( «5i )

tho’ he calls all these canonical Scriptures, he doesnot place them on the same Foot with the an-cient JewiJh Books, • as appears both from his ge-neral Rules of judging and distinguishing sacredWritings, and also from his Sentiments about theparticular Books above mentioned. First of thoseScriptures, which he calls Canonical , he declaresthat some are preferable to others: And in thefirst Rank he places those which were received byall the Catholick Churches, which, as to theOld testament , can only be said of such as werefound in the JewiJh Canon. No Christian Churchrejected any of these latter, whilst many both itsand before St. Austin s Time, repudiated all thatwere wanting in that Collection. Such were theChurch of Sardis under Melito in the second Cen-tury : The Church of Alexandria, of whichOrigen was a Prejbyter, in the third Century:Continuing also in the same Sentiments under A-thanastus , in the fourth. At the same Time theChurch of Jerusalem under Cyril, and that ofPoiBiers in France under Hilary, adhered to thestrict Canon of the Old Testament . So did'theAstatick Churches in the Council of Laodi'ced ,and that of Aquileia in Italy , whose Canon is re-cited by Rujstn. Besides, had St. Austin by ‘Cano-nical Scriptures meant Books inspired, this Rule,had been utterly out of Doors . For Scriptures a-like dictated by the Spirit of God, must have de-manded equal Veneration j and in such a Cafe tospeak of Preference, had been at once to offendagainst Piety and good Sense. Secondly, Not onlySt. Austin’s general Rule, but his particular Senti-ments concerning the additional Books of the Old Testament

,