relied in for his authority, may have had a high esteem for the book, and at their suggestion, strengthened by the authority of the Alexandrian version, he gave it its present place in his canon."

Münscher concludes the Palestine Jews used the original Hebrew text, and the Hellenistic Jews the Alexandrian version. The latter included more books than the former. But, even among the Palestine Jews, doubts prevailed upon the books of Baruch and Esther, which were finally settled in favor of the latter, and against the former. Now, the difference between the Palestine and the Hellenistic canon gradually diminished; the old Palestine canon was restored. All the Christians agreed in receiving all the present canonical books, with the single exception of Esther, (and it is doubtful if this was rejected;) but they differed in admitting or rejecting some of the apocryphal writings- for example, the Wisdom of Solomon, of Jesus the Son of Sirach, &c., which some accepted, and others refused to admit. The church and its most distinguished teachers were favorable to these books. Ignorance of the true Hebrew canon, and reverence for the Alexandrian version, favored them. Therefore most of the writers of this period make use of these and other apocryphal books. Yet, even then, some critics were found, like Origen and Melito, who made a careful investigation of the subject, and consulted the Jews, the only authorities in the matter, and adhered to the old Jewish canon. But their labors seem to have exerted but little influence on their contemporaries; for, after the time of Origen, we find a difference between the canon of the Greek and that of the western church. Origen's Hexapla showed to all scholars what books were translated from the Hebrew, and what were originally written in Greek. The writers of the Greek church uniformly rejected the latter from the canon. This is evident from the writings of Eusebius, and the catalogues of Athanasius, Gregory, and Epiphanius. In the west, Hilary of Poictiers, and Jerome, both students of Origen's writings, were likewise of this opinion. Others of the western church were ignorant of his works, especially of the Hexapla, and therefore continued to use all the books contained in the Alexandrian version.

a Redepennig (Origenes, eine Darstellung seiner Lebens und seine Lehre, Bonn, 1841, vol. i. p. 232, sqq.) thinks Origen never made a very sharp distinction between the canonical and apocryphal. It can hardly be denied that he quotes the apocryphal books as authorities, or that he distinguishes them from those esteemed sacred by the Hebrews. See above, § 25, p. 90, syg.

$8.

3. Canon of Athanasius.

Athanasius was bishop of Alexandria from 326 to 373. He is called the father of orthodoxy. His opinion, therefore, is important. His catalogue, inserted in the table, is found in a fragment of what is called a festal epistle, in vol. i. p. 961 of the Benedictine edition of his works. He acknowledges all the canonical books except the book of Esther.

He makes three classes of writings.

1. The canonical. In this class he places all of our canonical writings except the book of Esther, and adds the book of Baruch, and the Epistle, to the Prophecies of Jeremiah.

2. Those which are known, but not admitted to the canon. They are marked with an asterisk in the table.

3. Apocryphal writings, which are the invention of heretics, who wrote them according to their own caprice." The Synopsis of Sacred Scripture, attributed to him, and contained in the Benedictine edition of his works," is undoubtedly spurious, and therefore it is not noticed in the table; but it agrees in the main with the festal epistle.

$9.

4. Canon of Cyril of Jerusalem.

Cyril was born, according to Lardner, about 315, ordained presbyter in 344 or 345, and bishop in 350 or 351, and died in 386. The catechetical discourses from which this table is compiled, says Jerome, were written in his youth, while he was a presbyter, that is, about 347 or 348. His catalogue differs from that of Athanasius in admitting the book of Esther."

$10.

5. Canon of the Council of Laodicea.

The

Lardner says the date of this council is not certain. Some place it before the council of Nice; others between 341 and 381. catalogue is contained in the fifty-ninth and sixtieth, or fifty-eighth

a See the remarks of Lardner, pt. ii. ch. 75, and of Münscher, 1. c. vol. iii. § 20. Opp. vol. ii. p. 126-204. See § 26, sup. p. 97, sqq.

and fifty-ninth canons. It is generally received as genuine, though it is not free from all doubts. The council consisted of only thirty or forty bishops from Lydia and the neighboring countries. It does not differ from the canon of Cyril."

$ 11.

6. Canon of Epiphanius.

Epiphanius was chosen bishop of Constantia, the capital of Cyprus, in 367 or 368. In his works there are three catalogues of the books of the Old Testament. He enumerates twenty-seven books, which he reduces to twenty-two. In one place he says, the Epistle of Baruch was not received by the Jews; but again he mentions it with the Prophecies and Lamentations of Jeremiah. The Wisdom of Solomon and of Sirach are called "useful books," but he does not rank them with the others.

$ 12.

7. Canon of Gregory of Nazianzen.

Gregory was born about 326, and died about 389 or 391. His catalogue is found in his poems. He warns his readers against apocryphal writings. He enumerates none of our apocryphal books in his canon, and omits the book of Esther. The Lamentations, it is probable, are included with the Prophecies of Jeremiah.

$13.

8. Canon of Amphilochius.

Amphilochius was bishop of Iconium from 370 to 391, though these dates are uncertain. The catalogue is found in an Iambic poem addressed to Seleucus. Some writers and De Wette seems attribute it to Gregory of Nazianzen; but their argu

of the number

a See the passage in § 26, sup. p. 94, sqq.

Pond. et Mens. § 4, Opp. ii. p. 161, sqq., and § 23, and the Panarium, vol. i. P. 19.

Vol. ii. p. 163, A.

d Vol. i. p. 19.

Carm. xxxiii. Opp. vol. ii. p. 98, ed. Colon. Lardner refers to the most valuable literature which relates to him and his works.

ments are not satisfactory." He differs from Gregory in mentioning the book of Esther, though he gives it but a qualified admission"to these some add Esther."

$ 14.

9. Canon of the Apostolical Constitutions.

The genuineness of this work cannot be defended. If this is the same cited by Epiphanius," which is very doubtful, then it must be referred to the beginning of the fourth century. But writers, not without good reason, refer it to the fifth."

Besides the canonical books, the eighty-fifth canon enumerates the three books of Maccabees and the book of Judith. This latter, however, is wanting in some manuscripts. The book of Ecclesiasticus is not admitted. If this canon was written in the fourth century, it seems to have had but little influence at the time; for none of the Christian writers on the canon ever refer to it. Epiphanius, indeed, says of the Constitution of the Apostles, "All the order of the canon is preserved in it." But he would not be willing to say this of a work admitting Judith and the Maccabees to a place in the canon.

$ 15

RESULTS.

Such is the canon of the Greek church at the close of the fourth century. The churches uniformly received, the twenty-two canonical books of the Hebrews, that is, all of our present canonical writings of the Old Testament. Some, however, rejected the book of Esther, while others admitted the book of Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah

See the arguments on both sides in Lardner, 1. c. pt. ii. ch. 99. The poem may be found in the Monumenta Græca, ed. Cotelerius, tom. ii. 99-104, and in Gregory's Opp. vol. ii. p. 194, ed. Colon.

See the work in Mansi, Conc. Patr. vol. i. p. 47, and in Cotelerius, Patr. Apost. vol. i. p. 448.

Hæres. lxx. No. 10, p. 822, 823, ed. Petavius. Given also in Grabe, Spicilegium, vol. i. P. 46-55.

I have inserted it in the table to show the striking difference between later

catalogues and those prepared by the eminent scholars of the Greek church in the fourth century.

to the canon. The book of Tobit, the Wisdom of Solomon, and Sirach, with the books of Maccabees, and the rest of the Apocrypha, while they were pronounced useful and instructive works, were excluded from the list of sacred, inspired, and canonical writings. In this result we see the influence of Origen, whose works, in this century, were diligently and extensively studied in the Greek church. Still some writers, like Athanasius, Cyril, and Epiphanius, refer to the apocryphal books, both for illustration and argument. But Origen himself did the same.

$16.

II. CANON OF THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE FOURTH CENTURY.

1. Canon of Jerome.

Jerome was born in the first half of the fourth century, and died 420. He did more than any other ancient for the elucidation of the Scripture, with the single exception of Origen. The one danced to the piping of the other. He was master of the Latin, the Greek, and Hebrew languages. In the preface to his translation of the books of Samuel and Kings, he gives a catalogue of all the books of the Old Testament. This contains all the old canonical Hebrew writings, that is, our present canonical books, and no more. He expressly excludes the apocryphal books, though he calls some of them valuable and edifying works. He says the Jews have not the apocryphal additions to Daniel, but ridicule the Christians for the reverence they pay them. He censures those apocryphal books which pass under the name of Ezra (the apocryphal books of Esdras) and Solomon. At the request of his friends, he translated Tobit and Judith into Latin. But, in the preface to each of these, he states that they are apocryphal.'

a

$ 17.

2. Canon of Rufinus.

Rufinus was contemporary with Jerome, and agrees with him perfectly in the books he admits to the canon and rejects from it. The one is a copy of the other.

Præf. in Dan. and in Ezek. Adv. Vigilius, Opp. iv. p. 283, sqq.

Præf. in Tobit, Opp. i. p. 1158. Præf. in Judith, p. 1170. See Lardner, pt. ii. ch. 114.