Church (Hastings' Dictionary)

1. In the New Testament.— The writers of NT used almost exclusively the LXX OT, and we have no reason to suppose that a"' additions were wanting at that time. There are no direct citations from A. ; this, however, is true also of the disputed books. Song, Ec, and Est as well as of Jos and Ezr-Neh. The Pent., the Prophets, and tlie Pss were, for obvious reasons, most frequently cited. The other books of the Hagiographa, anci the A., otlered far fewer material points of contact with Christianity, and would not be allowed the same value in argument by Jews. An acquaintance ^^^th a' books is, how- ever, generally recognised in the case of some NT writers. Thus there are parallelisms between Ja and Sir {e.g. Ja 1" and Sir 5"), between He and Wis {e.g. He 1' and Wis 7-°), and be- tween Paul and Wis (cf. Ro 9-' with Wis 15' ; Ro 1»»2 with Wis 11. 13. 15; 2 Co S'- with Wis 9"), which reveal familiarity with this literature, but which do not imply that authority was ascribed to it. The question of the relation of the A. to the Canon cannot be decided on the ground of NT usage. 2. In the Eastern CiitmcH.— There is peculiar difficulty in determining the place of the A. in relation to the Canon in tlie E. Church because of the conflict between difi'erent lines of evidence. We shall consider (a) Original Usage, (6) Scholarly Theory, (c) Manuscripts, {(/) Versions, (e) The later Greek Church. (a) Original Usage. — The Christian Church used the LXX as its OT Scripture, and the Church Fathers cite all parts of it with similar formulas. 1 and 2 Clement, Barnabas, Ignatius, and the Teaching of the Twelve, contain allusions to a"' by the side of can. books. Irenajus cites Ad. Dn, Bar, and Wis ; TertuIIian — Sir, Wis, Ad. Dn, and Bar ; Clem. Alex. — Sir, Wis, Bar, To, Ad. Dn ; Cyprian — Sir, Wis, To, Bar ; all with the formulas ('it is written,' 'Scripture Bays,' etc.) used of can. works. This usage con- tinues to be the prevailing one, and Origen can appeal to the universal practice of the Church from the beginning against the appeal of Africanus to the authority of the Heb. Canon. (J) Seholarhi Tkeonj.—The LXX came to Chris- tianity from tlie synagogue of Hel. Judaism, and with it was accepted tlie theory of the inspiration arv^. sacredncss of this translation. The story of its origin, told by Aristoas of the Pent., was ex- tended to the whole, and heightened into absolute miracle. (Justin, Dial. 68. 71. 84; Iron. iii. 21. 2-4; Tertul. Aaol. 18; Clem. Strom, i. 38. 148. 149 ; Origen, ad A/rir. 4 ; Cyril, Cat. iv. 34 ; Epi- phanius, rie Tnerui.). But on the other liand, when- ever the books of OT are counted, the number is given as 22 (24), and is exjiressly derived from the Se« the referenoM In sjburer, BJP §§ S2. 83. Jewish (Heb.) Canon. That the LXX was a tr. of the Heb. was, of course, never lost sight of, but it was an inspired tr., sanctified by Christian use from the apostles onwards. The discrepancy between the two was obvious, and yet could not be given its natural weight. The question of the status of the A. depended upon tlie relative im- portance given to traditional Christian usage and current Jewish usage, summarily expressed in the number 22, or to practice and theory, and upon new theories devised for their adjustment. Five possibilities seemed open : (1) To insert the A. in OT in such a way as to retain the number 22. (2) To introduce some of the most valued A. into NT (as distinctively Christian posses- sions), or to append them at the end. (3) To make a third class of books, between can. and uncan. in dignity. (4) To give up the Heb. for the LXX Canon, making theory square with practice. (5) To give up the LXX for the Heb., making practice square with theory. The first three ways are followed, with more or less combination, in the East, the fourth finally by Rome, the fifth finally by Protestantism, though in neither case with entire consistency, since, in the Vulg., the LXX has been considerably modified in accordance with the Heb., and in the Prot. Bible the order of the Vulg. (and LXX) has been retained. It i3 important to set forth the place of the A. in the varioiu theoretical Canons of Eastern writers somewhat in detail. Mrlito, Bishop of Sardis (c. 150-170 A.D.) learned from Jewa or Jewish Christians in Pal. the contents of UT. His list (Euseb. iv. 26. 13, 14) contains only the books of the Heb. (omitting Est), but the titles and order (?) are from the LXX [Ch after K, Proph. after Poet, books; so in general: (1) History, (2) Poetn,', (3) Prophecy]. It cannot be certainly inferred that Jer and "Dn were without the a"^ additions. The Muratorian Fragment (175-200 A.D.) contains only NT (whether OT \\a» originally given is uncertain); but it inserts Wis between 2 Jn and Rev (as by Philo?), and gives t<t the Shepherd the position of a book that is to be privately, not publicly, read. Its place is not among prophets or apostles, but also not among heretical hooks. The writer makes use of the ceoond solution of the problem and suggests the third. Ori'jen (c. 185-254) deals with the problem with the fullest knowledge. His great Hexapla testifies to the importance of the problem presented by the deviating texts of OT Scripture, and gave him ntinute familiarity with the divergence of the LXX from the Heb. In his Com." on Psalms (Eus. vi. 25. 1) he gives a list of the 22 books of the Heb. Canon, apparently like Melito's, with the addition of Est. But he begins the use of the first solution of the problem above suggested by including in Jer not only La, but Ep. Jer (Bar?). Moreover, he says that I and 2 Ezr were counted &a one book. This would be understood by Gr. readers as referring, not to the Heb. Ezr and Neh, but to the LXX 1 Es and 2 Es :=Ezr-l- Neh). He mentions the Maccabfflan books' at the end of his list as outside of the Canon. But from the Ep. to Africanus we learn that this Heb. Canon wa» not regarded by Origen as of final validity for Christians. He criticises the theory of a Heb. Canon on the ground of traditional Christian practice (»'.^. he sup- plements the first by the fourth solution). His view is that the present is not the original Heb. Canon, since Jewish rulers and elders hid from the people passages that might bring them into discredit (§ 9). On this ground Susanna is defend«'d, thovigh it is now among the Jewish A. But To and Jth, which the Jews do not possess even among their ' hidden honks, are to be retained simply on the ground of Christian usage. Providence must have guided t,he practice of the t;liurch, and Judaism i« not to dictate to Christianity (the Catholic principle). Cj/ril, Bishop of Jems. (Cat. iv. SS-S8, c. S48 A.D.), insist with equal stress upon tlie number 22, that of the Heb. Canon, and the authority of the usage of the Church. His list of L'2 (12 historical, 6 poetical, and B propheti<:al) he seems to regard as that of the LX.X in current use. His Jer includes liar, and his Dn (and Est?) the additions. He declares that the books not rend in the churches are not to he read in priv ate, and. after all, himself cites Wis as bv Solomon (Cal. ix. 2, IC) The Si/nod of Laodicm (c. 360) affinns Cyril's list -"th minor changes o'f order. Tlie list in Apottt. Canon. 85, is aiso Cvril's, with the addition, at the end of the histories, of 13 Mac. On the other hand, the metrical lists of Gregorij of Naz. (d. 390) and AmphUochiui. though following the same orrier, seem to have omitted the a»' additions as well os Est. Kpiphaniim (c. 315 403) moves in the opjKisite direction. Like Cvril, he regarded the LX.X as the inspired tr. of the 22 books of the Heb. Canon ; but besides 1 Es, Bar, Ep. Jer and .\d. Dn, he seems to have included, under Est (with Ad. TJ To and Jth ; and, against Cyril, he introduces an int4»rmediat« 0 russ of writings, not 'in the ark,' but yet 'good and useful.' H.re belong Wis and Sir, which be put after NT in his lisl APOCRYPHA APOCRYPHA 121 {Hmr. 7«, cf. Uctr. 86, de m^nM. 4). He thus provides for the practical reco^ition of all the A. except Mac and Pr. Man. There are still other booka, ajtoer^pha proper, some of which the Seventy traDslate, upoa which be does DOt wboUy shut the door (de rmru. 5. 10). Alhanatn'uSt in his 30th Easter Letter (367 A.D.), carries throui^h more consistently the third solution. His 22 books Include Bar, Ep. Jer, 1 Es (?), Ad. Dn. Hut after XT he adds, for (greater exactness,' that there are other books outside of these, not canonize<l. but stamped by the Fathers as books to be read by catechumens for their instruction. These are Wis, Sir, Est, Jth, To, Ai3. and Shepherd. They are called imyi- wmctfAAtett books to be read, i.e. uy catechumens. The threefold division is followed by the list In the Chron. 0/ Sitxphnnig, which, after the 22 books of OT and the 28 of NT, ^vea 'disputed' books of OT, viz. 1-3 M:ic, Wis, Sir, Ps-Sol, Est, Jth. Sus, To. There follow the disputed books of NT (Apoc. of Jn and of P, Ep. Bar and Gospel of Hebrews), and, finally, the 'apocrj-pha' of OT and NT (above). Here the A. are books whose canonieity is in dispute, ifriXiyo- fMttt, The name and the estimate dilTer essentially from Athanasius, though both are copied in the Synopgi q/{Pgeudo} Athanagiut. In the • Lilt of 60," after the 60 can. books of OT and NT, follow, aa" outside of the 60,' Wis, Sir, 1-4 Mao, Est, Jth, To. After these come the ' apocrypha ' (above). We find then in the lists of writers of the E. Church, from the 2n(i to the 6th or 7th cent., a practically unanimous adherence to the Heb. Canon of 22 books, and ettbrts to harmonise this with the Christian LXX by making the 22 as comprehensive of LXX additions as possible, and by assigning to other books of the A., so far as they were valued, a 8ei)arate place, usually after NT, but distinct from heretical, rejected books. (c) Manuscripta. — It is a striking fact that no extant MS of the LXX represents even approxi- mately the Canon of CyrU or Athanasius. In no known Greek text do the A. stand by themselves. The codices a^ree with the usage, not with the theory, of the E. Church. Of the 9 uncials in which a»J hookfl are found, the Vat. and the Alex, are given at the be^rinnin^ of this article. Next in importance (3) stands the Sin., which originally contained the whole Bible. Of OT the extant parta are ; (Fragments of Gn, Nu, 1 Ch, and Ezr), Neh, Est, To, Jth, 1 ilac, 4 Mac, Is, Jer, La (part), XII (except Hos, Am, Mic), Ps, Pr, Kc, Ca, Wit, Sir, Job. fy) Cod. Ephremi Syri (6th cent.), contains fragments of Job, Pr, Ec. Wit, Sir, Co. (ii) Cod. Venetus (8th or 9th cent.) contains Job (end), Pr, Ec, Ca, Wijt, Sir, XII, Is, Jer, Bar, La, Dn [Ad.], To. Jlh. 1-4 itae. (6) Cod. Basiliano-Vaticanus (nth cent.) contains second half of Pent., historical books, including 1 Et and Ad. E«t. (7) Cod- Marchalianus (6th or 7th cent.) contains the prophets in the onler of B (so Bar, Ep. Jer, Ad. Dn). (8) Con. Cryptoferratensis (7th or 8th cent.) contains the propheta. (0) Palimpsest fragments of H'm and Sir, of 6th or 7th cent. Swete does not cite 6 and 9, but adds cursive Cod. CThisianus ^9th cent. ?), which contains Jer, Bar, La, Ep. Jer X>n, according to the LXX [all other MSS havesubstituteflTheo- dotion's Dn), Hippolytus on Dn, Dn accnrdimj to Theod., Ezk, Is. Both text« of Dn contain the additions. It is noteworthy that several cursives of the poetical books give Ps-Sol in the order. Job, Pr, Ec, Ca, Wis, Ps-^OL., 5ir. (Swete, vol. iii. p. xvi. f.] (rf) Versions. — The Oriental translations of OT were nearly all made from the LXX, and were inclined rather to enlarge than to reduce its Canon. The old Syr. Pesliitta was an exception to this rule. Its OT was from the Heb., and so con- tained no A. It also lacked Ch. The influence of the LXX was, however, so great that the Pesh. was early revised in accordance with it, and the a" books were incorporated with some further additions. The chief codex (Ambrosianus) contains Wis, En. Jer, 1 and2 Ep. liar, Jlh, Apoc. Bar. [here only], Apoc. of Ezra ( = 2 .£.?), l-iMnc. [5 Mac = Jos. BJ vi.]. In other MSS are found 1 Es, To, Pr. Man. A MS of the 6th cent, has a ' book of women,' viz. Ru, Est, Stis, Jth, Thecla. Whully exceptional, on the other hand, was the critical view oi the Nostorian school at Nisibis, which put Sir in the class of fully cnn. books, and reganied as of intermediate authority, Ch, Job, Ezr, Neh, Jth, Est, 1 and 2 M'lc, \Vi.i, Ca. Exceptional also is a Syr. MS at Cambridge, in which an attempt is made to arrange OT in chrono- logical order. This naUir.illy throws most of the A. at the end. W'ii is after .Solunion's books, li'ir and Ep. Jer after Jer. After the prophets, follow Dn [and Bel], Ru, Sus, Est, Jth, Ezr-Neh, Sir, 1^ Mac, 1 Es, To. The Ethiopia version not only adopted the LXX Canon without criticism, but added various books besides 4 Ezr, several of which survived in no other collection, e.g. Enoch, Jubilees, Ascension of la, etc. The .4 rmenian version also draws no line between Canon and A. (e) The Later Gr. Church.— The views of the Fathers of the E.astem Church could not be without permanent inlluence, but their failure to reach consistency made it possible for the LXX to retain its currency. At the time of the Reformation some Eastern scholars, appealing to Cyril and Athanasius, declared the a" books to be uncan. So Metrophanes Critopulos (1625) and Cyril Lucar (1629). Against them the Synods of Const.anti. nople (16.'?S), Jafla (1612), and Jerus. (1672) sus- tained the older tisage, and declared tlie full canonieity of the A. It appears, however, that clearness and consistency have never been reached, for Philaret's Longer (Jatechism of the Orthodox CatholicE. Church (1839, etc.), which has otticial sanction, gives to all books outside of the 22 a subordinate place, as meant for the reading of those just entering the Church (citing Athanasius) ; while the otticial Bible of the Gr. Church contains (after Ch) Pr. Man ; (after Neh) 1 Es, To, Jth ; (after Ca) Wis, Sir; (after La) Ep. Jer, Bar; (after Mai) 1-3 Mac, 4 Ezr. 3. In the Western Church. —(a) Roman Catholic. — In the Lat. Church there was a stronger inclination to let Christian us.'vge, rather tlian scholarly theory, determine the place of the A. in the Canon ; and this in spite of the fact tliat Rome produced the man of all antiquity who most strongly pressed the sole validity of the Heb. Canon (Jerome), and committed to this very man the revision of its OT Scriptures. The earliest Lat. tr. (Itala) was made from the LXX, and seems to have contained all the \. of the LXX except 3 and 4 Mac, and to have added 2 Es. Jerome first revised the Itala after the LXX, but then tr. the OT anew from Heb. In this tr. the A. would fall out. And this Jerome demands. In the famous Prol. Galeatus he gives a list of the 22 books of the Heb. Canon in the Heb. order, and adds, ' whatever is beyond these is to be put among the A.' So Wis, Sir, Jth, To, and Shepherd 'are not in the Canon. Of Mac, I have found the first book in Heb. ; the second is Greek,' etc. This explicit denial that even an intermediate position sfiould be given to the A. would, in con- sistency, require their entire removal from tht Bible. But Jerome elsewhere gives these books an intermediate position. For he says (Prol. to liks of Sol), 'as the Church reads Jth and To and the Bks of Mac, but does not receive them among can. Scriptures, so also let it read these two Woks [Wis and Sir] for the edification of the people, not for confirming the authority of Church dogma-s.' Only by such a view can wo understand Jerome's revision of Jth and To, which he under- took, indeed, under protest and with careless haste, excusing himself by the fact that they were extant in Chaldee, and that the Council of Nicoea counted Jth in the number of sacred Scriptures (of this there is no other evidence). Jerome also inserted the Additions to Dn and Est, distin- guishing them by marks, and collecting the Ail. Est together at the end of the book, where they have remained, out of their proper place, ever since. After these ooncessionB by Jerome himself, it is notstraiige that the other books of the A. grailually fuunil their old place in his version as it gained recognition. IT2 ArUGKYPHA APOCRYPHA Ot other Lat. Fathcre, Bilary ot Poitiers (d. 368) reaffirms Origen'8 Can., hut shows some inclination to add To and Jih^ .or which Urigen's position gave ground. Hujinus (d. 410), who studied at Alexandria and Jems., gives the E. list of 22 books, and pul5 the A. in an intermediate class, which he calls (for the first time?) Ecclesiastici, viz. M'U, ^'i/. To, Jth, Bka o/ Mm, and, in NT, Shepherd and Two Ways (also JudLTuent according to Peter ?!. These the Fathers wished to be read in the churches, but not brought forward for the confimiation of faith. 'Other Scriptures tliey named a'^i which they wished not o be read in the churches.' The three- fold division is £., but the name ' ecclesiastical ' and tlie e.\planation (wiiich is practically the view of Jerome also) are new. The A. are to be read not privately, but in the churciies. Tills would originally have meant full canonicity. But a dis- tinction is attempted in degrees of authority for doctrine among books which, in their text and in their church use, are not ciistin''ui8hed. it is not strange that the theory of an inter- mediate class gained no firm tooting in the W., and that the A. went into the first, not into the third class. The early Lat. lists are characterised by the two groups, (1) Ps, Pr, Ca, Ec, ll'i<, Sir ; (2) Job, To, Est, Jth, 1 and 2 Mac, 1 and 2 Es, in wlaich, apart from the additions to the prophets Jer and Dn, the books of A. are usually found. "They are found in the Can. of Mominsen, wliich perhaps represents the average Western Can. of c. 360 A.D. It includes the A., and still counts 24 books (Rev 410) by the device of reckoning the 5 Solomonic books as one. "The West had not, however, the interest in the number 24 that the East had in 22, and generally disregarded even this formal agreement with the Jews. Casnicdorus {liutitutio, etc., chs. xii.-xiv., c. 544 A.D.) gives Jerome's (Ueb.) Can., then Augustine's, and finally the Can. of the antiqua (ra7W!^afio, which represents Lat. usage before Jerome, \iz. t:n-<Jb ; Ps, Sol 5 (Pr, Wis, Sir, Ec, Ca); Prophets ; Job, To, Est, Jth, 1. 2 Es, 1. 2 Mac. The two groups are to be noted. "Tile divergence of the three listfl from each other seems to cause the writer no trouble. Similar to this is the list of the Decretwrn Gelani, which, if it is that of the Synod of 382, is the first otlicial Can. ot the Eoman Church. It puts Wis, Sir with Solomonic books, /far with Jer, and ends with an ' order of histories,' which is our second group, as follows : Job, To, 1. 2 Es, Est, Jth, 1. 2 Mac. The nextofBclal OT Can. was that of the African Councils of Uippo (393) and Carthage (397) : Gn-Ch, Job, Ps, Sol 6, 12 prophets. Is, Jer, Dn, Ezk, To, Jth, Est, 1. 2 Es, 1. 2 Mac. Here Job is separated from the second group and put m its old connexion with Ps, Pr. These councils were dominated by Augustine, whose weight on the side of Church tradition over- bore the influence of Jerome's learning. Augustine stands for the Catholic principle as determining the Can. {de doct. ii. 8, 12), even when he feels the objections, e.g. to Wis and Sir, that the ancient Church bos received them is decisive (de civ. xvii. 20, 1). Augustine gives, in d€ doct. ii. 8, 13, a list of 44 books of 01 — 22 historical, made by adding to Gn-Ch, as a secondary list, our second group : Job, To, Est, Jth, 1. 2 Mac, 1. 2 Es. ; and 22 prophetical, made by prefixing to the 16 prophets our first group: Ps, Pr, Ca, Ec, Wis, Sir. In his last book, how- ever (SpectUum), he seems inclined to put the A. at the end of OT Can., separating Wis, Sir from group 1, and Job from group 2. This may reveal a growing sense of the secondary authority or security of the A. InTwcent I. of Rome, in a letter to the Bishop of Toulouse f405), gives a list in which the two groups still appear : On-4 K with Hu); Prophets; Solomon 5, Pe ; 'of histories,' Job, To, Est, Jth, 1. 2 Mae, 1. 2 Es, 1. 2 Ch. The outcome of the matter in the Lat. Church was the Vulg., and the leading MS of it (Cod. Amiatinus, c. 700) gives, in the name of Jerome, a list identical with that sanctioned at Trent (see the list at the beginning of this article). The order is nearer to that of Augustine in de doct. ii. 8 than to that of the Council of Hippo. The secondary group of histories follows the primary (Gn-Ch), and the group of poetry follows it, preced- ing the prophets. Job, however, is put between the two, BO that it might belong either to history or poetry, and 1. 2 Mac are separated from the group and put at the end — a partial compromise between the topical place given to this group by Augustine, and the more chronological place assi'Tied it in the Old Latin, and at Hinpo. The result is that the A. are found chieliy in the middle of OT, distinguished in no way from other books. Until the decree of Trent, however, it was still possible to regard the A. as of inferior authority, and, when can. was understood to mean authoritative, even as not in the Canon. Tlie middle ages furnished some followers of Jerome (e.g. Hugo of St. Victor, d. 1140; Peter of Clugny, d. 1156; Nicolaus of Lyra, d. 1340) who tnticipate the view of Cardinal Ximenes (1437- 1517), who says in the Preface to the great Cora- plutensian Poiyglott, that the a" books are outside uf [ he Canon, auci are received by theChurchasuseful reading, not as authoritative for doctrine. Erasmus (1467-1536) ulso follows Jerome, though expressing himself with his usual reserve and formal sub- mission to the judgment of the Church. ' Whether the Church receives them as possessing the same authority as the others, the spirit of the Church must know,' Cardinal Cajetan, Luther's opponent at Augsburg (1518), would interpret the decisions of Councils and Fathers by Jerome. Though the Vulg. Canon had been reaffirmed by Pope Eugenius IV. and put forth as a decree of the Council of Florence (1439), it is not probable that the Roman Church would have taken the decisive step of 1545, against the views of its own best scholars, if it had not been for Luther. The Council of Trent declared the Vulg. to be in all parts of equal authority, and definitely rejected the efforts of Ximenes and others to put the A. in a separate class, 'ecclesiastical' or 'deutero-can.' In the Bibliotheca Sancta of Sixtus Senensis the case is correctly stated. The distinction of Proto- can. and Deutero-can. or ecclesiastical books is given (to the latter class belong, in OT, Est, To, Jth, Bar, Ep. Jer, Wis, Sir, Ad. Dn, 1 and 2 Mac ; in NT, Mk le'-", Lk 2-2«-« Jn 7^-8", He, Ja, 2 P, 2 and 3 Jn, Jude, Rev), but the distinction has only historical signiticance. These books, it is said, were not known till a late period ; were even formerly held by the Fathers to be a'^ and not can. ; were at first permitted to be read only before catechumens (Athan.asius), then before all believers (Ruhnus), but only for edification, not for the con- firmation of doctrine ; but were at last adopted among Scriptures of irrefragable authority. This consistent position is deserted by modem Catholics for the unhistorical view that the LXX Can. was the original one, which was shortened by Jews for an antichristian purpose ; so that the words proto-can. and deutero-can. reverse the true state of the case, and have not even an historical justification (Kaulen, in AVetzer u. Welte, Encyk.^ art. ' Kanon'). (b.) Protestant. — Even on the ground of Catholic scholarship those who denied the authority of the Church must give the A. a secondary place. The first Prot. eilort to fix the place of the A. was made by Andreas Bodenstein von Carlstadt, in his De canonicis scripturis, 1520. He discusses the views of Augustine and Jerome, and vindicates Jerome's position. He gives the Heb. OT Can., Law, Pro- phets, and Hagiographa, thinks these divisions indicate a decreasing order of value, and makes corresponding discriminations in NT. OT A. he divides into two classes: (1) Wis, Sir, Jth, To, 1 and 2 Mac ; ' Hi stmt apocryphi, i.e. extra canonem hebrseorum, tamen agiographi.' (2) 3 and 4 Ezr, Bar, Pr. Man, Ad. Dn : 'Hi libri sunt plane apocryphi virgis censoriis animadvert endi.' This significant efibrt remained almost without effect. In contrast to this attempt to solve the problem by historical means (to return to the original posi- tion), Luther wavered between a free criticism of the Can. by the Christian consciousness, and, for practical purposes, the acceptance of the current Bible. He wished 1 Mae had the place of Est in the Canon. Of Jth, To, Sir, Wis, he judges favourably. Even Ad. Dn and Ad. Est have much good in them. Bar and 2 Mac, on the other hand, he condemns. In Luther's Bible (completed 1534) the A. stand between OT and NT, with the title: 'A., that is books which are not held equal to the sacred Scriptures, and nevertheless are useful and good to read.' They include our A- with the exception of APOCRYPHA APOLLONIUS 123 1 and 2 Es. Luther's judgment on these two books waa especially unfavourable, but for their omission he had the authority of Jerome, whose view per- haps airected their exclusion at Trent. The Reformed Church took a somewhat less favourable view of the A. In the Zurich Bible (1529-1530) they stand, in Leo Jud.'s tr., after NT, as an appendix to the Bible, with the non-committal preface : ' These are the books which by the ancients were not written nor numbered among the Biblical books, and also are not found among the Hebrews.' Here 1 and 2 Es are included, as well as 3 Mac ; while Three, Pr. Man, Ad. Est were added only in later edd. The French Bible of Cah-in (1535) puts the A. between OT and NT, with the title : 'The volume of the a" books contained in the Vulg. tr., which we have not found in Heb. or Chaldee.' Here 1 and 2 Es are included. A preface, doubtless by Calvin, reaffirms Jerome's view as to the value of these books, Coverdale was the first to tr. the A from Gr. into Eng. (1536). He put them between OT and NT, witL the title : ' Apocripha. The bokes and treatises ■which amonge the fathers of olde are not rekened to be of like authorite with the other bokes of the byble, nether are they foQde in the Canon of the Hebnie.' Matthew's Bible (1537) reproduces Coverdale's A, and translates Calvin's Preface, stating that these books are not to be read publicly in the Church, nor used to prove doctrine, but only for ' furtherance of the knowledge of the history, and for the instruction of godly manners.' Cranmer's Bible (1540) di\'ides OT into three parts: (1) Pent., (2) Hist, books, (3) Remaining books ; and adds, Tlie volume of the bokes called Hagiographa,' so called ' because they were wont to be read not openly and in common, but as it were in secret and apart' ! But in the reprint of 1541 tliey appear as A., and suuply 8:9 ' the fourth part of the Bible.' The Bishops' Bible (1568) treats the A. still more favourably. The table of contents gives it as ' The fourth part called Apocryphus.' The separate title-page reads, 'The Volume of the bookes called Apocrj-pha.' But a classified list of ' the whole Scripture of the Bible,' under the headings Legal, Historical, Sapiential, and Prophetical, is given, which follows the Vulg., with two changes of order due to its scheme (puts 1 and 2 Mac after Job, and Ps before Is), and with the addition of 3 and 4 Ezr, with the explanation in the case of these two books only that they are apocryphal. In the Authorized Version (1611) 'the bookes called Apocrypha ' are marked by the running title ' Apocrypha at the top of the page, but have no preface or separate table of contents ; and in the table of lessons at the beginning they are included under OT. The edd. so far seem to indicate a growing rather than diminishing regard for the books. It was not long, however, before edd. of AV began to appear in which the A. was omitted (1629, etc.). The Confessions of Lutheran and Reformed Churches agree substantially with Article VI. of the Eng. Church (Lat. 1562, Eng. 1571), which, with the list ')f A., explains : ' And the other books (as Jerome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners ; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine.' But a less favourable judgment, held at first by few, Ims grmlually, through much controversy, prevailed in Protestantism. At the Synod of Dort (1618) a strong, though unsuccessful, elFort was made to re- move the A. wholly from the Bible. In England the opposition came especially from the Puritans, and took final form in the Westminster Confession (1648) : 'The books commonly called A., not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the Can. of the Scripture ; and therefore are of no authority in the Chmch of God, nor to be in any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human waitings. This means the exclusion of the A from the Bible and from use in Cliurch service, which the Puritans demanded in 1689. It was not unlU 1827, after two years' sharp dispute, that the Britisli and Foreign Bible Society decided to exclude tlie A. from all its publications of the Bible. Witliin the Church of England the number of readings from the A. has been reduced. Origin- ally covering Sept. 27-Nov. 23, in 1867 selections from Wis, Sir, and Bar only are assigned for Oct. 27-Nov. 17, beside some selections for certain holy days. The latter, with readings from To, Wis, and Sir for Nov. 2-20, are retained by the Amer. Epis. Church, whUe the Irish removes all. Among non-Episcopal Churches the A has had in recent years practically no recognition. On the Continent the movement toward the ex- clusion of the A. from edd. of the Bible has been slower. The decision of the British Society in 1827 met with a storm of disapproval. The con- troversy revived in 1850, when numerous works apijeared for and against the retention of tlie A. in edd. of the Bible. Its ablest champions were, among Consen-ative scholars, Stier and Hengsten- berg ; among Liberals, Bleek. In the Revision of Luther's Bible (1892) it stUl stands, with Luther's title. The long controversy regarding the eanonicity of the a*" books, in which the power of tradition and the weakness of reason in matters of religious concern are conspicuously illustrated, may be said to have ended for Protestantism. The modern historical interest, on tlie other hand, is putting these wTitings in their true place as significant documents of a most important era in religious history.