on the mind that he is the personage of the whole book, and that his own hand is apparent throughout.

(4.) The identity of the book appears from the fact that the objections made to it pertain alike to every part of it, and in reference to the different parts are substantially the same. By referring to the objections which have, in the previous section, been examined at length, it will be seen that they all suppose the identity of the book, or that they are drawn from the book considered as a whole, and not from any particular part. Whatever difficulty there is in regard to the book pertains to it as a whole, and difficulties of precisely the same kind lie scattered through the entire volume. This fact proves that the book has such an identity as appertains to one and the same author; and this fact would not be likely to occur in a book that was made up of the productions of different authors.

(5.) It may be added, that whenever Daniel is spoken of by Josephus, by the Saviour, or by the early Christian writers, it is always done as if the book was the production of one author. Just such language is used as would be used on the supposition that the book is the composition of one man; nor is there an intimation that there were two Daniels, or that there was even any doubt about the identity of the authorship.

The fact that the Book of Daniel is the production of one author, may be regarded as established. Indeed, there is no ancient work concerning which the evidence is more direct and clear.

II. The second point to be made out is, that the author was the Daniel of the captivity. The evidences on this point will be adduced in the order, not of time, but of what seems due to them in value and importance.

(1.) We refer, first, to the testimony of the writer himself. In chs. vii. 28, viii. 2, 15, 27, ix. 2, x. 1, xii. 5, the writer speaks of himself as "I Daniel;" that is, the same Daniel whose history is given in ch. i. This cannot be, indeed, regarded as conclusive evidence; for the forger of a book might insert the name of another person as the author, and be constant in maintaining it to be so. All that is affirmed is, that this is prima facie evidence, and is good evidence until it is set aside by substantial reasons. We assume this in regard to any book, and the evidence should be admitted unless there are satisfactory reasons for supposing that the name is assumed for purposes of deception. It cannot be doubted that the book bears on its face the appearance and the claim of having been

written by the Daniel of the captivity, and that, in this respect, it is altogether such as it would be on that supposition. There is certainly an air of simplicity, honesty, and sincerity about it which we expect to find in a genuine production.

(2.) We refer, secondly, to the fact that the Book of Daniel was received into the canon of the Old Testament as an authentic work of the Daniel of the captivity, and as entitled to a place among the inspired books of Scripture.

(a) It has been shown above, that the Canon of Scripture. was regarded as complete long before the time of the Maccabees; or that, according to the testimony of Josephus, there were three classes of books among the Hebrews, all regarded as sacred books, and all, in this respect, differing from certain. other books which they had, as containing the record of affairs subsequent to the time of Artaxerxes. These classes of books were known as the Law, the Prophets, and the "Kethubim"the "other writings," or the "Hagiography;"-and these books together constituted what, in the New Testament, are called the Scriptures, or Scripture: the Scripture in Matt. xii. 10, xv. 28; Luke iv. 21; John ii. 22, vii. 38, 42, x. 35, xix. 37; Rom. iv. 3, ix. 17; Gal. iii. 8, 22; 2 Tim. iii. 16; 1 Pet. ii. 6; 2 Pet. i. 20: the Scriptures in Matt. xxi. 42, xxii. 29, xxvi. 54; Luke xxiv. 27, 32, 45; John v. 39; Acts xvii. 2, 11, xviii. 24, 28; Rom. i. 2, xv. 4, xvi. 26; 1 Cor. xv. 3, 4; 2 Tim. iii. 15; 2 Pet. iii. 16. These constituted a collection of writings which were distinct from all others, and the use of the word Scripture, or Scriptures, at once suggested them, and no others, to the mind.

(b) The Book of Daniel was found in that list of writings, and would be suggested by that term as belonging to the general collection. That is, in order to adduce his authority, or to mention a prophecy in that book, it would be done as readily as a part of the Scriptures, and would be as well understood, as in quoting a declaration of Moses or Isaiah. This is apparent (1) from the fact seen above, that Josephus must have regarded Daniel as having a rank among the prophets; and (2), mainly, from the fact that Daniel has always, from the earliest knowledge which we have of the book, had a place in the canon. The book has never, so far as we have any knowledge, been placed among the Apocryphal writings. It was evidently regarded by Josephus, speaking the common sentiment of his countrymen, as having a place in the canonical writings; it was certainly so regarded by the authors of the Talmud, though

they assigned it a place in the third division, or Kethubim; it is expressly so mentioned by Jerome, by Melito, Bishop of Sardis (A. D. 170), by Origen, by the Council of Laodicea (A. D. 360-364), by Cyrill of Jerusalem (A. D. 350), by Gregory Nazianzen (A. D. 370), by Athanasius of Alexandria, (A. D. 326), and by the author of the Synopsis Scripturæ Sacræ, who lived in the time of Athanasius. See Prof. Stuart on the Old Testament. Appendix. From that time onward it is needless to show that the Book of Daniel has always had a place in the canon of Scripture, and been regarded as on a level with the other writings of the sacred volume. Indeed, it has never had, so far as we have any historical information, any other place than that, but wherever known, and wherever mentioned, it has always been as a portion of the sacred writings.

(c) It is morally certain that it could not have been introduced into that canon if it was the work of a later age, and if it was not believed, at the time when the canon of the Old Testament was completed, or when the books of the Old Testament were collected and arranged, by whomsoever this was done, to have been the genuine work of Daniel. This point has been considered already. The Jews were the most cautious of all people in regard to their sacred books, and at an early period of their history, the contending sects of the Pharisees and Sadducees arose, and from the very nature of their opinions, and the vigilance of the one against the other, it was impossible that a book could be introduced into the sacred canon which was not universally regarded as genuine and authentic. The exact period, indeed, when these sects arose has not been determined, and cannot now be; but it is put beyond a doubt that it was before the time of the Maccabees. Josephus first mentions them (Ant. xiii. 5, 9) under the high-priest Jonathan (B. C. 159-144); but he mentions them, together with the Essenes, as sects already and fully and definitely formed. Winer thinks that the spirit of Judaism, soon after the return from the exile, gave rise to a feeling which led to the formation of the party of the Pharisees; and that this very naturally called forth an opposition which embodied itself in the party of the Sadducees. In the time of John Hyrcanus, nephew of Judas Maccabæus, Josephus speaks of the Pharisees as having such influence with the common people that "they would be believed even if they uttered anything against the king or high-priest." The Sadducees were always opposed to them; always watched all their movements, opinions, and aims, with jealousy; always contended

with them for power, and always embodied in their own ranks no small part of the learning, the wealth, and the influence of the nation. The main subject of division between them was one that pertains to the very point before us. It was not the question about the existence of angel or spirit, or the question of predestination, as has been sometimes said, but it was whether the Scriptures are to be regarded as the only rule of faith and practice. The Pharisees insisted on the authority of tradition, and claimed that the oral or unwritten law was of equal authority with the written; while the Sadducees rejected all traditions and ordinances of men not expressly sanctioned by the Scriptures. So Josephus says expressly: "Their custom was, to regard nothing except the Laws [that is, the written Laws-the Old Testament]; for they reckon it as a virtue to dispute against the doctors in favor of the wisdom (copías) which they follow." Ant. xviii. 1, 4. Again, in Ant. xviii. 10, 6, he says, "The Pharisees inculcated many rules upon the people, received from the fathers, which are not written in the Law of Moses; and on this account the sect of the Sadducees reject them, alleging that those things are to be regarded as rules which are written" [in the Scriptures], "but that the traditions of the fathers are not to be observed."

The rise of these contending sects must, at all events, be referred to a time which preceded the Maccabees-the time when it is pretended by objectors that the Book of Daniel was composed. But the moment when these two parties were formed, the extent of the Jewish Scriptures was, of course, a matter that was fully and permanently decided. It is impossible to suppose that the Sadducees would concede to their antagonists the right to introduce new books into the canon, or that a new book could be introduced without producing controversy. This would have been giving up the very point in dispute. No book could be introduced, or could be recognised as entitled to a place there, which was not acknowledged by both parties as having been written by a true prophet, and as being believed to be divinely inspired. If the Book of Daniel, then, was the work of that age, and was falsely attributed to the Daniel of the exile, it is impossible that it could have been introduced into the canon.

(d) It may be asked, in addition, why, if the Book of Daniel was written in the time of the Maccabees, and was then introduced into the canon, the Book of Ecclesiasticus, and other books of the Apocrypha, were not also introduced? If the

book of Daniel was spurious, what was there that should entitle that to a place in the canon which could not have been urged in favor of the "Book of Wisdom," or of some of the other books of the Apocrypha? Yet these books never found a place in the canon, and were never regarded as belonging to it; and there was, therefore, some reason why Daniel had a place there which could not be applied to them. The only reason must have been that the Book of Daniel was regarded as the genuine work of the Daniel of the exile, and therefore written by a prophet before the times of inspiration ceased.

(3.) We refer, third, in proof of the genuineness and authenticity of the Book of Daniel, to the New Testament.

Daniel is expressly mentioned in the New Testament but once, and that is by the Saviour, in Matt. xxiv. 15, and in the parallel passage in Mark xiii. 14. In the former passage the Saviour says, "When ye, therefore, shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place (whoso readeth let him understand), then let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains." In the latter place the same passage reported by another writer-" But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not (let him that readeth understand), then let them which be in Judea," &c.

These, it must be admitted, are the only places in the New Testament where Daniel is directly quoted, though it cannot be denied that there are others which seem to imply that the book was known, and that it was intended to be referred to. Comp. the argument in Hengstenberg, Authentie des Daniel, pp. 273-277. The passages of this nature referred to by De Wette, § 255, (3), and commonly relied on, are the following:1 Peter i. 10, seq. Compared with Daniel xii. 8, seq. 2 Thess. ii. 3.

1 Cor. vi. 2.

Heb. xi. 33.

66

66

66

vii. 8, 25.

In regard to these passages, however, it may be doubted of some of them (2 Thess. ii. 3, 1 Cor. vi. 2) whether there is in them any designed allusion to any prophet of the Old Testament; and of 1 Pet. i. 10, that the allusion is so general that it cannot be demonstrated that Peter had his eye on Daniel rather than on the other prophets, or that he necessarily included Daniel in the number; and of the other passage (Heb. xi. 33,) ("Stopped the mouths of lions"), that, from anything that appears in the passage, it cannot be demonstrated that Paul