DANIEL of the tribe [ch. 1. v. 6.] of Juda, and [ch. 1. v. 3. & 4. Reg. 20. v. 18.] royal blood, at but the age of age of ten years, was carried into Babylon with other children for hostage, when Nabuchodonosor invaded the Kingdom of Juda, in [ch. 1. v. 1.] the third year of King Joakim. His whole life (in all about an hundred and ten years) was most pious, with such zeal of God's honour, and common good of his country, that he was called by an Angel, [ch. 9. v. 23.] vir desideriorum, the man of (godly) desires: [Ezech. 14. & 28.] whom also Ezechiel, elder in years, prophesying part of the same time, joined with Noe and Job for example of holy men; recounting him also the most renowned of his time for wisdom. Whose loyal fidelity towards the King of Babylon, was so clear, that his malignant enemies said expressly of him: [ch. 6. v. 5.] We shall not find against this Daniel any occasion, unless perhaps in the law of his God. His Book, as well in respect of various important narrations of things done, as of most high divine Mysteries is very excellent: but withal very obscure, for that many things here inserted, seem hardly to agree with other authentical histories; some things also are intricate in themselves; nor placed in order of time as they happened; and many things so briefly related, that they can not be understood, without the knowledge of profane histories. As S. Jerom affirmeth Epist. 103. But as for an other difficulty which some make, denying the Prayer of Azarias, with the Hymn following, and the histories of Susanna, Bel, and the Dragon, [ch. 3. v. 24. ch. 13. ch. 14.] to be Canonical Scripture, it is partly solved already, in the Annotations before the Book of Tobie: where is showed, that it is no just exception against these, and other parts of holy Scripture of the old Testament, because they are not in the Hebrew Edition, being otherwise accepted for Canonical by the Catholic Church. And further it is very probable that these parcels were sometimes either in the Hebrew or Chaldee tongue, in which two languages (part in one, part in the other) the rest of this Book was written. For from whence else could the Septuagint Interpreters, Theodotion, Symmachus, and Aquila translate them? In whose Editions S. Jerom found the same. But S. Jerom, some will say, calleth these histories fables, and so did not account them Canonical Scripture. First, we answer, that he reporting the Jews' opinion useth their terms, not explicating his own judgement, intending only to deliver sincerely that which he found in the Hebrew: Yet would he not omit to insert the rest, advertising withal that he had it in Theodotion's translation. Which answer is clearly justified by his own testimony (li. 2. c. 9. adversus Ruffinum) in these words: Whereas I relate (sayth he) what the Hebrews say against the history of Susanna, and the Hymn of the three children, he that for this reputeth me a fool, proveth himself a sycophant. For I did not explicate what my self judged, but what they are wont to say against me. Secondly, we answer, that if S. Jerom did not think these parts to be Canonical, yet seeing so many other ancient Fathers, and now the whole Church hold them for Canonical, we so believe them to be. For albeit the ancient Councils, and others that recite catalogues of holy Scriptures, do not expressly say, as the Council of Trent lastly doth (Sess. 4.) that all the parts of Books by them recited, are Canonical; yet they do not except any parts of this Book and therefore speaking indefinitely, do indeed, include all, and not exclude any parcels usually read in the Church as these are. Moreover very many ancient Fathers do expressly allege these parts as Divine Canonical Scriptures. Of many we shall cite some.