which seems to have been done, for Innocent I. (Ep. ad. Exsuperium,) declares these books canonical, in which he is followed by the synod held at Rome in 494, if indeed the acts purporting to be those of that synod are genuine.

These decrees however are not of general obligation, nor are they to be understood otherwise than as declaring the reading of these books in the churches to be useful for the edification of the people, not as asserting their sufficiency to prove theological doctrines. This is attested in express terms, not only by JEROME (Praef. in libros Salomonis, Praef. in Judith, and Praef. in Tob.) but also by RUFFIN, (in Symbol.) and by GREGORY I. (Comm. in Job.) Comp. DU PIN Proleg. sur la Bible, L. I. c. i. § 4. p. 8. [Du Pin on the Canon, p. 7. s.]

[a) The author, after having stated these arguments in this work, remarks, that they prove no more than that the Hellenistic Jews might have had those books in their canon, not that they had actually introduced them. Tr.]

The Protestants desiring to have these books expelled from the churches, the Council of Trent took up the subject in its deliberations on the formation of a Canon. According to the relations of Father Paul, (Hist. del. Conc. Trid. L. II. p. 157, 159,)* and Palavicini, (Hist. Conc. Trid. L. VI.) there were sharp disputes upon the subject; not a few contending that these books ought to be distinguished from the rest, and thrown into a separate secondary canon : others however, opposing this proposition, on the ground that there was no precedent of an establishment of a double canon by any council, and that the difference of the books was already sufficiently known to the learned; at length all present, namely, 48 bishops and 5 cardinals, agreed that all the books should be placed in one collection. This decision is contained in the proceedings of the 4th ses sion, wherein all are anathematized who do not receive all these books entire with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic church, and as they are contained in the old Vulgate Latin edition, for sacred and canonical, or who knowingly and deliberately

[Hist. du Conc. de Trente, tr. LE COURAYER, Tom. I. p. 275, s. BRENT' Council of Trent, p. 152. Tr.]

contemn the aforesaid traditions.-The distinction between these books, therefore, is by no means removed, and on this account Lamy (Appar. Bibl. L. II. c. v.) denies that the deuterocanonical books have the same authority with those of the first canon, (Comp. above § 29.) while on the other hand Du Pin affirms it; Diss. Prelim. sur la Bibl. L. I. c. i. § 6. [On the Canon, p. 15. s.]

§ 31. Apocryphal Books.

There were formerly many apocryphal books of the Old Testament in circulation, but most of them have perished. Those that have withstood the injuries of time are,-the Fourth Book of Ezra, the Prayer of Manasseh, and the Third Book of Maccabees. All of these are preserved in the Alexandrine version, and the first two in the Latin Vulgate. From the rejection of these books it is evident, that the ancient Jews and Christians did not receive books as sacred without discrimination, but examined carefully whether their inspiration could be satisfactorily proved. Although some ecclesiastical writers have made use of the apocryphal books, yet the church has never acceded to their judgment, but has uniformly rejected such books.

CHAPTER III.

HISTORY OF THE VERSIONS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.

§32. Division of the history of the books of the Old Testament.

AFTER having shown that the books of the Old Testament are genuine and incorrupt, worthy of credit, and of divine authority, and given a catalogue of them, it remains to examine their external and internal history during the course of so many centuries. To their external history we refer an account of the different versions: to the internal, accounts of their language, of the changes of the written characters, and of their various readings. These preparatory researches will be divided as follows: this third chapter will be occupied by the versions; the fourth by the language and the means of acquiring a knowledge of it; the fifth by the characters; the sixth by the various readings; and lastly, the seventh will treat of the art of criticism by which the true readings are to be discovered.

33. Subjects worthy of notice respecting the ancient versions. The ancients are indeed valuable witnesses as well in interpretation as in criticism, but their respective authority is by no means equal. This depends partly upon the age, the country, and the author of each version; partly upon the text from which it has been taken; and partly upon its conformation, nature, and character. For this reason, before we can have a correct idea of the value of any particular version, it is necessary that we should be particularly acquainted with 1) its age, and if possible its author, and the place where it was composed; 2) the text from which it was made; and 3) the method pursed in making the translation, and the state in which it now exists after having undergone the vicissitudes attending

the lapse of ages.- -We shall pay attention to all these particulars in treating briefly of all the ancient versions, especially with respect to the Alexandrine version on account of its being the most ancient, and to the Vulgate Latin on account of its being the adopted text of the church of Rome.

§ 34. Origin of the Alexandrine Version.[a]

Aristæas, an author who pretends to be a Gentile, præfect of the body guards of the king of Egypt, relates in a letter addressed to his brother Philocrates, that Ptolemy Philadelphus, at the instance of Demetrius Phalereus the keeper of his library, obtained from Eleazar the high priest of the Jews, by means of magnificent presents, seventy-two interpreters, who in the palace of the isle of Pharos, after mutual conferences and consultations, translated the books of Moses from the Hebrew into Greek, whence their version was called, in round numbers, the version of the Seventy interpreters. This account, repugnant as it is to historical truth, and contradictory in itself, has been copied from Aristmas by JOSEPHUS, Ant. Jud. XII. ii. 1—15, and by EUSEBIUS, Præf. Evang. VIII. ii—v. p. 350-355. By the oral traditions, on which Philo, Justin, and Epiphanius have relied, it was exaggerated to such an extent, that the interpreters were transformed into inspired writers.[b] Upon comparison with the history of those times, the following appears to be all that is true in the narration.The Jews, who were carried by Ptolemy Lagus into Egypt 320 years before Christ, together with those who voluntarily accompanied them thither, having become accustomed to the use of the Greek language, a Greek version of the sacred books, and especially of the Pentateuch, became necessary, and seems to have been accomplished by some translator attached to a synagogue. Plutarch informs us, Reg. et Imperat. Apothegm, p. 124. Opp. Vol. VIII. ed. Hutten, that Demetrius Phalereus advised Ptolemy Lagus (in whose reign Irenæus and Clement of Alexandria say the version was made,) to read authors on political subjects, because they, although dead, utter truths to kings which living men are afraid to speak. Hence, perhaps, it happened that Ptolemy requested of the Synagogue a copy of their Greek translation of the Laws of Moses, and placed it in his library. This version of the Pentateuch must therefore have been

made in the interval of time which elapsed between the year 298 B. C., in which Demetrius Phalereus fled to Ptolemy Lagus, and the year 285 B. C., in which Ptolemy Lagus ceased to reign. The connexion of the number 70 with the name of the version, may have originated in its being revised and approved by a council of 70 learned men.The other books were subsequently translated by different Jewish writers, as plainly appears from the variations in the orthography of proper names,[c] from the difference in the mode of translating, and from the degree of learning manifested by the translators, which varies in almost every book. That they were Egyptian Jews is shown by the occurrence of several Egyptian words. [d] In fine, that all the books were translated in the third century before Christ,[e] is intimated by the translator of Ecclesiasticus, who in the close of the third, or at latest in the second century before Christ, in his preface assumes as a well known fact, that all the Hebrew books had, during some time, been translated into Greek.

[a) On the subject of this and the ten following sections, compare HORNE'S Introduction, Vol. II. p. 163–182; CARPZOV, Critica Sacra, P. II. c. ii. iii. p. 481-585; EICHHORN, § 161-212; S. GLASSII Philologia Sacra, ed. BAUER, Tom. II. p. 239–288, § 40-58; SIMON, Hist. Crit. du V. T. L. II. c. ii-x., and PRIDEAUXx's Connexions, Part II. Book I. Anno 277, ed. Lond. 1720, 8vo. Vol. II. p. 27-61. Tr.]

[b) The genuineness of Aristæas has been much contested; See RoSENM. Handbuch für die Lit. der Bib. Krit. und Exeg. II. B. S. 387-427. LEWIS VIVES in his remarks on Augustin, de Civ. Dei. xviii. 42, considers the letter as supposititious, and the account as fabulous. He was followed by LEO A CASTRO, (Proem. in Jesai.) SALMERO, (Prolegom. 6.) Jos JUST. SCALIGER, (ad Chron. Euseb. Anno MDCCXXXIV. p. 132— 134.) and HUMPHREY HODY in his Dissertatio contra historiam Aristeæ de 70 interpretibus, 1685, 8vo. London, where he professedly discusses the subject, and more fully in his work de Bibliorum textibus originalibus, versionibus Græcis, et Latina Vulgata, 1705, fol. Oxon.]

[c) In the book of Chronicles DD is written padɛx, but in the other

books πασχα ; in the Chronicles also we find Θεκωί, Αναθωθι, Νετω φατι, when in the books of Samuel we read Θεκωίτης, Αναθωνίτης, Νετωφαπίτης.]

[d) Hony, de Bib. Text. p. 1-100, 115, 159, 570, has collected them. they are such as oil or oil. Num. xxviii. 5. Ruth ii. 17. which He