other historical books, Ruth, Esther, Ezra, Nehemiah, and the Chronicles, in the same class, and thus make the third class to consist only of such as were neither historical nor prophetical ?1

Michaelis 2 puts Job in the place of the Song of Solomon, and places Ruth instead of Job in the second class of thirteen books, regarding Ruth not as connected with Judges, but as a distinct book. Camerer,3 by a different process, excludes the Song of Solomon and Ecclesiastes from the canon. He wishes to count Ezra and Nehemiah, Jeremiah and the Lamentations, as four distinct books; and to place in the third class the Lamentations and Job, instead of Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon. But neither the separation of Ruth from Judges, nor of Ezra from Nehemiah, nor of Jeremiah from the Lamentations, will correspond with the mode of calculation adopted by the Jews (Illust. 15), as is evident from the testimony of Origen. Equally improbable is the assumption, that Job was placed in the third class, and not in the second, of which the historical books formed a part; for the book of Job was uniformly, by all antiquity, received as a true history. It is true, Josephus does not himself quote the book of Job; and the reason probably was, that in writing a history of the Jews, he had

1 Repertor. sup. cit. p. 227 &c.

2 Dogmatik, S. 112 f.

3 Theolog, und kritische Versuche, N. I. § 14—19. In addition to this proposition, the assumption, that in the time of Josephus the Song of Solomon and Ecclesiastes did not belong to the canon, is supported (in the work sup. cit. § 18) by the conjecture that it seems that some books were lost from the canon, after the days of Josephus. From Josephus (Antiquit. X. c. 11. § 7), where the writer is speaking of Bißriois Aavinlov, it is inferred that other writings of Daniel beside the Book of Daniel, were then in existence. In refutation of this, it is remarked (in the Tüb. gel. Anzeig. for 1794, No. 74. p. 590), that Josephus evidently is speaking of the writings of Daniel which have descended to us, which he divides into several parts (Bißlia), inasmuch as every thing which he there quotes from these βιβλίοις Δανιηλου, is contained in our book of Daniel. Sea Bertholdt's Daniel, Erlangen, 1806, the Introduction, p. 86 &c.

no occasion for quoting it. But there cannot be the least possible doubt, that he found it among the sacred books of his nation, among which it is also classed in the New Testament (Illust. 9); and that, for the reason stated, he placed it in the second class.1 Perhaps, the book of Job was subjoined to the historical part of the second class, as an appendix; for it was regarded as a history, though not of the Israelites.2

Agreeably to what has been said, the canon of Josephus is as follows: First class, the five books of Moses. Second class, 1, Joshua; 2, Judges and Ruth; 3, the two books of Samuel; 4, the two books of Kings; 5, the two books of Chronicles; 6, Daniel; 7, Ezra and Nehemiah; 8, Esther; 9, Job; 10, Isaiah; 11, Jeremiah and the Lamentations; 12, Ezekiel; 13, the twelve minor prophets. Third class, 1, the Psalms; 2, Proverbs; 3, Ecclesiastes; 4, the Song of Solo

mon.

ILLUSTRATION 17.

Books of the Old Testament referred to by Josephus. Among the books not specifically named in the New Testament, but still used as authorities by Josephus, are Ruth, both books of Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, and the Lamentations of Jeremiah.

Eichhorn, in his introduction to the Old Testament,3 quotes the passages in which Josephus cites or alludes to the books just mentioned. In general, every book which can be proved to have been known to Josephus, and which was not written after the time of Artaxerxes, belonged to the canon of Josephus. For agreeably to the passage above quoted, all the books prior to the time of Artaxerxes, were written by prophets, and

1 Eichhorn, Pt. I. p. 118 &c. 3 Pt. I. 47.

2 Repertor. sup. cit. 232.

3 Illust. 13.-Jos. contr. Ap. Lib. I. § 8.

were therefore divine writings. He closed the canon of the Old Testament with the time of Artaxerxes Longimanus; for he regarded the book of Esther, which he supposed was written at that time, as the last of all the Old Testament writings (Antiq. B. XI. c. 6. § 1.)1

ILLUSTRATION 18

On the genuineness and integrity of the Old Testament, the reader may [in addition to § 4 of this work] consult Griesinger on the Authenticity of the Old Testament, Stuttgard, 1804. and Jahn's Introduction to the divine books of the Old Covenant, Pt. I. § 6—14, p. 31—66.

1 Eichhorn, sup. cit. p. 104 &c.

$ 15.

The Scriptures must be received as a perfect rule (norma) of faith and practice.

From the evidence which has been adduced (§ 11-13) in support of the divine authority and credibility of the writings of the Old (§ 14) and New (§ 1-11) Testaments (1), as respects their doctrines, prophecies, and history; it necessarily and spontaneously follows, that we are bound to receive as divine (2) all the instructions and precepts, which are either given by the writers themselves, or communicated by them as the instructions and precepts of God (3); and to receive all their statements, as indubitably and perfectly true (4). short, the decisions which are contained in Scripture, as soon as they are satisfactorily ascertained (5), must be received by us as the standard (norma) for the regulation of our judgments (6).

In

ILLUSTRATION 1.

That nothing may be advanced, to which the most anxious and scrutinizing examination of christianity can attach the least shadow of doubt; I shall seldom rely, exclusively, on proofs derived from the antilegomena of the New Testament; or on the authority of those books of the Old Testament, which are not explicitly quoted in the New, as divine (§ 14. Illust. 4, 15, 16); or on books, the authority of which depends not merely on their historical credibility, but also on the divine authority of Mark and Luke.

ILLUSTRATION 2.

The obligation of the divine precepts.

Precepts which are given under certain limitations, are valid only so far as they extend. And if it be said, that some precepts are not obligatory on men, or on men in all circumstances; this will by no means exclude them from the catalogue of divine precepts. The reason why they are not obligatory on certain persons, is, that God did not see fit to extend their obligation to them, and not that their author is any other being than the common Lord of the universe. In Köppen's work entitled, "The Bible a work of divine wisdom," it is remarked, that all the special precepts of God are merely particular applications of universal divine commands; and that these cannot be universal, because they are limited to the accidental circumstances of time, place, and persons. The reader may compare Nitzsch's Programm on the local and temporary precepts of the christian ethical code, entitled, De judicandis morum praeceptis in Novo Testamento a communi omnium hominum ac temporum usu alienis.2

ILLUSTRATION 3.

Obligation of the passages in which God or a divine messenger is introduced as speaking.

To this class belong those passages in which God himself is introduced as speaking, as is often the case in the writings of the ancient prophets; and also those which contain the declarations of a divine messenger, such as an angel, or a man the divinity of whose mission is asserted by the inspired writer himself, or by some other having divine authority. Thus, the di

1 Pt. I. p. 457 &c. 2d edit.

2 Wittemberg, 1791-1800. See also Tüb. gel. Anz. Jahrg. 1801, St.

21.