The Helvetic Confession, dated rst March 1566, has the following expression respecting the apocry phal books We do not deny that certain books of the Old Testament were named by the ancients apocryphal, by others ecclesiastical, as being read in the churches, but not adduced for authority in matters of belief: as Augustine, in the i8th book of the City of Cod, ch. 38, relates, that the names and books of certain prophets were adduced in the books of Kings, but adds that these were not in the canon, and that those we have were sufficient for piety.' The Confession of the Dutch Churches, (dated the same year) is more full. After recount .ng the canonical books, 'respecting which no con troversy existed,' it adds, 'We make a distinction between those and such as are called Apocryphal, which may indeed be read in the church, and proofs adduced from them, so far as they agree with the canonical books ; but their authority and force are by no means such that any article of faith may be certainly declared from their testimony alone, still less that they can impugn or detract from the authority of the others.' They add, as their reason for receiving the canonical books, that it is not so much because the Church receives them, as that the Holy Spirit testifies to our con sciences that they have come from God ; and chiefly on this account, because they of themselves bear testimony to their own authority and sanctity, so that even the blind may see the fulfilment of all things predicted in them, as it were with the senses.' The Westminster Confession proceeded on the same principle, but treated the books of the second Canon with less ceremony. After enumerating the canonical books (ascribing thirteen epistles only to Paul), they proceed to say, that 'the books called Apocrypha, not being of Divine inspiration, are no part of the Canon of Scripture, and there. fore are of no authority in the Church of God ; nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.' And again, 'The authority of Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, depends not on the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God, the author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the word of God_ We may be moved and in duced by the Church to a high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scriptures ; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, etc. etc., are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the word of God: yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assur ance of the infallible truth and Divine authority thereof is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the word in our hearts.' The Confession of Augsburg, dated in 1531, con tains no article whatever on the Canon of Scripture ; nor do the Lutherans appear to have any other canon than Luther's Bible. For the sentiments of the GREEK CHURCH, see ESDRAS ; ESTIIER ; MACCABEES.
3. Of Spurious Apocryphal Books, as distinct from Antilegomena or Ecclesiastical. —Among this class are doubtless to be considered the 3d and 4th books of Esdras ; and it is no doubt in refer ence to these that, in his letter to Vigilantius, Jerome speaks of a work of Esdras which he says that he had never even read. Playing upon the name of Vigilantius, he adds, You sleep vigilantly (tu vigilans dormis), and write in your sleep ; pro posing to me an apocryphal book, which is read by you and others like you, under the name of Esdras, wherein it is written that no one should be prayed for after his death (See 4 Esdras, viii. 36-44). . . Why take in hand what the church does not receive ? Read, if you like, all the feigned revela tions of all the patriarchs and prophets, and when you have learned them, sing them in the women's weaving-shops, and propose them to be read in your taverns, that you may the more readily by them allure the unlettered rabble to drink.'
Of the same character are also the Book of Enoch, the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Assumption of Moses, etc.; which, as well as 3 and 4 Esdras, being by many considered as the fictions of Christians of the second and third centuries, it is doubtful whether they ought to be classed in the Apocrypha of the Old or of the New Testament. Origen, however, believed the New Testament to have contained citations from books of this kind written before the times of the apostles ; and, in reference to such, observes, ui his preface to the Canticles, This, however, is manifest, that many passages are cited either by the apostles or the evangelists, and inserted in the New Testament, which we do not read in those Scriptures of the Jews which we call canonical, but which are nevertheless found in apocryphal books, or are taken from them. But this will give no authority to apocryphal writings, for the bounds which our fathers have fixed are not to be removed ; and possibly the apostles and evangelists, full oi the Holy Ghost, might know what should be taken out of those Scriptures and what not. But we, who have not such a measure of the Spirit, cannot, without great danger, presume to act in that manner.' Then, in his Letter to Apianus, he observes, that there were many things kept from the knowledge of the public, but which were pre served in the hidden or apocryphal books, to which he refers the passage (Heb. xi. 37), ' They were sawn asunder.' Origen probaby alludes here to that description of books which the Jews called VIM, a word of the same signification with apocrypha, and applied to books laid aside, or not permitted to be publicly read, or considered, even when divinely inspired, not fit for indiscriminate circulation : among the latter were the first chapter of Genesis, the Song of Solomon, and our last eight chapters of the prophet Ezekiel.
The books which we have here enumerated, such as the Book of Enoch, etc., which were all known to the ancient Fathers, have descended to our times ; and, although incontestably spurious, are of considerable value from their antiquity, as throwing light upon the religious and theological opinions of the first centuries. The most curious are the 3d and 4th books of Esdras, and the Book of Enoch, which has been but recently discovered, and has acquired peculiar interest from its con taining the passage cited by the apostle Jude. [ENocti.] Nor are the apocryphal books of the New Testament destitute of interest. Although the spurious Acts extant have no longer any defenders of their genuineness, they are not with out their value to the Biblical student, and have been applied with success to illustrate the style and language of the genuine books, to which they bear a close analogy. The American translator of Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History terms them 'harm less and ingenious fictions, intended either to gratify the fancy or to silence the enemies of Christianity.' Some of the apocryphal books have not been without their defenders in modem times. The Apostolical Canons and Constitutions, and the various Liturgies ascribed to St. Peter, St. Mark, etc., and published by Fabricius, in his Codex Apocryphus Novi Testamenti, were considered by the learned and eccentric William Whiston, and the no less learned Grabe, to be of equal authority with any of the confessedly genuine apostolic com positions (see Whiston's Primitive Christianity and Grabe's Spicilegiunz).