We are informed by Jahn (Introduction), that this decree did not affect the distinction which the learned had always made between the canonical and deutero-canonical books, in proof of which he refers to the various opinions which still prevail in his church on the subject, Bernard Lamy (Appara tus ii. 5) denying, and Du Pin (Prolego mena) asserting, that the books of the second Canon are of equal authority with those of the first. Those who desire further information will find it in the two accounts of the controversies which took place at the council on this subject; one from the pen of Cardinal Pallavicini, the other by Father Paul Sarpi, the two eminent historians of the Council. Professor Alber, to whom we have already referred, having .denied that any such distinction as that maintained by his brother Professor, Jahn, can law fully exist among Roman Catholic divines, insists that both canons possess one and the same autho rity. The words of Bernard Lamy, however, cited by Jahn, are—' The books of the second Canon, although united with the first, are not, however, of the same authority' (Apparat. Bibl. U. 5, p. 333). Alber endeavours to explain this as meaning only that these books had not the same authority before the Canon of the Council of Trent, and cites a pas sage from Pallavicini to prove that the anathema was `directed against those Catholics who adopted the views of Cardinal Cajetan' (vol. ii. p. 105). But, however this may be, among other opinions of Luther condemned by the Council was the follow ing :—That no books should be admitted into the Canon of the Old Testament but those received by the Jews ; and that from the new should be ex cluded—the Epistle to the Hebrews, those of James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude and the Apo calypse.' The•whole of the books in debate, with the ex ception of 3c1. and 4th Esdras, and the Prayer of Manasses, are considered as canonical by the Coun cil 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 canonical.
The Council of Trent,' says bishop Marsh, 'de clared no other books to be sacred and canonical than such as had existed from the earliest ages of Christianity, not only in the Latin version of the Old Testament, but even in the ancient Greek ver sion, which is known by the name of the Septua gint . . . In the manuscripts of the Septuagint, there is the same intermixture of canonical and apocryphal books, as in the manuscripts of the Latin version' [although there are in different manuscripts variations in the particular arrange ment of single books]. The Hebrew was inacces sible to the Latin translators in Europe and Africa during the three first centuries.
The ecclesiastical books were generally written within a period which could not have extended to 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 subjects, 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 shews bow 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 Comparative View).
The following were the proceedings of the Angli can Church in reference to this subject :— In Coverdale'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 1550. They had, however, been
separated in Matthew's Bible in 1537, prefaced with the words, ' the volume of the book called Hagio grapha.' This Bible contained Olivetan's preface, in which these books were spoken of in somewhat disparaging terms. In Cranmer's Bible, published in 1539, the same words and preface were con tinued; but, in the edition of 1549, the word Hagiographa was changed into Apocrypha, which passed through the succeeding editions into King James' Bible. Olivetan's preface was omitted in the Bishops' 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 1559, 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 are yet treated with a high degree of veneration. In the parallel passages in the margin of this trans lation, references are made to the deutero-canonical books.
In the first edition of the Articles of the Church of England, 5552, no catalogue of the ' Holy Scripture' had yet appeared, but in the Articles of 1562, the canon of St. Jerome was finally adopted in the following order : 5 books of Moses, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, i and 2 Samuel; i and 2 Kings, and 2 Chronicles, 1 and 2 Esdras, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Cantica, four Pro phets the Greater, twelve Prophets the Less. In the 6th article it is declared that, 'In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canoni cal books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church,' and that 'the other books (as Jerome saith) the church doth read for example of life and instruc tion of manners, but yet it doth not apply them to establish any doctrine.' The books which the article then enumerates are i and 2 [3 and 41 Esdras, Tobias, Judith, the rest of the book of Esther, Wisdom, Jesus the son of Sirach, Baruch the Prophet, the Song of the Children, the Story of Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, the Prayer of Manasses, and I and 2 Maccabees. It is not, how ever, altogether correct, in point of fact, in includ ing in the number of books thus referred to by Jerome, as read by the church for edification, the third and fourth books of Esdras. These books were equally rejected by the Church of Rome and by Luther, who did not translate them. The Church of England further declares, that 'all the books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive and account them canonical.' The Church of England has herein followed the Councils of Hippo and Carthage. The phrase of whose authority was never any doubt in the church,' refers therefore more strictly to the books of the Old Testament than the New, for it cannot be denied that doubts did exist respecting the Antilegomena of the New Testament. In the first book of Homilies, published in 1547, and the second in 1560, both confirmed by the Thirty-fifth Article of 1562, the deutero-canonical books are cited as 'Scripture,' and treated with the same reverence as the other books in the Bible ; and in the preface to the book of Common Prayer, they are alluded to as being 'agreeable to' the Holy Scriptures.