which was not edifying, to be introduced amid the solemnities of public worship. Some corrective had to be applied; and the corrective attempted was, to confine such readings to the contents of Scripture only. Here, however, it is particularly to be noted, that the word Scripture was sometimes used in a looser sense, in primitive times, than it is now used in dogmatic theology; precisely as it can be found used by Bishops Coverdale and Jewel, and in the Homilies of our Church. In this sense, Scripture embraces all the books which have any tangible claim to the title. In our Sixth Article, which is dogmatic and precise, we see how, i. e., in what specific sense, our Church calls the Apocrypha Scripture. She calls it so, merely "for example of life and instruction of manners," and not "to establish any doctrine" whatever. And the free use of the word Scripture, as Bishop Cosin assures us, prevailed among the ancient authors of the Church, viz., of calling many things divine, and also Holy Scripture, not as inspired or canonical for purposes of doctrine, but as contradistinguished from profane and secular writings. To such an extent was this usage carried, that sentences out of the Fathers, decrees of Councils, and Epistles of the Popes, when compared with the writings of heathen philosophers or moralists, were styled Scriptures. Indeed, we may say we have the same usage among ourselves, when we call histories of the Church sacred histories, and the hymns of the Church sacred poetry. Dr. Watts went so far as to call his songs for children divine; but who ever dreamed that the good man fancied himself inspired ?

Now the same difference, very likely, existed between the Canon of Laodicea and the Canon of Carthage, that now exists among ourselves, in our appellations for sacred writings, that can be traced to high antiquity. The Laodicean Fathers employed the phrase Canonical Scripture, in the stricter sense of the term, indeed, in the strictest sense of the term; for they not only left out the Apocrypha, but the Revelation of John also; because to that they did not allow common Christians to appeal, even for doctrine ;-it being considered so far

above them as to be fit for the understandings of adepts in divine knowledge, for Doctors, Bishops, and the wranglers of the schools. The Carthaginian Fathers employed the phrase, Canonical Scripture, in a looser and more popular way. They made, no doubt, the same distinction which the illustrious Doctor, St. Augustine, makes, or at least appears to make, between the Canon of Scripture, and the whole or entire Canon of Scripture, meaning by the first, probably, what may be applied to doctrinal matters, or relied on for theological purposes alone; and by the latter, what may be used for devotional and moral purposes.*

And if we will keep this distinction clearly in view, there is no difficulty, none whatever, in saying, the Primitive Church was perfectly at one, upon the grand subject of the Scriptural Canon; that the prescriptions of Laodicea, and of Carthage, do not materially differ; and that therefore the testimony of the Church of old, as to this Canon, may be taken, all of it, without hesitation, and as a unit. Our own Church could hardly have followed in the path of the two Councils, which are the only primitive Councils of any consequence to be appealed to upon this subject, more exactly and appositely than she has done. With Laodicea, she defers to what may be called the close Canon, only for doctrine. With Carthage, she refers to what may be called the broad Canon, for the purposes of moral example, and the promotion of devotional feeling; since it cannot be denied, that, aside from its claims to be considered Scripture, the Apocrypha has in it a fund of moral precept, often expressed with uncommon vigor, and all the felicitous beauties of oriental rhythm and rhetoric.

Rome and the Italian Church were not content with such judicious and discriminating use of primitive models. Rome and its abettors wanted the Apocrypha, to eke out one of their favorite dogmas, Purgatory, by seeking a sanction for prayers in behalf of the departed. They thought this was to be found in one of the books of the Maccabees; and so the Apocrypha

*It is not unlikely the Council might follow St. Augustine, if he were present at the Council. And the Romish doctors say he was. (Cozin's Wks. III., 143.) He became a Bishop in A. D. 395.

became precious in their eyes. And since it would not answer to cull books of Scripture, known and read of all men, as it would Canons out of musty records of Councils, which not one in a thousand would ever get sight of, the Apocrypha had to be accepted or rejected, as a whole. Hence, it was so endorsed and accepted. And in the Fourth Session of Rome's pet Council, (that of Trent,) we find the list of the Council of Carthage erected, not as the Council itself erected it, into a list of books which might be read in Divine Service, but into a standard for doctrine; and, moreover, so endorsed and accepted, when the list of the Council was doubtful and disputed; for, as some contend, the Council did not include in its list, either the Book of Baruch, or the Books of the Maccabees.† But the Maccabees were especially wanted, for the purpose before mentioned; and therefore they were gulped down, without a pause to examine their pretensions with nicety. They might have been lost, if put into the alembic of searching investigation; ard Rome took them, as she takes anything she likes, upon half evidence, or no evidence, while what she does not like, she will not accept, if testified to by every book of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, or all the Fathers, from Ignatius to St. Bernard. Strange indeed is it, that such a private-judgment Church should so hate Protestantism! But it may be, upon the old principle, that two of a trade can never agree. Protestantism invaded Rome's monopoly of the right of private judgment; and the trespass has never been forgiven, nor will it ever be.

Having now furnished our readers, as briefly as may be, a summary of the history of the Canon of Scripture, so far as it is testified to by the acts of important Councils, it may now seem in order to go over the same subject, as exhibited in the writings of the Fathers, to ascertain how they accord with the public acts of the Church. But we hardly conceive this neces

*See II. Macc. xii., 39-45. Rather a vexatious case for Latinists to quote, however. By verse 40th, it will be perceived that all these people prayed for, died in mortal and damning sin. An 'ebrew Jew might possibly pray for such wretches, but never a consistent Papist!

Perceval on the Roman Schism, p. 428.

sary, unless it may be in relation to the testimony of St Augustine, whom the Papists are not over fond of hearing mentioned, when you talk of Jansenism, and quote him as a high authority about predestination and special grace; but to whom, (upon the principle of picking and choosing, to which we have just made reference,) they are exceedingly fond of appealing, when you talk of the Canon of Scripture. They yearningly fancy, that his Canon, the Canon of Carthage, and the Canon -of Trent, are identically the same.

So we will comment, presently, on St. Augustin's Canon. Meanwhile, as our own Church herself, in her Sixth Article, appeals to one of the most celebrated of the Fathers, the contemporary too of St. Augustine, it is quite evident that she knew how to make such an appeal, and how too to make it pertinently. She mentions St. Jerome as her ancient authority, in reference to the character of the Apocrypha, and the use to be made of its different books. And, for such a purpose, St: Jerome would be a far higher standard of reference than St. Augustine. For, while St. Augustine is called, in our Homily, on the peril of Idolatry, "the best learned of all ancient doctors," i. e., of theologians; and while his pretensions as a theological reasoner and a controversialist are not surpassed by any one of the Fathers, it is notorious, that as a critic upon Scripture, and the history and merits of the books composing Scripture, St. Jerome altogether outrivalled him. Augustine was not a scholar in Oriental tongues at all, and was hardly able to read Greek. While Jerome was profoundly skilled in those tongues, and in the lore which they contained. Augustine could never have accomplished such a work as Jerome did, when he translated the Bible, wrote prefaces to the various books, and annotations upon their text. Jerome, therefore, as the Biblical critic of his day, and one of the first Biblical critics among all the Fathers, was the rather to be applied to, for testimony, to settle any point respecting the integrity of Scripture, and the specific adaptation of the books which compose the Canon.* Still, with all this in view, Augustine's list will not avail the

* St. Jerome never altered his opinion about the Apocrypha, to the day of his death. Cozin's Wks. III., 112.

Papists, even if we accord it to them as it is; provided they will receive it with his own limitations and qualifications. Of these he makes no less than five, which we will give in the language of Bishop Cosin :

"First.-He putteth a note of difference between those books, which have the general name of Divine Scripture, and those which are specially called canonical. Second. Then he setteth a mark on those, that, for their undoubted verity, are more securely read than others. Third.-Next, he distinguisheth the total canon or number of the books, into two several kinds, of which some were received by all churches, and some by but a few; and preferreth those that were acknowledged either by all, or the most eminent and apostolical churches, before those that certain particular churches, and of less authority, accepted. Fourth.-Moreover, he admitteth a subdivision, even of this latter kind, whereof some might be received by the greater, and some by the better sort of men; which, notwithstanding, (because that had seldom happened, and was not usually noted,) he thought to be of equal authority. Fifth.-And, lastly, he premiseth this caution, before the recital of his General Canon, that all these considerations may not be neglected by him that readeth it."

Upon these limitations and qualifications, however, Popery will exercise that most pernicious attribute of itself and of extreme Protestantism, viz., unlimited private judgment; so that Bishop Cosin might well rebuke its willfulness, and arrogance, and inconsistency, in these stinging and truthful words :

"If the Council of Trent, whereby the Romish Church is now governed, had set such a preface before their Canon of Scriptures, as this is that St. Augustine set before his, and had added no more to the end, than he did, they might have had the fairer plea for themselves. But so far are they from allowing their Canon to be received, with any such qualifications and distinctions, as these be, that first they command all the books recited in it, (among which are all those that all Churches at least received not, and none at all in their sense,) to be equally accepted and taken with the self-same veneration, as having all an absolute and Divine authority annexed to them; and then they damn all the Churches in the world besides, that will not thus receive that Canon upon their own terms; which neither St. Augustine, nor any other Father before or after him, ever did."

* Cosin's Wks. III., 132, 133, for both quotations. Dr. Henderson on Inspiration, says, St. Augustine retracted his opinion in favor of the Apocrypha. Henderson, (1836,) pp. 494-5.

+ Ut Supra.