EjKf»
B»],
Houumm Piox.
Adv. hear, r, 85. L
A»f. i, 10; 11,8.
8d. in Pm.
CXXT.
Sa. in Jer.
xxxL ildv. d. JVo«&
ft.
Conv. TlUf 8.
e. Arian. 1,
416. Dffm. Efo.yi,
19.
il(fv. .Bun.
Iv, 16. Hear. Ivii, 8,
etc
Jn PklzUz, 8.
Sccfp. 8.
JnPfclxvlfi,
19. 2k 7Vln.iT,
143. /n/^.cxvUi,
18,8.
l>enon\
l>0CfO.ZTiiL
84.
Strom. Ul A etc
Oommentar. in Joan. zzzii,14.
Cdnv. i, 8,
ete. c Arian. i,
188.
ICaL zdil, IT.)
JJivr. zzIt, 6, etc
De Lag.
4.
2rM<m.li,l;
DeMortaL
9. /nPklz^i,
9, etc
i>0 bono moftiCiS.
fcV.1.88.)
DeSeKDon.
ili,8. In Fg. Ixvll,
8, etc
iEp. c 6.) Uldv. hear. iT,88,S.)
StronuU. iv.
i«; ^ 11,
14, 15, etc c Cclc lU,
w; ▼, »;
JErom.8Kpe. In Cant Fkt)L
Conv. if 8,
etc c Arian. il,
518. iVop. .Bdl i,
9. CaLlx^i.
AaVtBunom.
B<tT. xjivi (anott)15, etc
/n /tekelx, T.
A<»r. T.) TmL iL 14;
DeMortaL
98. /nPi.czyiii,
«,8.
D«^.&iii,
18,185, etc WkO. e. iV.
2(V.i,38.] iVo Athan.
i, 860, ed.
Ifignc DeSch.Don.
li,86. In P9. lvil,l.
l^adPML 10.)
[Jdv. A<«r. i, £Krom.ii,88;
Ti,12.
^ fld J/-
ric 18. DeOraL 11.
[In Dan. p. 607, ed. Mignc)
c. Arian. i, 188.
IBp.adCor. 5Bw)
SKrom.ii,7.
U7om.iz,in JiMd.L)
8el in Jar. 88.
[CtoneizIfS.]
Ep.aiAf-
rie. DeOraL li.
Adv. hOBT.
26,8. ' Propk. EeL
^. ad AS- ric etc
De Orator. Dom. 89.
/nPkoxxiz, 7.
Lib. ds Ma,L
To-
Pro Athan. ifSTL
InP8.e 6.
Denonpare. p. 968.
Oofn.^IXin. p. 689 eq., ed. Mfgne.
[Con».^9.]
o. Arian, iil, 680.
CaL il, 16,
etc
Orat.zzzvi,
8. How. siLin
Prov. IZ. Aneor. 98,
94.
Adv. Hem. 44.
De Orator. Dom. 8.
In Pm. lii, 19, etc
De8p.S.m,
Pro Athan. ii,894 8q.
Ser.oocsclOL
1 Up to the date of the Council of Trent (q. v.), the Bomanists allow that the question of the Canon was open, bat one of the first hAxnn of that assembly was to drcnmscribe a freedom which the growth of liter- atoie seemed to render perilons. The decree of the Coonca "on the Canonical Scriptures," which was Bsde at the 4th session (April 8th, 1646), at which sboot 58 repreaentatiyes were present, pronounced the eolszged Canon, indnding the apocryphal books, to be deterring in aU Hs parts of " equal yeneration" (pari pietitis affectnX and added a list of books "to preyent the possibility of doubt'* (ne cui dubitatio suboriri poa- >it). This hasty and peremptory decree, unlike in its (ana to any catalogue before published, was closed by a solemn anathema against all who should "not re- ceire tiie entire books, with all their parts, as sacred aod canonical*' (Si quis autom Ubros ipsos integros CUD omnibus snis partibus, prout in ecclesia catbolica legi coBsueyenmt et in yeteri yulgata Latina editione babentor, pro sacris et canonicis non susceperit .... aaatbema esto, Cone. Trid. Sett. W). This decree wss •ot, lioweyer, passed without opposition (Sarpi, p. 189 •q. ed. 1666, though PaUayacino denies this) ; and, hi •pile of the abaolute terms in which it is expressed, ktter Romanists haye sought to find a method of escap- ing from the definite equalization of the two classes of iacred writings by a forced interpretation of the sub- iidisiy daasea. Da Phi iDmert.prdm. i, 1), Lamy
(App.BibL^ 6), and Jahn (Eita.md.A. T. i, 141 sq. <iq>, Beuss, § 887) endeayored to establish two classes of proto-canonical and deutero-canonical books, at- tributing to the first a dogmatic, and to the second only an ethical authority. But such a classification, howeyer true it may be, is obviously at yariance with the terms of the Tridentine decision, and has found comparatiyely little fkvor among Bomish writers (comp. [Herbst] Welte, Einl. ii, 1 sq.). See Deutero-
CANOKICAL.
8. The reformed churches unanimously agreed in confirming the Hebrew Canon of Jerome, and reftised to allow any dogmatic authority to the apocryphal books, but the form in which this judgment was ez^ pressed yaried considerably in the different confes- sions. The Lutheran formularies contain no definite article on the subject, but the note which Luther placed in the front of his German translation of the Apocrypha (ed. 1584) is an adequate declaration of the later judg- ment of the Communion : "Apocrypha, that is, boo& which are not placed on an equal footing (mcht gieich gekdttn) with Holy Scripture, and yet are profitable aod good for reading.** This general yiew was ftir- ther expanded in the special prefiices to the separate books, in which Luther ftwAj criticised their indiyidp ual worth, and wholly rejected 8 and 4 Esdras as un- worthy of translation. At an earlier period Carlstadt (16S0) published a critical essay, De camtmkii ecriptwrU
CANON
80
CANON
UUOut (reprinted in Credner, Zur Ge$ck. d, Kan, p. 291 8q.)» in which he followed tiie Hebrew division of the canonical books into three ranks, and added Wisd., Ecclas., Judith, Tobit, 1 and 2 Mace, as Hagiographa, though not included in the Hebrew collection, while he rejected the remainder of the Apocrypha, with con- siderable parts of Daniel, as ** utterly apocryphal'* {plaw apocryphi; Credn. p. 889, 410 sq.).
4. The Calvinistic churches generally treated the question with more precision, and introduced into their symbolic documents a distinction between the ** canon- ical*' and *^ apocryphal," or "ecclesiasticar* books. The Galilean Confession (1561), after an enumeration of the Hieronymian Canon (Art. 3), adds (Art. 4) *^ that the other ecclesiastical books are useful, yet not such that any article of &ith could be established out oC them" (gtio [sc Spiritu Sanctoi] tuggereiUe docemwr, ido8 [sc. libroi Canonicoa] ab aSis librit ecdetiasHcu dU^ cemere^ qui, ut tint utiies, mm naU iamen ejusmotU, ut ex MS constitid potsU cUiqvUjidei ardadui). The Belgic Confession (1561 ?) contains a similar enumeration of the canonical books (Art. 4), and allows their public use by the Church, but denies to them all independent authority in matters of faith (Art. 6). The later Hel- vetic Confession (1662, BuUinger) notices the distinc- tion between the canonical and apocryphal books, with* out pronouncing any judgment on the question (Nie- meyer, Libr, Symb. Ecdes, Ref, p. 468). The West- minster Confession (Art. 8) places the apocryphal books on a level with other human writings, and concedes to them no other authority in the Church.