De Moor II:16: Canonical Books Imperishable, Part 2

As we saw in the § above, the Canonical Books did not at any time perish all at once, so our AUTHOR now contends that not any Canonical Book totally perished.  Of course, concerning this there is controversy between us, 1.  and the Socinians, who contend that many Sacred Books perished, that many Books of the Old Scripture perished, that many writings of the old instrument are not in our possession; as these things are read in Socinus in Lectionibus sacris, opera, tome I, page 297a, b, Tertium, quod omnino animadvertendum, etc., likewise page 299b, 306a; and in Volkelius, de vera Religione, book V, chapter V, page 381 (in MARESIUS’ Hydra Socinianismi expugnata, tome 3, page 26):  they then cite several Books as if lost, many of which our AUTHOR examines under Objections.  Now, HOORNBEECK observes, in Socinianismo confutato, book I, chapter III, controversy III, tome I, page 48, that the Socinians by those Sacred Books that they maintain have been lost understand no others than what were Canonical, which their very arguments make evident.

2.  The issue stands between us and the Papists, who commonly assert the same:  among whom is Bellarmine, who in book IV, de Verbo Dei, chapter IV, Controversiis, tome I, column 211, says:  “Many truly sacred and canonical books perished; therefore, we do not have, nor did we have for fifteen hundred years, sufficient doctrine, if the whole be laid up in the Scriptures.  For Chrysostom teaches that many books of the Old testament have perished, etc.”

The Scope/Goal of our Adversaries is to demonstrate the Imperfection of Scripture, and especially of the Papists also to show the necessity of Traditions, according to the title prefixed to Bellarmine’s chapter just now cited.

At the same time, our AUTHOR not without reason asserts in his Compendio, Thus the Papists generally; even though JOHANN GERHARD, Confessione catholica, book II, special, part I, article I, chapter IV, pages 256-259, has gathered the opinions of many even of the more learned Papists, teaching that no Canonical books truly so called have perished; for example, Salmeron, Stapleton, Marius, Ruizius,[1] Pererius, etc.; and in particular then from their writings he responds to the examples of the lost books, which are wont to be alleged, whether out of the Old or New Testament, by their cronies.

We acknowledge, says our AUTHOR, that Most Celebrated Theologians among us have subscribed, yet for good reason denying the Pontifical hypothesis (concerning the Imperfection of Scripture and the demonstration of the necessity of Traditions from it); since Canonical Doctrine, by the goodness of God included in many Books in abundance, most certainly survives in Today’s Books.  TURRETIN names those professing this opinion in his Theologiæ Elencticæ, locus II, question VII, § 3; while he adds MUSCULUS[2] and WHITAKER, following CHRYSOSTOM, measuring the Integrity of the Canon, not by the number of the sacred Books, or their quantitative Perfection; but by the fullness of doctrine, or the essential Perfection of all things necessary for salvation, which in the Books that survive is found in abundance:  see the words of CHRYSOSTOM in Homily IX on Matthew, of THEOPHYLACT and MUSCULUS, upon this matter, together with the prudent observation of GOMAR, concerning the Integrity of the Canon for this cause not perishing, cited by our AUTHOR, Exercitationibus textualibus XXVI, Part IV, § 2, page 3.  SPANHEIM enumerates many others as attached to this opinion, Miscellaneis Sacrorum Antiquorum, book II, part I, chapter II, § 10, column 181, opera, tome 2, to whom one may also add JOHANNES ENS, who, in his Diatriba de Canone Librorum Novi Testamenti, chapter IV, pages 17-75, busies himself to prove with many words, that it is to be conceded entirely to the Papists, that many θεόπνευστοι/inspired Books have perished, and that the only real controversy here is concerning the Consequence, namely, whether from the destruction of many divine Books flows the Imperfection of today’s Canon:  while, in § 2, he thinks it to be a mere word-game, if one should concede that Books Sacred and θεοπνεύστους/inspired perished, but deny that they were Canonical, or destined for the perpetual Canon:  yet which response to the denial of the Assumption, together with the Consequence also, of the Papists concerning lost books does not appear so ludicrous to me, but I, following great Men, shall also next set forth this distinction as solid and of good use in this matter, and shall urge it as worthy of observation.

But, with this inconsequence of argument noted, our AUTHOR thinks that this Assumption concerning Lost Books is by no means to be conceded, with certain of the most learned Papists, already enumerated above out of GERHARD.  Thus HOORNBEECK, in Socinianismo confutato, book I, chapter III, controversy III, tome I, page 49, also observes that two things here are wont by our men to be answered to opponents, namely, a denial of the Consequence in the first place, then of the Assumption.

It would not have been useless, in advance to have observed here in addition one or two distinctions.  Namely, it is one thing for some Book to be among the Sacred Books; it is another thing to be a Sacred Book:  the former is able to be said concerning all the Books cited in Sacred Scripture, but not the latter.

It is one thing for a Book to be composed by a Canonical and θεοπνεύστῳ/inspired Writer; it is another thing for a Book to be Canonical and θεόπνευστον/inspired.  For θεόπνευστοι/inspired Men were not enjoying θεοπνευστία/inspiration in all things that they were saying and writing:  they were also speaking many things according to their human will; why not also writing? consider the words of the Prophet Nathan in 2 Samuel 7:2-5:  but see also the letters written by David to Joab concerning the slaying of Uriah with the sword of the Ammonites, in 2 Samuel 11:14, 15, while in the case of other Sacred writings no one would deny David’s θεοπνευστίαν/inspiration, comparing 2 Samuel 23:2, 3.  AUGUSTINE, de Civitate Dei, book XVIII, chapter XXXVIII, opera, tome 7, column 394, well says:  “I also think that those, by whom the Holy Spirit was certainly revealing those things that ought to be in relation to the authority of religion, were able to write some things as men by historical diligence, and other things as Prophets by divine inspiration:  and that these things are distinguished in such a way that the former things are judged to be worthy of attribution to them, but the latter as to God speaking by them; and thus the former things pertain to the abundance of inquiry, but the latter to the authority of religion, in which authority the Canon is kept.”

Finally, a particular Book is able not incorrectly to be called Canonical in a twofold sense; either insofar as it contains Canonical doctrine, according to which a man ought to compose himself in faith and manners; or insofar as by the determination of God it is also to be referred to the Canon or syntagma[3] of θεοπνεύστων/inspired Books, which are granted for the perpetual use of the Church as a standard.  Every Canonical Book in this latter sense ought also to be θεόπνευστος/inspired:  but not necessarily every θεόπνευστος/inspired Book also pertains unto the Canon of the Old and New Testaments.  I shall illustrate what I have said with the words of the Great FRANCISCUS JUNIUS, out of Analyticis Explicationibus Numerorum, chapter XXI, opera, tome I, column 464:  “It is to be observed,” says he, “it is one thing if you call a Book Sacred; another thing, if you call a Book Canonical.  For every Book published by God through the Prophets and Apostles is Sacred:  but not every Sacred Book is therefore necessarily Canonical, pertaining to the universal body of the Church.  For example, it is likely that the Prophet Isaiah, as a Prophet, wrote many other things that were divine:  but yet those things only were Canonical, that is, pertaining to the public Canon and repository of the Church, that God sanctified that they might be brought into the repository of the Church.  Thus the Apostles Paul, etc., penned writings from heaven that are not extant:  but of all those they only are Canonical by divine authority that are brought into the universal and Christian Church:  that this matter was both commended by the Apostles themselves, and confirmed in the last times of the Apostles, but especially by John at the request of all the Church of Asia and of other regions, the ancient histories have confirmed.”  The Most Illustrious WITSIUS, a Theologian of a somewhat more recent age, altogether agrees with Junius; he, in his Meletematis Leudensiis, de vita Pauli, Section VII, § 11, expresses this as his opinion:  “For my part, I have no doubt at all that all the Apostles according to their singular diligence bestowed a great number of letters upon the Churches committed to their care; to which it was permitted always to be present, and in which, nevertheless, they continually had many things to be inculcated.  —The consideration would appear to me injurious unto the trust and diligence of such painstaking men, if one should think that those of the Apostles never wrote any epistles, of whom none now survive, or those, of whom we now have one, or a second, or a third, or even twelve, wrote none except those that we have.  The reason for writing was the same for Peter and Paul, as it was for James and John, and for the rest.  And what things either necessity pressed, or usefulness urged, that they might write these things to some, the same necessity and usefulness demanded that they write the same or similar things to others.  It is not that we complain that such precious κειμήλια/treasures perished by injury of time:  it is rather that we give thanks to God, by whose provident benevolence toward us it has come to pass, that we have retained so many and so much, which is abundantly sufficient for us to be instructed unto salvation.”

With which observed to avoid a λογομαχίαν, verbal dispute, this shall be sufficient to hold here:  although many things, written by θεοπνεύστοις/inspired Men, but not θεοπνεύστως, by inspiration, may have perished; or even θεοπνεύστα, inspired writing, but not writings destined by God that they might be referred into the public Canon and repository of the Church:  no Canonical writings, pertaining according to the intention of God to the Canon and corpus of the Scripture of the Old or New Testament, and at length also brought and received into that same Canon, have perished.  This we prove:

α.  By the Immutability of the Counsel of God, with the End of the Scriptures brought to bear.  For what Books God caused to be written, that they might be the perpetual Canon of faith and manners for the universal Church, these He ought to preserve in good repair from dissolution.  The rationale of the Major is that the Counsel of God would have otherwise been disappointed, and failed of its End:  but this is absurd.  But concerning Books of this sort, destined for the perpetual Canon, we treat here in accordance with the stated hypothesis/supposition:  concerning which things, Paul treats in Romans 15:4, ὅσα γὰρ προεγράφη, εἰς τὴν ἡμετέραν διδασκαλίαν προεγράφη, ἵνα διὰ τῆς ὑπομονῆς καὶ τῆς παρακλήσεως τῶν γραφῶν τὴν ἐλπίδα ἔχωμεν, for whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.  Of the writings of this sort, therefore, nothing should perish, unless that goal in the writing of the same at the same time perish:  hence nothing is to be added to, and nothing is to be removed from, the Canon, Revelation 22:18, 19.

β.  By the Providence of God continually keeping watch for the salvation of the Church, which is cannot be thought to be able to permit that the Church might suffer the loss or mutilation of so great a treasure as the Canon of Scripture; and which is actually shown in all the times of the Old and New Testaments in the careful preservation of Sacred Scripture, even in the greatest defections and vexations of the Church.

γ.  By repeated Promises and declarations, Matthew 5:18; Isaiah 40:8; 1 Peter 1:23, 25.  But, if God so carefully averts the mutilation and destruction of individual texts and their words, that not one little letter or the smallest point is able to perish; how much more would he prevent the destruction of entire Books? especially since He wills to preserve His Word in the Church in Written Books.

δ.  The vigilance and care of the Church is added, both of the Christian Church, which vigilance shows itself in such a number of writings of the holy Fathers, in which they commend the Sacred Scriptures, and discuss and enumerate the Books comprehended in the Canon, and carefully inquire concerning any ἀντιλεγομένῳ/disputed Books; and also especially of the Jewish Church, to which the custody of the Canon of the Old Testament was committed,[4] and in this matter is nowhere accused of negligence or treachery by the Lord or His Apostles:  on the contrary, its care in preserving the integrity of the Canon in the latter times was almost excessive and superstitious, inasmuch as the Masoretes set about numbering, not only the sacred Books, but the sections, verses, words, and even the very letters, so that in this manner they might post שמירת התורה שלא יהיה דרך לשנותה, a guard for the Law, lest in any manner it might be able to be altered, as it is in the Book of Cosri, part III, chapter XXXII, page 109; see CARPZOV’S Critica Sacra Veteris Testamenti, part I, chapter VI, § 3, pages 295-301; compare BUDDEUS’ Historiam ecclesiasticam Veteris Testamenti, period II, section VI, § 12, tome 2, pages 797b, 831-833a.  Also read the concise arguments for the uninjured Integrity of the Canon by PETRUS DINANT, de Achtbaarheid van Godts Woord, chapter V, § 89-106, 112-119, pages 908-947, 961-974, in which it is argued out of Matthew 5:18, pages 910-913, 947; he teaches that the Codex of the Old Testament was preserved safe and sound unto the time of Christ, § 96-100; and that the unbelief of the Jews did no harm to it thereafter, he shows from their superstitious care for the uninjured Integrity of the Sacred Codex, while he discourses concerning the means, by which, under the benign guidance of divine Providence, the Christian Church in turn watched over the Preservation of the Canon of the New Testament, § 112-119.

On the examples of the lost Books which are alleged, against the Papists GERHARD, among others, deserves to be consulted, in tome 2 of Confessionis catholicæ, book II, special, part I, article I, chapter IV, pages 259-266.  Concerning the Books cited in the Hebrew Codex, but not extant, WOLF discourses at length in Bibliotheca Hebraica, tome 2, book I, section IV, pages 211-246.  We, with our AUTHOR, shall make do here with a few things:

Moreover, what writings, says he, mentioned in the Sacred Books, are Objected; for example, in the works of Socinus in Lectionibus sacris, opera, tome I, page 297a, b, Tertium, quod omnino animadvertendum, etc., likewise page 299b, 306a; and Volkelius, de vera Religione, book V, chapter V, page 381; in Bellarmine, book IV de Verbo Dei, chapter IV, Controversiis, tome I, column 211:  those, α.  perhaps were never even written:  like the PROPHECY OF ENOCH, at long last consigned to writing by the ministry of Jude, Jude 14, 15.  That Prophecy was able to have been inscribed in letters by private authority and human will.  For, if it was written, it was not immediately written by Enoch himself, nor by divine authority and command, that it might be inserted in the Canon of the Old Testament.  Neither does Jude relate that Enoch had written these words, but only that he had prophesied, προεφήτευσε; which by Ecclesiastical tradition was able to become known to Jude, but concerning the truth of which it was made more certain θεοπνεύστως, by inspiration:  compare what things were said in § 3.

Our AUTHOR judges in like manner concerning the EPISTLE TO THE LAODICEANS, which, says he, is clearly forged, Paul making mention of τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας, a writing from Laodicea, Colossians 4:16.  Doubt is able to arise from the Vulgate Version, which has, facite ut—ea quae Laodicensium est vobis legatur, cause that…that which is of the Laodiceans be read to you.  And indeed that Genitive, Laodicensium, of the Laodiceans, is able to be taken, either objectively concerning those unto whom the Epistle was written, or effectively concerning those by whom it was written.  With CHRYSOSTOM, THEODORET, ŒCUMENIUS, and the more sensible in the Pontifical order, we are able best to understand it as an Epistle sent from the Laodiceans to Paul, unto which Paul was referring a few times in the Epistle to the Colossians, so that these Epistles might be able to lend light to each other, for which reason the Apostle wills that a comparison of the one with the other be made; compare 1 Corinthians 7:1:  compare BACHIENE’S Geographiam Sacram, part III, tome III, chapter X, pages 755-758, 764-766.  That Epistle, written by the Laodiceans to Paul, not improbably concerns the ψευδοδιδασκαλίας, false teachings, which the Judaizers had planted in the Churches of Galatia, and similar things; concerning which, so that they might discover the mind of the Apostle, the Colossians themselves were also able to send Epaphras to Rome:  with whom detained at Rome because of his own chains,[5] the Apostle at one and the same time satisfied both of those Churches with the Epistle written to the Colossians, and sent to them by the agency of Tychicus,[6] and to be shared with the Laodiceans:  see TILLIUS’ Isagoge in Epistolam Pauli ad Colossenses, article X, pages 326, 327.  THEOPHYLACT thinks that the Epistle from Laodicea mentioned here is the First Epistle to Timothy, which according to the ὑπογραφὴν/subscription was written ἐκ Λαοδικείας, from Laodicea; which opinion COCCEIUS supports, Commentario in Epistolam ad Colossenses, chapter IV, § 59, 60:  but, that the reliability of this subscription is very unstable, was already observed above in § 14, even from this, that in Colossians 2:1 the Laodiceans are reckoned among those that had not known Paul’s face.

While the Greek text openly evinces that mention is not made of a Laodicean Epistle sent to Laodicea; at least it does not concern a lost Epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans, that we should be anxious:  so we willingly allow to the heretic Marcion that opinion against the Sacred text, that the Epistle to the Ephesians is to be reckoned in the place of that which was sent to the Laodiceans; which TERTULLIAN relates concerning Marcion, adversus Marcionem, book V, chapters XI, XVII.  Provided that this was Marcion’s opinion, and that Tertullian is not rather to be illustrated out of various passages of EPIPHANIUS, from which it is provided to gather, that Macion also acknowledged an Epistle sent by Paul to the Ephesians, but that he read another also, which he was calling to the Laodiceans, in which he inserted pericopes brought over from that which is to the Ephesians:  see VAN ALPHEN’S Prolegomena in Epistolam ad Ephesios, Isagogic Dissertation I, chapter II, § 64-74, pages 54-60, which entire Dissertation is most worthy of reading, inasmuch as in it, in chapter I, he proves at length that the Epistle to the Ephesians was known as such by all antiquity:  and, in chapter II, he refutes both, 1.  Grotius, who on Colossians 4:16 maintains that Λαοδικείας, of Laodicea, is to be read in the place of ἐκ Λαοδικείας, from Laodicea, that it might signify an Epistle which is of the Laodiceans, that is, which was in the power and control of the Laodiceans, because it was sent to them:  and he maintains that the Epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans was written in the same tenor as that to the Ephesians, and hence Marcion was able to quote as from an Epistle to the Laodiceans, what things are found in the Epistle to the Ephesians:  see VAN ALPHEN’S Prolegomena in Epistolam ad Ephesios, Isagogic Dissertation I, chapter II, § 4, pages 12-16.  Then, 2.  he refutes the Dissertation of the Most Illustrious VITRINGA the Younger, in which he takes it upon himself, α.  to prove that the Epistle of Paul to the Ephesian Church, entitled according to the common reading, was not sent to that Church, but to some other assembly of believers; β.  then to assert the true and proper right of the Laodiceans to this letter.  Although it was not permitted to the Most Illustrious Vitringa to weave this warp unto completion, the Most Illustrious VENEMA, continuing this argument, contends that this Epistle was sent to the Laodiceans.  By examining this Dissertation of the Most Illustrious Vitringa, and in passing that of JOHN MILL[7] also, VAN ALPHEN is content to show that no sufficiently weighty reasons are given that are able to induce us to recede from the received and customary reading of Ephesians 1:1, in which this Epistle is expressly assigned to the Ephesians.  Which he does by responding to the individual arguments of the Most Illustrious Vitringa:  he especially shows the Most Illustrious Vitringa is quite deceived, affirming that BASIL the GREAT and JEROME both candidly acknowledge that in the most ancient Manuscripts the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ, in Ephesus, were not found by them:  which nevertheless neither did:  see VAN ALPHEN’S Prolegomena in Epistolam ad Ephesios, Isagogic Dissertation I, chapter II, § 4, pages 17-66; compare WHITBY’S[8] Examen Variantium Lectionum Millii, book II, chapter I, section I, number 25; GUDE’S de Ecclesiæ Ephesinæ Statu, section II, chapter VIII, § 8, 9, pages 158-166, who likewise concludes that the Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians was indeed sent to them, and not, as the opinion of some is, to the Laodiceans.

Now, that which today is circulated under the title of the Epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans, and which is exhibited in Greek and Latin by LEUSDEN, Philologo Hebræo-Græco, Dissertation IV, § 3, pages 26-28, and by PRITIUS, Introductione in Lectionem Novi Testamenti, chapter XI, pages 62-68, etc., and which is wont to be printed in the Bibles of the Anabaptists next to the Books of the New Testament; to BARONIUS himself, Annalibus ad Annum Christi LX, number 13, is spurious and unknown to the ancients:  and it shall be easily proven to anyone looking into the matter with greater attentiveness, that some wit upon occasion of Colossians 4:16 stitched this together from the Pauline Epistles, which has nothing peculiar that the Apostle might write to the Laodiceans; and that it is altogether unworthy to be held as Pauline or Canonical:  see HOORNBEECK’S Socinianismum confutatum, book I, chapter III, controversy III, tome I, page 56.  JEROME, Catalogo Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum, chapter V, opera, tome I, page 267, “Some find also one to the Laodiceans, but this is rejected by all.”  Concerning the Epistle to the Laodiceans ascribed to Paul, thoroughly consult FABRICIUS’ Codicem apocryphum Novi Testamenti, tome 2, pages 853 and following; likewise SPANHEIM’S Miscellanea Sacrorum Antiquorum, book II, part I, chapter II, § 10, opera, tome 2, columns 181, 182; WITSIUS’ Meletemata Leudensia, de vita Pauli, Section XIV, § 7-12; GERHARD’S Confessionem catholicam, tome II, book II, special, part I, article I, chapter IV, pages 263-265; RUMPÆUS’ Commentationem criticam ad Novi Testamenti Libros, § XVII, pages 35-37.

The reason to doubt concerning ANOTHER Epistle TO THE PHILIPPIANS is able to be even greater, although Paul says in Philippians 3:1, τὰ αὐτὰ γράφειν ὑμῖν, etc., to write the same things to you, etc.  Nevertheless, our AUTHOR maintains that the Apostle thus has regard, 1.  to his spoken words, so that now he writes the same things to the Philippians, that he had previously taught them in words, for the greater confirmation of their faith; which is also the observation of our DUTCH INTERPRETERS, comparing 2 Thessalonians 2:15.  2.  To the things written in the same Epistle; in which the warnings against false teachers, and the contrary instruction of Paul in chapter 3, are able to be compared with those especially that had already preceded in chapter 1.  Therefore, Paul says that he wrote, either τὰ αὐτὰ, the same things, concerning which he had treated previously in the same Epistle, or τὰ αὐτὰ, the same things, which he had previously preached in word to the Philippians.  ENS, in his Diatriba de Canone Novi Testamenti, is verbose on this point, that he might prove that several Epistles were sent from Paul to the Philippians, to which purpose he brings in the testimony of POLYCARP in his Epistle to the Philippians 3, in which he appeals to Paul’s authority, who, says he, being present, taught them concerning the same matters, and adds:  ὃς καὶ ἀπὼν ὑμῖν ἔγραψεν ἐπιστολὰς, εἰς ἃς ἐὰν ἐγκύπτητε δυνηθήσεσθε οἰκοδομεῖασθαι εἰς τὴν δοθεῖσαν ὑμῖν πίστιν, who also, being absent, wrote letters to you, which if ye carefully study, ye shall be able to be built up unto that faith which has been given you:[9]  hence he maintains that τὰ αὐτὰ γράφειν, to write the same things, has regard to another Epistle previously sent by Paul to the Philippians:  see ENS’ Diatribam de Canone Novi Testamenti, chapter IV, § 33-48.  Perhaps it could be said that Polycarp opposes to teach in Word to to write Epistles in a general way as diverse modes of teaching, and so his saying is able to be explained of that one Epistle even now extant:  consult Cotelier’s notas ad verba Polycarpi citato.  But, even if Paul sent several Epistles to the Philippians, not all of which yet survive, this does not touch our thesis, as long as it has not been proven that all those were destined for augmentation of the Canon:  which sort certainly were not, since otherwise they would have been preserved by God.

There is a similar occasion for doubting concerning a THIRD EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, now no longer extant, and sent before those two that we read to the present day; since Paul relates in 1 Corinthians 5:9, Ἔγραψα ὑμῖν ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ, etc., I wrote unto you in an Epistle, etc.  Our AUTHOR, following CHRYSOSTOM, THEODORET, ŒCUMENIUS, and THEOPHYLACT, again thinks that the Apostle understands the same Epistle, in which indeed, not the very words, but their sense is found earlier; where, moreover, appeal is wont to be made to verses 1, 2, 6, and 7 of the same chapter, and it is wont to be observed that ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ, in the Epistle, is put in the place of ἐν ταύτῃ, in this, just as also in Colossians 4:16, ἡ ἐπιστολὴ, the Epistle,[10] is read in the place of αὕτη ἡ ἐπιστολὴ, this very Epistle:  see SPANHEIM’S Miscellanea Sacrorum Antiquorum, book II, part I, chapter II, § 10, opera, tome 2, column 182.  As it is believed that ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ, in the Epistle, is set down in the place of ἐν ταύτῃ, in this one, GERDES, Disputatione isagogica 1, in 1 Corinthians 15, § 9, advises that either those things which are found written in the same chapter, verses 1-6, ought compared, or that regard is to be paid to the entire First Epistle to the Corinthians and its primary argument, which he directs to this, that he might dissuade them from the practice of impure sexual activity and from unlawful lusts of the flesh:  to which matter he wishes to be compared the Celebrated Ferdinand STOSCH, Theologian and Philologist in Lingen,[11] eruditely defending and illustrating this opinion, in his little book de Epistolis Apostolorum non deperditis, § XXII, XXIII, pages 75-86.  Nevertheless, others observe contrariwise, 1.  that, if Paul in 1 Corinthians 5:9 had regard to the arguments of the same Epistle, and indeed to those very things which had just now preceded, he would rather say, I have written to you just now, or ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ ἐπιστολῇ, in this Epistle, while that phrase, ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ, in the Epistle, recurring in 2 Corinthians 7:8,[12] also has regard there to another, prior Epistle.  2.  That, while it follows in verse 11, νυνὶ δὲ ἔγραψα ὑμῖν, etc., but now I have written unto you, etc., by that very thing the present writing is set over against a previous Epistle mentioned in verse 9.  3.  They add that the argument in verse 9 is not found in the preceding part of this Epistle, neither with respect to sound, nor with respect to sense.  Therefore, they prefer that the Apostle previously sent another Epistle to the Corinthians, which may have perished because it was exceedingly brief, and its entire argument was inserted in this our Epistle, and at the same time amplified, so that it was certainly not necessary that it be preserved or shared with the rest of the Churches.  And in this opinion with Calvin, Beza, Pareus,[13] Diodati,[14] and Grotius, are WITSIUS, Meletematis Leudensiis, de vita Pauli, Section VIII, § 21, 22; and VAN ALPHEN, Voozbereidselen vooz den 2 Brief aan de Corinth, chapter III, pages, 42-46, and Prolegomeno in Epistolam Priorem ad Corinthios, article I, pages 4-6.  But once more this detracts nothing from the integrity of the Canon; since in the event it is evident that this Epistle was not destined to constitute the Canon together with the other Epistles to the Corinthians, the contrary of which cannot be proven from the proposition.

Or, our AUTHOR adds, proceeding to the second Class of Books cited, β.  they were not Sacred, θεόπνευστα/inspired and Canonical, although proceeding from Men sometimes θεοπνεύστοις/inspired; which, as I warned above, are to be carefully distinguished.  Our AUTHOR thus rightly judges concerning the many compositions of Solomon, which are mentioned in 1 Kings 4:32, 33, which were proving Solomon’s Wisdom pertaining to things of nature, and had regard more unto the abundance of inquiry than unto the authority of religion, if I might make use of the Augustinian distinction above, de Civitate Dei, book XVIII, chapter XXXVIII, opera, tome 7, column 394, except that those things that Solomon is mentioned to have spoken concerning trees and animals, he is not at the same time said to have written:  compare CARPZOV’S Introductionem ad Libros Poeticos Veteris Testamenti, chapter IV, § 3, pages 170-172.

To these of Solomon our AUTHOR for good reason joins the Chronicle Books so frequently cited in the Sacred History, among which, for example, are mentioned סֵ֛פֶר דִּבְרֵ֥י הַיָּמִ֖ים לְמַלְכֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃, the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel, 1 Kings 14:19, and in verse 29,סֵ֛פֶר דִּבְרֵ֥י הַיָּמִ֖ים לְמַלְכֵ֥י יְהוּדָֽה׃, the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah; and thus often.  For they are able to be understood as political Annals, public acts, the archives of the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel; which sort of annals, certified by public authority, are made use of in all kingdoms; thus greater confidence is wont to be attributed to them than to private writings.  For neither are they able to be understood as the Sacred and Canonical דִּבְרֵי הַיָּמִים, or Books of Chronicles.  For what things are cited in the Books of Kings as set forth at greater length in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah or Israel, you often seek in vain in the Books of Chronicles:  which also are believed to have been written after the Books of Kings, for which reason in the Books of Kings no appeal is possible to the Books of Chronicles found at this day in the Sacred Codex:  also, from the citation the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah and the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel appear to have been distinct, while in the Canonical Books of Chronicles matters conducted in the kingdom of Judah and of Israel are mentioned conjointly and indiscriminately.  But these Chronologico-political Books sometimes cited, as written principally by human counsel, were never received into the Canon of the Old Testament, although they were able to furnish some part of the material to be consigned to the Sacred Writer; thus were they in turn able to be lost without great detriment to the Church:  see WILHELMUS WILHELMIUS’[15] Διασπορα δεκαφυλος, Section VI, § 44, pages 266-268.  That in these Annals of the Kings of Judah and Israel the History of David and of Solomon constituted a large part, there is no one that would doubt.  But, whether, when in 1 Chronicles 27:24 are mentioned the דִּבְרֵֽי־הַיָּמִ֖ים לַמֶּ֥לֶךְ דָּוִֽיד׃, chronicles of King David, and in 1 Kings 11:41 the סֵ֖פֶר דִּבְרֵ֥י שְׁלֹמֹֽה׃, book of the acts of Solomon, there is regard to the same public Acts of the Kingdom, and a specific volume among those, which was treating of the affairs of David and Solomon; or to a particular history, but well-known, eminent and trustworthy, which was formerly written concerning the Kingdom of David and of Solomon, but would have perished some time ago; those Books are always to be referred to the same Class with the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah and Israel in this, that they were to be held as human, not divine, not θεοπνεύστοις/inspired, at least not as Canonical.  Perhaps then the Chronicles of David and Solomon are mentioned separately, because these reigned before the Schism:  while the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah and of Israel each have regard to a particular Kingdom:  compare CARPZOV’S Introductionem ad Libros Historicos Veteris Testamenti, chapter XIV, § 2, pages 240-244, chapter XVI, § 1, pages 280-283, § 3, 4, pages 285-289.

Or, finally, our AUTHOR brings to notice, γ.  that they are yet extant to this day under another name; as they believe concerning the three thousand Proverbs of Solomon, 1 Kings 4:32.  Our AUTHOR maintains this, that although many, yet not necessarily all, of the documents of Solomon’s wisdom, which are mentioned in 1 Kings 4:32, 33, have perished:  seeing that, although in that passage in the history of the life of Solomon none of his sentences or Proverbs are recounted, a considerable portion of the same Proverbs, to the extent that those were θεόπνευστα/inspired or Canonical, were preserved in the Book of משלי/Proverbs, indeed, collected and arranged into one corpus, partly (as it appears) with Solomon yet living and by his own hand, or under his auspices, partly in the time of Hezekiah by the Men of King Hezekiah, by comparison with Proverbs 25:1.

So also they generally believe, says our AUTHOR, concerning the Words of Nathan and of Gad, mentioned in 1 Chronicles 29:29, where the Acts of David are said to be written in the Acts of Samuel, Nathan, and Gad.  Indeed, concerning Samuel the matter is in the shallows, seeing that he is acknowledged as the author of the first Book that comes under his name, up until the history of his death, 1 Samuel 25:1.  But what things then follow in the first book of Samuel, together with the entire second book, many, both Jews and Christians, maintain that they are to be attributed to Nathan and Gad as authors; and thus their words survive under the name of Samuel.  In which opinion the pious mind certainly appears to be able to rest.  While others rather maintain that individual Records were written by Nathan and Gad, which indeed perished, but without detriment to the Canon, after those things that the Most High God had destined for the perpetual memory and direction of the Church had been recorded were excised from them and recorded in the Canon, under the title of the Books of Samuel, especially the second:  whether that prior writing of the Records of Nathan and Gad were no more θεόπνευστος/ inspired than the words of Nathan in 2 Samuel 7:3, or at least their entire works were not destined for augmentation of the Canon of the Church.  There shall be a like judgment concerning the Words of Nathan, the Prophecy of Ahijah, the Visions of Iddo, relating the affairs of Solomon, 2 Chronicles 9:29; and also concerning the Words of Shemaiah the Prophet and of Iddo the Seer, recounting the Affairs of Rehoboam, 2 Chronicles 12:15; etc.  That is, those individual Prophets appear to have recorded the acts of one or more Kings into Historical Registers; from which a summary of matters is exhibited to us θεοπνεύστως, by inspiration, in the Books of Kings and Chronicles, to the extent that the Most High God judged it necessary to know the continuation of the history of the ancient Church and people of God:  while those larger Historical Registers of diverse Prophets, as not in their entirety destined for Canonical use, thereafter perished in the course of time:  compare CARPZOV’S Introductionem ad Libros Historicos Veteris Testamenti, chapter XIV, § 2, pages 240-244, chapter XVI, § 1, pages 280-283, § 3, 4, pages 285-289.

Finally, many believe the same, as our AUTHOR relates, concerning the Book of the Wars of the Lord and the Book of the Just.  The Book of the Wars of Jehovah is mentioned in Numbers 21:14.  1.  Our AUTHOR affirms that it is verily believed by many that this Book is yet extant under another name.  For thus Jonathan[16] and Targum Jerusalem[17] understand the Book of the Law in its entirety, translating it, ספר אוריתא, The Book of the Torah.  Others have regard unto the Book of Judges, where, in Judges 11:13 and following, in the borders of the Ammonites and Moabites are designated.  Others even look to this very Book of Numbers, in which the Wars of Jehovah, conducted by the Israelites, are also remembered, which HOTTINGER, Thesauro Philologico, book II, chapter II, section II, page 531, thinks to be asserted without absurdity.  2.  Yet I would rather believe with others that this Book of the Wars of Jehovah was not necessarily an θεόπνευστον/inspired Book, much less Canonical; but in Israel, at the time when Moses wrote these things, it was known, but now it has been lost without loss to the Canon, unto which it never pertained; in which were contained certain collected Victory-Songs, or joyous Songs narrating the Wars of the Israelites with their enemies in the desert and the victories won by them by the will of the Lord.  But, upon occasion of the victory granted to Israel in the war with the Amorites, the previous state of the Amorites, their battles with the neighboring Moabites, and the borders of the dominion of each, were able in a Song then composed to be narrated in poetry also:  for which purpose they may regard the words from that Book to be abruptly cited by Moses here, which were said in that Book of the Wars of Jehovah, but also may be said in the future, יֵאָמַר;[18] as often as this Poetic narration may be recited by the Israelites in their rejoicing.  But these words are not repeated anywhere, whether in the Book of Judges, or another passage of Sacred Scripture.  FRANCISCUS JUNIUS, in his Analyticis Explicationibus Numerorum, chapter XXI, opera, tome I, column 464:  “So that we might speak plainly, those that understand a book of the Wars of the Lord are deceived by a homonym:  for the word סֵפֶר/Sepher signifies either of two things to the Hebrews, a recounting ἄγραφον/unwritten simply, or written and comprehended in a book.  But it is ineptly concluded; if there is a recounting, therefore it is written.  Moses says a recounting; he does not say a writing:  wherefore, from this passage no just argument is able to be made concerning any written book that may have perished:  therefore, whether it is some song, or a Victory Song, which the Hebrews call מָשָׁל/Maschal,[19] it is strange to misuse these passages, in order to confirmed that sacred books that were written were cut off from the canon.  But let this stand as certain:  a book may be written; but not for this reason shall this indeed obtain, that this book was sacred, which may have perished from the canon:  for, just as we deny that it was a book, and ask that it be proven; so in turn two postulates concur here:  one, that it be proven that the book was sacred; the other, that the sacred book was entered into the Canon.  For, whoever from these passages asserts that a sacred book, entered into the Canon, has perished, it is necessary that he prove these three postulates:  that it is a book, that it is sacred, and that it is Canonical:  So that we might truly understand these things, it is to be observed that it is one thing to say a book is Sacred, another things to say it is Canonical.”  See also what things follow, cited above.  For more concerning this Book of the Wars of Jehovah, and the text of Numbers 21:14, 15, see the discussion of CARPZOV, Introductione ad Libros Historicos Veteris Testamenti, chapter VII, § 2, pages 121-124.

Finally, סֵפֶר הַיָּשָׁר, The Book of the Just, is mentioned twice, in Joshua 10:13, where in the history of the miraculous standing of the sun and moon appeal is made to this Book.  Again, in 2 Samuel 1:18, on occasion of a mournful Song, in which David lamented the death of Saul and Jonathan; and of the plan whereby the King willed that the sons of Judah be taught the bow.  Indeed, but, 1.  a great many Jews think that this Book also is extant under another name, who name either the book of Genesis with Rashi, or the book of the Law with Kimchi, or the book of the Just, that is, of Moses, and specifically the book of Deuteronomy with Abarbanel:  while of the Fathers Jerome also seeks the book of Genesis here:  which opinions with their supports are related and refuted by JOHANN GEORG ABICHT[20] in his Dissertatione de Libro Recti, § 12, 14, but this dissertation is found inserted in Thesauro Novo Dissertationum Hasæi et Ikenii in Veterem Instrumentum, pages 525-534.  2.  But almost all of the more recent agree in this, that this Book was lost some time ago; but at the same time they deny that it was θεόπνευστον/inspired and Canonical.  Concerning the character of the Book, their opinion is principally twofold, although neither of these is able to be demonstrated with solid arguments.  a.  The first maintains that סֵפֶר הַיָּשָׁר, The Book of the Just, was Poetic, which was presenting a collection of songs of various sorts, whether those were ἐπινίκια/victory-songs, or θρηνητικὰ/dirges, or ἐπαινετικὰ/laudatory-songs, having respect to the history of Israel and to men celebrated in the republic of Israel; in the title of which Israel may be called יָשָׁר/Jasher, the Just, as יְשֻׁרוּן/Jeshurun, the Upright, elsewhere,[21] as if it were excelling the other nations in equity.  b.  But the other maintains that ישר׳ is set down as an abbreviation for יִשְׂרָאֵל/Israel, and explains the Book of Israel as the public Acts and Annals of the republic of Israel, which, being ever continued, under the Kings began to be called the Chronicles of the Kings, and indeed were twofold on account of the Schism, the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah[22] and of Israel:[23]  which sort of public Monuments are of proven fidelity and of the weightiest authority among all; hence the Historian is able to appeal most advantageously to these in matters of greater moment.  And indeed this latter opinion is embraced and commended by the Most Illustrious JACOBUS TRIGLAND the Younger in his Dissertatione de Libro Justorum, in Sylloge Dissertationum, pages 38 and following.

But the Learned ABICHT, in his Dissertatione de Libro Recti, with other more far-fetched opinions concerning the Book of the Just also refuted, § 9-11, 15, in particular does not admit the opinion of the Ancients and of the More Recent, concerning the estimation of the Book of the Just as the public Annals of the republic of Israel, which were called the Book of יָשָׁר, for the Book of Israel or Jeshurun, § 13, 16, because, a.  the word ישר differs much from Israel and Jeshurun, and is used nowhere else in the place of the same.  b.  Because the Book of the Just is only cited twice, once to prove the miracle of the sun standing still at the entreaty of Joshua, and a second time so that it might be indicated that the funeral ode of David upon the death of Saul and Jonathan was written in such a book:  but in no way is it shown that all the remaining affairs conducted by Joshua and related in the book of Joshua and in the books of Samuel were likewise found in that Book of the Just as the annals of the people of Israel.  c.  Because the fragments of the Book of the Just summoned to witness in those two places in which it is cited are metrical; while it is evident from the Books of Chronicles that the annals of the people of Israel were wont to be written in a style not so formalized, but free and prosaic.  Now, ABICHT himself, Dissertatione de Libro Recti, § 1-7, agrees with the opinion, which he also strives with all his might to confirm, concerning the estimation of the Book of the Just as a narration concerning some righteous and just Man, which in Joshua and in the second book of Samuel would not necessarily be found in the same volume; but according to him the Book of the Just in Joshua is able to be the title of an Funeral Ode composed after the death of Joshua for his praise; but in the book of Samuel a volume shall be signified, into which mournful songs were collected upon the death of Saul and Jonathan:  a.  for סֵפֶר does not necessarily denote a great volume; but even an epistle of one leaf,[24] a little bill of divorcement,[25] a little bill of purchase,[26] are called סֵפֶר.  Now, he observes that by the name of יָשָׁר, the Just, the dead were honored, in a manner similar to the way that we are wont to commend the same as blessed, by a comparison with Numbers 23:10:  so that the Book of that Just Man, הַיָּשָׁר, is a narration concerning a Man κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν, par excellence, righteous, just, whole, and worthy of praise; and הַיָּשָׁר, of the Just, is a genitive of object or argument, of which that סֵפֶר/Book discourses, just as mention is made of the Book of the Wars of Jehovah, of the book of purchase, etc.  b.  He observes that the circumstances of the double location, in which that Book of the Just is cited, favor this; where appeal is made unto mournful songs of this sort and Lamentations wont to be recited more often and on repeated occasions, unto the honor of distinguished Men of this sort, as unto documents coeval with the events, known among the people, from which it was possible to be certain concerning the truth of the matters narrated in these passages; whether the entire Book of Joshua was now written by another Prophet after Joshua’s death, or this pericope was thereafter inserted in the registers written by Joshua himself, just as also those things that occur concerning the death of Joshua and its consequences at the end of the Book.  c.  This was a common office of piety, both among the Israelites, and among other nations, that they mourned the death of their greatest men, Heroes, Kings, and Princes, and celebrated them with songs.  d.  The very words cited out of the Book of the Just in those two places, ABICHT judges to indicate sufficiently, that the argument of this sort of Book was metrical.  Whatever the case may be, those volumes, to which appeal is thus made under the title of the Book of that Just Man, perished without any loss to the Sacred Codex, unto which it is able to be evinced with absolutely no appearance of probability that the same ever pertained.  With this opinion thus defended by Abicht agree what things VRIEMOET has in Thesibus Scripturarum, CCXLVIII, CCXLIX:  “סֵפֶר הַיָּשָׁר, The Book of the Just, in Joshua 10:13, that we might not believe it to have had its name, with the most illustrious Trigland, derived from יִשְׂרָאֵל/Israel, or יִשְׂרְאֵלִי/Israelite, written in the contracted form, הישר׳, is brought to pass by its consistent pointing, both in this passage and in 2 Samuel 1:18, in the Hebrew codices, and by its interpretation in the ancient Versions.  But whence it was thus called, conjecture is too doubtful.  But, that it was Poetic, celebrating in song the memorable deaths of the people of God, is plausible; but that it was canonical, or even θεόπνευστον/inspired, there is no evidence.”  See also BUDDEUS’ Historiam ecclesiasticam Veteris Testamenti, period II, section II, § 4, 16, tome I, pages 662b, 754.

Our AUTHOR, in his Exercitationibus textualibus, Part IV, Exercise XI, § 10, pages 659-672, reviewed, with a critical summation added, those things that occur among learned Men concerning the Book of the Just, specifically those things in TRIGLAND’S Dissertatione de Libro Justorum also, approving some, signifying his dissent from that Illustrious Man in other things.  1.  MARCKIUS does not allow that the name of הַיָּשָׁר, the Just, is an abbreviation of יִשְׂרָאֵל/Israel, since this method of writing by abbreviation is not found elsewhere in the Sacred Codex, the vowel points are against it, and the designative ה does not fit so well before a proper name, as before an appellative:  nevertheless, by הַיָּשָׁר, the Just, as an agreeable elogy, he believes Israel to be denoted, with an allusion to this proper name:  thus our AUTHOR writes, Exercitationibus textualibus, Part IV, Exercise XI, § 10, at the end of page 663:  “But, rather than a simple Apocope,[27] which in no way agrees with the present punctuation, and which makes the prefixed ה/He not so well agreeable here, I would have הַיָּשָׁר, the Just, here, as it is in truth, to be an adjectival Noun, alluding to the prior name (Israel), and expressing the condition of that nation through the notion of righteousness, as also the situation is in the case of יְשֻׁרוּן/Jeshurun, which is not at all formed by abbreviation from יִשְׂרָאֵל/Israel.”  And he adds at the beginning of page 664:  “It is no more foreign to the genius of the Hebrew tongue than of other tongues, thus in the case of names through letters the same or similar to make sport; and that all the more finds a place here, the more worthy and agreeable to the Jews that name of the Just is.”  2.  He thinks it likely that the Book of the Just is the Annals of the people of Israel, proceeding on page 664:  “Moreover, that is by far the most fitting, that this Book of the Just, or of the just people of Israel, is named rather from its subject matter, than, etc.; in which manner it shall be allowed to bring this Book together with that of the Wars of the Lord,[28] of Matters Conducted,[29] of the Kings,[30] of the Covenant,[31] of the Law,[32] of the Generations,[33] etc.  No further doubt ought to be considered, that, where appeal is made to this Book of the Just as containing a matter conducted and narrated, we far more rightly think of some Book narrating historically the same with many others, than of a Prophecy predicting that matter, or recalling that matter into the mind of Israel long afterwards.  Whence it falls of itself, etc.”  Moreover, on page 665:  “Finally, thus Grotius speaks of a poem of ἐπινικίῳ/victory; indeed, Sanctius[34] suggested that perhaps there was a Book among the Hebrews in which pious songs were transcribed, etc.  In which it appears that some also concluded, that they thought that they found here poetic verses cited out of that book, just as in 2 Samuel 1:18, etc.  But against this the Most Illustrious TRIGLAND, among other things, opposed both the more common name Book, and the better confirmation of the preserved truth out of a prosaic, rather than a poetic, writing, on account of the customary Rhetorical flights and fictions of the Poets.  To be sure, I subscribe to those that with CORNELIUS À LAPIDE assert, What and of what sort the Book may have been is not known, for it has completely perished.”  And on page 666:  “But, if anything is to be conceded to probable conjectures, I think that it is to be done with those that have long found here the public Annals of Israel, as most worthy of the name of the Book of the Just, of the people of Israel, and most aptly cited in the public acts both of this and of the following age for the confirmation of the trustworthiness of them among the Israelites and then among other men.”  Again, on pages 669, 670:  “And to me they appear to take a better position, who maintain that the very words of that Book were not copied here, when in the text such is found that this was written upon or in that Book, even as this is found elsewhere concerning the matters, but not concerning the words, in 1 Kings 22:39, 45; 2 Kings 1:18; 8:23; etc.; and the Sacred Writer here makes use of an unbroken historical style without any indication of another’s words before or after this citation of the Book of the Just; moreover, by this citation it appears to be indicated that the matter, more briefly described here, is contained at length in the other Book….  Even if these words were metrical, in accordance with those of David, 2 Samuel 1:19, etc., and indeed were also transferred from the Book of the Just, it still would not follow from this that that entire Book was poetic, any more than that the Historical Books of Joshua and Samuel, now expressing those same words, are such.”  3.  Our Most Illustrious AUTHOR also observes that the θεοπνευστίαν/inspiration of that Book is in no way evident, and that its loss is alleged in an altogether gratuitous manner by the Papists to prove the Imperfection of the Scripture, page 666:  “It does not follow from this citation of it in a sacred book, that the same proceeded from the infallible inspiration of the Spirit, since human writings of proven trustworthiness are wont to be cited also elsewhere in the sacred writings for the greater conviction of men; still less that the same was designed by God for the perpetual Canon of the Church alongside the other Sacred Scriptures, just as not all prophecies had this end.  Whence this example also is wont ineptly to be urged to the contrary purpose by the Papists for the destruction of Canonical writings, and for the great Defect or imperfection of the Sacred Scripture remaining to this present day.”  4.  Finally, to the question, to what purpose was this appeal to the Book of the Just added by the author, Joshua or some other, to the history, Joshua 10:12-14, our AUTHOR responds on pages 670-672:  “To be sure, at first glance that doubt is not slight, in what manner Joshua, writing this his book, at almost the very time this matter was conducted, and himself a most trustworthy witness of all, could appeal to another Writing containing this matter….  This objection has brought it to pass that many have long made someone other than Joshua (Ezra, for example) the Author of this Book….  While others speak of Eleazar, or Samuel, or Isaiah, etc….  But from the citation of the Book of the Just there is no necessity that we deny this entire Book to Joshua; since that parenthetical citation was able to be added by a later Prophetic hand, just like some other similar, briefer pericopes, concerning which also mention was made on Joshua 4:9, etc.  Neither is there anything to oppose the idea that Joshua himself, writing of the miraculous event here, both more briefly, and also perhaps also at far greater length at the end of his life, might appeal to another writing, whether his own or another’s, but altogether worthy of confidence, in which the same matter, described both more extensively and more briefly, was able to be read:”  upon which matter MASIUS and HUET are cited.  Then, at the end, it is yet added:  “Neither does it appear unworthy of this Divine Spirit in Joshua, that he, recording so remarkable an event, might appeal thus to another human Writing, when that was altogether received with general confidence, and additionally was treating the same matter more extensively; just as then in the Books of Kings and elsewhere we understand many similarly citations; moreover, Luke appealed to τοὺς ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς αὐτόπται καὶ ὑπηρέται γενόμενοι τοῦ λόγου, those which from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, Luke 1:2:  so that I might now pass over in silence the Poets cited by Paul.[35]  For the Spirit studies all means of the conviction of men, even if His sayings are worthy of all confidence of themselves, etc.”

But I commit to each Reader that not-so-easy decision between those two opinions concerning the Book of the Just, whether it be Poetic or Historical, after what things have hitherto been related have been diligently weighed.

[1] Diego Ruiz de Montoya (1562-1632) was a Spanish Jesuit theologian.  He was a refined theologian, most remembered for his Doctrinæ Christianæ and his commentaries on selected parts of Aquinas’ work.

[2] Wolfgang Musculus (1497-1563) was a Reformed theologian, serving as Professor of Theology at Bern (1549-1563).  He has had enduring impacting through his Biblical Commentaries and his Locos communes sacræ theologiæ.

[3] That is, systematic collection.

[4] See Romans 3:1, 2.

[5] Philemon 23.

[6] Colossians 4:7, 8.

[7] John Mill (c. 1645-1707) was an English churchman and theologian.  He produced a critical edition of the Greek New Testament, which included all previous collections of various readings, with additional readings added from new manuscripts and Oriental versions.

[8] Daniel Whitby (1638-1726) was an English churchman, theologian, and Bible scholar.  An Arminian, Whitby’s Discourse on the Five Points drew responses from John Gill (The Cause of God and Truth) and Jonathan Edwards (The Freedom of the Will).  There is some evidence that toward the end of his life his views veered toward Socinianism and Unitarianism.  With respect to the text of the New Testament, he was critical of the work of Mill.

[9] Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians 3:2:  “For neither am I, nor is any other like me, able to follow the wisdom of the blessed and honored Paul, who, being among you, in the presence of the men of that time taught accurately and stedfastly the word of truth, who also, being absent, wrote letters to you, which if ye carefully study, ye shall be able to be built up unto that faith which has been given you…”

[10] Colossians 4:16a:  “And when this epistle (ἡ ἐπιστολή) is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans…”

[11] Ferdinand Stosch (1717-1780) was a German Reformed theologian and philologist.

[12] 2 Corinthians 7:8:  “For though I made you sorry with a letter (ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ), I do not repent, though I did repent:  for I perceive that the same epistle (ἡ ἐπιστολὴ ἐκείνη) hath made you sorry, though it were but for a season.”

[13] David Pareus (1548-1622) was a German Calvinist, serving the Reformed Church as a minister, churchman, and professor.  He wrote a commentary on the whole Bible, and it was held in high estimation among the Reformed.  His Commentarius in Epistolam ad Romanos was burned publicly at Oxford and Cambridge in 1622 by order of the Privy Council of James I because of his comments on Romans 13, in which he upholds the right of resistance to tyranny.

[14] Giovanni Diodati (1576-1649) was a Swiss Protestant and delegate to the Synod of Dordt.  He published his Annotationes in Biblia in Italian in 1607, which were translated into English in 1648.

[15] Wilhelmus Wilhelmius (1631-1677) was a Dutch philosopher.

[16] Jonathan ben Uzziel (first century) was one of the great pupils of Hillel.  It is a matter of some doubt whether Jonathan ben Uzziel is actually responsible for the translation of this portion of the Chaldean Version.  For the most part, Targum Jonathan tends to be more paraphrastic and expansive than Targum Onkelos.

[17] Targum Jerusalem is also known as Targum Pseudo-Jonathan.  It is a medieval Aramaic rendering of the Hebrew Torah.  It is more than a translation, including additional narrative and interpretative material.

[18] That is, in the Hebrew Imperfect Tense.

[19] מָשָׁל, a proverb, parable, or ode, is derived from the verbal root מָשַׁל, to represent.

[20] Johann Georg Abicht (1672-1740) was a German Lutheran pastor, theologian, and orientalist.  He served as Professor of Hebrew at Leipzig (1702-1711), and as Professor of Theology, first at Leipzig (1711-1717), and then at Wittenberg (1730-1739).

[21] See Deuteronomy 32:15; 33:5; 33:26; Isaiah 44:2.

[22] See, for example, 1 Kings 14:29.

[23] See, for example, 1 Kings 14:19.

[24] For example, 2 Samuel 11:14:  “And it came to pass in the morning, that David wrote a letter (סֵפֶר) to Joab, and sent it by the hand of Uriah.”

[25] Deuteronomy 24:1:  “When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her:  then let him write her a bill of divorcement (סֵ֤פֶר כְּרִיתֻת֙), and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.”

[26] Jeremiah 32:11, 12:  “So I took the evidence of the purchase (אֶת־סֵ֣פֶר הַמִּקְנָ֑ה), both that which was sealed according to the law and custom, and that which was open:  And I gave the evidence of the purchase (אֶת־הַסֵּ֣פֶר הַמִּקְנָ֗ה) unto Baruch the son of Neriah, the son of Maaseiah, in the sight of Hanameel mine uncle’s son, and in the presence of the witnesses that subscribed the book of the purchase (בְּסֵ֣פֶר הַמִּקְנָ֑ה), before all the Jews that sat in the court of the prison.”

[27] That is, the loss of a sound at the end of a word.

[28] Numbers 21:14.

[29] See, for example, 1 Kings 11:41.

[30] See, for example, 2 Chronicles 16:11.

[31] Exodus 24:7; 2 Kings 23:2; 2 Chronicles 34:30.

[32] See, for example, Deuteronomy 29:21; Joshua 1:8.

[33] Genesis 5:1.

[34] Gasper Sanchez (1554-1628) was a Jesuit scholar.  He served as Professor of Theology at Madrid, and is respected by Roman Catholics and Protestants alike as a Biblical commentator.

[35] See Acts 17:28; Titus 1:12.