are held by the Jews. Many defences of Christianity begin with proving the authority of the Old Testament, and afterwards, by comparing the New Testament with it, establish the truth of the latter; but in arguing in favour of Christianity, as a divine revelation, against those who acknowledge no divine revelation, we must of course take that method which is most strictly demonstrative,and such appears to me that adopted by Bishop Marsh, in his Lectures,-of first proving the Divine authority of the New Testament, which is certainly of easier proof, and thence inferring the authority of the Old Testament, as connected with it.

Edward. This method does not, however, at all impugn the proof independent of Christianity.

Mr. B. By no means; if by that is meant only such a proof as establishes the religion of Moses up to the coming of our Lord: beyond that, the evidence for the Old Testament would not only fail, but positive proof would lie against it, if Christianity be not admitted as its completion.

Maria. So that in either case we come to the same conclusions. The New Testament is requisite for the fulfilment of the Old, and the latter is an equally necessary preliminary to the former. If either can be proved false, as involved with each other, both will fall to the ground: if neither can be proved false, the proof in favour of each becomes doubly strong.

Edward. Much more than doubly strong; for the whole probability does not proceed by addition of the chances in each case, but by the multiplication of them, provided that the proofs of the divine origin of each (as unconnected with each other) are independent of each other.

Mr. B. The first thing to be ascertained is, what books were held by our Lord as of divine authority?

Maria. In two of the passages you before quoted, he

10 May the books of the Old Testament be established, independent of the New Testament?-11 In arguing in favour of Christianity, as a divine revelation, against those who acknowledge no divine revelation--what method must we take?-12 What author has adopted this method?-13 Does this method impugn the proof, independent of Christianity?-14 How does Maria suppose that the Old and New Testament stand related to each other, as to their truth?-15 What is the first thing to be ascertained?

only speaks of the Scriptures generally; and in the third, of the Law, the Prophets, and the psalms.

Mr. B. It is then necessary to determine what was meant by these expressions in our Lord's time. But these expressions are precisely those made use of to denote the Hebrew Bible as now received. To the five first books they have long given the title of the Law, or the Law of Moses; to the historical and prophetical books, they gave the name of the Prophets, as having been written by them; and to the remaining books, viz. the writings of David and Solomon, the book of Job, the book of Lamentations, and the books of Ruth, Chronicles, Esther, Daniel, Nehemiah, and Ezra, they gave the title of Chetubim, which appears to correspond to the Psalms of the New Testament.

Edward. How long is this division known to have existed among the Jews?

Mr. B. Certainly for the last 1400 years, and probably long before the coming of our Lord, as in the prologue to the Wisdom of Jesus, the son of Sirach, we have this threefold division twice mentioned; first as the Law, the Prophets, and other books of our fathers; and, secondly, as the Law, the Prophets, and the rest of the books.

Maria. It seems reasonable, then, to conclude that the last-named books had not originally a fixed title, and therefore might be included by our Lord under the gen*eral expression of the Psalms.

Mr. B. But we have yet further evidence; for Philo and Josephus, who lived near the time of our Lord, likewise divide the Hebrew Scriptures in the same manner, giving to the two first classes the determinate titles of the Law and the Prophets, but only describing the restPhilo as containing Hymns, (i. e. Psalms) and other books by which knowledge and piety are promoted and described; Josephus as containing Hymns (or Psalms) to God, and instructions of life for man.

16 What objection is made, by Maria, to the application of the passages quoted from our Lord, to the argument?-17 What is the reply to this objection by Mr. B.?-18 How long is this division known to have existed among the Jews?-19 To Maria, what appears reasonable in relation to this subject?-20 What further evidence have we in relation to it?

Edward. So that, in fact, all the divisions seem to as to substance: do they agree in detail?

agree

Mr. B. According to Josephus, there were five books in the first class, thirteen in the second, and four in the third; in all twenty-two. In the time of Jerome, the whole number of books also amounted to twenty-two; but in our Bible there are thirty-nine.

Maria. Does not this overthrow the argument?

Mr. B. No; for it merely arises from different classifications, as we are informed by Jerome: for in his time the book of Ruth was appended to that of Judges, and that of Lamentations to Jeremiah; the two books of Samuel were united in one; similarly, the two books of Chronicles in one, the books of Ezra and Nehemiah in one; and the twelve minor prophets also united into one; so that the thirty-nine books of our time constituted, in fact,. the twenty-two of Jerome and Josephus.

Edward. Are there any other catalogues, besides that of Jerome?

Mr. B. In the third century we have one by Origen, and in the second, one by Melito; we have also one in the Talmud.

Maria. But are the books of our Lord's time clearly identified with those of ours?

Mr. B. Josephus determines the books of the law and the Psalms, and has quoted all the books except those of Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Solomon's Song.

Philo has quoted all except those of Ruth, Chronicles, Nehemiah, Daniel, Lamentations, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles.

In the New Testament, all are quoted except Judges, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles.

Edward. But the non-existence of quotations does not establish the non-existence or want of authority in the books; for it is very probable, from their subjects, that no

21 According to Josephus, how many books were there in the different classes?-22 Why does not this overthrow the argument?-23 Are there any other catalogues besides that of Jerome?-24 What books of the Old Testament are established by Josephus?-25 What ones are quoted by Philo?-26 What ones are quoted in the New Testament?

quotations could be required from the nature of the works in which the rest were quoted.

Mr. B. That our Lord had the same division of the Scriptures in view which Josephus had, cannot be doubted; that the books which Josephus had were the same as those of Jerome, is proved in a very satisfactory manner by Bishop Marsh; and that our books are the same as those of Jerome is certain. We may therefore conclude, that the books referred to by our Lord as having authority, were neither more nor less than those which we now receive as canonical. This being also generally acknowledged, further proof seems unnecessary.

Edward. But if the books are the same, how can we determine the integrity of these books?

Mr. B. The peculiar circumstances under which the Old Testament has been transmitted, is sufficient security on this point. By the very nature of the books of Moses, as being the law of the land, as well as by the express commandment given at the time of their promulgation, the uncorrupted preservation of the first of the three great divisions of the Old Testament was secured. "And Moses commanded them, saying, At the end of every seven years, in the solemnity of the year of release, in the feast of tabernacles, when all Israel is come to appear before the Lord thy God in the place which he shall choose, thou shalt read this law before all Israel, in their hearing."-Deut. xxxi. 10, 11.

Maria. And was this command observed?

Mr. B. We have every reason to believe it was: in various parts of the sacred writings we find mention made of the law as being the supreme authority; and from the time of Joshua to Nehemiah we find it appealed to in this

manner.

Edward. But was not the law altogether lost for a time?

Mr. B. The particular copy of the law deposited in

27 What division of these books is it supposed our Lord had in view? -28 How is it shown that we have the same division?-29 But if the books are the same, how can we determine the integrity of these books? -30 What commandment was given Israel by Moses respecting the law? -31 Was this law observed?

the Temple was found by Hilkiah, in the reign of Josiah, and therefere must have been secreted or lost during the idolatrous reigns of Manasseh and Amon; but at no other period are we aware of even this single copy having been missing; and its loss could not have affected the other copies which must have existed elsewhere, from the fact of its being the law of the land.

Edward. Has it not been asserted, however, that it was wholly lost at the destruction of Jerusalem?

Mr. B. It has, by those whose wishes outstripped their knowledge; for there is not the least pretext for the assertion beyond a passage in a notorious forgery, of which even the original text is now lost. But such assailants are in general willing to admit any thing as genuine, in order to prove the Scriptures not genuine, or any thing credible, to show these books are not credible. From the writings of Ezra and Nehemiah, we however are assured that the law was not lost, and we also know that before then Daniel had it in Babylon.

Maria. And have the other Scriptures been in like manner?

preserved

Mr. B. We have reason to believe so, since we find the books of Joshua and Samuel placed with the law; and it seems natural to conclude, that the rest would be added in order.

Maria. But by whom were all collected and arranged as we have them now?

Mr. B. That was the work of Ezra, emphatically called "the scribe," and the president of a celebrated assembly, called "the Great Synagogue," when the canon of the Old Testament was for ever fixed in the state in which we now have it.

Edward. But some have supposed that he wrote it all in fact, and that the accounts given to us were drawn up merely to give authority to his work.

32 But was not the law altogether lost for a time?-33 Has it not been asserted that the law was wholly lost at the destruction of Jerusalem?-34 Of what are we assured in relation to it by Ezra and Nehemiah?-35 Have the other scriptures been preserved in like manner?-36 By whom were they all collected and arranged as we now have them?-37 What does Edward say some have supposed concerning Eara?