By taking a short review of the merits of each of the apocryphal books, we shall see how little they are enti tled to be ranked with inspired writings. 1 Esdras is a book of the lowest authority. In so far as it is a repe tition of circumstances recorded in scripture, we have no fault to find with it; but it is convicted of manifest falsehood, when it assigns a reason for the final return of the Jews from Babylon, altogether different from that recorded in scripture. This is the story narrated in the 3d and 4th chapters, of three young men contending who should deliver the best moral maxim; and Darius being best pleased with that of Zerobabel, granted, in consequence of his request, permission to rebuild the temple at Jerusalem. Now, as this and the account given in scripture cannot both be true, we can have lit tle hesitation to which we should give the preference. 2 Esdras is more valuable in point of sentiment; the author of this book appears to have been a converted Jew, who wrote some time before the death of Domi tian ; for this emperor and his predecessors are so clear ly alluded to, that we can have little doubt as to the date of this book. The author's intention seems to have been to console his countrymen under their recent dispersion, and to hold out to them the prospect of deliverance, on their embracing Jesus as the true Messiah. But as he knew that such doctrine would neither be popular with the Jews nor Romans, he made use of a pious fraud, and concealed himself under the name of the ancient Ezra or Esdras. The book bears other marks of being manufactured by a Jcw, from the rabbinical fables with which it is interlarded; e. g. that the books of the law were all burnt and written anew by Esdras, by the help of inspiration, (ch. 14.) and many other such absui;di ties.—Tobit. We know nothing from authentic history respecting this person. The account which he gives of himself is, that he was carried capifivd•from Galilee to Nineve, by Enemessar, or Shalmanescr, king of the Assyrians ; and, on account of his good behaviour, he was promoted to be his purveyor. All this may, or may not, be true. But we are sure that the ridiculous story, which makes such a figure in the book, of a demon be ing in love with a young woman, and of his being driven away by the smell of the liver and heart of a fish, is a silly fabrication.—Judith. This is a still more unac countable book than any we have been considering. No place can be found in the Jewish history for the events recorded in this book. There are insuperable objections to their being placed either before, or during, or after the captivity. Hence Grotius has conceived, that the whole is a parable ; and he thus explains the machinery : Judith is Judea; Bethulia is the temple; Nabuchonosor, the devil; Holofernes, the devil's agent, &c. This is a mere whim : we can safely acquit the author of this book of any such recondite intention. It seems to be a religious romance, which the author has chosen as the vehicle of several useful instructions ; though some of the sentiments are not altogether in consonance with the maxims of scripture.—The rest of
Esther. This supplement to the genuine book of Esther, is undoubtedly ancient, since Josephus has inserted parts of it in his writings. But it varies too much from the authentic history to deserve much credit as a histo rical record, and much less as an inspired writing.— Wisdom of Solomon. Though the author of this book describes himself as the true Solomon, yet it has been acknowledged at all times, that he was a Hellenistic Jew, commonly supposed to be Philo Judmus. The book contains many excellent maxims; but, as it bears a lie in its forehead, it can have no pretensions to divine inspiration.—Ecclesiasticus. This is by far the most ex cellent of all the apocryphal books, and deserves a se rious perusal. The author is Jesus, the son of Sirach, who avows his name, but makes no pretensions to in with the epistle of Jeremiah. Both these compositions bear in their face evident marks of fabrication. The author speaks of one Joachim as high priest, of sacred implements, &c. being carried back from Babylon, and of the burning of Jerusalem, as events that happened under king Jechoniah ; which is contrary to the sacred history.—Song of the three Chil dren. In this short composition there is nothing evi dently faulty. The latter part of it, as a canticle, is in troduced into the English liturgy.—History of Susannah. This story, which Jerome justly characterises as a fable, is evidently the work of some Hellenistic Jew, who wrote in Greek. This is the language in which we find it ; and it bears internal evidence, that it never was written in any other, as it must have been, if it formed part of the book of Daniel, as it professes to do. In the examination of the elders, one of them says, that he saw the adultery committed t/a-eo 0-xivelv, under a mastick tree. Then Daniel is represented as punning upon the word ; angel bath received sentence of God .7xicai PE t‘ECOY, to cut thee in two." A similar pun is attempted on the answer of the other elder, which sufficiently in dicates that this story was written originally in Greek, and therefore can form no part of the book or Daniel.— The Idol Bell and the Dragon. A stupid of Manasses. There is no evidence of its authenticity. 1 Maccabees. This is a valuable historical record. The book has its name from Maccabees, a surname of Judas, whose exploits it records. It is thought to he derived from the initial letters of these Hebrew words, Mi mocha Bealinz Ave, who is like thee among the mighty ones, 0 Lord ? which it is supposed Judas had inscribed on his standard.-2 Maccabees. A book of no authority, Containing many facts and sentiments directly contrary to those contained in the sacred scriptures.—Such as wish for more particular information on this subject, will find it treated with much critical industry in Pri deaux's Connections, vol. 1st and 2d. Sec also Wilson on the Apocrypha, and Doddridge's Lectures, vol. 2. p. 142. (g)