CHAPTER V.

ON THE APOCRYPHA.4

1. Account of the First Book of Esdras.-II. Of the Second Book of Esdras.-III. Of the Book of Tobit.-IV. Of the Book of Judith.-V. Of the rest of the Chapters of Esther.-VI. Of the Book of Wisdom.-VII. Of the Book of Ecclesiasticus.— VIII. Of Baruch.-IX. Of the Song of the Three Children.-X. Of the History of Susanna.-XI. Of Bel and the Dragon. -XII. Of the Prayer of Manasses.-XIII. Of the Book of Maccabees.

I. It is not known at what time the FIRST BOOK OF ESDRAS | Nehemiah, which, however, it contradicts in many instances. was written it is only extant in Greek, and in the Alexandrian manuscript it is placed before the canonical book of Ezra, and is there called the first book of Ezra, because the events related in it occurred prior to the return from the Babylonish captivity. In some editions of the Septuagint it is called the first book of the priest (meaning Ezra), the authentic book of Ezra being called the second book. In the editions of the Latin Vulgate, previous to the council of Trent, this and the following book are styled the third and fourth books of Esdras, those of Esdras and Nehemiah being entitled the first and second books. The author of this book is not known; it is compiled from the books of Ezra and 1 Jahn's Introduction, p. 435.

them to any purpose. Since, then, external evidence affords us but little assistance, it becomes necessary to have recourse to the internal testimony which the Gospel of Saint Matthew affords, and we apprehend that it will be found to preponderate in favour of an early date.

In the first place, it is by no means probable that the Christians should be left any considerable number of years without a genuine and authentic written history of our Saviour's ministry. "It is certain," Bishop Tomline remarks, "that the apostles immediately after the descent of the Holy Ghost, which took place only ten days after the ascension of our Saviour into heaven, preached the Gospel to the Jews with great success: and surely it is reasonable to suppose that an authentic account of our Saviour's doctrines and miracles would very soon be committed to writing for the confirmation of those who believed in his divine mission, and for the conversion of others, and more particularly to enable the Jews to compare the circumstances of the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus with their ancient prophecies relative to the Messiah: and we may conceive that the apostles would be desirous of losing no time in writing an account of the miracles which Jesus performed, and of the discourses which he delivered, because, the sooner such an account was published, the easier it would be to inquire into its truth and accuracy; and, consequently, when these points were satisfactorily ascertained, the greater would be its weight and authority."5 On these accounts the learned prelate assigns the date of St. Matthew's Gospel to the year 38.

sion, as printed in Bishop Walton's Polyglott, this Gospel is thus entitled: "The Gospel of Saint Matthew the apostle, which he wrote in Hebrew by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit." In the Persian version it is:-"The Gospel of Matthew, which was spoken in the Hebrew tongue, in a city of Palestine, but written in Syriac at Antioch;" and in the Syriac version, "The Gospel, the preaching of Matthew." II. Matthew, surnamed Levi, was the son of Alpheus, but not of that Alpheus or Cleopas who was the father of James mentioned in Matt. x. 3. He was a native of Galilee, but of what city in that country, or of what tribe of the people of Israel, we are not informed. Before his conversion to Christianity, he was a publican or tax-gatherer, under the Romans, and collected the customs of all goods exported or imported at Capernaum, a maritime town on the sea of Galilee, and also received the tribute paid by all passengers who went by water. While employed at the receipt of custom," Jesus called him to be a witness of his words and works, thus conferring upon him the honourable office of an apostle. From that time he continued with Jesus Christ, a familiar attendant on his person, a spectator of his public and private conduct, a hearer of his discourses, a witness of his miracles, and an evidence of his resurrection. After our Saviour's ascension, Matthew continued at Jerusalem with the other apostles, and with them on the day of Pentecost was endowed with the gift of the Holy Spirit. How long he remained in Judæa after that event, we have no authentic account. Socrates, an ecclesiastical historian of the fifth century, relates, that when the apostles went abroad to preach to the Gentiles, Thomas took Parthia for his lot; Secondly, as the sacred writers had a regard to the circumBartholomew, India; and Matthew, Ethiopia. The com-stances of the persons for whose use they wrote, we have an mon opinion is that he was crowned with martyrdom at additional evidence for the early date of this Gospel, in the Naddabar or Naddaver, a city in that country: but this is state of persecution in which the church was at the time contradicted by the account of Heracleon, a learned Valen- when it was written for it contains many obvious references tinian of the second century; who, as cited by Clement of to such a state, and many very apposite addresses both to Alexandria,1 reckons Matthew among the apostles that did the injured and to the injurious party. not die by martyrdom: and as his statement is not contradicted by Clement, it is more likely to be true than the relation of Socrates, who did not flourish until three hundred years after Heracleon.2

III. Matthew is generally allowed to have written first of all the evangelists. His Gospel is uniformly placed first in all the codes or, volumes of the Gospels: and the priority is constantly given to it in all the quotations of the primitive fathers, as well as of the carly heretics. Its precedence, therefore, is unquestionable, though the precise time when it was composed is a question that has been greatly agitated. Dr. Mill, Michaelis, and Bishop Percy, after Irenæus, assign to it the year 61; Moldenhawer, to 61 or 62; Dr. Hales, to 63; Dr. Lardner and Mr. Hewlett, to 64; Baronius, Grotius, Wetstein, Mr. Jer. Jones, and others, after Eusebius, to 41; Dr. Benson, to 43; Dr. Cave, to 48; Dr. Owen and Bishop Tomline, to 38; and Dr. Townson, to the year 37. In this conflict of opinions, it is difficult to decide. The accounts left us by the ecclesiastical writers of antiquity, concerning the times when the Gospels were written or published, are so vague, confused, and discordant, that they lead us to no solid or certain determination. The oldest of the ancient fathers collected the reports of their own times, and set them down for certain truths; and those who followed adopted their accounts with implicit reverence. Thus traditions, true or false, passed on from one writer to another, without examination, until it became almost too late to examine

1 Stromata, lib. 4. p. 502. B. See the passage in Dr. Lardner's Works, Bvo. vol. vi. p. 48.; 4to. vol. iii. p. 159.

2 Lardner's Works, vol. vi. pp. 45-47. 8vo.; or vol. iii. pp. 157-159. 4to. Pritii Introductio Lectionem Novi Testamenti, pp. 154-157. Michaelis's Introduction, vol. iii. pp. 96-99.

Of all the primitive fathers, Irenæus (who flourished in the second century) is the only one who has said any thing concerning the exact time when St. Matthew's Gospel was written; and the passage (adv. Hæres. lib. iii. c. 1.) in which he has mentioned it, is so obscure, that no positive conclusion can be drawn from it. Dr. Lardner (8vo. vol. vi. p. 49.; 4to. vol. iii. p. 160.), and Dr. Townson (discourse iv. on the Gospels, sect iv. § 6.) understand it in very different senses. The following is a literal translation of the original passage, which the reader will find in Dr. Lardner's works. Matthew put forth (or published) a gospel among the Hebrews while Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel at Rome and laying the foundations of a church there. Now, though it does not appear that Peter was at Rome until after Paul's liberation from his first imprisonment, A. D. 63, yet we know that the latter arrived there in the spring of A. D. 61, consequently the date intended by Irenæus must be the year 61. Eusebius, who lived in the early part of the fourth century, merely says that Matthew, after preaching to the Hebrews, wrote his Gospel for their information, previously to his going to evangelize other nations (Eccl. Hist. lib. iii. c. 24.); but he does not specify the time, nor is it mentioned by any other ancient writer. In his Chronicon, however, Eusebius places the writings of St. Matthew's Gospel in the third year of the reign of the emperor Caligula, that is, eight years after Christ's ascension, or A. D. 41.

1. Thus, the evangelist informs the injured and persecuted Christians, that their afflictions were no more than they had been taught to expect, and had promised to bear, when they embraced the Gospel (x. 21, 22. 34-36. xvi. 24.); that, however unreasonable their sufferings might be, considered as the effects of the malice of their enemies, they were yet useful and profitable to themselves, considered as trials of their faith and fidelity (v. 11. xxiv. 9-13.); that, though they were grievous to be borne at present, yet they operated powerfully to their future joy (v. 4. 10-12.); that a pusillanimous desertion of the faith would be so far from bettering their state and condition, that it would infallibly expose them to greater calamities, and cut them off from the hopes of heaven (x. 28. 32, 33. 39.); that they were not, however, forbidden to use the lawful means of preservation; but even enjoined to put them in practice, whenever they could do it with innocence (x. 16, 17. 23.); that the due observance of the Christian precepts was an excellent method to appease the wrath and fury of their enemies, and what therefore they were obliged in point of prudence as well as duty carefully to mind and attend to (v. 39. vii. 12. 24-27. v. 13-20.); that if it should be their fate to suffer martyrdom at last for their religion, it was infinitely better to continue faithful to their important trust, than by any base compliance to incur his displeasure, in whose hands are the issues not only of this life, but also of that which is to come. (xvi. 25-27. x. 28.)

2. On the other hand, again, to calm the passions of the enraged Jews, and win them over to the profession of the Gospel, he labours to soften and abate their prejudices, and to engage them in the practice of meekness and charity. (ix, 13.) To this

s Elem. of Christ. Theol. vol. i. p. 201. The following observations of the profound critic Le Clerc will materially confirm the preceding remarks. "Those," says he, "who think that the Gospels were written so late as Irenæus states, and who supposés that, for the space of about thirty years after our Lord's ascension, there were many spurious gospels in the hands of the Christians, and not one that was genuine and authentic, do unwarily cast a very great reflection upon the wisdom of the apostles. For, what could have been more imprudent in them, than tamely to have suffered the idle stories concerning Christ to be read by the Christians, and not to contradict them by some authentic history, written by some credible persons, which might reach the knowledge of all men? For my part, I can never be persuaded to entertain so mean an opinion of men under the direction of the Holy Spirit. Besides, Matthew has delivered to us, not only the actions, but also the discourses of Christ; and this he must necessarily be able to do with the greater certainty, while they were fresh in his memory, than when, through length of time, he began to lose the impressions of them. It is true that the Holy Spirit was with the apostles, to bring all the things to their remembrance, which they had received of Christ, according to his promise (John xiv. 26.): but the Holy Spirit not only inspired them, but also dealt with them according to their natural powers, as the variety of expressions in the Gospel shows." Clerici Hist. Eccl. sæculi I. A. D. LXII. § 9.

II. The Jews, having rebuilt the temple and re-established IV. Although the writings of this prophet are almost the worship of Jehovah, after the death of Zerubbabel and wholly in prose, yet they are by no means destitute of force Joshua relapsed into their former irreligion in consequence and elegance. He reproves the wickedness of his countryof the negligence of the priests. Although they were sub-men with great vehemence; and Bishop Lowth observes that sequently reformed during the governments of Ezra and Nehemiah, yet they fell into gross abuses after the death of Ezra, and during Nehemiah's absence at the court of Persia. The prophet Malachi was therefore commissioned to reprove he priests and people, more particularly after Nehemiah's

CHAPTER V.

ON THE APOCRYPHA.4

1. Account of the First Book of Esdras.-II. Of the Second Book of Esdras.-III. Of the Book of Tobit.-IV. Of the Book of Judith.-V. Of the rest of the Chapters of Esther.-VI. Of the Book of Wisdom.-VII. Of the Book of Ecclesiasticus.VIII. Of Baruch.-IX. Of the Song of the Three Children.-X. Of the History of Susanna.-XI. Of Bel and the Dragon. -XII. Of the Prayer of Manasses.-XIII. Of the Book of Maccabees.

I. It is not known at what time the FIRST BOOK OF ESDRAS | Nehemiah, which, however, it contradicts in many instances. was written it is only extant in Greek, and in the Alexandrian manuscript it is placed before the canonical book of Ezra, and is there called the first book of Ezra, because the events related in it occurred prior to the return from the Babylonish captivity. In some editions of the Septuagint it is called the first book of the priest (meaning Ezra), the authentic book of Ezra being called the second book. In the editions of the Latin Vulgate, previous to the council of Trent, this and the following book are styled the third and fourth books of Esdras, those of Esdras and Nehemiah being entitled the first and second books. The author of this book is not known; it is compiled from the books of Ezra and Jahn's Introduction, p. 435.

grounds upon what he considers to be its evidently Jewish | inculcates, have imparted to it an interest, which has rendered style and phraseology. Archbishop Laurence thinks it highly it one of the most popular of the apocryphal writings. probable that the Latin version was immediately and literally IV. The BOOK OF JUDITH professes to relate the defeat of taken from the Greek: it is indisputably of very high anti- the Assyrians by the Jews, through the instrumentality of quity. It is also extant in an Arabic translation, the date of their countrywoman Judith, whose genealogy is recorded in which is unknown, and in an Ethiopic version (where it is the eighth chapter; but so many geographical, historical, called the first book of Esdras), which cannot be traced and chronological difficulties attend this book, that Luther, higher than the fourth century: both, however, seem to be Grotius, and other eminent critics, have considered it rather taken from the Greek, and differ considerably from the Latin as a drama or parable than a real history. Dr. Prideaux, version: which last, in the judgment of Dr. Laurence, may however, is of opinion that it carries with it the air of a true be advantageously corrected by the other two. In the Ethio-history in most particulars, except that of the long-continued pic version, it is termed the first book of Esdras. Both this peace said to have been procured by Judith; which, accordand the Arabic versions have only from Chapter III. to Chap- ing to the account given in this book, must have continued ter XIV. inclusive. The remaining chapters, as found in eighty years. But, as the Jews never enjoyed a peace of so the Latin Vulgate, have clearly no connection with it, but long continuance since they were a nation, he is disposed to form two separate apocryphal pieces, and are thus dis- allow that circumstance to be a fiction, though he is inclined tinguished in almost all the manuscripts of the Vulgate, to think that the book in other respects is a true history. In though they are now printed as part of the second book of opposition to this opinion, it has been contended by HeidegEsdras. ger, Moldenhawer, and others, that if it were a true history, some notice of the victory it records would have been taken by Josephus, who is on no occasion deficient when an opportunity presents itself of magnifying the achievements of his countryinen. Philo is equally silent concerning this book and its author. The time when and the place where he lived are totally unknown. Dr. Prideaux refers the book to the time of Manasseh; Jahn assigns it to the age of the Maccabees, and thinks it was written to animate the Jews against the Syrians. Grotius refers it to the same period, and is of opinion that it is wholly a parabolic fiction written in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, when he came into Judæa to persecute the Jewish church, and that its design was to confirm the Jews, under that persecution, in their hope that God would send them a deliverer. According to him, by Judith is intended Judæa: by Bethulia the temple or house of God; and by the sword which went out thence, the prayers of the saints; Nebuchadonosor denotes the devil; Assyria his kingdom, that is, pride: Holofernes means Antiochus Epiphanes, who was the devil's instrument in that persecution, &c. &c. But such conjectures, as an able commentators remarks, however ingenious, are better calculated to exhibit the powers of fancy and the abuse of learning, than to investigate truth, or throw light on what is uncertain and obscure.

The author of this book is unknown; although he personates Ezra, it is manifest from the style and contents of his book that he lived long after that celebrated Jewish reformer. He pretends to visions and revelations, but they are so fanciful, Indigested, ridiculous, and absurd, that it is clear that the Holy Spirit could have no concern in dictating them. He believed that the day of judgment was at hand, and that the souls of good and wicked men would all be delivered out of hell after the day of judgment. Numerous rabbinical fables occur in this book, particularly the account of the six days' creation, and the story of Behemoth and Leviathan, two monstrous creatures that are designed as a feast for the elect after the day of resurrection, &c. He says that the ten tribes are gone away into a country which he calls Arsareth (xiii. 40 45.), and that Ezra restored the whole body of the Scriptures, which had been entirely lost. (xiv. 21.) And he speaks of Jesus Christ and his apostles in so clear a manner, that the Gospel itself is scarcely more explicit. On these accounts, and from the numerous vestiges of the language of the New Testament, and especially of the Revelation of Saint John, which are discoverable in this book, Moldenhawer and some other critics conclude that it was written by some converted Jew, in the close of the first or early in the second century, who assumed the name of Esdras or Ezra. But Archbishop Laurence considers those passages to be interpolations, and observes that the character which the unknown writer gives of the Messiah is a very different one from what a Christian would have given. He is therefore of opinion that this book was written by a Jew, who lived before the commencement of the Christian æra; and that, as an authentic record of Jewish opinions on several interesting points almost immediately before the rise of Christianity, it seems to deserve no inconsiderable attention.2 This book was rejected as apocryphal by Jerome.

The book of Judith was originally written in Chaldee, and translated into Latin. Besides this translation, there are two others, one in Greek, and the other in Syriac; the former is attributed to Theodotion, but is certainly much older, for it is cited by Clement of Rome in his Epistle to the Corinthians, who flourished sixty years before Theodo tion. The Syriac version was made from the Greek, whence also our present English translation was made.4

V. "THE REST OF THE CHAPTERS OF THE BOOK OF ESTHER, which are found neither in the Hebrew nor in the Chaldee," were originally written in Greek, whence they. were translated into Latin, and formed part of the Italic or old Latin version in use before the time of Jerome. Being there annexed to the canonical book, they passed without censure, but were rejected by Jerome in his version, because he confined himself to the Hebrew Scriptures, and these chapters never were extant in the Hebrew language. They are evidently the production of an Hellenistic Jew, but are considered both by Jerome and Grotius as a work of pure fiction, which was annexed to the canonical book of Esther by way of embellishment.5

III. Concerning the author of the book of TOBIT, or the time when he flourished, we have no authentic information. It professes to relate the history of Tobit and his family, who were carried into captivity to Nineveh by Shalmaneser; but it contains so many rabbinical fables, and allusions to the Babylonian demonology, that many learned men consider it as an ingenious and amusing fiction, calculated to form a pious temper, and to teach the most important duties. From some apparent coincidences between this book and some parts of the New Testament, Moldenhawer is disposed to refer it to the end of the first century: but Jahn and most other commentators and critics think it was written about one hundred and fifty or two hundred years before the birth of our Saviour. According to Jerome, who translated the book of Tobit into Latin, it was originally written in Chaldee by some Babylonian Jew. It was probably begun by Tobit, continued by his son Tobias, and finished by some other individual of the family; after which it was digested into the order in which we now have it. There is a Greek version of this book extant, much more ancient than Jerome's Latin translation: for it is referred to by Polycarp, Clement of Alexandria, and other fathers, who lived long before the time of Jerome. From this Greek version the Syriac translation was made, and also that which is found among the apocryphal books in our English Bibles. Although the book of Tobit has always been rejected from the sacred canon, it was cited with respect by the early fathers of the Christian church: the simplicity of its narrative, and the pious and moral lessons it v. Primi Ezræ Libri Versio Ethiopica. General Remarks, pp. 250-Connection, vol. i. pp. 36-40. Jahn, Introd. ad Vet. Fœd. pp. 554-561.

282. 291.

2 Ibid. pp. 309, 310. 320.

From the coincidence between some of these apocryphal chapters and Josephus, it has been supposed that they are a compilation from the Jewish historian; and this conjecture is further confirmed by the mention of Ptolemy and Cleopatra, who lived no long time before Josephus. These additions to the book of Esther are often cited by the fathers of the church; and the council of Trent has assigned them a place among the canonical books.

VI. "THE WISDOM OF SOLOMON" is commonly ascribed to that Hebrew monarch, either because the author imitated his sententious manner of writing, or because he sometimes speaks in his name, the better to recommend his moral precepts. It is, however, certain that Solomon was not the author, for it was never extant in Hebrew, nor received into

a Mr. Hewlett, in his Preface to the book of Judith.

4 Grotii Præfatio ad Annotationes in Librum Judith, apud Crit. Sacr. tom.

p. 50. Moldenhawer, Introd. ad Vet. Test. pp. 155-158. Dr. Prideaux's From the subscription to the book of Esther in LXX., it seems to have been translated B. c. 163. ; at which time it is probable the apocryphal parts were first interpolated.

improbable that the author collected some scattered sentiments ascribed to Solomon, which he arranged with the other materials he had selected for his work. Sonntag is of opinion that this book is a collection of fragments or miscellaneous hints for a large work, planned out and begun, but not completed. Respecting the author of the book of Ecclesiasticus, we have no information but what we collect from the book itself; and from this it appears that it was written by a person of the name of Jesus the son of Sirach, who had travelled in pursuit of knowledge, and who, according to Bretschneider, lived about 180 B. c. This man being deeply conversant with the Old Testament, and having collected many things from the prophets, blended them, as well as the sentences ascribed to Solomon, with the result of his own observation, and thus endeavoured to produce an ethical treatise that might be useful to his countrymen. This book was written in Hebrew, or rather the Syro-Chaldaic dialect then in use in Judæa, and was translated by his grandson into Greek, about the year 130 B. C., for the use of the Alexandrian Jews, who were ignorant of the language of Judæa. The translator himself is supposed to have been a son of Sirach, as well as his grandfather the author.

the Hebrew canon, nor is the style like that of Solomon. | made (xlvii. 24, 25.) to the captivity: although it is not Further, it is evident that it could not have been written by him, not only from the numerous passages which are cited in it from the prophecies of Isaiah and Jeremiah, who did not live till long after that king's reign, but also from its contradictions of historical truth, particularly in ch. xv. 14. where the author represents his countrymen as being in subjection to enemies, whom he describes as being "most foolish, and more miserable than the very babes." Whereas we are expressly informed by the sacred historian, that Judah and Israel enjoyed the greatest possible prosperity and peace during the reign of Solomon. (1 Kings iv. 20, 21. 24, 25.) To which we may add, that this book contains several words borrowed from the Grecian games, that were not in use till long after his time; for instance, crepanooper (iv. 2.), to wear a crown, such as was given to victors, (iv. 2.), to make a triumphant entry as the victors did, after they had received the crown,- (iv. 2. x. 12.), the stadium or place appointed for the race, (iv. 2.), the reward appropriated to the successful candidate, and Spawav (x. 12.), to confer the prize of victory. On these accounts, Jerome1 informs us that several ancient writers of the first three centuries ascribed it to Philo the Jew, a native of Alexandria, who flourished in the first century; and this opinion is generally adopted by the moderns, from the Platonic notions discoverable in it, as well as from its style, which evidently shows that it was the production of an Hellenistic Jew of Alexandria. Drusius indeed attributes it to another Philo, more ancient than the person just mentioned, and who is cited by Josephus; but this hypothesis is untenable, because the author of the book of Wisdom was confessedly a Jew, and the Philo of Drusius was a heathen. Bishop Lowth considers this book evidently to be the production of some Hellenistic Jew, by whom it was originally written in Greek.

The book of Wisdom consists of three parts; the first, which is written in the name of Solomon, contains a description or encomium of wisdom, by which comprehensive term the ancient Jews understood prudence and foresight, knowledge and understanding, and principally the duties of religion and morality. This division includes the first six chapters. The second part points out the source of true wisdom and the means of obtaining it, in the seventh and eighth chapters. In the third part, comprising the remainder of the book, the author personifies Solomon, in whose name he introduces a long and tedious prayer or address to the Deity, which treats on a variety of topics, differing from the subject of the two preceding parts; viz. reflections on the history and conduct of the Israelites during their journeyings in the wilderness, and their subsequent proneness to idolatry. Hence he takes occasion to inveigh against idolatry, the origin of which he investigates, and concludes with reflections on the history of the people of God. His allegorical interpretations of the Pentateuch, and the precept (xvi. 28.), to worship God before the rising of the sun, have induced some critics to think that the author was of the sect of the Essenes.

The style of this book, Bishop Lowth pronounces to be very unequal. "It is often pompous and turgid, as well as tedious and diffuse, and abounds in epithets, directly contrary to the practice of the Hebrews; it is, however, sometimes temperate, poetical, and sublime." The book of Wisdom has always been admired for the sublime ideas which it contains of the perfections of God, and for the excellent moral tendency of its precepts; on which account some of the ancients styled it Panaretos, or the treasury of virtue. Although the fathers of the church, and particularly Jerome, uniformly considered it as apocryphal, yet they recommended its perusal, in consideration of its excellence. The third council of Carthage, held in 397, pronounced it to be a canonical book, under the name of the fourth book of Solomon, and the council of Trent confirmed this decision. Three ancient translations of it are extant, in Syriac, Arabic, and Latin; the last was executed before the time of Jerome, who says that he did not correct it. It is full of barbarisms.

VII. "THE WISDOM OF JESUS THE SON OF SIRACH, or EcCLESIASTICUS," like the preceding, has sometimes been considered as the production of Solomon, whence the council of Carthage deemed it canonical, under the title of the fifth book of Solomon, and their decision was adopted by the council of Trent. It is however manifest, that it was not, and could not, be written by Solomon, because allusion is

The book of Ecclesiasticus "is a collection, without any definite order, of meditations and proverbs relating to religion, to morals, and to the conduct of human life; generally distinguished by much acuteness of thought, and propriety of diction; and not unfrequently marked by considerable beauty and elegance of expression; and occasionally rising to the sublimest heights of human eloquence." From the great similarity between this book and the proverbs of Solomon, in matter, sentiments, diction, complexion of the style, and construction of the periods, Bishop Lowth is of opinion, that the author adopted the same mode of versification which is found in the Proverbs; and that he has performed his translation with such a religious regard to the Hebrew idiom, that, were it literally and accurately to be retranslated, he has very little doubt that, for the most part, the original diction might be recovered.

This book has met with general and deserved esteem in the Western church, and was introduced into the public service by the venerable reformers and compilers of our national liturgy. It may be divided into three parts; the first of which (from ch. i. to xliii.) contains a commendation of wisdom, and precepts for the regulation of life, that are adapted to persons of all classes and conditions, and of every age and sex. In the second part, the author celebrates the patriarchs, prophets, and other distinguished men among the Jews. (xliv.-1.) And the third part, containing the fiftieth chapter, concludes with a prayer or hymn of the author, and an exhortation to the pursuit of wisdom.

The book of Ecclesiasticus was frequently cited by the fathers of the church under the titles of In Econ, the wisdom of Jesus, Пavaperos Zoqia, wisdom, the treasure of all the virtues, or Ayes, the discourse. The Latins cite it under the appellation of Ecclesiasticus, that is, a book which was read in the churches, to distinguish it from the book of Ecclesiastes. Anciently it was put into the hands of catechumens, on account of the edifying nature of its instruction; next to the inspired writings, a collection of purer moral precepts does not exist. Besides the Greek copy of this book, and the Latin version, there are two versions of it, one in Syriac, and the other in Arabic; the Latin translation is supposed to have been executed in the first century of the Christian æra: it is full of Greek terms, but differs widely from the present Greek of Ecclesiasticus. "The authorized English version of this treatise appears to have been made from the Greek text, as exhibited in the Complutensian Polyglott,—a text which has, not without reason, been suspected of having been made conformable in many places to the Vulgate. A new translation, made immediately from the Vatican or Alexandrian text, would exhibit this treatise to us in a purer form."8

VIII. The book of BARUCH is not extant in Hebrew, and only in Greek and Syriac; but in what language it was

4 De Jesu Siracidæ Ecclesiastico Commentarius. 4to. Riga, 1792.
s Bretschneider, Liber Jesu Siracidæ. Proleg. pp. 10-32.
opinion, that "the little apocryphal treatise, entitled the Wisdom of the
Christian Remembrancer, May, 1827, p. 262. Addison has recorded his
Son of Sirach, would be regarded by our modern wits as one of the most
shining tracts of morality that is extant, if it appeared under the name of
a Confucius, or of any celebrated Grecian philosopher." Spectator
No. 68.

Bishop Lowth's Lectures, vol. ii. p. 177.
⚫ Christian Remembrancer, vol. ix. p. 23.