continent, and sent forth men of comparative eminence into its schools and churches," ' one can hardly suppose, that no translation of the Scriptures was made b}- those Irish scholars in their mother tongue. Still, we can find no trace of any such version before the fourteenth century, when it appears one was made by Richard Fitz Ralph, Archbishop of Armagh, who died in 1347. According to Hartwell Horne,^ William Daniel, Protestant archbishop of Tuam, (d. 1628), translated the New Testament into Irish, and in 1629, with the aid of an Irish scholar named King, the Old Testament was translated by William Bedell, Prot- estant Bishop of Kilmore and Ardagh (d. 1641). King, who was ignorant probably of all languages except Irish and English, translated the English Protestant Old Testament into Irish, and Bedell, who may have had some knowledge of Irish, compared King's \ersion, it is said, with the originals. The entiie Protestant Bible having thus been translated into Irish, earnest efforts were made to secure a circulation for it among the na- ■ IJteratu7-e of Europe, Part I., ch. i'. ^ 7. - Le Long, Biblicl/ieca Sacra, lom. II., p. 369. Boerner ed.; A'oiiveiu tito<;- raphie, vol. XLII., p. 178. •' Intiod. Biographical Appendix to vol. II., p. 87. The Printing Press preceded by various Wrsions. 541 lives. But they, to the disgust and surprise ol its authors and patrons, were no more disposed to accept an Irish Protestant Bible than tliev were to coinitenance the Protestant clergy, which England thrust upon them. Very probably, however, even before Fitz-Ralph's translation appeared, efforts in the same direction had been made by Irish scholars. This conclusion vSeems easily reached by a careful study of a manuscript pre- served in the University (formerly the Cathedral) Li- brary of Wurtzburg in Germany, where an Irish monas- tery long existed, and was frequently visited by Irish ecclesiastics in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Until quite recently it was hardly known that the manuscript in question existed. At last several quotations from it, which appeared in the learned work of the German scholar Zeuss on Celtic Grammar, directed general atten- tion to it, and it was pronounced by Zeuss himself and other Celtic antiquarians, a production of the eighth or beginning of the ninth century. It contains a Latin ver- sion of the Epistles of St. Paul, as far as Hebrew vii. 5, accompanied with an Irish gloss of the sacred text be- tween the Latin lines and in the margin. The hand-writ- ing of three scribes is discernible in it. But it contains no date and no name, and has been appropriately desig- nated Codex Paiilinus. This interesting relic of ancient Irish scholarship was of course the work of some Irish scribes at Wurtzburg, or in their own native Isle, who had it conveyed to their monastery in Germany, or left it there with the hope that it might be preserved to pos- terity. An English translation of it was published in Great Britain in 1887. And in the following year several portions of this translation appeared in Dubhn. As many of the glosses are simply Irish translations of the Paulme text, it would seem that the Irish people became famil- iar with the scriptures at a very early period by means of versions in their native tongue. 542 The Canon of the Old Testajnent. With the exception of this Irish Protestant Bible, men- tioned above, all the versions just enumerated were made before the invention of the printing- press with the ap- proval of the Church or of her children who labored in her name, and were actuated by her spirit as well as en- couraged by her example. But this enumeration would not be complete, were it not to include also those various other versions, which have been executed almost all of them by writers belonging to her communion for the use of the Christian communities throughout Asia and Africa, as the Syrians, Armenians, Arabians. Egyptians, Ethio- pians, and Georgians, together with the versions made into several of the dialects spoken by some of these peoples. Besides these, there are probably many other versions, it may be of a later date, and of which very little is known, but all originating in the anxiety which the Church has always exhibited to give to the faithful the Scriptures in their own vernaculars, whenever there was reason to believe that that favor would not be abused. Thus John Pinkerton, ' a Scotch antiquarian, who died in Paris in 1826, found in that city translations of the Bible into the dialects of Northern Asia and Thibet, each with the characters of the language in which it was made. These translations were preserved in the archives of the Propaganda, and constituted part of the plunder which Napoleon I. carried awa}' from Rome to Paris. It were unnecessary, even if possible, to give a list of all such versions. Mere reference to them is all that the present work calls for. Indeed, they are here al- luded to only in a general way, as they serve, in connec- tion with those made in Western Christendom, to show that the policy of the Holy See has been at all times that which prompted Pope Damasus to encourage St. Jerome in undertaking those labors, which have re- ' Encyclopedia Americana, vol. II., p. 93. (Boston 1856.) The Frmting Press preceded by various J 'ersions. 54 ^ dounded so much to the purihcation of the sacred text and the elucidation of its meaning. Circumstances did not always require the Roman Pontiffs to express in acts or in words their sentiments on the subject now before us. But when it became necessary for them to do so, no one can doubt that their language was uni- versally such as to show, that they considered it an essential part of their office to guard the integrity of the Sacred Scriptures, and to encourage the study of them by the laity as well as by the clergy. Gelasius in the fifth centurv, Innocent 111. in the thirteenth, Eusfe- nius IV. in the fifteenth, Gregory XIII. in the sixteenth, Pius VI. and Pius VII. in the eighteenth, and Pius IX. in the nineteenth, not to mention others, did simply, each in his own way, and according to the nature of the case before him, what Damasus had done in the fourth. It appears therefore from the facts already stated, and confirmed by the testimony of Protestant as well as Catholic writers, ' that, before ever a printed bc^ok ap- peared, the Scriptures had been translated not less than twenty-nine times into the principal languages spoken in Europe. These languages, each entirely distinct from the other, amounted to. about fourteen. Into some of them the Scriptures had been translated frequently, into others but once. As many as seven of the entire num- ber were made for the people of England, and of these as well as of all the rest several contained the entire Bible. At least three translations, — two complete and one partial — had been made previous to the period just mentioned, for the use of those who spoke the German lanofuaofe. The number of translations which have been made since then into the languages of West- ' Several of these writers have been already mentioned in the preceding re- marks. To these may be added Dr. Spaliiing in his //«/. vf the Prot. Reform. I.,ch, xi.; a writer in \.\ie Dublin Review, vol.1.; Dr. Wright, Kitto's Cyclopedia, ( Versions. ) 544 The Canon of the Old Testament. ern Christendom, of course far exceeds that of those produced in the previous period ; of the former at least five are written in EngHsh, and probabh' a greater number in German. And those English and German versions which preceded the printing press, as well as all others written since, generally contained the entire Bible, and have,' many of them, served as sources of in- numerable copies or editions. It is, therefore, no exaggeration to sav, that before Martin Luther gave, as his admirers boast, the Bible to the people, the Catholic Church had already given them the genuine Scriptures in their own vernaculars, some fifty times, without counting the written copies made of manuscript versions, or editions issued of printed versions, all executed not only with her permis- sion but under her encouragement. In the ordinary course of her ministrations, and in the absence of all rivalry and opposition, she had repeatedly sanctioned, and through her clergy, even undertaken and accomplished the production of version after version, for the people of England and Germany, ages before Luther, T3'ndale, and Coverdale conspired to mutilate and pervert the sacred contents of the inspired volume by assuming the role of translators. Nor should it be forgotten, that all those vernacular versions, which preceded the reformation in Europe, whatever their language, having been made either from the Vulgate or Septuagint, both containing the Tridentine canon, included the deutero Old Testament Books. So thoroughly convinced were the people everywhere, that these books were part of God's writ- ten word, that neither Luther nor King James I. dared to exclude them from their translations. Had they done so, these translations would have been summarily re- jected by the people. The most they could do, and they did do it, was to remove these books from the places The Printing Press preceded by various Versions. 545 they had occupied all along, insert them at the end of the Old Testament, and call them Apocrypha, a word of whose import the rank and file of Protestants at the time had no conception, and to which they attached no importance, just as they did not consider the relative position assigned any particular book or number of books a vital matter. They had in these vitiated ver- sions all the books their fathers had before them, that was enough. Of the character of these versions they were unable to judge. The purport as well as the ne- cessity of these changes, however, gradually grew upon many Protestants, especially in Great Britain, under the influence of the teaching they received, till at last the British and Foreign Bible Society, as we have seen, as if conscious of its own infallibility, by a definitive sen- tence, from which no appeal was allowed and against which no protest was heeded, declared, that thQApocrj. pha were no part of the Sacred Scripture, and not only forbade its publishers to issue, or its agents to distribute Bibles containing the condemned books, but even di- rected that its members should not assist, nor its funds be expended in the circulation of Bibles in which those books were inserted. Yet these are the people whose denunciations of the tyrannical and arbitrary policy, which they falsely attribute to the Church of Rome, are applauded by the silly enthusiasts who love to swell the crowd at Bible meetings and pan-Protestant con- ventions. CHAPTER XXXVII. Protestant Confessions of Faith on the Canon of Scripture. Having, in the preceding pages said all that seemed necessary regarding the opinions expressed on the Can- on of Scripture, and the versions written by the early reformers, and, having also stated what has been done by the Church to place the Scriptures in the hands oi the laity, as well as explained the principles, by which her action in this matter is regulated, we are now at liber- ty to discuss the views advanced on the Canon in those declarations commonlv called " Confessions of Faith," which have been publiclv set forth by themselves, as standards of belief professed by the various Protestant denominations. In the first Articles of Religion, amounting to forty-two, which the Anglican denomination in 1552 adopted and promulgated with the roval sanction, no catalogue of the Scriptures appeared.^ Edward VI. and his spiritual advisers were probably willing that the people should continue to believe as they had always done, that God himself was the author of all the books commonly in- cluded in the Latin Vulgate, or in those translations of it which they and their forefathers had been accustomed to read ever since they became Christians. In fact, it was not until 1562^ that a new light, under the benign influence of Queen Elizabeth, burst upon the minds of those who shaped the policy of the Established Church ' Kitto's Cyclop., vol. I., p. 557. - Ibid. 546 In Protcstayii Confessions of Faith. 547 and dictated the creed of its members. It is not said, nor was it claimed, that they, in this or any other matter, were guided by a special revelation, or by the possession of superior knowledge. But the substitution of thirty- nine articles for forty-two was the result. And in this instance the change was approved, if not made, by the lady who, as sovereign, exercised supreme power in spiritual as well as temporal affairs. These thirty-nine articles are put forth as an expres- sion of the religious belief entertained by all who pro- fess Anglicanism, even though unable to agree about the meaning of some of them. It is in Article VI. that a list of those books is given which alone Anglicans receive as canonical. That list is followed by another, in which are included, besides III. and IV. Esdras, and the Prayer of Manasses, the deutero books of the Old Testament. " Holy Scripture," says the Article, " con- taineth all things necessary to salvation, so that whatso- ever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite to salvation." Very few of the points inculcated in the other articles would stand the test here established. Indeed, there is no truth that has not been proved an error, and no error that has not been shown to be a truth, on the authority of the Scriptures by some, who have appealed to its pages. " In the name of the Holy Scripture," continues the Article, " we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church." Then follows a list " of the names and number of the Canonical Books." after which the Arti- cle adds, "and the other books (as Hierome saith), the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners ; but yet doth it not apply them to establish anv doctrine ; such as these following : The Third Book 548 The Canon of the Old Testament. of Esdras, the Fourth Book of Esdras, the Book of Tobias^ the Book of Judith, the rest of the Book of Esther, the Book of Wisdom, fesus the Son of SiracJi, BarncJi, the PropJiet, the Song of the Three Children, the Story of Susanna, of Bel and the Dragon, the Prayer of Manasses, the First Book of Maccabees, the Second Book of Machabees.'' Probably be- cause the canonicity of some of them had been denied by Luther and other reformers, there is no Hst given of the New Testament Books. The Article, in referring to them immediately after the preceding list, merely says,, " All the Books of the New Testament, as they are com- monly received, we do receive, and account them canon- ical." But there can be no doubt, that the godly framers of Article VI. intended to include, among the New Testament Books deutero as well as proto books, — books that had been doubted as well as those that had never been doubted. For the former, as well as the lat- ter, have always been found in English Protestant Bibles, unaccompanied by any note implying that thev were ever considered of inferior authority by any one. The entire Article, from beginning to end, is untrue. For by several respectable writers i)i the CJmrcJi the canonicity of more than one of those Old Testament books, which it pronounces canonical, has been doubted or denied. ' Besides, there are several of " the other books," which, neither " Hierome " nor any one else (Queen Elizabeth's divines excepted) " saith, the Church doth read for example, etc.," or any other purpose what- ever. In fact, St. Jerome is grossly misrepresented by these divines. For in his Preface to the Books of Solomon, to which Article VI. evidently alludes, the Saint is not only silent about Esdras III. and IV., but has not a word about " The Prayer of Manasses." In his Preface to Daniel he indeed mentions " the history of Susanna, the Hvmn of the Three Children," and as he calls it, " the ' Vide Hody, De Bibliornm Textibus, pp. 646-648. Ill Protestant Confessions of faith. 549 fables of Bel and the Dragon ; " but he does not even inti- mate what the Article makes him say, that "the Church doth read them for example of life and edificatiun of manners," or reads them at all for that sole purpose; though she really reads and has always read them, just as she has always read the other canonical books. On the contrary, it would seem from St. Jerome's own words, that in his time the same use was made of those fahilas as of all other portions of Scripture, else why were they, as he remarks in the same Preface, " dis- persed throughout the entire world." Such universal use of any Scriptural book, by the entire clergy as well as laity throughout the world (for this is implied in the statement of St. Jerome), might not be conclusive proof of its canonicity. It would, however, be strong presump- tive evidence of the fact. And Mi^hen, as in the case be- fore us, that evidence is confirmed by the solemn verdict of an ecumenical council, the fact in question becomes one about which it would be extreme folly to entertain a doubt. Dr. Wright, of Trinity College, Dublin, perceived the blunder committed by the authors of the Thirt3'-nine Articles in including Esdras III. and IV. among the •other books referred to as uncanonical, and was candid enough to say, while alluding to Article VI. : " It is not, however, altogether correct in including in the number of books thus referred to by St. Jerome as read by the Church the third and fourth books of Esdras. These books were equally rejected by the Church of Rome and by Luther." ^ The critic might have added, " The Pra3'er of Manasses " as also rejected by the Church of Rome. The same learned writer has not failed to ob- serve, that Article VI. is directly contradicted in two instances, by the Church of England in her homilies, and in a third instance in her preface to the book of 1 Kitto's Cyclop., Vol. I., 557- 550 The Canon of t lie Old Testament. "Common Prayer," the very volume in which the sixth as well as the rest of the thirty -nine Articles ai-e proposed as a creed to be held b}' all conscientious Anglicans. " In the first book of Homilies," he goes on to say, "published in 1547, and the second in 1560, both con- firmed by the thirty -fifth Article, of 1562, the deutero canonical books are cited as 'Scriptures,' and treated with the same reverence as the other books of the Bible ; and in the preface to the Book of Common Prayer they are alluded to as being ' agreeable to, the Holy Scriptures.' ' In an article on the Book of Judith Dr. Wright remarks that "' Judith, with the other deu- tero canonical books, has been at all times read in the Church, and lessons are taken from it in the Church of England in course." "^ Elsewhere he says that " Bel and the Dragon is read. ... in the Church of England on the 23d of November," and " Susanna is read in the Anglican Church on the 22d of November." " Discussing the authority of the Book of Tobias, he observes, that "its influence is still manifest in the Anglican liturgical forms, as in the offertory (Tobit. iv. 7, 8); also in the Litany, ' ne vindictam sumas de peccatis meis, neque reminiscaris delicta mea, vel parentum meorum.' In the preface to the marriage service there is also a mani- fest allusion to Tob. vi. 17, according to the Vulgate: Hi qui conjugium ita suscipiunt, ut Deum a se et a sua mente excludant, et suce libidini ita vacant, sicut equus et mulus, quibus non est intellectus. " Chaps, i., ii., vii., and viii., are read in the course of lessons. It has been supposed from a comparison of Rev. xxi. 18 with Tobit. xiii. 21, 22, that the author of the Apocalypse must have been acquainted with the book of Tobit." * We take the liberty of supplementing Dr. Wright's observations, by remarking that among the " Tables of ' Kitto's Cyclop. Ubaldi. Introd. Vol. II., 426. Smith The O. T. in the yewish Church, p. 172. note 6, p. 163. 2 Eusebius Hist. Eccles. Lib. iv. cap. 26. In Protestant Confessions of Faith. 551 Lessons of Holy Scripture to be read at morning and evening prayer throughout the year " ' by all Episcopa- lian ministers, several lessons are taken from Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus ; ministers and members being thus en- couraged to believe, that the canonicity of these books is no more to be questioned than that of the other books, from which selections are made for morning and even- ing prayers. If ever there was a time " when iniquity lied to itself," ' it was when the Articles of Religion and the Homilies of the Anglican Church were devised. For the books just mentioned, though used in the service of that communion indiscriminately with the other books of the Scripture, as we have just seen, and even desig- nated " Scripture " and " Holy Scriptures " by the authors of the Anglican formulas, have been stigmatized " apocryphal " in the works of the most learned Angli- can divines, and in the Anglican authorized version. And from that version they were, as we have seen, at last absolutely excluded by an arbitrary decree of the British and Foreign Bible Society. The victory then gained by Scotch Presbyterianism over effete Angli- canism seems to have been so crushing, that the authors of the latest revision of the authorized version had not the courage to venture a single allusion to the Old Tes- tament deutero books. The consequence has been, that at this moment English speaking Protestants, generally, know as little about these books as if they had never been written, or as if they had not at all times, like those still retained in King James's Bible, been, as inspired documents, a source whence Christian writers derived many of the arguments by which they maintained the cause of revealed religion, as well as those moral ' The Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments, etc. According to the tise of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America. New York. 1845. - Ps. xxvi. 12. 552 The Canon of the Old Testament. principles which served as stimulants to the faith and piety of those who professed that religion. The Helvetic Confession, dated March i, 1566, is in a great measure the work of Beza, the successor of Calvin ; and of Bullinger, the successor of Zuinglius. It thus re- fers to the deutero books of the Old Testament : " We do not deny that certain books of the Old Testament were named by the ancients apocryphal, by others ec- clesiastical, as being read in the churches, but not ad- duced for authority in matters of belief : as Augustine, in the i8th book of the City of God, ch. 38th, relates, that the names of the books of certain prophets were adduced in the Books of Kings, but adds that these were not on the Canon, and those we have were sufficient for piety." The authors of this confession, whether consciously or otherwise, seem t© have misrepresented St. Augustine. It is not to the deutero books that he refers, but to books mentioned in " the history of the kings of Judah and Israel," as the Book of Nathan the Prophet, the Book of Gad the Prophet, and others, that have been lost. As it stands in the above extracts, the statement attributed to St. Augustine is none of his. It is not easy to see why his name has been introduced by Bullinger and Co., unless for the purpose of inducing their deluded followers by a fraudulent appeal to his authority to tear the deutero books out of their Old Testament. The way in which the authors of this Confession have apparently garbled the words of the Saint, and perverted their meaning, would persuade an ordinary reader that the illustrious Bishop of Hippo had condemned the deutero books as apoeryphal, or designated them as x^QvCiy ecclesiastical : whereas he did neither, but actually placed these very books in the same rank with all others belonging to the Old Testa- ment.* By what foul means does error attain its end ! What venerable names are invoked to justify the muti- 1 De Doctrina Christiana, 1. ii., cap. 8. In the Protestant Confessions of Faith. 5 5 :? lation of the Canon ! In London it is that of St. Jerome ; in Geneva and Zurich, that of St. Augustine. The Gallic Confession— distinguishes between the proto and deutero books of the Old Testament, by de- claring the former to be the rule and standard of faitli, not only in consequence of the Church's consent, but on account of the testimony and intrinsic persuasion of the Spirit, by whom we are enabled to draw a distinction between them and others not of the same class, which, though useful, are not such as can establish any article of faith. Great importance was generally attached at the time to the internal suggestions of the Spirit, a method of argumentation which defied the assaults of reason, tradition, and even Scripture itself. The Belgic Confession, — like the preceding, per- mits the reading of the deutero books, but denies that any doctrine can be proved by them. The WaMensian Confession — also makes a marked dis- tinction between the proto and deutero books of the Old Testament. This Confession was once supposed to have been written as early as 11 20. But it has been shown to have been the work of a Protestant, about 1520. Dr. Davidson admits that " It is not genuine," ' a polite way of saying it is 2i forgery. Forgery was one of those arts in which the reformers attained such remarkable proficiency, as to baffle until recently the efforts of the most expert detectives. In fact, Reuss confesses that the " confession" in which the Waldensians are made to say. that they drew a distinction between the proto and deutero books of the Old Testament is " forged." ' Be- sides Davidson has proved, that "the Canon of the Waldensians must have coincided at first with that of the Roman Church." 1 Encyclopedia Britannica, Article Canon. ^ History 0/ the Canon of the Holy Saipttires, p. 264. 3 The Canon of the Bible, p. 241. 554 The Canon of the Old Testament. The Confession of the DuteJi Churches — dated 1566, after enumerating the books which alone Protestants gener- ally consider canonical, and "respecting which no con- troversy existed, " adds: "We make a distinction be- tween them and such as are called apocryphal, which may indeed be read in the church, and proofs adduced from them, so far as they agree with the canonical books ; but their authority and force are by no means such that any article of faith may be certainly declared from their testimony alone, still less that they can impugn or detract from the authority of the others." Then, as- signing a reason why they consider the other books canonical, the authors of this confession say that " it is not so much because the Church receives them, as that the Holy Ghost testifies to our consciences that they have come from God ; and chiefly on this account, be- cause they of themselves bear testimony to their own authority and sanctity, so that the blind may see the fulfilment of all things predicted in them as it were with the senses." Those Dutchmen must have been much more sharp-sighted than most readers then or since. The West7Jiinster Confession — was the result of a com- promise between a number of pious, godly, and judicious divines, as they were called, composed of Presbyterians, Puritans, and Independents, whom the Lords and Com- mons of the British Parliament in 1643 selected to meet at Westminster " for the settling of the government and the liturgy of the Church of England." Episcopalians were also invited to take part in the deliberations, but they declined to do so, probably suspecting that, as the result proved, an assembly influenced by such strong Calvinistic tendencies as the members were known to possess generally, would deal a death blow, not only to what was then denounced as popery and idolatry, but to prelacy, superstition, the Anglican Liturgy, and the Book of Common Prayer. The dissensions that pre- In the Protestant Confessions of rait h. 555 vailed at the convention were so grave and numerous, that its labors were not concluded until 1652. It was in 1646 that the godly divines completed what they called their " Confession of Faith." After enumerating: the books commonly received as canonical by Protestants, but ascribing only thirteen epistles to St. Paul, these Westminster theologians proceed to say that " the books called Apocrypha, not being of Divine confirma- tion, are no part of the Canon of Scripture ; and there- fore are of no authority in the Church of God ; nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings." Then, expounding the reasons, for which their canonical books were to be received as the Word of God, they declare that " the authority of Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not on the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God, the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God. We may be moved and induced by the Church to a high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scriptures ; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, etc., are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God ; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and Divine authority thereof is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, being witness by and with the w^ord in our hearts." Here we have simply the Dutch manifesto intensified. The Westminster deliverance amounts to this: "the Scriptures are the Word of God, because they are the Word of God ; " and if this argument will not produce conviction on the ungodly, tell all such reprobates that " the Holy Spirit declares to the inward man, the Bible is the pure Word of God, and no mistake." The men, who drew up the preceding exposition of belief regard- ing the Scriptures, must have had unbounded confidence 556 The Canon of the Old Testament. in the credulity of their followers ; and the latter must have placed themselves outside the pale of reason, so far as the credentials of the Bible were concerned, when they believed what had been declared by their leaders at Westminster on the subject. In fact, by pursuing- the same line of argument, the disciples of Mahomet could have no difficulty in proving, at least to themselves, that the Koran is a divine revelation. Nor, when our dis- senting brethren are seriously told by their teachers, that the Bible is proved to be the Word of God by the application of such texts as those recommended by the Westminster divines, need we be surprised on learning, that the Apostolical Canons and Constitutions, with the various liturgies ascribed to St. Peter, St. Mark, etc., were considered by two such learned Protestant schol- ars as William Whiston and John Ernest Grabe to be of equal authority with anything the inspired Apostles ever wrote.* Yet the formula, in which the Westmins- ter theologians declared their reasons for maintaining that some books are " divine" and others "human," is substantially identical with that put forward by the Dutch, French, Belgian, Bohemian, Scotch, and other Protestant Churches, "" and appears to have been adopted word by word by Presbyterians of all shades and colors throughout the New as well as the Old World. The period that witnessed the production of those startling manifestos, was specially characterized by the- ories regarding the nature, purpose, and use of the Scriptures, which no Protestant scholar would now un- dertake to defend. Prominent among those theories was one, according to which everything in the Bible, as it then stood, was to be received by those, with whom that volume was the sole rule of faith, as the work of God Himself. Thus the Siviss Declaration of 1675 in- 1 Kitto's Cyclop., vol., I., p. 177. "•'■ Vide Reuss, History of the Canon of the Holy Scriptures, ch. xvi. In the Protestant Confessions of Faith. 557 sists that '' the Hebrew Volume of the Old Testament, which we have received from the tradition of the Jew- ish Church, to which formerly the oracles of God were committed, and retain at the present day, both in its consonants, and in its vowels. — the points themselves, or at least the force of the points, — and both in its sub- stance and in its words is divinely inspired, so that, to- gether with the volume of the New Testament, it is the single and uncorrupted Rule of our faith and life, by whose standard, as by a touch-stone, all Versions which exist, whether Eastern or Western, must be tried, and wherever they var}^ be made conformable to it." ' Those who proposed and advocated this crude theorv did not know, that every single autograph of every book be- longing to the Old Testament had disappeared long before the Christian era. They were ignorant of the labor expended on the sacred text by the Masoretic doctors, and they of course took no account of the varia- tions to be found in that text as well as in that of the New Testament, the books of which as originallv written had also disappeared, not very long after the commence- ment of the Christian era ; another fact of which the authors of the Siviss Deelaration appear to have been ignorant. That deliverance of course has long since failed to find an advocate among Protestant scholars. In fact there is hardly one of the Confessions of Faith enumerated above, that would find at this day among the sects, which first adopted them, a single educated in- dividual disposed to defend all the doctrines enumer- ated therein. The Westminster Confession has probab- ly met, all along, with more hearty adherence among the various branches of the Presbyterian denomination than any other. Yet, at this writing, arrangements are being made, which propose to eliminate from that creed its distinctively Calvinistic elements. 1 Westcott, The Bible in the Church, p. 278. 558 TJie Canon of the Old Tcstanieiit. Along with other changes, which advanced scholar- ship and sounder criticism have produced in these con- fessions, is that in reference to the canon of the Old Testament. Among the latest and most progressive thinkers on this subject may be reckoned Westcott and Davidson of England. Each represents a large and influential school of critics, one among the members of the establishment, and the other among the non-con- formists. The former in summing up the testimony of the Eastern Church in regard to the canon, asserts that there the Book of '^Esther, indeed was on the whole less supported than Baruch, " ' and while stating the general conclusion, to which patristic evidence leads, he repeats this statement thus : " Indeed, on the whole, if Christian evidence alone be taken, it appears that there is less ev- idence for the reception of this Book [Esther] as canon- ical in the fullest sense, than for the reception of Baruch.'"^ Davidson goes so far as to recommend a readjustment of the Protestant canon, and while doing so declares that " Esther and Ecclesiastes cannot be put above Wisdom, ist Maccabees, Judith, Baruch, or Ecclesiasticus. The doctrine of immortality, clearly expressed in the Book of Wisdom, is not in Ecclesiast- es ; neither is God once named in the Book of Esther as author of the marvellous deliverances, which the chosen people are said to have experienced. The his- tory narrated in ist Maccabees is more credible than that in Esther. It is therefore misleading to mark off all apocryphal (deutero) books as Jiuman and all canoni- cal (proto) ones as divined ^ Of the canon received by modern Jews and their Protestant scholars he asserts that " It was not. . . . universally received even by the Jews; for Esther was omitted out of it by those from whom Melito got his catalogue in Palestine; while Sirach ' The Bible in the Church, p. 243. " Ibid. p. 294. ^ The Canon of the Bible, pp. 232, 263. In the Protestant Confessions of Faith. 559 was annexed to it as late as the beginning of the fourth century. Baruch was also added in several Jewish circles, doubtless on account of its supposed authorship. Thus 'the pure Hebrew canon' was not one and the same among all Jews; and therefore the phrase is mis- leading A stereotyped canon of the Old Testament, either among Jews or Christians of the first four cen- turies, which excluded all the Apocryphal (deutero) books and included all the canonical (proto) ones can- not be shown." ' 1 The Canon of the Bible, pp. 265, 266. CHAPTER XXXVIII. Protestant critics on the Protestant plan for SETTLING THE CaNON OF SCRIPTURE. An advocate of the Tridentine Canon may well be spared the necessity of proving, that the Westminster formula is dangerous because it fosters fanaticism, and absurd because it conflicts with the plainest dictates of reason, for all this has been done already, strange to say, by critics, who accepted the Protestant Canon. Thus Jeremiah Jones, a dissenting English minister, distinguished among his countrymen for his biblical knowledge, denounced, about the beginning of the last century, the irrational principle on which the creed makers proposed to determine what books of the Script- ure were canonical, and what Apocrj'phal. The occa- sion to do so presented itself to him, while engaged on A Nezv and Full Method of settling the Canonical authority of the New Testament. After admitting ' that " though there are considerable difficulties relating to the Canon of the Old Testament these are solved with much more ease than those of the New," he thus continues. " Can it be supposed, that out of a hundred books, or, as we may well suppose out of ten thousand, (for the argument will be just the same with the largest assign- able number) that private Christians, or even our most learned reformers, should by an internal evidence agree precisely on the number of twenty-seven, which are now esteemed canonical, induced thereto by some characters 1 Vol. I., pp. 2, 3. 560 Hoiv settled by Protestants. 561 those books contain, of their bcincr written by the inspi- ration of the Holy Ghost?" ■ This he conceives to be '' folly and madness," and an assumption of " immediate inspiration." = " It first supposes the books are inspired, and then proves that they are so, because they are so. ' This is only an argument says ' Bishop Burnet, = ' to him that feels it, if it be one at all." ' "It is," says Mr. Jones, " not so easy a matter, as is commonly imagined rightly to settle the canon of the New Testament. For my own part, I declare, with many learned men, that in the whole compass of learning, I know no question involved with more intricacies and perplexing difficulties than this." " " If the question," adds Mr. Jones, " be why Barn- abas's Epistle be rejected, and Jude's received— why the Gospel of Peter is excluded and the Epistle of Peter admitted into the Canon as the word of God, etc., alas ! how little shall we have given in answer, unless what Baxter says, ' We believe as the Church does' " " This Richard Baxter, another learned dissenting Eng- lish minister, who wrote about the middle of the last century, also undertook to discuss the same question, and here are some of the conclusions at which he arrived. Speaking of those opposed to his plan of settling the canon by human testimony and tradition he says, " I would have the contrary-minded tell me how they know, without human testimony and tradition, that these are the same books which the prophets and apos- tles wrote, and wholly the same; that they are not de- praved and wilfully corrupted; that these are all ? How know you that one of the books of Esther is canonical and the other apocryphal ? Where is the man that ever knew the canon from the apocryphal before it was told him, and without tradition.' I confess, for my own part, I could never boast of any such testimony or light ' Ibid. p. 48. ^ Ibid. p. 49, seq. 3 Anglican (d. 1709). * Ibid. p. 51. s iijij, p_ 2. « Ibid. p. 15. 562 The Canon of tJic Old Tcstaincnt. of the Spirit, nor reason neither, which, without human testimony or tradition would have made me believe that the Book of Canticles is canonical and written by Solomon, and the Book of Wisdom apocryphal and written by Philo, as some think; or that Paul's Epistle to the Laodiceans — which you may see in Bruno, in Epist. Sixtus Senensis—and others, is apocryphal, and the second and third epistles of John, canonical. Nor could I have known all or any historical books, such as Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, etc., to be written by divine inspiration, but by tradition." Baxter's plan is more rational, less dan- gerous, but not more conclusive than that of his adver- saries. Mere human tradition can never settle the canon of Scripture. But Baxter had a good deal more common sense than those who advocated internal il- lumination ! as the following extract from his work shows. " Further, 1 would know, how doth an illiterate man know but by human testimony : whether it be in- deed a Bible that the minister reads? or when he reads true, and when false? And whether any of these words be in the Bible which men say are in it? or that it is truly translated out of the Hebrew and Greek ? or that it was originally written in those languages? or that copies were authentic out of which they were trans- lated," ' Baxter might have asked himself or any of his learned Protestant contemporaries many of the same questions, and yet would have failed to give or to receive such answers as a rational and conscientious enquirer after truth would have exacted. One more extract from Baxter^ will be appreciated by the reader, as a well de- served thrust at all, who substituted another canon for the one, which was followed everywhere east and west until the reformation. " It is strange to consider how we 1 Saints Everlasting Rest, p. 141. New York. 1855. 2 Ibid. p. 142. Hozv settled by Protestants. 563 all abhor that piece of popery as most injurious to God of all the rest, which resolves our faith into the authority of the church, and yet that wc do, for the generality of professors content ourselves with the same kind of faith. Only with this difference ; the papists believe Scripture to be the Word of God, because their church saith so; and we, because our church or our leaders say so."' Poor Baxter was unable or unwilling to recognize the difference between the papist and the protestant in this matter. The former believes the Scripture to be the Word of God on what is to him the divine authority of the Church. The latter believes the same thing on what he knows to be simply human testimony. That is, both try to reach a divine truth, the one by divine, the other by human means. And both admit that the point aimed at, lies in the supernatural order. The protestant, therefore, as well as the papist must perceive that that point, if grasped at all, must be grasped by means entirely different from those, by which scientific truth is attained; and consequently, that if he is ever to believe as he ought, that God is the author of the Scriptures, he must do that, not on the testimony of his Church or his teachers, but on the divine assurance of the Catholic Church, that such is the case. Hence St. Augustine referring to this subject declared : " I, for my part, would not beheve the Gospel, unless the authority of the Catholic Church moved me to it." ' Take away the divine authority of the Catholic Church, and you make Christianity at most the best system of religion that was ever devised by man. When a papist says, I believe my church is infallible, and because she says so, I believe the Scripture to be the Word of God; his logic is unimpeachable. Grant the premiss and you must accept his conclusion ; deny that premiss and Chris- 1 Ibid. p. 161. 2 Contra Ep. Man. quatn vacant Fimdatnenti, c. v. 564 The Canon of tJie Old Tcstajucnt. tianit}' for you ceases to be divine. But when a Protest- ant declares, as he must, I consider my church, my teachers, even my own reason all fallible ; yet it is be- cause one or other of these or all of them say so, that I believe the Scriptures to be the very Word of God ; it requires no mental effort to perceive, that his creed is an unproved and unprovable religious theor}^ of which his teachers are the professors ; and that the process by which he has reached his conclusion regarding the ori- gin of the Bible, is not only illogical, but flagrantly absurd. Robert Barclay, a celebrated Scotch Quaker, (d. 1690), declared that " It is impossible to prove the canon by the Scriptures, for it cannot be found in anv book of the Scriptures, that these books and just these and no others are canonical, as all are forced to acknoAvledge." ' According to Richard Baxter,^ Doctor John Whita- ker, an Anglican minister (d. 1808), held " that it belongs to the Church : i. To be a witness and keeper of the Scriptures ; 2. To judge and discern between Scriptures which are true and genuine, and which are false, super- stitious, and apocryphal ; 3. To divulge them ; 4. To expound them." Whitaker was one of several English Protestant controversialists, who wrote against the cele- brated Father Stapleton. But he seems to have been one of those remarkable scholars, who actually stumble over the truth without apparently recognizing it. Such men have been met with in all Protestant countries, advancing step by step to the very threshold of the sanctuar}- , but without the courage, it may be the grace, to cross it. On the other hand great numbers of Prot- estants belonging to every rank and profession, faithful to the call of God and regardless of all human consider- ' Apology^ prop, iii., § ix., p. 92. London Edition, 1780. * Saints Everlasting Rest. 141. Hozv settled by Protestants. 565 ations, have sought and found in the Churcli relief from those perplexing doubts and that dreadful uncertaintv. with which all honest inquirers are haunted in the sects. Of these converts not a few, after having labored faitli- fuUy in the Protestant ministry, have, when received into the Church remained ever after content and happy with the lot assigned them among the laity. Othei-s of the same class, after being promoted to Hoi}' Orders, have as members of the priesthood or of the hierarchv rendered invaluable service to religion by their great learning and untiring zeal; while of all of them it may be generally said that they have proved the sincerity of their conversion by their piety, their fervor, and their unflinching constancy to the true faith. The humiliating admissions made by Jones, Baxter. Barcla}' and others, were no doubt wrung from them by the absurd, fanatical, and criminal proceedings of those, who, as directed by the reformed creeds and con- fessions, undertook to discriminate between canonical and apocryphal writings, reh'ing either on their own reason, or the pretended guidance of the Spirit. For none of those creeds or confessions indicates any other way of ascertaining the canon. Even the most conserva- tive of all Protestant sects — the Anglican — left each individual to decide the matter for himself. For though, in its VI. Article, it told him what were and were not canonical books, and in its XX. article, that it had "all authority in controversies of faith ; " it did not assure him that no mistake could be committed in the exercise of that " authority," or that it itself could not err. In- deed, how could it gi\x him such an assurance, after saving in its XIX Article : ''As the Church oijenisalew. Alexandria, and Antioch have erred, so also the Church of Ro7nc hath erred ... in matters of faith." with such iDClief as this, of course the godly authors of the thirty- nine articles were too modest to claim infallibility for 566 The Canon of the Old Tcstamejit. the Church over which Queen Elizabeth presided ;; neither dared they assure the members of that Church that the time would never come, when it would be seen that " controversies of faith " among Anglican Christians should be settled not by convocation or council, but by a tribunal consisting of laymen appointed by the crown. Any one therefore belonging to the Established Church of England, if he had, as well might be the case, cause to suspect that the enumeration of canonical books con- tained in his Book of Common Prayer was defective could only allay his suspicions if at all, like any other Protestant, either by the exercise of his own reason or by the inward light ot the Spirit. Indeed the Spirit served as a sort of last ditch, to which the early Protestants fled, when driven from every other position taken in order to defend the au- thority of the Scriptures, or to prove what they believed to be its component parts. Thus Reuss ' a Protestant writer, shows from Calvin's own words, that that stern reformer founded " the authority of the Scriptures on the inner witness of the Holy Spirit ; " and held that the sentiment, that " the Scriptures were given us from the very mouth of God .... can be produced only by celestial revelations ! " That the reading of the Scriptures was accompanied by such " revelations," Calvin is shown by the extract which Reuss has taken from his writings, to have had no doubt. This belief is still held by many Protestants. Indeed it should be held by all of them, if consistent. For it is either di- rectly expressed, or is clearly implied in all those con- fessions of faith which have bejsn formulated by their leaders and published for their guidance. But let us suppose that an earnest Protestant enquirer, whatever his sect, has with the light of the " Spirit," or of those " celestial revelations " mentioned by Calvin, solved to- ' History of the Canon of the Holy Scripture, p. 302. Hoiv settled by Protestants. 567 his own satisfaction all the difficulties connected with the origin and the canon of Scripture ; how is he, let us ask, even if he be not illiterate, to ascertain the sense of all contained in the canonical books ? In other words how is he to construct for himself a system of religion, out of what he finds in these books ? In undertakina: such a task, one as difficult as it is important, and one which no Protestant possessed of any self-respect and independence will shirk, what is there to guide or assist him in reaching a safe position ? The answer must be : The Scripture itself stripped of all note or comment, a mere translation of the original Hebrew and Gj-eek made into his own vernacular, by one, who for all we know may have been incompetent for such a work. This is actually what "the Presbyterian Church" tells its mem- bers. For in the " Confession of Faith," which that denomination has adopted for its people, they are in- formed that " The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself,' ' and that " The su- preme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined .... can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures." '' 1 The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church, p. 14. ' Ibid. CHAPTER XXXIX. Luther on the Scripture — Hallam on Luther. Gaussen on the Canon. A mere glance at the condition of the Protestant world now, or at any time since the Reformation, will convince an}^ one that the principle " by which all con- troversies of religion," according to preceding extracts from the constitution of the Presbyterian Church, " are to be determined," ' of course whether these contro- versies regard the canon of Scripture or any other ques- tion, is flagrantly insufficient. It is, besides, false and ab- solutely impracticable, a fact proved by the conduct of those who profess to be guided by it. For, let a member of any Protestant sect declare, that after making " a due use of the ordinary means "^ prescribed ^ for attaining ^' a sufficient understanding of the Scriptures," ''he is com- pelled in conscience to adopt a doctrine condemned by his sect, he is at once excommunicated. Yet this insuffi- cient, false, and impracticable principle underlies the creed of every Protestant sect throughout the world ; and was as soon as he abandoned his cloister boldly pro- claimed by the father and founder of Protestantism, Martin Luther. This has been shown b}' Catholic writ- ers who lived near his own time. We thus know that among his first errors, he taught that " the Scripture was the most certain, most easv, most evident, and most clear interpreter of itself : " ' and that " the right to interpret 1 TheConstitutio-.iof the Presbyterian Churchy p. \if '^Ibid. p. 12. ' ibid. ■* The Larger Catechism, q. 157. ^ Bellarmin De verba Dei cap, i. 508 LutJicrs FiltJiiiicss. — Gausscn on the Canon. 569 the Scripture has been granted to the laitv as well as the learned." ' Yet the fatal fruits which this perni- cious principle soon produced in Germany, gave Luther good reason to contradict his own teaching, as he after- wards actually did, but without cither being ashamed of his own inconsistency, or confounded at the sight of the dreadful disorders in which his diabolical doctrines had involved his unhappy countr}-. In Luther's life, as written by Audin and other Cath- olic authors who had occasion to refer to it, will be found various specimens of that reformer's teaching which caused untold mischief wherever they were in- troduced. For the information, however, of tl e general reader, who mav desire to know something about the distinctive features of Luther's system, it is better to overlook here what has been said on the subject bv Catholic writers, and consult the work of an author, who, as a Protestant, cannot be suspected of exaggera- tion when exposing the dangerous principles inculcated by the man who is justly regarded as the founder of the religious system, on which all Protestant creeds are based. Henry Hallam, L.L.D., an English Protestant born in the latter part of the last century, educated at Oxford, and considered " one of the most distinguished of mod- ern authors," ' had been fiercely assailed by the admir- ers of Luther for certain remarks he had made about that reformer in his Literature of Europe. Tie therefore, in the subsequent editions of that work, felt himself called upon to defend the views he had already ex- pressed regarding Luther. This he does by bringing forward certain extracts from Luther's own writings. Referring to Luther's treatise, De Captivitate Babylonis. he presents the following quotations from it : " Thus 1 Nat. Aldxatider, Hist. Eccl. Tom. viii. p. 103. 2 AUibonis D.ictionarv of Authors. 570 TJie Canon of the Old Testament. joii see how rich a man is who is a Christian and bap- tized, who even should he so wish cannot lose his salva- tion, however great his sins may be, unless he refuses to believe. For no sins can damn him, unless unbelief alone. All other sins, if faith in the divine promise made to one baptized returns or remains, are cancelled in a moment by the same faith, 3'ea by the verity of God ; because he cannot deny Himself, if you have confessed Him and adhered faithfuU}' to Him promising." More of the same horrible doctrine : " If adultery could be committed in faith, it would not be a sin." — Disput. 1520. And more still: "It is sufficient (Luther says) that by the riches of the glory of God we acknowledge the Lamb who taketh away the sins of the world ; from Him sin shall not separate us, even if we commit forni- cation and murder a thousand, thousand times in one day. Do you think that the price paid and the redemp- tion made for our sins is so great, and such a lamb is so little ? Pray boldly, for you are the boldest sinner." What wonder that Mr. Hallam should confess that " all his (Luther's) notions about sin and merit were so pre- posterously contradictory to natural morality and relig- ion, that they could not have been permanently received without violating the moral constitution of the human mind." "" This conclusion is further confirmed by Mr. Hallam who cites for the purpose a horrible extract from the Heidelberg Propositions, 15 18. So much for the moral principles propagated by Luther and based by him on the Bible. Of the language in which he addressed his hearers and readers Mr. Hallam says : " No serious author of the least reputation will be found who defiled his pages I do not say with such indelicacy, but with such disgusting filthiness. " ' " In all his at- tacks on popes and cardinals, Luther disgraces himself by a nasty and stupid brutality." * 1 Literature of Europe, part I., ch. iv., p. 305, note. 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid. 306. •» Ibid. Luther s FiltJiincss. — Gausscn on tJic Canon. 571 The effect of Luther's "notions" and "filthiness" on his followers, one may imagine, but can hardly describe. " Munzer and KnipperdoUing (says Hallam ') with the whole rabble of Anabaptist fanatics were the legitimate brood of Luther's doctrine. And even if we set them aside, it is certain that we find no testimonials to any reform of manners in the countries that embraced it." No, certainly ; but on the other hand abundant evidence by Luther himself, his associates, and his contempo- raries, that wherever his principles were adopted, anar- chy took the place of social order, and christian morality was superseded by a code of ethics, which would have disgraced pagan Rome, and which tolerated, if it did not countenance, crimes, for which the Lord rained down from heaven fire and brimstone on the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha. Hallam would never have ex- pressed himself, as he has done, about Luther's foul language and fouler moral principles, and the effect pro- duced by these principles, wherever they were embraced; had he not been driven to it by Luther's imprudent apolo- gists, who thoughtlessly undertook to defend their hero against a criticism, whose extreme moderation had been its only fault. Yet, swayed probably b}' the prejudices of his own country, perhaps by his sympath}' with the part played by Luther in the religious rebellion of the sixteenth centur}-, Hallam has treated very gently, if at all, Luther's views on marriage and divorce — views so disgusting and abominable, that they will not bear to be translated into English out of the Latin, in which they are still preserved, to the eternal disgrace of Luther and the lasting shame of the Reformation. In all Christen- dom the City of Salt Lake is probably the only place now, where their advocacy would fail to excite a feeling of public execration. The reader, should he desire fur- ther information on this unpleasant subject is referred ' Ibid. 5/2 The Canon of the Old Testament. to Audin's Life of Lnther or other similar works, which contain that saddest of chapters in the annals of human depravity. It was evident to all, except the misguided multitudes of fanatics, who indulged in the orgies fostered by the anti-christian principles of the Protestant reformers, that the dissolution of society as organized on a Chris- tian basis was inevitable, unless some remedy could be found for the evils by which it was afflicted. But what was to be done? Either the right of private judgment was to be abandoned, or the secular arm invoked to suppress the disorders resulting from its exercise. The first was not to be thought of, as it implied the admis- sion that the Protestant reformation was what no honest man could deny, an outrage on reason as well as revela- tion, and that the Catholic principle, which it antagon- ized, was the only one consistent with the peace and preservation of society. The second alternative was therefore preferred, and there was no one more urgent for its adoption than Luther himself. It was thus that in England as well as in Germany those ghostl}- fire brands, who were ever ready to sing psalms, expound the Scriptures, or fight the battles of the Lord, as cir- cumstances demanded, were subdued after protracted and sanguinary struggles ; and society extricated from the anarchical condition, to which an open bible and private interpretation had reduced it. The friends of the reformation had good reason to be ashamed of the necessity, which compelled the civil authority to adopt such heroic treatment in checking those public disorders, which were the legitimate fruits of the principles on which that Reformation was based. and without which, as a system of religion, it must cease to exist. It was to be expected that some of these friends would exercise their ingenuity, in devising such modifications of the system, as would enable its followers Luther s FiltJiincss. — Gausscii on the Canon. 573 to profess it without being- rejj^arded with suspicion, or outLiwed as many of them had been for their crimes. To deny to every one the right of interpreting the Scriptures according to liis own private judgment, was to undo all that had been done— to renounce in fact tiie glorious reformation and return to Rome. This would never do. But was it not possible to retain that right, as the corner-stone of the Protestant system (for such it really is,) so that the professors of the system might for mutual help and encouragement group themselves into various organizations, according as they could agree in adopting a creed to be exchanged for another when it failed to satisfy; and yet place some restriction on the privilege each claimed of discriminating between can- onical and apocryphal writings? This might mitigate, though it could not eradicate the evil. Some such notion seems to have been entertained by Chemnitius, who, with Bucer, labored in vain to unite the Lutherans and Sacramentarians. The reformers re- garded the former as one oi their ablest advocates : and Melancthon, under whom he studied at Wittemberg, called him "the Prince of Protestant Theologians." He is the author of several works, notably of one entitled Exajuen Coneilii Tridentini, in which he endeavors to refute the doctrines promulgated by the Council of Trent. He admits as canonical, only those books that have been approved b}- all the Churches, not such as have been declared to be so by Councils. ' Gausseu, (d. 1863.) a native of Geneva and a Calvinistic minister developed the theory of Chemnitius, arguing that the principle, on which Protestants undertake to settle the canon is false and untenable, and substituting for it the testimony of the Jewish Church with regard to the Old Testament, and that of the Catholic Church with regard to the New. By the testimony of the Jewish Church. ' Ligouri, Hist, of Her. i. 325. 574 The Canon of the Old Testament. he understands " the common opinion of all the Jews, Egyptian and Syrian, Asiatic and European, Saddu- cean and Pharisees, ancient and modern, good and bad." And by the testimony of the Catholic Church "' the universal agreement of the ancient and modern Churches, Asiatic and European, good and bad, which call on the name of Jesus Christ ; that is to say, not only the faithful sects of the blessed Reformation, but the Greek, the Armenian sects, the Syrian sect, the Roman sect, and perhaps the Unitarian sects ;" ' the Mormons are omitted. And farther on, ^ he goes so far as to ascribe infallibility to both Jewish and Christian Churches, with respect to the Canon of Scripture. " The Jews, he says, could not introduce a human book into the Old Testa- ment; and neither the Council of Trent, nor the most corrupt and idolatrous churches could :add a single Apocryphal book to the New It was not in their power not to transmit them intact and complete. In spite of themselves it was so ordered." Gaussen's work when it appeared in England was, his translator says, pronounced " invaluable." Yet here we have assumptions equally gratuitous with those, which Gaussen rejects as untenable. For neither the Scrip- ture nor common sense furnishes a reason for believing that while God leaves the sects to follow their own conceits in matters of greater importance. He actually so controls or guides the belief of each regarding the canon, that when the canon of each is compared with the various canons of all other sects, one is thua enabled to make up a list of all those books which He recognizes as his own. Besides it is only the learned — if even they — who could derive any benefit from such a rule, as they alone could possibly know which are the books that each sect receives as canonical. To test the accur- acy of Gaussen's rule, apply it to the age of Melito. At 1 Theopnenstia, pp. 131, 133, (Scott's transl.). ^ p. 134. Luther s Filthiness. — Gausscn on the Canon. 575 that time the Palestinian Jews had not Esther, but the Hellenists had, both however agreed in receiving all the other books on the Hebrew canon. The canon, therefore, at that period, according to Gaussen was the present Jew- ish canon minus the Book of Esther. If that was then the true canon of the Old Testament, it ought to be so still. How comes it, therefore, that at present the Jewish canon includes Esther ? Moreover, the Arians for a long time were a very numerous and respectable sect, in fact as much so as any Protestant sect ever was. Nor are they yet wholly extinct. Well, among the doc- trines which they denied was the canonicity of the Epistle to the Hebrews. ' What therefore, let us ask, was the canon of the New Testament during the long period, in which Arianism contended for supremacv with the Church ? According to Gaussen's rule it was the present canon, whatever it may be, with the Epistle to the Hebrews left out. What again was the canon of Scripture during the existence of other Christian sects? It was the canon, whatever mav have been its actual and legitimate contents, less those parts thereof which the sects in question chose to reject. Thus the canon is made to depend not on the will of God, or the au- thority of the Church, but on the caprice of ever}- rogue or fool who succeeds in gathering around him a suffi- cient number of knaves or dupes to constitute what he is pleased to call a church, the first work of that church or its founder being to mutilate or adulterate the word of God. Gaussen in a subsequent work, " remarks' that the Peshito catalogue wanted several books, (that is true for it had not the second Epistle of Peter, the sec- ond and third of John, that of Jude and the Apocalypse,) and that Origen's catalogue included most if not all of these books. Now at that time the former catalogue ' Theodoi-e(^ Praf. in Ep. ad Hcbrcos. 2 The Canon of the Holy Scripture. ^ pp. 23-25 seq. 5/6 The Canon of the Old Testament. represented the belief of the Syrian Church, the latter expressed the faith of the Greek Church. But what was the canon of the New Testament at that time? Evidently according to Gaussen what it is to-day with five books left out. Gaussen's theory is therefore as objectionable as any of the other Protestant devices it was intended to supersede. CHAPTER XL. The Protestant Canon abridged by Emanuel Swed- ENBORG, BUT ENLARGED BY JOSEPH SmITH. Notwithstanding the caveats and protests of many learned and earnest Protestant scholars against the private inspiration claimed in the Protestant confessions of faith for all who read the Bible ; the principle was generally acted on, and the ignorant as well as the learned undertook to decide, not only what was Script- ure, but what was its sense. In the Old World for example, the last century was signalized b}' the reveries of the otherwise highly cultivated mind of Emanuel Swedenborg, who surprised his contemporaries by the extravagant theories he built upon and about the Bible. Yet he succeeded in founding what is called " the New Jerusalem Church," which numbers at present in Great Britain and the United States some nine or ten thousand souls known as Swedenborgians, their religious system being styled " Swedenborgianism." The membership of this almost latest form of Protestantism seems however gradually advancing towards extinction. Swedenborg himself rejected several dogmas generally admitted by his fellow Protestants, and as a consequence excluded from his canon of Scripture those books, in which such dogmas were inculcated. The original reformers had proceeded on the same principle, and their descendants could not justly complain, when the latest reformer commenced by regulating, not his belief by the Bible, but the Bible bv his belief. He denied original sin. the 578 The Canon of the Old Testament. vicarious satisfaction of Christ, the resurrection of the flesh, and some other doctrines. The Epistles of St. Paul, the Acts of the Apostles, etc., formed, therefore, no part of the sacred catalogue of books which received his approval. According to one of themselves, Swed- enborg's followers "do not believe that all the tracts bound up in their Bible can claim the grand designation (of the Word of God), but think, we (the}-) have a cri- terion for determining the products of the ' divine affla- tus ' from all the works of man." He does not say what that " criterion " is, but whatever it be, there is no doubt it has caused the Swedenborgians, like many other sectarists, ancient and modern, to make sad havoc of God's holy word. The same writer remarks in a note, that " The books of the word are the Pentateuch. Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, the Psalms, and all the Prophets in the Old Testament ; and the four Evange- lists and Revelations in the New. The other books (except the Canticles and Apocrypha) contain the truth — are written with as high a degree of inspiration as writers generally ascribe to those enumerated, but do not contain the intimate sense in a connected or divine series." ' According to his own statement Swedenborg was permitted to see " the Heavens and the Hells " as he designates the abode of the blessed and the prison of the reprobate. He was in constant communication with angels, and received revelations immediately from God Himself, who, as he seems to teach, is one not only in essence but in person. And according to Rev. W. Mason a Swedenborgian minister: Swedenborg " By means of the divine science of correspondences between things spiritual and natural .... agreeably to which the Scriptures had been written .... could pene- trate the clouds of the literal sense, and behold the spiritual sense which lies concealed therein."" Throw- 1 History of all Denomitiations. p. 531. - Ibid. 535. By Swcdcnbor^ and Smith. 570 ing aside as so much rubbish the pretentious mysticism, rather the cabaHstic language, that accompanies the description which Swedenborg and his followers have given of the key, by which they ascertain the sense of what they retain as the word of God, a close observer will find that that key differs not essentially from the one, which Protestants who have never studied " the divine science of correspondences" commonlv use for the same purpose. ' In less than a century after Swedenborg had attempted in vain to propagate his speculations in the Old World ; Joe Smith an illiterate peasant of Vermont startled the people of the New by announcing, that he had received from ''an angel of the Lord" a revelation contained in a volume called "the Book of Mormon." "We (says Smith) believe the Bible, (the Protestant one of course,) to be the Word of God, so far as it is correctly trans- lated ; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the Word of God." ^ It has long been regarded as certain that the " Book of Mormon " was originally no more than a romance written in the early part of the present century by Solomon Spalding, then a resident of Ohio, but formerly of Connecticut where he had been a preacher. At that time the fate of the ten lost tribes of Israel was a subject of curious speculation among bible readers in the United States, and Spalding as a matter of pastime or profit undertook to show that the Ameri- can Indians were the descendants of the ten tribes, w^ho, after various vicissitudes b}- land and sea, at last reached and settled in America. The result was a vol- ume, which Spalding designated " Manuscript Found" but did not live to publish, having died in 1806. It fell ' For more about Swedenborg's system see Moehler's Symbolism, p. 525. and Alzog's Universal Chinch Hist., vol. iii., 614, (Pabisch & Byrne) where it is said, Swedenborg "attacked the doctrine of justification as held by Protes- tants." 2 Hisl. of all Denoininatious, p. 410. 5 8o The Canon of the Old Tcstajncnt. however into the hands of Sidney Rigdon, a citizen of Alleghany Co. Pa., who w^as connected with a Pittsburg printing ofifice, where Spalding had left it. Rigdon having copied the manuscript it was returned to Spalding's widow. Rigdon subsequently abandoned the printing business, and became a preacher of princi- ples similar to those incorporated in the "Book of Mormon." He even succeeded in gathering around him a small body of believers, who under his guidance combined their means, and purchased property in one of the South-western counties of Pennsylvania, where they all settled with him as their spiritual head, in hour- ly expectation of the coming of the Lord, an event of which he gave them the fullest assurance, careful how- ever not to restrict its occurrence to any particular date. At last they insisted that he should give them da}- and date. And unable to resist their unanimous demand any longer he did so, declaring that on a certain night the Redeemer should come down through the hay mow in the barn, which the brethren had erected. There they spent the entire night in anxious and sleep- less expectation, but the Lord having failed to put in an appearance, the community indignant and disappointed, immediately disbanded. Meantime Joe Smith had been in communication with the angel Moroni, of course ac- cording to his own account, and had thus been enabled to exhume near his home at Manchester, Ontario Co., N. Y., a record on golden plates, which with the aid of two transparent stones found at the same time and place and called by him the Urim and Thummim, he succeeded in deciphering to the great surprise of his simple neighbors. He had become associated with Rigdon and having thus obtained the latter's copy of Spalding's manuscript, he proposed with Rigdon's as- sistance, to make the contents of that volume and his own story about the golden plates and the Urim and Bj Sivcdcnborg and SniitJi. 581 Thummim subsidiary to the creation of a new church. The " Book of Mormon" professing to be a transcrip- tion in English of the record on the golden plates, was printed in 1830. Soon after it was compared with Spalding's manuscript, and examined by several of Spalding's friends who had seen his romance. The in- vestigation appears to have demonstrated that though somewhat different from Spalding's work, the " Book of Mormon" had been composed by one thoroughly con- versant with that work, filled as it was with the same historical matter and containing many passages wholly or partially copied from it, though as far as possible it is written in the quaint style of King James's bible. All this seems to have convinced the pubHc, that Joe Smith's bible is simply Solomon Spalding's romance dressed up in the phraseology of the authorized version. Joe's statements were Relieved by many as ignorant as him- self, but not so shrewd ; and he succeeded in a short time in gathering around him a large number of disciples made up of knaves, charlatans, fanatics, and fools. Driv- en from one part of the country to another in their efforts to establish a permanent settlement, after losing their inspired leader who on June 27, 1844, was shot dead at Carthage, Illinois, by a mob of excited and in- dignant citizens, Joe's followers at last migrated to Utah, a great part of which they at present occupy. There on the river Jordan, which connects Great Salt Lake and Lake Utah, they erected a temple and built a town. Salt Lake City, which serves as a centre of spiri- tual authority for " the Latter day Saints" as they call themselves. On Joe's death Sidney Rigdon hoped to be- come his successor, but was set aside in favor of Brighara Young, and being adjudged contumacious, was excom- municated. Cursed and solemnly delivered over to the devil "to be buffeted in the flesh for a thousand years" he disappeared entirely from history. 582 TJie Canon of the Old Tcstaincnt At first the Mormon prophet obtained followers prin- cipally from the eastern districts of the United States, but the supply from that quarter failing, his Apostles, Bishops, and Elders, as the highest Mormon dignitaries are called, were dispatched to Europe to secure con- verts, and have been extremely successful wherever Protestantism was the prevailing creed. Professor John Fraser of the Chicago University, in an article contributed to the Enc^'clopedia Brittanica states that Mormon converts come "particularly from Great Brit- ain, Sweden and Norway. ' Strangely enough, and the fact deserves emphasis, Ireland has furnished few if any recruits to the cause of Mormonism." Yes it did, one, who, in order to get a free passage joined a band of Mormons about to sail for America, but on landing was seen no more among the saints. However the Mormon missionaries were not much more successful among the Italians, French, Spanish, and other Catholic popula- tions than they were among the Irish. The truth is, had there been no Protestantism there would most probably have been no INIorraonism. Latterly several of our Southern States, where Catholic principles are almost unknown, have become very encouraging recruit- ing grounds for the Church of Latter day Saints. But a rigorous application of Lynch law in several instances- to the missionaries, has convinced them that Southern- ers are not yet prepared to accept the code of morals introduced by the Mormon prophet, and that a consid- erable degree of caution is required on the part of those who undertake to preach the Gospel there, as it is un- ' " Three hundred and fifty Mormon emigrants, most of them Scandinavi- ans, arrived at Castle Garden yesterday on the Wyoming. Thev were quietly hurried through the usual inspection and then departed westward for Salt Lake City. A number of Elders had them in charge. The party was made up of men, women and children, there being a large proportion of young girls." N. Y. Times, June 21, 18S9. Such items appear in the N. Y. ship- ping news probably three or four times every year. By Swcdcnborg and Smith. 583 derstood in Salt Lake City. Among other peculiar customs the Mormons, soon after they were organized as a religious community, began to practice polygamy, though by the laws of the United States made for Utah it is now treated as a penal offence. At present there- fore the Mormons no longer, as formerly, boast of poss- essing such a privilege, and if they still exercise it must do so in secret. Joe himself was the first to assume the care of more than one wife, and of course evaded any such responsibility, until he could, according to his own account, no longer resist the will of heaven made known to him by a special revelation on the subject. The ex- ample thus set by their prophet was soon generally fol- lowed by the rank and file of " the Latter day Saints" all believing that they found good authority for doing so, not only in the divine communication made to their prophet, but in the precedent estabhshed by the patri- archs of the Old Testament. To do justice to Protest- ants of other denominations it ought to be observed, that as soon as they understood thoroughly the tenden- cies of Mormonism, they had recourse to all possible means in order to check its progress. But it must be admitted those means too often savored of mob law and violence, and at last only partially succeeded, if even so; when those, who were opposed to the Mormons, had obtained the assistance of the mihtary authorities. The sects commonly called Protestant refuse to recog- nize the Mormons as Protestants. But it is not easy to see why they do so. For like themselves, according to Joe Smith's confession of faith, the Mormons " believe in God the eternal Father, and in His Son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost, that men will be punished for their own sins, not for Adam's transgression, that through Jesus Christ all men may be saved by obedi- ence to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel — these ordinances being faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, Bap- 584 Tlic Canon of the Old Testament. tism by immersion for the remission of sins, laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost ; " ' and, it may be added " The Lord's Supper," as inculcated by Smith himself.'^ The}^ also "believe the ten commandments to be the rule of life, and the Bible to be the Word of God, as far as it is translated correctly ; and believe be- sides in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men." ^ But, and apart from Mormon exclusiveness and Mormon violence, the result perhaps of aggression on the part of " Gentiles, " as the Mormons call all other people ; here is the main objec- tion of other Protestant sects against the disciples of Joseph Smith : What about Mormon polygamy and what about the Mormon bible? Well the Mormons might say : Where is the great difference between po- lygam)^ as practised by the Mormons, and polygamy as practised by the Gentiles. A Mormon may have or may not have at the same time more wives than one or none at all ; but once he takes a plurality of them he is bound to support ever}- one of them as long as she lives, as he is bound to support her who is his only wife, whereas a Gentile by the easy and handy method of di- vorce among his people may be the husband of as many wives as a Mormon, provided he cohabit only with the last one selected ; infidelity to whom is rarely punished, while he is not bound to provide for the other half doz- en whom he may have dismissed. Among us Mormons every child knows its own father, with you Gentiles that is not always possible. Where then, let it be asked again is the difference between Mormon and Gentile polygamy ? Let unprejudiced reason decide between the two systems. And as to the Book of Mormon, had not Joseph Smith as good a right to add a new volume ' Hist, of all Denominations, p. 410. 2 See A Word of Wisdom by him. 3 Hist, of all Denominations, p. 410. How Settled by Protestants. S^d to the Word of God, as Martin Luther had to tear sev- eral old ones out of it. In this case Joe poor creature, if you will have it so, in his ignorance sinned against the Holy Book by addition ; but Mart., with his eyes open sinned against it by subtraction. Once more an unprejudiced reader might inquire in what did they differ? Our object in the remarks just made has not been to show that the Bible is treated with anything like con- tempt, even by the most irreligious class of Americans, for such is not the case. On the contrary we believe that few pronounced infidels would have the boldness to stand up before an audience composed of the rank and file of our countrymen, or even exclusively of those among them who never enter into a meeting-house, and directly call in question the divine inspiration or even the truth of the sacred volume. The fault of Americans is to treat it with careless familiarity, or to have it so treated, and approached without that profound rever- ence due to every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. They do not realize that it is to be handled as something essentially sacred, and to be read with fear and trembling. And hence one meets it not only in the church, the pulpit— its proper position,— and in the choicest place of the family library, but on desks of thoughtless school children, in rail-road cars, steam-boats, and the rooms of hotel guests, soiled and torn, with its margins and blank leaves covered with senseless and irreverent scribblings. Thus it is too often treated as something very common, receiving less attention and hardly more respect than is paid to the paper, from which readers learn the news, and the price of stocks. And if a Catholic, indignant at all this, and zealous for the honor of God and God's holy word dares to remonstrate against such profanations, he finds himself at once pilloried as an enemy of the Bible. 586 The Canon of tlie Old Testament. But enough on this point. Before the reader's atten- tion was directed to the criminal vagaries of Joe Smith and his followers, as illustrating the danger to be appre- hended from the unrestricted circulation of the Bible among half educated people ; he must have observed that the principle proclaimed by the Protestant creed makers, produced wherever it was adopted, its nat- ural results : in religion, a swarm of sects ; in biblical interpretation, a license before which the landmarks of even rational belief disappeared ; and in society all the evils of unbridled fanaticism. Such has been the case particularly in Great Britain and Germany, and to a certain extent wherever the people were encouraged to decide for themselves what books belonged to the Bible, and to exercise their own judgment in ascertaining what those books meant. And when the reaction which always follows a period of turbulence, set in, it brought with it in this instance a spirit of irreverent criticism, which boldly challenged the credentials of written rev^- elation, and concluded by denying the divine origin of every book in the Canon of Scripture. In German}" the rationalistic school of critics, made up of divines, philos- ophers, and philologists, all professional Christians, has during the last and present century exerted all its learn- ing and talents to divest the Bible of its supernatural character. There is hardly a book of the Old or New Testament that has escaped the condemnation of those daring censors ; Gaussen ' himself an ardent Protestant divine bitterly deplores the pernicious influence, which their writings and lectures in the schools and universi- ties of Germany have had on the minds of their youth- ful readers and pupils. In this unholy attempt to change the national belief in the Bible as a divine reve- lation, a prominent part must be assigned to Michaelis, Semler, Eichorn, Schmidt, Bertholdt, de Wette, Gue- 1 On the Canon of the Holy Scripture, p. 496. How Settled by Piotestants. 58/ ricke, Schott, Credner, Neudccker, Reuss, Baur, Schultz, Schleiermacher, Schneckenberger, Lucke, Neander, Schwegler, Vogel, Cludius, Bretschneider, Weber, Schrader, Mayerhoff, Kern, Olshausen, Ullman, Huther, Laiip-e, Paul us, Dahl, Diesterdick. To this list may be added an etc. as several others have attained more or less notoriety in the same unholy crusade against the Bible. Besides, these have a large following composed of dis- ciples and imitators, in all countries where the princi- ples of the Reformation were embraced ; but notably in Great Britain, where that large class of nominal Protestants who devote themselves to the same anti- Christian task, hailed as an enlightened associate, Colenso Anglican bishop of Natal, declaring in the year 1862, that there are statements in the inspired volume which are not historically true. ' And when still later in 1881, Professor Robertson Smith, then of Aberdeen, while engaged in a lecturing tour, felt at hberty to tell his hearers, mostly Presbyterians, that " the Pentateuchal history was written in the land of Canaan, and if it is all by one hand, it was not composed before the period of the Kings," ' with much more of the same sort equally inconsistent with the common belief of devout Protest- ant Bible readers, and subsequently published in book form ; the same class of nominal Protestants regarded with indifference, if not with manifest sympathy, the onslaught then made on the word of God. Any man in England or Scotland who would have expressed himself thus regarding the Bible, in the days of the CromweUians or Covenanters, would have been branded or burned as a heretic. In this matter British biblical critics have simply followed in the wake of those German free-thinkers, who advocate what is ostentatiously called ''the higher criticism," a method of treatment which T/ie Pentateuch and Book of Joshna critically examined, p. l8. The Old Testament in the Jewish Church, pp. 321-322. 588 The Canon of tJie Old Testament. brushes aside the supernatural altogether as something absurd and superstitious, yet one which is applied to the inspired volume by not a few Protestant writers and thinkers in the United States, where the rule is with them to follow the religious views prevailing among Englishmen, as it has been of late the fashion among the latter to regulate their belief regarding the Bible by theories imported from Germany. CHAPTER XLI. The Old Testament deutero Books a part of God's Word. All has now been said, that seemed necessary regard- ino- the Canon of Scripture as regulated by Cathohcs, Jews, Schismatics and Sectarists. As we have seen, Catholics, Schismatics and Sectarists generally differ from the Jews by receiving as canonical all the books of the New Testament. But Catholics whose belief on this point, is, and has been always, professed by the Schismatics, whether before or since the latter became such, are at issue with Jews and Sectarists in declaring the deutero books of the Old Testament to be part of the sacred Scriptui^es. The next question, therefore, to demand special treatment is, whether these books are entitled to the same respect, and possess the same au- thority as the others, which, according to the common belief of Christians and Jews, were written under divine influence, in other words whether they are canonical or not. . . In presenting the argument, by which the canonicity of the Books in question is established, it should be ob. served at the outset, that not only these, but several other books in either Testament, now considered canon- ical by almost all classes of Christians, were regarded with suspicion, and even excluded from the roll of sa- cred Scripture by some early Christian writers: and even three at least-the Canticle of Canticles, Ecclesi- 589 590 TJic Canon of the Old Testament. astes and Ezechiel ' now included in the Hebrew Can- on— were, if not absolutely rejected, at all events treated by some Rabbinical doctors in a manner which showed that the Jews were at one time by no means unanimous in reg-arding: those books as canonical. As to Esther it is well known that in the second century the Jews had not that book on their canon. ^ Yet the Church her- self, wherever her voice could reach or her mind be as- certained, was always known to hold and to teach that, whatever might be the opinion of individual Christian or Jewish writers, every book in the Canon approved by the Council of Trent constituted a part of the written revelation made by God. Nor should it be an occasion of surprise, that in a matter of the kind some of her most learned and devot- ed members entertained and expressed opinions at vari- ance with the practical belief of the Church, as illus- trated in the teaching of her chief Pastors and in her liturgical books. For it was possible then for genera- tions, even whole centuries, to pass, without that belief being so generally known, that only the illiterate, and such of the faithful as were far removed from the cen- tres of ecclesiastical information, could be ignorant of it. The point was one, on which though over fourteen centuries had passed since the Bible had been completed, no judgment had been pronounced, which all could re- gard as final or indicative of the doctrine held by the Church Universal from the beginning. For during that period the question had never assumed so much impor- tance, as to render a solemn decision necessar)\ Be- sides the circumstances, in which the Church often found herself, were not such as to enable her to express her mind on that question in tones, that no one could mis- ' Ibid. 2 Kittos Cyclop., Vol. II., p. iS6. 3 Ibid. Vol. I., p. 522. * Ibid. Vol. II., p. 875. Includes the Deutcro Books. 59 ^ understand. It is also to be observed that Christianity had been propagated from the beginning, not by the reading but by the preaching of the Gospel, ' and in fact is still mainly so propagated. That, as directed by its divine Founder, the doctrines of the Christian reli- gion were to be promulgated throughout the world principally by oral teaching ; ' and that while there can be no doubt His Apostles in every instance taught their converts all that was necessary for salvation ; and sev- eral of them have written on various subjects, they left behind them no certain digest, placed on record, no au- thentic summary even of the articles which Christians had to profess ; as if they intended that the dogmatic and moral principles, which they inculcated should be pre- served and transmitted to future generations by the same means, which they themselves, as instructed by their divine Master, according to the texts just cited employed with so much success. And if th!it Creed, which goes by their name, was really written by the Apostles ; the omission of all ref- erence therein to the Canon of Scripture would seem to imply, that the point was one of those subjects, on which exphcit belief was not then necessary ; and which, should it ever become an occasion of controversy, was to be decided in the same way as the question regard- ing the observance of the Mosaic ceremonial ' already settled by the Apostles themselves. But it was not nec- essary for the Apostles to declare explicitly what writ- ings constituted the Word of God, or to leave behind them written instructions, whereby Christians of their own or succeeding generations would be prevented from confounding human with divine compositions. The very course, which they themselves adopted in this matter, indicated their views regarding it as clearly as any point expounded in the Gospels and Epistles, and ' Mark xvi. 15. ^ Mat. xxviii. 19, 20. ^ Acts xv. 592 The Canon of the Old Testament. constitutes a rule, which is certain to secure all who follow it against error in ascertaining the true canon of Scripture. For wherever churches were established, or congregations organized, they were generally provided Avith copies of the Scriptures containing the Old Testa- ment and so much of the New, as was then written — the sacred Scripture being necessary for the use of the pul- pit, the service of the sanctuar}-, and as a book of refer- ence more or less indispensable to all engaged in the duties of the Christian ministrv. And with the excep- tion of those used in the Sjrian Churches, which excep- tion however soon disappeared, all those copies, as we have alread}' shown on Protestant authorit}', were uni- versally the Septuagint or translations made from it con- taining, be it remembered, several books now no longer found among the Jews. Yet, so far as can be known not a word was ever said by any of the Apostles, or their immediate successors to the faithful, intimating that those books were less sacred than the others con- tained in the text of the Hebrew as well as of the Sep- tuagint. On the contrary as Dr. Davidson admits ' " They (the Apostles) have expressions and ideas derived from them" (the deutero Books.) So that wherever Christianity was planted. East, or West, its professors, learned and ignorant alike, encouraged by the example, or at least the tacit consent of their Apostolic teachers, received as the written Word of God the entire collec- tion of books which the}^ found in the Septuagint. Simple, earnest believers, as they were, those primi- tive Christians were as sure of this as that Christ was God, had died for their salvation, and had risen again from the dead. If in this matter they were mistaken, those who had converted them to the faith, and to whom they looked for example and instruction,, must bear the blame. The question of the canon was, there- 1 Encycl., Britt. Canon of Saipt. Includes the Deiitcro Books. 593 fore, one on which their minds were made up, and if proposed for discussion could awaken no interest what- ever among them. But how was it possible for the faithful generally to conceive such doubts, as would result in any discussion of the kind, when, by reason of the labor and expense involved in transcribing the Bible, ver}' lew of them could procure a copy of it, and still fewer were able to read it ? For several centuries most of them lived, died, and it is to be hoped saved their souls without ever seeing the sacred volume, although they heard its words repeated in their liturgies, an- nounced from their pulpits, and quoted by their teachers, and knew the history of t^e Old and New Testament as well as it is known at this day by the generality of Christians. The Clu rch told them that the Bible, not as it was preserved among the Jews, but as her ministers read it in the Gr^ek, or in a translation from the Greek, with the Books now, bat not then disputed, or in any way distinguished from the others, comprised all that had been delivered to her as sacred Scripture by the Apostles, and they so believed. For the}^ knew, as their fathers before them had known, that as followers of Christ they were to be guided in this matter as in all others by Christ's Church, not by the Jewish Synagogue. CathoHcs believe so still because the Church teaches so still ; while English speaking Protestants prefer to hold that certain books included in the Bible then, as now by the Church, are "apocryphal," because King James and his translators declared them to be so. In this matter Luther led the way in Germany seventy-seven years before, and the consequence has been, that wherever his principles spread, the intelligent faith, with which Christian piety discerns God's autograph in every line of the Bible, if noticed by Rationalists or the advocates of what is complacently known among those writers as " the higher criticism," is greeted with the pity due to 594 T^^^^ Canon of the Old Testavient. invincible ignorance or sneered at as a degrading super- stition. In those early times, when the important functions of the copyist still seemed unlikely to be ever performed by any mechanical process such as the printing press, and books were as rare as they were unintelligible to the masses, some bishops or doctors possessing a library and a taste for speculative studies might turn their at- tention to subjects connected with the canon. But since even for them it was not a matter of life or death, nor an affair of heaven or hell, whether the Epistle to the Hebrews or the book of Hermas was to be con- sidered a portion of the New Testament, provided they held the faith as taught by the Church and preached it to the people, such questions if discussed at all were mooted more for their relations to abstract truth than for any practical advantage that might thus accrue to the cause of religion. In fact most of the questions i-elating to the Scripture, though since clearly defined, were then matters on which conjecture was restricted by no limits except those traced by tradition — the only landmark at the time for the guidance of inquirers, — so far as the canon was concerned. And as the Church had not declared her mind on the subject it was impos- sible to say what was implied in that tradition. When- ever she should do so all were prepared to abide by her judgment, whatever might be their own private opin- ions, or the results reached by their own studies. But it must not be supposed that until that judgment was pronounced nothing had been done to remove those doubts or to correct those mistakes relating to certain books, which had been occasioned by the speculations in which some early critics indulged. For it is certain, that both through her chief Pastors and the decrees of national as well as provincial councils approved by them, the Church as soon as the storms of persecution sub- Includes the Dciitcro Books. 595 sided and she was at liberty to do her whole duty, did trace for the guidance of all a chart from which she herself never deviated, and which being subsequently promulgated in a more formal manner must, as it always has done since, have served to designate unerringly all those books which constitute the canon of Scripture. The doubts and mistakes here referred to extended to several books belonging to both the Old and New Testament, and now included in the Protestant as well as the Catholic canon. Some or all of them were abso- lutely excluded from the canon by some writers and regarded with suspicion by others. Besides these books there were others, which, though not found in the Catholic or Protestant canon, were assigned by certain Fathers some to the Old, others to the New Testament. And indeed quite a number of proto-books belonging to either Testament were, as we have seen, contemptuously repudiated by various Christian sects. However, so far as the doubts and mistakes of ancient orthodox writers related to the Old Testament deutero books — the point with which we are more immediately concerned — the}- could not have been well avoided. For it appears it was not until the close of the second century, it may be the commencement of the third, that Christian scholars generally understood that their can- on was more comprehensive than that of the Jews, which in some way unknown to all but the Rabbinical doctors had been alread}^ contracted by lopping off several books, which until the commencement of the second century had been long approved by the Hellen- ists and Palestinianists, or at least, tolerated by the latter, and which the Church had received from the hands of the Apostles. Not aware of the means by which, or the purpose for which the divergence between the two canons had been brought about, and supposing that that of the Jews had undergone no change, some Chris- 59^ The Canon of the Old Testament. tian writers as soon as they made the discovery, appear to have suspected that the books no longer found among the Jews did not belong to the canon. With some of those writers this feeling amounted to no more than a doubt; with others it grew into a theory which derived strength from the fact, that the enumeration of the sacred books made by such illustrious scholars as Melito and Origen, though intended merely to exhibit the writings received by the Jews, was by some supposed to be a list of the canonical Scriptures approved by the Church. Under these circumstances hesitation and uncertainty must have been exhibited in some quarters, as the Church had not as yet formally expressed her mind on the subject, and especially as the advocates of Chris- tianit}' — St. Justin Martyr, Origen and others — in their controversies with the Jews declined to cite the books in question. On such occasions these books could not be appealed to in proof of any doctrine held b}' the Christians but denied by the Jews. Or if appealed to by the former these were compelled to admit that testi- mony derived from such a source, whatever might be its intrinsic value among themselves, was for the time being extrinsically human. In other words they were reduced to the alternative of omitting all reference to these books, or of granting that under the circumstances they were not t<^ be considered as possessed of that authority, which, in the opinion of both parties belonged to the other books. Such admissions, though justified by the nature of the case and made for the sake of argument, were probablv construed by some into a de- nial of the divine authority possessed by the deutero books ; and being, perhaps occasionally, made without any qualification bv writers, distinguished no less for their ortliodox views than for their literary attainments, must have influenced the belief of others who over- looked the circumstances in which those writers were placed. Includes the Deidcro Books. 597 Nor is it at all remarkable that in the absence of any authoritative declaration on the subject, illustrious saints and martyrs in those early times should have treated with the respect due to canonical writings, books that are now universally branded as apocryphal. The origin claimed by such of these books as were regarded with favor by some of the primitive Christians, the titles that they bore, and the character of their contents, were well calculated to deceive any one who had nothing to guide him but his own faUible judgment. Even then, however when the question of the canon was a compar- atively unimportant one, and in fact received no atten- tion outside the contracted circle of those to whom the study of the Scriptures was a specialty ; not one of those who had access to the primitive and authentic sources of ecclesiastical knowledge, could have had any difficulty in selecting out of a vast accumulation of professedlv sacred literature that very catalogue of books • which, after the impieties and absurdities of pre- ceding sectarists had become crystalized in the errors of the Protestant system, and the authors of that system had adopted the Old Testament canon foisted on the deluded Jews bv the perfidy of their astute Rabbins ; was drawn up and approved by the Council of Trent on the eighth day of April in the year 1546. After enumerating "all the books both of the Old and New Testament" of " both " of which " one God is the author," the Holy and Ecumenical Council adds: " But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the same books, entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate edition .... let him be anathema." This decree is final for all Cath- olics, and ought to be so for all who believe that God has given the Scriptures as a revelation of His divine will to mankind. 598 The Canon of the Old Testament. First. Because it belongs to the Church to decide all questions pertaining to faith and morals. Second. Because, according to the statements of those Fathers whose testimony is considered as most authoritative oy all Christians, the right to declare especially what is or is not canonical Scripture is vested in the Church, Third. Because, in determining the canon of Script- ure particularly, the Church is infallible, a fact which in their own principles must be admitted by all who hold the Bible to be the Word of God, else their belief is irrational. These points we proceed to prove, not by appealing to the Scriptures, which in discussing the same subjects are cited to good purpose by Catholic writers, as may be seen in their theological treatises and controversial works, but by addressing the common sense of thought- ful Christians. For, in fact among that class of believers the three propositipns just stated must pass as little short of axiomatic, at least they must appear self-evident to all who have carefully perused the writings of the primitive Fathers as well as the contents of the Bible. Yet a word or so on the two first in this chapter. In the next chapter the attention of the reader will be di- rected to the third. As to the first proposition ; if it be asked, for what purpose does a man connect himself with a religious denomination ? Is it not (the answer must be) that he may derive advantage from the instruction, which as a member he is to i-eceive in faith and morals? And does it not follow from this, that the man in question practi- cally admits that the denomination, to which he has at- tached himself, through its teachers, its approved books, its councils, its synods or conventions, has the right to instruct him ; and that it is his duty, to regulate his be- lief and conduct accordingly, so long as he remains a Includes the Detitero Books. 599 member of it ? Now if such be the authority exercised by every sectarian organization, and freely conceded to it by all who claim membership therein, no reasonable person will deny, that it belongs to the Church to de- cide for Catholics, at least all questions, in which their faith or their morals are concerned. Hence as God's revealed zvord is as it were the standard for the regu- lation of Christian belief and practice, it is clearly the right, as well as the duty of the Church to declare at all events to Catholics what constitutes that zvord, and it is just as clearly a matter of strict obligation for all Cath- olics to submit unreservedly to her decrees on the sub- ject. But an intelligent reader will go a step farther and maintain on the same irrefragable principle, that not only CathoHcs but Protestants are bound to hear the Church defining what is, or is not. Canonical Scripture. For when she did so, not only did she address all who claimed to be members of the Christian fold, but she declared, as we have seen, the belief of entire Eastern Christendom, as well as of, by far, the greatest part of Western Christendom. Her voice then was the voice not only of the Oriental Schismatics, but of the repre- sentatives of all nations. East and West at that time in communion with her. For they all in professing their belief in her Canon actually proclaimed it to be the identical instrument transmitted to them from all past generations. Whereas those, who drew up the Protes- tant canon, represented none but themselves and their followers in England and Germany, between whom the canon (if even it) was almost the only point of doctrinal agreement. And that canon was different from the one they had received from their forefathers ; so that when offered to the East, it was, as we have found, summarily and scornfully rejected by that large and ancient sec- tion of Christendom. Nor has it been ever, nor is it now, received by all Protestants as it issued from the 6oo TJlc Cajioii of the Old Testament. hands of its authors. And after all what right had those men who formulated the Protestant canon of the Old Testament to stamp canonical on some books, and apoc- ryphal on others? Not more than their followers who claimed none whatever, but simply and blindly followed their leaders. The latter, so they confess, rejected cer- tain books because they were rejected by contemporary Jews, and doubted by some early Christians. To be consistent those mutilators of the canon should have denied the divinity of Christ, because that was denied all through by the Jews, and denied also by what was for a long time a numerically respectable 'class of Chris- tian sectarists. Beyond the very questionable example of the Jews, who of course rejected the whole of the New Testament, and the hazy testimony of a few early Christian writers the mutilators had no warrant for the conclusion they reached, if we except a liberal use of sophistry, assumption and misrepresentation. On the other hand those who at Trent drew up a catalogue of canonical books, besides being humanly speaking pre- eminently fitted for the task, and inheriting the learning and traditions handed down in ancient churches, some of them coeval with the Apostles, claimed in their con- ciliar capacity to be guided in their utterance by the Holy Ghost. With people swayed by their prejudices that claim may not amount to much. But the reason- able Protestant trained to habits of reflection \\\\\ admit, that without it the Bible is no more to mankind than any other book, and will hesitate before he condemns as apocryphal, writings approved by the Catholic Church. Our second proposition will not be denied by many unprejudiced scholars, who have devoted any attention to patristic studies. Yet, in order to convince the general reader of its truth, a few citations must be made from the works of some among the earliest and most respect- able Christian Fathers, who have written on the sub- Includes the Dcutcro Books. 60 1 ject. And therefore our inquiry will be confined to the statements of writers, Avho lived between the second and fifth centuries, a period, during which such ordin- ances, as the Apostles had enacted for the progress and preservation of the Church, could not have lost much of their force or have become utterl}^ obsolete. Our first and earliest witness is St. Irenceus the Mar- tyred Bishop of Lyons, in Gaul. He was a disciple of St. Polycarp, himself a disciple of St. John the Apostle. Born early in the second century at Smyrna, of which city Pol3-carp was Bishop, Iren^us was afterwards promoted to the See of Lyons. He was thus enabled to become familiar with the rules and traditions pre- vailing in Western as well as Eastern Christendom. In at least one part of his writings, ' he has taken occasion to refer to what he calls " the greatest and most ancient church, known to all, founded and established at Rome by the two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul," and declares that " with this church, on account of her most pow^erful principality, it is necessary that every church, that is, the faithful, who are on all sides, should agree, ' in which (church), by those who are on all sides the apostolic tradition has been always preserved." ' Ob- serve, our illustrious witness does not say, that all churches should agree together, or that the Church at Rome should agree with the Church at Jerusalem, or the Chuixh at Antioch, or the Church at Jerusalem or with all other churches singly or collectively, but that every church that is tJie faitJiful on all sides as church members should agree with the Church at Rome, on account of her more powerful principality — sovereignty, superior- ity, pre-eminence. Elsewhere ^ Irenasus says that the bishops and priests 1 Adv. Hares. 1. Ill, c. iii. >ji 2. " Vide Kenrick on the Primacy of the Apostolic See, p. 86. note and The Faith of Catholics vol. II. p. 3. note. 3 Adv. Hares. L. iv. c. xxvi. s. 5. Ibid. c. xxxii. s. I. 6o2 The Cajion of the Old Testame7it. safely expound the Scriptures to us, and that if any one believes in one God who made all things he begins at a point, whence he may reach the true religion : all of which will be brought to his knowledge, if he reads the Scripture with those, who are the priests in the Church and possess the apostolic doctrine. It appears therefore from these and other statements of our Saint, that when he wrote, the Scriptures were generally used and ex- plained by the Clergy to the people, and that they ex- isted in a well known collection. Iren^eus also states ,' that they were corrupted, mutilated, and distorted by the heretics of his day, so that for man}^ it must have been difficult to say, what was or was not scripture ; what was or was not its meaning. Under these circum- stances various questions connected with the Scriptures must then have pressed for a solution. We dare not say, that the limits of the sacred records had been clearly defined when Irenseus wrote, or that what we understand by the canon of Scripture had been already formulated. But let us suppose, that any controversy had arisen on this or any other point connected with the Scripture, how was that controversy to be settled ? Irenasus an- swers, by every Church, that is the faithful everywhere, agreeing with the church at Rome. According to this rule, whenever a Pope from Peter, who first governed the church at Rome to Paul III. under whose pontifi- cate the Tridentine canon was approved, either appealed to the deutero books, or actually pronounced them ca- nonical, and several of them did one or other ; every christian throughout the world was bound to accept such action, as the only standard by which he was Xx> regulate his belief concerning the canon of Scripture. Now let us hear Tertullian on the same subject. This celebrated African scholar commenced his career in the latter part of the second century, and died in the early 1 Ibid. L. I. c. I. s. 3. Ibid. c. III. s. 6. Ibid. L. II. c. xix. s. 8, etc. Include!, the Deutero Books. 603 part of the third. In his writings he has dwelt on sev- eral points already treated by Irenaeus, notably that one, to which we have just referred. TertuUian's rule for the determination of doctrine is substantially identical with that laid down by Iren^us. The only difference between them arises from the difference of classes, by which the rule was to be applied. Irena^us wrote prin- cipally for the churches and the faithful in their dioces- an capacity. TertuUian's instruction was intended for Christians generally as individuals, few of whom could communicate with the Cluirch at Rome; and he there- fore directed them to consult the nearest apostolic church, that being no doubt in his opinion the same as to consult the Roman Church, with which all other Apostohc churches were then necessarily in communion. But let us hear TertuUian himself : " Come then, you, who wish to exercise your curiosity to better advantage in the affair of salvation ; run over the apostolic churches in which the very chairs of the apostles continue to preside over their own places, in which their authentic letters are read, echoing the voice, and/epresenting the face of each one. Is Achaia near you ? you have Corinth. If you are not far from Macedonia you have the Philippi, you have the Thessalonians. If you can go to Asia, you have Ephesus. If you are near Italy, you have Rome, whence we also derive our authority. How happy that Church, to which the Apostles poured forth their whole doctrine together with their blood, where Peter passed through the Lord's passion, where Paul is crowned with the death of John, ' where the Apostle John, after emer- ging safely out of the boiling oil into which he had been plunged, w^as banished to an island, let us see wdiat she learned, what she taught, since she provided the Afri- can churches also with the countersign." [cum Africanis quoque ecclesiis contesserarit] ' Thus the individual 1 The Baptist. ' Liber De Frccscrip. c. xxxvi. 6o4 The Canon of the Old Testament. enquirer atter truth, in TertuUian's opinion, might apply to any of the Apostolic churches to which he was nearest; but more especially to Rome preeminent among all the rest for so many reasons— Rome, with which all the other churches were then so closely linked in the bonds of Chris- tian unity. And had that enquirer been anxious to ascer- tain the true canon of Scripture according to Tertullian, he had to seek for information from the same quarter. But TertuUian's statements made elsewhere ' for the purpose of marking the distinction between genuine and spurious scriptures are still more to our purpose. " To sum up " says he " if it is certain that that is truest which is most ancient, that most ancient which is even from the beginning, that from the beginning which is from the Apostles ; it will in like manner also be cer- tain, that that has been handed down by the Apostles, which shall have been held sacred by the churches of the Apostles. Let us see what milk the Corinthians drained from Paul ; after what rule the Galatians were reformed ; what the Philippians, the Thessalonians, the Ephesians read ; also what the Romans close at hand trumpet forth, to whom both Peter and Paul left the Gospel sealed also with their blood. We. have also the churches that John taught. For although Marcion rejects his Apocalypse, nevertheless the suc- cession of bishops counted up to their origin, will stand by John as the author I say therefore that Gospel of Luke which we are principally defending, holds its place, from the first of its publication, amongst the churches, not the apostolic alone, but all who are cov- enanted with them by the fellowship of religion; whilst that of Marcion is to most not known, and known to none except to be condemned. .... The same authority of the apostolic churches will defend the other Gospels also, which accordingly we have through these churches, ' Adv. Marcion. 1. iv. c. 5. Includes the Deutcro Books. 605 and according to these churches, I mean the Gospel of John and Matthew, etc." TertuUian knew of but one way by which the Script- ure as a divine record could be defended against its assailants, and that was by appealing to the teachings of the churches, not the apostolic alone, but all others in communion with them, in other words to the doctnne held by the Church in her corporate capacity. Was not this the plan adopted in the sixteenth century, when it became necessary to vindicate the integrity of the New as well as the Old Testament against the impious attempts of the Marcions, who appeared at that time? Origen also, who was born at Alexandria in 185 and died at Tyre in 255, made use of the same method for ascertaining the genuine Scriptures. In his celebrated answer to Africanus, who had urged against deutero Daniel several objections no doubt then and certainly afterwards' popular among the Jews, Origen after a brief introduction says : " Know, therefore what we ought to do, not merely with regard to what relates to Susanna, which, according to the Greeks, is circulated in Greek throughout the whole Church of Christ, nor as regards, as you have stated the case, the two other sec- tions which are at the end of the Book (of Daniel), written about Bel and the Dragon, neither of which is written in the Daniel of the Jews, but also with regard to countless other portions of the Scripture," of which portions he gives several examples. Then he ironically tells Africanus that " It is time, therefore, unless these things are hidden from us, to reject the copies circulated in the churches, and to make it a law for the brotherhood to set aside the sacred books circulated amongst them, and to flatter and persuade the Jews in order that they may communicate them to us, pure and free from what is false. Has then, that providence which, in the holy 1 Vide, Jerome Pref. to Daniel. 6o6 The Canon of the Old Testament. writings has given edification to the churches of Christ, had no care of those who had been bought with a price, for whom Christ died; ivhom tJiough His Son, God, who is charity, spared not but delivered Him up for us all, that, with Him He might give ns all things ? Moreov'^er, con- sider whether it is not good to bear in mind that sa3ang : TJiou shalt not remove the e7>erlasting laiid-marks ivhich thy forefathers have set!'^ Farther on Origen remarks inci- dentally that " the Jews do not use the book of Tobias, nor that oi Judith, for they have not them even in their apocrvpha in Hebrew as I have learned from them : but since the Churches use Tobias, we ought to know that in the captivit}-," etc. "" How indispensable Origen considered the authority of the Church as a means, indeed the only means of ascertaining the genuine Scriptures, appears still more clearly from what he has written regarding the Gospels. Thus Eusebius ^ relates that Origen " in the first book of his commentaries on St. Matthew's Gospel attests that he knows of only four Gospels as follows." 'As I have understood from tradition respecting the four Gospels, which are the only undisputed ones in the whole Church of God.' The principle here insisted on is more fully expressed in his first Homil}- on St. Luke's Gospel, where he says " There are only four approved Gospels, from which dogmas are adduced under the person of Our Lord and Saviour. I know a certain Gospel according to Thomas, one according to Ma- thias, and we have read many more, on account of those who think they know something, if thev know them. But in all these, we approve of nothing else than, what the Church approves, that is, that only four Gospels are to he received^ As much as to sa}" out of the innumerable Gospels now in circulation I select but four, Matthew's, Mark's, Luke's, and John's; and that solely because I § 4. M 12. ^ Hist. Eales. L. vi.. c. 25. Liclndcs the Dciiicro Books. 607 the Church directs that only these four are to be re- ceived. Here it is right to observe that the fact for which we are contending, is further proved by all that has been written throughout the period included in the present enquiry, to demonstrate the existence and necessity of doctrinal unity in the Church. On that point Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Justin, Clement of Alexandria, and others including the three to whose authority reference has just been made, have insisted with great earnestness. But in the mind of those and succeeding Fathers, doc- trinal unit}' implied a certain fixed symbol, with all that logically flowed from it, since without such symbol, as they urged, the existence of a Church is inconceivable. Now* the Church being professedly based on a divine revelation communicated in certain writings, her symbol or creed must contain an explicit declaration as to the nature and extent of that revelation, as soon as it is known that God has made it. This no one can reason- ably deny. In fact all Protestant denominations are now generally agreed among each other as to the limits and nature of written revelation. In order, therefore, that the Church should be one in belief, as the Fathers maintain, it became necessary that as soon as the collec- tion of divine writings was completed and brought to her knowledge, she should have a canon of Scripture, else her doctrinal unity would have been but a delusion. But the Fathers all contended that she was really in- vested with this divine characteristic, and it therefore evidently follows, that when they argued, as all of them did, that unity was a fundamental principle in her con- stitution, and should be cherished and maintained by all her childi-en ; they meant thereby to sav that all were bound to accept her canon of Scripture whatever that was, and to repudiate every other instrument of the same kind as unauthorized. When, therefore, we hear 6o8 The Canon of tJie Old Testament . Cj'prian, Bishop of Carthage who suffered martyrdom in 258, urging the faithful to '' repel and shun every man whoever he be, who separates fi'om the Church," add- ing that " whoever isolates himself condemns himself,'" and remarking in his letter " to Antonianus a Bishop of Numidia in reference to Novatian, a then notorious heretic, that " we ought not to be curious as to what he teaches outside (the Church); whosoever he be, and whatever he be, he is no Christian who is not in the Church," one may reasonably conclude that the holy mart)^r would have had no patience with any proud spirit, who dared to reject sacred writings received by the Church, for that would be teaching outside. And ever}^ student of patristic literature is well aware that such sentiments were common to those great saints and writers, who in early times ennobled their faith by their virtues, or defended it with their pens. A candid inquirer will also find, that St. Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, who died in 386, though b}' telling his dis- ciples to " read the divine scriptures, these twenty-two books of the old testament" he seems to adopt the then Jewish canon; 3-et as he adds "immediately" which (twenty-two books) the seventy-two interpreters trans- lated " ^ shows that his canon was Alexandrine or Tridentine, especially as the Septuagint is known to have included the deutero books when he wrote, and he himself admitted, nay insisted, that "that translation was the product not of human knowledge, but of the Holy Spirit, and effected by the inspiration of that Holy Spirit bv whom the scriptures were dictated. ' Besides, with Cyril as with the other Fathers, in discriminating between Scripture and Scripture the authority of the Church was paramount for all. " Learn also diligently and from the Chiireh " he says " what are the books of ' Liber de Unitatie Ecclesia. xvii. - §. xxiv. 3 Cateckes, 1. iv. §. xxxiii. •» Ibid. ^. xxxiv. Includes the Deutero Books. 609 the old Testament ; what those of the New ? " ' So that were it certain that Cyril, through ignorance of the canon used by the Church, followed that of contem- porary Jews, there can be no doubt, that, when better informed, he would have received as canonical the books rejected by the existing synagogue, but admitted by the Church. Besides he did himself in his own writings actually appeal to the authority of those books, when he found therein anything bearing immediately on the questions, with which he was dealing. Farther on ^ after describing the history of the Septuagint, and insist- ing on its inspiration, he repeats: "Read those twenty- two books, have nothing to do with apocrypha. Study carefully those alone, which we read carefully in the CJiurch " (for Cyril as for all else the rule in the matter was the practice of the Church) " far wiser and religious than you were the Apostles and ancient bishops, these rulers of the Church, who handed them down ; do not falsify what has been settled." ' Lucifer, Btshop of Cagliari, in Sardinia, whose death occurred in 370, was distinguished not only for his learn- ing, but for his strenuous opposition to the errors of the Arian faction. That the Church in the Council of Trent, or on any other occasion, could have canonized books merely human, must have seemed to him, as it has to a large majority of Christians at all times, absurd as well as impossible. For he maintains that " the Hol)^ Spirit, the Comforter, who was in the prophets, re- mained also in the Apostles, which same Holy Spirit si)ice He is in God's church, and you (Arians) are outside God's Church" etc. All who, beheve the Christian Re- ligion to be anything more than a human system of ethics will subscribe to Lucifer's statement. When the Protestant canon appeared, wherever the Church was ' Ibid, xxxiii, - Ihid. xxxv. ^ Catechesis. iv. 0. xxxv. De non parcend, in Deiim dt'lhujueiii, ( Bibl. Ma. Pat. Tom. iv. p. 237. 6io The Canon of the Old Testament. there was the Holy Ghost. That is certain. But where was she? At Trent or at Wittenberg? And who represented her ? The bishops of Christendom or Martin Huther ? Common sense alone, suppHes a ready answer. When a mere fraction of Christendom rejected the canon of the Catholic Church, on what side let us ask would the Father have ranged himself, who wrote " My resolution is, to read the ancients, to try every thing, to hold fast what is good and not to recede from the Catholic Church."' Who' can read the reference to St. Jerome by the Anglican establishment in its 6th Article, without denouncing it as a fovil libel on the fair fame of an illustrious writer? who, if he ever meant to make the Jewish canon his own before and especially after he wrote his prefaces, showed that he was Tridentine to the core ; — a wn-iter, too, whose rank Romanism displays itself in the following noble words addressed to Pope Damasus.^ " I have thought that I ought to consult the chair of Peter, and, the faith that was commended by the mouth of an Apostle .... Following no chief but Christ I am joined in communion with your Holiness, that is, with the chair of Peter, upon that rock I know that the church is built Whosoever gathereth not with thee, that is; whosoever is not of Christ is antichrist." The reader may imagine with what scorn St. Jerome, who died in 419, would have regarded the impudent appeal to his authority by the Anglican framers of the tiiirty-nine articles, had he been living at the time. Let us now see what in reference to our second proposition has been said by St. Augustine, who died in 430. After speaking of the preparation b}' which one becomes a most skilled interpreter of the sacred writ- ings he proceeds to observe : " Now, in regard to the ' Jereme Ep. ad Minetv. et Alexand. % i\. * Ep. XV. ^^ {I. 2). Includes the Deutcro Books. 6i i canonical Scriptures, he must follow the authority of the greater number of Catholic churches; and among these of course a high place must be given to such as have been thought worthy to be the seat of an Apostle and to receive epistles. Accordingly, among the canonical Scriptures he will judge according to the following standard : to pre- fer those that are received b}- all the Catholic churches to those which some do not receive. Among those again, which are not received by all, he will prefer such, as have the sanction of the greater number and those of greater authorit}', to such, as are held by the smaller number and are of less authority. But if he should find that some books are held by the greater number of churches, and others by the churches of greater author- ity (though this is not very likely to happen), I think that in such a case the authority on the two sides is to be looked upon as equal." ' In making this statement Augustine must have intended to say, either ; in what way one who knows not what books constitute the canon of Scripture is to ascertain those books, or, having already discovered that, how he is to determine their relative value. For that on the latter point, there is a difference, as an}^ one will admit, between the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament, as well as between the Pentateuch and the book of Esther for example. Besides, Augustine having made the statement in ques- tion immediately adds " Now the entire canon of Scrip- ture, in regard of which we say that the above consider- ations are to be applied is comprised in these books." Here follows the Tridentine catalogue. Now this last remark seems to imply that " the skilful interpreter" who as such ought to know the extent of the inspired text has already really made up his mind on that sub- ject, and needs to know the relative value of the different classes of sacred books, a point on which Au- * De Doctrina Christiatia. — L. ii. c. viii. >). 12. 6i2 The Canon of tJic Old Testament. gustinc takes care to expatiate, as he proceeds with his catalogue. It matters little, however, which of the two meanings actually reflects the thought ot Augustine, when he wrote the statement, since he maintains through- out that " the skilful interpreter of the sacred script- ures" must " in regard to the canonical scriptures fol- low the authority of the greater number of Catholic churches ; " ' and that ajithoritj is known absolutel}' and without the possibility of mistake when the Catholic churches act as a imit, as they did at Trent, there sol- emnly proclaiming that to be the only true canon of Scripture which was contained in the Bible, as it had circulated all along throughout the East as well as the West, and which had come to Augustine as It had to all other Fathers from those apostolic men, who here and there were among the first tillers of the Lord's vineyard. But aside from all this it is certain that Au- gustine firmly held, that " the right to declare especially what is or is not canonical Scripture is vested in the Church." For he declares " I, for m}- part, would not believe the Gospel, unless the authority of the Church moved me to it." ^ and almost in the same breath adds " who the successor of Christ's betrayer was we read in the Acts of the Apostles ; which book I must believe if I believe the gospel, since both writings rest alike on the testimony of the Catholic Church." ' The testimony rendered on the point before us by St. Isidore of Pelusium, who died in 440, agrees with that of Augustine. " Now the sacred volumes," says he^ " which contain the testimon}^ of the divine Scriptures, are like ladders, by which the ascent to heaven is made. Wherefore all those, which are proposed in the Church, ' '■ In canonicis autem scripturis, ecclesiarum catholicarum quamplurium auctoritatem sequatur. " ' Contra Ep.. Futidament. cap. v. 3 Ibid. Includes the Deutero Books. 613 receive as tried gold, the}- having been purified, as by fire, by the divine spirit of truth. But leave aside whatever books circulate outside this volume." ' In harmony with the teaching of all these Fathers is the doctrine proclaimed in the year 400 by the First Council of Toledo in these words : " If any one shall say, or shall believe that other Scriptures, besides those which the Catholic Church has received, are to be es- teemed of authority, or to be venerated, let him be anathema." ^ It is therefore evident, that during those earl}- ages, when the Christian religion according to the general belief of intelligent Protestants remained substantiallv what it had been in the time of the Apostles ; the right to distinguish between divine and human writings, to say what books were canonical, what apocryphal, was believed on all hands to belong exclusively to the Church. So much for our second proposition. 1 L. I. Ep. Cyro. ccclxix. (Bib. Max. Pat. Tom. vii. p. 570.) 2 Can. xii. coll. 1228. T. II. Labb. Concil. CHAPTER XLII. Third and Last. The Tridextixe Canon true and unimpeachable, else a belief in the divinity of THE Bible is irrational. Our third proposition, paradoxical as it ma}' seem to man}-, is not less true; and can hardly be considered less reasonable than either of the other two by reflecting Protestants, who still believe, without doubt or hesita- tion, that the Bible is the Word of God. For if the Church be not infallible in deciding what is sacred Scripture, it follows that it has never been and never will be declared by competent authority, that the Bible is a book, indeed the only book, of which God Himself is the Author. We say competent authority, meaning thereby a formal decision emanating from a tribunal supernatural in its constitution and inerrable in its judg- ments. On this point we insist, since it is evident that mere human testimony is wholly inadequate to prove that the Bible is, as all Christians believe, not the pro- duction of fallible man, but of the infallible God. To believe, for example, that the epistle ascribed to Barn- abas was really written by that apostle and is veracious is one thing ; to believe that that epistle is canonical is another thing altogether. The genuineness and cre.di- bilitv of any book, whether really or only professedly sac- red scripture, are questions with which, before it is au- thoritatively placed on the canon, human testimony is competent to deal. But whether a book be canonical or 614 Settled solely by the Church. 615 not is one, which mere human testimony cannot decide. Were the autograph of the Epistle said to have been ad- dressed by St. Paul to the Laodiceans discovered, and evidence at hand proving it to be the work of that Apostle ; it would not therefore be canonical, that is, a book whose contents were dictated by the Holy Ghost, and therefore to be followed as a guide in faith and morals. For it might not treat of either. And whether it did or not ; as no merely human tribunal is capable of deciding in all cases what according to conscience is to be believed, what is to be done or not done ; the ques- tion would be one, on which an infallible tribunal would have to pass judgment ; else it would remain forever a matter of doubt and conjecture : and this the more so as the canonicity of a book implies its inspiration, a point certainly to be decided by God Himself, or those whom he may have delegated for the purpose. Testimony, therefore, in all respects purely human, though often sufficient to test the genuinness and credi- bility of written documents, can never lead to that degree of certainty, which is absolutely necessary; when it is to be decided whether they are to be admitted to a place among the canonical scriptures. Yet Prot- estants have no better warrant for believing that the books in their Bible are canonical ; and must, if they would avoid the imputation of blind fanaticism, admit that Richard Baxter, — one among the few honest old preachers ot whom they can boast, — told the plain, un- varnished truth, when referring to the method by which Protestants "prove scripture the word of God," he confessed that " godly ministers and Christians tell them so, it is impious to doubt it, and therefore they believe it." ' Water can never rise higher than its source without the application of a force outside itself. So the human testimony of even "ghostly ministers," ' Saints Rest. Part ii. Chap. ii. p. 159. Carter's ed. N.V. 1855. 6i6 TJic Canon of tJie Old Testament or for that matter, of all the sects they represent, with- out supernatural assistance, which they do not, because they cannot claim, has never been and never will be able to furnish an intelligent Protestant with what, he might consider, a conclusive and satisfactory proof of the canonicity commonly claimed by Protestant christ- ians for the books contained in their bible. So much for the value of external human testimony as bearing on the canonicity of the Scriptures. But what about the internal evidence which the scriptures themselves render in favor of their own canonicity ? Well. This exactly. Such evidence, whatever it be, is simply human; to say that it is anything more is to assert what has to be proved — that the books of the Bible are canonical. Among men of common sense, whatever, be their creed, it is therefore a settled point that the canonicity of the books in the Bible cannot be established by anything contained in the Bible. In fact during the palmiest days of Protestantism, when the very punctua- tion ot the Bible was believed by the enthusiastic admir- ers of the reformation to be the work of God ; " There were differences among themselves" says Professor Smith of Aberdeen " as to the value of the Apocrypha (deutero scriptures) on the one hand, and as to the can- onicity of Esther and some other books on the Old can- on on the other." ' And it is well known that Semler '^ and his school in Germany has made sad havoc of the Protestant canon in that country. Neither can the can- onicity of a single book in the Bible be proved by any thing recorded therein as spoken b}^ Christ, or written by the authors of the Old or New Testament. To as- sert the contrary is equivalent to saying.; that a contested will proves its own genuineness, when there is no one to verify the signatures of the witnesses or that of the 1 The Old Testament in the Jewish Church, p. 42. 2 Kitto's Cycl. vol. i. p. 377. (canon). Settled so/e/j' by the Church. 617 testator; or to testify that in his presence or hearing-, the latter directed that such disposition should be made of his estate as the instrument in question expressed. To man}^ it may seem little short of impiety, to argue that nothing said b}^ Our Lord, nothing written by any of His Apostles, or by any of those to whom we are indebted for the Old Testament, can demonstrate that the books of the Bible are canonical. But let us look at the Bible as rational beings. The entire Bible was not finished for many years after Our Lord had disap- peared from the world ; and neither Himself nor His Apostles are now present to bear testimony to the con- tents of that volume. Besides, since first written it has been copied and translated times without number, some- times faithfully, but often far otherwise, as the state of the text abundantly proves. Thousands of years have passed, not only since its first book was written, but since every autograph of every Old Testament book especially has disappeared, when and how no one can tell. And the fate that has befallen the original copies of the Old, has long since overtaken those of the New, at most within a few centuries after the last of its in- vSpired writers had passed away. Besides, the contents of the \yhole volume are such, that even if we suppose the text to be now what it was originally, it would be possible for readers of all grades to draw, as they do at present, the most contradictor}- conclusions from its perusal ; while several of its books are assigned by emi- nent modern critics to other authors than those to whom they are commonly ascribed, or whose names they gen- erally bear ; and the origin of other books once supposed by all and still believed by some to be the productions of writers, whose names are as familiar as household words, has been so obfuscated by the exegetical disqui- sitions of those learned critics, that, were their author's to return to earth they could hardly expect to secure a 6i8 The Canon of the Old Testaiuent copyright. Simple souls used to turn to the Epistle to the Hebrews and draw instruction and consolation not only from the reading of its contents, b^it from the be- lief, that they were perusing'a genuine letter written to the men of his race by the great Apostle of the Gen- tiles. But they rhust believe so no longer, for " F. W. Farrar, D.D., F.R.S., and chaplain in ordinary to the Queen " tells ' them in the year of grace 1882 that that Epistle was not written b}' St. Paul, nor even by an Apostle, but by Apollo ; the idea of its Apollonian origin having been hatched in the seething brain of Luther.' Such remarks from a ro3'al chaplain are not likely to shock the feelings of the English Protestant public, for it has been long accustomed to more irrev- erent criticism by high dignitaries in the Anglican com- munion. Few, however, were prepared to hear that the rationalistic theories imported into England from Germany had crossed the borders ; and were enthusias- tically reechoed in the Kirk o' Scotland. Yet such is the case, for the Aberdeen pi'ofessor cited above, as ap- pears from the preface to his work, " on the invitation of some six hundred prominent Free Church men in Edinburg and Glasgow," delivered in those cities " dur- ing the first three months of the present year" (1881) " twelve lectures " on " The Old Testament in the Jew- ish Church ; " " and the average attendance in the course in the two cities was not less than eighteen hundred ; " a fact which shows that what the lecturer calls " pro- gressive Biblical science," or the " newer criticism " meets with considerable favor among a large and influ- ential class of his countrymen. As a specimen of this so called " science " and of the consequence resulting from the substitution of human for the divine authority claimed by the Church in reference to the Bible, we ■ ' The Early Days oj Christianity, pp. 182, 183- ' Ibid. 187. Settled solely by the Church. 619 select the following from many similar statements ad- vanced by the advocate of the "newer criticism " in his series of lectures. "As a matter of fact the Pentateuchal history was written in the land of Canaan ; and if it is all by one hand, it was not composed before the period of the Kings." ' And " The Pentateuch then, was not written in the wilderness, but moreover it is not now in its narrative parts a single continuous w^ork, but a com- bination of several narratives originally independent." "^ Scotch Calvinism is doomed, for the time is probably not far distant, when the disciples of John Knox, if they have not already done so, will subscribe to the belief proclaimed by an Anglican Bishop in 1862, viz:" that the narrative of the Pentateuch, whatever ma}- be its value, cannot be regarded as historically true." ' Yet among educated readers this is the logical and inevitable result of discarding the authority of the Church for mere human testimony, as the sole key to the solution of the many problems connected with the written word of God. Others, who on human testimony alone still persist in believing that the Bible is not only historically true but divinely inspired, do so in defiance of the plainest principles dictated by common sense. The treatment which the Bible receives from that large class of German, English, and American Protes- tants, represented by the writers named above, and in fact from intelligent Protestant readers generally, is subversive of a principle, without which Christian civi- lization could not be maintained. For it is only when mob rule and violence have usurped the place of law- and order, that the superior is subjected to the judg- ment ot the inferior, or that the private citizen dares to question the authority of a law pronounced constitu- 1 Ibid. pp. 321, 322. ^ pp. 324, 325- 3 Pref. to the Pent, and Book of Josmi, by Rt. Rev. John William Colenso, D.D., Bishop of Natal, p. 20. 620 The Ca)ion of the Old Testament tional by the public tribunals. Unless in times of social disorder when legitimate power has been superseded by lawless and irrepressible force ; the law, as set forth and interpreted by the judge for the time being, is above the person or the case brought before his tribunal whatever may be the dignity of that person, or the im- portance of that case. But as if the Protestant system was religious anarch}- or the creed of lunatics, this is all reversed the moment an advocate of that system attempts to deal with the Bible according to his own principles. For the Bible, until he becomes an infidel, is for him as the word of God, a divine code, whose meaning, scope, and limits, he has no right to define. For him to at- tempt that is illogical, revolutionary, and impious. He dare not so trifle with the laws of the civil communitv to which he belongs. And who will say he is at liberty, to sit in judgment on the law of the Lord. We readily grant that it is not only lawful but lauda- ble for a Christian to examine the reasons why the Bible is to be received as the word of God ; why, for example, this or that book is considered canonical and that other not, since in this matter, as well as all others pertaining to his religious belief it is not unquestioning credulity but intelligent faith that is expected of him. To engage however in such an enquiry with the intention of argu- ing that the Bible is not what it is commonly taken for; or with the expectation of proving that it is destitute of any of those characteristics, without which it would be nothing more than a human production — though a task which an infidel might consistently undertake — is one which a Christian of whatever creed must decline, so long as he remains such. Yet as if the Bible were no more than it is to a disciple of Voltaire or Tom Paine, the Protestant arraigns before the bar of his own reason every book of which it is composed ; and presumes to •decide whether it is canonical or not ; thus putting the Settled solely by the Church. 62 1 human above the divine, and subjecting what he believes to be, or at least has some reason to suspect, may be, the oracles of God, to the capricious judgment of a mind perhaps warped by invincible prejudices, at all events, fallible b}^ nature and limited in its range of knowledge. It will not do to say that his judgment is confirmed by that of all other Protestants at or since the Reforma- tion, and of the Jewish people both before and since the time of Christ ; even were such the case, a point, which not onl}' can never be proved, but is untrue. For the opinion of all those Protestants and Jews as to the Old Testament canon is for the Protestant enquirer nothing more than human testimon}- ; and is to be entirely dis- regarded, unless we are prepared to say that the word of God is to be tested by the word of man. It, therefore, follows that it is irrational for the Protestant to believe that the books in his Bible are canonical, unless he be- lieves this because the Church says so. And this he must do, otherwise for him there is no such thing as canonical Scripture ; because the word canonical implies a characteristic which lies in the plain of the superhuman, and is therefore beyond the range of the most trust- worthy testimony which man can offer ; and one of those points about which none but a superhuman witness, or a human witness divinely appointed can testify. But the Church is the only such witness, and therefore every Christian whether Protestant or Catholic, before he can logically accept any book as canonical, must have her assurance that it is so. Now there are many considerations, some of which will convince any intelligent and unprejudiced person, that this assurance may be rehed on as trustworthy ; others that will enable him to see that it gives abso- lute certainty. Thus the Scriptures of both the Old and New Testament, whatever the books that compose them, were delivered to the guardianship of the Church by the 622 The Canon of the Old Testament Apostles. This is admitted on all hands, as we have already seen. But has she been faithful to her trust in this matter ? Has she preserved these Scriptures sub- stantially as they were delivered to her ? Of this there can be no reasonable doubt. The copy she uses and approves of is called the Vulgate. Besides this, there are in existence, the copies of the Hebrew Scrip- tures possessed by Christians as well as Jews ; and innum- erable other copies in various languages ; many of these copies being very ancient, and others comparatively modern. The Vatican library possesses a copy ' of a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, the first ever made into any language, and antedating the birth of Christ by nearly three hundred years. The copy itself belongs to the middle if not the beginning of the fourth century within our era. St. Petersburg is en- riched with another copy "' of that translation. It is supposed to have been written almost as early as the preceding. The British museum contains a third copy ^ of that translation as old as the fourth or fifth century. And the National Library at Paris comprises among its literary treasures a fourth copy " which is generally as- signed to the fourth century. Besides these copies be- longing to the fourth or fifth century, there are numerous others of various translations proceeding from the earliest ' Codex Vattcanits in the Vatican Library, Rome. 2 Codex Sinaiticiis found by Tischendorf in St. Catharine's Monastery, Mount Sinai. * Codex Alexandrinus brought from Alexandria in Egypt by Cyril Lucar, who presented it to Charles I. of England. •* Ephnem resoiptus. It is a palimpsest; and is so called, because, as it ap- pears, a copy of the Scriptures having been first, written on the parchment, and the letters having either faded or been removed, the parchment was again used for copying some of St. Ephrem's works. In the course ot time the double purpose which the parchment was compelled to serve was discovered, and the copy of St. Ephrem's works having been removed by a chemical process, the original copy of the Scripture, which the parchment contained, was partially restored. Settled solely by the Church: 623 version of the Hebrew Scriptures, and made into the many languages spoken by Christian nations and tribes — the Syriac, Grasco Veneto, Memphitic or Coptic, Thebaic or Sahidic, Bashmuric, Arabic, Ethiopic, Persian, Geor- gian, Slavonic, Gothic, Armenian ; translations more or less complete, and written at different dates between the first and ninth century ; for the number includes the Peshito, a production very probably of the first century. The works of early Christian writers have also pre- served for us innumerable quotations from the Bible, as it existed in their time and in their respective coun- tries. Now a comparison between the vulgate on the one hand, and all these translations and copies of trans- lations and patristic quotations on the other, will prove that no change of any consequence has occurred in the text, which the Church has followed as a stand- ard ; that it is, to all intents and purposes, identical with not only the text preserved among the Jews, but with that, in which the contents of the Bible have been translated into the various languages spoken in all those countries, where the Christian religion was long ago established, and where it is still professed, or has been corrupted by triumphant schism. The versions just mentioned, contain all of them, so far as known, the Old as well as the New Testament deutero books — tht-Pcs- hito ' alone excepted, as it wants most of the deutero 1 Simple as the word is generally Interpreted. It is the oldest of the Syrian versions, and comprised originally only the Old Testament proto books, though the deutero books of that part must have been soon added ; as they are frequently cited by St. Ephrem, a Syrian writer of the fourth century. At first the II. Ep. of Peter II. and III. Eps of John, Ep- of Jude and the Apocalpse were not contained in the Peshito New Testament. For these books as they are now found in that version, seem to have been added sub- sequently as if the Syrian Churches had not received them at the same time with the others ; or having received them had in accordance with the teaching of Theodore of Mopseustia rejected them for a time; but at last when better informed restored them to the canon. 624 TJiC Cano)i of the Old Testament found in the New as well as all the deutero belonging to the Old Testament, the latter having been translated from the Hebrew into Sj'riac probably at a time, when the Jews had already reduced their canon to its pres- ent dimensions. This exception, however, only strengthens our argument. For, though differing from the Church's standard copy of the Scriptures as to the number of Old Testament books, the Peshito, as to its text, coincides substantially, so far as it goes, with the text of that standard ; thus proving as do all the other translations and copies, each having those books which were originally wanting in it, that the Church has all along sedulously and successfully guarded the purity of the sacred text. Strange would it not be, had she been less careful to preserve the integrity of the sacred volume itself, or allowed its limits to be stretched be- yond the lines fixed by those inspired men who de~ livered it to her keeping. And let it be further observed, that the propagation of the Gospel everywhere among nations once heathen but now Christian, has been the work of the Church. That whatever there is valuable in modern civilization is fairly to be ascribed to her influence. That the equality of all men before God was first insisted on by her. That life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were first de- clared by her to be the right of every human being. That had it not been for her, slavery would still, be as it once was the condition of a great part of mankind. That woman from being the chattel was made by her the companion of man. That by the Church was laid, and is still preserved the only sure foundation, on which the integrity of the Christian family and the sanctity of Christian marriage can be maintained. And that even her enemies must admit, that the cause of Christian morality and of Christian charity has ever found in her its most eloquent advocate, often its sole successful pro- Settled solely by the Church. 625 moter. Surely that man must be beyond the reach of argument, who cannot be convinced by such facts, that the testimony of the Church, declaring that any par- ticular book of the Bible is canonical, is entitled to that degree of respect which inspires entire confidence. But there are olher facts, which, if examined in the light, reflected on human affairs by a behef in God's prov- idence, must lead not only to a feeling of confidence, but to a positive conviction, that when the Church solemnly announces that certain books are canonical, her judg- ment is to be regarded as infallible. Thus of all the civil and religious institutions, which existed in the Apostolic age, or were founded for centuries afterwards through- out the length and breadth of Christendom, she is the only one that still survives. And during the long period, over which her history extends, she has passed through trials far greater than those, which proved fatal to all else. For she has had to contend with the unsparing ridicule of a cynical philosophy, with the blind fury of unpity ing paganism, and the fierce passions of untutored bar- barism. And, as if she were an enemy to the peace and happiness of mankind, she has been outlawed in the decrees of legislatures and the edicts of rulers. At one time Emperors and Kings have endowed her with princely possessions, have done public penance at the bidding of her Bishops, and have even condescended to hold the stirrup of her chief Pastor. i\t another they have stripped her of everything, massacred her ministers ; and when they did not force on him the crown of martyrdom, have dragged her supreme Head from his See, thrust him into prison, or driven him into exile; that the shepherd being struck his flock might be scattered, and the Church be thus annihilated, or made subservient to the state. But in every struggle of the kind the Church triumphed in the end. and resumed her divine mission, while her persecutors, one b3' one at €26 The Canon of the Old Testament last passed to their final account. Such is the lesson which history teaches, and such the problem presented in the checkered career of the Church. Let material- ists solve that curious problem if they can. They have tried to do so, but failed, overlooking or ignoring the fact that the Church as the Bride of Christ, must have, like her Spouse, a divine as well as a human side. In the latter as He was, she is vulnerable, in the former like Him she is impassible. In her what is human is not be- yond the reach of her enemies. But against the divine element, implanted in her nature by God not even the gates of hell can prevail. On no hypothesis, that ex- cludes this view of the case, is it possible to account for the mysterious vitalit}^ which she has exhibited through- out her long and eventful history. Her very existence in view of the trials, through which she has passed alive, but not always unscathed, is, therefore, prima facie evi- dence, that when she declares in her magisterial capa- city, what is and what is not canonical Scriptui"e, she declares the truth and nothing but the truth. But this is not all. For among the many motives, which a reasonable man may have for believing, that the only canon which he can safely adopt, is that which has been approved by the Church, there is one which may appear to many minds, more cogent than any yet men- tioned. Be this as it may, it probably had more to do in the conversion of nations, than all others combined. Most, in fact, rdl of those nations, which, either during or since the time of the Apostles, embraced the Chris- tian religion, in doing so renounced the gross errors, which then constituted the creed of all but the Jews ; and abandoned the inhuman forms of vice, to which the infidel classes of mankind have been at all times addicted. This doctrinal and moral change is implied in the pro- fession of faith required from all converts to Christianity. And wherever the cross was planted, that change took Settled solely by the Church. 627 place at the suggestion of strangers, who, however irreproachable in their lives, possessea neither worldly wealth nor worldly influence ; and in point of human learning were even far inferior to many of their disci- ples. Besides they had nothing to offer, as a substitute for the sensual charms and mythological attractions, which paganism possessed for its deluded votaries ; ex- cept a religion, whose creed was mainly composed of inscrutable mysteries, while its moral principles were at war with those corrupt tendencies of human nature, to which the heathens yielded' with the same ease, as they did to their physical necessities; and its rewards nothing more than the consolation of a good conscience, with the hope of a happy death, and a blissful eternity, bless- ings then too often unattainable, unless through impris- onment, exile, or martyrdom. And just as the advocates of that religion had engaged in a forlorn hope, its founder, for so it was rumored, had died the death of a malefactor ; in fact, they admitted this, for it was too well known to be concealed ; although they averred He had again risen from the dead, and even had the audacity to declare that this point so inconsistent with human ex- perience and sustained by no testimony but their own, should be believed by their hearers, nay, insisted that to do so was an indispensible element in the creed, which their converts were to profess even unto death. For it is certain there is no article of the Christian creed, on which the Apostles laid so much stress, or which they so persistently urged on the acceptance of Jews and Gentiles, as tlie doctrine of Our Lord's resurrection. Yet, incredible as it may seem, the Christian religion with its abstruse mysteries, its numerous facts, humanly speaking impossible, and its rigid code of morals was embraced in the life time of the Apostles, by multitudes of all classes at Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Corinth, Ephesus, in a word, at all the principal centres 628 The Canofi of the Old Testament of population within the Roman Empire, and even at points outside its limits. For the success of a rehgious movement, which like Mohammedanism or Mormonism appeals to the base passions of human nature, it is easy to account. But unbelievers have never been able on their own princi- ples to offer a satisfactory explanation of the unparal- leled revolution, which swept over the world, perma- nently changing the belief and morals of mankind ; when the Apostles went forth to preach the Gospel. It is onh' in the light of the New Testament that we can discover the forces, by which that revolution was pushed forward and has been kept in motion ever since. That sacred record reveals what appears to us, and what must appear to every reasonable man, the princi- pal motive power which propelled outward and onward the Christian religion, until it reached the hearts and homes of mankind ; when it declares, that the preaching of the Apostles was everywhere, accompanied by signs and wonders, such as the healing of diseases the raising of the dead to life, mii-acles and nothing less. Now the conversion of nations is a work, which, we know did not cease with the Apostles. It was continued long after their time, and, in fact is still carried on. Is it not, therefore, reasonable to suppose, that wherever the work has been successful since; the converts, who have been gathered into the fold of the Church, have been convinced, that the Christian religion alone Avas true and that it was their duty to embrace it, by the same arguments that produced conviction among those, who were the first to take the same step in Judea and other parts of the. Roman empire, as well as elsewhere. Hu- man nature has been the same since, that it was then. And if the manifestation of divine power was indispen- sable to the success of those, who were the first to preach the Gospel ; there is every reason to suppose Settled solely by the Church. 629 that the labors of those who undertook and accom- plished the same task among the same class of people elsewhere, required and received a similar sanction from God. If, therefore, ecclesiastical, and may we not add, profane history, as it certainly does, records num- erous instances of miraculous intervention in favor of those, who, like the Apostles, succeeded in propagating Christianity among infidel nations ; it is nothing more than what we should expect. Why should Judea be the only theatre for the display of God's power, when even more urgent reasons existed for its manifestation, where- ever else the same work was to be done. For among all nations converted to the Christian religion, alter as well as during Apostolic times, the principles of that reli- gion must have been considered far more objectionable, because much more opposed to the popular belief, than they appeared to the people of Judea. Among the lat- ter, however they might regard it, Christianity was in truth no more than the fulfilment of the promises made to their fathers, and the actual complement of the national creed. Its scriptures included their scriptures, and its God was their God. Among the former it was a totally new and generally unheard-of system, which aimed at the extirpation of all other systems, the sub- version of the public temples, the destruction of the national idols, the burning of all books objectionable to it, and the renunciation of magic, sorcery, and all other occult and superstitious practices, to which the Gentile world was addicted. Why then should the Apostles, of all those, who dis- charged the same functions, be considered the sole de- positories of miraculous power ; especially as the diffi- culties to be encountered, the opposition to be overcome and the necessity for a class of proofs indicating the sanction, the presence and the power of God were, at least, as great in the case of many others, who accom- 630 The Canon of the Old Testament plished similar results? Even if ecclesiastical history- made no reference to post-apostolic miracles, surely God might fairl}^ be supposed to have employed all along, in the conversion of pagan nations, the same means, by which Jew and Gentile had been brought into the Church at first. We know that miracles were then among the means, were indeed the principal means made use of, if not the main argument appealed to for that pur- pose. But we are not told, nor is it anywhere even inti- mated, that the power to perform them was afterwards to be withdrawn ; or that those, who should be called to the same mission, were to convince their hearers by evidence different from that, without which, as we all admit, the task undertaken by the Apostles must have failed. Wherefore; were the history of those mission- aries, who, for example, preached with success the Gos- pel in China and Japan, or converted nations at some time subsequent to the Apostolic age, to reveal nothing of a kind with those stupendous prodigies described in the Acts of the Apostles, our disappointment would be great indeed. But such is not the case. That history proves, that the age of miracles has not ceased, and that God is as ready as ever to exert His omnipotence in at- testation of the truth when announced to infidel nations by those, whom He has called to teach in His name. Exclude if you will whatever seems legendary or fab- ricated in ecclesiastical historv, or in the biographies of God's saints. Yet a large number of portentous facts will remain, which are so well attested, that if we dis- credit them, we must, to be consistent, reject as incred- ible whatever is known to us only through human his- tory, or believe only that, of which we have personal knowledge, if even that much. Besides we must be prepared to explain, how it is possible, that all those re- spectable, intelligent, and disinterested persons, who in many instances witnessed with their own eyes several Settled solely by the Church. 63 1 of those portentous facts, and so testified in the most solemn manner, could liave been mistaken themselves, or disposed to impose on the credulity of others. In either case the phenomenon would be a most abnormal one, in fact as much a miracle as the point in dispute. When, for example, unbelievers assert that the liquefac- tion of the blood of St. Januarius is no miracle, or that the stupendous prodigies which confirmed the mission of St. Francis Xavier in Japan, and were subsequently pro- nounced miracles by a competent tribunal, after a most searching juridical process, never occurred ; let those incredulous critics tell us, how it is possible, that all those — Protestants as well as Catholics — who from time to time, still bear testimony to the changes that take place at Naples under the power of prayer in the blood of the martyred Bishop of Benevento, can be deceived ; and that those, who solemnly deposed to the signs and wonders, even the raising of the dead to life, which sig- nalized the labors of Xavier in Japan, could have been mistaken. To suspect fraud on the part of the witness- es in either case is preposterous. And if they were mistaken or deceived. Then why, or how? The ques- tion has never been answered. The deception of the senses in such circumstances would be itself a miracle^ something not only unparalleled in the history and ex- perience of mankind ; but contrary to the laws, by which God governs the universe ; belonging not, like the stupendous facts just cited, to the physical but to the moral order ; and therefore as conflicting with God's providence far more astounding than any event recorded in sacred or ecclesiastical history. To all but an atheist or an agnostic a moral miracle, if we can conceive such a thing, involves a contradiction ; a physical miracle does not, and is therefore at least conceivable. Materialists in their method of reasoning, therefore get over one difficulty b}'^ involving themselves in a 632 The Canon of the Old Testament greater. That method, to use a homely expression, is simply jumping out of the frying pan into the fire. It thus appears that the prodigies mentioned in the annals of the Church and in the Lives of the Saints, are, many of them inexplicable, unless they are recognized as mir- aculous facts designed by God's Providence, to attest His own power, presence or sanction. It is in this way that God bears testimony not only to the divine mission of those whom He calls to preach the gospel ; but to the truth of the doctrines taught by the Church which they represent, while fulfilling that mission. When therefore, the Church in order to prevent or check the growth of error, and defend the integrity of God's written revelation, stamps with her sanction a canon of Scripture ; would it not, we ask, be most unreasonable to reject such canon on the belief or suspicion that she w^as mistaken in including certain books therein, or ex- cluding others therefrom? Whatever may be thought of these reasons, whether they are considered sufficient to demonstrate that the Books approved by the Church in the Fourth Session of the Tridentine Council constitute the only complete and authoritative canon of Sacred Scripture ; or are re- jected as inconclusive for that purpose ; it is evident that no Christian, be his creed what it may, can on logical grounds believe that there is any such thing as a writ- ten revelation from God to man, and that the contents of certain specified books constitute that revelation ; unless first assured by an infallible authority that such is the case. For books of that character are pre- sumably above human reason, else they would not contain truths known to God alone, such truths being of the very nature of a divine revelation. They must also be above the reach of mere human testimon}^ for that is restricted to facts within the natural order, where- as the books in question profess to be supernatural in Settled solely by the CImrch. 633 their origin, aim, and contents. Human reason may suffice for its own sphere. The evidence of distin- guished writers, intelligent critics, and respectable wit- nesses may be trustworthy so far as it goes. And the solemn judgment of this or that sect, or of all the sects combined may be more or less probable. But what does it all amount to ? Human testimony, confessedly fallible, limited to what is of the earth, earthy, and therefore utterly incompetent to decide that writings, which claim to have God for their author, are really to be received as such. The first converts to Christianity believed that there was such a revelation, as we speak of; and that it was contained in certain well-known books. Yet they did not believe that as a conclusion of human reason, or as a fact established by human testimony ; but as a doc- trine taught them either by God Himself, or His duly accredited representatives the Apostles. Their con- duct in the matter was that of rational beings; for they yielded assent, only when they were presented with proof lying in the same plain with the thing to be proved. For the testimony of the Apostles, so far as they were teachers, was not human, but superhuman, even divine. That was nineteen centuries ago, when men are supposed to have acted without much delibera- tion and with less judgment. Is it not therefore strange that in this age of boasted enlightenment. Chris- tians are to be found, who ignoring the principles of sound reason^ and disregarding the dictates of common sense, believe that God has made a revelation, and that the Bible contains it, on evidence which is infinitely inferior to that which secured the assent of the first Christians. Yes on evidence of a kind, which if applied to the Iliad, would hardly suffice to prove that it is the work of Homer, or that it has a historical basis. No wonder that wherever the Protestant Reformation took 634 The Canon of the Old Testament root, there should be found a large and constantly in- increasing class of " advanced thinkers," as they com- placently call themselves — all Protestants by their tra- ditions, training, education, sympathies, social relations ; Protestants, we say, in all respects except their religious belief — who unable to find such testimony, as will con- vince a reasonable man, that the Bible is the word of God ; and not knowing where to look for that testimony, have reached the conclusion, that the common belief regarding that book is a popular delusion, which must sooner or later be dispelled under the light of the high- er criticism, or corrected by the diffusion of general knowledge. The course of those " thinkers," though it has led them to infidelit}^ is at least logical. And this is more than can be said of those, who still cling to the belief, that the Bible is infinitely superior to any human pro- duction, though the testimony, by which this belief is supported, is confessedly human ; or though it be, as all of them not yet fit for bedlam must admit, a mere hallu- cination " like the inward work of the Holy Spirit." For if God has made a revelation to mankind, as Protest- ants hold to be the case ; it necessarily follows that they are bound to regulate their belief ; and so far as it refers to morals, their conduct by it, else that revelation would not have been made. But before they take a single step in the regulation of their belief and conduct according to this standard, they must know what the revelation is. According to their own principles, God requires them to take His revelation as a guide in doctrines and morals. But He would not be just, if He left them without such means as would enable them to find with absolute certainty what He has revealed. That means cannot be human testimony, such testimony being as we have just seen wholly inadmissible in the case. Testi- mony of the same grade with that, on which the primi- Settled solely by the Clinreh. 635. tive Christians believed, that the writings delivered to them by the Apostles contained God's revelation to the world, is the only kind of testimony, on which the Prot- estants can, consistently with common sense and their own eternal welfare, accept the Bible as the word not of man but of God. To an intelligent Protestant, therefore, either the Bible is no more than an}- other book, or its claims to a higher rank must be proved by a witness, whose testi- mony is infallible. But where shall he find such a witness ? In human reason ? No. In human testimony ? No. In any or all of the Sects? No, they all answer, No. In the inward work of the Holy Spirit? No, though lunatics answer,. Yes. Nowhere in the wnde world is such witness found, nowhere is such witness claimed to be except in the One, Holy, Roman Catholic Church. She has professed all along and professes still, on grounds satisfactory at least to all her children be- cause consonant with reason, to speak with infallible certainty on the canon of Scripture, as well as on all other revealed doctrines. And every Christian what- ever be his creed, unless prepared to stultify himself, must either take her at her word, or deny that the Bible is the word of God. For him, so long as he remains what he is, there is logically no half way house. If he denies the infallibility of the Church, and starts from this denial as his tenniiins a quo, his terminus adquein is infidelity. Should he be resolved come what- may, to maintain that the Bible is a divine revelation; but like an honest man determined to satisfy himself that it is so without a reasonable or possible doubt, he must sooner or later conclude that the Church is infallible; and that that is the only true canon which has received her approval. For if the Church be not infallible, no man can have a motive for believing with absolute certainty that God has made a revelation, and that it is contained 636 The Canon of the Old Testament in this, or that other book, or any particular collection of books. Concluding Remarks. In bringing this volume to a close the author takes occasion to say, that as the reader is doubtless aware by this time, the main object aimed at from first to last has been to prove that the canon of the Old Testament is that catalogue of books, of which, together with those of the New Testament, the Council of Trent in its Fourth Session declared that " God is the Author." For this purpose it has been argued in the course of the work, that the Jewish High Priest under the Old Law was charged by God to guard the sacred writings ; and to decide as other writings appeared from time to time whether they were to be added to the collection already made — a divine trust which must have outlived the Jewish pontificate, and according to analogy have been transferred to the High Priest in the Christian dispen- sation. It has also been contended that all the evidence connected with the subject tends to demonstrate, that at the advent of the Redeemer the canon of the Old Testa- -nient w^as contained, not in the present Hebrew Bible but in the Septuagint ; and that it was this latter copy of the Old Testament which the Apostles, guided by the Holy Ghost, left with the Churches which they founded. That the Apostles did so seems indisputable in view of the fact, that not only the Roman Church founded by SS. Peter and Paul, but all those schismatical commun- ities which at first maintained communion with that Church, but ceased to do so, most of them more than a thousand years ago ; find their canon of the Old Testa- ment solely in the Septuagint or in a version of it. Instead of in the existing Hebrew Scriptures. In fact, Settled solely by the Church. 637 East as well as West this is still, as it was the case.every- where, until Marthi Luther and his Protestant disciples borrowed the Jewish canon in the sixteenth century, a time, when that canon was no longer what it had been when the Redeemer lived among men, or when the Apostles delivered the Scriptures of the Old as well as of the New Testament to the Christian Church. That the object aimed at in this volume has been at- tained, it would be presumption in the author to assert. The point is one which must be left to the judgment of each reader, who after weighing all the arguments will decide for himself. But surely no Christian, and least of all a Protestant, can regard with indifference the question discussed in the preceding pages. The Bible is justly regarded the Book <-.f Books, the best of all books ; because it alone has God as its Author. It has been written for our instruction and edification ; that by reading and meditating on its contents we may be en- abled through the grace of God to live well, and die well, and be happy forever. Whether therefore we have the Bible, and have it as it was written by God, is a question that concerns us all, a question which de- mands immediate and profound attention, especially from every one who is not absolutely certain that he has in his Bible all those sacred books, which the Christian Church received as such from those by whom she was founded. For, until he is convinced beyond a reason- able doubt that his Bible is complete, every Christian has a right to suspect that it does not embrace all truth which God requires him to believe ; or that books con- tained in other Bibles but omitted in his may explicitly set forth some revealed doctrines, which being but vag- uely, perhaps not at all referred to in the books in his canon, he therefore doubts if he does not actually deny and doubts or denies to his own condemnation. The canon of the Old Testament, if thoroughly dis- 638 The Cation of the Old Testament. cussed, implies the treatment of various other subjects one way or other connected with it. Several of those subjects have received attention in the present volume; but perhaps not so much as their importance demanded. More however could not have been given them consist- ently with what was aimed at — a book of moderate dimensions. Throughout the discussion of the principal question considered in the preceding pages, the reader will find that the sentiments expressed by eminent writers, whether Christian or Jewish, who reject the Tridentine canon of the Old Testament, have been fairly stated, indeed generally in their own words ; and that the references in each case have bsen plainly, it is hoped correctly indicated in the foot notes. Rarely has an appeal been made to the Christian Fathers, or to the action taken by Ecclesiastical Councils in reference to the compass oi the Old Testament, and hardly has any attention been devoted to objections derived from such sources. Because to have done so would have required at least another volume, which may or may not accord- ing to circumstances be written hereafter, although materials are already at hand for the purpose. APPENDIX. As the matter is one, on which some readers might desire information; it has been decided to add to this volume lists of the books found in the oldest manuscripts of the Greek Bible, a list of books given in the oldest Graeco-Latin manuscript of the Scriptures, and three other lists of books contained in Bibles which are ueitlier Greek nor Latin, and are used by schismatics each being written in a different language. One of tbese Bibles is a descendant of a version made from the Septuagint probably as early as the fourth century; another also a version of the Septuagint — appears to have circulated all along among a wide-spread religious community, ever since it seceded from the Church in the fifth century; the third is evidently a copy of a version, in like manner made from the Septuagint about the ninth or tenth century, when the ances- tors of the people who now use it were converted to the true Faith by missionaries in communion with the Holy See. The Greek manuscripts referred to are the Vaticaii, the Sinaitic, the Alexandrian, the Epehreyni Rescriptus, the Graceo-Latin, or Claromontoyins. Of the three other Bibles just mentioned, or^e is the Bthiopian, the second the Clialdean, the third theRiissian. The Vatican Codex, so named because it is preserved in tiie Vatican library at Rome, is supposed by tlie great majority of the best critics to belong to the beginning or middle of the fourth century. A distinguished Protestant scholar, " well qualified by the nature and range of his studies to decide on the relative merits of manuscripts declares that the Vatican manuscript " on the Avhole may be pronounced to be the most ' Dr. Westcott, the Bible in the Church, p. 305. 639 640 Appendix. correct copy of the Greek Bible." It has been executed in ex- tremely fine antelope skin in uncial letters so exquisite, as to rival the most graceful productions of the printing press. Each page is divided into three columns unaccented and uu- punctuated. It has no space between the words unless occas- sionally wliere one narrative is succeeded by another. As at first written, it appears not to have had at the beginning of any book a letter larger than the rest, which were all of uniform size and style. But at the beginning of the Gospels, the letters traced by the first scribe have been superseded by larger ones, the work of a later hand, which has also carefully restored such letters as had become faded or obscured by use or age. This precious relic of christian antiquity has been often col- lated and published. Under Pius IX. a splendid edition of it was prepared by Fathers C. Vercellone and J. Cozza. And quite recently the latter Father stimulated by the encourage- ment of Leo XIII. has succeeded in photographing a few copies of it. Very little is known of its historj^, though it appears to have formed part of the Vatican treasures since the fifteenth century; and is supposed by some to have been brought there from Constantinople by Cardinal Bessarion. It may, therefore, be one of the fifty superb copies, which, Eusebius as directed by Constantine the Great, prepared for the Churches of Constantinople. At all events it is old enough to be coeval with Constantine, while the magnificent style in which it has been executed is quite suggestive of im- perial patronage. It is very much to be regretted, however, that this, by far the most valuable manuscript, Avhich we possess of the Septuagint, is mutilated, wanting as it does some leaves at the beginning, middle, and end. The books and parts of books which it still contains are the following: OLD TESTAMENT. Genesis, (a fragment). Josue. III. Kings. Exodus. Judges. IV. Kings. Leviticus. Ruth. I. Paralipomenon. Numbers. I. Kings. II Paralipomenon. Deuteronomy. II. Kings. III. Esdras. (apocryphal.) Appendix. (iA,\ OLD /. Ridras. II. Esdras. (or Nehe- i Tobias inias.) Osee. P.salms, (parts deficient.) : Joel. TESTAMENT. Judith. Proverbs. Kcclesiastes. Canticle of Canticles. Job. Wisdom. Eccksiasticus. Esther., (with the ad- ditions.) j Amos. Abdias. Jonas. Micheas. Nahum. Habacuc. Sophonias. Aggeus. ( Continued). Zacharias. 3Ialachias. Isaias. Jeremias. Baruch. Lamentations. Epistle of Jeremias. (Baruch vi.) Ezechiel. Daniel. (with the ad- ditions.) Matthew. Mark. Luke. John. Acts of Apostles. Epistle of James. L Peter. IL Peter. NEW TESTAMENT. /. John. II. John. IIL John. Jude. St. Paul to tlie Romans. " " '• " /. Corinth. " " " '■ Galatians. St. Paul to the Ephesians. " " " " Philippians. " " " " Colossians. " " " " /. Tliessal " " " " //. Thessal. " " " " Hebrews. (as far as ix. 14, where the MS. ends.) The Sinaitic Codex was discovered by Tischendorf in 1814- 1815, at the monastery of St. Catharine on Monnt Sinai, lience its name. It was conveyed to St. Petersburg where it still re- mains. In age and excellence it ranks next to the Vatican,, being generally considered a production of the fourth century,, but much of what it contained when Avritten has been since lost. It differs from the Vatican by having its pages divided into four instead of three columns. Yet like the Vatican it is written continuously and in uncial letters of uniform size, being also unpunctuated and unaccented. Following are the books, and j)arts of books which it contains: OLD TESTAMENT. /. Isaias. Jeremias. Lamentations., (as far as Paralipomenon. (Frag- \ Esther, (with additions.) ments. Tobias, (almost entire.) //. Esdras, (that is /. Es- Judith, (almost entire.) dras, a fragment, and i /. Machabees. Nehemias.) \ II. Machabees. ii. 20.) Joel. 642 Appendix. OLD TESTAMENT. ( Continued). Ahdias. Aggeus. Ecclesiastes. Jonas. Zacharias. Canticle of Canticles. Nahum. Malachias. Wisdom. Habacuc. Psalms. (151.) Ecclesiasticvs. Sophonias. Proverbs. Job. NEW TESTAMENT. Matthew. Ephesians. Epistle of James, Mark. Philippians. I. Peter. Luke. Colossians. IL Peter. John. I. Thessalonians. I. John. Epistles of St. Paul. U. Tliessalonians. II. John. Jioma7is. Hebrews. III. John. I. Corinthians. I. Timothy. Apocalypse. II. Corinthians. II. Timothy. Epistles of Barnaba Galatians. Philemon. Shepherd, (fragmen The Alexandrine Codex is named after Alexandria the City where it was probably written. It has been executed in beautifully formed uncial letters of similiar size and style. But certain divisions of the Gospels are marked at the beginning with letters a little larger than the rest. Its words are without any intervening space and are unaccentuated and unpunctu- ated, with the exception of a point above the last letters in the last word of a section. Each page is divided into twocolumns. This valuable manuscript has been assigned to the end of the fourth century, but by only a few critics. For by the great majority of the best scholars, Protestant as well as Catholic^ it is believed to have been executed not before the fifth cen- tury. The various chasms which occur in it show that it too has suffered considerably in the lapse of ages. Its history as far as known is briefly told. The notorious Cyril Lucar, while schismatical Patriarch of Alexandria obtained possession of it, and having in spite of all competition secured the schismatical patriarchal See of Constantinople brought it there with him. In the execution of his plans for introducing Protestant prin- ciples among the Greeks, he understood that it was his interest to secure the good will of the English government. And as a means to that end, delivered the manuscript to Sir Thomas Roe. then Ensxlish Embassador at the Sublime Porte, with the Appendix. 643 request that that gentleman slionld present it as a gift to Charles I. King of England. There it was placed in the Royal Library, but afterwards was deposited in the British Museum, where it is still preserved, having been often published. Fol- lowing is the account which Cyril himself has given of the manuscript in a Latin statement annexed to it. " This book of the Sacred Scripture of the New and Old Testament, as we have it from tradition, was written by the hand of Thecla a noble Egyptian lady about one thousand three hundred years ago, a little after the Council of Xice. The name of Thecla has been written in the end of the book: but Christianity having been extinguished in Egypt by the Mohammedans, the books of Christians were reduced to the same condition, and therefore the name of Thecla is extin- guished and lacerated, but memory and recent tradition do still preserve it. Cyeil Patriakch of Constantinople." The Alexandrine Codex still contains the following books: OLD TESTAMENT. Genesis. Micheas. Esdras. (Including Ne- Exodus Nahum. hemias). Leviticus. Habacuc. I. MacJiabees. Xmnhers. Sophonias. II. Machabees. Deuteronomy. Aggeus. III. Machabees. Josue. Zacharias. IV. Machabees. Judges. Malachias. Psalter. (With preface Ruth. Jeremias. (Including of Athanasius to Mar- I. Kings. Baruch, Lamentations cellinus, Hj'mns of II. Kings. and Epistle — Baruch the New Testament in. Kings. VL) aud Prayer of Ma- IV. Kings. Daniel. (With the ad- nasses). I. Parali2)omenon. ditions). Job. II Paralipomenon. Estber. (With the ad- Proverbs. Osee. ditions). Ecclesiastes. Joel. Tobias. Canticle of Canticles. Amos. Judith. Wisdom. Abdias. III. Esdras. (apocryphal) Ecclesiasticus. Jonas. 644 Appendix. Ep. I. Timothy. " II. Timothy. " Titus. " Philemon. " Ajiocalypse. I. E}) is tie of Clement. II. Epistle of Clement. (Last part defective and followed by a chasm. ) Psalms of Solomon xviii. NEW TESTAMENT. Matthew. Ep. .lude. Mark. " of St. Paid to Romans. Luke. " /. Corintliians. John. " //. Corinthians. Acts of Apostles. " Galatians. Ej). of James. " Ephesians. " Peter. " Philippians. " //. Peter. " Colossians. " Z JbTira. " I. Thessalonians. " //. John. " //. Thessalonians. " 7/7. «/o7m. " Hebrews. Ephremi Codex rescriptess, a manuscript preserved in the National Library at Paris and supposed by Tischendorf to be somewhat older than the Alexandrian, originally contained the Sacred Scripture, but was afterwards used for copying some of St. Ephrem's tracts. When this was discovered, efforts were made to restore the original writing; but these efforts were only partially successful. However, it has .thus been shown that, while the manuscript contained fragmentary portions of all the l)ooks of the New Testament, it still I'etained unmis- takable traces also of Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Wisdom, and EccJesiasticus in the Old. Codex Claromontanus now in the National Library at Paris, is named after Clermont in France where it was found by Beza. It is a bilingual manuscript of the sixth century, being executed in Greek and Latin. It contains most of St, Paul's Epistles in both languiiges and nothing else. After the Epis- tle to Philemon it gives in Latin " the lines of the Holy Scripture," and as it does so, names each book, indicating at the same time the numbei- of " lines " it contains. These numbers are here dispensed with as of no practical importance. The books named are the following: ' OLD TESTAMENT. Genesis. Josue. -j. Kingdoms. Exodus. Judges. 4. Kingdoms. Leviticus. Ruth. Psalms. Nitmhers. 1. Kingdoms. Proverbs. Deuteronomy. | 2, Kingdoms. Ecde-'iiastes. 1 AVosicoit. the Bible in the Clmrch. p. ^09. Appendix. OLD TESTAMENT. ( Continued). 64: Canticles. Wisdom. Wifidom of Jesus. clcsiasticus). 12. Prophets. (Ec- I 0.9ee. Daniel. 1. Macliahees. 2. Machahees. 4. Macliabees. Judith. Esdras. Esther. Joh. Tobias. 2. John. 3. i/o/i?i. Jude. Epistle of Barnabas. Revelation of John. Acts of Apostles. Shepherd. Acts of Paul. Revelation of Peter. NEW TESTAMENT. 4. Gospels. 1. Timothy. Mattheiv. 2. Timothy: Mark. Titris. Luke. Colossians. Epistles of Paul to Philemon. Romans. 1. to Peter. (Thus). 1. Corinthians. 2. to Peter. (Thus). 2. Corinthians. James. Galatians. \. John. Ephesians. \ It will be noticed that sevei'al proto books belonging- to both the Old and New Testament are omitted in the list, while but one Old Testament deutero book, Barucli is wanting. But as Jeremias is one of the omitted books, Baruch usually considered part of it is of course omitted also. Why these omissions ? perhaps from inadvertence; perhaps because the scribe in the coi:)y which he followed did not find that tlie lines of the omitted books were numbered, that being probably his principal reason for giving the list. The Ethiopic Version,^ as the one in use among the Abyssin- ians is called, is a translation of the Septuagint and Greek New Testament into their principal dialect the Gees (liberal). It was made in or soon after the fourth century. For it was then the Abyssinians embraced the True Faith. And, although, they have very generally since become monophysites, their Bible appears to have undergone no material change. As a version of the Septuagint, it may be presumed to contain all the Old Testament deutero books. Yet, it is deemed right to produce here as briefly as may be a list of contents. The follow- ing therefore are the books preserved in this venerable bible: i Vide Walton, Proly., xv. 10. Hody, Be Bible Text, p. 650. Comely Introd. in S. Script, vol. i. p. 379. Kitto Cycl., vol i. p. 669. 646 Appendix. OLD TESTAMENT. Genesis. Judith. Amos. Exodus. • Esther. Abdias. Leviticus. Job. Jonas. Xumbers. Psalms. Micheas. Deuteronomy. Proverbs. Nahum. .Tosue. Ecclesiastes. Hdbacuc. Judges. Canticle of Canticles. Sophonias. Ruth. Wisdom. Aggeus. I. Kings. Ecclesiasticus. Zacharias. II. Kings. Isaias. Malachias. III. Kings. Jeremias. I. Machabees. IV. Kings. Lamentation. II. Machabees. I. Paralipomenon. Baruch. Enoch. (No certain evi- II. Paralipomenon. Ezechiel. dence that this book I. Esdras. Daniel. is considered canon- II. Esdras. (Nehemias). f/see. ical by the Abyssin- Tobias. Joel nian Christians). NEW TESTAMENT. Matthew. Mark. Luke. John. Acts of Apostles. Epistles of St. Paul Romans. I. Corinthians. II. Corinthians. Galatians. Ephesians. PMlippians. Golossians. I. Thessalonians. II. Tliessahnians. I. Timothy. IL Timothy. Titus. Philemon. Hebrews. James. L Peter. IL Peter. I. John. II. John. Ill John. Jade. Apocalypse of John. Constitutions Canons ) . . fj . S These the Abyssinian Christians possess, ) ^ of the ApostCes. | ^^^^ whether as canonical is uncertain. \ The Nestorian Bible is of course as old as Nestorianism it- self, a schism which commenced in the fifth cent^r3^ That that Bible contains all the 0. T. deutero books is conclusively proved by the testimony of Hebedjesu or as it is otherwise written Ebedjesu. This writer who lived in the sixteenth cen- tury was a Syrian, and having already embraced the monastic state and distinguished himself as an earnest and learned de- fender of Nestorianism, was appointed first patriarch of the Appendix. 647 Chaldeans. As such having renounced his errors he was after- wards reconciled to the Church. But he had already attained distinction by several works written in the interest of the schism in which he had been educated, of one of these Abraham Echel- lensis a Syrian scholar published a. Latin translation with the Chaldean text at Rome in 1653. It is called by the Author Tlie Admirable Tract and proposes to enumerate "the Divine Books/' of course as they Avere contained in the Nestorian Bible, as well as to treat of all the ecclesiastical compositions written up to that time. Let us see then what is said in this rare tract re- garding the contents of that Bible. *' Trusting, therefore, in God, says the author, so 1 begin." "The Law or the Pentateuch five books. Genesis, Exodus, the Book of Priests (Leviticus), Numbers, Deuteronomy, Josue the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Paralip- omenon. Job, Psalms, Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Can- ticle of Canticles, great Wisdom, Barasiros, or Ecdesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, Epistle of Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Soph- onias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias, Hezra, Book of Tobias and Tobith just Israelites, Judith, Esther, Daniel minoi- (deutero), finally the Books of the Machabees." Next after designating some of the Books of "the ancient Hebrews, " as " Traditions of the elders, " the writings of " Josephus the scribe" etc., the author thus continues: " Having already fin- ished the Old let us come to the New% the beginning of whicli is Matthew, who wrote in Hebrew in Palestine. After him MarK spoke in Roman in the celebrated city of Rome. Luke spoke and wrote in Greek at Alexandria. John at Ephesus wrote a Gospel in Greek. Luke also wrote to Theophilus the Acts of Apostles. Epistles were signed in every character and language by the Apostles, namely, James, Peter, John, and Jude, and they are therefore called Catholic. Fourteen Epistles of Apostle Paul the great. Epistle to the Romans, which was written from the Citv of Corinth. 648 Appendix. The first Epistle to the Corinthians was written at Ephesus, and sent by the hands of Timothy. But the second to the Corinthians was written at Philippi, which is in great Macedonia, and sent by the hands of Titus. And the Epistle to the Galatians Paul himself wrote from the city of Eome, and sent it by the hands of Titus, an elect and apji roved vessel. But the Epistle of the Ephesians was written from the city of Eome, and sent by Paul himself through the hands of Tychicus. That to the Philippians was also written at Rome, and sent by the hands of Apaphroditus the beloved brother. And that which is addressed to the Colossians, was also written at Rome, and sent by the hands of Tychicus the disci- ple of truth. The first to the Thessalonians was written at Athens, and sent by the hands of Timothy. But the second to the Thess- alonians was written at Laodicea of Pisidia, and sent by the hands of Luke. But the first Epistle of Timothy (thus) was written from Laodicea a city of Pisidia, and sent by the hands of Luke. And the second Epistle of Timothy (thus) was written from the city of Rome, and sent by the hands of Luke, Physician and Evangelist. And the Epistle to Titus was written at Nicopolis, and sent and delivered by the hands of Apaphroditus. But Philemon's (thus) was written from the city of Rome, and sent by the hands of Onesimus the slave of that Philemon. But the Epistle of the Hebrews (thus) was written in Italy, and sent by the hands of Timothy his spiritual son." Then follows an account of several other writers, not only Nestorians, but Monophysites, Monthhelites and other secta- rists, as well as of their works. In a note on this part of "The Admirable Tract" Echellen- sis the Translator observes ' that among the Orientals, copies are rare which contain all the sacred books, because one person J p. 130. Appendix. 649 writes out or directs to be written out this part, another, that other part, as guided by his studies, disposition, opportunity, leisure, and resources. Consequently from the various copies, various catalogues are not to be composed, whether as regards the numbers of the books or the. order in which they are arranged. Tlie Russian Bible. Several editions of this volume have appeared from time to time. Among the latest is that of 1883. As already stated, ' it was published at St. Petersburg, with the sanction of "The Holy Orthodox Synod," a body which regulates the doctrines, discipline, and government of the Russian Church. This Russian Bible includes the follow- ing books: OLD TESTAMENT. Gtnesis. Exodus. Leviticus. Numbers. Deuteronomy. Book of Joshua Xove. Book of Judges. Book of Ruth. I. Book of Kings. II. Book of Kings. III. Book of Kings. IV. Book of Kings. I. Book of Paralipomenon. II. Book of Paralipomenon. I. Book of Esdras (T. Esdras of Vul- gate"). Book of Neltemias. II. Book of Esdras {111. Apociyphal Esdras in Vulgate). Book of Tobias. Book of Judith. Book of Esther (with the additions;. Book of Job. Psalter. Book of Parables of Solomon. Book of Ecclesiastes, or the Preacher. Book of Canticle of Canticles of Saln- mon. Book of Wisdom of Solomon. Book of Wisdom of Jesus., Sonof Sirach. Book of the Prophet Isaias. Book of the Prophet Jeremias. Book of the Lamentations of Jeremias. Epistle of Jeremias (Baruch VI.). Book of the Prophet Baruch. Book of the Prophet Ezechiel. Book of the Prophet Daniel (witli the additions). Book of the Prophet Osee. Book of the Prophet Joel. Book of the Propliet Amos. Book of the Prophet Ahdias. Book of the Prophet Jonas. Book of the Prophet Micheas. Book of the Prophet Nahum. Book of the Prophet Habacur. Book of the Prophet Sophonias. Book of the Prophet Aggetis. '■ p. 236. 650 Appendix. OLD TESTAMENT. ( ContiJiued). Book of the Prophet Zacharias. Book of the Prophet Malachias. I. Book of Machahees. II. Book of Machahees. III. Book of Machahees. III. Book of Esdras (IV. Apocryphal Esdras iu Yulgate). BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Gospel according to St. Matthew. Gospel to according St. Mark. Gospel according to St. Luke. Gospel according to St. John. ACTS OF THE HOLY APOSTLES. Epistle of James. I. Epistle of Peter. II. Epistle of Peter. I. Epistle of John. II. Epistle of John. III. Epistle of John. Epistle of Jude. Epistle to the Romans. I. Epistle to the Corinthians. II. Epistle to the Corinthians. Epistle to the Galatians. Epistle to the Ephesians. Epistle to the Philippians. Epistle to the Colossians. I. Epistle to the Thessalonians. II. Epistle to the Tihessalonians. I. Epistle to Timothy. II. Epistle to Timothy. Epistle to Titus. Epistle to Philemon. Epistle to Rehrews. Apocalypse of John the Theologian. This catalogue is a copy of the Index^ which, at the end of the Russian Bible exhibits the contents of that volume. The inspired writers of the New Testament are mentioned in this Index without the prefix Saint, as is generally the case in the Index of the Vulgate. But, as is also the case in the Vulgate New Testament, that word is prefixed in the Eussian New Testament to the name of each writer at the beginning of his Book. In the Eussian Bible, as in the copies of the LXX., II. Paralipomenon is immediately followed by the apocryphal prayer of Manasses, and Psalm 150 by the apocryphal psalm of David when he slew Goliath. It would be easy to exhibit many more catalogues from other manuscripts and printed bibles in various languages. But like these given in this Appendix; those catalogues, while differing somewhat in the order assigned the sacred books, (a point affecting in no way their number), show all of them that Appendix. ^5 ^ from the oldest in the fourth to the most modern in the nine- teenth century; the limits of the Old Testament far exceeded those to which it was reduced by the Protestant reformers, who, in applying their pruning hook to the Bible, lopped off many a fair branch, which, as we have seen, the most advanced scholars among their modern followers confess, deserved to be preserved better than some that they spared. What wonder, then, that, while the Orientals by conciliar action proclaimed the Old Testament deutero books to be part of the divine canon, they unanimously and scornfully rejected the counter- feit canon of the Eeformers, which Cyril Lucar, prompted by his Western patrons attempted to introduce in the East ? INDEX. A. Aaron, 101, 108, 180, 362. Abarbanel, 188. Abbot, George, 206. Abigail, 181. Abulbarcatus, 250. Abyssinians, 196, 250, 251, 252. Adam, 180, 182. Adams, Melchior, 452. Addis, Rev. William E. and Thomas Arnold, 57. Admirable Tract, 250. Adrian II. Pope, 219. Agabus, 185. Aggeiis, 22. Alabarch, 75. A Lapide. 48, 57, 180. Alexander the Great, 36, 49, 98, 169. Albigensians, 271, 273, 491. Allen. Cardinal, 380. Alogians, 268. Aman, 63, 177, 178. American counterfeits of Catholic Bibles, 428-433. Ananelus, 117. Ananns, 154. Anastasins, schism. Bishop of Tliessa- lonica, 208. Anastasins, schism. Metropolitan, 224. Ancient, 347. Annas, 117. Andrea, Jacob. 203. Anglican Articles of Religion^ 546. Anglicans, 205. Anne de Montmorency, 447. Anglo Saxon Pontifical, 357. Anselm, 486, 487. Anthony of Athens, 213. Anthony St. the Great, 217. Antiochus, Epiphanes, 55, 100. Apelles, 267. Apocryphal, 8. Apocryphal war, 509. Apostolical, 126. Aquila, 134, 142. Arians, 270. Aristeas, 65, 96-100. Aristobulus, 96, 97, 98. Ark, 112, 113. Arnagrimus, 538. Armenians, 196, 255. Artaxerxes, 166, 168, 169, 171. 172, 180-186, 189, 194. Arundel, Thomas, 494. Assemani, Joseph Simon, 250, 251. Athanasius, 144. Audin, 515. Augustine, St. 199, 265, 269, 610. Azoff, 209. B. Bacon, Francis, 460. Bacon, Roger, 487. Bale, 466, 468, 487. Balsamon, 359. Barclay, 355, 564. . Barhebraeus, 250, 251. 654 Index. Barlaam, 224. Barnabas, 349. Bartholomew, 213. Baruch, 52, 126, 144, 150, 151, 213, 216, 229. Basil, St. 29. Basil, 271. Basilides, 266. Basilidians, 268. Bath Kol, 186-188. Baur, 587. Baxter, 561, 615. Bechai, 188. Beekmanites, 522, 523. Belgic Confession of Faith, 553. Benassal, 250. Berchoire's Repertorium, 529. Bergier, 265. Bertholdt, 47, 586. Bertrand du Guesclin, 447. Boza, 383. Bible, meaning of, 1, 2. Bible, Anglo-Catholic or Douay, 381, 412. Bible, Auglo-Protestant. Tyndale's, 303. Bible, Anglo-Protestant, Coverdale's, 305. Bible, Anglo-Protestant, Matthew's 305. Bible, Anglo-Protestant, Tavemer's, 306. Bible, Anglo-Protestant, Cranmer's, 306. Bible, Anglo-Protestant, Bishop's, 307. Bible, Anglo-Protestant, King James,' 308-379. . Bible Societies, 499-513. Bibles, Catholic between invention of printing and birth of Luther. 456. Bibles Catholic, German, 438. " " French, 439. " " Italian, 439. " " Spanish, 440. Bibles Catholic, Portuguese, 440. " " Flemish, 440. " " Polish, 441. " " Bohemian, 441. " " Slavonic, 441. " " Hungarian, 442. " " Syriac, 442. " " Arabic, 442. " " Mexican, 442. " " American Indian, 442. Bedell, 540. Bishop of Metz, Blackmore, 230. Blake, 411. Bhss, 467. Blunt, 471. Bogomilists, 271. Bogoris, 218. Bolten, 289. Bonn Conferences, 244-249. Book of Mormon, 579. Books, expense of, 449. Boys, John, 383. Breckenridge and Hughes, 420. Breckenridge, John, 421. Brentius, 518. Brethevold, 477. Bretschneider, 502. Brigitte, Queen, 538. Bristow, 380. Brentius, 518. Brownlee, 421. Broughton, 309. Bucer, 573. Bulgarians, 218. Bull, George, 460. Burnet, 460, 561. C. Caiphas. 118, 185. Calmet, 48, 100, 121. Calvin, John, 289. Calvinists, 205. Index. 655 Cauon defined, 2. Canon, the Catholic, 4. " the Jewish, 14-70. " the Protestant, 547-559. the Hellonistic, 50, 70, 72, 159. " or Palestinian, 70, 81, 159. Canonical and canonized, 10. Canons of the Apostles, 359. Canstein, 509. Canticles, 9, 58. Capito, 518. Catalogue of Books in Vatican Codex, 640. Catalogue of Books in Sinaiiic Codex, G4]. Catalogue of Books in Alexandrine Codex, 642. Catalogue of Books in Codex Rescrip- lus Ephremi, 644. Catalogue of Books in Ethiopic Ver- sion, 645. C.aalogue of Books in Nestorian Bible, 646. Catalogue of Books in Russian Bible, 649. Cataphrj'gians, 268. Cathai, 271. Catholic Dictionary, 58, 71, 237. Cerdo, 267. Cerinthus, 266. Cerularius, 220. Challoner, Bishop, 402. Charlemagne, 446. Chamber's Book of Days, 276. Chazari, 218. Christians judaizing, 155. Chrysostom, St. John, 27. Chemnitz, 288, 573. Clarke, Adam, 73, 185, 344. Classes of Books by Christians, 5-14. Classes of Books by Jews, 17-21. Claudius, 185. Clement of Rome, 157, 607. Clement of Alexandria, 24, 607. Cleopatra, 174, 175. Cludius, 587. Cocas, Joasaph, 222. Codex Paulinus, 541. Cohen, 360, 361. Colenso, 587. Comestor's Scholastic History, 529. Congregation of the Index, 514. Contari, Cyril, 208, 210. Convent of St. Edmondsburg, 480. Convocation of Canterbury, 242, 321. Con well. Bishop, 415. Copts, 196, 250. Comely, 53, 83, 159, 171, 236, 237. Cossacks, 209. Council, V. Ecumenical, 69. " Schismatical at Constantinople, 212. Council, Schismatical at Jerusalem, 213, 359. Council of Laodicea, 229. " of Trent, 4, 80, 158, 202, 597. " Neo C;\3sarea, 359. " in Trullo, 202, 359. " of Kice, 359. " of Florence, 202, 221. " Toulouse, 492. " of Tai-ragona, 493. " I. Provincial of Baltimore, 437. " II. Plenary of Baltimore. 437, 533. Coverdale, 305, 378, 385, 389. Coyne, 401. Cozri, Book of, 188. Cranmer, 470, 475. Credner, 587. Crete, 205. Critopulus Metrophanes, 206 210,211, 360. Crolly, Archbishop, 41. Cromwell, 313. Crucius, 203. 204. 656 Index. Curoe, 411. Cyclopedia, Kitto's, 78. Cyprian St. Bishop of Carthage, 608. Cyril, schism. Patriarch of Constan- tinople, 208. Cyril and Methodius, SS. 213, 539. Cyril, St. Bishop of Alexandria, 608. Cyrus, King of Persia, 21, 36. o. Dahl, 587. Damascus, 191. Danes, -±83. Daniel the Prophet, 29, 36. Daniel, Anglican Archbishop of Tuam, 540. Daniel, Russian Bishop, 224. Danko, 56, 70, 171, 191. Darius Codomanus, 33. Darius Hystaspes, 33. D'Aubigne, 452-461. David, 155, 187. David le Leu de Wilhelm, 506. Davidson, 60, 61, 73, 74, 77, 255, 276, 277, 310, 458, 558, 592. Debora, 181. Declaration of Catholic Principles, 530. Demetrius Phalereus, 97-99. De Nointel, 216. De Wette, 47, 586. Denvir, Bishop, 411. Diana of the Ephesians, 326. Diakonos, 346. Diesterick, 587. Dionysius, schism. Patriarch of Con- stantinople, 213, 222. Dixon's Introduction, 213. Dollinger, 244, 515. Dolscius, 202. Domitian, 155. Donatists, 270. Dositheus, Jewish Priest, 174, 175. Dositheus, schism. Patriarch of Jeru- salem, 212, 214, 215. Douay Version 369. Doyle, Bishop, 421. Dragon, History of, 215. Drusius, 460. Dublin Review, 191, 504. Dubois, Bishop, 416. Dulia, 314. Dumoulin, 301. Duncan Dunbar, 421. Dunce, 466. Dutch Confession of Faith, 554. Duvoisin, 186. E. ■ Ebed Jesu, 250. Ebion, 266. Ebionites, 156, 258. Eccleston, Archbishop, 415, 424. Ecclesiastes, 58, 69, 144, 156. Ecclesiastical, 10. Ecclesiasticus, 58, 66, 68, 82, 84, 124, 150, 151, 169, 213. 215, 216, 259. Echellensis, Abraham, 250. Edward VI. 313. Eichorn, 286. Elcesaeus, 266. Eleazar, 72, 100. 102, 118. Ehhr and Elchrs, 123, 147. Elizabeth, wife of Zachary, 183, 184. Elizabeth, Queen, 320. Eraser, 291, 292. Ephrem, St. 150, 251. Epiphanius, St. 127, 136, 144, 265, 269. Episcopos, 345, 346. Esdras. the Scribe, 46, 50, 51, 54-57, 59, 65, 67, 70, 87-89, 109-111, 140, 144, 146, 161. Esdras III., Apocryphal, 76, 151, 171. Esdras, Pseudo IV. 23-29, 33, 48, 49, 63, 66, 151, 270, 281. Index. 657 Esscnes, 123, 347. Esther, 14, 46-52, 54, 58-60, 63, 18, 125, 143, 144, 146, 148-150, 172- 176. Eiigenius IV. Pope, 221. Eusebius, 26, 98, 265, 269. Kutychians, 270. Ezechiel, 9, 69, 144, 590. F. Fagius, Paul, 383. Feast of Tabernacles, 65. Feodore 1. of Russia, 225, 226. Ferrer Boniface, 537. Frederic Barbarossa, 447. Fitzpatrick, Bishop, 424. Fit7- Ralph, Bishop, 540. Formusus, Bishop of Porto, 218. Forshall and Madden, 281, 282. Fox, John, 471, 475. Franzehn, 53, 71, 171. Fraser, John, 582. Frassen, 56, 70. Freeman, Charles P. 520. Friar Bartholy, 518. o. Gallic Confession of Faith, 553. Gamaliel, 120. Garizira, temple of, 75, 101, 106. Gaussen, 573. Gelaktion, 225. Gemara, 32. Gemara, Jerusalem, 132. Genebrard, 52, 70. Gennadius, Russian Bishop, 224. Genoa, 206. Germanus, Russian ecclesiastic, 224. Gildas the Wise, 357. Gibson, Dr. 407. Glassius, Solomon, 460. Gnostics, 268. Godounov, Boris, 225, 226. Godfrey, Abbot of Mahnesburg, 479. GorpiaMis, 127. Grabe, 270, 550. Greeks, 196, 199, 203, 205, 206. Greek Synod, 204. Greek Ciiurch, 204. Gregory Vll. St. Pope, 220. Gregory, schism. Patriarcli of Con- stantinople. 222. Gregory, Abyssinian .Abbot 2.V2. Gregory, Martin. :i80. Gregory Xlll. Pope, 436. Gregory XVI. Pope. Griesbach, 335. Grosseteste, 486. Grotius, 289, 383, 460. Guericke, 587. Gunaika, 329. H. Iladrian, 37, 135. Hagar, 187. Hagiographa, 18, 69. Hallam, 279, 391, 447, 451, 492, 569 Haueberg, 171. Havercamp, 170. Haydock, Rev. George, 408. Heard, 217, 220, 221. Hebrew Bible, 134. Hebrew letters, 67. Hebrew 22 Books, 15. Hebrew names, 337, 342. Hedwige, St. 538. Heinsius, Daniel and Nicholas, 460. Helcias, 91. Heli, 39. Hellenistic Jews, 51, 84, 105, 109, 122, 144, 148, 196, 198. Helvetic Confession of Faith, 552, Henry VIII. 313, 465, 470. Herbaud, 447. Hereford, 281. Hermas, Book of, 594. 6s8 Index. llcrod. 117, 118, 123, 183, 186. Mtreus, 358, 361, 363. Higli Priest, 89-92, 94-96, 09-103, 105, 108, 109, 112, 115-117, 121, 122, 130, 143, 148, 160, 163, 175, 182, 183, 187, 191, 193. Hilary, St. 126, 144. HiUel, 5], 69, 123. Hody, Humphrey, 100, 132, 170, 235, 251, 255, 460. Holda, 92. Holy Ghost, 187, 189, 196. Home, Thomas Hartwell, 384, 388, 471, 474, 487, 492. Horrabin, 408. Horrenm Mysteriorum, 251. Huet, 55, 70, 82, 83. Hughes, Bishop, 423, 424. Hugo a Sancto Caro, 487. Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, 451. Husenbeth, Dr. 408. Huss, John, 538. Huther, 587. JlyperduUa, 314. I. Ignatius, St. 607. Innocent III. Pope, 488-491. Irenasus, St. 265, 269, 601. Ishmael, High Priest, 118. Isiaslif, 220. Isidore, St. of Seville, 28, 127. Isidore, Metropolitan of Moscow, 223. Isidore, St. of Pelusium, 612. Ivan HI. 224. Ivan IV. the Terrible. 224, 225. «T. Jacobites, 196, 250. John, 82. James, St. the Less, 121, 153, 155, 190. James a Voragine, 537. Jamnia, 68. Januarius, St. 631. Jean de Vignes, 537. Jeddoa, Jadus or Jaddua, 35, 48, 49. Jeremiah I. schism. Patriarch of Con- stantiuople, 222. Jeremiah II. schism. Patriarch of Con. stantinople, 222, 225, 226. Jeremias the Prophet, 29, 87, 89. Jeremias, Anglican Bishop, 238. Jerome, St. 9, 15, 27, 98, 127, 142, 145, 173, 276. Jerome schism. Bishop of Chalcedon, 213. Jesuits, 207. Jethro, 38. Jerusalem, Temple of, 83, 103, 104. Joachim, errorist, 273. Joachim schism. Bishop of Rhodes, 213. Joadda, 48. Joasaph II. schism. Patriarch of C!on- stantiuople, 222. Job, Book of, 69. John Hyrcanus, 57, 119, 183. John the Baptist, 185 John Evangelist, 185. John, King of Bohemia, 447. John le Clerc, 460. John Gottlob Carpzov, 460. John Henry Pareau, 460. John David Michaelis, 460. John de T re visa, 471. John, Bishop of Bath, 478. John of Salisbury, 486, 487. Jonathan, 48, 175. Jones, Jeremiah, 560. Josaphat, 94. Joseph Ben Gorion, 100, 172. Joseph, Higii Priest, 118. Joseph of Arimathea, 120. Joseph, Russian Bishop of Kolomna, 225. Index. 659 Josephus, Historian, 41, 47, 52, 63, 65, 66, 13, 76, 83, 95, 96, 104, 106, 107, 116-118, Vl\. 149. 165, 167, 169-172, 176, 180-186, 188-193, 338. Josias, 92, 93. Jost, 105. Josue, 181. Josue Samaritan Book of, 101. JozJir. Jewish Priest, 121. Juda the Levite, 188. Judas the Essene, 57, 87-89, 183. Judas Machabeus, 55-57, 63. Judith, 9, 52, 151, 169. 213, 215, 216, 259. Justin Martyr, St. 125, 130. 132, 154, 596-607. Justinian, 138. K. Kay, David, F. R. S. 253. Keurick, Archbishop, 403, 415. 423 425. Kern, 587. Kiew, Metropolitan See of, 223. King James I. 206, 312, 324. Kistemacher, Binterim, 503. Konissky, George, 230. L.. Langfranc, 486, 487. Lange, 587, Latria, 314. Langton, 486, 487. Layton, 466. Le Long, 536. Leo Xin. Pope, 503. Leonard, Archbishop, 414. Leonidas, Archbishop of Novogorod, 224. Leontius, 29. Leoutopohs, Temple of, 75, 83, 106, 161. Lindsey, Mr. Charles. 522. Liddell, and Scott, 329. Lingard, 279, 409. Lisosius, Sactarist, 271. Lonicer, 77. Louis de Dieu, 383, 460. Louis of Bavaria, 447. Lollardism, 493. Louth, Robert, 460. Lucar, (^yril, 205, 216, 222, 228, 237. Lucifer, Bishop of Cagliari, 609. Lucke, 587. Ludolf, Job, 252. Luther, 58, 77. 146, 283-289, 291, 292, 378, 452-456, 518. 569, 593. Lutherans, 205. Lutheran Consistory, 510. Lynch Law, 519, 582. Lysimachus, 174-176. M. Machabees, 84, 118. 150, 151, 169, 213. 215. Macharius, schism. Patriarch of Anti- och, 215. Mac Knight, Presbyterian Minister, 301-302. Maclay, Archibald, 421. Magdala, Scriptures at, 253. Mai, Cardinal. 536. Maimonides, 186, 188. Maitland, 449, 451, 453, 468, 478, 485. Malachias, 22. 35, 168, 181, 182. Manahen, 183, 184. Manes, 267. Manicheans, 268. Manoah, 187. Manuscript Vatican, 77, 92, 150. Sinaitic, 77, 150. " Alexandrian, 77, 150. " Parisian, 77, 150. Marchesini, Mammotrectus, 529, Marcion. 267. Marcionites. 268. :o Index. Mark of Ephesus, 221. Marsh, Anglican Bishop, 80 262, 502. Marsh, George F., 279. Marshal, T. W. M. 506. Martini, Archb'p, 435. Martyrs of Poland and Russia, 225. Mathesius, John, 452. Massecali, 315. Mary, God's Mother, 183. MayerhofE, 587. McCloskey, Bishop, 424. McHale, Archb'p, 412. McMahon, Rev. Bernard, 410. McMahon, Rev. James, 424. McNamara, 400, 401, 402, 417. Meister, Anna, 522. Melancthon, 202, 203. 518. Melchisedech. 34. Melito, 125, 130, 143, 144, 596. Messiah, 115. 127. 134, 137, 158, 164. Methodius, scliisiu. Bishop of Pisidia 213. Metrophanes, schism. Bishop of Oyzi- cum, 213. Metrophanes, scliism. Patriarch of Con- stantinople, 222. Micliael III. or Bogoris, 218. Miesrob, 254. Migne, 180. Milman, 121. Milner, Isaac, 453. Milner, Bishop, 515. Milton, John, 460. Mink, James, 520. Mishna, 32. Mogila, schism. Metropolitan of Mos- cow, 228, 229. Montanus, 267. Moravians, 219. Mordechai, 177, 178. Moore, Sir Thomas. 280. 470. 475. Moscow, Russian Metropolitan See 223. Moses, 5, 19, 22, 26, 29, 30, 37, 90-93, 109, 112, 115, 116, 118-120, 123, 127, 129, 146, 155, 162, 163, 166, 167, 180, 362. Movers, 56, 70, 75. Murray, Archb'p, 408, 410. Muscovite Bible, 235, 236. Mysias Demetrius, schism. Deacon of Constantinople, 202, 203. N. Names of the Sacred Books, 3. Nary, Rev. Cornelius, 402. Natalis, Alexander. 265. Nazarites, 155. Neander, 587. Nectarius, schism. Patriarcli of Jerusa- lem, 229. Nehemias, 22, 40, 45, 46, 48, 49, 56, 57, 66, 67, 87-89, 181. Neophyte, schism. Patriarcli of Anti- och. 216. Nestorians, 196, 250. 270. Neteler, 56, 57, 70. Neudecker, 587. Newman, Cardinal, 403. Newton, Isaac, 460. Nicholas I., Pope, 218. Nicholas, Czar, 231. Nicholas de Lyra, 294. Nicholson, John, 254. Nicodemus, 120. Nicomedia, bay of, 209. Nikon, Russian Patriarch, 225. Nitika, St., 217. Non Jurors, 238. Normans, 484. Novella, 139. Nyplion, 222. o. Oil, 354. Olshausen, 587. Onias High Priest at Leontopolis, and index. 66i riglitful High Priest at Jerusalem, 75, 83, 103, 107, 175. •Origcn, 8, 126, 144, 596, 605. Osee, the Prophet, 181. Ozias, King of Jiida, 181. P. Pacome, schism. Patriarch of Constan- tinople, 222. Padua, 205, 206. Palestinian Jews, 109, 122, 144, 148, 177. Pandits, 505. Parthenius, schism. Patriarch of Con- stantinople, 213, 236. Patton, Wm., 421. Paul, Apostle, 185, 191, 349. Paul, Bishop of Populania, 218. Paul, Monophysite Bishop of Tehi, 251. Paulus, 587. Pcga, Melitius, schism. Patriarch of Alexandria, 206. Pelagians, 270. Pella, 154. Peschito, 197. PeseZ, 315. Peter the Great, 227. Petit Radel, 450. Pharisees, 119, 155, 165, 184. Philaret, schism. Metropolitan of Mos- cow, 232, 237. Philastrius, 265, 269. Philip, Metropolitan, 224. Philip the Hardy, 447. Philo, 52, 63-65, 73, 96, 98, 182, 185, 186. Photius, 205, 206. Pinkerton, John, 460, 542. Pius VI., Pope. Pius VII., Pope, 503. Pius VIII., Pope, 503. Pius IX., Pope, 503. Pollio, 183. Pope and Maguire, 418. Popes, 196, 209. Poynter, 407. Presbuteros, 347-364. Prideaux, 46, 59, 60, 73, 104, 170, 199. Friost, 357. Propaganda, S. Cong, of, 437. Protestant Bibles, 133. Proto-canonical and Deutero-canonical, 15. Proverbs, 69, 144. Ptolemy, 53. Ptolemy Philadelphus, 72, 82, 97, 99, 100, 101. Ptolemy Philometer, 97, 103, 122. 174- 176. Ptolemy, 174. Purcell and Campbell, 420. Purcell, Archb'p, 424. Purim, 63, 82, 174, 177, 178. Purvey, 281. R. Akiba, 69, 35. R. Eleazar, 69. R. Johanan, 69. R. Juah, 68. R. Simeon, 69 K. Simon, 68. Rubbins, 44, 66, 69, 83, 130, 133, 137, 139, 140-143, 145, 156, 163, 167, 168, 178, 179, 186. Rab. Juda, 34. R. Moses, 187. Ralph Bishop of Rochester, 478. Ralph de Baudoke dean of London, 479. Raoul de Presles, 537. Raphael, aspirant to the schism, patri- archate of Constantinople, 222. Rappe, Bishop, 424. Reinkins, 245. Reuss, Professor, 46, 58, 235, 587. 662 Index. Revisers of the " authorized version," 341, 369. Reviser of the " Revisers," 365. Renaudot, 215, 257. Reynolds, Bishop, 424. Richard of Bury, 451. Richard Rolle, the Hermit of Hampole, 476. Richard Simon, 53, 59. Richard of St. Victor, 486, 487. Rigby, Dr. 407. Rigdon, Sidney, 580 Roman Pontiff, 199, 201. Roberts, Dr. Alexander, 365. Robertson, Historian, 454. Roseiimullers, 460. Ruissvich, Herman, 282. Russians, 196, 217-250. S. Sacerd, 358. Sacerdos, 360, 361. Sadducees, 119, Salmasins, 289, 460. Samaritans, 100, 101, 104. Samuel the Prophet, 39, 181. Sanballat, 48. Sanhedrim, 22, 32, 33, 35, 49, 50, 75, 119, 121. Saturniniis, 266. Saul or Paul, Apostle, 43. Saxon Chronicle, 480. Scaliger, 289. Schismatics, 196. Schleiermacher, 587. Schneckenber^er, 587. Schmidt, 586. Schott, 587. Schrader, 587. Schultz, 587. Schwegler, 587. Schweinfurth, George Jacob, 521-526, Scotch Kirk, 510. Scribes, 123. Scrivener, 386. Semitic characters, 67. Semler, 586. Senior. 347. Septuagint, 72, 77, 79, 80, 81, 100, 109, 132, 134, 136, 137, 141, 142, 152, 159, 160, 168, 186, 192 194. Serarius, 53. Severus, Bishop of Ashmonin, 258. Shakespeare's father, 448. Shammai, 51, 68, 123. Shea, John Gilmary, L.L.D. Sheol, 322. Simon the Just, 35, 36, 46, 51, 59, 66, 110. Simon, High Priest, 118. Simon Magus, 156, 265, 351. Simon Peter, Apostle. 351. Simonians, 268. Sindon, 394. Sixtus of Sienna, 13. Slavonic alphabet, 219. Slavonic Bible, 219. Smith, Professor, 47, 58, 75, 132, 170, 194, 201, 336, 616. Smith, J. B. 520. Smith, Joseph, 579. Solemn League and Covenant, 408. Sousa, Emanuel, 537. Southcott, Joanna, 516. St. Germain de Pres, 213. Spalding, Solomon, 579. Spinoza, 47. Stackhouse, Anglican Vicar of Bctiham. 74. Stephen, St., Proto-marlyr, 73, 191. Stephen, sectarist, 271. Stevenson, J., S. J., 281, note 2. Sublime Porte, 207, 216. Sultan, 207, 222, 224, 225. Susanna, History of, 214, 216. Svmmachus, 136. Index. 663 Swedenborg, 460, 577. Swiss Declaration of Faith, 556. Synod schismatical at Jassy, 212. Synod schismatical at Constantinople, 213. Synod schismatical at Jerus;deni, 214. Synod at Oxford, 494. Syers, Oswald, 408. Synopsis, Athanasian, 27. Syriga, Milelius, 229. T. Talmud, 31, 73, 128, 163, 188. Tatian, 267. Tertullian, 27, 132, 265, 268, 602. Testament, Old and New, 3. Testanioi.t ni tlio twelve Apostles, 487. Theodore of Mopsue^Jlia, 69. Theodo!^ius 178. Theodotian, 136. Thebutis, 155. Theoplianes, schism. Patriarch of Je- rusalem. Tlieoptus, seliism. Patriarch of Con- staiiliiioplo, 223. Thomas and Valentine, 538. Timon, Bishop, 424. Timothy, schism. Patriarch of Constan- tinople, 207. Titus, Roman Emperor, 108, 154. Tobias, 9, 30, 52, 150, 169, 213, 214, 216. Tournemine, 53, 71. Trajan, Roman Emperor, 155. Troy, Archb'p, 400, 401, 410. Trypho, 131, 192, 193. Tver, Russian Archb'p, 224. Tyndale, apostate priest, 303, 325, 379, 385, 389. u. Ubaldi, 70, 82, 187. Ullman, 587. Ulphilas, 536. Unguad, David, 203. Usher, Anglican Archb'p, 475, 538. Urim and Thummim, 186, 187. Uytenbogaert, 206. V. Valentinians, 268. Van Ess, Leander, 502, 511. Vassili IV., Russian Prince, 224. f Vetusltala, 78, 219.228. Vulgate, 381, 385. Ethiopic, 151, 200. Gothic, 151. Armenian, 151, 200. Syriac Hexaplar, 151. Slavonic, 197. Arabic, 200. Anglo-Catholic, 380-398. Anglo Protestant, 303-379. Other Protestant, 275-303. Vespasian, Roman Emperor, 107, 15, 165. Vincenzi, 53, 71, 82. Vladimir, 219, 220. Vogel, 587. Voltaire, 220. Von Hagen, Cornelius, 206, 208. Von Hurter, Frederic, 490. W. Wake, Anglican Archb'p, 240. Waldensians, 272. Waldensian Confession of Faith, 553. Walker Obadias, 276. Walsh, Rev. P. A. 400. Walter, Bishop of Rochester, 478. Walton, Brian, Ang. Bishop, 73, 182, 198, 199, 261, 383, 460, 517. Washington May, 521. Ward's Errata, 311. Wassali TIL, Russian Prince, 223. Waring Dr., 408. Weber, 587. Wenlworth, T. & Laura 521. 664 Index. Westminster Confession of Paith, Whelan, Bishop, 424. Whiston, 126, 290, 550. Whitfield, Archb'p, 416. Whitaker, John, 564. William de Longchamp, 479. William de Schorham, 476. Wittenberg, 202. Wisdom, 52, 150, 151. 169, 213, 216, 259. Wiseman, Cardinal, 409. Witham, Dr., 402. Withred, King of Kent, 447. Wood, Anthony, 467, 468, 472. Wright, Anglican Dr., 46, 81, 275, 384, 549. Worcester's Dictionary, 389. Worthington, Dr., 381. 553.1 Wulstau, Bishop of Rochester, 481. I Wyckliffe, 269-282, 463, 493. X. Xavier, Francis, St., 631. Xylocaraboeus, Mark, schism, Patri- arch of Constantinople. 214, 262, Z. Zacharias the Prophet, 22, 40. Zachary, Father of John the Baptist, 184. Zempirick, John, 521. Zeuss. German Celtic scholar, 541. Zorobabel, 21, 40. Zosimus, Russian Metropolitan, 224. Zuinglius, 292. 8478TE^ 54; 21-22-04 32188 MS BS1135.IVI95 The canon of the Old Testament. Princeton Theological Semmary-Speer Library 1 1012 00038 2939 .J DATE DUE ■'^m^ HIGHSMITH #45115