what books were then read in the Church, viz. all the canonical books, which are now in our Bibles, except the Revelations, without any mention at all of the Apocryphal books; which is a certain argument, that they were not allowed to be read in the Church of Jerusalem, as I have more fully demonstrated in another place. The like determination was made for some other Churches by the Council of Laodicea, which forbids all but the canonical books to be read in the Church, and likewise specifies what she means by canonical books, viz. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Esther, four Books of Kings, two of Paralipomena or Chronicles, two of Esdras, the Book of one hundred and fifty Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Job, twelve Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations and Epistles of Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the seven Catholic Epistles; fourteen Epistles of St. Paul. Where none of the Apocryphal books, nor the Revelations, are mentioned which is a plain evidnce, that none of them were read in the Churches of that district. After the same manner the Author of the Constitutions, giving ordersabout what books of the Old Testament should be read in the Church, mentions the five books of Moses, and Joshua and Judges, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah, which he means. by the histories of their return from Babylon, the books of Job and Solomon, the sixteen prophets and the psalms: but says nothing of any of the Apocryphal books; which argues, that he did not find them to be read in the Rituals of those Churches, whence he made his collections.

However in other Churches they were allowed to be read* with a mark of distinction, as books of piety and moral instruction, to edify the people; but they neither gave them the name of canonical books, nor made use of them to

Con. Laodic. can. 59.

Book. x. chap. i. sect. 7. Constit. lib. ii. cap. 57. * Hieron. Præfat, in Libros Solomonis, Sicut ergò Judith et Tobiæ et Macchabæorum libros legit quidem Ecclesia, sed eos inter canonicas Scripturas non recipit: sic et hæc duo volumnia (Sapientiam et Ecclesiasticum) legit ad ædificationem plebis, non ad auctori tatem ecclesiasticorum dogmatum confirmandam.

confirm articles of faith. This is expressly said by St. Jerom. And Ruffin, who was presbyter of Aquileia, delivers the same as the ancient tradition and practice of that Church, when these books were neither reckoned canonical, nor yet in the worst sense Apocryphal, but called ecclesiastical, because they were read in the Church, but not used to confirm matters of faith. Among these he reckons the Wisdom of Solomon, and Ecclesiasticus, and Tobit and Judith and Maccabees, and Hermes Pastor and the book called the Two Ways, or the Judgment of Peter. Athanasius also ranks these books, not among the canonical, but among those that might at least be read to or by the catechumens, among which he reckons Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, and Tobit and Judith and Esther, and the Doctrine of the Apostles, and the Shepherd, that is, Hermes Pastor. So in the Lectionarium Gallicanum published by Mabillon, there are lessons appointed out of Tobit and Judith and Esther, particularly in the Rogation-week for several days together.

SECT. 16. And in some Churches, under the Title of Canonical Scripture, taking that Word in a larger Sense.

In some Churches these books were also read under the general name of Canonical Scripture, taking that word in a large sense, for such books as were in the rule or canon or catalogue of books authorised to be read in the Church. Thus at least we must understand the canon of the third Council of Carthage, which ordered, that nothing but the

Ruffin. in Symbolum. ad calcem Cypriani. Oxon. p. 26. Sciendum tamen est, quod et alii libri sunt, qui non canonici, sed ecclesiastici à majoribus appellati sunt: ut est Sapientia Solomonis, et alia Sapientia quæ dicitur, Filii Syrach-Ejusdem ordinis est libellus Tobiæ, et Judith, et Maccabæorum libri. In Novo verò Testamento libellus, qui dicitur, Pastoris sive Hermatis, qui appellatur, Duæ Viæ, sive Judicium Petri; quæ omnia legi quidem in Ecclesiis voluerunt, non tamen proferri ad auctoritatem ex his fidei confirmandam. 2 Athan. Ep. Heortastic, ad Ruffin, tom. ii. p. 39. It. Synops. Scriptur. ibid. p. 55. 3 Con. Carth. iii. can. 47. Præter Scripturas canonicas nihil in Ecclesiâ legatur sub nomine divinarum Scripturarum. Sunt autem canonicæ Scripturæ, id est, Genesis, &c. Solomonis libri quinque-Tobias. Judith, Hester, Esdræ libri duo, Maccabaorum libri duo.

canonical writings should be read in the Church under the name of the divine Scriptures, among which canonical Scriptures there are reckoned, Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus under the name of Solomon, together with Tobit, Judith, Hester, and the Maccabees. St. Austin seems to have followed this canon, making all these books canonical, but giving preference to some above the other, as they were more or less generally received by the Churches. In his book of Christian Doctrine' he calls all the Apocryphal books canonical, but he does not allow them so great authority as the rest, because they were not generally received as such by the Churches. He says, the Books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus were none of Solomon's, but yet received into authority by the Western Church. By which he must mean the Roman Church, where Pope Innocent had received them.3 For in the Eastern Church their canonical authority was always rejected: and in many of the Western Churches for neither Ruffin at Aquileia, nor Philastrius at Brixia, in Italy,* nor Hilary at Poictiers, in France, grant them any authority in the canon of Scripture. Nay, Hilary of Arles expressly told St. Austin," that the Churches of France were offended at him, because he had used a proof out of the Book of Wisdom, which was not canonical. And it is remarkable, that at Rome itself Gregory the Great, having occasion to quote a text out of Maccabees, makes a prefatory excuse for alleging a text out of a book that was not canonical,' but only published for the edifica

1 Aug. de Doctrin. Christ. lib. ii, cap. 8. Tenebit hunc modum in Scripturis canonicis, ut eas quæ ab omnibus accipiuntur Ecclesiis, præponat eis quas quædam non accipiunt. In eis verò quæ non accipiuntur ab omnibus, præponat eas quas plures gravioresque accipiunt, eis quas pauciores minorisque authoritatis Ecclesiæ tenent. 2 Aug. de Civ. Dei. lib. xvii.

cap. 20. Non esse ipsius, non dubitant doctiores, eos tamen in authoritatem maximè Occidentalis antiquitùs recepit Ecclesia. 8 Innocent. Ep. iii. ad Exuper. cap. vii. 4 Philastr. de Hæres. cap. xl. de Apocry5 Hilar. Præfat. in Psalmos.

phis. Et cap. ix.

* Hilar. Arelat. Epist. ad Aug. inter Oper. Aug. tom. vii. p. 545. Illud etiam testimonium quod posuisti, ‘ Raptus est ne malitia mutaret intellectum ejus,' tanquam non canonicum definiunt omittendum. ' Greg. Magn.

Moral. in Job. lib. xix. cap. 13. Quâ de re non inordinatè agimus, si ex libris licèt non canonicis, sed tamen ad ædificationem Ecclesiæ editis, testimonium proferamus.

tion of the Church. And even St. Austin himself in answer to the French divines, pleads no further for the divine authority of the Book of Wisdom, which he had cited as canonical, but that it was so received by the Christians of Afric before him. Which by his own rule, laid down before in his book of Christian Doctrine, did not make it in the highest sense canonical, because it was rejected, by all the Churches of the East, and a great part of the West, from the authority of canonical Scripture. So that though these books were read in the African Church under the name of canonical Scripture, yet they were not esteemed of equal authority with the rest, because they were reputed by all the world besides as Apocryphal, or as some call them, ecclesiastical only, being such as were allowed to be read in the Church for moral instruction and edification, but not used to confirm articles of faith. And this is the account, which Cajetan himself gave of the practice of the Church, before the Council of Trent defined a new canon of Scripture. He says, "They are not canonical, that is, regular, to confirm articles of faith: yet they may be called canonical, that is, regular, for the edification of the people, as being received and authorized in the canon of the Bible only for this end." And with this distinction he thinks we are to understand both St, Austin and the Council of Carthage, all whose sayings are to be reduced to the rule of St. Jerom. But if any think, that St. Austin or the African Church meant more, it may be said, their authority is of no weight against the general consent of the whole Church in all ages besides, from the first settling of the canon down to the Council of Trent; the proof of which consent is so fully

Aug. de Prædestin. lib. i. cap. xiv. tom. vii. p. 553. Non debuit repudiari sententia libri Sapientiæ, qui meruit in Ecclesiâ Christi de gradu lectorum Ecclesiæ Christi tam longâ annositate recitari, et ab omnibus Christianis, ab Episcopis usque ad extremos laicos fideles, pœnitentes, catechumenos, cum veneratione Divinæ authoritatis audiri. 2 Cajetan. in

fine Comment. in Histor. Vet. Test. Ad Hieronymi limam reducenda sunt tam verba Conciliorum quàm doctorum. Et juxta illius sententiam libri isti non sunt canonici, id est, regulares, ad firmandum ea quæ sunt fidei: possunt tamen dici canonici id est, regulares, ad ædificationem fidelium, utpote in canone Bibliæ ad hoc recepti et authorati. Cum hâc distinctione discernere poteris dicta Augustini et scripta in provinciali Concilio Carthaginensi.

and unanswerably made out by Bishop Cosins in that excellent book, called his Scholastical History of the Canon of Scripture, where he produces the testimonies of the writers of every age distinctly in their order, that little more can be added to it,' and it is wholly needless to detain the reader upon that subject; it being sufficient to our present purpose to have observed, that these books of controverted authority were read, either under the name of Apocryphal, or Ecclesiastical, or Canonical, in most of the ancient Churches.

SECT. 17.-A short Account of the Translations of Scripture used in the ancient Church.

There is one thing more, which it will not be improper to give a short account of, before we put an end to this chapter: that is, of the translations of Scripture that were commonly used in the ancient Church. I mean not here to prove again, what has been abundantly done before in the last Book, that the Scriptures were translated and read in the vulgar language in every Church; but the thing I would observe in this place, is only this: that they generally read the Septuagint translations, where Greek was the vulgar language, or else such translations into other languages, as were derived from it. For they had no translation of the Bible from the Hebrew, till the time of St. Jerom, in the Latin Church, but only such as were made from the Greek translation of the Septuagint. The Septuagint

To the testimonies cited by Bishop Cosins the learned reader may add this of Franciscus Georgius Venetus, a Franciscan, who lived a little before the Reformation: Problem, in Scriptur. tom. vi. sect. 8. Problem. 184. Par. 1622 4o. Cur Raphael venit in comitatum Tobia? Respond. Quamvis historia sit sine certo auctore, nec in canone habeatur, tamen quia admittitur legenda in Ecclesiâ tanquam vera, hujus quoque rei rationem assignare conabimur. Here he plainly rejects the book of Tobit out of the canon, and speaks of it no otherwise than as of a common history, which was allowed to be read in the Church. Which words are so displeasing to the curators of the Roman Index Expurgatorius, that they order it to be struck out, with many other passages of the same author, where he reflects on the vulgar translation as corrupt and false, and corrects its errors from the original Hebrew, of which he was a considerable master, though in other things he had his failings. Vid. Index Libror. Prohibitorum et Expurgandorum, per Sotomajor. p. 417. Madriti. 1667. fol.