cerning Ecclesiastical matters, it was enacted, "That the Canons of the first four general councils should be received, and have the force of laws."

ANASTASIUS, Patriarch of Antioch, in a work on the Creation, makes "The number of books which God hath appointed for his Old Testament" to be no more than twenty-two; although he speaks in very high terms of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus.

LEONTIUS, a learned and accurate writer, in his book against the Sects, acknowledges no other Canonical books of the Old Testament, but those which the Hebrews received; namely, twelve Historical books, five Prophetical, four of Doctrine and Instruction, and one of Psalms; making the number twenty-two, as usual; and he makes not the least mention of any others.

GREGORY, who lived at the beginning of the seventh century, in his book of Morals, makes an apology for alleging a passage from the Maccabees, and says, "Though it be not taken from the Canonical Scripture, yet it is cited from a book which was published for the edification of the church."

ISIDORE, bishop of Seville, divides the Canonical books of the Old Testament into three orders, the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa; and afterwards adds—“ That there is a fourth order of books, which are not in the Hebrew Canon of the Old Testament." Here he names these books, and says, "Though the Jews rejected them as Apocry

phal, the church has received them among the Canonical Scriptures."

JOHN DAMASCENE, a Syrian Presbyter, who lived early in the eighth century, adheres to the Hebrew Canon of the Old Testament, numbering only two-and-twenty books. Of Maccabees, Judith, and Tobit, he says not one word; but he speaks "Of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as elegant and virtuous writings, yet not to be numbered among the Canonical books of Scripture, being never laid up in the ark of the Covenant."

VENERABLE BEDE follows the ancient method of dividing the books of the Old Testament into three classes; but he remarkably distinguishes the Maccabees from the Canonical books, by classing them with the writings of Josephus, and Julius the African.

ALCUIN, the disciple of Bede, says, "That the book of the son of Sirach was reputed an Apocryphal and dubious Scripture."

RUPERT, a learned man of the twelfth century, expressly rejects the book of Wisdom, from the Canon.

PETER MAURITIUS, after giving a catalogue of the authentic Scriptures of the Old Testament, adds the six disputed books, and says, "They are useful and commendable in the church, but are not to be placed in the same dignity with the rest."

HUGO DE S. VICTORE, a Saxon by birth, but

who resided at Paris, gives a catalogue of the books of the Old Testament, which includes no others but the two-and-twenty received from the Jews; and of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, and Judith, he says, "They are used in the church, but not written in the Canon."

RICHARD DE S. VICTORE, also of the twelfth century, in his Books of Collections, explicitly declares, “That there are but twenty-two books in the Canon; and that Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, and the Maccabees, are not esteemed Canonical, although they are read in the churches."

PETER LOMBARD, in his Scholastic History, enumerates the books of the Old Testament, thus— Five books of Moses, eight of the Prophets, and nine of the Hagiographa, which leaves no room for these six disputed books; but in his Preface to Tobit, he says expressly, "That it is in no order of the Canon ;" and of Judith," that Jerome, and the Hebrews, place it in the Apocrypha." Moreover, he calls the story of Bel and the Dragon, a fable; and says, that the History of Susannah, is not as true as it should be.

In this century, also, lived JOHN OF SALISBURY, an Englishman, a man highly respected in his time. In one of his Epistles, he treats this subject at large, and professes to follow Jerome, and undoubtedly to believe, that there are but twenty-two books in the Canon of the Old Testament, all which he names

in order, and adds, "That neither the book of Wisdom, nor Ecclesiasticus, nor Judith, nor Tobit, nor the Pastor, nor the Maccabees, are esteemed Canonical."

In the thirteenth century, the opinion of the learned was the same, as we may see, by the Ordinary Gloss on the Bible, in the composition of which, many persons were concerned, and which was highly approved by all the doctors and pastors in the Western churches. In the Preface to this Gloss, they are reproached with ignorance, who hold all the books put into the one volume of Scripture in equal veneration. The difference between these books is asserted to be as great, as between certain and doubtful works. The Canonical books are declared, "To have been written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost; but who were the authors of the others, is unknown." Then it is declared, "That the church permitteth the reading of the Apocryphal books, for devotion and instruction, but not for authority to decide matters of controversy in faith. And that there are no more than twenty-two Canonical books of the Old Testament, and all besides are Apocryphal." Thus we have the common judgment of the church, in the thirteenth century, in direct opposition to the decree of the Council of Trent, in the sixteenth. But this is not all, for when the writers of this Gloss come to the Apocryphal books, they prefix a caution, as—

"Here begins the book of Tobit, which is not in the Canon ;"" Here begins the book of Judith, which is not in the Canon," and so of every one of them; and to confirm their opinion, they appeal to the Fathers.

HUGO, the cardinal, who lived in this century, wrote commentaries on all the Scriptures which were universally esteemed; in these, he constantly keeps up the distinction between the Canonical, and Ecclesiastical books; and he explicitly declares, that "Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, Judith, Tobit, and the Maccabees, are Apocryphal,-dubious, -not Canonical,-not received by the church for proving any matters of faith, but for information of manners."

THOMAS AQUINAS, also, the most famous of the schoolmen, makes the same distinction between these classes of books. He maintains, that the book of Wisdom was not held to be a part of the Canon, and ascribes it to Philo. The story of Bel and the Dragon, he calls a fable; and he shows clearly enough, that he did not believe that Ecclesiasticus was of Canonical authority.

In the fourteenth century, no man acquired so extensive a reputation, for his commentaries on the Bible, as NICHOLAS LYRA, a converted Jew. In his Preface to the book of Tobit, he says, "That having commented on all the Canonical books, from the beginning of Genesis, to the end of Revelation,