books, though not inspired, are undoubtedly genuine.  Another designation of the books in question was ecclesiastical, books to be read in the churches for edification, but not as possessing authority in matters of faith.  But at the era of the Reformation, when these books were separated by the Protestant churches from the true canon, and placed by themselves between the books of the Old and the New Testament, Jerome’s old epithet Apocrypha, or the Apocryphal books, was applied to the entire collection.

How the term Apocrypha, hidden, became associated with the idea of spurious or anonymous is doubtful.  According to Augustine, it was because the origin of these books was not clear to the church fathers.  A later conjecture, expressed by the translators of the English Bible, is “because they were wont to be read not openly and in common, but as it were in secret and apart.”  Still more probable is the opinion that they were so called from their close relation to the secret books containing the mysteries—­secret doctrines—­of certain heretical sects.

2.  The date of several of the apocryphal books is very uncertain; but none of them can well be placed as early as the beginning of the third century before Christ.  Though some of them were originally written in Hebrew or Aramean, they have been preserved to us only in Greek or other versions.  None of them were ever admitted into the Hebrew canon.  The ground of their rejection is well stated by Josephus (Against Apion 1, 8), namely, that from the time of Artaxerxes, Xerxes’ son (Artaxerxes Longimanus, under whom Ezra led forth his colony, Ezra 7:1, 8), “the exact succession of the prophets” was wanting.  The Alexandrine Jews, however, who were very loose in their ideas of the canon, incorporated them into their version of the Hebrew Scriptures.  How far the mass of the people distinguished between their authority and that of the books belonging to the Hebrew canon is a question not easily determined.  But Josephus, as we have seen, clearly recognized their true character.  Philo also, as those who have examined the matter inform us, though acquainted with these books, never cites any one of them as of divine authority.  The judgment of these two men doubtless represents that of all the better informed among the Alexandrine Jews, as it does that of the Saviour and his apostles, who never quote them as a part of the inspired word.

3.  During the first three centuries of the Christian era very few of the church fathers had any knowledge of Hebrew.  The churches received the Scriptures of the Old Testament through the medium of the Alexandrine Greek version, which contained the apocryphal books.  It is not surprising, therefore, that the distinction between these and the canonical books was not clearly maintained, and that we find in the writings of the church fathers quotations from them even under the name of “divine scripture.”  But Jerome,