bearing the same title. Nor, in short, would there be any difficulty in disposing any part of our Apocryphal collection, or of other Jewish writings whose antiquity could not be disproved, under the same number of divisions which Josephus has assigned.

Remarking only further, that it is safe to infer, that Josephus had heard of no time nor author of a formal arrangement of a Canon, else he could hardly have failed to mention them in the connexion, I proceed next to the mention of the authority of Melito, Christian bishop of Sardis in Lydia, dated by Cave and Lardner, about A. D. 170. His works, of which Eusebius* and Jerome† have preserved catalogues, to the number of twenty, are all lost, with the exception of a few fragments. He is the first writer, who gives us a detailed list of any Old Testament collection. In that list, Lamentations, Nehemiah, and Esther are not included; but they were, probably enough, viewed as appendages of the books of Jeremiah and Ezra respectively, and reckoned under those names. What I regard as of much more importance is the implication, in the language of Melito, that, at Sardis, in Asia Minor, a place not remote from Palestine, nor unfrequented by Jews, the constituent parts of the Old Testament records were not a subject of notoriety (as it would seem they could not fail to be, if they had been anciently and authoritatively, or in any way definitely and by common consent, established); but, on the contrary, a subject of curiosity. "Since," he writes to his brother, or friend, Onesimus, as his words are preserved by Eusebius, "in thy zeal for the word, thou hast often

* Hist. Eccl., lib. 4, cap. 26.

† De Vir. Illust., cap. 24.

f Hist. Eccl., lib. 4, cap. 26. Μελίτων Ονησίμῳ τῷ ἀδελφῷ χαίρειν· ἐπειδὴ πολλάκις ἠξίωσας σπουδῇ τῇ πρὸς τὸν λόγον χρώμενος γενέσθαι σοι ἐκλογὰς, ἔκ τε τοῦ νόμου καὶ τῶν προφητῶν, περὶ τοῦ σωτῆρος καὶ πάσης τῆς πίστεως ἡμῶν, ἔτι δὲ

desired to have selections from the Law and the Prophets concerning the Saviour and the whole of our faith, and hast also wished to obtain an exact statement of the ancient books, how many they were in number, and what was their arrangement, I took pains to effect this, understanding thy zeal for the faith, and thy desire for knowledge in respect to the word, and that in thy devotion to God thou esteemest these things above all others, striving after eternal salvation. Having come therefore to the East, and arrived at the place where these things were preached and done, and having accurately acquainted myself with the books of the old covenant, I have subjoined and sent them to thee. Of which the names are these; of Moses, five; Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, son of Nun, Judges, Ruth; four of Kings, two of Chronicles; a book of Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, and the Wisdom,* Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Job; of prophets, books of Isaiah and Jeremiah; writings of the twelve prophets, in one book; Daniel, Ezekiel, Ezra; from which also I have made selections, distributing them into six books."

I will not extend the discussion beyond reasonable limits, by raising any question as to the degree of

καὶ μαθεῖν τὴν τῶν παλαιῶν βιβλίων ἐβουλήθης ἀκρίβειαν, πόσα τὸν ἀριθμὸν καὶ ὁποῖα τὴν τάξιν εἶεν, ἐσπούδασα τὸ τοιοῦτο πρᾶξαι, ἐπιστάμενός σου τὸ σπουδαῖον περὶ τὴν πίστιν, καὶ φιλομαθὲς περὶ τὸν λόγον, ὅτι τε μάλιστα πάντων πόθῳ τῷ πρὸς Θεὸν ταῦτα προκρίνεις, περὶ τῆς αἰωνίου σωτηρίας ἀγωνιζόμενος· ἀνελθὼν οὖν εἰς τὴν ἀνατολὴν, καὶ ἕως τοῦ τόπου γενόμενος ἔνθα ἐκηρύχθη καὶ ἐπράχθη, καὶ ἀκριβῶς μαθὼν τὰ τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης βιβλία, ὑποτάξας ἔπεμψά σοι· ὧν ἐστὶ τὰ ὀνόματα· Μωϋσέως πέντε· Γίνεσις, Ἔξοδος, Λευιτικὸν, ̓Αριθμοί, Δευτερονόμιον· Ἰησοῦς Ναυῆ, Κριταί, Ρούθ' Βασιλειῶν τέσσαρα, Παραλειπομένων δύο. Ψαλμῶν Δαβίδ, Σολομῶνος Πα. ροιμίαι, ἡ καὶ Σοφία, Ἐκκλησιαστής, Ασμα Ασμάτων, Ιώβ. Προφητῶν, Ησαΐου, Ἱερεμίου· τῶν δώδεκα ἐν μονοβίβλῳ Δανιήλ, Ἰεζεκιήλ, Εσδρας· ἐξ ὧν καὶ ἐκλογὰς ἐποιησάμην, εἰς ἓξ βιβλία διελών.

This translation, if correct, brings our apocryphal book of Wisdom into Melito's catalogue. To avoid this, some render, "which is also called Wisdom."

strictness with which we ought to interpret Eusebius's declaration, that he has accurately reported the words of Melito. Nor will I propose any different interpretation of the passage from that commonly received, though the accurate knowledge, which Melito declares himself to have obtained respecting the books of the Old Testament, might be argued, with some plausibility, to relate to the contents of books named by him, from which he subjoined selections, rather than to a specific number of the books, of which he subjoined a list.* What I am content alone to urge here, is, that, towards the end. of the second century, there was a question, among inquisitive Christian men at Sardis, respecting the authorities of the Jewish faith; a question which, I submit, could not possibly have been raised in any such form, had there existed a Canon of the definiteness and authority commonly supposed; for it would then have been a matter of uniform consent and of general notoriety, wherever there were Jews. And, if it did not exist in that age, there were of course none but critical grounds, on which the questions relating to it could be discussed and determined afterwards. And a determination resting on critical grounds is open to the revision of critics of any later age; these latter, of course, taking

*He says, indeed, that his correspondent had not only wished to possess extracts from the ancient Jewish scriptures, but also to learn how many they were, and in what order disposed; that is, to ascertain, as we might say, a Canon of them. But this latter wish, in respect to the number of books, it does not appear, so distinctly as has been assumed, that Melito had found himself able in any way to gratify; while, in regard to their order, at least, (a point which, in the question, has equal definiteness and prominence with the number) it must be owned that his answer is altogether peculiar. He writes that, when he had come to the East, he sought and obtained accurate information respecting the books of the old covenant, that is, books relating to that dispensation. But that he had been informed by any one of a definite collection of such books, of an authoritative character not shared by others, is what it is not so clear that he does say.

care to respect the judgments of their predecessors, as far as they have reason to believe, that those judgments rested on sufficient grounds.

The most, then, to be inferred from the testimony of Melito, as it is commonly understood, would be, that on diligent inquiry, during his travels in the East, and apparently in Palestine, he had become acquainted, as he thought, on credible authority, with an Old Testament collection, composed of the books which he specifies. And then not only should we remain ignorant of the degree of credibility of his informers, of the degree of confidence with which they entertained their opinion, and the extent to which it prevailed; but, much more, their view would also be shown to be of limited prevalence, by the fact that it had to be inquired after by inhabitants of Asia Minor, to say nothing of its being contradicted by the larger list, furnished by the much more ancient authority, the authors of the Alexandrine Version.

The next material evidence is that of Origen, in the beginning of the third century,* who, in a passage preserved by Eusebius,† gives a full list of books, on the authority, as he says, of Hebrews.‡ They are twentytwo in number, as he disposes them, the arrangement having reference, as he expressly affirms, to the number of alphabetical elements. All the books of the now received Canon are included, except the Minor Prophets; and the two books of Maccabees, reckoned as one, are added to complete the alphabetical number. The now Apocryphal book of Baruch, reckoned with Jeremiah, is also introduced into the list.

* He was born, according to Lardner (Credibility, Part 2, chap. 38), A. D. 184, and died in 253.

Hist. Eccl., lib. 6, cap. 25.

† Ὡς Ἑβραῖοι παραδιδόασιν.

§ Δύο καὶ εἴκοσι, ὅσος ὁ ἀριθμὸς τῶν παρ' αὐτοῖς στοιχείων ἐστίν.

A legitimate inference from this passage of Origen appears to be, that, the alphabet having come to be regarded by the Jews in the enumeration of their sacred writings, the list was made up, as to the less considerable books, by a somewhat arbitrary selection, some being introduced into one catalogue and some into another. The fact that Origen has given to the Minor Prophets a place in his "Hexapla," does not affect our knowledge of his opinions, nor throw any light upon our inquiry. The nature of his enterprise required that he should do so, whatever was his estimation of those works. For, at least, they were contained in the Alexandrine Version, which, in his Hexapla, he has undertaken to exhibit. The Hexapla is lost, and only fragments have been recovered. There is no reason to doubt, that, in its complete state, it contained books which are not found in the received Canon, because such books were comprehended in the versions which it collated, if not then extant in Hebrew. And, in point of fact, we have the testimony of Bahrdt,* that fragments of Origen's collation of the Maccabees and Judith in his great work, yet exist in some manuscripts.

Beyond Origen, I shall not pursue in detail the testimony of the Egyptian Christians upon this subject. The following admission of Eichhorn† will suffice to show, that the evidence from that father, which has been exhibited, is less adverse to the common theory, than that of the generality of others, who, like him, may be supposed to have had their information from Egyptian Jews. "The Egyptian Christians accounted the Apocryphal writings of the Old Testament to be worthy of high estimation. After them, or their Septuagint version, the

* Origenis Hexaplorum quæ supersunt, cum Notis a C. F. Bahrdt, Tom. i. p. 168.

Enleit. ins A. T., § 310,