De Moor II:19: The Apocrypha, Part 1

After our AUTHOR related positively what Books constitute the Matter of Composition of the Sacred Scripture; he now negatively separates from the same, both the Books fabulously or by uncertain tradition ascribed to the Apostles or Apostolical Men, and those Books wont to be joined with the Old Testament, which commonly go by the name of Apocrypha.

In the first centuries of Christianity, it is well-known that Pseudepigrapha were endlessly ascribed to the Apostles and to Apostolical Men.  The Learned observe that this was done by the heretics of the first centuries, and by others that under a false name were seeking to obtain Apostolic authority for their own writings.  Those that treat Ecclesiastical and Literary History are to be consulted concerning these; and certainly FABRICIUS’ Codex Apocryphus Novi Testamenti; and GERHARD’S Confessio catholica, tome I, book I, general, latter part, chapters VI-VIII, pages 394-430, in which he discusses the Canons, Constitutions, and Liturgies of the Apostles against the Papists:  likewise RUMPÆUS’ Commentatio critica ad Novi Testamenti Libros, § IX, XVII, XXII, pages 17-19, 33-39, 46-48, and those many that he cites.  Concerning the Pseudo-Gospels and the Pseudo-canonical writings of the New Testament, see considerably more things, against Toland’s Amyntora,[1] by LELAND, Beschouwing van de Schriften der Deisten, tome 1, chapter 4, pages 88-95.  Concerning the Pseudo-Liturgies of Christ and the Apostles, consult BUDDEUS’ Isagogen ad Theologiam universam, book II, appendix, chapter V, tome 2, pages 853-855, 857, 858.  Concerning the Symbolo Apostolico, see also Chapter III:12.

From these, nevertheless, one or another was formerly reckoned in the Canon of Books to be Read also; but simultaneously as Apocryphal it was removed from the Canon of θεοπνεύστων/inspired Books.  For example, EUSEBIUS says that by some the Shepherd of Hermas ἀντιλελέχθαι, was disputed, and δι᾽ οὓς οὐκ ἂν ἐν ὁμολογουμένοις τεθείη, on their account it cannot be placed among the acknowledged books.  But by others this Book was judged ἀναγκαιότατο/necessary, especially to those that are to be imbued with the first elements of religion; whence also in the Churches it was δεδημοσιευμένος, published, promulgated, explained; Historia Ecclesiastica, book III, chapter III.  The Shepherd is reckoned by JEROME, Prologo galeato, opera, tome 3, page 17, among the Apocrypha, which are not in the Canon:  if only that Shepherd of Hermas, of which we now treat, be indicated there, concerning which consult RIVET on the passage next cited.  It is said that the author is that Hermas, whom Paul wishes to be greeted, Romans 16:14.  Whether the Book that is today inscribed with this name actually claims that Apostolical Man as author, the Learned dispute.  Men, certainly not of the lowest rank, contend that it is spurious.  SCULTETUS,[2] Medulla Patrum, part I, book XI, chapter VII, pages 372, 373, rejects this book as Fabulous and Apocryphal, and also that on it are built the freedom of the will, a single repentance, monastic solitude, and purgatory.  It can be read with COTELIER’S Notis in his Patribus Apostolicis, tome I, pages 68 and following, with the testimonies of the Ancients concerning the Shepherd of Hermas prefaced:  I shall be amazed if the reading is going to be very pleasing:  for more concerning this writing see CAVE’S Historiam Litterariam; GERHARD’S Patrologiam; RIVET’S Criticum Sacrum, book I, chapter XII, opera, tome 2, page 1084.

Thus in Pseudo-Apostolic Canon[3] LXXXV, together with the Canonical Books are commended, besides two Epistles of Clement of Rome, eight books of Apostolic Constitutions, which have their reputation from the same Clement.[4]  But, that these, together with the Apostolic Canons, are spurious and ψευδεπιγράφους/pseudepigraphal, the Learned have for some time taught.  Indeed, the Constitutions are moved back to the Fifth Century by DAILLÈ;[5] by BLONDEL[6] and others they are believed to have been written near the end of the Third Century.  To SPANHEIM some rites commemorated here appear to have been already in use in the Third Century, but the whole work was stitched together at length toward the end of the Fifth Century:  but he believes that the names of the Apostles and Clement were prefixed to obtain authority for the work.  Similarly all the Apostolic Canons are moved back to the Fifth Century by DAILLÈ, with some Greek plagiarizing the Canons of Councils:  but others refer the first fifty Canons to the height of the Third Century, which they think for the most part to have been excerpts from the Constitutions; the remaining thirty-five they think to savor of the Sixth Century.  Called Apostolic and likewise Constitutions, so that they might procure for them authority and the appearance of antiquity, and at the same time separate the argument of those from the doctrine of the heretics of the Second and Third Centuries.  More concerning these things shall be imparted by DAILLÈ, GERHARD, OLEARIUS, SCULTETUS in Medulla Patrum, SPANHEIM in Historia Ecclesiastica, Century I, chapter XV, § 2, column 570, 580, Century III, chapter XI, § 4, 5, columns 784-786, and others.  For these things do not belong to this Compendium.  A fair number, discoursing concerning the Apostolic Constitutions and their νοθείᾳ/spuriousness, are cited by WALCH in his Miscellaneis Sacris, book III, Exercitation I, § 3, pages 490, 491:  see also our AUTHOR in his Exercitationibus Juvenilibus, Disputation XXIII, § 4, pages 497, 498.  Concerning the successive collecting of the Apostolic Canons, and the work of Clement of Alexandria likely employed in this matter, consult the words of ENS also, Diatriba de Librorum Novi Testamenti Canone, chapter VI, distinction II, § 7-10, pages 144-148.  Concerning the Apostolic Canons and Constitutions, an occasion for speaking shall return again in Chapter XXXIII:23.

But with respect to the Apocryphal Books, wont to be joined to the Old Testament among the Greeks and the Latins:  thus they are vulgarly called, say our AUTHOR, thence from JEROME, who in his Prologo galeato, opera, tome 3, page 17, after reviewing the Canon of the Old Testament adds, whatever is beyond these is to be placed among the Apocrypha; which he then applies to the Books vulgarly called Apocryphal:  that is, from this time this solemn denomination adhered to these Books, which in other respects is already found among the Fathers of the preceding age, with TRIGLAND observing in his Sylloge Dissertationum; Dissertatione de Appellatione Apocryphorum Librorum, § 4, 14, 16, who thinks that among Christians Hegesippus,[7] closest to the time of the Apostles, was the first of all to make use of this appellation, while in his Commentariis, plundered by Eusebius, περὶ τῶν λεγομένων Ἀποκρύφων διέβαλε, he discussed books, which were called Apocryphal; see EUSEBIUS’ Historiam Ecclesiasticam, book IV, chapter XXII.  Indeed, he believes that this Hegesippus, a convert from the Jewish to the Christian faith, drew this appellation from the Jews, among whom these Books were already called גְּנוּזִים/hidden/ Apocryphal.

That these Books in the Greek language were called Apocryphal or hidden, our AUTHOR judges, together with the most excellent Theologians, not on account of their uncertain Authors, as the Glossator of the Juris Canonici, Distinction XV, chapter III, column 62, thinks with a few others, which, 1.  is partly false, since the author of Ecclesiasticus, Sirach, is known; the author of the Wisdom of Solomon is held to be either the same Sirach, or Philo the Jew:  JEROME, in his Præfatione in Proverbia Salomonis, opera, tome 3, page 25, “And also included is a model of all virtue, the book of Jesus, son of Sirach:  and also another pseudepigraph, which is titled the Wisdom of Solomon.  The former of which I have found in Hebrew, entitled, not Ecclesiasticus as among the Latins, but Parables…  The second is nowhere among the Hebrews; moreover, its style smells of Greek eloquence:  and some of the ancient writers affirm that this belonged to Philo the Jew.”  2.  This is partly common to the Canonical books, among which the authors of the various Historical Books of the Old Testament are uncertain; consult TRIGLAND’S Syllogen Dissertationum; Dissertatione de Appellatione Apocryphorum Librorum, § 6.  But on account of their rejected Authority:  with an allusion made in the word, 1.  not so much to the Ark of the Covenant, from which they were excluded; that is, where some maintain that the Autographs of the Canonical Books were preserved, but which privilege was denied to the Apocryphal Books; as EPIPHANIUS, de Mensuris et Ponderibus, opera, tome 2, page 162, after the mention of one and another Apocryphal Book, says that these do not pertain to the Canon, διὸ οὐδὲ ἐν τῷ ἀαρὼν ἀνετέθησαν, τοῦτ᾽ ἐστιν ἐν τῇ τῆς διαθήκης κιβωτῷ, wherefore they were not kept in the chest, that is, in the ark of the covenant:  which explanation for the denomination satisfies HEINRICH ALTING, Theologia problemata nova, locus II, problem XX, page 122:  but which VRIEMOET, Thesibus Antiquitatum Israeliticarum, CCCVIII, affirms to depend upon an erroneous supposition, which is:  “The Chest containing the sacred Scrolls was called by the same name in the Synagogues as the Ark of the Covenant was in the Temple, ארון/aron.  Whence it is a tiresome error, not only of some of the Fathers, but also of the more recent men, concerning the Books of the Sacred Codex, wont to be kept in the Ark of the Covenant.”  Besides which observation by TRIGLAND, Sylloge Dissertationum; Dissertatione de Appellatione Apocryphorum Librorum, § 7, explained at length, he teaches in addition that the ἡ τῆς διαθήκης κιβωτὸς, the ark of the covenant, which Epiphanius interprets as ἀαρὼν/chest, was among five lost things under the second Temple, with which standing the ἀπόκρυφοι/Apocryphal Books were at length written.  2.  But, as it were, גְּנוּזִים/hidden, from a Hiding under the earth, done in one or another way, made use of among the Jews concerning Books of the Law defectively copied or other erroneous Books; when they are said גנז, to hide, any book, the matter itself is said to be a גניזות/hiding, and a book of this sort גנוז/hidden, to which the Greek word ἀπόκρυφος/Apocryphal perfectly corresponds:  in which opinion our AUTHOR follows HOTTINGER, Thesauro Philologico, book II, chapter II, section I, pages 521, 522, who in book I, chapter II, question IV, page 142, relates from the Jews that they called defectively copied Books of the Law גנוזים, and did not admit them for public use; but they either transferred them to scholastic use, or buried them enclosed in an earthen vessel near a student of wisdom:  and he adds that Books truly incompatible with the Canonical Books of the Old Testament were also called גנוזים, which the Jews did not read, nor esteem worthy to be read, indeed, ἀπέκρυψαν, they hid, them lest others should peruse them.  This opinion of HOTTINGER, which our AUTHOR also supports, is confirmed and commended at greater length by TRIGLAND, Sylloge Dissertationum; Dissertatione de Appellatione Apocryphorum Librorum, § 8-16.  The reason for the allusion in the term is of little importance, since in general it is evident that these Books were thus called with good reason on account of their obscure and rejected authority.  AUGUSTINE, book XI contra Faustum Manichæum, chapter II, opera, tome 8, column 156:  “These are the Books that are called Apocryphal; not because they are to be held in any mysterious authority, but because they are mysterious in their origin, and in the absence of clear evidence, have only some obscure presumption to rest upon.”

The Arguments, because of which we reject all the Books wont to be called Apocryphal as not divine and Canonical, you will see diligently gathered and powerfully constructed in the Prologo, altogether worthy of reading, which is found before our recent Version of these Books in the Dutch Bible:  see in addition JOHN RAINOLDS’ Censuram Librorum Apocryphorum; RIVET’S Isagogen ad Scripturam Sacram, chapter VII, opera, tome 2, pages 879-887; consult also JOHN GERHARD’S Confessionem Catholicam, tome 2, book II, special part I, article I, chapter I, where it is proven chiefly out of the suffrages of Roman Catholic Writers, both that the Apocryphal Books in general are not to be held as θεοπνεύστοις/inspired and Canonical, prior Section, pages 2-36, and that in particular none of the Apocryphal Books, which the Papists hold as Canonical, are to be paid this honor, posterior Section, pages 36-71.

It will suffice to have noted briefly with our AUTHOR what things now follow:

1.  With respect to Malachi’s sealing of the Canon of the Old Testament, Malachi 4:4-6, consult § 14 above; whence we infer:  α.  What Books were written after the sealing of the Canon by Malachi, are not able to pertain to that Canon.  But the former is true concerning the Apocryphal Books, Therefore also the latter.  β.  What Books were written after Malachi, called the Seal of the Prophets by the Jews, see in § 11, 14 above; who sufficiently indicated that more Prophets are not to be expected under the Old Testament, promising the coming of John the Baptist; those were not written by Prophets or by the prophetic Spirit, and therefore are not to be admitted into the Canon, all the Books of which are called the Prophetic Scriptures, Romans 16:26, Prophetic Speech, 2 Peter 1:19, 20.  But these Books were written after Malachi and the departure of the Prophets.  The Book of Wisdom from that period indeed is called the Wisdom of Solomon, whom the author also pretends himself to be, Wisdom of Solomon 9:7, 8; proclaiming himself to be the King that had commanded the building of the Jerusalem Temple:[8]  but contrariwise it is observed that the author alludes to the games of the Greeks, Wisdom of Solomon 4:2,[9] which did not begin to be instituted until two centuries after Solomon:  consult besides those things, what things I have already introduced from JEROME; SPANHEIM the Elder’s Disputationes Anti-Anabaptisticas, VI, § 58, 59; BUDDEUS’ Historiam ecclesiasticam Veteris Testamenti, period II, section IV, § 33, tome 2, pages 519b-521a, section VII, § 17, pages 967-969a, and his Introductionem ad Historiam Philosophiæ Hebræorum, § 18, pages 57-63; GERHARD’S Confessionem Catholicam, tome 2, book II, special part I, article I, chapter I, pages 57-59.  Learned Men think that it is closer to the truth that the Hellenistic Jews, dispersed throughout various regions outside of Judea, wrote these books in pious zeal, and in addition to the Greek version of the Bible made use of them privately.

2.  That these Apocryphal Books are not to be numbered with the Canonical, our AUTHOR proves from this, that they were written in the Greek Tongue under the Old Testament, at which time the oracles of God were entrusted to the Jews, Romans 3:2.  Of course, all the Canonical Books of the Old Testament were written in the Hebrew tongue, because they were for the sake of the Jewish Church, to which the Hebrew Language was the vernacular.  But these Books were written, either from the first, or delivered to posterity, as our AUTHOR most advantageously adds for the sake of explanation in his Compendio, in the Greek Language.  For concerning some of these it is passed down that they were written in Hebrew or Chaldean.  Sirach in his Prologo relates that he translated those things that his grandfather had gathered ἐκ τῶν πατρίων βιβλίων, out of the books of the fathers; and that what things he had spoken ἐβραϊστὶ, in Hebrew, μεταχθῆναι εἰς ἑτέραν γλῶσσαν, are translated into another tongue, by himself.  The Books of Tobit and Judith, as JEROME testifies in his Præfatione ad eosdem, opera, tome 3, page 22, were first written in Chaldean, whence this Father translated them into the Latin language.  That he found the First Book of the Maccabees in Hebrew, JEROME relates in his Prologo galeato in Libros Regum, opera, tome 3, page 17:  consult BUDDEUS’ Historiam ecclesiasticam Veteris Testamenti, period II, section VII, § 17, tome 2, pages 489, 490.  But, while the remaining Books are held to have been written in Greek, even these were translated into the Greek tongue some time ago, if not by the Septuagint Translators, at least by Theodotion.  Now, the Apocryphal Books have been brought down to us in this Greek Tongue only, while the text, whether Hebrew or Chaldean, if any had been written in this idiom, perished some time ago.  Indeed, HOTTINGER relates that he possesses a complete Manuscript Codex of the Apocrypha in the Hebrew Tongue; but at the same time he adds that it was recently translated into that language, Thesauro Philologico, book I, chapter III, section III, question VII, page 317.  Indeed, the Fourth Book of Esdras is not even extant in Greek, but in Latin only.  But all the authentic Books of the Old and New Testaments were preserved by the providence of God in their original Language:  therefore, God did not so care for these Apocryphal Books as He did His own.

3.  The very Writers of these Books distinguish themselves from the Prophets; they sufficiently indicate that their labors are not to be numbered in the register of the Canonical Scripture of the Old Testament; since this in its entirety is called in the New Testament prophetic and θεόπνευστος/inspired:  but concerning the passing of the Prophets, which had already obtained among the Jews ἐξ ἱκανοῦ χρόνου, a considerable time ago, you read in 1 Maccabees 9:27, in which is commemorated an affliction of such power as had not been since the time no Prophet had been seen in Israel.[10]  In Sirach’s Prologue, verses 1 and 3, he clearly distinguishes Himself and his grandfather from the Prophets; and he relates that he and his grandfather lived some time after the Law and the Prophets were written and the Prophets had died out.[11]  In 2 Maccabees 2:23, the Writer of that book declares that he is only an epitomist of the Maccabean History, comprehended by Jason of Cyrene in five books;[12] in 2 Maccabees 2:26, there is a consideration of his sweat and vigils in bringing this work to completion;[13] which things savor little of the prophetic genius and divine inspiration.  In 2 Maccabees 15:38, the writer begs pardon, εἰ—εὐτελῶς καὶ μετρίως, if…slenderly and moderately only this work was executed:[14]  these things are far from engendering confidence in its divine authority:  consult GERHARD’S Confessionem Catholicam, tome 2, book II, special part I, article I, chapter I, pages 63, 68.

4.  The Canonical Books of the Old Testament are everywhere cited by Christ and His Apostles in the New Testament for the confirmation of their doctrine:  but these several Books, Moral and Historical, are nowhere cited in the New Testament for the confirmation of doctrine.  How nearly all the Canonical Books of the Old Testament are cited in the New Testament, HEINRICH ALTING shows in his Theologia Elenctica, Scriptorum Theologicorum Heidelbergensium, tome I, page 284, perhaps with the exceptions of Nehemiah and Esther from the Historical Books, Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon from the Poetic Books (nevertheless, that the Song is able to be held as cited in the New Testament as Canonical Scripture, PIETER NIEUWLAND[15] credibly teaches in his Letter- en Oudheid-kundige Verlustigingen, part II, chapter VII, section IX), and Obadiah and Zephaniah alone of the Minor Prophets:  but which are cited in a general way, in the Book of the Prophets mentioned in Acts 7:42, and in the citation of the Law and the Prophets, or of the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms,[16] under which were comprehended all those just listed.  But the Apocryphal Books were formerly reckoned to no part of the Canonical Scripture cited in the New Testament.  And do not take exception that the Citation of a Book in the New Testament, if it be present, is not able to confer Canonical authority upon it; nor to remove it, if that citation be lacking:  otherwise Aratus,[17] Epimenides,[18] and Menander[19] are also to be added to the θεοπνεύστοις/inspired men.  For, I respond, α.  that a bare Citation does not confer Divinity; but a Citation of a Book, as what is Canonical for the proving of doctrine, supposes and implies its Canonical authority.  Therefore, the Greek Poets are not made Canonical because of the Pauline citation:  for Paul does not cite them as Canonical; but he makes use of them, especially for the sake of his hearers or readers, for arguments ad hominem.  But, β.  while the Apocryphal Books are nowhere cited in the New Testament, either in general, or as Canonical, an argument is not wanting to us by which their Canonical authority might otherwise be able to be decided:  indeed, because the Apocryphal Books are passed over, when the entire Old Testament, distributed into its parts, is cited, an argument hence arises for us for the exclusion of these Books from the Canon.

5.  What Books show a great many marks, not of Divinity, but of Humanity, in falsehoods, contradictions, superstitions, and manifest impieties, those are not to be held as Divine and Canonical, but as of human origin.  But such are the Apocryphal Books.  HEINRICH ALTING, Theologia Elenctica, Scriptorum Theologicorum Heidelbergensium, tome I, pages 282, 283, will furnish examples abundantly, and yet even more abundantly the Præfatio Belgicæ set before the new Version of these Books.  Out of the many examples, only these few specimens are now observed by our AUTHOR.  In Tobit 12:12, 15,[20] he, who in Tobit 5:12 had called himself Azarias, the son of Ananias the great, one of the brethren of Tobit,[21] then feigns himself to be the Angel Raphael, one of seven that offer prayers to God, which is the work of the Mediator Christ alone:  consult SPANHEIM the Elder’s Disputationes Anti-Anabaptisticas, VI, § 7-17, VIII, § 21-44.  In Tobit 6:6, 7, the same teaches the younger Tobias to drive off evil demons with the smoke and scent of the heart and liver of a certain fish:[22]  which is said to have been confirmed by experience in Tobit 8:2, 3.[23]  This savours of superstition and old wives tales, contrary to the doctrine of Christ, Matthew 17:21:  consult SPANHEIM’S Disputationes Anti-Anabaptisticas, VIII, § 3-20.  That the Book of Tobit is not to be reckoned among the Canonical Books, is set forth as evinced by GERHARD, Confessione Catholica, tome 2, book II, special part I, article I, chapter I, pages 48-53:  compare BUDDEUS’ Historiam ecclesiasticam Veteris Testamenti, period II, section IV, § 29, tome 2, pages 489, 490.  Judith, in Judith 9:2-4, commemorates with praise the cruel deed of Simeon and Levi against the Shechemites,[24] narrated in Genesis 34:25, 26, which their father Jacob so detested, Genesis 49:5, 6:  consult SPANHEIM the Elder’s Disputationes Anti-Anabaptisticas, VII, § 8, 12.  Besides which that entire historical register, which goes under the name of Judith, concerning an eminent liberation of the people of God from the hand of the Assyrians by the help of Judith, after which Holofernes, General of the Assyrians, was fooled by a clever plan and killed, in the eighteenth year of King Nebuchadnezzar, etc., to great men appears to savour of a fable, or (as GROTIUS would have it) a parabolic narration, in which all the names are enigmatic, so that the name of Judith is in the place of the Jewish nation as a widow,[25] Bethulia in the place of the temple or house of God,[26] etc.  Against the verity of the history they appeal not only to the silence of the Hebrew Scripture and Josephus, but especially to the circumstances of the time, in which this history should have happened.  Accordingly they argue that this is not able to be understood to have regard, α.  to the times that preceded the Captivity, as the great Men among the Papists, but also not very long ago PRIDEAUX, An Historical Connection of the Old and New Testaments, part I, book I, columns 40-47, assign this history to the time of King Manasseh.[27]  But these considerations hinder:  a.  that the people were recently returned from that Captivity, Judith 5:16-19[28] compared with Judith 4:2, 3;[29] b.  that there is no mention of Manasseh or any other King, but the height of government conferred upon Joakim or Eliakim the priest; c.  that the Jewish people were clearly unknown to the General of the Assyrians, Judith 5:3, 4,[30] etc.  β.  Neither to the times just before the Captivity, which is expressly against the text, in which the restoration of the people and worship is expressly mentioned as recent after the Captivity; and in the time of the Captivity the daily worship and oblations of sacrifices by the priests of Jerusalem were not continuing, concerning which Judith 4; 5; and such a numerous population of Jews was not inhabiting the holy land in the time of the Babylonian Captivity, as here is found.  γ.  Neither to the times after the Captivity, when there was no empire of the Assyrians, which had already been overthrown by the Medes, while Josiah was reigning; and at that time no expedition of any such King Nebuchadnezzar against the Jews easily agrees with profane or sacred history:  consult SPANHEIM the Elder’s Disputationes Anti-Anabaptisticas, VI, § 18-27, pages 126-133, VII, § 8-12, pages 156-161; SPANHEIM the Younger’s Historiam Ecclesiasticam Veteris Testamenti, Epoch VI, chapter VII, column 391, Epoch VII, chapter V, § 2, columns 405, 406; GERHARD’S Confessionem Catholicam, tome 2, book II, special part I, article I, chapter I, pages 53-56; BUDDEUS’ Historiam ecclesiasticam Veteris Testamenti, period II, section IV, § 29, tome 2, pages 490b-496.  The Author of the Book that is called Ecclesiasticus shows that he believes that Samuel, actually awakened by the Witch, prophesied after his death, Ecclesiasticus 46:20,[31] which is contrary to Canonical Scripture, Luke 16:27-31; Revelation 14:13; etc.:  consult SPANHEIM the Elder’s Disputationes Anti-Anabaptisticas, XV, § 9-22, pages 274-280.  In Ecclesiasticus 48:10, he confirms the error concerning the expected return of Elijah the Tishbite to this earth,[32] which is expressly contrary to the exposition of the prophecy of Malachi[33] given by Christ concerning John the Baptist:[34]  consult SPANHEIM the Elder’s Disputationes Anti-Anabaptisticas, VI, § 60-64.  Against the canonical authority of the book of Ecclesiasticus, consult GERHARD’S Confessionem Catholicam, tome 2, book II, special part I, article I, chapter I, pages 61, 62.  In 2 Maccabees 12:41-45, are commended prayers and the oblation of sacrifices for the dead, so that their sins might be expiated,[35] which again is not able to be reconciled with the Sacred Scriptures.  In which manner, with our AUTHOR warning, Exercitationibus Juvenilibus, Disputation XXV, § 6, “That Author has gravely erred, not only against the divine law, which is the sole norm of all piety, but also against the history of that fact, from which it is evident that the oblation of Judah was made, not for the dead, but for the living, lest any greater sin be imputed to them, but that they might be cleansed from the common guilt:”  consult SPANHEIM the Elder’s Disputationes Anti-Anabaptisticas, XII, pages 243-257; SPANHEIM the Younger’s Xenia Romana-catholicoram, Dilemma XII, columns 1138, 1139, opera, tome 3; PRIDEAUX’S An Historical Connection of the Old and New Testaments, part II, book IV, columns 991, 992; BUDDEUS’ Historiam ecclesiasticam Veteris Testamenti, period II, section VII, § 14, tome 2, page 950; and what things I teach below on this passage of Maccabees in Part VI, in which what passages of VOSSIUS and HOSPINIAN[36] are cited also deserve to be inspected, to remove all faith in the Canonical Authority of that Maccabean book.  Against the authenticity and θεοπνευστίαν/ inspiration of the First and Second books of the Maccabees, consult GERHARD’S Confessionem Catholicam, tome 2, book II, special part I, article I, chapter I, pages 63-71.  It would detain us for too long a time, if we should add all our observations to all the remaining examples, that our AUTHOR mentions, of the errors, contradictions, superstitions, and impieties in Apocryphal books:  SPANHEIM the Elder’s Disputationes Anti-Anabaptisticas, frequently cited, are able everywhere to be brought to bear upon these; for example, on Tobit 3:8;[37] 14:4,[38] 11,[39] consult SPANHEIM the Elder’s Disputationes Anti-Anabaptisticas, VII, § 2-7; on Wisdom of Solomon 7:5,[40] 17;[41] 8:21;[42] 9:7, 8;[43] etc., see SPANHEIM the Elder’s Disputationes Anti-Anabaptisticas, VI, § 58, 59, VII, § 37-40, XV, § 1-8; against the Canonical authority of the Book of Wisdom, see also GERHARD’S Confessionem Catholicam, tome 2, book II, special part I, article I, chapter I, pages 56-60; on 1 Maccabees 1:5-7;[44] 8:15, 16;[45] 12:11,[46] see SPANHEIM the Elder’s Disputationes Anti-Anabaptisticas, VI, § 47-57, XI, § 2, 3, 10-13; on 2 Maccabees 2:5;[47] 14:37;[48] etc., see SPANHEIM the Elder’s Disputationes Anti-Anabaptisticas, VI, § 47, 48, 56, XIII, XIV.  On those things that come to be noted here on the Additions to Esther, Jeremiah, and Daniel, consult the same SPANHEIM, Disputationibus Anti-Anabaptisticis, VI, § 28-46, VII, § 13-27, IX, § 50-53, X, § 1-23:  add GERHARD’S Confessionem Catholicam, tome 2, book II, special part I, article I, chapter I, pages 36-48.

6.  Finally, our AUTHOR denies that these Books are to be reckoned among the Canonical Books, because they were not received by the ancient Jews or Christians.

              α.  Concerning the Jewish Canon, it is evident, a.  from the universal testimony of the Jewish nation, which is perhaps also able to be gathered from the very name of ἀποκρύφων/Apocrypha, גְּנוּזִים/ hidden, for TRIGLAND thinks that this was transferred from the Jews to the Christians, Sylloge Dissertationum; Dissertatione de Appellatione Apocryphorum Librorum, § 16, compared with § 9-14.  b.  From the computation of JOSEPHUS and the distribution of the Sacred Books made by him, book I contra Apionem, page 1036, where he divides the twenty-two Canonical Books precisely into three Classes, unto none of which are these Apocryphal Books able to be referred; indeed, he manifestly excludes those Books from the Canon of θεοπνεύστων/ inspired Books, when he subjoins:  after the death of Artaxerxes,[49] who reigned after Xerxes,[50] individual Books indeed were also committed to writing, πίστεως δὲ οὐχ ὁμοίας ἠξίωται τοῖς πρὸ ἑαυτῶν, διὰ τὸ μὴ γενέσθαι τὴν τῶν προφητῶν ἀκριβῆ διαδοχήν, but they were not esteemed worthy of like confidence with the former by our forefathers, because there has not been an exact succession of prophets since that time.  c.  Also from the Citation of the Old Testament in the New under the title of the Law and the Prophets, or the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms; seeing that unto none of these Classes, which alone at that time were constituting the entire Canon of the Jews, are the Apocryphal Books able to be referred.  And the Papists tacitly agree, since they commonly do not admit the fiction of Genebrard concerning the successive augmentation of the Canon, which I mentioned in § 18:  consult GERHARD’S Confessionem Catholicam, tome 2, book II, special part I, article I, chapter I, pages 10-12, 21, 24, 25.  This argument is not without its own weight, seeing that the preservation of the Canon of Scripture was at that time entrusted to the Jews, Romans 3:2, from whom the Christians were obliged to receive the Canon of the Old Testament:  and it is not the case that we would here accuse the Jews of bad faith or negligence, with neither the Lord nor His Apostles accusing them of the like outrage, and with long experience supplying contrary evidence:  whence AUGUSTINE calls the Jews in books supporters, in hearts our enemies, in codices witnesses, de Fide rerum quæ non videntur, chapter VI, opera, tome 6, column 108; and he wishes for the Jews to be considered as book-carriers and scribes, who carry the Codices for us students, on Psalm 40 or 41:14, tome 4, column 262.  And on Psalm 66 or 67:9, column 399, The Jew carries the Codex, whence the Christian believes.  They are made our Copyists, just as servants are wont to carry the codices behind their masters, that they might fade in the carrying, and we might advance in the reading.  Likewise in book XII contra Faustum Manichæum, chapter XXIII, tome 8, column 170, For what else is that nation of the Jews to the present day, except a certain book-chest of the Christians, bearing the Law and the Prophets for a testimony in defense of the Church?  If anyone wishes to see the many testimonies gathered out of the writings of the Jews, which confirm that the Canonical authority of the Apocryphal Books was not at all acknowledged or recognized in the midst of that Nation, let him visit HOTTINGER’S Thesaurum Philologicum, book II, chapter II, section I, pages 522-530.

              β.  Against the Papists, always harping on antiquity, it is no less permissible to us to appeal to the Canon of the Ancient Christians, by whom in like manner for a long time and through four entire Centuries after the Birth of Christ these Books had been proscribed:  which is able to appear to the eye of one looking into AMANDUS POLANUS’[51] Symphoniam Catholicam, chapter I, thesis I, pages 1-21; RIVET’S Isagogen ad Scripturam Sacram, chapter VII, pages 879-887, opera, tome 2; JOHN GERHARD’S Confessionem Catholicam, tome 2, book II, special part I, article I, chapter I, pages 4, 16-19; Canonem Scripturæ collectum ab Amplissimo GERHARD VAN MASTRICHT in the Bibliotheca Bremensis, classis VII, fascicule I; BUDDEUS’ Isagogen ad Theologiam universam, book II, chapter VIII, § 4, tome 2, pages 1489-1494; WOLF’S Bibliothecam Hebraicam, tome II, book I, in the Appendix of Section I, pages 50 and following, in which is the Canon of MELITO, Second Century Bishop of Sardis, out of Eusebius’ Historia Ecclesiastica, book IV, chapter XXVI near the end:  of ORIGEN out of Eusebius’ Historia Ecclesiastica, book VI, chapter XXV, in which, after he had surveyed the Canon of the Old Testament, out of the Apocryphal Books he speaks only of the Books of the Maccabees, which he mentions to be excluded from the Canon, saying, ἔξω δὲ τούτων ἐστὶ τὰ Μακκαβαϊκά, but besides these there are the Maccabean Books:  of ATHANASIUS, both out of his Epistola ἑορταστικῇ/festali, and also out of the Synopsi Scripturæ Sacræ commonly attributed to him, opera, tome 2, pages 38-40, 55 and following, in both of which places after the manner of the Jews twenty-two Canonical Books of the Old Testament are enumerated, but then in the Synopsi it is added that the other non-Canonical Books of the Old Testament, which are only read to Catechumens, are The Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Judith, and Tobit:  of CYRIL of Jerusalem, out of his Catechesi IV, § 22, page m. 66, in which he, enumerating the twenty-two Books of the Old Testament according to the Jews, teaches concerning these, τούτων τὰς εἴκοσι δύο βίβλους ἀναγίνωσκε·  πρὸς δὲ τὰ ἀπόκρυφα μηδὲν ἔχε κοινὸν, of these study the twenty-two books:  but have nothing to do with the Apocryphal Books; thus esteeming all the remaining Books beyond those twenty-two as Apocryphal; which Apocryphal Books he does not wish even to be read, Catechesi IV, § 20, page 64, ἀναγίνωσκε τὰς θείας γραφὰς, τὰς εἴκοσι δύο βίβλους τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης·  καὶ μοι μηδὲν τῶν ἀποκρύφων ἀναγίνωσκε, study the divine writings, the twenty-two books of the Old Testament:  and study none of the Apocryphal Books:  of GREGORY NAZIANZEN, whose Canon in Carmine XXXIII, opera, tome 2, page 98, is clearly the same; but he subjoins, πάσας ἔχεις, thou hast all, namely, βίβλους, the books, εἴ τι δὲ τούτων ἐκτὸς, οὐκ ἐν γνησίοις, but if there be any beyond those, they are not among the legitimate books:  of EPIPHANIUS, both from his libro de Mensuris et Ponderibus, opera, tome 2, and from book I adversus Hæreses, VIII, tome I, page 19, where, after reviewing the truly Canonical Books, he adds, εἴσι δὲ καὶ ἄλλαι δύο βίβλοι παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς ἐν ἀμφιλέκτῳ (in controverso), ἡ σοφία τοῦ σιρὰχ, καὶ ἡ τοῦ σολομῶντος, χωρὶς (præter) ἄλλων τινῶν βιβλίων ἐναποκρύφων, but there are two other books beside those in controversy, the Wisdom of Sirach, and the Wisdom of Solomon, besides certain other Apocryphal Books:  of AMPHILOCHIUS also, who, in his Jambis suis ad Seleucum, verses 261-288, in his review of the Canon makes mention of none of the Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament.  With these of the principal Greek Writers of the first four Centuries the Latins agree, of which sort are:  RUFFINUS, who distinguishes between the Books, 1.  Canonical, 2.  not Canonical, but Ecclesiastical, 3.  Apocryphal:  and he reckons to the Books of the second order Wisdom, which is said to be of Solomon, and another Wisdom of the son of Sirach, which Book may also be called Ecclesiasticus; likewise the little book of Tobit, Judith, and the Books of the Maccabees:  all which the Ancients did indeed desire to be read in the Churches, yet not to be brought forth for the confirmation of the authority of these for faith.  He calls the other writings Apocryphal, which they did not desire to be read in the Churches; in the Expositione Symboli ad Laurentium, opera Hieronymi, tome 4, page 113.  PHILASTRIUS, in libro de Hæresibus, describing the Canon of the Old and New Testaments, on the Old Testament names only the Law and the Prophets.  JEROME, Prologo galeato, opera, tome 3, page 17, among the Apocryphal Books, which are not in the Canon, reckons Wisdom, which is commonly ascribed to Solomon, and the book of Jesus the son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobit, and the two books of the Maccabees.  In agreement is Canon LX or LIX of the faithful Council of Laodicea, held in the year 360, or even a few years afterwards, which is altogether silent about the Apocryphal Books:  but, that Baronius contends in vain, that this Council is more ancient than the Nicean, as if the Book of Judith were already received into the Canon by the Niceans, of which the Council of Laodicea makes no mention, is shown by SPANHEIM the Younger in his Historia Ecclesiastica, Century IV, chapter XI, § 3, column 909, 910, teaching that what is argued by Baronius concerning the Book of Judith is not able to be confirmed by him with sufficiently suitable authorities.  And the authority of this Council is not easily dismissed, since it was approved by the Trullan Fathers:[52]  see GERHARD’S Confessionem Catholicam, tome 2, book II, special part I, article I, chapter I, pages 16, 17, 34, who moreover vindicates this argument from Exception on pages 25-27.

But neither do the ψευδεπίγραφοι/pseudepigraphal Apostolic Constitutions and Canons agree with the opinion of the Papists, while the Constitutions in a review of the Sacred Books omit the Apocryphal Books; consult GERHARD’S Confessionem Catholicam, tome 2, book II, special part I, article I, chapter I, page 32:  and Apostolic Canon LXXXV with Judith numbers not two, but three, Books of the Maccabees among the Canonical Books; it does not have Tobit; it omits either the Book of Wisdom or Ecclesiasticus, and places the other outside of the Canon, when after the survey of the Canon of the Old Testament it adds,  ἔξωθεν δὲ, but besides these it is commended to you, that your young people learn τὴν σοφίαν τοῦ πολυμαθοῦς Σιράχ, the wisdom of the learned Sirach.  Indeed, that the Greek Church today does not esteem the Apocryphal Books, received by the Papists into the Canon, as Canonical, is observed by JAKOB ELSNER’S nieuwste Beschzyving van de Grieksche Christenen in Turkyen, chapter V, § 15, pages 174-176.

On the Exceptions of the Papists against this our Argument, 1.  That at that time, when the Fathers agreeing with us lived, the Canon had not yet been defined by the public judgment of the Church.  2.  That the Fathers that exclude those controverted Books from the Canon speak of the Canon of the Hebrews, not of the Christians:  see GERHARD’S Confessionem Catholicam, tome 2, book II, special part I, article I, chapter I, pages 23, 24.

BINGHAM,[53] Originibus ecclesiasticis, book XIV, chapter III, § 15, 16, volume 6, pages 91-97, observes that the Books today called Apocryphal were formerly read in some Churches, but not in all:  and in some Churches under the title of Canonical Scripture, with this term taken in a somewhat broader sense.

On § 19, consult also STEPHANUS GAUSSENUS’ Theses Theologicas inaugurales de Verbo Dei, thesis 81, pages 460-462.

[1] Toland’s Amyntora was a twenty-page list of works attributed to Christ, Mary, and the Apostles, by early Church Fathers.

[2] Abraham Scultetus (1566-1624) was a German Reformed scholar, theologian, and historian.  He served as court preacher to the Elector of the Palatinate, and also as Professor of Old Testament at the University of Heidelberg.  He was chosen as a representative of the Palatinate to the Synod of Dordt.

[3] The origins of the Apostolic Canons can be traced to the early fifth century.  Although they claim for themselves Apostolic authorship and authority (at least as promulgated by their disciple, Clement of Rome), there is little to corroborate this.  It is a list of decrees concerning the government and discipline in the Church, attached to the end of the Apostolic Constitutions.  The Eastern Church received eighty-five canons at the Council of Trullo in 692, but only the first fifty canons circulated in the West.

[4] The Apostolic Constitutions is a collection of eight treatises on church order.  It was probably written around 375 in Syria.  Because of the implicit Arianism of some of its statements, it was not as widely received as the Apostolic Canons.

[5] Jean Daillé (1594-1670) was a Huguenot minister and Biblical scholar; theologically he was inclined to the tenets of Amyraldianism.  In his Treatise concerning the right use of the Fathers, he argues against the use of the Fathers as a final authority in matters of faith and practice, with the texts of the Patristic writings frequently being found corrupt.

[6] David Blondel (1591-1655) was a Huguenot minister, historian, and classicist.  He served as Professor of Church History at Amsterdam (1649-1655).  He is remembered for his critical stance with respect to the many forged and spurious documents coming out of antiquity.

[7] Hegesippus was a second century Chronicler and preserver of the traditions of the early church.  His five-volume Hypomnemata is lost, save for the fragments preserved in Eusebius.

[8] Wisdom of Solomon 9:7, 8:  “Thou hast chosen me to be a king of thy people, and a judge of thy sons and daughters:  Thou hast commanded me to build a temple upon thy holy mount, and an altar in the city wherein thou dwellest, a resemblance of the holy tabernacle, which thou hast prepared from the beginning.”

[9] Wisdom of Solomon 4:2:  “When it is present, men take example at it; and when it is gone, they desire it:  it weareth a crown, and triumpheth for ever, having gotten the victory, striving for undefiled rewards.”

[10] 1 Maccabees 9:27:  “So was there a great affliction in Israel, the like whereof was not since the time that a prophet was not seen among them.”

[11] Sirach’s Prologue:  “Whereas many and great things have been delivered unto us by the law and the prophets, and by others that have followed their steps, for the which things Israel ought to be commended for learning and wisdom; and whereof not only the readers must needs become skilful themselves, but also they that desire to learn be able to profit them which are without, both by speaking and writing:  my grandfather Jesus, when he had much given himself to the reading of the law, and the prophets, and other books of our fathers, and had gotten therein good judgment, was drawn on also himself to write something pertaining to learning and wisdom; to the intent that those which are desirous to learn, and are addicted to these things, might profit much more in living according to the law.  Wherefore let me intreat you to read it with favour and attention, and to pardon us, wherein we may seem to come short of some words, which we have laboured to interpret.  For the same things uttered in Hebrew, and translated into another tongue, have not the same force in them:  and not only these things, but the law itself, and the prophets, and the rest of the books, have no small difference, when they are spoken in their own language.  For in the eight and thirtieth year coming into Egypt, when Euergetes was king, and continuing there some time, I found a book of no small learning:  therefore I thought it most necessary for me to bestow some diligence and travail to interpret it; using great watchfulness and skill in that space to bring the book to an end, and set it forth for them also, which in a strange country are willing to learn, being prepared before in manners to live after the law.”

[12] 2 Maccabees 2:23:  “All these things, I say, being declared by Jason of Cyrene in five books, we will assay to abridge in one volume.”

[13] 2 Maccabees 2:26:  “Therefore to us, that have taken upon us this painful labour of abridging, it was not easy, but a matter of sweat and watching…”

[14] 2 Maccabees 15:38:  “And if I have done well, and as is fitting the story, it is that which I desired:  but if slenderly and meanly, it is that which I could attain unto.”

[15] Pieter Nieuwland (1722-1795) was a Dutch Reformed minister.

[16] Luke 24:44.

[17] Aratus (c. 315-240 BC) was a Greek didactic poet.  His Phænomena is cited by Paul at the Areopagus, Acts 17:28.

[18] Epimenides (c. seventh century BC) was a Greek prophet, philosopher, and poet.  His Cretica is quoted by Paul in Acts 17:28 and Titus 1:12,

[19] Menander (c. 342-c. 290 BC) was a Greek playwright.  He is cited by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:33.

[20] Tobit 12:12, 15:  “Now therefore, when thou didst pray, and Sara thy daughter in law, I did bring the remembrance of your prayers before the Holy One:  and when thou didst bury the dead, I was with thee likewise….  I am Raphael, one of the seven holy angels, which present the prayers of the saints, and which go in and out before the glory of the Holy One.”

[21] Tobit 5:12:  “Then he said, I am Azarias, the son of Ananias the great, and of thy brethren.”

[22] Tobit 6:6, 7:  “Then the young man said to the angel, Brother Azarias, to what use is the heart and the liver and the gal of the fish?  And he said unto him, Touching the heart and the liver, if a devil or an evil spirit trouble any, we must make a smoke thereof before the man or the woman, and the party shall be no more vexed.”

[23] Tobit 8:2, 3:  “And as he went, he remembered the words of Raphael, and took the ashes of the perfumes, and put the heart and the liver of the fish thereupon, and made a smoke therewith.  The which smell when the evil spirit had smelled, he fled into the utmost parts of Egypt, and the angel bound him.”

[24] Judith 9:2-4:  “O Lord God of my father Simeon, to whom thou gavest a sword to take vengeance of the strangers, who loosened the girdle of a maid to defile her, and discovered the thigh to her shame, and polluted her virginity to her reproach; for thou saidst, It shall not be so; and yet they did so:  Wherefore thou gavest their rulers to be slain, so that they dyed their bed in blood, being deceived, and smotest the servants with their lords, and the lords upon their thrones; and hast given their wives for a prey, and their daughters to be captives, and all their spoils to be divided among thy dear children; which were moved with thy zeal, and abhorred the pollution of their blood, and called upon thee for aid:  O God, O my God, hear me also a widow.”

[25] יהודית/Judith signifies a woman of Judea.

[26] Bethulia is the name of the city, delivered by Judith’s wisdom.  It may be related to the name Beth-el, House of God, or a compound of betulah/virgin and Jah, that is, Jehovah’s Virgin.

[27] Manasseh reigned for the first half of the seventh century BC.

[28] Judith 5:16-19:  “And they cast forth before them the Chanaanite, the Pherezite, the Jebusite, and the Sychemite, and all the Gergesites, and they dwelt in that country many days.  And whilst they sinned not before their God, they prospered, because the God that hateth iniquity was with them.  But when they departed from the way which he appointed them, they were destroyed in many battles very sore, and were led captives into a land that was not their’s, and the temple of their God was cast to the ground, and their cities were taken by the enemies.  But now are they returned to their God, and are come up from the places where they were scattered, and have possessed Jerusalem, where their sanctuary is, and are seated in the hill country; for it was desolate.”

[29] Judith 4:2, 3:  “Therefore they were exceedingly afraid of him, and were troubled for Jerusalem, and for the temple of the Lord their God:  For they were newly returned from the captivity, and all the people of Judea were lately gathered together:  and the vessels, and the altar, and the house, were sanctified after the profanation.”

[30] Judith 5:3, 4:  “And he said unto them, Tell me now, ye sons of Chanaan, who this people is, that dwelleth in the hill country, and what are the cities that they inhabit, and what is the multitude of their army, and wherein is their power and strength, and what king is set over them, or captain of their army; And why have they determined not to come and meet me, more than all the inhabitants of the west?”

[31] Ecclesiasticus 46:20:  “And after his death he prophesied, and shewed the king his end, and lifted up his voice from the earth in prophecy, to blot out the wickedness of the people.”

[32] Ecclesiasticus 48:10:  “Who wast ordained for reproofs in their times, to pacify the wrath of the Lord’s judgment, before it brake forth into fury, and to turn the heart of the father unto the son, and to restore the tribes of Jacob.”

[33] Malachi 4:5, 6.

[34] Matthew 17:10-13.

[35] 2 Maccabees 12:41-45:  “All men therefore praising the Lord, the righteous Judge, who had opened the things that were hid, betook themselves unto prayer, and besought him that the sin committed might wholly be put out of remembrance.  Besides, that noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forsomuch as they saw before their eyes the things that came to pass for the sins of those that were slain.  And when he had made a gathering throughout the company to the sum of two thousand drachms of silver, he sent it to Jerusalem to offer a sin offering, doing therein very well and honestly, in that he was mindful of the resurrection:  For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead.  And also in that he perceived that there was great favour laid up for those that died godly, it was an holy and good thought.  Whereupon he made a reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.”

[36] Rudolf Hospinian (1547-1626) was a Swiss Reformed theologian, pastor, and Anti-Catholic polemicist.

[37] Tobit 3:8:  “Because that she had been married to seven husbands, whom Asmodeus the evil spirit had killed, before they had lain with her.  Dost thou not know, said they, that thou hast strangled thine husbands? thou hast had already seven husbands, neither wast thou named after any of them.”

[38] Tobit 14:4:  “Go into Media my son, for I surely believe those things which Jonas the prophet spake of Nineve, that it shall be overthrown; and that for a time peace shall rather be in Media; and that our brethren shall lie scattered in the earth from that good land:  and Jerusalem shall be desolate, and the house of God in it shall be burned, and shall be desolate for a time…”

[39] Tobit 14:11:  “Wherefore now, my son, consider what alms doeth, and how righteousness doth deliver.  When he had said these things, he gave up the ghost in the bed, being an hundred and eight and fifty years old; and he buried him honourably.”

[40] Wisdom of Solomon 7:5:  “For there is no king that had any other beginning of birth.”

[41] Wisdom of Solomon 7:17:  “For he hath given me certain knowledge of the things that are, namely, to know how the world was made, and the operation of the elements…”

[42] Wisdom of Solomon 8:21:  “Nevertheless, when I perceived that I could not otherwise obtain her, except God gave her me; and that was a point of wisdom also to know whose gift she was; I prayed unto the Lord, and besought him, and with my whole heart I said…”

[43] Wisdom of Solomon 9:7, 8:  “Thou hast chosen me to be a king of thy people, and a judge of thy sons and daughters:  Thou hast commanded me to build a temple upon thy holy mount, and an altar in the city wherein thou dwellest, a resemblance of the holy tabernacle, which thou hast prepared from the beginning.”

[44] 1 Maccabees 1:5-7:  “And after these things he fell sick, and perceived that he should die.  Wherefore he called his servants, such as were honourable, and had been brought up with him from his youth, and parted his kingdom among them, while he was yet alive.  So Alexander reigned twelves years, and then died.”

[45] 1 Maccabees 8:15, 16:  “Moreover how they had made for themselves a senate house, wherein three hundred and twenty men sat in council daily, consulting alway for the people, to the end they might be well ordered:  And that they committed their government to one man every year, who ruled over all their country, and that all were obedient to that one, and that there was neither envy nor emmulation among them.”

[46] 1 Maccabees 12:11:  “We therefore at all times without ceasing, both in our feasts, and other convenient days, do remember you in the sacrifices which we offer, and in our prayers, as reason is, and as it becometh us to think upon our brethren…”

[47] 2 Maccabees 2:5:  “And when Jeremy came thither, he found an hollow cave, wherein he laid the tabernacle, and the ark, and the altar of incense, and so stopped the door.”

[48] 2 Maccabees 14:37:  “Now was there accused unto Nicanor one Razis, one of the elders of Jerusalem, a lover of his countrymen, and a man of very good report, who for his kindness was called a father of the Jews.”

[49] Artaxerxes I reigned from 465 to 424 BC.

[50] Xerxes I reigned from 486 to 465 BC.

[51] Amandus Polanus (1561-1610) was a German Reformed theologian, and an important figure in the early development of Reformed Scholasticism.  He served as Professor of Old Testament at Basel (1596-1610).

[52] The Council in Trullo was a major ecclesiastical council held at Constantinople in 692 under Justinian II.  It confirmed the decisions of the Council of Laodicea.

[53] Joseph Bingham (1668-1723) was an Anglican churchman and theologian.  In his great work, Originibus Ecclesiasticis, he endeavored to provide a definitive treatment of the ancient rites and customs of the Church.