sacred writings. Nahum sounds the trumpet of war; Hosea when he treats of the advent of the Messiah, whom he is sententious, Isaiah sublime, Jeremiah pathetic, Ezekiel emphatically terms “the desire of all nations." copious. This diffuseness of manner in mild and affectionate exhortation, this vehement enlarging on the guilt and consequent sufferings of his countrymen, seems wisely adapted to their capacities and circumstances, and must have had a forcible tendency to awaken them from their lethargy.'

SECTION IV.

ON THE PROPHETS WHO FLOURISHED AFTER THE RETURN OF
THE JEWS FROM BABYLON.

1. ON THE BOOK OF THE PROPHET HAGGAI.

L. Author and date.-II. Argument and scope.-III. Analysis of its contents.-IV. Observations on its style.

BEFORE CHRIST, 520-518.

I. NOTHING is certainly known concerning the tribe or birth-place of Haggai, the tenth in order of the minor prophets, but the first of the three who were commissioned to make known the divine will to the Jews after their return from captivity. The general opinion, founded on the assertion of the pseudo-Epiphanius, is that he was born at Babylon, and was one of the Jews who returned with Zerubbabel, in consequence of the edict of Cyrus. The same author affirms that he was buried at Jerusalem among the priests, whence some have conjectured that he was of the family of Aaron. The times of his predictions, however, are so distinctly marked by himself, that we have as much certainty on this point as we have with respect to any of the prophets.

II. The Jews, who were released from captivity in the first year of the reign of Cyrus (Ezra i. 1. et seq.), having returned to Jerusalem and commenced the rebuilding of the temple (Ezra ii. iii.), were interrupted in their undertakings by the neighbouring satraps, who contrived to prejudice the Persian monarch (the pseudo-Smerdis) against them (Ezra iv. 1. with 24.) until the second year of Darius. Discouraged by these impediments, the people ceased, for fourteen years, to prosecute the erection of the second temple, as if the time were not yet come, and applied themselves to the building of their own houses: but God, disposing that sovereign to renew the decree of Cyrus, raised up the prophet: Haggai about the year 520 before Christ; and, in consequence of his exhortations, they resumed the work, which was completed in a few years.

Further, in order to encourage them to proceed in this undertaking, the prophet assured them from God, that the glory of this latter house should far exceed the glory of the former.

III. The book of the prophet Haggai comprises three distinct prophecies or discourses, viz.

DISCOURSE 1. The prophet reproves the delay of the people in rebuilding the temple; which neglect he denounces as the reason why they were punished with great drought and unproductive seasons. (i. 1-12.) He then encourages them to undertake the work, and promises them Divine assistance. (13-15.)

DISCOURSE 2. The prophet further encourages the builders by a promise, that the glory of the second temple should surpass that of the first; and that in the following year God would bless them with a fruitful harvest. (ii. 1-19.) This prophecy was fulfilled by Jesus Christ honouring the second temple with his presence, and there publishing his saving doctrine to the world. See Luke xix. 47. xx. 1. xxi. 38. John xviii. 20.2

DISCOURSE 3. The prophet foretells the setting up of the Messiah's kingdom under the name of Zerubbabel. (ii. 20—23.) IV. The style of this prophet is for the most part plain and prosaic, and vehement when he reproves; it is, however, interspersed with passages of much sublimity and pathos

Archbishop Newcome's Preface to his Translation of Ezekiel, pp. XXV. xxvii. To justify the character above given, the learned prelate descends to particulars (which we have not room to specify), and gives opposte examples, not only of the clear, the flouring, and the nerrous, but also of the sublime. He concludes his observations on the style of Ezekiel by stating it to be his deliberate opinion, that, if the prophet's "style is the old age of the Hebrew language and composition, it is a firm and vigor. ous one, and should induce us to trace its youth and manhood with the most assiduous attention." Ibid. pp. xxviii.-lxii.

• W. Lowth's Commentary on Haggai.

I.

§ 2. ON THE BOOK of the PROPHET ZECHARIAH. Author and date.-II. Analysis of its contents.-III. Observations on its style.-IV. The last six chapters proved to be genuine.

BEFORE CHRIST, 520-518.

I. ALTHOUGH the names of Zechariah's father and grandfather are specified (Zech. i. 1.), it is not known from what tribe or family this prophet was descended, nor where he was born; but that he was one of the captives who returned to Jerusalem in consequence of the decree of Cyrus, is unques tionable. As he opened his prophetic commission in the eighth month of the second year of Darius the son of Hystaspes, that is, about the year 520, before the Christian æra, it is evident that he was contemporary with Haggai, and his authority was equally effectual in promoting the building of the temple. From an expression in ch. ii. 4. we have every reason to believe that Zechariah was called to the prophetic ministry when he was a young man.

II. The prophecy of Zechariah consists of two parts, the first of which concerns the events which were then taking place, viz. the restoration of the temple, interspersing predic tions relative to the advent of the Messiah. The second part comprises prophecies relative to more remote events, particularly the coming of Jesus Christ, and the war of the Romans against the Jews.

PART I. contains the Prophecies delivered in the second Year of
Darius King of Persia. (i.-vi.)

DISCOURSE 1. An exhortation to the Jews who had returned
from captivity, to guard against those sins which had drawn
so much distress upon their ancestors, and to go on with the
building of the temple (i. 1-6.), which it is predicted that
Darius should permit (7-17.); and that the Samaritans
should be compelled to suspend their opposition to the build-
ing. (18-21.) Further to encourage the Jews in their work,
the prophet foretells the prosperity of Jerusalem (ii. 1—5.),
and admonishes the Jews to depart from Babylon before her
destruction (6-9.), promising them the divine presence.
(10-13.) These promises, though primarily to be under-
stood of the Jews after their return from Babylon, are secon-
darily and principally to be understood of the restoration of the
Jews, and their conversion to the Gospel.
DISCOURSE 2. Under the type of Joshua the high-priest, clothed
with new sacerdotal attire, is set forth the glory of Christ as
the chief corner-stone of his church. (8-10.)
DISCOURSE 3. Under the vision of the golden candlestick and
two olive trees is typically represented the success of Zerub-
babel and Joshua in rebuilding the temple and restoring its
service. (iv.)

DISCOURSE 4. Under the vision of a flying roll, the divine judg
ments are denounced against robbery and perjury (v. 1—4.);
and the Jews are threatened with a second captivity, if they
continue in sin. (5—11.)

DISCOURSE 5. Under the vision of the four chariots, drawn by several sorts of horses, are represented the succession of the Babylonians, Persians, Macedo-Greek and Roman empires (vi. 1-8.), and by the two crowns placed upon the head of Joshua are set forth primarily, the re-establishment of the civil and religious polity of the Jews under Zerubbabel and Joshua; and, secondarily but principally, the high-priesthood and kingdom of Christ, here emphatically termed the Branch (9-15.), who is to be both king and high-priest of the church of God.

PART 2. Prophecies delivered in the fourth Year of the Reign of Darius. (vii.—xiv.)

DISCOURSE 1. Some Jews having been sent to Jerusalem from the exiles then at Babylon, to inquire of the priests and prophets whether they were still bound to observe the fasts that had been instituted on account of the destruction of Jerusalem, and which had been observed during the captivity (vii. 1-3.),—the prophet is commanded to take this occasion of enforcing upon them the weightier matters of the law, viz. judgment and mercy, lest the same calamities should befall them which had been inflicted upon their fathers for their neglect of those duties. (4-14.) In the event of their obedience, God promises the continuance of his favour (viii. 1—8.) ;

they are encouraged to go on with the building (9-—-17.), and 2. It is urged, that many things are mentioned in these are permitted to discontinue the observance of the fasts which chapters, which by no means correspond with Zechariah's they had kept during the captivity. (18-23.) time; as, when events are foretold, which had actually taken DISCOURSE 2. contains predictions of the conquest of Syria, place before that time. But it may be questioned, whether Phoenicia, and Palestine, by Alexander the Great (ix. 1-7.), those subjects of prophecy have been rightly understood; and of the watchful providence of God over his temple in those and whether that, which has been construed as having re troublesome times. (8.) Whence he takes occasion to de-ference to past transactions, may not in reality terminate in scribe, as in a parenthesis, the advent of Christ (9, 10. with others of a later period, and some perhaps which are yet to Matt. xxi. 5. and John xii. 15.); and then returning to his come. 3. Another argument is drawn from ch. xi., which conformer subject, he announces the conquest of the Jews, particularly of the Maccabees, over the princes of the Grecian mo-tains a prophecy of the destruction of the temple and people narchy. (11-17.) Prosperity is further promised to the Jews of the Jews; a prophecy, "which (it has been said) is not (x. 1-3.), and their victories over their enemies are again agreeable to the scope of Zechariah's commission, who, toforetold. (4-12.) It is probable that this prophetic discourse gether with his colleague Haggai, was sent to encourage the people, lately returned from captivity, to build their temple, remains to be fully accomplished in the general and final reand to restore their commonwealth." This, it is granted, storation of the Jews. was the general scope of Zechariah's commission in the first DISCOURSE 3. predicts the rejection of the Jews for their rejec-eight chapters; nor would it have been a fit time to foretell tion of Messiah, and valuing him and his labours at the the destruction of both the temple and commonwealth, while base price of thirty pieces of silver. (xi.) This prediction was

literally fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ. (Compare Matt. they were but yet building. But, between the date of these xxvi. 14, 15. and xxvii. 3-10. with Zech. xi. 11-13.) The first chapters and that of the succeeding ones, many circumstances might have occurred, and certainly did occur, to give Jews themselves have expounded this prophecy of the Mes-rise to a commission of a very different complexion from the

siah.

DISCOURSE 4. comprises a series of prophecies, relating principally to the latter times of the Gospel. The former part of it (xii. 1-9.) announces the preservation of Jerusalem against an invasion in the last ages of the world, which most commentators think is that of Gog and Magog, more largely described in the thirty-eighth and thirty-ninth chapters of Ezekiel. The grief of the Jews, for their fathers having crucified the Messiah, on their conversion, is then foretold (10--14.), as also the crucifixion itself, and the general conversion of the Jews. (xiii.) The destruction of their enemies, predicted at the beginning of this prophetic sermon, is again foretold (xiv. 1-15.); and the prophecy concludes with announcing the final conversion of all nations to the Gospel, and the prosperity of the church. (16-21.)

foregoing. The former are expressly dated in the second and fourth years of the reign of Darius; to the latter, no date at all is annexed. Darius is supposed to have reigned thirty-six years; and the Jews have a tradition that the three prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, did not die before the last year of that king's reign. Adinitting, then, Zecha riah to have prophesied again towards the close of his life, he may well be supposed to have published without any incongruity, after such an interval, what would not altogether have accorded with the period and purport of his first con mission. And as there is good reason to believe that this was the case; so upon this ground we may also not improbably conclude him to have been that very Zechariah of whom our Saviour spake (Matt. xxiii. 35.) as slain between the temple and the altar. For he was, according to our Saviour's from what is said of him he might naturally be expecteddescription, the son of Barachias, and comes in-where, at the close of that series of prophets (for there were none after him until the coming of Christ) who were put to death in the faithful discharge of their duty. That he was become obnoxious to his countrymen, may be collected from ch. xi. 8. And, if the records of the Old Testament are silent concerning his death, let it be remembered that it was a very small part of them, if any, that was written after that event.

he was but a youth, as he is said to be in ch. ii. 4.

III. Zechariah is the longest of the twelve minor prophets. His style, like that of Haggai, is for the most part prosaic, though more obscure towards the beginning on account of his types and visions. But the difficulties arising from his alleged obscurity may be accounted for by the fact, "that some of his predictions relate to matters which are still involved in the womb of futurity: no wonder, then, that these fall not within the reach of our perfect comprehension. Others there are, which we have good reason to believe have al4. Lastly, upon the same supposition, the allowed difready been fulfilled, but do not appear with such a degree of evidence, as they probably would have done, if we had been ference of style and manner may be accounted for, not only better informed concerning the time and facts to which they as arising from the diversity of the subject, but from the difrelate. With respect to the emblems and types that are ex-written with more dignity in his advanced years, than when ferent age of the author; who may well be credited to have hibited, they are most of them of easy and determinate application. And in favour of the importance of his subject matter, it must be acknowledged that, next to Isaiah, Zechariah is the most evangelical of all the prophets, having more frequent and more clear and direct allusions to the character and coming of the Messiah, and his kingdom, than any of Nor in his language and composition do we find any particular bias to obscurity, except that the quickness and suddenness of the transitions are sometimes apt to confound the boundaries of discourse, so as to leave the less attentive reader at a loss to whom the several parts of it are to be ascribed. But upon the whole we shall find the diction remarkably pure, the construction natural and perspicuous, and the style judiciously varied according to the nature of the subject; simple and plain in the narrative and historical I. Author and date.—II. Occasion and scope of his prophecy. parts; but in those that are wholly prophetical, the latter chapters in particular, rising to a degree of elevation and grandeur scarcely inferior to the sublimest of the inspired writings."

the rest.

IV. The diversity of style observable in the writings of this prophet has induced many modern critics to conclude that the last six chapters could not have been written by Zechariah: but their objections, however formidable in appearance, admit of an easy and satisfactory solution.

1. It is alleged that the evangelist Matthew (xxvii. 9.) cites a passage now found in Zech. xi. 13. as spoken, not by Zechariah, but by Jeremiah. But it is more probable (as we have already shown in the first volume of this work), that the name of Jeremiah has slipped into the text through some mistake of the transcribers.

Dr Blayney's Translation of Zechariah, Prel. Disc. pp. xv. xvi.

Upon the whole this conclusion may be drawn; that setting aside the doubtful authority of St. Matthew's text there is nothing else to be found sufficient to invalidate the title of Zechariah to the chapters in question; and, conse quently, that it was not written by Jeremiah, as Mede, Dr Hammond, and others have supposed, nor before the time of that prophet, as Archbishop Newcome conjectured, whose opinion was adopted by Archbishop Secker, and also by Doederlein.

3. ON THE BOOK OF THE PROPHET MALACHI.

-III. Analysis of its contents.-IV. Style.
BEFORE CHRIST, 436--420.

so little

I. CONCERNING Malachi, the last of the minor prophets (which name signifies my angel or my messenger), is known, that it has been doubted whether his name be a proper name, or only a generic name, signifying the angel of the Lord, a messenger, a prophet. From a comparison of Haggai (i. 13.) with Malachi (iii. 1.), it appears, that in those times the appellation of Malach-Jehovah, ger of the Lord, was given to the prophets. The Septuagint translators have rendered Malachi his angel instead of my

or the messen.

Dr. Blayney's Translation of Zechariah, pp. 35-37. The genuineness of the latter part of the prophecy of Zechariah is satisfactorily proved, by a minute examination of its language, style, poetical structure, argument, and scope, by Dr. F. B. Koester, in his Meletemata Critica in Zechari Prophetæ Partem posteriorem, cap. ix.-xiv. pro tuenda ejus authentà. Svo. Gottinge, 1819.

CHAPTER V.

ON THE APOCRYPHA.4

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.

The first book of Esdras is chiefly historical, and gives an account of the return of the Jews from the Babylonish captivity, the building of the temple, and the re-establishment of divine worship. The style of this book is much purer than that of the greater part of the Septuagint version, and is said frequently to approach that of Symmachus, the most elegant of all the Greek translators of the Bible. Although this book is often cited by the fathers, it is rejected by Jerome as being spurious, and the church of Rome never recognised its canonical authority: it is not appointed to be read for lessons in the Anglican church. There is a Syriac version of this book extant.

II. In what language the SECOND BOOK OF ESDRAS was oriArchbishop Newcome's Minor Prophets, p. xliii. Kennicott, Disser-ginally written, it seems impossible at this distant period to tatio Generalis, § 14. p. 6. Dr. Hales's Analysis of Chronology, vol. ii. determine with certainty. Morinus conjectures that it was Hebrew, or perhaps Chaldee, from which it was translated into Greek, and thence into Latin: and this conjecture he

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 country woman 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 Heideg Esdras. ger, Moldenhawer, and others, that if it were a true history, The author of this book is unknown; although he person- some notice of the victory it records would have been taken ates Ezra, it is manifest from the style and contents of his by Josephus, who is on no occasion deficient when an oppor book that he lived long after that celebrated Jewish reformer. tunity presents itself of magnifying the achievements of his He pretends to visions and revelations, but they are so fanciful, countrymen. Philo is equally silent concerning this book Indigested, ridiculous, and absurd, that it is clear that the and its author. The time when and the place where he Holy Spirit could have no concern in dictating them. He be-lived are totally unknown. Dr. Prideaux refers the book to lieved that the day of judgment was at hand, and that the souls the time of Manasseh; Jahn assigns it to the age of the of good and wicked men would all be delivered out of hell Maccabees, and thinks it was written to animate the Jews after the day of judgment. Numerous rabbinical fables occur against the Syrians. Grotius refers it to the same period, in this book, particularly the account of the six days' crea- and is of opinion that it is wholly a parabolic fiction written tion, and the story of Behemoth and Leviathan, two mon- in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, when he came into strous creatures that are designed as a feast for the elect after Judæa to persecute the Jewish church, and that its design the day of resurrection, &c. He says that the ten tribes are was to confirm the Jews, under that persecution, in their gone away into a country which he calls Arsareth (xiii. 40 hope that God would send them a deliverer. According to -45.), and that Ezra restored the whole body of the Scrip- him, by Judith is intended Judæa: by Bethulia the temple tures, which had been entirely lost. (xiv. 21.) And he or house of God; and by the sword which went out thence, speaks of Jesus Christ and his apostles in so clear a manner, the prayers of the saints; Nebuchadonosor denotes the that the Gospel itself is scarcely more explicit. On these devil; Assyria his kingdom, that is, pride: Holofernes means accounts, and from the numerous vestiges of the language of Anticchus Epiphanes, who was the devil's instrument in the New Testament, and especially of the Revelation of that persecution, &c. &c. But such conjectures, as an able Saint John, which are discoverable in this book, Molden- commentator3 remarks, however ingenious, are better calcu hawer and some other critics conclude that it was written by lated to exhibit the powers of fancy and the abuse of learnsome converted Jew, in the close of the first or early in the ing, than to investigate truth, or throw light on what is unsecond century, who assumed the name of Esdras or Ezra. certain and obscure. 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.

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 ainusing 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 Primi Ezra Libri Versio Ethiopica. General Remarks, pp. 280282. 291. Ibid. pp. 309, 310. 320.

The book of Judith was originally written in Chalder, 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.

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

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

Grotii Præfatio ad Annotationes in Librum Judith, apud Crit. Sacr. tom. p. 50. Moldenhawer, Introd. ad Vet. Test. pp. 155-156. Dr. Prideaux's Connection, vol. i. pp. 36-40. Jahn, Introd. ad Vet. Fod. pp. 554-561 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.

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 improbable that the author collected some scattered sentihum, not only from the numerous passages which are cited ments ascribed to Solomon, which he arranged with the other in it from the prophecies of Isaiah and Jeremiah, who did materials he had selected for his work. Sonntag is of not live till long after that king's reign, but also from its opinion that this book is a collection of fragments or miscelcontradictions of historical truth, particularly in ch. xv. 14. laneous hints for a large work, planned out and begun, but where the author represents his countrymen as being in sub- not completed. Respecting the author of the book of jection to enemies, whom he describes as being "most foolish, Ecclesiasticus, we have no information but what we collect and more miserable than the very babes." Whereas we are from the book itself; and from this it appears that it was expressly informed by the sacred historian, that Judah and written by a person of the name of Jesus the son of Sirach, Israel enjoyed the greatest possible prosperity and peace who had travelled in pursuit of knowledge, and who, accordduring the reign of Solomon. (1 Kings iv. 20, 21. 24, 25.)ing to Bretschneider, lived about 180 B. C. This man being To which we may add, that this book contains several words deeply conversant with the Old Testament, and having colborrowed from the Grecian games, that were not in use till lected many things from the prophets, blended them, as well long after his time; for instance, crevnpopev (iv. 2.), to wear as the sentences ascribed to Solomon, with the result of his a crown, such as was given to victors,―uw (iv. 2.), to own observation, and thus endeavoured to produce an ethical make a triumphant entry as the victors did, after they had treatise that might be useful to his countrymen. This book received the crown,- (iv. 2. x. 12.), the stadium or was written in Hebrew, or rather the Syro-Chaldaic dialect place appointed for the race, (iv. 2.), the reward ap- then in use in Judæa, and was translated by his grandson into propriated to the successful candidate, and pay (x. 12.), Greek, about the year 130 B. C., for the use of the Alexanto confer the prize of victory. On these accounts, Jerome' drian Jews, who were ignorant of the language of Judæa. informs us that several ancient writers of the first three cen- The translator himself is supposed to have been a son of turies ascribed it to Philo the Jew, a native of Alexandria, Sirach, as well as his grandfather the author. 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 anthor 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. í. 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.-.) 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 Inow qua, the wis dom of Jesus, Пavaperos Zopi, 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, 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

-a text

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

De Jesu Siracidæ Ecclesiastico Commentarius. 4to. Riga, 1792. • Bretschneider, Liber Jesu Siracida. 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. 263.