CHAP. IX.

The Testimonies of the Ecclesiastical
Writers in the Seventh Century.

XCVII. BUt to make it manifestly appear, that
in the Ages following there was no Obligation
put upon any Man, to observe
either the pretended Decrees of Innocent, and Gelasius,
or the Canon of the African Councel, and the Catalogue
of S. Austin, (at least not in that strict sense and acception,
wherein they are all now produced by our
Opposites, and urged against us,) but that the Church
continued still to observe the Ancient Canon of Scripture,
which the Christians had received from the Jews,
and which both S. Hierome and Ruffin, and the other
Old Writers before them, had accurately delineated;
we shall for this purpose take a view of the Subsequent
times, and the Testimonies of thos Ecclesiastical Authors
that lived in them, and left any Record of this matter
behind them, every one in their Order.
XCVIII. We have already seen that Four Patriarchal
Churches have declared themselves for us.
1. For the Church of Ierusalem furnished us with S.
Cyrill. 2. The Church of Alexandria with S. Athanasius.
3. The Church of Antioch with Anastasius.
4. And the Church of Constantinople with S. Gregorie
Nazianzen, besides many Others that depended upon
those several Seas. And if any credit may be given
to the writings of Clemens, the Church of Rome also
hath furnished us with the first Patriarch and Bishop
she had. But whether his Testimony be received or

no, we are more assured that S. GREGORY the
GREAT, who was another Bishop of that Patriarchal
Sea, will give in his Witness and Suffrage for us.
XCIX. S. GREGORY then (as divers of the late
Roman Writers do confesse,) hath herein declared
himself to follow the Canon of the Ancient Church
set forth by S. Hierome and the Fathers before him;
when in his Morals being about to alledge a passage
in the Book of the Maccabes, he first maketh an Excuse
for it, and saith, "That though it be not produced
out of the CANONICAL BOOKS of Scripture"
yet alledged it is out of such a Book, as was
publish'd for the Edification of the Church. By which
words he acknowledgeth, that Some Books, of the Bible
there are, which be not Canonical, and that the Books
of the Maccabes are of that Number. And what can
any Man desire to be said more expresly?
C. Yet because there are Two Pretences made; One,
that elsewhere he Canonizeth all the rest of the Contested
Books; and another, that in this place he detracteth
nothing in that behalf from the Books of the Maccabes,
we will clear the way before us, and answer
them both. 1. And First, for all the other Books,
Gretser the Jesuite, (that contendeth for them,) will
be our witness, "(That S. Gregorie in all his
Works, maketh not any mention of the Book or
History of Judith." And if otherwhiles he nameth
Tobit, it is but very Seldome that he doth so, and
most an end, under the Name of A certain Sage
person, or a certain Holy Man, without any peculiar
appellation, or citing of his Book; as likewise under
the same termes he often alledgeth the sayings of the
Books of Wisdom, and Ecclesiasticus; which are
so far from being Termes proper to the Canonical
Writers of Gods Divine Scriptures, that many of the

136

Fathers both Greek and Latin give them not
only to divers Christian Authors, but to the Philosophers
themselves. And what if at some other time he maketh
a more honourable mention both of Ecclesiasticus
and the Wisdom of Salomon, attributing to them
the title of holy Writings? yet this lodgeth not
those Books higher then in the Second Rank of Scriptures,
that be of a lesser, imperfect, and doubtfull
Authority, as Iunilius Africanus said of them before;
or as S. Gregory saith here himself in the
place which we first alledged, that be not Canonical,
but written only by wise and good men for the
Edification of the Church. But Coccius built his wall
with untempered Mortar, when he set up S.
Gregory to cite the Book of Sirach under the Name
and Authority of Salomon himself, alledging for this
purpose his First Sermon upon Ezechiel, and pretending
that these words (My Son, despise not thou the
Chastening of the Lord, neither be thou weary of his Correction,)
are to be found there quoted out of the
VIIth. Chapter of Ecclesiasticus; For neither is this
Sentence in Ecclesiasticus, (being a verse taken out of
the Proverbs,) nor is it to be seen in all S. Gregories
Sermon upon Ezechiel; who in his Proeme
upon the Canticles acknowledgeth Salomon to be the
Author of no Other Books but those Three which we
properly receive for his, and number among the true
Canonical Scriptures. 2. For eluding the Authority,
or Testimony, produced out of S. Gregory against the
Canonizing of the Maccabes, Monsieur du Perron, or
those that magnifie his Reply to K. James most, may
not think to carry it away from us, by saying, That
S. Gregory, when he began first to write his Morals
upon Job, was but yet a simple Deacon, and not Bishop
or Pope of Rome, being at that time imploy'd as Nuncio
at Constantinople among the Greeks. For first, if the

T

Maccabes and the like Books had been held and believed
to be Canonical Scriptures at Rome, (as Cardinal
Perron supposed here they were, both at Rome, and
all the Western Church over,) it is no way probable,
that S. Gregory, who had all his life time before been
brought up, and instructed in that Church, would
have chang'd his belief so lightly as soon as he came
into the Eastern Church among the Greeks at Constantinople;
which had been at least a dissembling in
him, and no upright walking according to truth. But he
that durst there oppose Eupsychius the Patriarch,
and defend another Point of true Belief against him,
would never (sure) have suppress'd or dissembled
this at Constantinople, if he had known it to be an
Article or a Principle of their Faith at Rome; where
we may therefore safely conclude, that no such Article
was at that time believed. Nor will it serve the Cardinals
turn here to say, "That S. Gregory was but a
Simple Deacon when he began first to write these
his Morals in the East"; for he finished that Book
in the West, and it was publish'd, and sent by him afterwards,
even then when he was Pope of Rome, to Leander
the Bishop of Siville; at what time, if there had
been any such Error in it at the beginning, he might
have mended it at the last. But he put it forth at
Rome, as he had wrote it at Constantinople; which is
an evident Argument, that herein the Western Church
differed not from the East. As little is it to the purpose,
when the same Cardinal would evade this Testimony
of S. Gregorie, by pretending, "That he
spake not here according to his own minde, but by
way of a Case put onely, and not granted; so that
the sense should be, Though the Books of the Maccabes,
and the rest of that Classe, be not Canonical (as indeed
they are), yet were they written for the edification of the
Church." Which is a fine device of the Cardinal, if

he could by this artificial Interpretation of his own,
defeat us of S. Gregories Suffrage. But that S. Gregory
wrote his own judgement herein, and put not the
matter as a Case supposed only (otherwise then he believed
himself,) is too cleer to be so contested by
Monsieur du Perron, or any other that are of his party.
For else, why should S. Gregory make any Excuse,
for citing these Books of the Maccabes? And why
did he not in all the rest of his Works so much as bring
any one Sentence out of those Books? as we cannot
finde he did, even then, when (they say) he was making
his (pretended) Dialogues, and building his Purgatory.
And therefore not onely Ockam, (who
maintaineth our Cause, as we shall see hereafter,)
but Catharin, and Canus themselves (who are against
it,) do all interpret S. Gregories words in the
same sense that we do, and say, that he followed
S. Hierome, and other Fathers herein, both for the
Maccabes, and the rest of that Rank. We conclude
therefore; If it were lawful for S. Gregory to say, that
those Books were not Canonical, it is as lawful for us to
say it. And if he that was Bishop and Pope of Rome
(to whom they attribute now more authority then
ever he took to himself) might, and did, after the
times of Innocent, Gelasius, and S. Austin, and the Councel
of Carthage, deny the pretended Canonization of
these Writings, why is it now maintain'd by our Opposites,
that the Church had then determined the contrary?
or why do they go about to binde us, (upon
pain of being cursed by them, and excluded from all
hope of Salvation,) to receive such definitions for the
Articles of our Faith, which in S. Gregories time were
not yet received for the common Opinions of Men?

T2

CI. Among the Works of S. Austin there are THREE
BOOKS intitled, THE WONDERS of the SCRIPTURE,
which though they be none of His, yet
they seem to have been written about this time. In
the two former Books are reckoned up The Wonders
of the Old Testament, and in the Third those of the
New. The second of them so concludeth, that the
"Books of the Maccabes, though containg divers wonders,
are never the lesse excluded out of the Divine
Canon of Scripture."
CII. In this Age likewise are extant The Sermons
of ANTIOCHUS, whom Sixtus of Sienna setteth
forth to be a very well learned Man in the Scriptures.
He was a Greek Doctor, and lived, at the time when
Heraclius was Emperour, in the great Colledge of
S. Sabas, but his Sermons (highly commended for
their worth) are given us in Latin, by Dr. Godfrey Tilman
a Carthusian. Where in his Prologue discoursing
parabolically upon the words of Salomon, he
"compareth his LX Queens to the number of those
Books, which, we hold to be of Eminent Authority in
the Old and New Testament." And though we are
here advertised by Tilman not to regard the number
"of the Books (whereof he supposeth there be not so
many as LX in the Bible) but the Dignity and Authority
of them only above others." Yet if we calculate
the Canonical Books of both the Testaments (as Antiochus
and some other of the Greeks did) we shall exactly
finde the number of LX. For setting apart the number
of XXVII belonging to the New Testament, The 5.
Five Books of Moses, 6. Jos. 7. Judges and Ruth, 8. Sam.
9. Kings, 10. Chron. 11. Ezra and Nehem. 12. Esther,
13. Job, 14. The Psalter, 15, 16, 17. The Three Books

of Salomon, and 18, &c. The sixteen Books of the Prophets,
will furnish us with the rest, and make up the
number of Three and Thirty, neither more nor lesse.
So that here was no room either for Tobit, or them
that follow in that order.
CIII. At this time lived ISIDORUS the Bishop
of Siville in Spain, and Schollar to S. Gregory the Great.
In Three places of his Works we may see what he
hath written concerning the Canonical Books of Scripture.
Where he setteth forth both S. Hieromes and
S. Austins Catalogue; and having first said, "That
the Books are divided into Three several Orders, that
is to say, The Law, The Prophets, and the Hagiographa";
(reckoning them as S. Hierome did before
in his Prologue) he addeth afterwards, "That there
is a Fourth Order of Books among them, which are
not in the Hebrew Canon of the Old Testament." (And
if they be not there, they can never be made any Canonical
parts of that Testament, truly and properly understood.)
Then he reciteth the Names of those
Books that belong to this Fourth Order; saying no more
of them, then S. Austin did before, whom he
chiefly affects to follow in expressing the honour that
the Church gave to them; which was to number them
among the Canonical Books, to make use of them, and
to read them to the people; but not to set them in an
Equall Rank or Authority with them. As therefore
S. Austin ought to be interpreted, that he may
not be conceiv'd in the same place and period to contradict
himself, so is Isidore. For otherwise his own
words will be against him, where he saith expresly,
"That as the Holy Scripture consisteth of the Old

141

Law, and the New; so the Old Law was first given
to the Jews by Moses and the Prophets; and is
therefore called the Testament, because it was written,
signed, and attested by the Prophets." (And if it
were signed or sealed by them, there could be nothing
added to it, as a true part of that Testament, when they
were gone.) "Again, That Ezra the Prophet set
forth and ordained ALL the OLD TESTAMENT
in XXII Books, according to the number of the Hebrew
Letters; which were all translated after his
time out of the Hebrew into Greek, by the LXX Interpreters,
Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus; but
into Latin by S. Hierome only; whose Edition (because
it was the best, that the Latins had,) generally
all the Churches received and used." And out of the
Hebrew, they could translate no more Books, then Ezra
left behinde him in Hebrew, or were extant in that
Tongue; as the Books, now in controversie were not:
For as they were all written in the Greek Tongue, (at
least no Hebrew Copie of them can be seen,) so who
"were the Authors that wrote most of them, neither
Isidore, nor any in his time, or since, ever knew." All
which, is so clearly, and so truly said by him against
the new Roman fancy (for the upholding whereof he
is otherwhiles produc'd,) that if elsewhere he seemeth
to say any thing in favour of it, (be it to make Salomon
the Author of the Book of Wisdom, or to number
Ecclesiasticus, and the rest of that 4th Order, among the
Canonical Books of Scripture,) either must he be understood,
(as S. Austin was) to speak in a Popular & large
sense, or else he will be made to Contradict and revoke
his own words, (before recited;) which he
never did. For how can these following Assertions stand

together in the same Strict and Proper Sense, ["Salomon
was the Author of the Book of wisdom; and yet,
He was not the Author of it. The Books of Wisdom, and
Ecclesiasticus were Two of those which the Hebrews had
in Meeter, and yet, the Hebrews had them not
at all",] Vnlesse there be (as certainly there is)
a Propriety of Speech in One of these sayings; and a
Catachrestical, or improper, and Popular Expression in
the Other? The Tale therefore that was told him by
a "Quidam Sapientum, that the Hebrews once
received the Booke of Wisdom among the Canonical
Scriptures, till they had taken and put our Saviour
to death, but after that time rejected it out of the Canon,
and forbad it to be Read, because they perceived that
there was a playn Prophecie of Christ in it against them,"
(which is one of Cardinal Perron's wise Arguments
for the Canonizing of this Booke,) if it be not mistaken,
and the Hebrews put for the Hellenist Jews (who
indeed numbred that Book at large among the Canonical
Scriptures, and read it to their people) it must
either go for a Fable, or Jsidore (being supposed by
the Cardinal to believe it,) will never be reconciled
to himself.
CIIII. Towards the End of this Centurie the Sixt
GENERAL COVNCEL was held at Constantinople,
and the QVINI-SEXT there in Trullo. The Canons
whereof though in some other matters the late
Roman Writers will by no meanes endure, because
they find there the Bishop of Constantinople made
Equal to the Bishop of Rome, and Priests Forbidden
to be Separated from their Wives, (besides sundry
Decrees more, that please them not;) yet when they
seek for a Confirmation of the Synode at Carthage,

they are willing enough to receive them, and to
bring them forth, for their own advantage, as the
Canons of an Oecumenical Councel. But whether they
receive them now, or no, (as many times they
are very angry against them) certain it is, that in
Gratian's time the Latine Church acknowledg'd
them, and in all times since they were first made,
the Orientall Churches received them into the
Body of their Canon Law. It was a Councel that
consisted of CCXXVII Bishops who after the
Emperor all subscrib'd it; And in their Second
Canon they confirme (among others) the Councel of
Laodicea, together with the Canonical Epistles of
Athanasius, Greg. Nazianzen and Amphilochius (before
cited,) which number the Canonicall Books of Scripture
only as we doe, and exclude the Rest, as not
properly belonging to them. When therefore in
the Same Canon they allow also the Councel of
Carthage, it cannot be, that their meaning was,
instantly to recall and contradict themselves, (as the
late Roman writers, by alledging their Autority herein
against us, would inforce them to doe,) but that
they vnderstood the Laodicean Councel to be taken
in One sense, and the Councel of Carthage in another;
this extended, in a large acception of Scripture, to the
Ecclesiasticall Books, and that restreined, in a more
strict and proper acception, to those Books only which
be Authentick and Divine. For in One and the Same
Sense they cannot both be taken, nor Confirm'd and
stand together. Which will be made the cleerer by
the next Testimonie out of Damascen who lived not
long after this Councel of Trullo, or the Quini-Sext at
Constantinople, and a little before the VIIth pretended
Generall Councel at Nice, that in divers places acknowledged
the Canons and Constitutions of it.

CHAP. X.

The Testimonies of the Ecclesiasticall
Writers in the Eighth Century.

CV. THere are but Two considerable Writers
in this Age, that have said any thing
concerning our present Question;
whereof one is Damascen among the Greeks, and the
other Venerable Bede among the English Saxons; both
of them being persons of great learning and renown.
Damascen was a Priest of Syria, and wrote many
Books; but those of the greatest Note are his Four
Books De Fide Orthodoxâ, wherein he set forth the
Body of Divinity in a far better Method and Order then
had been seen before his time. And from him did
Peter Lombard, and the Schoolmen of the Latin Church
take their pattern. In the last of these Four Books he
treateth of the Canonical Books of Scripture, and numbreth
them as his Ancestors in the Oriental Churches
had alwayes done before him, firmly adhering to the
Hebrew Canon, and "compting but Two and Twenty
Books only," belonging to the OLD Testament which
he reciteth all in Order, without speaking so much
as one word either of the Maccabes, or of Judith,
or of Tobit; nor saith he more concerning the Books
of Wisdome, and Ecclesiasticus, then that they are
"elegant and Vertuous Writings, but not to be Numbred
among the Canonical Books of Scipture, having never
been laid up in the Ark of the Covenant." In which
passage he altogether followeth Epiphanius. And
yet (by the way) forasmuch as concernes the Ark

V

of the Covenant, if either Epiphanius, or He, be so
understood, as that they intended it properly of the
Ark, which was made by Moses, and afterwards
placed in the First Temple, there is an Error in it;
For in that ark there was no Other writing put, but
The Two Tables of the Covenant; and when the First
Temple was burnt, the Same Ark was lost with it, yet
very likely it is, that after the Jews, had built their
Second Temple, and received their compleat Canon of
Scripture from Esra, and the Prophets that lived in his
time, they were carefull to lay it up, and to keep
it there for all succeeding Generations, in Armario
Judaice, as Tertullian calleth it; but this was
different from the Ark of the Covenant, being only a
Resemblance of it. Howsoever, this is certain that
neither Damascen, nor Epiphanius acknowledged any
more Canonical Books of the Old Testament, then what
the Hebrews held to be Sacred, and diligently preserv'd
among them. Which though Coc. and Coffeteau,
together with some other such small-wared men,
as they be, are not willing to allow us, yet
Clictoveus, and Canus, and Covaruvias and
Ederus deal more freely and ingenuously with us,
confessing that Damascen, and many more be for us.
Sixtus Senensis, to prove that the Wisdom of Salomon,
and Ecclesiasticus are both of them Canonical Books of
Scripture, produceth this place of Damascen and
corrupteth it with an addition of his own, for that
the Christians were herein contrary to the Jewes,
Damascen never said, nor any thing to that purpose.
More sincere are they (but now before cited,) who
acknowledge it to be most true, that herein Damascen
and the Jews were both of one mind. The Excuse

146

which Canus here pretendeth to make for him, (as if
the Matter had never yet been determin'd in the
Church before Damascens time, what Books were
Canonical,) is altogether vain. For both the Judaical,
and the Apostolical Church had determin'd it, and all
the Churches following had submitted to that determination;
though in the mean while, if we should take
Canus at his word, he would be taken by it in his
own Snare: For if the Question were not yet determin'd
at the time when Damascen lived, he cannot
with any colour say (as he doth often,) that either
Innocent, or the Councel of Carthage, or Gelasius had
determin'd it so long before. After all this, there is
a Sermon father'd upon Damascen, wherein the
Books of the Maccabes are said to be Divine Scriptures;
but in the same Sermon the writings also of S. Denys
are said to be Divine and Venerable Bookes;
(which yet never man lodg'd or numbred among
the Canonical Parts of the Bible,) besides, this Sermon
is so full of fables and impertinences, that no wise
or sober man can ever take it, to be any part of his
writing, whose Name it beareth. And yet they
have nothing else to bring out of Damascen against
us.
CVI. VENERABLE BEDE (So stiled in the
Councel of Aix,) Who was born and bred up,
lived and dyed in the Church of England, yieldeth
divers Testimonies, that he knew of no Other Books
to be Received there, as the Canonical Parts of Divine
Scripture, but what we Receive there also at this day
in our Publick Confession or Articles of Religion. For
in his Commentary upon the Revelation, he reduceth
the Books of the Old Testament to the same Number,
wherein both Tertullian, S. Jerome, and Primasius,
which others above cited, had represented them

V2

before; and in his Commentaries upon the Kings
he doth asmuch; elswhere making no other Division
of them, then into those Three Classes (commonly
received by the Hebrews) of 1. The Law, 2. The
Prophets, and 3. The Hagiographa. Besides in his
Book of the Six Ages of the world, he followeth the
Accompt of Eusebius (afore mentioned) and remarkeably
distinguisheth the Books of the Maccabes from
the Divine Scripture, coupling them with the writings
of Iosephus, and Iulius the African, which is an evident
Argument, that he reckoned them not to be Canonical.
And though he allegoriseth the Historie of Father
Tobit (as he call's it,) where if he had held it to be
a Book of Canonical Scripture, he might have taken
occasion enough to have said it, yet in all his discourse
there, he speaketh not a word to any such purpose.
His Commentaries upon Genesis, and the Kings, were
somtimes falsly attributed to Eucherius the Bishop
of Lions; and howsoever Andrew Schott imagined,
that neither He, nor Bede was the Author of them,
yet we have more reason to believe the Author himself,
declaring both his own Country, and his own
Writings, which were his Books of the Tabernacle,
and the Priestly Habits, belonging to Bede, and to
none else.
CVII. Photius in the beginning of his Bibliotheque
telleth us, that among other Books he had read
an Introduction to the Holy Scriptures, written by a
certain known Author in those times under the name
of ADRIAN; and he commendeth the Book to them
that study the knowledge of the Bible. At the beginning
of this last Age this Book was set forth at Auspurg.

148

And though we finde no expresse Catalogue in it of
the Canonical Books of Scripture receited in their order,
yet the Testimonies that he bringeth out of the Scriptures
being very many, we finde never a One produced
out of those Books that be now in debate; which
is an evident signe, that he held them not to be any
parts of Canonical Scripture. We adde this Author to
the end of this Century; for if Photius read him, he
was at least so Ancient, if he lived not in the Age
before.

CHAP. XI.

The Testimonies of the Ecclesiasticall
Writers in the Ninth Century.

CVIII. At the beginning of this Age our
Country-man ALCVIN lived in
great honour and estimation of the
World; who being brought up under Venerable
Bede in the Church of England, was afterwards invited
by Charles the Great into France, and there imployed
as his chief Tutor in all Learning both Secular and
Sacred. Among other of his Works, there is One that
he wrote against Elipantus the Bishop of Toledo in
Spain; who to maintain his Error touching the Adoption
of Christ, had produced for his proof a saying
out of Ecclesiasticus; having no other Scripture, or
proof out of all the Canonical Prophets to alledge for
himself. The Answer that Alcuin returneth to this
Proof, makes it clear, that Ecclesiasticus was none of

the Canonical Books in his Bible. For first, he tells
Elipantus, "That the Prophets of God failed him, whereof
he had never a one to bring for the defence of his
Error; And then, that the Book of the Son of Sirach,
which he had produced, was both by S. Jeromes
and Isidores undoubted Testimonies, reputed but an
APOCRYPHAL, and a DVBIOVS SCRIPTURE;
having not been written in the time of the Prophets,
but in the time of the Priests only, under Simon and
Ptolomie." By which words it is manifest, that neither
Alcuin, nor the Church of England, where he had
been bred, nor the Church of France, where he then
lived, had any such belief concerning those Apocryphal
and Dubious Books of Scripture, (whereof Ecclesiasticus
is but One, as the Church of Rome, and her Adherents
have had of them all, ever since the Councel of
Trent made them Canonical, and Equal to the Law and
the Prophets of God.
CIX. This that hath been said by Alcuin, will
help us to another Testimony given for us in his time,
and to understand it right, When CHARLES the
GREAT, or some other Ecclesiastical Men under his
Name, that wrote the Books of Images in opposition
to the Greeks and the Second Councel of Nice,) made
an open profession of the Catholick Faith which they
had received from their Ancestors, and the holy Fathers
of the Church. Of that Faith this was one Article,
" That they acknowledged the OLD and NEW TESTAMENT,
contained in that NUMBER of BOOKS,
which the Authority of the CATHOLICK CHURCH
had delivered to them." And these were no other,
then what we acknowledge our selves. For Charlemaine
herein followed Alcuin's doctrine, to whom he

had committed the care of setting forth the Bible.
CX. At this time NICEPHORUS was Patriarch
of Constantinople; whose Chronologie is extant, as it
was set forth of old by Anastasius in Latin, and not
long since by Camerarius, and Contius; The Greek
Copie of it is to be seen at the end of Scaligers Notes
upon Eusebius, and among the lesser works of Pithoeus.
In this Chronologie he numbreth the Books first,
that are received by the Church for certain and Canonical
Scriptures; afterwards he addeth both them
that are contradicted or doubtful, and them that are
meerly Apocryphal; herein following Athanasius, before
alledged.
CXI. RABANUS MAURUS the Arch-Bishop of
Mentz, and Schollar of Alcuin, altogether followeth
Isidore, and transcribes him. Isidore and S. Jerome
are said by Alcuin to be both of one minde;
and we may well number them All for our own Witnesses;
for as Isidore, so is Rabanus to be understood.
CXII. STRABUS the Benedictin, who first wrote
the Ordinary Glosse upon the Bible, was Scholar to
Rabanus; and writing upon St. Jeromes Prologues
there placed before the OLD TESTAMENT,
(wherein, according to the Copies then in use, the
Book of Tobit is said to be separated from the Divine
Scriptures, and numbred among the Hagiographa,)
he findeth fault with the Transcribers, and saith, that
Tobit is to be set among the Apocryphal Books, and not

151

among the Hagiographal, (properly so called,) whereof
there be but Nine, the whole Number of the Canonical
Books being no more then XXII in all.
CXIII. AGOBARDUS was now Bishop of Lyons
in France; who in his Discourse of the Leviticall
Priviledges, taking occasion from the Number which
Moses and Aaron by Gods commandment had made
of them in the Desert, saith expresly, That of the Old
Testament there are but XXII Books of Divine Authority.
Wherein he clearly maintaineth the Doctrine of
Josephus, and the Greek Fathers, together with the
Prologues of S. Jerome, and the Article of the Church
of England.
CXIV. ANASTASIUS BIBLIOTHECARIUS,
and an Abbot of Rome, did not only translate, but
amplifie the words of Nicephorus (before recited)
in his Chronologie, as knowing well, that neither the
Maccabes, nor Wisdom, nor Ecclesiasticus, nor Susanna,
nor Judith, nor Tobit were received for any Canonical
Books by the Church.
CXV. AMBROSIUS ANSBERTUS, commended
by Sigebert, Trithemius, and Sixtus Senensis, for
a person very Learned in the Scriptures, shall end this
Century. Who in his Commentary upon the Apocalyps
receiveth no more Books into Canonical Authority
of the first Testament, then these already named had
done before him. For the Number of XXIV maketh
no difference from the former Accompt of XXII, the
one joyning the Book of Judges with Ruth, and the
Prophecy of Jeremy with the Lamentations; the other
reckoning them apart, every one by themselves, but
both excluding the same Books that we exclude from
the Authentick and True Canon of Divine Scripture.
And in this Age there are no other Ecclesiastical Authors
to be found, that have said any thing to this particular
Question.