On the 8th April, 1546. all who were present at the fourth session of the Council of Trent adopted the canon of Augustine.
The whole of the books in debate, with the ex ception of 3d and 4th Esilrs. and the Prayer of Manasses, are considered as canonical by the Council of Trent. But it must be recollected that the decision of the Council of Trent is one by no means peculiar to this council. The third Council of Carthage had considered the same books canon ical. 'The Council of Trent,' says Bishop Marsh, 'declared no other books to be sacred and canon ical than such as had existed from the earliest ages of Christianity.
The ecclesiastical books were generally written within a period which could not have extended t9 more than two centuries_before the birth of Christ. In the choice of the places which were assigned them by the Greek Jews resident in Alexandria and other parts of Egypt, who probably added these books to the Septuagint version, according as they became gradually approved of. they were directed 'partly by the subject, partly by their re lation to other writings, and partly by the periods in which the recorded transactions are supposed to have happened.' Their insertion shows how highly they were esteemed by the Greek Jews of Egypt; but whether even the Egyptian Jews ascribed to them canonical and Divine authority it would not be easy to prove (Marsh's Com paeative l'icw).
(4) Anglican Church. The following were the proceedings of the Anglican Church in ref erence to this subject: In Covcrdale's English translation of the Bible, printed in 1535, the deutero-canonical books were divided from the others and printed separately, with the exception of the book of Baruch, which was not separated from the others in this version until the edition of 155o. They had, however, been separated in Matthew's Bible in 1537, prefaced with the words, 'the vol ume of the book called Hagiographa.' This Bible contained Olivetan's preface, in which these books were spoken of in somewhat disparaging terms. In Cranmcr's Bible, published in 1539. the same words and preface were xontinued; but in the edi tion of 1549 the word Hagiographa was changed into Apocrypha, which passed through the suc ceeding editions into King James' Bible. Olive tan's preface was omitted in the Bishop's Bible in 1568, after the framing of the canon in the Thirty-nine Articles in 1562.
In the Geneva Bible, which was the popular English translation before the present Authorized Version, and which was published in 155o, these books are printed separately, with a preface in which, although not considered of themselves as sufficient to prove any point of Christian doctrine, they arc yet treated with a high degree of venera tion. In the parallel passages in the margin of this translation references are made to the deut ero-canonical books.
In the first edition of the Articles of the Church of England. 1552. no catalogue of the 'Holy Script ure' had yet appeared, but in the Articles of 1562 the Canon of St. Jerome was finally adopted in the following order: Five books of Moses; Joshua ; Judges; Ruth: 1 and 2 Samuel; t and 2 Kings; t and 2 Chronicles: t and 2 F.sdras; Esther ; Job; Psalms; Proverbs; Ecclesiastes ; Cantica ; four Prophets the Greater; twelve Prophets the Less. The books of the second canon were commended and enumerated as follows: t and 2 (3 and 4) Esdras, Tobias, Judith, the rest of the hook of Esther, Wisdom of Jesus the son of Sirach, Baruch the Prophet, the Song of the Children, the Story of Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, the Prayer of fanasses, and t and 2 Maccabees.
(5) Westminster Confession. The Westmin ster Confession treated the books of the second Canon with less ceremony. After enumerating the canonical books (ascribing thirteen epistles only to Paul), they proceed to say that 'the books called Apocrypha, not being of _Divine confirma tion, are no part of the Canon of Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved or made use of than other human writings.' Luther (on t Cor. to) had declared that the touchstone by which certain Scriptures should be acknowledged as Divine or not was the follow ing: 'Do they preach Jesus Christ or not ?' And among the moderns, Dr. Twesten (Vorlesungen ueber die Dogmatik, 1829, vol. i, p. 421, sq.) has
maintained a somewhat similar principle. (See Gaussen's Theopncustia.) The Confession of Augsburg, dated in 1531, contains no article what ever on the Canon of Scripture; nor do the Lutherans appear to have any other canon than Luther's Bible. (For the sentiments of the Greek Church, SCC ESDRAS ; ESTHER ; MACCABEES.) 3. Grounds and Authorities. We shall add a few words on the grounds and authorities adopted by different persons for deciding whether a work is Canonical or not. Mr. Jeremiah Jones furnishes us with three different views on this subject : (1) Opinions of Papists. 'The first,' he says, 'is the opinion of the Papists, who have generally affirmed, in their controversies with the Protes tants, that the authority of the Scriptures depends upon, or is derived from, the power of their church. By the authority of the church, those authors plainly mean a power lodged in the Church of Rome, and her synods, of determina tion, what books are the Word of God, than which nothing can be more absurd or contrary to common sense ; for if so, it is possible, nay, it easy, for them to make a book which is not Divine to be so.' (2) Internal Evidence. Another principle was that adopted by all the reformed communions (ex cept the Anglican Church), viz., to use Mr. Jones' words, that 'there arc inward or innate evidences in the Scriptures, which, applied by the illumination or testimony of the Holy Spirit, are the only true proofs of their being the Word of God;'or,to use the words of the French Reformed Communion in its Confession, which harmonizes with the methods adopted by the Scotch and Bel gian communions, that upon the internal per suasion of the Spirit they knew the Canonical from Ecclesiastical, i. e., Apocryphal, books. This method Nlr. Jones thinks to be of a very extraordinary nature. 'Can it be supposed,' he asks, 'that out of ten thousand books, private Christians, or even our most learned reformers, should by any internal evidence agree precisely on the number of twenty-seven, which are now esteemed canonical, induced thereto by some char acters those books contain, of their being written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost?' (3) Testimony of Early Christians. The third method is that approved of by Mr. Jones, viz., that tradition, or the testimony of the ancient Christians, preserved in their writings, is the host method of determining the subject. 'This,' adds Mr. Jones, 'is the method the first Christians constantly made use of to prove, against the here tics, the truth of the sacred books, viz., by appeal ing to that certain and undoubted tradition which assured them they were the writings of the per sons whose names they bear. The chief objection which has been urged against this method is that it leaves the canonicity of each book to the deci sion of every private individual, which is incon sistent with the idea of a canon. Certain it is that the ancient church, in deciding on the pres sent Canon, exhibited a wonderful theological tact, as the books which it has handed down as canonical, and these alone, are generally the same which, after having undergone the strictest or deal that the learning and acumen of modem times have been enabled to apply to them, are acknowledged by the best critics to be authentic. In fact, the church has adopted the same methods for this purpose which Mr. Jones has considered to be the only ones satisfactory to private individ uals. Christians are thus in possession of the highest degree of satisfaction.
The question in dispute, however, is not with regard to the Jewish Canon, but as to whether or not there is reliable testimony as to how far our Saviour and his Apostles gave the stamp of their authority to any books not contained in this canon. We have no certain evidence as to the authority on which, or the time when, the Jewish Canon was collected, or of the cause of its closing; and our best evidence in favor of the canonicity of the Hebrew Scriptures rests on the authority of Christ, as contained in the Scrip tures of the New Testament.
See, in addition to the works already cited, Vicenzi's Introductio in Scrip. Deutero-canon. (Stowe, in Bib. Sacra, April, 1854.) See also Edwin Cone Bissell, Historic Origin of the Bible.