5. The English Church (Art 6) appeals directly to the opinion of St. Jerome, and concedes to the apocry- phal books (including [1571] 4 Esdras and the Prayer of Alanasses) a vat '* for example of life and instruc- tion of manners," but not for the establishment of doc- trine ; and a similar decision is given in the Irbh Arti- cles of 1615 (Hardwick, ul sup. p. 841 sq.). The origi- nal English Articles of 1552 contained no catalogue (Art 5) of the contents of ** Holy Scripture," and no mention of the Apocrypha, although the Tridentine de- cree (1546) might seem to have rendered this necessary. The example of foreign churches may have led to the addition upon the later revision . The Methodist Epis- copal Church has adopted the same Canon of Scrip- ture, but entirely omits the Apocrypha {DitcipUne, pt. i, ch. 1, § 2, Art. 5) ; and those books, as they stand in tiie Hebrew Canon and Greek Testament, are alone received by the evangelical churches .of America.
6. The expressed opinion of the later Greek Church on the Canon of Scripture has been modified in some cases by the circumstances under which the declara- tion was made. The "Confession" of Cyril Lucar, who was most favorably disposed toward the Protest- ant churches, confirms the Laodicene Catalogue, and marks the apocryphal books as not possesshig the same divine authority as those whose canonicity is unquestioned (Rimmel, Mon. Fid. Ecdes. Or, i, 42). In this judgment Cyril Lucar was followed by his friend Metrophanes Critopulus, in whose confession a complete list of the books of the Hebrew Canon is given (Kimmel, ii, 105 sq.), while some value is as- signed to the apocryphal books in consideration of their ethical value ; and the detailed decision of Me- trophanes is quoted with approval in the " Orthodox Teaching" of Platon, Metropolitan of Moscow (ed» Athens, 1836, p. 59). The "Orthodox Confession" simply refers the subject of Scripture to the Church (Kimmel, p. 159 ; comp. p. 123). On the other hand, the Synod at Jerusalem, held in 1672, "against the Calvinists," which is commonly said to have been led by Romish influence (yet comp. Kimmel, p. Ixxxviii), pronounced that the books which Cyril Lucar "igno- rantly or maliciously called apocryphal" are "canon- ical and Holy Scripture," on the authority of the tes- timony of the ancient Church ([Kimmel,] Weissen- bom, Dotkh. Con/ess. p. 467 sq.). The Constantino-
polttan Synod, which was held in the saoM ytax, no- tices the difiference existing between the Apostolic, Laodicene, and Carthaginian Catalogues, and aiqwars to distinguish the apoctyphal books as not wboUy to be rejected. The authorized Russian Catechism {The Doctrine of the RuMtian Church, etc., by Rev. W. Black- more, Aberd. 1845, p. 87 sq.) distinctly quotes and de- fends the Hebrew Canon on the authority of the Greek fathers, and repeats the judgment of Athanasius on the usefulness of the apocryphal books as a prepara- tory study in the Bible ; and there can be no doubt that the current of Greek opinion, in accordance with the unanimous agreement of the ancient GreeM^Cafta- lognes, coincides with this judgment.
7. The history of the Syrian Canon of the O. T. is involved in great obscurity from the scantiness of the evidence which can be brought to bear upon it. The Peshito was made, in the first instance, directly from the Hebrew, and consequently adhered to the Hebrew Canon ; but as the Sept. was nsed afterward in revis- ing the version, many of the apocryphal books were translated from the Greek at an early period, and add- ed to the original collection (Assemani, Bibi. Or. i, 71). Yet this change was only made gradually. In the time of Ephrem (cir. A.D. 870) the apocryphal addi- tions to Daniel were yet wanting, and his commenta- ries were confined to the books of the Hebrew Canon, though he was acquainted with the Apocr^'pha (Laxd- ner, CredUnlify, iv, 427 sq. ; see Lengerke, Damdj p. cxii). The later Syrian writers do not throw much light upon the qtiestion. Gregory Bar Hebrsens, in his short commentary on Scripture, treats of the books in the following order (Assemani, Bibt. Orient, ii, 282) : the Pentateuch, Josh., Judg., 1 and 2 Sam., Psa., 1 and 2 Kings, Prov., Eccbu., Eccl., Cant, Wi$d., Ruth, ffitt. Siu.y Job, Isa., 12 Proph., Jer., Lam., Ezek., Dan., Bel, 4 Gosp., Acts ... 14 Epist. of Paul ; omitting 1 and 2 Chron., Ezra, Neh., Esther, Tobii, 1 and 2 Mace., Ju- dith, (Boaruch f), Apocalypse, Epist James, 1 Pet, 1 John.
In the Scriptural Vocabulary of Jacob of Edeasa (Assemani, ii, 499), the order and number of the bo<^ commented upon b somewhat different: Pent, Josh., Judg., Job, 1 and 2 Sam., David (i. e. Psa.), 1 and 2 Kings, Isa., 12 Proph., Jer., Lam., Barudk, Ezek., Dan., VTOv.,Wisd., Cant, Ruth, Esth., JudUh, Ecchu., Acts, Epist. James, 1 Pet., 1 John, 14 Epist of Paul, 4 Gosp. ; omitting 1 and 2 Chron., Ezra, Neh., EccL, Tobit, 1 and 2 Mace., Apoc. (comp. Assemani, BOL Orient, ill, 4, note).
The Catalogue of Ebed-Jesu (Assemani, BibL Orient. iii, 5 sq.) is rather a general survey of all the Helnvw and Christian literature with which he was acquainted (Catalogus librorum omnium Ecclesiasticorum) than a Canon of Scripture. After enumerating the books of the Hebrew Canon, together with Ecdms., Wisd., Ju- dith, add. to Dan., and Barttch, he adds, without any break, "the traditions of the Elders" (Mishna), the works of Josephus, including the Fables ofMeop which were popularly ascribed to him, and at the end men- tions the " book of Tobias and TobiL" In like man- ner, after enumerating the 4 Gosp., Acts, 8 Cath. Epist and 14 Epist. of Paul, he passes at once to the Diatessaron of Tatian, and the writings of "the dis- ciples of the apostles." Little depe.ndence, however, can be placed on these lists, as they rest on no critical foundation, and it is known from other sources that varieties of opinion on the subject of the Canon exist- ed in the Syrian Church (Assemani, BibL Orient, iii, 6^ note).