Chalcedon, Council of, A.D. 451, which confirmed the canons of the Council of Laodicea, art. 15, can. i.; Lab. Conc. iv. col. 755. Paris, 1671. Augustine, A.D. 420 [excludes them all from the sacred canon]. De Mirab. Sacræ. Scrip. lib ii. c. 34, p. 26, tom. iii, pt. i. Paris, 1686. De Civ. Dei, 1. 18, c. 36 p. 519, tom. vii. Paris, 1685. Aug. contra. Secundum Ep. Gaud. lib. i. c. 31, p. 821. Edit. Bass. 1797.

Junilius, A.D. 545 [he excludes Judith, Wisdom, and Maccabees]. De part. divinæ leges. lib. i. cap. 3, p. 80, tom. xii. Bibl. Patrum. Venet, 1765. Gregory I. A.D. 601, followed the list of Jerome. Greg. Mor. lib. 19, on 39th chap. of Job; Bened. Edit. 1705, and Romæ, 1608, tom. ii. p. 899; see Occam. Dial, pt. 3; Tract. i. lib. 3, c. 16. Lugd. 1495. Damascene, A.D. 787 [rejected them all]. Orth. fid. lib. iv. c. 18, p. 153. Basil, 1539. See Canus. Loc. Theol. lib. 2, c. x. p. 59. Colon. 1605. Alcuinus, A.D. 790 [rejected them all]. Advers. Elepant. lib. i. col. 941. Paris, 1617. Nicephorus, A.D 800 [rejected them all].

Nicep. Patr. C. P. Canon. Script. in Operibus Pithei, cited by H. Lynd, Via Devia, sec. 5, p. 159. Edit. 1850, London.

N.B. For the remaining references, which, being of so late date, are only valuable as showing a succession of testimony, the reader is referred to H. Lynd's Via Devia, sect. 5. London, reprint 1850, and Birkbeck's Port. Evidence. Lond. 1849, vol. 2. (See Table of Contents, p. iii.)

CHAPTER III.

CANON OF SCRIPTURE—(continued).

"As the church is evidently more ancient than the Scriptures, so the Scriptures were not authentic, save by the authority of the church.”Eckii, Enchiridion de Ecclesiâ et ejus Autoritate, etc., p. 21. Coloniæ. 1567. THE authorities usually relied on in support of the assertion that "the orthodox Fathers" received the Apocryphal and the other books "with equal piety and reverence,' and thus preserved them by a continuous succession of witnesses in the church, are :—

1. The Council of Sardis, A.D. 347.

2. The Council of Carthage, A.D. 397.

3. Saint Augustine, A.D. 397.

4. Pope Innocent I., A.D. 405.

5. Pope Gelasius, A.D. 494.

6. The Council of Toledo, A.D. 675.

7. The Council of Florence, A.D. 1439.

8. The Trent Council, A.D. 1546.

I. The Council of Sardis. Father Calmet (A.D. 1730) was the first, we believe, who advanced this council as an authority. Independently of the fact that the genuineness of the decrees of this alleged council is challenged, we assert that these decrees, such as they are, give no list of canonical books whatever. Dupin, the famous French ecclesiastical historian, who has ransacked all the Councils, and advanced all the authorities he could find, does not refer to this council as an authority.

II. The Council of Carthage. This council is supposed, by the 47th Canon, to have included the Apocrypha in the canon or list of Scripture. Our objections to this authority are the following.

Taking for granted, for the moment, that the decree is genuine-this council was not a General, but only a Provincial Council, and cannot, therefore, be cited to establish a doctrine, or bind the church universal. It can only be cited to establish a local custom. Cardinal Bellarmine objected to the citation of this council on another subject. He said, "This Provincial Council cannot bind the bishop of Rome, nor the bishops of other provinces," because the 26th Canon of this same council declared that the bishop of Rome was not to be called Chief Priest, and the council otherwise opposed the Roman Supremacy. Surely this was an heretical council.

But we may be reminded of Calmet's argument, that the

1 Bell. de Pont. Rom., lib. ii. c. xxxi. sec. viii. p. 387, tom. i. Prag.

Was

council was wholly coninformed by the Jesuit A rather awkward mistake

canons of this council were confirmed by the council of Constantinople, in Trullo, A.D. 695. Be it so! But, alas! for the over zeal of Calmet, who relies on this proof. he not aware that this latter demned by popes, as we are Fathers, Labbe and Cossart ?1 this! But, alas! again, for consistency-this same council in Trullo also confirmed the canons of the council of Laodicea! which expressly rejected the Apocrypha. Did the two hundred and eleven bishops in Trullo confirm two conflicting lists? It is more reasonable to suppose that they confirmed those of the earlier council, whose decrees had never been questioned, but, on the contrary, had already been confirmed by the General Council of Chalcedon.

But it may be also objected, that the Council of Laodicea was equally a Provincial Council. We admit it; but the 60th Canon of this council, which recites the Canonical Books, was confirmed by the General Council of Chalcedon, A.D. 451, and is therefore binding on every member of the Romish church. And while some Romanists prefer the authority of Carthage over Laodicea, because Leo IV. (A.D. 847) is stated to have confirmed the decrees of the former, they overlook the fact that Leo IV., in the same place, confirmed the decrees of the Council of Laodicea also, and thus make a pope confirm two different lists. An additional reason is thus afforded for supposing that the canon of the later council, that of Carthage, was forged, and not known to Leo IV., and the recognition falsely attributed to him.

1 Lab. et Coss. Concl. Genl., tom. vi. col. 1316. Paris, 1671.

2 Lab et Cos. Concl. Genl., tom vi., col. 1140, can. ii. Paris, 1671.

3 Binius Concl., Conc. Laod. can. lx., tom. i. P. 304. Paris, 1636. See Cosin's "Scholast. Hist. of the Canons," sec. lxxxv. London, 1672.

The second difficulty Romanists have to contend with is, that the list now professed by their church does not agree with the list supposed to be given in the 47th Canon of the Council of Carthage, the canon relied on.1 For instance, the books of Maccabees are not found in any of the Greek copies or manuscripts of this council, but only in Latin translations, which argues a forgery somewhere. Then, again, by a strange blunder, the council has enumerated five books of Solomon-that is, besides Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs, which are in the Hebrew Canon, and, what is called in the Septuagint, the Wisdom of Solomon, attributed to him,—but also "the Book of Jesus the Son of Sirach," written eight hundred years after the death of Solomon.

Sericius was at this date (A.D. 397) bishop of Rome, Cæsarius and Atticus being Consuls, as the council itself relates; and yet the canon which is alleged to contain the list of Canonical Books refers to Pope Boniface, who was not bishop until 418, twenty years after, a very cogent reason for supposing that the man who forged the canon lived so long after the council was held, that he forgot who was bishop of Rome at the time.

Romanists are not at all agreed among themselves as to the genuineness of this particular canon. Cardinal Baronius, the famous annalist, was obliged to admit that— "Not all the canons of this council are established; but they are allowed in divers other Councils of Carthage, as, namely, that canon wherein the number of Sacred Books is defined ;" and Binius, the publisher of the "Councils,” said "fifty canons which were attributed to that council, were

1 Labb. et Coss., tom. ii. col. 117 Paris, 1671.

2 See the List of the Popes. Ibid., tom. xvi. col. 130.
3 Baron. Annal. Ann. 397, n. 56, p. 249. Edit. Lucæ. 1740.

not all confirmed by it, but by other Councils of Carthage, as, namely, the 47th Canon." So that it is a mistake after all to refer us to the Council of A.D. 397! Take for granted it was another council-say that of A.D. 419, to which the decree is sometimes shifted over-then we have another difficulty. Dupin informs us that this council merely proposed the list, and that other churches were to be consulted for its confirmation. But it is quite a mistake to suppose that even this council published a list; and the question is scarcely worth while arguing until Romanists are themselves agreed upon the precise council which did pass the alleged canon or list, and at what date.

So much, then, for this authority.

III. Augustine, bishop of Hippo, is supposed to have subscribed the 47th Canon of the Council of Carthage, above referred to. But we have shown that there was no

such canon. Are we to suppose that he professed a different Rule of Faith from that of Jerome? If so, where is the unity of teaching? Augustine was bishop in Africa ; Jerome a presbyter at Rome. But it is certain that Augustine expressly excluded these various Apocryphal books by name from the canon of Sacred Scripture ; and he distinguished what he means by the Divine Canon from the ordinary canon. Here Bellarmine comes again to the rescue. He says "that St. Augustine was most certain that all Canonical Books were of infallible truth; but was not alike certain that all the Books of Scripture were canonical for, if he did think so, yet he knew the point was

:

1 Bin. Concl. Carth. III., p. 722. Tom. i. Lutet. Paris, 1636.

2 Dupin. Vol. i. pp. 8, 9, fol. edit. London, 1699.

3 Aug. de Civit. Dei. lib. xvii. c. 20, p. 508, and p. 483. Lib. xviii. c. 26, tom. vii. Paris, 1685.

4 De Mirab. Sacræ. Scrip. Lib. ii. cap. 34, p. 26, tom. iii. Paris, 1680.