authority, receive the book among the authentic Scriptures, and read it at stated times in the Church. Again the Book of Jesus, the son of Sirach, is not in the Jewish Canon ** and although the Jews never received it into the Canon of Scriptures, the Church receives it and reads it." Of the Book of Judith he speaks in a confused manner, and concludes: "These things are true according to the Jews; but with us it is otherwise, for the Book of Judith is received among the authentic Scriptures, for the reason that the Church approved it in the Council of Nice, and received it into the Canon of Scriptures; otherwise the Church would not read it in her divine liturgy, as she reads the other authentic books." Continuing, he asserts the very same of Tobias and Maccabees. Had he remained consistent in these views, no one could have written better on the question than he. This was the Church's position clearly and definitely enunciated. But in trying to reconcile this position of the Church with Jerome, he becomes oblivious of his former position and assails the authority of the books which he here calls authentic Scripture. Commenting the first preface of Jerome on Chronicles, he speaks thus of the deuterocanonical books: "There is a difference between them (deuterocanonical books) and the canonical books that are called authentic (in his former testimony he called all the deuterocanonical books authentic); from the authentic books we may receive a proof of doctrine, and validly argue against both Jew and Christian to prove truth; but from the apocryphal (deuterocanonical) books we may receive doctrine, because they contain holy doctrine, wherefore they are called at times hagiographa; but their authority is not sufficient to adduce in argument against anyone, nor to prove things which are in doubt, and in this they are inferior to the canonical and authentic books *** None of these apocryphal books, even though it be included among the other books of the Bible, and read in the Church, is of such authority that the Church may from it prove doctrine, and in this regard the Church does not receive them, and thus is to be understood the declaration of Jerome, that the Church receives not the apocrypha." Again, in explaining the prologue on the Gospels, he states: "The Church knows not whether writers inspired by the Holy Ghost wrote these (deuterocanonical) books * * When, therefore, there is doubt concerning the writers of certain books, whether they were inspired by the Holy Ghost, their authority is taken away, and the Church does not place them in the Canon of Scriptures. Furthermore, regarding these books, the Church is not certain

whether or not heretics have not added to, or taken from that which was written by their proper authors. The Church, therefore, receives such books, permitting every one of the faithful to read them; the Church also reads them in her offices on account of the many devout things which are contained in them; but she obliges no one to believe what is contained therein, as is the case with the books of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Maccabees, Judith and Tobias. For though these books are received by Christians, and proof derived from them in some degree may have weight, because the Church retains those books, yet they are not effectual to prove those things that are in doubt against heretics and Jews, as Jerome says in his prologue upon Judith."

We must agree with Tostatus that up to the Florentine Council the deuterocanonical books were not of absolute authority in doctrine, because there existed no definitive decree, and therefore one who rejected these books could not be branded with heresy. He errs greatly, however, in saying that the Church was ignorant of the inspiration of the books. The contradictions in Tostatus result from the fact that he tried to keep in line with the Church and St. Jerome. In saying that the Church received these books as authentic Scriptures into the Canon of Scriptures, he is with the Church; in doubting of the inspiration of the same books, he is with Jerome against the Church. We are building our Canon on what the Church held, and to this his testimony serves.

The authority of Antoninus, Archbishop of Florence (†1459) is sometimes invoked against us. He knew but vaguely of the decree of Florence.* According to him," the Church receives these books as true, and venerates them as useful, moral treatises, though, in the discussion of those things which are of faith, not conclusive in argument....Wherefore, perhaps, they have such authority as have the sayings of holy doctors approved by the Church." (Apud Cornely.)

The opinions of Antoninus are often strange and uncritical. His piety moved him to an excessive veneration for the opinions of St. Jerome, in explaining the fact of the Church's approval of the deuterocanonical books. His testimony is of no avail, since against him stands the authentic decree of

*Chron. III. 11, 2, Lugd. 1586. III. p. 551): "In aliquibus vero, in quibus a fide vera discrepabant (Iacobitae et Armenii) prohibentur, uti quod sacramentum confirmationis non habebant in usu conferendi illi nationi, declarato eis, quod illud, sicut et cetera sacramenta deberent accipere, credere et conferre, et aliqua alia, quae nunc non occurrunt menti."

Florence, making known to us, that the Church received these books as divine Scripture. St. Antoninus quotes St. Thomas, II. 2., as authority for his strange opinion, but a close examination fails to disclose any such text in the Summa.

DENIS OF CHARTREUX (+1471) declares, that the Church receives the deuterocanonical books as true, but not canonical. He does not regard the fragments of Esther as divine Scripture.

CARDINAL XIMENES (†1517), in the preface to his Complutensian Polyglott Bible, says: "The books, indeed, without the Canon, which the Church receives rather for the edification of the people than as an authoritative confirmation of the doctrines of the Church, are only found in the Greek."

We see that the old theory of Jerome endured in some minds, who, while they received the books with the Church, in defect of any absolute decree of the Church, inclined much to the great Scriptural doctor of the Church. The decree of Florence, though it defined the issue in se, failed to establish the absolute equality of the books, first, because it was not widely disseminated in those obscure times; and secondly, because it did not employ the term canonical.

ERASMUS (+1536) finds "that it is not unreasonable to establish different degrees of authority among the Holy Books, as St. Augustine has done. The books of the first rank are those concerning which there has never existed a doubt with the ancients. Certainly Isaiah has more weight than Judith."*

The great humanist evidently considered the books as divine Scripture, though of less importance in doctrine.

We close the list of the antetridentine writers with CAJETAN (†1524). At the close of his commentary on Esther he concludes: "The Church receives such books, permitting the faithful to read them; the Church also reads them in her offices, on account of the many devout things which they contain. But the Church obliges no one necessarily to believe what is contained therein, which is the case with the books of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Maccabees, Judith, and Tobit. For though these books are received by Christians, and proof derived from them may, in some way or other, have weight, because the Church retains those books; yet they are not effectual for proving those things which are in doubt, against heretics or Jews. We here terminate our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament: for the rest (viz., the books of Judith, Tobit, and the Maccabees) are reckoned by Jerome *Apud Malou, II. 108.

without the canonical books, and are placed among the apocrypha, together with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as appears in his 'Prologus Galeatus' (or Helmeted Prologue). Nor should you be disturbed, O novice, if you should anywhere find those books reckoned among the canonical books, either in the holy councils, or in the holy doctors. For the words of the councils, as well as of the doctors, are to be submitted to the correction of Jerome; and according to his judgment [expressed] to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, those books (and if there be any similar ones in the Canon of the Bible) are NOT canonical, that is, they are not those which are given as a rule for the confirmation of the faith. They may, however, be called canonical (that is, given as a rule) for the edification of the faithful; since [they are] received and authorized in the Canon of the Bible for this purpose."

Cajetan was not a strong independent thinker. He gave himself up to study in two great departments of the Church's science, dogma and Scripture. In both, he simply followed the master. In dogma he followed St. Thomas, absolutely; in Scripture he followed in the same manner St. Jerome. Study for him simply meant to find out what these two men held. He paid slight heed to the other theologians of his time. Thomas and Jerome for him were supreme. His writings are characterized by a certain self-assurance and contempt for the opinions of others, indicative of a narrow mind. The compass of his knowledge had been narrowed by exclusive devotion to the Summa. Cajetan is the author of many strange opinions, some of them directly opposed to faith. Certainly when he says that the decrees of general councils must be submitted to the correction of Jerome, the statement is false. It was placing Jerome above the Church. And yet this extreme Jeromist had to confess that the deuterocanonical books were received and authorized in the Canon of the Bible.

CHAPTER XII.

DECREE OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT.

The necessity for the decree of Trent arose from two quarters. Within the fold of the Church there was some uncertainty produced by the opinion of Cajetan; and the sect of protestants which arose at this time rejected the deuterocanonical books. To make head, therefore, against the great apostasy and to make known to Catholics the absolute position of the Church, the Council of Trent, was opened on the 15th

of December, 1545. The first deliberations of the Council were concerned with the question of Holy Scripture. An evidence of the views of the protestants on the Scripture, may be learned from the following statement of Luther: "That which does not teach Christ is not apostolic, even if Peter or Paul said it; on the contrary, that which announces Christ is apostolic, even though uttered by Judas, Annas, Herod or Pilate."

In the famous dispute of Leipsic in 1519, when John Eck invoked the authority of Maccabees to defend the doctrine of Purgatory, Luther made answer: "There is no proof of Purgatory in any portion of sacred Scripture, which can enter into the argument, and serve as a proof; for the book of Maccabees not being in the Canon, is of weight with the faithful, but avails nothing with the obstinate." In the spread of these extreme ideas, men looked to the Church for a definition, and she responded to the need.

A Council held at Sens, in 1528 declared, that he who held not the tradition of the Church, and rejected the decrees of the Third Council of Carthage, and those of Popes Innocent and Gelasius, should be condemned as a schismatic, and inventors of all heresies; but this body was only local, and could not command all men's faith; wherefore a decree from the supreme authority in the Church was necessary. On the 11th of February, 1546, the members of the Council, who had been divided into three particular congregations, assembled. The subject of deliberation respecting the Canon was:

1. Whether the Council should receive the books of Scripture simply, or after a previous examination by the theologians.

2. Whether two classes of books should be constituted, so that some should be declared authoritative to prove doctrine; others useful for instruction. (Acta Genuina, Theiner.)

Cardinal Cervini, president of the Council, afterwards Pope Marcellus II., proposed the questions in all their bearings to the Fathers.* Certain Fathers were of the mind that it would be well to examine, at least summarily, the objections of the

*Duo ego subiiciam, quae in mea particulari congregatione tractata fuerunt; unum est, utrum simpliciter facienda sit approbatio Scripturae, prout factum fuit per Conc. Florent. et iuxta etiam antiquiora concilia, an potius distinguendum; qui sint libri sacri, ex quibus fundamenta nostrae fidei et doctrinae eruantur, et qui sint quidem canonici, sed non eiusdem auctoritatis, ut priores illi, sed ideo ab Ecclesia recepti, ut ex his multitudo instrui possit, quales sunt libri Sapientiae, Proverbiorum et alii similes; idque forsan non abs re esset, quoniam videtur ambiguum necdum ab Ecclesia determinatum, quamvis et Augustinus et Hieronymus et alii veteres de iis nonnulla tradide