But besides the writings which we esteem canonical, he quotes others which we reject from the canon. He not only repeats sentiments from them, as when he introduces a sentiment which occurs in the book of Wisdom(292), or the story of Susanna(293), without, however, mentioning the books themselves; he also quotes the story of Bel and the Dragon(294) as truly relating the words of the prophet Daniel, and the book of Baruch(295) as truly recording those of Jeremiah, and uses the latter as inspired. In short, Irenæus quoted from the Septuagint version of the Scriptures; and he consequently read the stories of Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon, as part of the book of Daniel, and the book of Baruch as a continuation of that of Jeremiah. There is, in fact, great reason to think that he believed in the inspiration (in some sense) of the whole of the books contained in that version. But if so, that does not _prove_ (as we shall see presently), that they were all esteemed by the Church as canonical. But then there is a circumstance which must prevent the Church of Rome from appealing to him with success in support of the canonicity of any of the books of the Apocrypha; and that is, that he quotes, under the express name of Scripture, a work which the whole Church, from not long after his time, has agreed to regard as merely human, if not altogether spurious—I mean the _Shepherd_ of Hermas(296). It is true that he is not singular in so speaking; for Clement of Alexandria directly ascribes inspiration to Hermas(297). And yet Tertullian, who was contemporary with Clement, affirms(298) that the Italian Churches had in express councils declared his book apocryphal.