In his treatise against the Jews, Chapter II., he proves the divinity of Christ from the authority of Baruch: "And although these things should suffice to prove the divinity of Christ to even brute beasts, let the Prophet or prophetic man come forth, Baruch the notary or colleague of Jeremiah. Let him come forth, and, although he draws his spirit from another, nevertheless, it is from the prophetic heart of Jeremiah, and therefore as of one spirit with the Prophet, let him state, not in enigmas, but lucidly and openly, what he thinks of the divinity of Christ. This man manifestly, after many things said of God, adds: This is our God, and there shall be no other be accounted of in comparison of him. He found out all the way of knowledge, and gave it to Jacob, his servant, and to Israel his beloved. Afterwards, he was seen upon earth, and conversed with men.'" Baruch III. 36-38.

In the same treatise, Chapter IV., he declares thus: "Who is it that in a certain one of your books speaks by the wise man : 'My memory is unto everlasting generations' (Eccli. XXIV. 28)? Is it not God? Verily it is God." The Council of Trent asks no more than is substantially declared in these passages, and by its everlasting sanction, it has made Canonical the books that Peter considered divine.

JOHN OF SALISBURY follows Jerome on the Canon.* In Epistola CXLIII. he declares thus: "Since, therefore, concerning the number of the books, I read many and different opinions of the Fathers, following Jerome, a doctor of the Catholic Church, whom I hold most approved in establishing foundations of Scripture, I firmly believe that, as there are twenty-two Hebrew letters, thus there are twenty-two books of the Old Testament, arranged in three orders** And these are found in the Prologue to the Book of Kings which Jerome called the Galeatum Principium of all Scripture **But the Book of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Judith, Tobias, and Pastor, as the same Father asserts, are not in the Canon, neither is the book of Maccabees, which is divided in two." (P. L. 199; 125, 126.)

*John of Salisbury receives his name from his birthplace in England. The date of his birth is about 1110. He was sent to France to study, and was afterwards sent by the King of England to the papal court, to manage the interests of England there. Recalled to England, he was advanced to high offices by the High Chancellor, Thomas A. Becket. John became inseparably attached to Becket, and went with him when Becket was made Archbishop of Canterbury. He tried to defend him against the murderers sent by Henry II., and parried the first blow aimed at Becket's head, by receiving it on his arm. John was subsequently made bishop of Chartres, which charge he filled faithfully and well. He was one of the finest spirits of his age, a man of deep piety and learning. He died in 1180. He has left many works, principal among which is Polycraticus or the Vanities of the Court.

In the same work, he speaks again of the deuterocanonical books thus: "Concerning Tobias, Judith, and the Book of Maccabees, which are not received in the Canon, by whom they were written, the common opinion does not teach us, neither do the followers of Philo mention them; but since they build up faith and religion, they are piously admitted. Philo wrote the Book of Wisdom, and it is called Pseudographus; not that he wrote falsely, but because he falsely entitled it; for it is called the Wisdom of Solomon, whereas, it was not written by Solomon, but is called of Solomon, on account of its style and excellent moral teaching, Jesus Son of Sirach wrote Ecclesiasticus, which also, from the similarity of its style and moral teaching, is called Solomon's."

The practice of John of Salisbury is in direct opposition to his theory here announced. His works are full of quotations from the deuterocanonical Scriptures as divine Scripture. He was infected by a sort of hero worship towards St. Jerome, somewhat similar to that which in our own day set in towards St. Thomas, which is in itself neither to the glory of the saint, nor conformable to the truth. Without sufficient depth or critical acumen to penetrate the question and form a comprehensive judgment of it, John paid a blind allegiance to his master, and, at the same time, made much use of these very same books as Scripture. Jurare in verba magistri was the motto of these schoolmen, and often they extolled the opinions of the master over the voice of tradition. The error

of John, then, is due to defect of proper investigation, and to an excessive addiction to the opinions of St. Jerome.

CHAPTER XI.

THE CANON IN THE CHURCH FROM THE BEGINNING OF THIRTEENTH CENTURY TO COUNCIL OF TRENT.

Throughout this epoch, the Bible of the Church contained the protocanonical and deuterocanonical books, without any indication of difference them. This truth is clearly proven by the many manuscripts existing of this period. Whether the work of chaptering the Bible were done by Hugh of St. Caro or by Stephen Langton is uncertain, but it extended to all the books of the Catholic Canon, and the Correctoria of this period also embrace the books of both classes.

ALBERTUS MAGNUS, in his exposition of the Prologue of St. Jerome on Baruch, manifestly defends the divinity of the

book.* Commenting the words of Jerome: "The Book of Baruch, the secretary of Jeremiah, which is not read by the Hebrews, nor possessed by them, etc.," Albert endeavors by scholastic subtlety to benignly interpret Jerome: "Nevertheless, the truth of the book is not thereby called in question, because it is joined to canonical Scripture. For it contains nothing except what was enunciated by Jeremiah, and for this reason, it is united in the same truth with the Prophet Jeremiah. For the Hebrews compute twenty-two books in the Canon of Scripture, in accordance with the twenty-two letters of their alphabet; or twenty-four books, corresponding to the twenty-four ancients. But the added books they reckon in the same number, as Baruch is added to Jeremiah, for the reason that he received from Jeremiah whatever he wrote, * * * that the whole truth of this Scripture rests on the revelation of God made to Jeremiah."

Whatever be the defects of this data, it is evident that Albert is an avowed advocate of the deuterocanonical books. He quotes from all of them in his works, assigning them equal place with the books of the first Canon.

ST. BONAVENTURE comprises all the protocanonical and deuterocanonical books in twenty-six books.t

*Albert was born at Lauingen, in Suabia, about the close of the twelfth century. He was descended from the Counts of Bollstaedt. He studied at Padua, and in 1223 entered the Dominican Order at Cologne. His life was given to teaching in the schools and preaching. In 1254, he was made provincial of the Dominicans of Germany; and in 1260, Bishop of Ratisbonne. He renounced the bishopric for the monk's cell, and died at Cologne in 1280. The saying of Cicero could be applied to Albert, that he had left writings enough to cremate his body. But his works are more vast than solid; they manifest indefatigable toil in reading and collating the works of others, rather than profundity of personal thought: the pompous verbiage of the schoolmen, and excessive mysticism characterize them throughout. It was remarked of Albert by a French writer, that he was called great, only because he lived in an age when men were little. He is withal a good witness of the tradition of his times.

The secular name of St. Bonaventure was John Fidanza. He was born at Bagnorea, in Italy, in 1221. He entered the Franciscan Order at the age of seventeen years. He studied at the University of Paris under the celebrated Alexander Hales. Bonaventure rose by his merit to be called the Seraphic Doctor, one of the greatest doctors of the Church. In 1257, he was made general of his order, and in 1272, Gregory X. created him Cardinal and Bishop of Albano. He was one of the first theologians of the Council of Lyon, but he died after the first session in 1274. He has left voluminous works, more than twenty of which treat of Sacred Scripture. His works are characterized by a moderation and wisdom, resembling that found in the works of John Chrysostom.

He evidences in many ways that he held the books in equal esteem. In the preface to his Commentary on Wisdom, he says: "The efficient cause of the book is threefold: God who inspired it, Solomon who produced it, and Philo who compiled it." His works evince that he held the like opinion of the other deuterocanonical books.

ALEXANDER NECKAM, professor at the University of Paris at the commencement of the thirteenth century, wrote a commentary on the difficult passages of Holy Scripture, and includes the books of both classes in the same category.

ROBERT HOLKOT (†1340), a learned Dominican of Northampton in England, is bold in favor of the deuterocanonical books. "St. Augustine," he says, "expressly declares in his Christian Doctrine (II. 8) that the Book of Wisdom should be enumerated in the Sacred Scriptures; for, enumerating the books of the Canon and the Bible, he says thus of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus: Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, since they have merited to be received in authority, are reckoned among the prophetic books.' Wherefore, it is evident that the book (Wisdom) is counted among the Canonical Scriptures in the Church, though the contrary is held by the Jews *** and therefore, although by the Jews rejected, the books are of great authority among the faithful."*

THOMAS NETTER, better known as Thomas Waldensis, from his birthplace Walden in England, a Carmelite of such learning that he was sent by Henry IV. of England to the Councils of Pisa and Florence, maintains stoutly in his Doctrinale Fidei that the canonicity of a book must be determined by the authority of the Church. He appeals against the followers of Wicklef to the Decree of Gelasius, to establish the books that are to be held in full authority.

JOHN OF RAGUSA (†1450) a Domenican doctor of the Sorbonne, who was president of the Council of Basle, announces in no doubtful terms, in the aforesaid council, the doctrine of the Church: "Moreover, it is manifest that there are many books in the Bible, which are not held in authority with the Jews, but are by them reckoned apocryphal, which, nevertheless, by us are held in the same veneration and authority as the others, and our acceptance of them rests on nothing but the tradition and acceptance of the whole Catholic Church, which it is not lawful to pertinaciously contradict." The voice of

*Postilla super lib. Sapientiae, Cap. I. Sect. 2.

+Mansi. Coll. Council. XXIX., p. 885.

the Church speaks through this man, which spoke again through the Fathers of the Council of Trent.

ST. THOMAS AQUINAS (†1274) does not treat the question of the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books ex professo. He is falsely, however, placed by some protestants, as an adversary of these books.

A just way to judge of a man's opinion of Scripture is by his practical use of it. In his Summa Theologica St. Thomas has quoted Baruch twice; I. Maccabees, more than twelve times; II. Maccabees more than fifty-two times; Judith, more than nineteen times; Tobias, more than seventy times; Wisdom, more than one hundred and twelve times; and Ecclesiasticus, more than one hundred and thirteen times.

The protestant Hody endeavors to shake St. Thomas' authority in favor of the deuterocanonical books by the three following testimonies. In his seventh opusculum, Chapter IV., commenting the work of the pseudo Areopagite De Divinis Nominibus, St. Thomas speaks of a quotation from Wisdom thus: "From which it is evident that Wisdom was not yet held (nondum habebatur) among the canonical Scriptures." That this testimony is not unfavorable to our case is evident from a mere reading. But we hope to show that it is a direct testimony in favor of the books. If there is any point to the declaration, in saying that at a certain period a book was not yet, nondum, in the canonical Scriptures, the writer supposes that at his writing it was there.

The second text objected against us is from the Summa Theologica, I. Q. 89, art. 8, ad 2. There, commenting on the apparition of Samuel to Saul (I. Sam. XXVIII. 11 et seqq. et Eccli. XLVI. 23), he answers the objection first by the authority of Ecclesiasticus, and then subjoins; "Whence it can be said of Samuel that he appeared by divine revelation, as it is stated in Eccli. XLVI., 'that he slept and made known to the King the end of his life.' Or the apparition was procured by demons, if the authority of Ecclesiasticus is not received, for the reason that it is not among the canonical Scriptures with the Jews." This proposition is of a man who himself receives the book but grants to his opponent the right to doubt it. It is also of a man little interested in the question of the canonicity of Scripture.

In saying that the book was not received by the Jews, he does not establish that it is not received by the Christians; in fact, he seems to imply that it was received by them, but not in such manner as to preclude all doubt. The mind of St.