Testimonies of the Christian Fathers Respecting the Apocrypha

The fourth argument, is, that these books were not received as Canonical, by the Christian Fathers, but were expressly declared to be Apocryphal.

JnsTiN Martyk does not cite a sinsjle passage, in all his writinpjs, from any Apocsyph.d book.

The first catalogue of the books of the Old Testament which we have, after the times of the apostles, from any Christian writer, is that of M.:hto bishop of Sardis, before the end of the second century, which is preserved by F’iUsebius. The fragment is as follows, “Mr.juiTO to his brother OnksiMi’s, greeting. Since you have often earnestly requepted of ine, in consequence of your love of leari(ing,a colkcfion of the Sacred Scriptures of the Law, and the Prophets, and what rela»cs to the Saviour, and concerning our whole faith; and since, moreover, you wish to obtain an accurate ktujwlcdge of our ancient books, as it respects their number, and order, I have used dilia;ence to accomplish this, knowing your sincere affection towards the faith, and your tarnesl desire to become acquainted witti the word: and that striving after eternal life, your love to God induces you to prefer these to all other thins;s. Wherefore, ^oin<^ into the East, and to the very place where these things were published and transacted; and having made diligent search after the books of the Old Testament, I now subjoin, and send you, the following catalogue. Five books of Moses, viz. Genesis,Exndus, Leviticus, Numbers and Dput(;ronomy. Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Four books of Kings, Two of Chronicles, The Psalms of David, The Proverbs of Solomon, (or) Wisdom,* Ecclciastes, The Song of Songs, Job, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Twelve in one book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Ezra.“t I OsiGEN also says,” We should not be ignorant, ‘’ that the Canonical books are the same which the H brews delivered unto us, and are twenty two in au nber,according to the numb..r of letters of the Hebrew alphabet. ‘^’ Then besets dou ti, in order, the names of the books, in Greek and Hebrew.

* Whether Melito, in this catalogue, by the woitl Wisdom, meant to designate a distinct book; or whether It was used as an other name for Proverbs, seems doubtful. The latter has generally been understood to be the sense; and this accords with the understanding of the ancients; for Rutin, in his translation of this passage of Busebius,renders ■Traoij-iaj >; (So(pla SaLrmonis Froverbia, guce est sapientia; that is. The Proverbs of Solcmonwhich is Wisdom. Pineda, a learned Romanist, says, “The word Iflsilom should hero be taken as explicative of the former, and should be understood to mean, The Proverbs.”

t Euseb. Hist. Ecc. Lib. v. c 24.

Athanasius, in his Synopsis, says, ‘’All the Scriptures of us Christians are divinely inspired; neither are they indefinite in Iheir number, but determined, and reduced into a Canon. Those of the Old Testament are. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Joshua, Jiido;es, Ruth, Four books of Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Job. The twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, P^zekiel, Daniel.”

HiLAKV, who was contemporary with Athanasius, and resided in France, has numbered the Canonical books of the Old Testanient, in the following manner, “The five of Moses, the sixth of Joshua, the seventh of Jud2;es including Ruth, the eighth of first and second Kings; the ninth of third and fourth Kings; the tenth of the Chronicles, two books; the eleventh, Ezra (which included Nehemiah;) the twelltli, the Psalms. Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Son of S )ngs, the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth; the Twelve Prophets, the sixteenth; then, Isaiah and Jeremiah including Lamentations and his Epistle, Daniel, Ezekiel, Job, and Esther, making up the full nninber of twenty two.” And in his Preface, he adds, “That these books were thus numbered by our ancestors, and handed down by tradition from them.”*

GuKGOiiY Nazianzen exhorts his readers to study the sacred books with attention, but to avoid

* Proleg. in Psalmos.

/ such as were Apocryplial; and then gives a list of the books of the OJfl Testament, and at’cordino: to the Jewish nielhod, makes the“nuinl)er two and TWENTY. He complains of some, that min2;led the Apocryphal books with those that were inspired “Of the truth of which last,” says he, “we have the most perfect per’^uasion, therefore it seemed good to me, to enumerate the Canonical books, from the beginning: and those which belong to the Old Testament are two and twenty, according to the number of the Hebrew alphabet, as I have understood.” Then he proceeds to say, “Let no one add to these divine books, nor take any thing away from them. I think it necessary to ad’i this, that there are other books besides those which I have enumerated as constituting the Canon, which however do not appertain to it; but were proposed by the early Fathers, to be read for the sake of the instruction which they contain.” Then, he expressly names, as belonging to this class,

THE WISDOM OF SoLOMON, THE WISDOM OF SiRACH,

Esther, Judith, and Tobit.*

Jerome, in his Ej)isrlp to Paulinus, gives us a catologue of the bouks of the Old Testament, exactly corresponding with that which Protestants receive. “Which,” says he, “we believe agreeably to the tradition of our ancestors, to have been inspired by the Holy Spirit.”

* Epist. ad Thcod. and Lib. Carm.

Epiphanius, in his book conccrninjr Weiochts and Measures, distributes the books of the Old Testament into four divisions, of five each. “The’ first of which contains the Law; next, five Poetical books, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs; in the third division, he places Joshua, Judges including Ruth, First and Second Chronicles, Four books of Kings. The last dve, the twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiol, Daniel. Then there remain two, Ezra and Esther,” Thus he makes up the nnml)cr twknty-two.

Cykil of Jerusalem, in his Catechism, exhorts his / catechumen diligently to learn from ti e church, what books appertain to the Old and New Testament, and he says, “Read nothing which is Apocryphal. Read the Scriptures, namely, the twenty-two books of the Old Testament, which were translated by the Seventy-two interpreters.” And in another place, “Meditate, as was said, in the twenty two books of the Old Testament, and if you wish it, I will give you their names.” Here follows a catalogue, agreeing with those already given, except that he adds Baruch to the list. When Baruch is mentioned as making one book with Jeremiah, as is done by some of the Fathers, it is most reasonable to understand those parts of Jeremiah, in the writing of which, Baruch was concerned, as particularly the lii. chapter; for, if we understand them as referring to the separate book, now called Baruch, the number, which they are

5e.

so careful to “preserve, will be ‘exceeded. This Apocryphal Baruch never existed in the Hebrew, and is never mentioned separately, by any ancient author, as Bellarmine confesses. This book was originally written in Greek, but our present copies differ exceedingly from the Old Latin translation.

The coupxil of Laodicka forbad the reading of any books in the churches, but such as were Canonical; and that the people might know what these were, a catalogue was given, answering to the Canon which we now receive.

Origen barely mentions the Maccabees. Atha-NAsius takes no notice of these books. Etsebius, in his Chronicon, speaks of the History of the Maccabees, and adds, “These books are not received as divine Scriplures”

Philastkius, an Italian bishop, who lived in the latter part of the fouith Century, in a work on Heresy, says ‘“It was determined by the apostles and their successors, that nothing should be read in theCalholic church, but the Law. Prohets, Evangelists, &c.” — And he complains of certain Heretics, “That they used the book of Wisdom, by THi. son or SiRACH, who lived long after Solomon.”

Chrysostom, a man who excelled in the knowledge of the Scriptures, declares, “That all the divine books of the Old Testameni were ori<j:;i!ially written in the Hebrew tongue, and that no other books were received.”*

* Horn. 4. In Gen.

]mf Jerome, already mentioned, who Imd dilig;entiy studied the Hibrcw ScripUircs, by the .tid of the brst Jewish leacliers, entitis into this subjt ct more fully and accurately than any of the rest of the Fathers. In lii 2;encral Pix-face to ids version of the Scriptures, lie mentions the books which he had translated out of Hebrew into Lniin; “All besides them,” sa3s lie, “must be placed amona; the Apocryphal. Therefore, VN’isdom, which is aserilxnl to

Solomon, THK BOOK OF JfcSUS THt; SON OF SiRACH,

JuDrrn, ToBiT, and 1’asiok, are not in the Canon. I have found the lirst bnuk of. JVIaccabees in Hebrew (Chaldee); the second in Greek, and ;is the style shows, ii must have been composed in ihat language.” And in his Preface to Ezra and Nehemiah, (always reckoned one l)0(di by the Jews,) he says, “Let no one bo dislurbed, mat 1 have edited but one book nniler this name; nor let any one j)lease himself with the dreams contained in lb third and foui’lh Apociyphal bo(dis, ascribed to this author; for with the Hebrews, Kzra and Nehemiah make but one book; and those things not contained in this are to be lejected, as not belonging to the Canon.” And in his preface to thebioks of Solomon, bespeaks “of Wisdom, and Ecclesiaslicus; the former of which” he says, “he found in Hebrew, (Chaldee) but not the latter, which is never found among the Hebrews, but the style strongly savours o fllie Grecian eloquence.” He then adds, “As the chujcii reads the books of Judith, Tubil, and the Maccabees, but does not receive them among the Canonical Scriptures, so also, she may read these two books for the edification of the common people, but not as authority to confirm any of the doctrines of the church.”

Again, in his Preface to Jeremiah, he says, “The book ofBaruch, the scribe of Jeremiah, is not read in Hebrew, nor esteemed Canonical, therefore, I have passed it over.” And in his Preface to Daniel, “This book among the Hebrews has neither the history of Susanna, nor the song OF the three Children, nor the eabees of Bel and the Dragon, which we have retained, lest we should appear to the unskilful to have curtailed a large part of the Sacred Volume.”

In the Preface to Tobit, he says, “The Hebrews cutoff the book of Tobit from the catalogue of Divine Scriptures.”

And in his Preface to Judith, ‘’Among the Hebrews, Judith is placed among the Hiagiographa which are not of authority to determine controversies.”

RuFiN, in his Exposition of the Creed, observes, <’That there were some books, which were not called Canonical, but received by our ancestors; as the Wisdi. m of Solomon, and another Wisdom of the Son of Sirach; of the same order, are the books of Tobit, Judith, and the Maccabees”

Grkgobt the First, speaking of the testimony in the Maccabees respectiug the death of EleazeVf says, “Concerning; which tiling we do not act inonlinately, althous;h we lirin; our testimony from a hook, which is not Canonical.”

Augustine, is the only one among the Fathers, who livd within four hundred years after the apostles, /lo seems to favour the introduction of these six disputed books, into the Canon. In his work On Christian Df)ctrine, he gives a list of the books of the Old Testament,amon2; which he inserts, Tobit,. Judith, the two books of Maccabees, two of Esdras, Wisdom, and Ecclesiasticus. These two, last mentioned, he says, are called Solomon’s, on account of their resemblance to his writings; although it is known, that one of them was composed by the Son of Sirach: which deserves to be received among the prophetical books.” But this opinion he retracted afterwards. *

Augustine was accustomed to the Greek and Latin Bibles, in which those books had been introduced, and we must suppose, unless we would make him contradict himself, that he meant in this place, merely to enumerate the books then contained in the Sacred volume; for in many other places, he clearly shews, tlmt he entertained the same opinion of the books of the Old Testament, as the other Fathers.

In his celebrated work, Op the citv of God, he expresses this opinion most explicitly, In that * Sec ills Retractions.

whole period, after the return from the Babylonish captivity, after Malachi, Haj2;2;ai, Zachriah, and Ezra, Ihcy had no prophets, even until the time of the advent of our Saviour. As our L.ord says. The Lino and the Prophets loej’e until John. And ven the reprobate Jews hold that Hag2;ai, Zachariah, Ezra, and Maiaciii, were the last books received into Cononical authority.”

In lii.s commentary on the xl. Psalm, he says, “If any adversary should say, you have foraged these prophecies; let the Jewish books be produced — The Jews are our librarians.’^ And on the lvi. Psalm, “When we wish to prove to the Pagans, that Christ was predicted, we appeal to writings in possesion of the Jews j — they have all these Scripures.”

And aa;ain, in the work first cited, The Israelitish nation, to whom the oracles of God were intrusted never confounded false prophecies with the true, but all these writings are harmonious’. “Then, in another work, in speaking of the books of the Maccabees, he says, “This writing, the Jews never received, in the same manner as the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, to which the Lord gave testimony, as by his own witnesses.” And frequently in his works, he confines the Canonical hooks, to those properly included in this threefold division. He also repeatedly declares, that the Cano’dcal scriptures which are of the most eminent authority, are the books committed to the Jews. But in the eip;liteenth book of The CITY OP God, speaking of Judith, he says,” Those things which are written in this book, it is said the Jews have never received into the Canon of Scripture.” And in the seventeenth book of the same work, “There are three books of Solomon, which have been received into Canonical authority. Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles; the other two, Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, have been called by his name, through a custom which prevailed, on account of their similitude to his writings; but the more learned are certain that they are not his; and they cannot be brought forward with much confidence for the conviction of gainsayers.”

He allows that the book of Wisdom may be read to the people, and ought to be preferred to all other tracts; but he Joes not insist, that the testimonies taken from it are decisive.

And respecting Kcclksiasticus, he says, when speaking of Samuel’s prophesying after his d -ath, But if this book is objected to, because it is not found in the Canon of the Jews,” &c.

His rejection of the books of Maccabees from the Canon is repeated and explicit. “The calculation of the times after the restoring of the temjile is not found in the Holy Scriptures, wliicli are called Canonical, but in certain other Oooks, among which are the two books of M iccabees. — The Jews do not receive (he Maccabees, as the Law and the Prophets.”

D 2

It may be admitted, however, that Augustine entertained tt)0 high an opinion of these Apocryphal books, but it is certain, that he did not put them on a level with the genuine Canonical books.

He mentions a custom which prevailed in his time, from which it appears, that although the Apocryphal books were read in some of the churches, they were not read as Holy Scripture, nor put on a level with the Canonical books; tor he in-, forms us, that they were not permitted to be read from the same desk as the Canonical Scriptures, but from a lower place in the church.

Innocent the first, who lived about the same time, is also adduced as a witness, to prove, that these disputed books were then received into the Canon. But the Epistle which contains his catalogue is extremely suspicious. No mention is made of this Epistle by any writer for three hundred years after the death of Innocent. But it is no how necessary to our argument, to deny, that in the end of the fourth, and beginning of the fifth century, some individuals, and perhaps some councils, received these books as Canonical: yet thore is strong evidence that this was not the opinion of the universal church; for in the council of Chalctdon, which is reckoned to be oecumenical, the Canons of the coui.cil uf Laodicea “which contain a cataloguiJ of the genuine books of the Old Testament, are adopted. And it lias been shewn already, that these Apocryphal Iwoks were exckuletl from that catalogue.

But it can be proved, that even until the time of the mcetingof the council of Trent, by which these books were solemnly Cdnoaized, the most learned and judicious of. the Popish writers, adhere to the opinions of Jekomk and the ancients; or at least, make a marked ilistinction between these disputed books, and those which are acknowledged to be Canonical by all. A few testimonies fromdistinguislucl writers, from the commencement of the sixin century, down to the era of the Reformation, shall now be given.

It deserves to be particularly observed, here, that in one of the laws of the Emperoi Justinian, concerning Ecclesiastical matters, it was enacted, “That the Canons of the first lour general councils should be received, and have the force of laws.”

Anastasius, Patriarch of Antioch, in a work on the Creation, makes “The number of books which God hath appointed for his Old Testament” to be no more than twenty two; although he speaks in very liigli terms of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus.

Leontius, a learned and accurate writer, in his book agahist the Skcts, acknowledges no other Canonical books of the Old Testament, but those which llie Hebrews received; namely, Twelve Historical books. Five Prophetical, Four ot Doctrine

and lubli uciion, and One of Psalms 3 making the number twenty two, as usual; and he makes not the least menlion of any others.

Gregory, who lived at the beajinning of the seventh century, in his book of Morals, makes an apology for alleging a passage from the Maccabees, and says, “Though it be not taken from the Canonical Scri|)ture, yet it is cited from a book which was published for the edification of the church.”

Isidore, bishop of Seville, divides the Canonical books of the Old Testament into ‘hree orders, the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa; and afterwards adds: “That there is a fourth order of books, which are not in the Hebrew Canon of the Old Testament.” Here he names these books, and says, “Though the Jaws rejected them as Apocryphal, the church has received them among the Canonical Scriptures.”

John Daviasckne, a Syrian Presbyter,who lived early in the eighth century, adheres to the Hebrew Canon of the Old Testament, numbering only two and twenty books. Of Maccabees, Judith, and Tobit, hesiys not one word; but he speaks “Of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as elegant and virtuous writings, yet not to be numbered among the Canonical books ot Scripture, being never laid up in the ark of the Covenant.”

Venehable Bkde follows the ancient method of dividing the books of the Old Testament into three classes; but he remarkably distinguishes the Maccabees from the Canonical bouks, b> classing them with the writini!;s of Jose|)hiH, anil .T’iliii-5 Ihc Africjii.

Alcitin, the disciple of ficde, snys, ‘’.Thut the hock of the son of Sinich w.is re|jiUc(l an A|jocryphal ami dubious SLM-iptun;.”

RiTPEiJT, a lenrned man of the twelfth ceiiluiy, expressly rejects the hook of Wisiloni, from i.ie Canon.

Peter ATauritius, after sjivino; a catalogue of the autheiiiic Sci iptures of the Old rpsiainent,adds the six disputed hooks, and says, “They are useful and commendal)le in the. church, but are not to be placed in the sain.’ dignity with the rest.”

Hugo de S. Victoke, a Saxon by hirtJi, but who resided at Pans, gives a catalogue of the books of the Ohl Testament, which includes no otners but the two and iwetily received from the J.ws; and of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, and Judith, hesals, ‘’’Phey«are used in the church, but not written in the Cinon.’’

RiCH.AKD DE S.VicTORE, also of the twelfth century, in his Books of Collections, explicitly di’clares, ‘’Tlial there arc but twenty two books in the Canon; and thai Wisdom Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Jndilh, and the Maccabees are not esteemed Canonical, although they are rearl in the churches”

Pt ‘rER LoMRAKU, in his Scholastic History, enumerates the books of liu’ Old Testament, thus; File books of M ise>, eight of the prophets, and nine of the Hagiographa, which leaves no room for these six disputed books; but in his Preface to Tobit, he sa’s expressly, “That it is in no order of the Canon;” and of Judith, ‘Hhat Jerome, and the Hebrews, place it in the Apocrypha.” Moreover, he calls the story of Bel and the Dragon, a fable; and says, that the History of Susanna, is not as true as it should be.

In tills century, also, lived John op Salisbury, an Englishman, a man highly respected, in his time. In o.ie of his Epistles, he treats this subject at large, and piofesses to follow Jerome, and undoubtedly to believe, that thre are but twenty twi: books in the Canon of the Old Testament, all which he names in order,and adds, “That neither the buok of Wisdom, nor Ecclesiasticus, nor Judith, nor Tobit, nor the Paslor, nor the Maccabees, are esteemed Canonical.”

In the thirteenth century, the opinion of the learned was the same, as we may see, by the Oii-Di>’ARY Gloss on the Bible, in the composition of which, many persons were concerned, and which was highly approved by all the doctors and pastors in the Western churches. In the Pieface to this Gloss, they are reproached with ignorance who hold all the books put into the one volume of Scripture, in equal veneration. The difference between these books is asserted to be as great as betleen certain, and doubtful works. The Canonical books are declared, “To have been written by the inspiration of the Holy

G7

Ghost; but who were the authorsof the others, is unknown.” Then it is declared: “Thai the church permitteth the reading; of the Apocryphal books, for devotion and instiuction, but not for authority to decide matters of controversy in faith. And that there are no more than twenty two Canonical books of the Old Testament, alu all besides are Apocryphal.” Thus we have the common judgment of the church, in the thirteenth century, in direct opposition to the decree of the council of Trent, in the sixteenth. But this is not all, for when the writers of this Gloss come to the Apocryphal books, they prefix a caution, as: “Here begins the book of Tobit, which is not in the Canon;” — “Here begins the book of Judith, which is not in the Canon,” and so of every one of them: and to confirm their opinion they appeal to the Fathers.

Hugo, the cardinal, who lived in this century, wrote commentaries, on all the Scriptures, which were universally esteemed; in these, he constantly keeps up the distinction between the Canonical, and Ecclesiastical books; and he explicitly declares thafKcclesiasticus, Wisdom, Judith, Tobit, and the Maccabees, are Apocryphal; — dubious; — not Canonical; — not received by the church for proving any mailers of faith, but for information of manners.”

Thomas Aquinas, also, the most famous of the schoolmen, makes the same distinciion between these classes of bonks. He maintains, that the bo<.k of Wisdom was not helci io i)e a part of the Canon, and ascribes it to Philo. The story of Bel and the Diag;on, he calls a fable; and he shows clearly enough, that he did not believe that Ecclesiasticus was of Canonical authority.

In the fourteenth century, no man acquired so extensive a reputation, for his commentaries on the Bible as, Nicholas I^yra, a converted Jew, In his Preface to the book of Tobit, he says, ‘• That bavins; commented on all the Canonical books, from the beginnlna; of Genesis, to tJie end of Revelation, his intention now was, to write on those books which are not Canonical.” Here he enumerates, Wisdom, Ecclesiasiicus, Judith, Tobit, and the Maccabees, and then adds, “The Canonical books are not only before these in lime, but indignity ami authority” — And ajrain, “I’hese are not in the Canon, but received by ihc church to be read foi” instruction in manners, not to he used for deciding controversies respecting; Ibe faith; whereas the others are of such authority, that whatever tlicy contain is to be held as undoubted truth;”

The Englishntan, William Occam, of Oxford, accounted the most learned doctor of his age, in his Dialogues, acknowledges, “That, that honour is due only to the divir e writers of Scripture, that we should esteem them free from all trror.” Moreover in Ins Prologues, he fully assents to the opinion of Jerome and Gregory, “That neither Judith, nor Tohit, nor the Maccabees, nor Wisdom, nor EcclesiasUcus, are to be rceived into the same place of honour, as the inspired books; for,” says he, “The church doth not number them among the Canonical Scriptures.”

In the fifteenth century Thomas Anglicus, sometimes called the angelical doctor on account / of his excellent judgment, numbers twenty four books of the Old Testament, if Ruth be reckoned separately from Judges, and Lamentations from Jeremiah.

Paul Burgensis, a Spanish Jew, who, after his conversion to Christianity, on account of his supe- ’ nor knowledge and piety, was advanced to be bishop of Burgos, wrote Notes on the Bible, in which he retains the same distinction of books, which has been so often mentioned.

The Romanists have at last, as they suppose, found an authority for these disputed books, in THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE; from the Acts of which, they produce a decree, in which the Six disputed books are named, and expressly said to be written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.

If this Canon were genuine, the authority of a council sitting in such circumstances, as attended the meeting of this, would have very little weight; but Dr. Cosins has shewn, that in the large copies of the Acts of this council, no such decree can be found; and that it has been foisted into the abridgmen*-, by some impostor, who omitted something else, to make room for it; and thus preserved the number of Canons unchanged, while the subsiance of them was altered.

Alphonso Tostatus, bishop of Avila, who, on account of his extraordinary learning, was called the wonder of the world, has given a clear and decisive testimony on this subject. This learned man declares, “That these controverted books were not Canonical, and that the church condemned no man for disobedience, who did not receive them as the other Scriptures; because they were of uncertain origin; and it is not known that they were written by inspiration. And again, “because the church is uncertain, whether heretics have not added to them.” This opinion he repeats in several parts of his works.

Cardinal Ximenes, the celebrated editor of the Complutensian Polyglot, in the preface to that work, admonishes the reader, that Judith, Tobit, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Maccabees, with the Additions to Esther and Daniel, which are found in the Greek, are not Canonical Scripture.

John Picus, the learned count of Mirandula, adhered firmly to the opinion of Jerome and the other Fathers, on the subject of the Canon.

Faber Staptjlensis, a famous doctor of Paris, acknowledges that these books are not in the Canon.

LuDovicus VivEs, one of the most learned men of his agn, in his commentaries on AugutIne’s CiTV OF God, rejects the third and fuurth books of Ebdras, and also the History of Susa;»nah, and TJel, as Apocryphal. He speaks also in such a man* ner of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticns as to shew, thai he did not est:’em them Canouic:il; for, he makes Philo to be the author oF the former, and 4:he Son of Sirach of the latter, who lived in the time of Ptolemy, about an hundred years after the last of the Prophets; and of the Maccabees, he doubts, whether Josephus was the author or not; by which, he sufliciently siiews,that he did not believe, that they were written by inspiration.

But there was no man in this ae who obtained so hi2;h a reputation for learning and critical skill, as Erasmus. In his exposition of the Apostle’s Creed and the Decalogue, he discusses this question respecting the Canmical books; and after enumerating the usual books of the Old Testament, he says, “The ancient Fathers admitted no more;” but of the other books, afterwards received into Ecclesiastical use, (naming the whole which vve esteem Apocryphal,) “it is uncertain what authority should be allowed to them; but the Canonical Scriptures are such, as without controversy, are believed to have been written by the inspiration of God.” And in his Scholia on Jerome’s Preface to Daniel, 416 expresses his wonder, that such stories as Bel and the Dragon, should be publicly read in the churches. In his address to students of the

Scriptures, he admonishes them to consider well, “That the church never intended to give the same authority to Tobit, Judith, and Wisdom, which is given to the Five Books of Moses, or the Four Evangelists.”

The last testimony which we shall adduce, to shew, that these books were not universally, nor commonly received, until the very time of the Council of Trent, is that of Cardinal Cajetaw, the oracle of the church of Rome. In his commentaries on the Bible, he gives us this, as the rule of the church. ^’ That those books which were Canonical with Jerome, should be so with us,- and that those which were not received as Canonical by him, should be considered as excluded by us.” And he says, “The Church is much indebted to this Father for distinguishing between the books which are Canonical-, and those which are not, for thus he has freed us from the reproach of the Hebrews, who otherwise might say, that we had framed a new Canon for ourselves.” For this reason, he would write no commentaries on these Apocryphal books, for, says he, “Judith, Tobit, Maccabees, Wisdom, and the Additions to Esther, are all excluded from the Canon, as insufficient to prove any matter of faith, though they may be read for the edifying of the people.”

From the copious citations of testimonies which we have given, it is evident, that the books in dispute, are Apocryphal, and have no right to a place in the Canon; and that the council of Trent acted unwisely, in decrcein^,vvith an anathema annexed, that they should be received as divine. Surely no council can make that an inspired hook, which was not written by inspiration. Certainly these books did not belong to the Canon while the apostles lived, for they were unknown both to Jews and Christians. Sixtus Sinensis, a distinguished Romanist, acknowledges, that it was long after the time of the apostles, that these writings came to the knowledge of the whole Christian church. But while this is conceded, it does not terminate the controversy, for among the many extraordinary claims of the Romanist church, one of the most extraordinary is, the authority to add to the Canon of Holy Sciipture. It has been made sufficiently manifest, that these Apocryphal hooks were not included in thcCanonduring the first three centuries; and can it be doubted whether the Canon was fully constituted before the fourth century? To suppose, that the Pope, or a Council, can make what books they please Canonical, is too absurd to deserve a moment’s consideration. If,upon this principle they could render Tobit and Judith Canonical, upon the same, they might introduce Herodotusy Livy, or even the Koran itself.

G ‘2