Supplement to Paley has been taken up by Mr. Rennell, and the publication of a work, which he prepared in the office of Christian Advocate, has principally been delayed in the expectation of an answer to the Quarterly Review, which was threatened, but has not yet been published, by the editors of the Apocryphal New Testament. The si lence is ominous to their cause. There would be little temerity in assuming the conclusion of the contest: there can be no just objection to putting the public in possession of the substance of Mr. Ren fallacies, and the opening sentence of the Preface a third. Having exposed these fallacies, to which the answer is not obvious, and which are sufficiently calculated to mislead the ignorant and the unwary, Mr. Rennell lays down the design and method of his discourse. The design is to expose the fallacies of this insidious publication, and to establish a full and exclusive confidence in the sacred volume. "Now if we can clearly show the New Testament to have been inspired, that is to say, to have been written under the inflaence of the Holy Spirit, we shall imme God: and if on the other side, we can as clearly prove the Apocryphal Volume to be uninspired, that is to say, to have been written under no such influence, we shall receive it only as the word of man. nell's publication, a publication dis-diately conclude that it is the word of tinguished by such learning and argument, as must command the approbation of the scholar and the Divine, and by such an exact simplicity of manner and arrangement, as cannot fail of conveying instruction and conviction to the most ignorant and inconsiderate. The question has not been often discussed in antient times it was not agitated the objections of Hobbes and Toland led to the elaborate disquisitions of Lardner and Jones, and the zeal of modern infidelity has called forth the present supplement to the argument of Paley: and thus, as in all other instances, the design of the disputer has been overruled in the more complete establishment of the truth. "The Proofs of Inspiration" arising from the assertion of such inspiration by the Apostles themselves, and from the acknowledgment of their inspiration by their successors, and the failure of these proofs, on their application to any writing not included in the canon of the New Testament, are brought at once to establish that the canonical Scriptures are the work of God, and that all other writings are of the invention of man. It promises but little for the integrity or the ingenuousness of the editors of the Apocryphal New Testament, that the title contains two "Upon INSPIRATION then the whole question tarus, and by this test the respec tive merits of the two claimants must ultimately be decided. To bring this matter then, more fully and fairly before the reader, we shall consider first the necessity of inspiration, and shew how essential it is that our standard of Christian faith and morals should rest upon an authority supeWe shall secondly rior to that of man. examine the extent of that inspiration, or is we mean, when we say that the Scrip in other words, we shall ascertain what it tures are inspired. We shall thirdly inquire into the proofs of inspiration, and show by their application that the books of the New Testament are inspired, and that the pieces in the Apocryphal volume are not inspired. We shall lastly shew, that in the New Testament we have all the writings that ever were inspired, that no selection or compilation has ever taken place, that none have been rejected, nor any lost. "If these points can be fairly proved, we shall have no hesitation in rejecting the Apocryphal volume as a collection of writings utterly devoid of divine authority; while, on the other hand, we shall the more confidently receive and cherish the contents of the Sacred Book, as the oracles of God, and the words of eternal life." Introduction, p. viii. Mr. Rennell commences his inquiry with asserting and maintaining the necessity of inspiration, equally in the doctrinal, the histo 66 rical, and the moral parts of Scripture, and shews that it was also equally necessary in those who wrote for perpetual generations, as in those who preached the Gospel in all nations. It affords a strong presumption in favour of this necessary inspiration, that the inspiration of the writers of the Old Testament was unequivocally acknowledged by the writers of the New, and it is not probable that the latter should be destitute of gifts which the former had received, especially as the want was more urgent, as the office was more important. In considering the extent of this inspiration, Mr. Rennell insists upon the danger and the difficulty of admitting a partial inspiration, an inspiration not proportionate to every want, and adapted to every circumstance." The inspiration for which he contends was not however such as to supersede the use of natural and moral faculties (nor according to Bishop Bull's argument, did it exclude the application of external means and instruments) nor was it extended to their language and phraseology. Under these limitations, there is no value in the objection, that the New Testament does not exhibit the purest and most classical Greek, a point, on which few are competent to decide, and on which still fewer would be agreed nor is it a more valid exception to the plenary, (or as Mr. Rennell would say perpetual, understanding plenary of organic) inspiration of the Evangelists, that in their several narratives are variations, variations only apparent, and not affecting the credibility of a single fact. Neither does the question of inspiration, thus limited, affect the genuineness of the sacred text, of which the various readings are not such as to disturb a single article of faith or rule of practice. The inspiration thus limited but comprehensive, thus probable and necessary, is denied by Unitarians, and without depreciating the claim of any book to inspiration from their tried effect and influence upon the heart, it is necessary to produce positive proofs of inspiration. These proofs are, 1. That the Apostles assert their own inspiration : 2. That their successors attest their inspiration. The several passages, in which St. Paul asserts his inspiration, are produced with pertinent remarks by Mr. Rennell. But it is commonly objected, that St. Paul himself in 1 Cor. vii. makes a distinction between the doctrines which be delivered under inspiration and without inspiration. Not I, but the Lord.-I,not the Lord. The distinction has been more frequently observed, than accurately explained. Mr. Rennelf pursuing the argument of Horbery shews, that the distinction does not relate to the measure of inspiration, but to matters which had been previously taught by our Lord himself, distinguished from such as rested on the sole authority of St. Paul. Thus our Lord had determined that the conjugal union should not be dissolved; St. Paul alone decided the case of persons married to unbelievers and of persons unmarried: and, as Mr. Rennell shews, in confirmation of this part of the exposition, St. Paul gave his notice in this respect, as one that had obtained mercy to be faithful, or worthy of credit, and who did not think with doubt, but affirmed with confidence, that he had the spirit of God. St. Paul's general testimony of himself, is confirmed by that of St. Peter, who, in placing the other Scriptures on a level with the Epistles of St. Paul, affirms their inspiration, and the early admission and authority of the writings of the great Apostle of the Gentiles. The Apostles, however, do not assert their inspiration as individuals, but as Apostles. The exclusive dignity of the Apostolic rank and office is justly appreciated by Mr. Rennell, but he will probably review or rescind his opinion of the period at which St. Paul received the apostolic character, deriving it from the call of the Holy Spirit, addressed to the Church of Antioch, rather than from the words of the Lord at his conversion: "Deliver ing thee from the Gentiles unto whom now I send thee." The former representation, however, supported by the commentators, is liable to many exceptions, and is not necessary to Mr. Rennell's argument. The apostolic rank of St. Paul is unquestionable, and the inspiration peculiar to this rank, is attested by St. Paul, St. Peter, and St. Jude: it was claimed by the Apostles alone; it was not conferred or supposed to be conferred even upon Timothy, who was instructed to bear in mind of whom he had received the truth. The inspiration thus exclusively claimed by the Apostles, was with the same exclusion appropriated to them by their successors, Clemens Romanus, Ignatius, and Polycarp. "Now if these three Apostolic Fathers, Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp, did not believe their great masters to have beeu inspired, why do they so perpetually copy their style, allude to their expressions, and cite their very words? St. Peter does not borrow from St. Paul, nor St. James from St. John. In two or three instances indeed we may find a reference made by one Apostle to the words of another, for the sake either of persuasion or explanation, but never for the sake of authority. Now, in the writings of these three Apostolic Fathers, we find both phrases and passages from the Sacred Volunie, worked into the general mass, for the purposes of giving it energy, strength, and support. This of itself implies a sense of inferiority in the writers, and a consciousness of the weight and authority, which the apostolic phraseology would impart.” P. 39. The testimony of these Apostolic Fathers is valuable in point of time, as it proves that the doctrine of the exclusive inspiration of the Apostles, was not invented in a corrupt and degenerate age, but maintained in the first and purest æra of Christianity. It is also valuable on account of its disinterestedness, and no motive besides an earnest desire of bearing witness to the truth," could have actuated these apostolic men to acknowledge their own inferiority, and to defer to the sole and exclusive authority of their predecessors. Their testimony is confirmed by that of later writers, whose authorities are cited with appropriate comments by Mr. Rennell, by Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, Origen, and Eusebius. "What then is the conclusion, to which this uninterrupted series of testimonies, beginning from the time of the Apostles, and continuing to the fourth century, wiîl lead us? It is this, that the writings of the Apostles, and of the Apostles only, were received as the words of God; that upon them and upon them alone was built the whole superstructure of the Christian faith. “Such then are the proofs upon which we admit the inspiration of the New Testament, as an article of our belief. If we allow the authenticity and credibility of the sacred books, we must also allow their inspiration, for they both depend upon the testimony of the same persons, viz. the Apostles and their successors. If then we admit their testimony in one sense, we must admit it also in the other, especially as the evidence of the Apostolic Fathers, to the high and exclusive authority of their mas ter and predecessors is, as has been shewn, upon every account, highly disinterested." P. 52. The exclusive claim of the Apostles to inspiration may be sustained without detracting from the inspired authority of the Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke, who, although they were not themselves of apostolic order, were the companions of Apostles, and the character of whose writings deserves the strongest confirmation from the remark. able coincidence of expression in the account given by St. Paul and St. Luke of the last supper, in which St. Paul asserts his own inspiration. "If, therefore, from evidence both external and internal, we have good reason It is true that these writings were read in the Church in the same manner as the Apocrypha or the Homilies are read in the present, day. They were called ecclesiastical not canonical Scriptures, and Jerome, who records the fact of their public recitation, denies that they were canonical Scriptures, or; possessed of any authority to determine articles of faith. The same proofs of inspiration are next applied to the doubtful books. It is very doubtful who was. the author, and what the age of the Pastor of Hermas: but even on the supposition of its authenticity, the writer is, by his own confession, not superior but inferior to Clemens. The assertion then of their own exclusive inspiration by the Apostles, and the acknowledgment of that inspiration by their successors, are the two irrefragable proofs of the inspiration of the canonical Scriptures. Can these same proofs be applied to the several treatises conRomanus, The work is written in tained in the apocryphal New Tes-imitation of the Apocalypse, but on; tament, whether those treatises are authentic, as the writings of Clemens, Ignatius, and Polycarp, or of doubtful authenticity as the Pastor of Hermas and the Epistle of Bar. nabas; or unquestionable forgeries, as the other pieces of which the apocryphal Volume consists. Clemens, Ignatius, and Polycarp, do not claim but disavow inspiration, and acknowledge their inferiority to the Apostles. Their silence or denial is confirmed by the testimonies of Irenæus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, and Eusebius, who either pass over their writings without admission of their authority, or deference to their judgment as writers, although they speak of them as individuals with veneration and affection. "The number of witnesses to the inspiration of the New Testament is very large, the passages cited by them are innumerable, and the chain of evidence is uninterrupted. The references, on the other hand, to the epistles of Clemens, Ignatius, and Polycarp, are extremely rare, and the mode of citation is quite different. They are not appealed to in any matter of faith or of controversy, nor are their expressions interwoven, as the expressions of Scripture perpetually are, with the language of the author who cites them to give it energy, authority, and support." P. 70. a comparison of passages cited from. the two works by Mr. Rennell, the inferiority of the Pastor is very ob-, vious, nor does the writer, as St. John does, assert his inspiration. The failure of the internal evidence is not counteracted by any external testimony. Irenæus calls the work, a writing, carefully, as Mr. Rennell, on the authority of Lardner, explains the word, distinguishing it from the Scriptures. Neither does. Clemens Alexandrinus class it with the Scriptures. Tertullian is so far from admitting its authority, that he ridicules and rejects it. Origen alone asserts its inspiration: but he is no more than a single witness, delivering an opinion rather than a testimony, an opinion which he himself does not support, and which he invalidates in other parts of his writings, by classing it with the Apocryphal and not with the, Canonical Scriptures, and writing upon it neither commentary nor homily. Eusebius also places it among the Apocryphal books. It is not probable, that the epistle of Barnabas was the work of the Apostle of that name. From the manner in which he speaks of his state before his conversion, of the destruction of Jerusalem, aud of the Mosaic law, and in which he interprets the supposed allegories of that law, it is more reasonable to conjecture that the writer was a Gentile, than that he was a Levite. His book is first quoted by Clemens Alexandrinus, who so far from treating it as an inspired composition, argues against it without scruple or reserve. Origen and Eusebius place it among the Apocryphal writings. To this testimony against its inspi. ration, and to the presumptive evidence against its authenticity, may be added the internal proof that the author lays no claim to inspiration or apostolical authority. The accumulated disproof of the inspiration does not however abate the value of the Epistle as an ancient testimony. If the tests and proofs of inspiration fail in their application to those writings, which are of doubtful or of undoubted authenticity, what will be their effect upon those, of which the forgery is recorded, which are passed without notice, or noticed only to be condemned, which are internally absurd, and externally incompatible with Scriptural truth, which are not included in any version or catalogue of the Scriptures, which have never been read or expounded in the Church, which were notoriously formed out of popular traditions in support of popular errors. "The Gospel of the Birth of Mary" is mentioned only by Epiphanius and Augustin, both of whom condemn it; it is the forgery of a forgery, originally borrowed from the Gospel of St. Luke, and confessedly distinct from the work of the Evangelists. "The Protevangelion" was first noticed by Jerome, who condemns it: it may have been also noticed by Origen; but it was never cited as an authority, and it is in itself absurd and in contradiction to the Scriptures. "The Gospel of the Infancy, and the Gospel of Thomas," have no evidence in their favour, and their relations are such as cannot be re conciled with the genuine history of the Scriptures. "The Epistles of Christ and Abgarus" were first discovered by Eusebius, who does not however cómprehend them in the canon; their concealment is inconsistent with the supposition of their authenticity, which the internal evidence definitively disproves. "The Gospel of Nicodemus, or the Acts of Pilate," was never called Scripture, and is a poetical legend, the invention according to Jones of the third cen. tury. "The Apostles' Creed" requires no remark. "The Epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans" was forged to explain the text of St. Paul (Col. iv. 16.) which is best understood of the Epistle to the Ephesians, it wants all attestation, and is compiled from the Epistle to the Philippians, in a manner unworthy of St. Paul. "The Epistles of Paul and Seneca" are mentioned but not quoted by Jerome: the latter only is quoted by Augustin: the spuriousness of the former betrays itself, when it is compared with the Epistle to Philemon." The Acts of Paul and Thecla" are declared a forgery by Tertullian, and have since been interpolated. "Here then we conclude our account of the Apocryphal volume, having examined the claims of every work which it contains, in its proper order. In the Epistles of Clement, of Ignatius, of Polycarp, being the only portions of it which can be fairly admitted as authentic, we find no pretensions to a divine original. On the contrary, we observe a constant confession of inferiority to the Apostles, perpetual citations from their writings, and appeals to their authority. We find also, that highly as the works of these Apostolical Fathers were esteemed, they were never considered in the same light with the Holy Scriptures, or referred to as the oracles of God. No claim to inspiration is advanced by themselves, or supported by others. "The work of Hermas, though its an thenticity may be fairly questioned, was Church: it is clear, however, that its auvery highly esteemed in the ancient thor did not assert his own inspiration, nor even if he were the Apostolic Hermas, would he from his rank be entitled to it. |