2. Church Authority. The first two books of Maccabees have often been treated with a very high degree of respect in the Chris tian Church. Origen (apud Euselnum), profes sing to give a catalogue of the twenty-two ca nonical books, of which, however, he actually enumerates only twenty-one, adds, 'besides, there are the Maccabees.' This has given rise to the notion that he intended to include these books in the Canon, while others have observed that he has omitted the minor prophets from his cata logue. In his preface to the Psalms he excludes the two books of Maccabees from the books of Holy Scripture, but in his Princip. (ii, 1), and in his Comment. ad Rom. ch. v, he spcaks of them as inspired, and as of equal authority with the other books. St. Jerome says that the Church does not acknowledge them as canonical, although he elsewhere cites them as Holy Scripture (Com. ad Isa. xxiii; ad Eccl. vii, ;.x; ad Dan. viii). Bellarmine (De Vcrbo Dci) acknowledges that thcse, with the other deutero-canonical books, are rejected by Jerome, as they had not becn then de termined by any general council. The first councils
which included them in the canonical scriptures were those of Hippo and Carthage. They were received with the other books by the Council of Trent. Basnage, cited by Lardncr (Credibility), thinks that the word 'Canonical' may be sup posed to be used here (by thc councils of Hippo and Carthage) loosely, so as to comprehend not only those books which are admitted as a rule of faith, but those which arc esteemed useful, and may be publicly read for the edification of the people, in contradistinction to such books as were entirely rejected. This is also the opinion of the Roman Catholic Professor Jahn (Introd. sec. 29), who expresses himself in nearly the same words. Dr. Lardner conceives that Augustine also, unless he would contradict himself, must be understood to have uscd the word in the samc sense. (See Cotton, The Five Books of the Maccabees.) W. W.