( *54 )

This was a very good Reason for reading themin the Church, and thereby making them in a laxSense Canonical Scriptures, which doubtless wasall that St. Austin meant: But none at all for gi-ving them divine Authority. To the same Pur-pose he says of the Maccabees elsewhere*', thatthe Church received it not unprofitably , if it besoberly read and heard. But would Austin speakthus of an inspired Book , which the Church wasunder a Necessity of receiving? Would he makeit a Matter of mere Expedience? No most cer-tainly.

From what has been said, let the Reader him-self judge, whether the Dijcourser has not lost allSense of 'Truth and Probity , who charges St. Au-stin with having the Canon of the Jews in Contempt ,p. 66. with hardly ever regarding whether anyPiece had ever been handed down to Posterity by theJews , ibid. with receiving the Book of Wisdom ,without taking any Notice of Antiquity, p. 67.with laying no Stress on the sews having rejeSledthe Book of Maccabees , ibid. The contrary toall which is as plain, as Words can make it.

Lastly , p. 69. the Dijcourser charges St. Austmwith building his Judgment of the Revelations onan incompetent Foundation. " If, fays he, the" Revelations were certainly written by St. John,“ they must certainly have had their Birth a-

* Recepta est ab F.cdesia non inutiliter, si sobrie legatur velaudiatur. Aug. contr. Ep. Gaud. Donatistæ, c 13. He bad justbefore said, Hanc quidem Scriptural!!, quæ appellatur Maccabæo-rum, non habent Judæi, sicut Legem & Prophetas, quibus Do-niinus testimonium perhibet tanquam Teliibus suis.

(i

mong