the [then] present decree:" and to that decree is added a list of the books which the Council declared canonical; and the decree concludes as follows:-" If any one shall not receive as sacred and canonical all those books, with every part of them, as they are commonly read in the Catholic Church, and are contained in the Old Vulgate LATIN EDITION :—let him be accursed."

The Council appealed to antiquity in support of its views of what it declared to be the true canon; for throughout its proceedings, an unchanged and unbroken tradition and consent of the early fathers is constantly appealed to; and the 25th, or last, session is thus brought to a close by the united assembly exclaiming "The sacred and holy oecumenical Council of Trent: let us confess its Faith; let us ever keep its Decrees. We all thus believe; we all think the very same; we all, consenting and embracing them, subscribeThis is the faith of blessed Peter, and of the Apostles: this is the faith of the Fathers: this is the faith of the orthodox. Thus we believe; thus we think; thus we subscribe. So be it-so be it, Amen, amen! Anathema to all heretics! Anathema -anathema!"

And thus this Council closed with a reiterated CURSE!

In comparing the two canons of Scripture as admitted by the two Churches, we find, regarding the New Testament, as before observed, a perfect agreement between the Churches of England and Rome; but they differ in their enumeration of the Old Testament Books; the Church of Rome admits all those acknowledged as canonical by us, but to these are added the following, which we call APOCRYPHAL, the Books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, and the First and Second Books of Maccabees; all which are specially named: and this list includes, in the Books of Esther and Daniel, what are called "the Rest of the Book of Esther and Daniel "—that is, from after the third verse of the 10th chapter of Esther to the end of the 16th chapter, and from and including the 13th and 14th chapter of Daniel, as appears in the present Douay version (the Story of Susanna, and of Bel and the Dragon)-and the Song of the Three Children.

We have now to examine what Dr. Milner has to say on this subject. He commences by throwing ridicule on the confidence which Protestants feel when they "get possession of an English Bible printed by the king's printer" (Thomas Basket, for instance), as though received immediately from the Almighty; but as the Bible cannot bear testimony of itself, this confidence, he alleges, is vain; and sneeringly and triumphantly asks, "By what means have we learnt what is

the Canon of Scripture? that is to say, which are the books that have been written by Divine inspiration? or, indeed, how have we ascertained that any books, at all, have been so written?"-(Letter ix. p. 113.) And after suggesting against the inspiration of the Scriptures several of the leading arguments of the sceptic or atheist,—particularly that numerous apocryphal prophecies, and spurious gospels and epistles were circulated in the Church during its early ages, and accredited by different learned writers and holy fathers: while some of the really canonical books were rejected or doubted by them,— he concludes with these words ::

"In short, it was not until the end of the fourth century, that the genuine Canon of the Holy Scriptures was fixed: and then it was fixed by the tradition and authority of the Church, declared in the third Council of Carthage, and a decretal of Pope Innocent I." In Letter xliii. p. 411, he refers in a note to the Canon of Pope Gelasius as an authority. And again, in Letter xlviii., to the objection that Romanists "rank the apocryphal with the canonical books of Scriptures," he answers :

"That the same authority, namely, that of the Catholic Church, in the fifth century, and which decided on the canonical character of the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Revelations [Revelation ?], and five other books of the New Testament, on which character, till that time, the Fathers and ecclesiastical writers were not agreed, decided also on the canonicity of the books of Toby, Judith, and five other books of the Old Testament, being those alluded to as apocryphal. If the Church of the fifth century deserves to be heard on one part of her testimony, she evidently deserves to be heard on the other."

The period," the Church of the fifth century," last referred to by Dr. Milner, points to the decision of the third Council of Carthage, A.D. 397. He pretends that the third Council of Carthage declared on authority of the tradition of the Church the genuine Canon of Scripture. Three questions at once suggest themselves :-First, Have we any evidence in existence showing what was the tradition of the Church previous to the alleged decision of the third Council of Carthage on the subject of the apocryphal books? secondly, Is the Canon, on which reliance is placed, genuine? and thirdly, If genuine, was the alleged tradition fixed by the authority of this Council, and accepted by the Church?

I. On the question of Tradition up to the date of this Council.

St. Paul informs us that "unto the Jews were committed

the oracles of God."a Cardinal Bellarmine, the great Roman controversialist, admitted that the Jews rejected all those books which we call apocryphal; and it is a very significant fact that neither Christ nor any of the inspired writers of the New Testament, quote from, or refer to, any of these books; and in the first century of the Church, there is not one iota of evidence to show that any one of these books was admitted into the Canon, as inspired writings.

d

C

In the second century we have the testimony of Melito, the Bishop of Sardis, who, in an epistle to Onesimus, enumerates the Canon of the Old Testament, from which the apocryphal books are omitted. Bellarmine, in fact, admits that Melito followed the Jewish Canon; and, indeed, Eusebius, to whom we are much indebted for the history of the Church in those days, in his "Ecclesiastical History" quotes directly from Melito himself a letter, signifying that he had inquired what the books of Scripture consisted of, and gives a list of them; but among these appear none of the apocryphal class.e

In the third century we have the testimony of Origen against the alleged Tradition. Of him, Eusebius likewise testifies, that as Origen received the Canon of the Jews, he rejected the Apocrypha.f

g

In the fourth century we have the testimony of Saint Hilary, Bishop of Poictiers, and Saint Cyprian (or as some say, Ruffinus), who also enumerate the Canon of Scripture, as held in their day, being the same as was admitted by the Jews; this testimony of Hilary is acknowledged by Bellarmine. Saint Cyril of Jerusalem also reckoned according to the Jewish Canon, and directed his catechumens to peruse the twenty-two books (the number into which the Jews divided the Canon), but not to meddle with the Apocrypha; and he exhorted them "to meditate diligently upon those Scriptures, which the Church doth confidently read, and use no other." In this century we have also the testimony of

a Rom. iii. 12.

b Bell. de Verb. Dei, lib. i. cap. 1, sec. i. tom. i. p. 18. Edit. Prag. 1721.

Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. iv. cap. 26, p. 191. Edit. Cantab. 1720.

d Bell. de Verb. Dei, lib. i. cap. 20, sec. xv. tom. i. p. 38. Prag. 1721.

e Euseb. lib. iv. cap. 26, p. 191. Edit. Cantab. 1720.

f Ib. lib. vi. c. 16. p. 289, ut suprà.

g Apud Hieron. Oper. Ben. tom. v. col. 141. Paris, 1693. h Bell. de Verb. Dei, lib. ii. cap. 1, sec. xv. 1721.

tom. i. p. 38. Edit. Prag.

i Cyril, Catech. 4, sec. xx. Edit. Oxon. 1703. It appears, however, that Cyril admitted the Book of Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah; but it is not at all improbable that, as he refers to the Jewish standard of computation, he refers to these in the sense in which Augustine speaks of the apocryphal

b

Gregory of Nazianzus, who expressly gives a catalogue of the canonical Scripture agreeing with our own. To Saint Jerome, we are informed by Romanists, was intrusted the revision of the translation of the Old Testament by Damasus, the Bishop of Rome, and it appears that he was occupied on this work during the very sitting of the Council of Carthage, cited above. He distinctly adheres to the books constituting the Jewish Canon, and expressly rejects the several apocryphal books by name; and this, too, is admitted by Cardinal Bellarmine. The reader will not have failed to remark the appeal to the "old Vulgate Latin edition," as the authority in which we are to find the books to be deemed “sacred and canonical,” and which are to be adopted and received under the penalty of a curse. Now the term "Vetus editio Vulgata Latina" was used after the publication of Jerome's version, which was called "Editio Nova Vulgata," the New Latin Vulgate, to denote that which was made from the Greek Canon. So that, while Jerome's translation, established by the authority of Damasus (in the Western Church) is ostensibly retained in the Roman Communion, all those parts which Jerome rejected as apocryphal, are brought in again on the authority of the old Latin Vulgate!a

In this century we have likewise a council, namely that of Laodicea, held A.D. 357. In the 60th canon of this council the canonical books are recited just as we accept them; and this canon was confirmed by the General Council of Chalcedon, A. D. 451; as also by the Council of Constantinople, in Trullo, A.D. 692, by two hundred and eleven bishops.

In the fifth century we have the testimony of Saint Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis, in the island of Cyprus, who reckoned up the canon of twenty-two books, as we do, and

books as after explained. A very able critique on the passage from Cyril will be found in Pope's "Roman Misquotations," p. 39, et seq. London,

1840.

a Greg. Naz. ad Seleucum, tom. ii. p. 194. Paris, 1630.

b Hier. Ep. ad Paulinum; Oper. Ben. 1693, et seq. tom. iv. sec. pars col. 571-4, et Præ. in Libros Salomonis, tom. i. pp. 938-9.

Bell. de Verbo Dei, lib. i. cap. 10, sec. xx. tom. i. p. 20. Prag. 1721. d See Dr. Jarvis's "Reply to Milner's End of Religious Controversy,” p. 51. New York, 1847.

e Bin. Concill. Conc. Laodicen. can. 60, tom. i. p. 304. Lutet. Paris. 1636. "Let it be observed, that though they [Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah] are in some copies [of the Laodicean Canons], yet not in all; that Aristenus in his transcript has them not, nor Caranza.' -See Beveridge's Synodicon, tom. i. p. 481; and Carran. Summa Concill. Paris, 1677. Cum approbat. et permiss. p. 140 (quoted by R. T. P. Pope, in his "Roman Misquotations").

f See Cosin's "Scholast. Hist. of the Canon," sect. lxxxv. London, 1672.

g Labbe et Coss. tom. iv. col. 1140, can. 2. Edit. Paris, 1671.

in express words declares that the books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus are to be excluded.a

And lastly, we have the testimony of Saint Augustine, who, it is alleged, assisted at the Council of Carthage, and sanctioned the Canon in question. Now there is not the slightest doubt but that Augustine expressly excluded the books of Maccabees from the Canon of Scripture ;" and notwithstanding this express exclusion of these books, he elsewhere includes these books when he enumerates a Canon of Scripture; but he made, nevertheless, a marked difference between the term Canon of Scripture and inspired Scripture; he used the word Canon as denoting the books which were held in reverence and read in the churches, under which title, besides the inspired books, the apocryphal were also contained. That the word Canon, as employed by him, must be understood with this latitude of meaning, is obvious, from what he says as to the preference to be given to some of the canonical books over others. In the case of inspired Scripture, it would be absurd to talk of preference. Inspiration does not admit of degrees. The divine element of the Scriptures is not a quantitative thing, conferring different values on different parts of the Scriptures, in proportion to the amount of it that may be found or thought to exist in them. The above is no new explanation of Augustine's words in the passage under consideration; it was given by one of the most renowned Roman doctors, and one, moreover, who was the personal antagonist of Luther,-Cardinal Cajetan. We shall quote his own words, as they occur at the close of his Commentary on the Book of Esther. The whole passage is most remarkable, and therefore we will make no apology for giving it at length:-"Here we end our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament; for the remainder -viz., Judith, Tobit, and the Books of Maccabees-are not included by St. Jerome among the canonical books, but are placed, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, among the Apocrypha. Do not be uneasy, tyro, if you should anywhere find those [apocryphal] books enumerated amongst the canonical, either by holy councils or by holy doctors; for the words both of councils and of doctors must be brought to accord with the rule of Jerome; and, according to his decision, those books [the apocryphal books enumerated], and if there

Epiph. tom. ii. p. 161. Edit. Colon. 1682.

b Aug. de Mirab. Sacræ Scrip. p. 26, tom. iii. part i., and in De Civ. Dei, lib. xviii. cap. 36, p. 519, tom. vii. Paris, 1685; and Cont. Secundam Ep. Gaud. lib. i. cap. 31. p. 821. Edit. Bass. 1797.

c De Doctrina Christiana, lib. ii. cap. 8.