(filia vocis). We find in no place an explicit enumeration of the several books whose writers were supposed to be actuated by the bath kol, but all indications seem to evince that they were the deuterocanonical works of the Old Testament.

From the first, these books existed in the Alexandrian Canon, which was totally derived from the sacred books of the Jews of Palestine, and the celebrated testimony of Josephus Flavius, now to be adduced, clearly asserts the existence and preservation of certain semi-divine books, which had been collected after the close of prophecy in the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus. Now these books can be naught else than the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament. The testimony of Josephus exists in his Defense against Apion, Bk. I, Parag. 8: "For we have not an innumerable multitude of books disagreeing from and contradicting one another, as the Greeks have, but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times, which are justly believed to be divine. And of them, five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of time embraces nearly three thousand years. From the death of Moses to the reign of Artaxerxes, who reigned after Xerxes, the Prophets who were after Moses wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God and precepts for the conduct of human life. It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of Prophets since that time: and how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own nation, is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one hath been so bold as either to add anything to them, or take anything from them, or make any change in them; but it is become natural to all Jews, immediately and from their very birth, to esteem these books to contain divine doctrines, and to persist in them and, if occasion be, willingly to die for them."

Although some of the deuterocanonical books contain history that must have antedated Artaxerxes, nevertheless, as the date of their accession to the Hebrew Canon was subsequent to Artaxerxes, Josephus confounds the date of their accession with the date of their origin. These books, then, existed in the Palestinian collection as secondarily divine books. The Talmuds of Jerusalem and Babylon contain quotations from Ecclesiasti

cus. Josephus, who was an apt expounder of Pharasaic traditions, makes use of the deuterocanonical fragments of Esther and the second book of Maccabees.

Eusebius, in the VI book of his Ecclesiastical History, Chapter 25, recording the catalogue of Scriptures, after enumerating the protocanonical works, says: "There are also the Maccabees which are inscribed Sarbeth Sarbaneel." St. Hilary in Prol. in Psalter, testifies that Tobias was read among the Hagiographa of Jews. St. Epiphanius Haer. VIII. No. 6, testifies that Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus were in honor among the Jews, and distinguished from the apocryphal works. St. Isidore says of Wisdom: "As a certain one of those who know has recorded, the Hebrews received this work (Wisdom) among the Canonical Scriptures. But after they had seized and killed the Christ, remembering the most evident testimonies concerning Christ in that same book, in which it is written: 'The impious said among themselves, let us seize the just, etc.,' taking counsel, lest we might lay upon them. such an evident sacrilege, they cut it off from the prophetic volumes, and prohibited its reading to their people.' The Apostolical Constitutions testify that Baruch was read in the Jewish synagogues.* St. Jerome testifies in his preface to the book of Judith that among the Hebrews Judith is read "among the Hagiographa." "Its authority," he continues, "is considered less apt to decide things about which there is dispute. It is written in Chaldaic, and reckoned among the historical books." I think it to be a position admitting of no reasonable doubt that the deuterocanonical works of the Old Testament primarily existed in the collection of the Jews of Palestine. The narrow, nugatory, reactionary, spirit of the latter day Jews, exemplified in the Pharisees, denied to these books canonicity, as we understand the term; but we can find no evidence that they denied them a divine origin. They are not found in the Hebrew collection of books to-day, but this can be readily explained. The same spirit which moved the Jews of Palestine to deny these books equal rank with the others, impelled them later to entirely exclude them. It would be

*The Constitutiones Apost. are apocryphal writings dating back to the second century of the Christian era. It seems quite probable that they originated in Syria. The only relation that they bear to the Apostles is that they reflect the Apostolical traditions of the times. They were declared apocryphal by the decree of Gelasius, but still are of value inasmuch as they preserve for us the traditions of the first ages of Christianity.

hard to fix the date of this exclusion. It is probable that they gradually died out of the different codices, till, at last, all trace of them disappeared in the Palestinian Canon.

CHAPTER VII.

THE ALEXANDRIAN CANON.

Opposite causes effected the preservation of these books in the Alexandrian Canon. The Jews of Egypt depended in matters of religion on the Jews of Palestine. Abundant data. prove that they received their collection of Holy Books from Palestine. This was not accomplished all at once. It began with the translation of the Law, made under Ptolemy Philadelphus in the third century B. C., and continued down to the first Century B. C. The influence of Greek thought and customs on the Hellenistic Jews modified the narrow national spirit of that nation. Later, in the time of the Maccabees, the pagan Greek customs were readily adopted by the Jewish youth. This liberal trend of religious thought effected that the deuterocanonical books were received and intermingled promiscuously with the other books. It is quite probable that there was always a certain degree of uncertainty and indecision in the synagogues of Alexandria. The minute, sharply drawn, pharasaic distinctions did not obtain there. They had left home and home traditions, and blending with a highly cultivated nation, even those who clung to the substance of the Mosaic covenant, lost much of their conservative spirit. As they read the Scriptures in Greek, the deuterocanonical books were not distinguishable by difference of tongue from the books of the first canon. On the contrary, in Palestine the Scriptures were inseparably cast in the mould of the Hebrew mother tongue. The strong love of the Hebrews for their mother tongue would naturally incline the Jews of Palestine to look with less favor on a sacred book not written in the Hebrew language. Now some of the deuterocanonical books such as Wisdom and II Maccabees were of Greek origin. It is quite probable that some of the others were already translated into Greek before their aggregation to the sacred collection, hence is explained their secondary place among the sacred books, and also why they are not found in the Hebrew Canon of to-day. It seems also quite certain that the Hellenistic Jews made no distinction between the protocanonical and the deuterocanonical books. Had such distinction been made, the books of secondary importance would have been relegated to the post of an

appendage. Now the direct opposite is found to have prevailed. Protocanonical and deuterocanonical works are indiscriminately intermingled in the Alexandrian Canon. This indiscriminate adoption of the deuterocanonical books was not the canonizing of these by the Alexandrians. It was a mere fact, which its authors had never taken thought to explain. Had they formally rendered equal these various books by an explicit declaration, it would have led to controversy between the Hellenists and the Jews of Palestine. No trace of any such controversy is found in the records and traditions of antiquity. The Jews of Palestine were not hostile to the deuterocanonical works, but, from the causes already enumerated, refused to accord them equal rank with the others. The Jews of Alexandria without deciding the issue, received and revered them all, and intermingled them in the sacred collection.

There is plainly evident in this fact the workings of the Providence of God. The Almighty had decreed to effect the transition from the old to the new covenant through the medium of Greek language and culture. Israel was to receive the Christ in fulfillment of Jahve's promises, but the great gentile world was to be the chosen people of the New Covenant. Under the Providence of God, Alexander the Great brought the known world under Greek influence, and gave it the Greek language as the medium of thought. The Romans reduced this vast extent of territory to peace, without changing the language. Thus two conditions favorable for the evangelization of the world were accomplished, peace and a uniform adequate vehicle of thought. It is easy to see how these two factors aided in the spread of the Gospel. Now, it was also expedient that the existing Scriptures should be in the universal tongue of the civilized world. We can see how the teachers. of the New Covenant availed themselves of this element, since, with a few exceptions, they always make use of the Greek text of Scripture when quoting the Old Testament. Hence, the Providence of God brought it about that in the Greek there should exist a complete body of Scriptures. God was less solicitous about the Palestinian collection, because that was not to be the medium of grafting the new scion on the old stock. Thus the Alexandrians were instruments in the hands of God in collecting a complete body of Scriptures, which that same Providence has ever protected as the great basic element in the deposit of faith. The first real canonization of the deuterocanonical books was the approbation of the Alexandrine collection of books by the teachers of the New Law.

We have hitherto assumed that the deuterocanonical books were indiscriminately intermingled with the other books in the Alexandrine collection. That we may not be thought to assume unproven things, we shall adduce a few proofs for this well warranted fact. In the first place, we may remark that the only ones who would be likely to deny this would be the protestants. Now Davidson, a protestant, in his Canon of the Bible admits this as an obvious fact. "The very way," he says, "in which apocryphal (deuterocanonical) are inserted among canonical books in the Alexandrian Canon shows the equal rank assigned to both." We may consider a first proof, the presence of these books in the Christian Canon of the first ages. Now certainly they received their collection of the Old Testament from the Greek Canon. Though the codices whence they took their Canon have perished, yet the exemplars now existing were faithfully reproduced from them. The translation known as the Vetus Itala, which dates back to the 2nd century of the Christian era, had all the deuterocanonical works, and this was certainly made from the Alexandrian collection. The great codices of the Vatican and Mt. Sinai, going back probably to the fourth century, contain these works. The Jewish sect of the Falashas, who have been in Abyssinia since before the coming of Christ have a version of Scripture in Ethiopean in which no discrimination is made between the protocanonical and deuterocanonical works. The early Fathers were as conversant with the deuterocanonical works as with the rest of Holy Scripture. The subjects of the art of the Catacombs are largely taken from the deuterocanonical works. Such early and universal approbation could not be effected, had not these books been delivered to the Messianic church by the Old Covenant through the medium of the Greek.

It should not appear strange that all our attention is now centering upon the deuterocanonical books. This is the great issue between the protestants and us. The protocanonical works need no defender, except against the rationalists. Our defense against them will appear later in our work. Those who reject the protocanonical works attack the whole basis of religious belief. But those who reject the deuterocanonical works profess still to accept God's word to man. With them, is the first issue. We shall first endeavor to prove that the writers of the New Law, by accepting and employing the Alexandrian text of Holy Scripture, in which were the deuterocanonical books, virtually canonized that collection of Scrip

tures.

Standarized