time of Daniel. Thus in Ps. v. 7, As for me, I will come into thy house in the multitude of thy mercy; and in thy fear will I worship toward thy holy temple." Ps. cxxxviii. 2, “I will worship toward thy holy temple," &c. Comp. Ps. cxxi. 1. So Psalm xxviii. 2, "Hear the voice of my supplication-when I lift up my hands toward thy holy oracle."

(4.) The custom was sanctioned by what Solomon said at the dedication of the temple. In his prayer on that occasion, it is implied that the custom would prevail, and what was said at that time could not but be regarded as giving a sanction to it. Thus in the prayer offered at the dedication of the temple, he seems to have supposed just such a case as that before us :-"If they sin against thee, and thou be angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captive into the land of the enemy, far or near; if they shall bethink themselves in the land whither they were carried captives, and repent, and pray unto thee toward their land which thou gavest unto their fathers, the city which thou hast chosen, and the house which I have built for thy name, then hear thou their prayer," &c. 1 Kings viii. 44— 49. Comp. also vs. 33, 35, 38, 44.

(5.) It may be added that nothing was more natural than for Daniel to do this. It is not said that he turned his face toward the “temple,” but toward "Jerusalem." It was true that the temple was in ruins; true that the ark was removed, and that the Shekinah had disappeared. It was true, also, that Jerusalem was in ruins. But it is to be remembered that Jerusalem had been long regarded as the city of God, and his dwelling-place on the earth; that this was the place where his worship had been celebrated for ages, and where he had manifested himself by visible symbols; that this was the place where the ancestors of Daniel had lived and worshipped, and where he believed the temple of God would be built again, and where God would again dwell-a place sacred in the recollection of the past, and in the anticipations of the future-a place where Daniel had himself been taught to worship God when a child, and where he anticipated that they who should be delivered from the long captivity would again offer sacrifice and praise; and nothing, therefore, was more natural than for him in his prayer to turn his face to a spot hallowed by so many sacred associations.

D. A fourth objection designed to show that the book betrays a later origin than the time of the captivity is, that Daniel is represented (ch. vi. 10,) as entering into his chamber, or upper room"úxɛpor—when he prayed, and that the custom of setting apart a chamber in a house for private devotion, sprang up in a later age among the Jews, as one of the results of formalism and ostentation in religion. Bertholdt, p. 30.

In regard to this custom among the later Jews, see the Notes on the passage referred to. But there are two remarks to be made, showing conclusively that this objection has no force:

(a) There is no evidence that it was such an upper room"ὑπερῷον as is here referred to. All that is fairly implied in the word in this passage-ny might be applied to any house, and at any time. It denotes, indeed, an upper room, upper story, or loft; but not necessarily such an upper room as was built by the Jews in later times, and designated by the word nepov. It is not improbable that Daniel would retire

to such a part of his house to pray, but it is not necessarily implied in this word that the chamber referred to had been specifically constructed as a place of prayer.

a

(b) But even supposing that this was the case, it is impossible to prove that such a custom may not have prevailed in the time of the captivity. We cannot now trace the origin of that custom among the Jews, and though it undoubtedly prevailed in a later age, yet no one can demonstrate that it did not exist also at a time as early as that of the exile. Indeed, there is some evidence that it did prevail at an earlier period among the Hebrews. Thus in 2 Samuel xviii. 33, it is said of David on the death of Absalom, "And the king was much moved, and went up to the chamber over the gate, and wept," &c. So in the case of the prophet Elijah, during his residence with the widow of Zarephath, an upper chamber or loft was assigned the prophet, 1 Kings xvii. 19, called " loft where he abode"--by the very word which is used in Daniel. The same word occurs again in Judges iii. 20, 23, 24, 25, in such case rendered parlor, and referring to a private room where one might retire, and, as the word implies, to an upper room-doubtless a small room built on the flat roof of the house, as being more retired and cool. And again, in 2 Kings i. 2, it is said of Ahaziah that "he fell down through a lattice in his upper chamber that was in Samaria.” And again in 2 Kings iv. 10, the Shunamitess proposes to her husband to make for the prophet Elisha " a little chamber on the wall" a place of retirement for him. These passages show that the custom of constructing a chamber or upper room for the purpose of retirement or devotion prevailed long before the time of Daniel, and, therefore, the fact that he is represented as having such a place in his house in Babylon, if that be the fact referred to here, cannot be alleged as evidence that the book was written at a later period than the captivity.

E. It is alleged as an evidence that the book was written at a period later than the exile, that Daniel is represented (in the same passage, ch. vi. 10,) as praying three times a day, a custom, it is said, which originated in later times.

But the reply to this is obvious. (a) The custom of praying three times a day in sacred devotion, is one of which there are traces in earlier times. Thus the Psalmist, Ps. lv. 17, "Evening, and morning, and at noon, will I pray and cry aloud, and he shall hear my voice." (b) Daniel may have had such a custom without supposing that he derived it from any one. (c) These are the natural times of prayer; times that devout persons will be likely to select as seasons of devotion ; the morning, when one just enters upon the duties and trials of the daywhen it is appropriate to give thanks for preservation, and to ask of God that he will guide, direct and sustain us; the evening, when, having finished the toils of the day, it is appropriate to render thanksgiving, to pray for the remission of the sins of the day, and to seek the blessing and protection of God as we lie down to rest; and noon, when we feel the propriety of dividing the labours of the day by an interval of rest and devotion-thus keeping up, amidst the cares of the world, the life of religion in the soul. (d) There is no certain evidence that this became a regular and settled usage in later times among the Jews, any more than that it was of a former age.

F. It is alleged that what is said in ch iv. 27, of the efficacy of almsgiving in averting the judgments of God, is an opinion that had its origin in later times, and proves that the book must have been written at a period subsequent to the captivity. The passage is, "Let my counsel be acceptable unto thee, and brake off thy sins by righteousness, and thine iniquities by showing mercy to the poor; it may be a lengthening of thy tranquillity." This, it is said, could have been written only at a time when great merit was attributed to almsgiving, and when such acts, it was supposed, would avert divine vengeance from the guilty; and this opinion, it is alleged, sprang up at a period subsequent to the captivity. That the sentiment here adverted to prevailed in later times, there can be no doubt; but there is no proof that it is used in the passage before us in the sense in which it prevailed in the time when the books of the Apocrypha were written. And, in reference to the objection here urged, all that is necessary, it seems to me, is to refer to the Notes on the passage, where its true meaning is fully considered. The short answer is, that the passage does not teach any such peculiar doctrine on the subject of almsgiving as prevailed in later times among the Jews, but only the general doctrine, which is found everywhere in the Bible, and which accords with all just notions on the subject, that if a sinner will abandon the error of his ways, and perform acts of righteousness, it will conduce to his happiness, and in all probability to the lengthening out of his days.

G. One other objection, under the general head now under consideration, remains. It is derived from what are called the ascetic customs referred to in the book. On this point De Wette refers to ch. i. 8—16, as compared with 2 Macc. v. 27, and with the Apocryphal portion of the Book of Esther.

In regard to this objection, also, perhaps all that is necessary is to refer to the Notes on the passage. The reason which Daniel gave for not partaking of the food and wine furnished by the king of Babylon, is not such as would be derived from any ascetic or monastic opinions, but such as would be given by any Jew of that age who was conscientious. It was “that he might not defile himself with the portion of the king's meat, nor with the wine which he drank” (ch. i. 8); that is, he purposed to keep himself clear from all participation in idolatry, and to save himself from the temptations to which one would be exposed if he indulged freely in the luxuries in eating and drinking which were practised at the royal table. As this solution explains the passage on principles that would be like to influence a pious Jew, and which would be proper in young men everywhere, it is unnecessary to seek any other, and improper to suppose that there is an allusion here to superstitious customs which prevailed among the Jews in later times.

VI. A sixth objection to the authenticity and genuineness of the Book, is derived from the place assigned it in the canon. This objection is urged by Bertholdt, Bleek, Eichhorn, Kirms, and De Wette, and is substantially this, as stated by Bertholdt. It is well known that the Jews, in the time when the Talmud was composed, divided their sacred books into three parts-the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiography. The latter class embraced the Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and the two

books of the Chronicles. This classification also existed in the time of Jerome, who obtained it evidently from the Jews in Palestine. The objection is, that in collecting and arranging the books of the Old Testament, Daniel was assigned to this latter class, and was not placed among the Prophets. The book professes to be, in a great part, prophetical, and if genuine, its true place, it is argued, would be among the prophets; and, it is said, it would have been placed in that class if it had been in existence at the time when the collection of the sacred books was made. It is argued, therefore, that it must have had a later origin, and that when it was written it was assigned a place in that general collection of writings where all those books were arranged which could not be placed with either of the other classes. This objection is summarily stated by Prof. Stuart (Critical History and Defence of the Old Testament Canon, p. 266,) in the following words: "The argument runs thus: No reason can be assigned, except the lateness of the composi tion, why Daniel and the Chronicles should be placed among the Kethubim or Hagiography, since the first belongs to the class of the later prophets, and the second, like Samuel, Kings, etc., to the class of the former prophets. The fact, then, that Daniel and the Chronicles are joined with the Kethubim, shows that they were written after the second class of the scriptural books, viz. the Prophets, was fully defined and completed. Now, as this class comprises Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, so we have conclusive evidence that Daniel and Chronicles must have been composed, or at all events introduced into the canon, at a period subsequent to Nehemiah and Malachi, which was about 430-420, B. C.?"

În reference to this objection, perhaps all that would be necessary for me would be to refer to the very full and satisfactory argument of Prof. Stuart on the Canon in the work just named, ¿ 9—13, pp. 214-298. A few remarks, however, on two or three points, seem to be demanded to show the results which have been searched by a careful investigation of the subject, and how entirely without foundation is the objection.

A. The objection, then, takes for granted the following things, which it is impossible now to prove: (1.) That the division of the books of the Old Testament found in the Talmud, and prevailing among the Jews in the time of Jerome, in which Daniel is placed in the third class, the Kethubim or Hagiography, is the ancient and original division; for if this is not so, then Daniel may have been placed among the prophets, and of course the objection would not then exist. There is the strongest reason to believe that this was not the arrangement that prevailed at an earlier period, but that it was made long after the time of Josephus. At any rate it cannot be proved to have been the original arrangement. (2.) It takes for granted that the main reason for inserting Daniel and the books of the Chronicles in the Hagiography was the recent origin of these books, or the fact that they were composed after the second classthe prophets--was completed. and collected together; for the whole weight of the objection rests on this. If any of these books in the Hagiography were in fact written at an earlier period than some in the second class the Prophets, or if any other reason existed for referring them to the class of the Hagiograghy than the lateness of their composition, then the objection would have no force. But this difficulty of itself would be fatal to the objection, for there is every reason to suppose that the late

ness of the composition was not the reason why these books were placed in the Hagiography, and that this was never supposed or implied by those who made the arrangement. For, not to speak of the Book of Job, which is found in that class, and which is probably one of the oldest compositions in the Bible, if not the very oldest, what shall we say of the Psalms, and the Book of Proverbs, and the Book of Ecclesiastes, and the Canticles, which are also found in that class? Assuredly it could not have been pretended that these writings belonged to the Maccabean age, and that they were inserted in the Hagiography because they were supposed to have had a later origin than the Prophets; for, in all ages, the Jews have regarded the Book of Proverbs, the Book of Ecclesiastes, and the Canticles, as the genuine production of Solomon. Why then were they put into the Hagiography-for there the Psalms, and the Book of Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon, have always been, in every triplex division of the books of the Old Testament which has ever been made? (3.) The objection takes for granted that the two classes, the Prophets and the Hagiography, have been fixed and uniform, like the first, the Law, as to the number of books, in each ever since the division was made; that the same number of books, and the same arrangement, has been found which existed in the time of Josephus; and that no causes have ever operated since to produce a change in the arrangement; for if this is not so it would be fatal to the objection. But this can never be shown to be true. Indeed, there is every reason to believe that the contrary is true, and if it cannot be demonstrated to be true, the objection is without force. But,

B. There are strong positive arguments to show that the fact that Daniel, in the later divisions of the Hebrew books, is placed in the list of the Hagiography or Kethubim, is no argument against the genuineness and authenticity of the book.

(1.) There is every presumption that in the earliest arrangement of the books of the Old Testament, the book of Daniel, with several that now occupy the same place in the Talmudical arrangement, was ranked with the second class-the Prophets. This presumption is founded, mainly, on what is said of the division of the books of the Old Testament by Josephus. It is true that he has not enumerated the books of the Old Testament, but he has mentioned the division of the books in his time, and, of course, in earlier times, in such a way as to make it morally certain that Daniel was not in the third class, but in the second class the Prophets. His account of this division (Against Apion, b. 1, ¿ 8) is as follows: "We have not a countless number of books, discordant and arranged against each other, but only two and twenty books, containing the history of every age, which are justly accredited as divine [the old editions of Josephus read merely, which are justly accredited'ɛîa (divine) comes from Eusebius' translation of Josephus, in Ecc. Hist. iii. 10]; and of these five belong to Moses, which contain both the laws and the history of the generations of men until his death. This period lacks but little of 3000 years. From the death of Moses, moreover, until the reign of Artaxerxes, king of the Persians after Xerxes, the prophets who followed Moses have described the things which were done during the age of each one respectively, in thirteen books. The remaining four contain hymns to God and rules of life for men. From the time of Artaxerxes,