of the Jews; and is further established, beyond the possibility of doubt, by the numerous citations of it in the Christian Scriptures. Whatever deference may be paid to Jewish tradition, the canonicity of the books in the Hebrew Bible must ultimately rest upon the testimony of Christ and his Apostles. "The writings of the Old Testament," says a divine no less distinguished for sound judgment than extensive erudition, "which received the sanction of our Saviour, are the writings, and the only writings of the Old Testament which can be admitted into the Canon of Scripture by those who bear the name of Christian. But the Scriptures which HE sanctioned were the very Scriptures which are now contained in the Hebrew Bible, and which constitute (in the Old Testament) the Canon of the Church of England.”* The Proverbs not only receive the general sanction of our Saviour by which he ratified the Jewish canon,+ but are frequently quoted as canonical Scripture by the inspired writers of the New Testament. 66 'This book," as Michalis observes, "is frequently quoted by the Apostles, who considered it a treasure of revealed morality, from which the Christians were to derive their rules of conduct, and the canonical

* Bishop Marsh's Comparative View of the Churches of England and Rome, cap. v. p. 101.

+ Luke, ch. xxiv. 44.

authority of no part of the Old Testament is so ratified by the evidence of quotations as that of the Proverbs. But it is remarkable, that the Wisdom of Jesus, the Son of Sirach, which has so striking an affinity with the book of Proverbs, is not quoted, in a single instance, by the Apostles and Evangelists, and the difference between canonical and apocryphal is nowhere so strongly marked as in this example. We may hence infer, that every commentator on the Greek Testament ought to be intimately acquainted with the Septuagint version of the book of Proverbs, and that every Christian divine should consider it as the chief source of scriptural morality."* Not only do the Apostles manifest their familiarity with it by direct quotations, but likewise by a multiplicity of allusions, which become more visible by comparing their writings in the original Greek with the book of Proverbs in the Septuagint version.+

* Michælis, Introduct. to the New Testament, by Dr. Marsh, c. v. § 1. + The following enumeration of citations of the Proverbs in the New Testament, though not complete, is taken from Carpzov.

The Rabbins are reported to have deliberated concerning the rejection of Proverbs, as well as of Ecclesiastes and Canticles, from the sacred canon, on account of some apparently irreconcilable contradictions; but, finding that these were in ap-. pearance only, not real, they abandoned the design.* Upon this fact Semler remarks, that, if it had been accounted canonical in the time of Solomon and Hezekiah, what dolts must those have been who afterwards wished to place it among the apocryphal books.+ The inference from this is obvious, that the Proverbs could not have been received as a work of divine authority in the time of Solomon and Hezekiah, or the Jewish Doctors could never have entertained so preposterous an idea as that of

* Carpzovii Introduct. ad Lib. Canon, par. 2, cap. iv. §7. Christ. Ben. Michælis, Præfat. § 24. Wolfii Bibliotheca Hebræa, vol. ii. p. 119.

"Si vero olim, jam tempore Salomonis et Hiskiæ, pro canonica libro habitus atque in templo asservatus fuit; quam stultos fuisse oporteret eos, qui postea talem librum voluerint abscondere."-(Semleri Apparatus ad Liberalem V. T. Interp. lib. i. cap. 4, p. 200.) By "abscondere" is meant ажокρужTV, i, e. to place among the apocryphal books, to declare it apocryphal; for such is the meaning of 12 in Shabbath, cap. 2, fol. 30, B. where it it said,

ואף ספר משלי בקשו לגנוז שהיו דבריו סותרין זה את זה

Etiam librum Proverbiorum voluerunt (Sapientes) abscondere (i. e. pro apocrypho declarare) eo quod verba ejus se invicem everterent.-(Quoted by Wolfius, Biblioth. Heb. vol. ii. p. 119.) This objection, however, will fall to the ground, if we accede to Bishop Marsh's opinion, (Notes

rejecting it from the canon. But this attempt of the Rabbins is so far from being prejudicial to the canonical authority of the book, that it supplies an argument in its favour; for it proves that they were scrupulous in the admission of books into the sacred canon, and would not place any among the writings of the inspired volume, till their genuineness and authority were confirmed by unexceptionable evidence; and, as Huet argues, their deliberating about expunging the Proverbs from the canon, and yet not doing it, is a proof that their nefarious intentions were overpowered by the force of truth, and that, after weighing the arguments on both sides, they acknowledged its genuineness and inspiration.*

Since, then, this work of the royal Author has been

to Michælis, Introd. cap. iii. § 1,) that 11 does not mean apocryphal, as we understand the word, for the ancient Jews never doubted the divine authority of the Proverbs, Solomon's Song, or Ecclesiastes;" and that it "was applied to books divinely inspired, and included in the sacred canon." The word does, indeed, sometimes denote those parts of the canonical Scriptures which were only forbidden to be read; (Castell, Lex. Hept. 132;) but the reason given for the Jews wishing to conceal or lay aside the Proverbs, seems to imply rejection from the canon.-See Buxtorf, Lex. Chald. Targ. et Rab, in voc. ✦ “Nam quod id facere cogitarunt, nec fecerunt tamen, indicio est nefariam ipsorum voluntatem vi veritatis fuisse oppressam, et utrimque pensitatis rationibus Libri tandem yvŋolorηra et sanctitatem eos agnovisse."-Huetii Dem. Evangel. Prop. iv. p. 242.

received, after mature examination, into the Jewish canon, which was sanctioned by our Saviour; and since the Apostles have frequently cited it as Scripture, its canonicity rests upon a basis that cannot be subverted. Yet, strange as it may appear, its divine authority has been assailed by some writers, who would degrade it to the rank of an apocryphal composition. But their attempt has been unavailing; the Christian world has not yet been induced to believe that our Lord was wrong in confirming the canon of which it forms a part, and that the Apostles were grossly mistaken in appealing to it as a sacred record of scriptural morality. Invulnerable to the shafts of its adversaries, it has withstood the hesitating dislike of Simon, the open attack of Spinoza, and the cool opposition of Le Clerc. It were a waste of time to review the cavils of these writers, after the complete refutation of them in the highly valuable Introduction of Carpzov, and the Miscellanea Sacra of Witsius.*

An attempt of a more recent date has been made by Semler to cast a shade of doubt upon the authenticity and inspiration of the book of Proverbs.+ What

Carpzovii Introd, ad Lib. Canon. par. 2, cap. iv. § 7. Witsii Miscel. Sac. vol. i. cap. 18, § 31, et seq.

+ Semleri Apparatus ad Liberalem Vet. Test. Interpret. Hala, 1773,