Although the Canon of Scripture seemed now to be so far settled by the decrees of these Councils, all did not conceive themselves bound by them ; and it is observed by Jahn (Introd.) that they were not otherwise to be understood than that the ecclesiastical books enumerated in this catalogue were to be held as useful for the edification of the people, but not to be applied to the confirmation of doctrines of faith.' Such appears at least to have been the sentiment of many eminent divines between this period and the sixteenth century.
Bishop Cosin, in his excellent Scholastic History of the Canon, furnishes to this effect a host of quotations from writers of the middle ages, includ ing Ven. Bede, John of Damascus, Alcuin, Peter Mauritius, Hugh de St. Victor, Cardinal Hugo de St. Cher, the author of the ordinary Gloss, and Nicholas Lyranus. Of these some call the Deutero canonical books excellent and useful, but not in the canon ;' others speak of them as apocryphal, that is, doubtful Scriptures,' as not having been written in the time of the prophets, but in that of the priests, under Ptolemy,' etc., as not equalling the sublime dignity of the other books, yet deserv ing reception for their laudable instruction,' classing them with the writings of Jerome, Augustine, Am brose, and Bede, and making a marked distinction not only between the Jewish and Christian Canons, but even between parts of the Deutero-canonical writings. Mr. Archibald Alexander also (Canon of the Old and Neu, Testaments ascertained) cites several of the same authorities : he has, however, in one instance, evidently mistaken Peter Lombard for Peter Comestor, the author of the Scholastic History. At the dawn of the Reformation, we find James Faber of Etaples and Cardinal Cajetan expressing themselves to the same effect, and the learned Sanctes Pagnini, in his translation of the Bible from the original languages, published at Lyons in 1528 (the first Bible that contained the division into verses with the present figures), dedi cated to Pope Clement VII., distinguished the ecclesiastical books, which he says were not in the canon, by the term Hagiographa. For a descrip tion of this rare work, see Christian Renzembrancer, vol. iv. p. 419, in a treatise, On the division of verses in the Bible,' by the author of the present article.
We are now arrived at the period of the Reformation, when the question of the Canon of Scrip ture was warmly discussed. Long before this
period (viz., in 138o), Wicliff had published his translation of the Bible, in which he substituted another prologue for Jerome's; wherein, after enu merating the twenty-five' books of the Hebrew Canon, he adds—' Whatever book is in the Old Testament, besides these twenty-five, shall be set among the Apocrypha, that is, without authority of belief.' He also, in order to distinguish the Hebrew text from the Greek interpolations, inserted Jerome's notes, rubricated, into the body of the text.
Although Martin Luther commenced the publi cation of his translation of the Bible in 1523, yet, as it was published in parts, he had not yet made any distinction between the two classes of books, when Lonicer published his edition of the Greek Septuagint at Strasburg in 1526, in which he sepa rated the Deutero-canonical, or Apocryphal, books, from those of the Jewish Canon ; for which he was severely castigated by Morinus (see Masch's edition of Le Long's Bibliotheca Biblica, vol. ii. p. 268). Arias Montanus went still further, and rejected them altogether. In 1534 the complete edition of Luther's Bible appeared, wherein those books which Jerome had placed inter apocrypha were separated, and placed by themselves between the Old and New Testament, under the title Apocry pha ; that is, Books which are not to be considered as equal to holy Scripture, and yet are useful and good to read.' A few years after, the divines of the Council of Trent assembled ; and among the earliest subjects of their deliberation was the Canon of Scripture. The Canon of Augustine,' says bishop Marsh, continued to be the Canon of the ruling party. But as there were not wanting persons, especially among the learned, who from time to time recom mended the Canon of Jerome, it was necessary for the Council of Trent to decide between the con tending parties' (Comparative View, p. 97). The Tridentine Fathers had consequently a nice and difficult question to determine.
On the 8th April 1546, all who were present at the fourth session of the Council of Trent adopted the canon of Augustine, declaring, ' He is also to be anathema who does not receive these entire books, with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church, and are found in the ancient editions of the Latin Vul gate, as sacred and canonical, and who knowingly and wilfully despises the aforesaid traditions . .