Internal Evidence That These Books Are Not Canonical
I come now to the fifth argument to disprove the Canonical authority of these books, which i& derived from internal evidence. Books which contain manifest falsehoods; or which abound in silly and ridiculous stories; or contradict the plain and uniform doctrine of acknowledged Scripture, cannot be Canonical. Now I will endeavour to .show, that the books in dispute, are all, or most afthem, condemned by this rule.
In the book of Tobit, an angel of God is made to tell a palpable falsehood, am Jizarias, the son of Ananias the great, and of thy bretheren.* By which Tobit was completely deceived, for he says, Thou art of an honest and good stock. Now in chapter xii, this same angel declares, am Raphael, one of the seven Holy Angels,which present the prayers of the saints, and go in and out before the glory of the Holy One.
Judith is represented as speaking scarcely any thing but falsehood to Holofornes; but what is most inconsistent with the character of piety given
»= Tobit V. 12.
her, is, that she is made to pray to the God of Truth, in the following words, Smite by the de» ceit of my lips, the servant with the prince and the prince with the servant: who does not perceive, at once, the impiety of this prayer? It is a petition, that He who holds in utter detestation all falsehood, should give efficacy to premeditated deceit.
This woman, so celehrated for her piety, is also made to speak with commendation of the conduct of Simeon, in tire cruel slaughter of the Shechemites; an act, against which God, in the Scriptures, has expressed his high displeasure. In the second hook of Maccabees, Razis, an Elder of Jerusalem, is spoken of with high commendation, for destroying his own life rather than fall into the hands of his enemies; but certainly suicide is not, in any Oase, agreeable to the word of God.
The author of the l)ook of Wisdom, speaks in the name of Solomon, and talks about being appointed to build a temple in the holy mountain; whereas it has been proved by Jerome, that this book is falsely ascribed to Solomon.
In the book of Tobif, we have this story; ^jlnd (IS they went on their journey they came to the river Tigris, and they lodged there, and when the young man went dotvn to wash himself, a fsh leaped out of the river, and would have drowned him. Then the angel said unto him take the fish. xS.nd the young man laid hold of the fish and dreio it to land. To whom the angel said, open the fish, and take the heart, and the liver, and the gall, and put them up safely. So the young man did as the angel commanded him, and when they had roasted the fish, they did eat it. Then the young man said unto the angel, brother Jlzarias, to what use is the heart and the liver and the gall of the fish? And he said unto him, touching the heart and the liver, if a devil, or an evil spirit trouble any, we must inake a smoke thereof before the man or the woman and the party shall he no more vexed. As for the gall, it is good to anoint a man that hath whiteness in his eyes; he shall be healed. If this story does not savour f the fabulous, then it would be difficult lo find any thing that did.
In the book of Baruch, there are also several things which do not appear to be true. Baruch is said to have read this book, in the fifih year after the destruction of Jerusalem, in the ears of Jeremiah, the king, and all the people dwelling in Babylon, who upon hearing it, collected money and sent ii lo Jerusalem, to the priests. Now Baruch, wh is here allegef! to have read this book in Ijabylon, is said, in the Canonical Scriptures, to have been carried captive into Egvpt, with Jeremiah, after the .mui’der of (Jedaliah. Again, he is represented to have read in the ears of Jeconias the king, and of all
Tobit. c. vi. Baruch. i. Jeremiah, xl.
th6 people; but Jeconias is known to have been shut up in prison, at this time, and it is no how probable that Baruch would have access to him, if he even had been in Bal)ylon. The money that was sent from Babylon was to enable the priests to offer sacrifices to the Lord, but the temple was in ruins and there was no altar.*
In the chapters added to the book of Esther, we read, that Alordocheus, in the second year of %^rtcijcerxes the great, was a great man, being a servitor in the kings court. And in the same, That he was also one of the captives which Nahuchodonosor carried from Jerusa/em,ivith Jeconias kingofJudea. Now, between these two periods, there intervened one hundred and fifty years; so that, if he was only fifteen years of asje, when caried away, he must have been a servitor in the kuig’a court, at the age of one hundred and seventy five years!
Again, Mordocheus is represented as being great man in the court, iyi the second year ofJirtaxerxes, before he detected the conspiracy against the king’s life Now Artaxerxes and Ahasuerus were the same, or they were not; if the former, this history clashes with the Scriptural account, for there it appears, that Mordecai, was not, before
* Barach, i. 10. And Ihey said behold we have sent you money to hui, you burnt ojjferin’^s, and incense, and prepare ye manna, and offer upon the altar of the Lord our God.
this time, a courtier, or a conspicuous man; if the latter, then this addition is manifestly false, because it ascribes to Artaxerxes, what the Scriptures ascribe to ^nofher person.
Moreover, this Apocryphal writing places the conspiracy aaiist the king’s life before the repudiation of Vashri ;ind the marriage of Esther, but this is repugtiant to the Canonical Scriptures.
It is also asserted, in this book, that Mordocheus received honors and rewards for the detection of the Conspiracy; whereas, in the Canonical book of Esther, it is declared, tlirit he ncf.ived no reward. And a different reason is assigned, in the two books, f -r Haman’s hatred of Mordecai. In the Canonic?!, it is his neglect of shewing respect to this proud courtier; in the Apocryphal, it is the punishment of the two Eunuchs,who had formed the co’.ispirricy.
And tindly, Haman, in this spurious work, is call’.d H Macedonian; and it is said, that he meditated the design of transferring the Persian kingdi m to the Macedonians. But this is utterly incredible. The kingdom of Macedon must have bet n, at that time, most obscure, and probably wholly unknown, at the Persian Court. But this is not all, iie who is here called a Macedonian, is in the Canonical book said to be an Agagite. The proof of the Apocryphal character of this
* See chap. xvi.
Addition to Kster, which has been adduced, is in all reason sufTicient.
The advocates of these books are greatly perplexed to find a place in the history of the Jewish nation, for the wonderful deliveiance, wrought by means of Judith. It seems strange that no all Iusii)n is made to this event in any of the acknowledged books of Scripture; and more unaccountable still, that Josephus, who was so much disposed to relate every tiling favourable to the character of his nation, should never make the least mention of it. Some refer this history to the period preceding the Babylonish captivity; while others are of opinion, that the events occurred in the time ofCambyses, king of Persia. But the name of the High Priest, here mentioned, does not occur with the names of the High Priests contained in any of the genealogies. From the time of the building of the temple by Solomon, to its overthrow by the Assyrians, this name is not found in the list of High Priests, as may be seen, by consulting the vi. chapter of 1 Chronicles; nor, in the catalogue given by Josephus, in the tenth chapter of the tenth book of his Antiquities. That this history cannot be placed after the captivity, is manifest, from this circumstance, that the temple of Solomon was still standing when the transactions which are related in this book, occurred.
Another thing in the book of Judith, which is very suspicious, is, that Holofernes is represented so
as saying, Tell me now, ye Sons of Canaan, who this people is, that dwelleth in the hill country and what are the cities that they inhabit. But how can it be reconciled with known history, that a prince of Persia should be wholly ignorant of the Jewish people?
It is impossible to reconcile what is said, in the close of the book, with any sound principles of chronology. Judith is reprsented as young and beautiful, when she slew Holofernes; but here it is saifl, That she waxed old in her husband’s house, being an hundred and Jive years old. And there was none that made the children of Israel any more afraid in the days of Judith; nor a long time after her death. In whose reign, or at what period, we would ask, did the Jews enjoy this long season of uninterrupted tranquillity?
Some writers who are fully convinced that the history of Judith cannot be reconciled with authentic history, if taken literally, are of opinion, that it contains a beautiful allegory; — that Bethulia, [the i;/r«w,)represents the church of God; that the assault of Nebuchadnezzar signifies, the opposition of the world and its prince; that the victory obtained by a pious woman, is intended to teach, that the church’s deliverance is not effected by human might or power, but by the prayers and the piety of the saints &c. This, perhaps, is the most favourable view which we can take of this history; but take it as you will, it is clear that the book is
SI
Apocryphal, and has no right to a place in the Sacred Canon.
Between the first and second hooks of Maccabees, there is a palpable contradiction; for in the first book it is said, that Judas died in the one hundred and fifty second year: hut in the second, that in the one hundred and eighty eighth year, the people that weie in Judea, and Judas, and the council, sent greeting and health unto yristobulus. Thus, Judas, is made to join in sending a ktter six and thirty years after his death! The contradiction is manifest. In the the same first chapter of the second book, there is a story inserted, which has very much the air of a fable. For when our Fathers were led into Persia, the priests that were then devout, took the fire of the altar privily arid hid it in a hollow jilace of a pit without water, where they kept it sure, so that the place was unknown to all men. Now after many years, when it pleased God Nehemias, being sent from the king of Persia j did send of the posterity of those priests that had hid it, to the fire: but when they told us they found no fire, but thick loater: then commanded he them to draw it up and bring it, and when the sacrifices were laid on, Nehemias commanded the priests to sprinkle the wood and things laid thereon, with the water. IVhen this was done and the time caie that the Sun shone, which before was hid in the clouds, a great fire. was kindled. But the Jews were not carried to Persia but to Babylon, and the rest of the story has no foundation, whatever, in truth.
In the second chapter we have another fabulous story of Jeremiah’s taking the ark and altar, and altar of incense, to mount Pisgah, and hiding them in a hollow cave, and closing them up. This place Jeremiah declared should be unknown, Until the time that God gathered his people again together, and received theni into mercy. When the cloud a% it appeared unto Moses, shall appear again.
There is another conti-adiciion bptvveen these books of Maccabees, in relation to the death of Antiochus Epiphrtnes. In the first it is said, that he died at Elymais, in Persia, in the hundred and f.*rty ninth year; but in the second bdok, it is related, that after entering Persopolis, with a view of overthrowing the temple and city, he was repulsed by the inhabitants; and while on his journey from this place, he was seized with a dreadful disease of the bowels, and died in the mountains.
Moreover, the accounts given of Nicanor, in the seventh chapter of the first book, and in the fourteenth and fifteenth chapters of the second book, are totally inconsistent.
In the first book of Maccahees an erroneous account is given of the civil government of
2 Mac. if. 1 jSIiic. viii. 16.
the Romans, where it is snid, That they committed their government to one man every year, who ruled over all their country, and that all were obedient to that one. Where:is, it is well known that no such form of government ever existed among the Romans
6. Finally, it is manifest that these books were not inspired, and therefore not Canonical, because they were not written by prophets; but by men who speak of their labours in a way wholly incompatil)le with inspiration.
Jerome and Eusebius were of opinion, that .Tosephus was the author of the books of the Maccabees; but it has never been supposed by any, thai he was an inspired man; therefore if this opinion be correct, these books are no more Canonical, than the Antiquities or Wars of the Jews, by the same author.
It has been the constant tradition of Jews and Christians, that the spirit of prophecy ceased with Malachi, until the appearance of John the 13aptist. Malachi has, on this account, been called by the
Jews, THE SEAL OF THE PROPHETS.
Josephus, in his book against Apion, after say” ing, that it belonged to the prophets alone, to writ.: inspired books, adds these words, <’ From the time of Artaxerxes, there were some among us, who wrote books even to our own times, but these are not of equal authority with the preceding, because the succession of prophets was not complete.”
EusEBius, in giving a catalogue of the leaders of the Jews, denies that he can proceed any lower than Zerubbabel, ‘’Because,” says he, “after the I’eturn from captivity untill the advent of our Saviour, there is no book which can be esteemed sacred.”
Augustine gives a similar testimony. “After Mailachi the Jews had no prophet, during that whole period which intervened between the return from captivity and the advent of our Saviour.”
Neither does Genebrard dissent from this opinion, “From Malachi to ‘John the Baptist,” says he, “no prophets existed.”
Drusius cites the following words, from the Compiler of Jewish History, “The rest of the discourses of Simon, and his wars, and the wars of his brother, are they not written in the book of Joseph, the Son of Gorion, and in the book of the Asmoneans,and in the books of the Roman kings.” Here, the books of the Maccabees, are placed between the writings of Josephus and the Roman history.
The book of Wisdom does indeed claim to be the work of Solomon, an insjiired man -^ but this claim furnishes the strongest ground for its condemnation. It is capable of the clearest proof, from internal evidence, that this was the production of some person, probably a Helenistic jew, who lived long after the Canon of the Old Testament was completed. It contains manifest allusions to Grecian quslonis, and is tinctured with the Grecian philosophy. The manner in which the author praises himself is fulsomo, and has no parallel in any inspired writer. This hook has been ascribed to Philo Judjeus; if this conjecture be correct, doubtless it lias no just claim to be considered a Canonical book. But whoever was the author, his endeavouring; to pass his composition off for a writiuy of Solomon, is sufficient to <lecideevery question respecting his inspiration. If Solomon had written this book, it wouUl have been found in the Jewish Canon, and in the He brew anguage. The writer is also guilty of shameful flattery to h.is own nation, which is entirely repugnant to the spirit of all the pr pphets. He has also, without any f(iundation,added many things to the sacred narration, contained m the Canonical history; and has minglcfl with it, much, which is of the nature of poetical embellishment. And, indeed, the whole style of the composition, savours too much of artificial eloquence, to be attributed to the Spirit of God; the constant characteristic of whose productions arc, simplicity and sublimity.
EccLESiASTicus, which is superior to all the other Apocryphal books, was written by one Jesus the sun of Sikach. His grandtather, of the same name, it seems, had wrivten a book, which he left to his son Sirach: and he delivered it to his son Jesus, who loolc great pains to reduce u 2 it into orfler; but he no where assumes the character of a prophet himself, nor does he claim it for the original author, his grandfather. In the prorogue, he says, Mi, 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 luisdom, to the intent that those which are desirous to learn, and are addicted to these things, viight profit much Tnore, in living according to the Law. PVhete’ fore let me intreat you to read it loith favour and attention,and to pardo7ius,ivherein we may seem to come short of some words which we have laboured to biterpret. Farther, some things uttered in Hebrew, and translated into anothev! iongue,have not the same force in them. — From the eight and thirtieth year, coming into Egypt luhen 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 bri?ig 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 o(^ Jason of Cyrene, consisting of live volumes, into one volume
Concerning which work he says, Therefore to lis that have taken upon us this painful labour of ahridirins, 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 louse brevity and avoid much labouring of the work, is lobe granted to hitn that maketh an abridgment. Is any thing mure 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 Gyrene, 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 sufliciently appears, 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.
The Popish writers, to evade the force of the argument.-, of their adversaries, pretend, that there was a twofo Id Canon; that some of the books of Scripture are protocanonical; and others deuterocanonical. If, by this distinction, they onlymeant 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. But these writers make it manifest, that they mean much more than this. They wish lo 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 bting 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 allepje, 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 s)^nod 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 oow 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 too, of books which have existed for hundreds of years.
This question may be bro«o;ht to a speedy issue, with all unprejudiced juflges. These books were either written by divine inspiration for the guidance of the church in matters of faith and practice, or they were not; if the former, they always had a right to a place in the Canon; if the latter, no act of a Po|)e or Council could render that divine, which was not so before. It would be to change the nature of a fact, than which nothing is more impossible.
It is alleged, with much confidence, that the Greek Bibles, used by the Fathers, contained these books; and, therefore, whenever they give their testimony to the Snored Scriptures, these are included. This argument proves too much, for the third book of Esdras and the prayer of Manasses were contained in these volumes, but these are rejected by the Romanists. The truth, however, is, that these books were not originally connected with the Septuagint; they were probably introduced into some of the later Greek versions, which were made by heretics. These versions, particularly that of Theodotion, came to be used promiscuously with- that of the LXX; and to this day, the common copies contain the version of the book of Daniel by Theodotion, instead of that by tlic LXX.
By some such mean*, these Apocryphal books crept into the Greek Bible; but the early Fathers were careful to distinguish between them and the Canonical Scriptures, as we have already seen.
Thattiiey were read in the churches is also true; but not as Scripture; not for the eonfirrnation of doctrine; but for the edification of the common people.
Some of the Fathers, it is true, cited them as authority, but very seldom, and the reason which rendered it difficult for them to distinguish accurately between Ecclesiastical and Canonical books has already been given. These pious men were generally unacquainted with Hebrew literature, and finding all these books in Greek, and frequently bound up in the same volume, as the Canonical Scriptures; and observing that they contained excellent rules for the direction of life and the regulation of morals, they sometimes referred to them? and cited passages from them, ano permitted them to be read in the church, for the instruction and edification of the people.
But the more learned of the Fathers, who examined into the authority of the sacred books with unceasing diligence, clearly marked the distinction between such books as were Canonical, and such as were merely human compositions. And some of them even disapproved of the reading of these Apocryphal books by the people; and some councils warned the churches against them. It was with this single view that so many catalogues of the Canonical books were prepared, and published.
Notwithstanding that we have taken so much pains to shew that the books called, Apocrypha, are ao
Canonical, we wish to avoid the opposite extreme of regartliuo; them as useless, or injurious. Sonric of these books are important for the historical information which they contain; and, especially, as the facts recorded in them ai”C, in some instances, the fulfilment of re.narkahic prop’aecies.
Oihorsof ihem are r ‘plctc with sacrrnl, moral, and prudential maxims, very useful to oil, in the regulation of life and manners; but oven with these, arc inicrpiM’sed seniiments, which are not perfectly accordant with the word of God. In short, these bo’iksare of very different value, but in the best of them there is so much error and imperfection, as to Convince us, that they are human producti )ns, and should be used as such: not as an infallible rule, bui as useful helps in the attainment of knowledire, and ill the practice of virtue. ‘I^h’-rvfore, when wewouul exclude them fi-o:n a place in the ni’’.)le, we would not proscribe them as unlit to be read; but we would have them published in a separate Volume, and studied much more carefully, than they commonlyhave been.
And “while we would dissent from the prarti^e of reading ie.^sons from these!)Ooks, as Scriptural Lessons are read in the chorch, we wo .Id cordially recommend the frequent perusal, in private, of the first of Maccabees, the Wisdom of Solomon, and aboe all, Ecclesiasticus.
It is a lishonour to fli.d, and a <lisn!rao;ement of his word, to place other books, in any respect,oa a Icz vel with THE DIVINE ORACLES; but it is a privilege to be permitted, to have access to the writings of men, eminent for their wisdom and piety. And it is also a matter of curious instruction to learn, what were the opinions of men, in ages long past,and in countries far remote.