Clement and
others often cite them as "scripture," "divine scripture," "inspired,"
and the like. On the other hand, teachers connected with Palestine, and
familiar with the Hebrew canon, rigidly exclude all but the books
contained there. This view is reflected, for example, in the canon of
Melito of Sardis, and in the prefaces and letters of Jerome. Augustine,
however (_De Doct. Christ_. ii. 8), attaches himself to the other side.
Two well-defined views in this way prevailed, to which was added a
third, according to which the books, though not to be put in the same
rank as the canonical scriptures of the Hebrew collection, yet were of
value for moral uses and to be read in congregations,--and hence they
were called "ecclesiastical"--a designation first found in Rufinus
(_ob_. 410). Notwithstanding the decisions of some councils held in
Africa, which were in favour of the view of Augustine, these diverse
opinions regarding the apocryphal books continued to prevail in the
church down through the ages till the great dogmatic era of the
Reformation. At that epoch the same three opinions were taken up and
congealed into dogmas, which may be considered characteristic of the
churches adopting them. In 1546 the council of Trent adopted the canon
of Augustine, declaring "He is also to be anathema who does not receive
these entire books, with all their parts, as they have been accustomed
to be read in the Catholic Church, and are found in the ancient editions
of the Latin Vulgate, as sacred and canonical." The whole of the books
in question, with the exception of 1st and 2nd Esdras, and the Prayer of
Manasses, were declared canonical at Trent. On the other hand, the
Protestants universally adhered to the opinion that only the books in
the Hebrew collection are canonical. Already Wycliffe had declared that
"whatever book is in the Old Testament besides these twenty-five
(Hebrew) shall be set among the apocrypha, that is, without authority or
belief." Yet among the churches of the Reformation a milder and a
severer view prevailed regarding the apocrypha. Both in the German and
English translations (Luther's, 1537; Coverdale's, 1535, &c.) these
books are separated from the others and set by themselves; but while in
some confessions, e.g. the Westminster, a decided judgment is passed on
them, that they are not "to be any otherwise approved or made use of
than other human writings," a milder verdict is expressed regarding them
in many