fold of Christendom would be effectually shattered. As it is, whenever reunion is thought of, certain subjects start up like spectres, and motion us away. We should have to remodel our devotional habits of mind, if we were to have to conform them to the devotions of "La triple Couronne de Marie," or of "La Sainte Vierge d'après les Pères" (as the writer thought it to be). But we are children of common fathers, of those who, after having shone with the light of God within them upon earth, and set on a candlestick which shall never be hid the clear light of their inherited faith, now shine like stars in the kingdom of their Father. Sons of the same fathers, we must in time come to understand each other's language. I need not commit this to your deep personal love and large-hearted charity. To others in your communion I would only say through you, that neither in this nor in my former work have I thought to speak against any thing which is "of faith" among you; one only desire I have had, if it were possible to such as me, to promote a solid, healthful, lasting peace. Evil days and trial-times seem to be coming upon the earth. Faith deepens, but unbelief too becomes more thorough. Yet what might not God do to check it, if those who own one Lord and one faith were again at one, and united Christendom should go forth bound in one by Love-the full flow of God's Holy Spirit unhemmed by any of those breaks, or jars, or manglings-to win all to His Love Whom we all

desire to love, to serve, to obey. To have removed one stumbling-block would be worth the labour of a life. But He Alone, the Author of peace and the Lover of concord, can turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the children to the fathers. "O Lord, in the midst of the years revive Thy work in the midst of the years make known : in wrath remember mercy."

May God hear your prayers, and reward your love!

Your most affectionate Friend,

CHRIST CHURCH,

Feast of All Saints, 1869.

E. B. PUSEY.

NOTE A, ON p. 122.

THE following Epitome is taken from Bishop Cosin's laborious book on the Canon. In the Greek Church, the Council of Laodicea, which, in the twenty-two books, counts Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah alone as one book, to the exclusion of the other Apocryphal books, was formally received by the Council of Chalcedon. Of individuals, Anastasius Sinaita says, "the whole O. T. consisted of twenty-two books" (Hexäem. L. vii. B. P. ix. 886), as does Leontius, counting three books of Solomon, and expressly saying that the twentytwo books of the O. T. were those canonized in the Church, and were received also by the Hebrews (de Sect. act. 2. Gall. xii. 627); for which he is corrected in the Index Expurg. as having "wrongly omitted Tobias, Judith, Esther, Wisdom, Ecclus., Maccabees." S. John Damascene states the books of the O. T. to be twenty-two (de Fid. orthod. iv. 18). Antiochus, a learned Greek monk, about A. 630, compared the books of Scripture with the sixty queens of the Canticles; i. e. twentyseven of the N. T., and (counting the minor Prophets as twelve, not as one) thirty-three instead of twenty-two of the O. T., still excluding the Deutero-Canonical books [B. P. xii. 217, as did Philip the Solitary, A.D. 1145, Dioptra iv. 19. B. P. xii. P. i. p. 731, Col. 1618]. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Const. A.D. 820, counts the Deutero-Canonical books of the O. T. as "books spoken against" in contrast with those "received by the Church and canonized," i. e. the books of the Hebrew Canon (Chronograph. Compend. p. 419, Paris, 1652). Zonaras follows S. Athanasius, S. Greg. Naz., S. Amphiloch. (in Can. Conc. Carth. can. 27, p. 415), as does Balsamon (in Conc. Carth. can. 27, p. 656). Nicephorus Callistus counts these books as twenty-two in all; twelve genuine historical books, and "all besides spurious" (Synops. Script. in Cyr. Theod. Prodromi Epigr. Bas. 1536).

346

Ante-Tridentine statements

In the Western Church the Prologus galeatus of S. Jerome, which distinguished the Canonical from the Apocryphal books, continued (Cosin observes, n. 88) to be prefixed to all Bibles, "not the catalogue of S. Augustine, or the Canon of Carthage, or the (supposed) decree of Gelasius." Of individual writers, Cassiodorus mentions both S. Jerome's and S. Augustine's catalogues, and says that the Apocryphal books were commented upon by Bellator, on the same grounds as were assigned by S. Jerome; Primasius supposed the twenty-four books of the O. T. to be indicated by the twenty-four wings of the Apocalyptic animals (in Apoc. c. 4, B. P. x. 296), as do the Commentaries ascribed to Victorinus (Gall. iv. 56), and to S. Aug. (App. iii. 164), and Bede (Opp. v. 771), and using another mystical interpretation, in Lib. Reg. L. iv. (the commentary formerly ascribed to S. Eucherius; but, as Cosin notices, by a Briton, in L. iii. Reg. c. 22). Ambr. Ansbert. finds them marked by the twenty-four elders in the Apoc. (c. iii. p. 101); Peter de la Celle, in another mystical meaning, adding that "plenary instruction of souls is foretasted from this number of books" (de panib. L. ii. B. P. xxiii. 728). Thomas Angl. counts them as twenty-four or twenty-two, as S. Jerome (in Apoc. c. 4). The number of twenty-two books is retained to designate the books of Divine authority in the O. T. by Agobard, A. 835 (de priv. et jure sacerd. n. 6, Gall. xiii. 434) ; by Anastasius Biblioth., who at Rome follows Nicephorus, whom he translates (in Pithoeus Opusc. p. 16); by Abbot Giselbert (Alterc. Syn. et Eccles. c. 1 fin.); by Peter Maurice, enumerating them and proving their Divine authority against the Petrobusians (Ep. c. Petr. Bibl. Clun. col. 1088); by Hugo de S. Victore (de Script. et Scriptor. sacris, c. 6, and in four other places enumerating them), and Rich. de S. Vict. (Excerpt. ii. 9; P. i. p. 320); and Peter Comestor (Præf. in Hist. Josh. Hist. Schol. f. 82, Lugd.); by John Beleth (de div. off. c. 60, f. 516); by John of Salisbury (Ep. 172. B. P. xxiii. 468); by the Glossa ordinaria, "but whatever is external to these (I speak of the O. T.), as Jerome says, is to be placed among the Apocryphal" (Præf. c. 3, sub fin.). Card. Hugo de S. Caro commented upon them as a distinct and different class.

Of writers who specifically rejected particular books, Pope