Silly apocryphal story of incantation by a fish's liver.

Apocryphal books not in the ancient catalogue.

and contemptible story, fitter for the Arabian Nights' Entertainments, or the Adventures of Baron Munchausen, than for a book claiming to be a part of God's word (Tobit vi., 1-8). "And as they went on their journey they came to the river Tigris, and they lodged there; and when the young man went down to wash himself, a fish leaped out of the river, and would have drowned him. Then the angel said unto him, take the fish. And the young man laid hold of the fish and drew it to land. To whom the angel said, open the fish, and take the heart and the liver, and the gall, and put them up safely. So the young man did as the angel commanded him, and when they had roasted the fish, they did eat it. Then the young man said unto the angel, brother Azarias, to what use is the heart and the liver and the gall of the fish? And he said unto him, touching the heart and the liver, if a devil, or an evil spirit trouble any, we must make a smoke thereof before the man or the woman, and the party shall be no more vexed. As for the gall, it is good to anoint a man that hath whiteness in his eyes; he shall be healed." In the same book of Tobit, the angel that is introduced, is guilty of wilful lying, by representing himself as being a kinsman of Tobit (v. 12), and afterwards contradicting himself, by affirming that he is Raphael, one of the holy angels (xii., 17). It is unnecessary to refer to the silly fable of Bel and the dragon, the ark going after Jeremiah at the prophet's command (2 Macc. ii., 4), the story of Judith, &c., and the numerous contradictions and absurdities that are found in these books. It will be sufficient, in addition to the above, to show that the apocryphal books were never admitted into the canon of Scripture during the first four centuries, that the writers themselves lay no claim to inspiration, and that even popish authors, previous to the council of Trent, have admitted that they did not belong to the canon of scripture.

(4.) These apocryphal books are not mentioned in any of the earliest catalogues of the sacred writings; neither in that of Melito, Bishop of Sardis, in the second century,* nor in those of Origen,† in the third century, of Athanasius, Hilary,§ Cyril of Jerusalem,|| Epiphanius, Gregory Nazianzen,** Amphilochius,†† Jerome,‡‡ Rufi

*This catalogue is inserted by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History, lib. iv., c. 26.

+ Ibid., lib. vi., c. 25, p. 399.

In his Festal or Paschal Epistle. See the extract in Dr. Lardner's Works, vol. iv., pp. 282–285., 8vo.; vol. 2, pp. 399, 400, 4to.

{ Prolog. in Psalmos, p. 9. Paris, 1693. Lardner, vol. iv., p. 305, 8vo.; vol. ii., p. 413, 4to.

In his Fourth Catechetical Exercise. Ibid., vol. iv., p. 299, 8vo.; vol. ii., p. 411, 4to.

¶ In various catalogues recited by Dr. Lardner, vol. iv., pp. 312, 313, 8vo; vol. ii., p. 409, 4to.

**Carm. 33. Op., tom. ii., p. 98. Ibid., vol. iv., pp. 407, 408, 8vo.; vol. ii., p. 470, 4to.

tt In Carmine Iambico ad Seleucum, p. 126. Ibid., p. 413, 8vo.; vol. ii., p. 473. ‡‡ In Præfat. ad Libr. Regum sive Prologo Galeato. Lardner, vol. v., pp. 16,

Never quoted by Christ and his apostles.

Lay no claim themselves to inspiration.

nus,* and others of the fourth century; nor in the catalogue of canonical books recognized by the council of Laodicea,† held in the same century, whose canons were received by the Catholic church; so that, as Bishop Burnet well observes, "we have the concurring sense of the whole church of God in this matter."

(5.) These books were never quoted, as most of the inspired books were, by Christ and his apostles. They evidently formed therefore no part of that volume to which Christ and his apostles so often referred, under the title of Moses and the prophets. There is scarcely a book in the Old Testament, which is not quoted or referred to in some passage of the New Testament. Christ has thus given the sanction of his authority to Moses, and the Psalms, and the prophets; that is, to the whole volume of scripture which the Jews had received from Moses and the prophets; which they most tenaciously maintained as canonical: and which is known by us under the title of the Old Testament. But there was not one of the apocryphal books so acknowledged by the Jews, or so referred to by Christ and his apostles.

(6.) The authors of these books lay no claim to inspiration, and in some instances make statements utterly inconsistent therewith. The book of Ecclesiasticus, which, though not inspired, is superior to all the other apocryphal books, was written by one Jesus the son of Sirach. His grandfather, of the same name, it seems, had written a book, which he left to his son Sirach; and he delivered it to his son Jesus, who took great pains to reduce it into order; but he nowhere assumes the character of a prophet himself, nor does he claim it for the original author, his grandfather. In the prologue, he says, "My grandfather Jesus, when he had much given himself to the reading of the Law, and the Prophets, and other books of our fathers, and had gotten therein good judgment, was drawn on also himself to write something pertaining to learning and wisdom, to the intent that those which are desirous to learn, and are addicted to these things, might profit much more, in living according to the law. Wherefore let me entreat you to read it with favor and attention, and to pardon us wherein we may seem to come short of some words which we have labored to interpret. Farther, some things uttered in Hebrew, and translated into another tongue, have not the same force in them. From the eight and thirtieth year, coming into Egypt when Euergetes was king, and continuing there for some time, I found a book of no small learning: therefore I

17, 8vo.; vol. ii., p. 540, 4to., and also in several of his prefaces to other books, which are given by Dr. L., vol. v., pp. 17-22, 8vo. ; or vol. ii., pp. 540-543, 4to. * Expositio ad Symb., Apost. Lardner, vol. v., p. 75, 76, 8 vo.; vol. ii., p. 573, 4to. + Can. 59, 60. Lardner, vol. iv., pp. 308, 309, 8vo.; vol. ii., pp. 414, 415, 4to. Besides Dr. Lardner, Bishop Cosin, in his Scholastical History of the Canon, and Moldenhawer (Introd. ad Vet. Test., pp. 148-154), have given extracts at length from the above mentioned fathers, and others, against the authority of the apocryphal books.

On the Sixth Article of the Anglican church, p. 111. 6th edit.

The author of the Maccabees disavows inspiration. A temperance argument against the Apocrypha.

thought it most necessary for me to bestow some diligence and travail to interpret it; using great watchfulness and skill, in that space, to bring the book to an end," &c. These avowals, as will be seen at a glance, are altogether inconsistent with the supposition that this modest and candid author wrote under the direction of inspiration.

66

The writer of the second book of the Maccabees professes to have reduced a work of Jason of Cyrene, consisting of five volumes, into one volume. Concerning which work, he says, "Therefore to us that have taken upon us this painful labor of abridging, it was not easy, but a matter of sweat and watching." Again, leaving to the author the exact handling of every particular, and laboring to follow the rules of an abridgment. To stand upon every point, and go over things at large, and to be curious in particulars, belongeth to the first author of the story; but to use brevity, and avoid much laboring of the work, is to be granted to him that maketh an abridgment." "Is anything more needed to prove that this writer did not profess to be inspired? If there was any inspiration in the case, it must be attributed to Jason of Cyrene, the original writer of the history; but his work is long since lost, and we now possess only the abridgment which cost the writer so much labor and pains. Thus, I think it sufficiently appears, that the authors of these disputed books were not prophets; and that, as far as we can ascertain the circumstances in which they wrote, they did not lay claim to inspiration, but expressed themselves in such a way, as no man under the influence of inspiration ever did.”* The author of this book concludes with the following words, which are utterly un worthy of a person writing by inspiration. "Here will I make an end. And IF I have done WELL, AND AS IS FITTING THE story, it is THAT WHICH I DESIRED; BUT IF SLENDERLY AND MEANLY, IT IS THAT WHICH I COULD ATTAIN UNTO. For as it is hurtful to drink wine or water alone; and as wine mingled with water is pleasant, and delighteth the taste; even so speech finely framed delighteth the ears of them that read the story. And here shall be an end."

(7) There is one additional evidence at least, that this book is not inspired, to be drawn from the silly expression just quoted that "it is hurtful to drink water alone.” If there were no other proof, this single expression would be sufficient to show that God was not its author, especially since the investigations of total abstinence societies have proved that cold water alone, instead of being hurtful, is the most healthful beverage which can be used.†

* Alexander on the Canon, page 80.

The above brief sketch of the evidences which prove that the books of the Apocrypha are uninspired, and therefore not a part of the sacred scriptures, would not have appeared in the present work, had it not been called for, by the fact that Romish priests are taking advantage of the general ignorance that prevails relative to the Apocrypha, to inculcate some of the unscriptural doctrines of their apostate church upon the authority of these books. In a recent course of popular lectures in defence of the doctrines of Popery in the city of New York, the preacher took

The curse against rejecters of tradition or the Apocrypha. Standard authors on the Apocrypha (note).

After attentively weighing the above evidences, that the apocry phal books possess not the slightest claim to be regarded as a part of God's word, let the reader peruse the following additional extract from the decree of the council of Trent.

The curse upon those who refuse to receive the apocryphal books as inspired, or who reject the authority of the traditions.

Si quis autem libros ipsos integros cum omnibus suis partibus, prout in Ecclesia Catholica legi consueverunt, et in veteri vulgata Latina editione habentur, pro sacris et canonicis non susceperit; et traditiones prædictas sciens et prudens contempserit; ANATHEMA SİT.

Whoever shall not receive, as sacred and canonical, all those books and every part of them, as they are commonly read in the Catholic Church, and are contained in the old Vulgate Latin edition, or shall knowingly and deliberately despise the aforesaid traditions; LET HIM BE ACCURSED.

CHAPTER II.

FOURTH SESSION CONTINUED. LATIN VULGATE EXALTED ABOVE THE INSPIRED HEBREW AND GREEK SCRIPTURES. PRIVATE JUDGMENT AND LIBERTY OF THE PRESS FORBIDDEN, AND A POPISH CENSORSHIP OF THE PRESS ESTABLISHED.

§ 9.-THE second part of the decree passed at the fourth ses sion is entitled, "of the edition and use of the Sacred books," and as this decree authoritatively declares the present doctrine of the Romish church with respect to the Scriptures, I shall quote the largest part of it in three divisions, with appropriate headings.

as his text to establish the doctrine of prayers for the dead, evidently because he could not find one in God's inspired word, 2 Macc. xii., 43, 44, above cited. He might just as well, in the estimation of protestants, have taken a text from the history of Robinson Crusoe or Sinbad the Sailor. Yet many might be ensnared with the plausible train of remark; "If these books are not inspired," say the papists, "why have even protestants bound them up in their bibles ?" And to this we can only reply-WHY INDEED? No consistent protestant should ever purchase a bible with the Apocrypha. Let booksellers, if they choose, publish these apocryphal books, and let readers purchase and read them as they would any other curious and ancient writings, but let them never be bound in the same volume with God's inspired word.

The reader who would examine still further the overwhelming evidences that the apocryphal books are uninspired and uncanonical, is referred to any or all of the following works :-Lardner's works, Vol. v. ; Horne's Critical Introduction, Vol. i., Appendix No. v.; Alexander on the Canon. But especially the recent valuable work entitled, "The arguments of Romanists on behalf of the apocrypha, discussed and refuted by Professor Thornwall, of South Carolina College."

A mere human performance, and an imperfect one too, placed above God's inspired word.

The Latin Vulgate put in the place of the inspired Hebrew and Greek Scriptures as the only authentic word of God, from which all translations were therefore in future to be made, and to which all appeals were to be ultimately referred.

Insuper eadem sacro-sancta Synodus considerans non parùm utilitatis accedere posse Ecclesiæ Dei, si ex omnibus Latinis editionibus, quæ circumferuntur, sacrorum librorum, quænam pro authentica habenda sit, innotescat, statuit, et declarat, ut hæc ipsa vetus et vulgata editio, quæ longo tot seculorum usu in ipsa Ecclesia probata est, in publicis lectionibus, disputationibus, prædicationibus, et expositionibus pro authentica habeatur; et ut nemo illam rejicere quovis prætextu audeat vel præ

sumat.

Moreover, the same most holy council, considering that no small advantage will accrue to the church of God, if of all the Latin editions of the Sacred Book which are in circulation, some one shall be distinguished as that which ought to be regarded as authentic-doth ordain and declare, that THE SAME OLD AND VULGATE EDITION which has been approved by its use in the church for so many ages, shall be held as authentic, in all public lectures, disputations, sermons, and expositions; and that no one shall dare or presume to reject it, under any pretence whatsoever.

Thus were the ipsissima verba, the very words, in the original Hebrew and Greek, which were dictated by the Holy Spirit, thrown aside by the council of Trent, and a mere human performance substituted in their place, viz., the Latin translation of Jerome, which many of the most learned Romanists have acknowledged to abound with errors. The learned Roman Catholic, Dr. Jahn, confesses that in translating the Scriptures into the Vulgate Latin, Jerome "did not invariably give what he himself believed to be the best translation of the original, but occasionally, as he confesses (Præf. ad Com. in Eccles.) followed the Greek translators, although he was aware that they had often erred through negligence, because he was apprehensive of giving umbrage to his readers by too wide a departure from the established version; and therefore we find that, in his commentaries, he sometimes corrects his own translation. Sometimes, too, he has substituted a worse in place of the old translation." In another place, Dr. Jahn adds as follows: "The universal admission of this version throughout the vast extent of the Latin church multiplied the copies of it, in the transcription of which it became corrupted with many errors. Towards the close of the eighth or the beginning of the ninth century, it was, at the command of Charlemagne, corrected by Alcuin from the Hebrew text. This recension was either not widely propagated, or was again infected with errors; for which reason Lanfranc, archbishop of Canterbury, who died in 1089, caused some copies to be again corrected. Nevertheless, cardinal Nicholas, about the middle of the twelfth century, found tot exemplaria quot codices' (as many copies as manuscripts), and therefore prepared a correct edition."

In the year 1540, the celebrated printer, Robert Stephens, printed an edition of the Vulgate with the various readings of three editions and fourteen manuscripts. "This again," says Dr.