it into order; but he no where assumes the char acter of a prophet himself, nor does he claim it for the original author, his grandfather. In the prologue, he says, My grandfather Jesus, when he had much given himself to the reading of the Law and the prophets, and other books of our fathers, and had gotten therein good judgment, was drawn on also himself to write something pertaining to learning and wisdom, to the intent that those which are desirous to learn, and are addicted to these things, might profit much more, in living according to the Law. Wherefore let me intreat you to read it with favour and attention, and to pardon us, wherein we may seem to come short of some words which we have laboured to interpret. Farther, some things uttered in Hebrew, and translated into another. tongue,have not the same force in them.-From the eight and thirtieth year, coming into Egypt when Euergetes was king, and continuing there for some time, I found a book of no small learning: therefore I thought it most necessary for me to bestow some diligence and travail to interpret it; using great watchfulness; and skill, in that space to bring the book to an end, &c. Surely, there is no need of further arguments to prove, that this modest author did not claim to be inspired.

The author of the second book of the Maccabees professes to have reduced a work of Jason of Cyrene, consisting of five volumes, into one volume.

Concerning which work he says, Therefore to us that have taken upon us this painful labour of abridging, it was not easy, but a matter of sweat and watching. Again, Leaving to the author, the exact handling of every particular, and laboring to follow the rules of an abridgment. To stand upon every point and go over things at large, and to be curious in particulars, belongeth to the first author of the story; but to use brevity and avoid much labouring of the work, is to be granted to him that maketh an abridgment. Is any thing more needed to prove, that this writer did not profess to be inspired? If there was any inspiration in the case, it must be attributed to Jason of Cyrene, the original writer of the history; but his work is long since lost; and we now possess only the abridgment which cost the writer so much labour and pains. Thus, I think it sufficiently ap pears, that the authors of these disputed books, were not prophets; and that, as far as we can ascertain the circumstances in which they wrote they did not lay claim to inspiration, but expressed themselves in such a way, as no man under the influence of inspiration, ever did.

7

The Popish writers, to evade the force of the arguments of their adversaries, pretend, that there was a twofold Canon; that some of the books of Scripture are protocanonical; and others deuterocanonical. If, by this distinction, they only meant that the word canon was often used by the

Fathers, with great latitude,so as to include all-books that were ever read in the churches, or that were contained in the volume of the Greek Bible, the distinction is correct, and signifies the same, as is often expressed, by calling some books, Sacred and Canonical, and others, Ecclesiastical.

these writers make it manifest, that they mean much more than this. They wish to put their deuterocanonical books, on a level with the old Jewish Canon; and this distinction is intended to teach, that after the first Canon was constituted, other books were, from time to time, added: but when these books thus annexed to the Canon have been pronounced upon by the competent authority, they are to be received as of equal authority with the former. When this second Canon was constituted, is a matter concerning which they are not agreed; some pretend, that in the time of Shamnai and Hillel, two famous rabbies, who lived before the advent of the Saviour, these books were added to the Canon. But why then are they not included in the Hebrew Canon? Why does Josephus never mention them? Why are they never quoted nor alluded to, in the New Testament? And why did all the earlier Fathers omit to cite them; or, expressly reject them? The difficulties of this theory being too prominent, the most of the advocates of the Apocrypha, suppose, that these books, after having remained in doubt before, were received by the Supreme authority

of the church, in the fourth century. They allege, that these books were sanctioned by the council of Nice, and by the third council of Carthage, which met A. D. 397. But the story of the method pursued by the council of Nice, to distinguish between Canonical and spurious books, is fabulous and ridiculous. There is nothing in the Canons of that council relative to these books; and certainly they cited no authorities from them, in confirmation of the doctrines established by them. And as to the third council of Carthage, it may be asked, what authority had this provincial synod to determine any thing for the whole church, respecting the Canon. But there is no certainty that this council did determine any thing on the subject; for in the same Canon, there is mention made of Pope Bonifase, as living at that time, whereas he did not rise to this dignity, until more than twenty years afterwards; in which time, three other popes occupied the see of Rome; so that this Canon could not have been formed by the third Council of Carthage. And in some copies it is inserted, as the fourteenth of the seventh council of Carthage. However this may be, we may be confident, that no Council of the fourth century had any authority to add to the Canon of Scripture, books which were not only not received before, but explicitly rejected as apocryphal, by most of the Fathers. Our opponents say, that these books were uncertain before, but now received confirmation. How could there be

any uncertainty, in regard to these books, if the church was as infallible, in the first three ages, as in the fourth. These books were either Canonical before the fourth century, or they were not: if the former, how came it to pass they were not recognized by the apostles? How came they to be overlooked and rejected by the primitive Fathers? But if they were not canonical before, they must have been made Canonical by the decree of some Council. That is, the church can make that an inspired book, which was never given by inspiration. This absurdity was before mentioned, but it deserves to be repeated, because however unreasonable it may be, it forms the true, and almost the only ground, on which the doctrine of the Romish church, in regard to these Apocryphal books, rests. This is, indeed, a part of the Pope's supremacy. Some of their best writers, however, deny this doctrine; and whatever others may pretend, it is most certain, that the Fathers, with one consent believed, that the Canon of Sacred Scripture was complete in their time: they never dreamed of books not then Canonical, becoming such, by any authority upon earth. Indeed, the idea of adding to the Canon what did not, from the beginning, belong to it, never seems to have entered the mind of any person, in former times. If this doctrine

were correct, we might still have additions made to the Canon, and that ton, of books which have existed for hundreds of years.