A new history of ecclesiastical writers containing an account of the authors of the several books of the Old and New Testament, of the lives and writings of the primitive fathers, an abridgement and catalogue of their works ... also a compendious history of the councils, with chronological tables of the whole / written in French by Lewis Ellies du Pin.

SECT. II.

The Canon of the Books of the Old Testament, of Books Doubtful, Apocryphal, and Lost, that belonged to the Old Testament.

WE call the Books of the Bible Canonical Books, because they are received into the Canon, or the Catalogue of Books, that we look upon as Sacred (a). Opposite to these are those Books, we usually call Apocryphal (b), which are not acknowledged as Divine, but rejected as spurious. The first Canon or Catalogue of the Holy Books was made by the Jews; 'tis certain they had one, but 'tis not so certainly known who it was that made it. Some Persons reckon upon three of them, made at different times by the Sanedrim, or the great Synagogue of the Jews (c); But 'tis a great deal more probable, that they never had more than one Canon (d), or one Collection of the Holy Books of the Old Testament, that was made by Ezrah after the rebuilding of Jerusalem, and was afterwards ap∣proved

and received by the whole Nation of the Jews, as containing all the Holy Books. Josephus▪ speaking of this business, in his first Book against Appion, says;

There is nothing in the World that can boast of a higher degree of certainty, than the Writings Authorized amongst us, for they are not subject to the least Contrariety, because we only receive and approve of those Prophets, who wrote them many years ago, according to the pure Truth, by the Inspiration of the Spirit of God. We are not therefore allowed to see great numbers of Books that contradict one another. We have only Twenty two that comprehend every thing of moment that has happen'd to our Nation, from the beginning of the World till now, and those we are obliged firmly to believe. Five of them are Written by Moses, that give a faithful Relation of all Events, even to his own Death, for about the space of Three Thousand years; and contain the Genealogy of the Descendants of Adam. The Prophets, that succeeded this admirable Legislator, in Thirteen other Books, have Written all the memorable Passages that fell out, from his Death until the Reign of Artaxerxes, the Son of Xerxes, King of the Persians. The other Four Books contain Hymns, and Songs, composed in the Praise of God, with abundance of Precepts, and Moral Instructions, for the regulating of our Manners. We have also every thing Recorded that has happen'd since Artaxerxes down to our own Times; but because we have not had, as heretofore, a Succession of Prophets, therefore we don't receive them with the same Belief as we do the Sacred Books, concerning which I have discoursed already: and for which we preserve so great a Veneration, that no One ever had the boldness to take away; or add, or change, the most inconsiderable thing in them. We consider them as Sacred Books, and so we call them; we make solemn Profession inviolably to observe what they Command us, and to Die with Joy if there be occasion, thereby to preserve them.

Origen, St. Jerome, the Author of the Abridgment attributed to St. Athanasius, St. Epiphanius, and several other Christian Writers do testifie, That the Jews received but Twenty two Books into the Canon of their Holy Volumes. The Division that St. Jerome has made of them, who distributes them into three Classes, is as follows. The first comprehends the Five Books of Moses, which is called The Law; The second contains those Books that he calls the Books of the Prophets, which are nine in number; namely, the Book of Joshuah, the Book of Judges, to which, says St. Jerome, they use to joyn the Book of Ruth; the Book of Samuel, which we call the first and second Book of Kings; the Book of Kings, which contain the two last. These Books are followed by three great Prophets, viz. Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, which are three different Books, and by the twelve minor Prophets, which make up but one Book. The third Class comprehends those Books that are usually called, the Hagiographa, or Holy Scriptures; the first of which is the Book of Job; the second the Psalms of David; the three following are the Books of Solomon, which are, the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Canticles; the sixth is Daniel, the se∣venth the Chronicles, the eighth Ezrah, which is divided into two Books by the Greeks and Latins, and the last is the Book of Esther.

Thus, says St. Jerome, all the Books of the Old Testament; amongst the Jews, just make up the number of Twenty two, five whereof were Written by Moses; eight by the Prophets, and nine are the Hagiographa. Some Persons make them Twenty four in number, by separating Ruth, and the Lamentations of the Prophet Jeremy, and placing them amongst the Hagiographa: This Prologue to the Bible, continues he, may serve as a Preface to all those Books, that we have Translated out of the Hebrew; and we ought to understand, that whatsoever Book is not to be found in this number is Aprocryphal. From hence it follows, that the Book of Wisdom, commonly attributed to Solomon, the Ecclesiasticus of Jesus the Son of Sirach, Judith, Tobit, and the Pastor, don't belong to the Canon no more than the two Books of Maccabees do; one of which was originally Written in Hebrew, and the other in Greek, as the style sufficiently shews.

Thus we see how St. Jerome has clearly explained the Canon of the Scriptures, as they are received by the Jews; yet we have reason to doubt, whether he has been very exact in this Catalogue, since in some particulars it does not agree with Josephus. For although they are agreed about the number of the Books, yet they notoriously differ in the manner of distributing them. Josephus places all the Historical Books, to the number of Thirteen, amongst the Prophets, adding to St. Jerome's nine, Daniel, the Chronicles, Ezrah, and Job. And consequently he sets only those in the third rank that are purely Moral Trea∣tises, as the Psalms of David, and the Three Books of Salomon. But besides this difference, we may probably suppose, that Josephus has not reckoned the Book of Esther in the number of the Canonical Books. For he is of opinon, that they were all written before the Reign of Artaxerxes, but as for the History of Esther, he believed it fell under the Reign of that King, as we may see in his Antiquities▪ 'Tis therefore very likely, that he never considered that Book as Canonical, but that to make up the number of the 13 Books of the Prophets, he reckoned the Book of Ruth separately from that of the Kings. 'Tis in pursuance of this Canon, that Melito, and the Author of the Abridgment of the Scri∣ptures, attributed to St. Athanasius, reject the Book of Esther, and separate the Book of Ruth from that of the Kings. Some Persons pretend, that he has not owned the Book of Job, because he makes no mention of that History, but we ought not to wonder, that he passes it by, since it has no relation to the Nation of the Jews, and he only designed to speak of them in his Antiquities. Others imagine, that he acknowledged Ecclesiasticus for a Canonical Book, because he has cited a passage out of it in his second Book against Appion. But it is visible, as Pithaeus has remarked, that this Citation, which is not to be found in the ancient Version of Ruffinus, has been since inserted into the Text of Josephus (e).

The ancient Christians have followed the Jewish Canon in the Books of the Old Testament. There are none quoted in the New Testament (f), but those that were received into the Canon of the Jews, and the greatest part of these (g) are frequently cited there. The first Catalogues of the Canoncial

Books made by the Ecclestastick Greek and Latin Authors, comprehend no more, but at the same time we ought to affirm, that even those Books, that have been since added to the Canon, have been often quoted by the Ancients, and indeed sometimes under the name of Scripture.

The first Catalogue, we find of the Books of Scripture amongst the Christians, is that of Melito Bishop of Sa••dis, set down by Eusebius in the 4th Book of his History, chap. 26. It is entirely conformable to that of the Jews, and contains but twenty two Books, in which number Esther is not reckon'd, and the Book of Ruth is distinguished from that of the Judges. Origen also in a cer∣tain passage drawn out of the Exposition of the first Psalm, and produced by Eusebius in his 6th Book, chap. 25. reckons twenty two Books of the Old Testament, but he places the Book of Esther in this number, and joins the Book of Ruth with that of Judges. The Council of Laodicea, which was the first Synod that determined the number of the Canonical Books, St. Cyril of Jerusalem in his fourth Catechetick Lecture, St. Hilary in his Preface to the Psalms, the last Canon falsely ascribed to the Apostles, Amphilochius cited by Balsamon, A••astasius Sinaita upon the Hexameron, lib. 7. St. John Damascene in his fourth Book of Orthodox Faith, the Author of the Abridgement of Scripture, and of the Festival Letter, attributed to St. Athanasius, the Author of the Book of the Hierarchy, attributed to St. Dionysius, and the Nicephori, follow the Catalogue of Melito. Gregory Nazianzen is of the same opinion in his thirty third Poem, where he distributes the Books of Scripture into the three Classes, viz. Historical, Poetical, and Prophetical (h). He reckons up twelve Historical Books, namely, the five Books of Moses, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the two Books of Kings, the Chronicles, and Ezrah; The five Poetical Books are Job, David, and the three Books of Salomon; and there are like∣wise five Prophetical Book, viz. the four Great, and the twelve Minor Prophets. Leontius in his Book of Sects follows this Catalogue and distribution, only he reckons the Book of Psalms by it self. St. Epiphanius, in his Eighth Heresie, counts twenty seven Canonical Books of the Old Testa∣ment; nevertheless, he adds nothing to Origen's Canon, but he separates the Book of Ruth from that of Judges, and divides into two the Book of Kings, the Chronicles, and the Book of Ezrah. Several of the Latins reckon twenty four Books, whether it be that they add Judith and Tobit, as St. Hilary has observed of some in his time, or whether they separate Ruth, and the Lamentations of Je∣remiah, as St. Jerome has observed. Victorinus upon the Apocalypse, St. Ambrose upon the same Book, Primasius the Author of the Poem against Marcion, Bede, and the Author of the Sermons upon the same Book, attributed to St. Austin, and several others, reckon twenty four Books of the Old Testament, and say, they are represented by the twenty four Elders in the Revelations. The first Catalogue of the Books of the Holy Scriptures, where they added some Books to the Jewish Canon, is that of the third Council of Carthage held Anno Dom. 397. when the Books of Judith, Tobit, the Wisdom of Sa∣lomon, Ecclesiasticus, and the two Books of the Maccabees were reckoned in the number of Canoni∣cal Books. There is at the end of this Canon a Postil that is very remarkable: Let the Church be∣yond the Sea be consulted (to confirm, or) before this Canon is confirmed. De confirmando isto Canone Ecclesia Transmarina Consulatur. This Catalogue of Canonical Books is confirmed by the Authority of Pope Innocent the First, in an Epistle to Exuperius, and by that of a Roman Council held under Gelasius, A. D. 494 (i), and is followed in the Decree of Eugenius to the Armenians, and by the holy Council of Trent. All these Catalogues serve to acquaint us in general, what were the Books that were always believed to be certainly Canonical, and which they are, whose Authority have been questioned by Antiquity. But nevertheless we ought to speak of them particularly, for although they were not received in the first Ages by all Churches, nor reckoned by all Authors in the Ca∣non of the Books of the Bible, yet they were frequently cited by the Ancients, and sometimes too as Books of Scripture, and for this reason were afterwards admitted into the Canon along with the first.

The Book of Esther, according to some, was in the Jewish Canon, but others say, it was not rec∣koned at all. It is placed in the Canon, as we have already observed, by Origen, by the Council of Laodicea, by St. Jerome, by St. Epiphanius, by St. Hilary, by St. Cyril, not to mention the Council of Carthage, or the Decisions of Pope Innocent and Gelasius. Josephus, Melito, St. Athanasius, and the Author of the Abridgment of the Scripture, Gregory Nazianzen, Leontius, the Author of the Book of the Hierarchy, and Nicephorus, reject it. The Action of Esther is commended by Clemens Romanus in his Epistle to the Corinthians, and by Clemens Alexandrinus, lib. 1. Paedag. and l. 5. Strom. which makes it appear, that this Book was known and esteemed by the first Christians. The six last Chap∣ters of this Book are not to be found in the Hebrew. Origen is of opinion, that it was formerly ex∣tant in that Language, and has been since lost. But it is very evident, that they are taken out of several places, and that they contain some Pieces that were probably collected by the Hellenist Jews. And for this reason Dionysius, Carthusianus, Nicolaus de Lira, Hugo Cardinalis, and afterwards Sixtus Senensis, and several of the Moderns, turn them out of the Canon of the Holy Books.

The Book of Baruch is not to be found by name in the Jewish Canon, but perhaps it was joined together with Jeremiah. Melito, Origen, St. Hilary, Gregory Nazianzen, and St. Epiphanius, don't make any mention of it, confounding it perhaps with Jeremiah, but St. Jerome expresly rejects it out of the Canon in his Preface to Jeremiah. On the contrary, the Council of Laodicea, St. Cyril of Jeru∣salem, St. Athanasius in his Festival Letter, and the Author of the Abridgment, annex it to Jeremiah, along with the Lamentations of that Prophet. It is cited under the name of Jeremiah, and as a Book of Scripture by Clemens Alexandrinus, lib. 1. pedag. ch. 2. by St. Cyprian in the Fourth Book of his Testimonies to Quirinus, ch. 6. by Eusebius in his Books of Demonstration; by St. Basil in his Fourth Book against Eunomius; by St. Ambrose in his First Book of Pennance, as also in his First

Book of Orthodox Faith, ch. 2. by St. Austin, lib. 18. de Civ. Dei; by St. Chysostom in his Homily of the Trinity, and by many other Church-Writers that are more modern. It is not necessary to take notice, that it was received by the Council of Carthage, by Pope Innocent, by the Roman Council under Gelasius, by the Decree of Eugenius, and by the Canon of the Council of Trent.

The Book of Tobit is rejected in all the ancient Catalogues of the Books of the Bible, and not re∣ceived into the number of the Canonical Books. Origen in his 27th Homily upon the Numbers says, it is one of those Books that were read to the Catechumens, but that it is not Canonical (k). St. Jerome, who frequently rejects it as an Apocryphal Book, that was neither to be found in the Jewish or Christian Canon, yet gave himself the trouble to Translate it, speaks of it very advantageously in his Preface, and calls it a Sacred Volume in his Hundred and fortieth Epistle. Ruffinus in his Expositi∣on of the Creed expresly rejects it as an Apocryphal Book. But besides that it is received by the Council of Carthage, and by Pope Innocent and Gelasius, it appears, that in Irenaeus's time it was reckoned amongst the Books of the Prophets, because this Author, l. 1. ch. 34 has observed, that the Gnosticks, who distributed the Prophets into several Classes, and attributed them to their pre∣tended Divinities, assign the Prophets Haggai and Tobit to Eloi. This Book is often cited by St. Cyprian, who likewise calls it Holy Scripture in his Book of Alms and Good Works. It is also cited by St. Hilary upon the 129th Psalm, where he makes use of the Authority of this Book to prove the Intercession of Angels. The same Father making a Catalogue of the Canonical Books, observes, that several Persons made the number of them twenty four, by adding the Books of Tobit and Ju∣dith. St. Ambrose explained it throughout as a Book of Scripture, and cited it in his Hexameron, and so has St. Chrysostome in his 13th Homily to the People of Antioch, and the Author of the Apo∣stolick Constitutions in the 8th Book, chap. 45.

The Book of Judith is not only rejected in all the ancient Catalogues of the Canonical Books, but it is also scarcely mentioned by the Ancients, though Clemens Romanus in his Epistle to the Corin∣thians, Clemens Alexandrinus, l. 4. Strom. Tertullian in his Book of Monogamy, and in his first Book against Marcion, commend the Heroick Action of Judith, which makes it evident, that they had all of them an esteem for that Book. St. Jerome, after having several times rejected it as an Apocry∣phal Book, and observed in his Preface before it, that we ought not to prove any contested Do∣ctrines out of it, adds, that we read, that the Council of Nice, rekoned it in the number of the Holy Scriptures; Sed quia hunc librum Synodus Nicaena in numero Sanctarum Scripturarum legitur com∣putasse. We ought to believe, that St. Jerome reported this passage upon the Faith of another, there being not the least appearance of its truth. For besides, that we find nothing like it in the Creed, in the Canons, and Letters of the Council of Nice, and that it is highly probable, there are no o∣ther Acts of that Assembly, is it to be imagined, that if they had made a Canon concerning the Sa∣cred Books, not so much as one Man, that assisted in that affair, would make mention of it? Is it to be thought, that St. Athanasius, St. Epiphanius, St. Cyril, who cou'd not be ignorant of the Deci∣sions of the Council of Nice, wou'd have rejected the Book of Judith as Apocryphal, if it had been reckoned amongst the Canonical Volumes by the Authority of a Council they so highly reverenced? In short, wou'd St. Hilary have contented himself with saying, that some Persons added this Book to the Canon, and not rather have openly declared, when he was speaking of the Canonical Books, that the Church received it? St. Jerome himself, if he had been assured of this business, wou'd he have rejected this Book so often, and not alledged this Catalogue of the Council of Nice, which ought to have been the infallible rule for him to follow? We must therefore say, that this Father received this Information from another. But if the Council of Nice reckoned not this Book of Ju∣dith in the number of Canonical Books, yet the Latine Church has since done it by the Council of Carthage, by the Mouth of Innocent the First, by the Roman Council under Gelasius, and by the Council of Trent, which followed the Decree of Eugenius.

The Book of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus (l), in the antient Catalogues are placed in the number of those Books that are very profitable, but not Canonical; Nevertheless, these Books are cited by St. Barnabas, by Clemens Romanus, by Tertullian in his third Book against Marcion, and in his Book of Prescriptions, by Clemens Alexandrinus, by St. Cyprian in several places; likewise frequently by Ori∣gen, by St. Hilary upon the 140th Psalm; and according to some by St. Basil, by St. Ambrose, by St. Jerome, and St. Austin; but it does not follow, that all these acknowledged them for Canonical. On the contrary, Origen, St. Jerome, and St. Hilary, ranked them amongst the Apocryphal Books; And St. (m) Basil plainly says, in the Preface to his Commentary upon the Proverbs, That there are but three Books of Solomon; and he sufficiently shews in several other places, that he did not own the Books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for Canonical Books. Philastrius and Ruffinus reject them as well as St. Hilary, who has written a Letter about them to St. Austin. Theodoret is of the same Opinion in his Preface to the Canticles. One cannot say that of St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, and St. Austin, who seem to own them for Canonical, as it has been determined by the Council of Carthage, by Inno∣cent the First, by the Roman Council under Gelasius, by the Decree of Eugenius, and by the Coun∣cil of Trent.

To conclude, the two Books of Maccabees are not entred into the Canon of the Books of the Holy Scripture in the Catalogues of Melito, of Origen, of the Council of Laodicea, of St. Cyril, of St. Hilary, of St. Athanasius, of St. Jerome, and others whom we have Named. In Eusebius's Chronicon, they are opposed to the Canonical Books, in these words, That which we have hitherto reported of the An∣nals of the Jews, is drawn out of the Holy Scripture; that which follows is taken out of the Books of the Maccabees, Josephus, and Africanus. Tertullian in his Book against the Jews, relates the History of

the Maccabees, but yet he does not cite the Books of the Maccabees as Books of Scripture. St. Cy∣prian quotes them very often under that Character, and so does St. Ambrose, and St. Chrysostome. St. Jerome himself, who rejects them in several places, cites them sometimes as Books of Scripture. St. Austin quotes them in his Book of the concern which we ought to have for the Dead, to prove that we may offer Sacrifice for the Deceased; and he assures us, l. 18. de Civit. Dei, that although these Books were never received as Canonical by the Jews, yet they were acknowledged for such by the Church. But in his first Book against Gaudentius, taking occasion to speak of the action of R••zias, who killed himself, he thus delivers his Thoughts about the Books of the Maccabees; The Jews don't receive these Books of the Maccabees as they do the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms; but the Church receives them, and they are not unprofitable, provided one Reads and Understands them with some sort of Moderation, and they deserve esteem particularly for the History of the Seven Maccabees. In the last Canon attributed to the Apostles, we find the three Books of Maccabees reckoned amongst the Canonical Books, but there is reason to believe, that this passage has been added, because they are not acknowledged for Canonical Books by Nicephorus, Johannes Damascenus, and several others, who have owned the Authority of the Apostolical Canons. They are received by the third Council of Car∣thage, and by Innocent the First. There is but one of them approved by the Roman Council under Gelasius. It is a very surprizing thing, that after all these Authorities, St. Gregory the Great should thus Speak of them in the Nineteenth Book of his Morals; We don't without Reason, says he, pro∣duce Testimonies drawn out of those Books that are not Canonical, since they have been Published for the Edification of the Church. We ought to make the same Reflection upon all the rest of the Greek and Latin Ecclesiastical Writers, whom we have cited, and who since the Decisions of the Councils of Carthage and Rome, and the Declaration of Innocent the First, reckon but Twenty two or Twenty four Canonical Books of the Old Testament. Which makes it evident, that these Definitions have not been followed by all Authors, and all Churches, till at last it was intirely determined by the Council of Trent.

I shall not speak of the Histories of Susanna and Bel, that are in Daniel, and have been rejected as false, or as Apocryphal, by several of the ancients, since I have already discoursed largely about them.

Besides these Books, that were at last received into the Canon of the Books of the Old Testament, there are many others, that either were not admitted into the Jewish Canon, although they were more Ancient, or that having been composed since, have been esteem'd and cited by some Christian Authors, but never found any place in the Canon, or those lastly that were supposititiously obtruded upon the World by Hereticks, and by consequence were always rejected.

In the first place there are several Books cited in the Old Testament, that have been totally lost long since, and are not Named in the Jewish Canon. The first of these Books, as they commonly pretend, is the Book of the Battels of the Lord, that is cited in the 21st Chapter of Numbers, vers. 24. But it is not certain, as we have elsewhere observed, that there is any mention made of a Book in this place: we ought to pass the same Judgment upon the Book of the Covenant, that is mentioned, as they assert, in Exodus, chap. 24. but is in reality nothing else, but the Body of the Laws, which Moses received from God, and delivered to the People. Neither is there any greater certainty, that the Book of Jasher, cited by Joshuah, chap. 10. vers. 13. and in the second Book of Samuel, chap. 11. vers. 18. was an Historical Book, although I confess there is some reason to believe it was. But one cannot hardly doubt, that the Books of Nathan, of Gad, of Shemaiah, of Iddo, of Ahijah and Jehu, cited frequently in the Books of the Chronicles, were Memoirs composed in all probability by these Prophets. We must say the same thing of the Book of the Sayings and Acts of the Kings of Israel, oftentimes cited in the Kings, which is different from the Chronicles, as we have already observed. To these must be added the Book of Samuel, cited in the first Book of Chronicles, and the last Chap∣ter. The Discourses of Hosai, [or of the Seers] that are mentioned in the second Book of Chronicles, chap. 33. vers. 19. The History of Uzziah, written by the Prophet Isaiah, and cited in the second Book of Chronicles, chap. 26. vers. 22. The Three Thousand Parables written by Solomon, as it is said in the first of Kings, chap. 4. vers. 32. The Five Thousand, or rather the Thousand and Five Songs, with the several Volumes concerning all manner of Plants and Animals, that were likewise composed by Solomon, as we are informed in the same place. The Descriptions of Jeremiah, that are mentioned in the second Book of Maccabees, chap. 2. vers. 1. The Prophecy of Jonas that is lost. The Memoirs of Johannes Hircanus, [mentioned 1 Maccab. 16. 23, 24.] and the Books of Jason, that are mentioned in the second Book of Maccabees.

'Tis usually Ask'd, Whether these Books cited in the Old Testament were Canonical or no? This Question in my Opinion is asked to no purpose, since we have not any remainders of them at pre∣sent; but however, certain it is, that they are not Canonical in the same Sense as we usually take the Word; that is to say, they were never received into the Canon, either of the Jewish or Christian Church; and no body knows whether they ought to have been admitted there, in case they had been still preserved. Neither can we positively tell, whether they were written by the Inspiration of God, or were the mere Works of Men, only the latter Opinion seems to be more probable. In the first place, because the greater part of them having been composed before Ezrah, he had without question reckoned them in the Jewish Canon, if he had looked upon them to be Divine Books. Se∣condly, because we must otherwise be obliged to say, that the Church has lost a great part of the Book of God. Thirdly, because the Apostles never cited any other Books than what we now have, as Books of Scripture. Fourthly, because the Fathers are all agreed, that these Books were Apocry∣phal,

and place the Book of Enoch, cited by St. Jude, in the same rank. This is the Opinion of Origen, of St. Jerome, St. Austin, and indeed of all the Fathers except Tertullian. For although Theodoret, and some other Greek Fathers, give the Title of Prophets to the Authors of these Books that are cited in Scripture; yet it does not follow from thence, that they composed these ancient Memoirs by the Inspi∣ration of God. It is not necessary, that all the Writings and Discourses of a Prophet should be In∣spired by Heaven. Upon this account, St. Austin has very Judiciously observed, cap. 38. l. 28. de Civit. Dei, that although these Books, cited in the Holy Scriptures, were written by Prophets that were Inspired by the Holy Ghost; yet it is not necessary to say, that they were Divinely Inspired: For, says he, these Prophets might one while write like particular Men, with an Historical Fidelity, and another while like Prophets that followed the Inspiration of Heaven: Alia sicut homines Historicâ di∣ligentiâ, alia sicut Prophetas Inspiratione Divinâ scribere potuisse.

Let us now go on to the Books that are not in the Canon of the Old Testament, and which we have at present. The Catalogue of them is as follows. The Prayer of King Manasses, who was Cap∣tive in Babylon, cited in the second Book of Chronicles, where it is said, that this Prayer was written amongst the Sayings of Hosai, who has Translated into Greek the Discourses of the Seers, or Prophets. It is to be found at the end of the ordinary Bibles, there is nothing lofty in it, but it is full of pious Thoughts. The Latin Fathers have often quoted it: It is neither in Greek nor Hebrew, but only in Latin.

The third and fourth Books of Ezrah are also in Latin in the common Bibles, after the Prayer of Manasses. The third, which is to be found in the Greek, is nothing but a Repetition of what we find in the two former; it is cited by St. Athanasius, St. Austin, and St. Ambrose, St. Cyprian likewise seems to have known it. The fourth, that is only to be had in the Latin, is full of Visions and Dreams, and some Mistakes. 'Tis written by a different Author from that of the third; for besides the great difference of Style, one of them reckons Nineteen Generations from Aaron down to him, and the other but Fifteen.

The third Book of Maccabees contain a miraculous Deliverance of the Jews, whom Phiscon had exposed in the Amphitheatre at Alexandria, to the fury of Elephants. Josephus relates this History in his second Book against Appion. This Book of the Maccabees is to be found in all the Greek Edi∣tions. It is reckoned in the number of Canonical Books, in the last Canon attributed to the Apostles, but perhaps that has been added since; it's also mentioned in the Chronicle of Eusebius, and in the Au∣thor of the Abridgment of Scripture, attributed to St. Athanasius. This History, if it be true, hap∣pened about Fifty years before the Passages that are related in the other two Books, and therefore ought to be the first; It is without any Reason called the Book of Maccabees, since it does not speak of them in the least.

The fourth, containing the History of Hircanus, is rejected as Apocryphal by the Author of the Abridgment of Scripture, attributed to St. Athanasius. It is mentioned by scarce any of the Ancients. Perhaps it was taken out of the Book of the Actions of Johannes Hircanus, mentioned towards the end of the first of Maccabees. Sixtus Senensis assures us, that this account very much resembles Jo∣sephus's, but that he has abundance of his Hebrew Idiotisms there.

There is towards the end of Job in the Greek Edition, a Genealogy of Job, that makes him the fifth from Abraham, with the Names of the Edomitish Kings, and of the Kingdoms of his Friends. This Addition is neither in the Latin nor in the Hebrew. There is likewise in the Greek a Discourse of Job's Wife, that is not in the Hebrew, rejected by Africanus and St. Jerome. Towards the end of the Psalms in the Greek Editions, we find a Psalm that is not of the number of the Hundred and Fifty, made in the Person of David, when he was yet a Youth, after he had Slain the Giant Goliah. The Author of the Abridgment of Scripture, attributed to St. Athanasius, cites it, and places it also in the number of the Canonical Psalms. To conclude, at the end of Wisdom there is a Discourse of So∣lomon drawn from the eighth Chapter of the first Book of Kings.

We have not the Book of Enoch, so celebrated by Antiquity, and cited by St. Irenaeus, by St. Cle∣ment of Alexandria, by Tertullian, by Origen, by Athenagoras, by St. Jerome, and several other Fa∣thers: But we learn from those passages of it which the Fathers have quoted, and which still remain in the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, and in the Chronography of Syncellus, that it principally treated of the Stars, and their Virtues, of the Descent of Angels to the Earth to entertain a Com∣merce with the Daughters of Men, of the original of Giants occasioned by this correspondence, of Things that were to befal the Jews, of our Saviour, of the Destruction of Jerusalem, of the Disper∣sion of the Jews, and the last Judgment. It contains a World of Fictions upon these Subjects; For which Reason all the Fathers, except Tertullian, have look'd upon it as an Apocryphal Book, that▪ does not belong to the Patriarch Enoch. That which has caused all the difficulty, is that this Book seems to have been cited under Enoch's Name by St. Jude, in his Canonical Epistle, verse 14. And of this, says he, Enoch the Seventh from Adam Prophesied, saying, Behold the Lord cometh, &c. from whence one may conclude, That we ought either to reject the Epistle of St. Jude, or believe that the Book of Enoch truly belonged to that Patriarch. St. Austin avoids this difficulty, by saying, That the true Book of Enoch, cited by St. Jude, is lost, and that a spurious one has been since Father'd upon him. But it is not probable, that the Book of Enoch, cited by St. Jude, is different from that which was known to St. Irenaeus, to St. Justin, and the other Fathers that lived in the first Ages of the Chuch; And therefore St. Jerome, after Origen answers, That St. Jude might cite an Apocryphal Book if he pleased, and that this hindered not his Epistle from being Canonical, that even in the other Books of the New Testament, we find some passages that are drawn out of Apocryphal Books,

which ought not to diminish the Authority of the Canonical Books, or give any new power to the Apocryphal on••••. Some of the Modern Cr•…•… have pretended to unravel this difficulty with greater ease, by maintaining, that St. Jude does not here speak of the Book of Enoch, but only of a Prophecy of that Patriarch, which he had learnt by Tradition, as St. Paul reports the Names of Jannes and Jambres, the Egyptian Magicians of Phar•…•…, from the common Tradition of the Jews; but this Opinion being contrary to the Determination of all the Ancients, is in my Judgment very improba∣ble and ill-grounded, and we had much better relie upon St. Jerome's Solution.

The Book of the Assumption of Moses, from whence, as they pretend, St. Jude took the Relation of Michael the Archangel▪s Disputing with Satan about the Body of Moses, is not so famous in An∣tiquity; nevertheless it is cited by Origen, l. 3. Pri••c. and by St. Clement, l. 3. Strom. who there gives us an account of a Vision of Joshua and Caleb, that was taken out of this Book. Oecumenius in his Commentary upon the Epistle of St. Jude recites these Words of the Archangel to the Devil, the Lord rebuke thee Satan; Increpet te Deus O Diabole; as quoted from hence. St. Jerome tells us, it is an hard matter to say, from whence St. Jude took this passage; only he observes, that there is some∣thing like it to be found in the Prophecy of Zechariah, chap. 3. verse 2.

Origen likewise cites a Book, Entituled, The Assumption, the Apocalypse, or the Secrets of Elias. Syn∣cellus after him, pretends, that out of this Apocryphal Book, St. Paul has taken this Sentence in his Epistle to the Corinthians; The Eye hath not seen, nor the Ear heard the good Things that God hath pre∣pared for them that love him: As also that in the Epistle to the Galatians; Circumcision availeth no∣thing, &c. Moreover he is of Opinion, that this Sentence in the Ephesians, Awake thou that sleepest, is taken out of the Apocryphal Book of Jeremiah. But it may so happen sometimes, that like Sen∣tences may be found in two different Books, and yet it is not necessary to say, that one Author bor∣rowed them from the other.

Some Jews have Forged and Counterfeited those Books, that are by some attributed to the Patri∣archs; as for Example, the Books Intituled, The Generations, and the Creation, ascribed to Adam, The Revelation of the same, cited by St. Epiphanius. 'Tis also commonly believed, that he compo∣sed a Book about the Philosophers Stone; and that there was a Book of Magick extant, said to have been written by Cham, as we find in Cassian's eighth Conference, chap. 21. The Abridgment of Scri∣pture that goes under the Name of St. Athanasius, makes mention of the Book of the Assumption of Abraham. The Author of the Homilies upon St. Luke, attributed to Origen, in the 15th Homily, and some others quo••e the Book of the Twelve Patriarchs. The same Author in the 35th Homily, cites an Apocryphal Book, where Angels and Devils Dispute about the Salvation of Abraham. The Au∣thor of the above-mentioned Abridgment of Scripture, speaks of two Apocryphal Books, one of which is the Prophecy of Habakkuk, from whence as they pretend, the History Bel, that is in Daniel, was taken; and an Apocryphal Book that carries the Name of Ezekiel. Hermas, one of the most ancient Christian Writers, in his Pastor, ch. 2. cites the Prophesies of Eldad and Medad, that are mentioned in chap. 11. of Numbers. Origen and St. Ambrose cite a Book of Jannes and Jambres, the Magicians of Pharaoh, that is rejected by Gelasius, as an Apocryphal Book. There is also a Book of King Og placed in the number of Apocryphal Books by Gelasius.

The Ebionites have imposed a Book upon the World, Entituled, Jacob's Ladder, as Epiphanius testifies. Manes composed a Genealogy of the Sons and Daughters of Adam, as we are informed by St. Austin, and Pope Gelasius. In short, there were abundance of such kind of Books formerly to be found, composed either by the Jews, who had an admirable Talent at Fiction, or else by the Here∣ticks, who made use of them to give the greater Reputation to their Errors, so that it wou'd be an unprofitable, as well as a tedious Thing, to make an exact Catalogue. But I ought not to omit two passages cited in the New Testament, as if they were in the Prophets, which upon strict search are not to be found there, and which have given occasion to some Persons to imagine they were taken from other Books; The first is in St. Matthew, ch. 2. v. 23. Jesus, says he, dwelt in a City called Naza∣reth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Prophet, He shall be called a Nazarene. Now these Words, He shall be called a Nazarene, are not to be found in any of the Prophets that we now have, which has induced St. Chrysostome to imagine, that they are taken out of some other Prophet that is lost. Others pretend, that they are cited out of the 11th Chapter of Isaiah, vers. 1. where it is foretold, That a Branch shall grow out, which they call in Hebrew Netzer. Huetius thinks, that this passage is taken from the 13th Chapter of the Book of Judges, verse 5. where it is said, that he shall be a Nazarite from the Womb. But the most probable Opinion is that of St. Jerome, who supposes, that St. Matthew does not cite any Prophet in particular, but only all the Prophets, who have pre∣dicted, that our Blessed Saviour should be Holy, and Consecrated to God, as the Nazarites were.

The second passage is cited in the same Gospel, chap. 27. verse 9. Then, says he, was fulfilled that which was spoken in Jeremy the Prophet, saying, And they took the Thirty pieces of Silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the Children of Israel did value, and gave them for the Potters Field, as the Lord appointed me. This Prophesie is not to be found in Jeremiah, but there is something that seems to resemble it in Zechariah, chap. 11. verse 13. Origen in his 35th Treatise upon St. Matthew, pretends, that it ought to be said, that this passage is taken out of an Apocryphal Book called, The Secrets of Jeremiah, or else that we must affirm, that in this Gospel the Name of one Prophet is used for that of another. Some other Authors say, that this Prophesie has been struck out of the Book of Jeremiah. Others run to Tradition, which, as they give out, preserved this Prophesie of Jeremiah down to the time of St. Matthew. It is very probable, say some others, that this Prophesie being composed of the Words of Jeremiah, and the Thought of Zechariah, has been cited only under the

Name of Jeremiah, as in another Place a Prophesie of Malachi being joyned to one of Isaiah, is attri∣buted to the latter: But yet 'tis a great deal more probable, that St. Matthew having only wrote, as it was spoken in the Prophet, without Naming any one, they added in the Text of the Gospel, the Name of Jeremiah, that Evangelist not being accustomed to Name the Prophets, whom he cites. This is St. Jerome's Solution of the matter, which seems to be by far the Solidest.

NOTES.

(a) WE call the Books of the Bible Canonical, &c.] Some Persons say, that they are thus called, because they are the Rule of Faith; but the other Opinion is far more probable.

(b) Books that are called Apocryphal.] We don't know well why they were so called. This word comes Originally from the Greek, where it sig∣nifies to hide or conceal. St. Austin, L. 15. de Civit. Dei, Ch. 23. says, they are so called, because the Original of them is not known. Others, as St. Je∣rome and Gelasius, believe they had this Name given them, because they contained the hidden Mysteries of the Hereticks. St. Epiphanius ima∣gines this distinguishing Appellation was set upon them, because they were not kept in the Ark. The Signification also of this word is doubtful, one while they give this Name to all Books that are not in the Canon, another while only to erroneous or ill Books. Some of the Fathers make three Distinctions of Books, viz. The Ca∣nonical, the Doubtful, and the Supposisitious. Consult Origen upon the fourth Chapter of St. John. St. Athanasius in his Festival Letter, St. Gregory in the Poem to Seleucus. Eusebius, and the other Fathers, divide them but into two sorts, Canoni∣cal and Apocryphal: But then they distinguish the Canonical into two Classes. Indeed generally speaking they are ranged into three Classes, the Ca∣nonical of the first Rank, the Canonical of the second Rank, and the Apocryphal.

(c) Some Persons distinguish three Canons made at several times by the Sanedrim, or the great Sy∣nagogue of the Jews.] Serarius makes only two: The first made by Ezrah, and the Synagogue in his time: The second, either when they sent the LXX Elders to Translate the Bible, or when the Dispute about the Resurrection was so warmly discussed between the Sadducees and Pharisees: Genebrard supposes there were three; The first, composed by Ezrah, and approved of by the Sy∣nagogue; The second, appointed by a Grand As∣sembly of the Synagogue, when they sent the LXX, at which time, as he pretends, Tobit, Ju∣dith, Ecclesiasticus, and the Book of Wisdom, were added to the Canon; The third, at the time of the famous Controversie between the Sadducees and Pharisees, when the Books of the Maccabees, according to him, were Solemnly approved and received.

(d) But 'tis a great deal more probable, that they never had but one Canon.] It is unquestionably true, that Ezrah received, and collected the Sacred Volumes, and consequently that he was the Au∣thor of the Canon amongst the Jews. Neither they, nor the ancient Christians acknowledged any other. As for the Books, which as they pretend, were inserted into the other Canons, 'tis certain they were never owned by the Jews; and what they talk about the two great Assemblies of the Syna∣gogues, that were Convened upon that Occasion, is all a Chimera and Fiction. The Ancients themselves never make the least mention of the Approbation of the Synagogue or Sanedrim of the Jews, which our Moderns boast of so mightily. Some are of Opinion, That Nehemiah added the two Books of Ezrah to the Canon, and found their Notion up∣on what is said in the 2d. Book of Maccabees, ch. 2. v. 13. that he gathered together the Books of Da∣vid, and the Prophets, and the Books of the Kings, &c. But this only proves, that he erected a Library, as it is intimated in that place, and not made a Collection of the Sacred Books. Others say, that we ought to attribute this Canon to Judas Mac∣cabeus, because it is said in the first of Maccabees, Chap. 1. Verse 56. that Antiochus and his Ministers burnt and tore to pieces the Books of the Law: And in the second Book, Chap. 2. Verse 13, 14. the Jews of Jerusalem acquaint their Brethren that were in Egypt, that Judas Maccabeus had gather∣ed together all those things that were lost by rea∣son of the War. This does not prove that Ezrah's Canon was intirely lost, and that Judas com∣posed another, but only that he got other Copies of those Sacred Books that were burnt and torn under Antiochus, and made a Collection of seve∣ral pieces relating to the History of their Wars, which was never received into the Jewish Canon. Our Opinion is invincibly proved by the Con∣curring Testimonies of Josephus and St. Jerome.

(e) But it is visible, that this Citation has been since inserted into the true Text of Josephus.] The passage which, as they pretend, is cited by Jose∣phus, is in Chap. 42. of Ecclesiasticus, Verse 14. Better is the Churlishness of a Man, than a Courte∣ous Woman. 'Tis beyond dispute, that it was af∣terwards added, for Josephus proposes in that place to cite the Laws of Moses, and this passage makes nothing at all to the purpose. In the Ancient Version of Ruffinus this Quotation is not to be found, which makes it evident, that it has been added since.

(f) There are no others cited in the New Testa∣ment, but those that were received into the Canon of the Jews.] Some Persons say, that the Book of Wisdom is cited by St. Paul, Rom. 11. in these words, Who hath known the Mind of the Lord? Or who hath been his Counsellor? Which they say are the very same in effect with those in Wisdom, Chap. 9. For what Man can know the Counsel of God? But this passage cited by the Apostle is to

be found word for word in Isaiah, Chap. 40. Vers. 13. where the Greek Terms are the same that are used by St. Paul. St. Basil, L. de Spir. Sancto, Ch. 5. Ter∣tullian in his fifth Book against Marcion, Ch. 14. St. Ambrose, or rather the Author of the Com∣mentaries upon St. Paul, that are falsly attribu∣ted to him, Peter Lombard, and several others observe, that it is taken out of Isaiah. 'Tis also pretended, that the passage in his Epistle to the Hebrews, where it is said, that Enoch was transla∣ted, that he might not taste of death, is taken out of that Book. But it is in Genesis, Chap. 5. Vers. 25. It is likewise said, that there are several Allusions in the Gospel and the Epistles of the Apostles to some places in Ecclesiasticus, the Book of Wisdom, Judith and Tobit. Every one abounds in his own sense, and can find out what Resem∣blances or Allusions he pleases; but it is not ne∣cessary that two Persons that have happen'd upon the same thought, should take it one from the other. St. Justin, and the Ancients, don't accuse the Jews, for not acknowledging all the Books of Holy Scripture for Canonical. Theophilus says, that Zechariah is the last of the Prophets, and concludes the Holy Scripture with Ezrah.

(g) A great part of these are quoted there.] These are all Books that are cited there; Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, the second Book of Samuel, the first of Kings, Job, the Psalms, the Proverbs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Eze∣kiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Jonah, Micah, Haggai, Habakkuk, Nahum, Zechariah, Malachi.

(h) Gregory Nazianzen distributes the Books of Scripture into Historical, Poetical, and Propheti∣cal. This Distribution in my Opinion, seems to be the just••••t, and most natural.

(i) By that of the Roman Council held under Gelasius, Anno Dom. 494.] There is mention made in this Catalogue but of one Book of Ez∣rah, and one Book of Maccabees, although the Number of Books is not exactly distinguished in all the rest. For Example: Regnorum libri qua∣tuor—Esdras liber unus, Maccabaeorum liber unus. In some Manuscripts Job is not men∣tioned there, and they read Maccabaeorum libri ••uo.

(k) St. Jerome, who frequently rejects it as A∣pocryphal, and puts it out of the Canon, not only of the Jews, but the Christians also.] Every time that St. Jerome treats expresly obout the Canoni∣cal Books in his Prologues to the Kings, to the Books of Salmon, Ezrah, and Esther, in his E∣pistles 7 and 103 to Paulinus, in his Commenta∣ry upon Ezekiel in l. 17. ch. 43. he always re∣jects those Books that are not to be found in the Canon of the Hebrews as Apocryphal, and only fit to be considered as such. But when he speaks without making any manner of reflection, he frequently cites these very Books as parts of the Holy Scripture, and attributes the same Chara∣cter to the Book of the Wisdom of Salomon, al∣though it is certain, that he believed the contra∣ry. In his Prefaces before Judith and Tobit, as if he had a mind to restore the Reputation of these Books, he speaks very advantageously of them.

(l) The Books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus.] Besides several Allusions to the Scripture, which might be produced, but don't prove, that they were cited from thence, St. Barnabas cites a pas∣sage drawn out of the Book of Wisdom, Chap. 2. Vers. 12. and another out of Ecclesiasticus, Chap. 4. Vers. 36. Clemens Romanus, in his Epistle to the Corinthians, has quoted the Book of Wisdom, Chap. 11. Vers. 22. Tertullian likewise has quo∣ted the same Author in his Book against Marcion, towards the end, and in his Prescriptions. Cle∣mens Alexandrinus has also quoted him frequent∣ly. St. Cyprian very often quotes these two Books, and ascribes them to Salomon. Origen mentions the Book of Wisdom under the Name of Scripture in Epist. ad Hebr. in his third Book against Celsus, and in his eighth Homily upon Exodus, as he also cites Ecclesiasticus, Tom. 2.—upon St. Matthew, Treatise the 24th: And Euse∣bius, l. 6. of his History, Chap. 13. says, That although St. Clement cites these Books, yet they are for the most part rejected. St. Hilary cites them upon the Psalm 104. St. Basil also cites them sometimes, and particularly in his fifth Book against Eunomius. So does St. Jerome fre∣quently, in his Commentary upon Psalm 73. in his 16th Book upon Isaiah, and in his 33d Book upon Ezekiel, and in his second Book upon Isaiah. St. Austin does the same in abundance of places. They are likewise cited by the Author of the Book of Divine Names, and of the Hierarchy, in the last Book, Chap. 2. in the first, Chap. 4. In the Letter of the Council of Sardica, set down by Theodoret, Hist. l. 2. c. 8. By Anastasius Sinai∣ta, lib. 9. In Exam. Orat. 2. De incircumscripto, and Quest. 8. and 10. By Johannes Damascenus, l. 4. Of the Orthodox Faith, Chap. 16. In his third Oration of the Nativity, and in his Sermon of the Dead. But to cite a Book, as Gretzer observes, is not to declare it to be Canonical. These Books are thrown out of the Canon by those very Persons that cite them under the Name of Scripture, and they that attribute them to Salomon, when they cite them, at other times formally deny it. Some seem to think, that the Book of Ecclesiasticus is cited by those who pro∣duce this Sentence as from the Scripture, Do no∣thing without advice. Such as St. Basil in his short Rules, Quest. 104. Eusebius de Praep. Evang. Lib. 12. Cassian, Conference 2. Boniface, Epist. 98. The council of Ephesus, in the Epistle to the Sy∣nod of Pamphylia. But the same Sentence is in substance in the 13th Chapter of the Proverbs, Vers. 16. and is word for word in the 24th Chap∣ter, Vers. 13. of the Septuagint Version, from whence these Fathers quoted it; as well as Isidore Pelusiota, who frequently uses it. The Proverbs likewise are very often cited by the Ancients un∣der the Name of Wisdom, by Melito in his Cata∣logue, Proverbia quae & Sapientia, for so it ought to be translated, and not Proverbia & Sapientia; by Origen, Hom. 17. upon Genesis, upon Exodus, and Numbers; by the Author who has written under the Name of Dionysius of Alexandria a∣gainst Paulus Samosatenus; by the Author of the Constitutions, frequently by St. Basil, Const. Mo∣nast. C. 3. and 16; by Gregory Nazianzen, Orat. 1. and 26. And by Gregory Nyssene in his Book of The Life of Moses, and in his 7th Book against Eunomius. By the Council in Trullo, Chap. 64. By the second Council of Nice, Act. 6. The Pro∣verbs

are also called by St. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata. By Hegesippus, and the Ancients, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

(m) St. Basil sufficiently observes, that he did not own the Books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for Canonical.] In his Epist. 406. to Amphilochius, he tells us, that Philo speaking of the Manna, has said according to the Tradition of the Jews, that it had a different Taste according to the diffe∣rence of Palats or Appetites. Now this is expresly said in the Book of Wisdom. St. Basil therefore believed it was written by Philo, if this is the Book whereof he speaks, or at least that it was no Book of Scripture, for otherwise he would not barely have called an Opinion, that is so clearly esta∣blished there in the 16th Chapter, by the Name of a Jewish Tradition. The same St. Basil, Lib. 2. contr. Eunom. says, that this passage, Dominus creavit me initium viarum suarum, is only to be found once in Scripture. Socrates says the same thing, Lib. 4. Chap. 7. If they had acknowledg∣ed the Book of Wisdom to be Canonical, they ought to have said that this Sentence is twice to be found in the Bible, because we read it in the Book of Wisdom, as well as in the Proverbs.