to it, and by the conduct of the apostles. The New Testament is full of this subject; and from the earliest times it was the custom, as in the case of Apollos, to prove from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.

BEATRICE.

But what Scriptures were these which were thus read? How shall we be assured that we have the same?

MR. B.

This demands an inquiry of a similar nature to that formerly requisite for the New Testament. We must first inquire as to what are the canonical books, and, secondly, as to their integrity. With regard to the former, our labour is greatly shortened by now having the supreme authority of our Lord to appeal to. What he acknowledged as of divine authority, must be so; and the only difficulty is to ascertain how far his approval extended.

EDWARD.

But the books of the Old Testament may also be established independently of the New Testament, as to their genuineness, integrity, and credibility.

MR. B.

They may; and it is on such grounds that they 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.

BEATRICE.

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?

BEATRICE.

In two of the passages you before quoted, he 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.

BEATRICE.

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 general 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 rest - Philo 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.

EDWARD.

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

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.

BEATRICE.

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 consti