« PreviousContinue »
By vone of its greatest admirers was it judgment exhibited in the collection ever considered as forming a part of the and selection may be suspected. Sacred Volume, or as endowed with a
In answer to these gratuitous assimilar authority. ` The Epistle of Barnabas may be satisfactorily proved to have sumptions, it is shewn by Mr. Renheen the composition of a late author: it nell, that the canon was not settled cannot therefore maintain the slightest at that period, when it was only claim to inspiration.
ordered that none but canonical “With respect to the remaining pieces, Scriptures should be read in the the evidence of the several forgeries is so Church. This order implies the decisive, that we cannot for a moment previous adjustnient of the canon, hesitate in assigning them their place and the necessity at that time of either among pious frands or heretical impostures.
discountenancing the spurious or “ The same proofs, which when ap- Apocryphal writings. The canon, plied to the Scriptures of the New Testa- had been long since completed by ment, shewed them to be the Word of the death of John, and not by any God, when applied to the contents of the particular council, but with the Apocryphal Volume, shew them to be the consent of the universal Church, word of man. The original and the au
wbich in all the varieties of religi. thority even of its best and most valuable portions is purely buman." P. 130.
ous belief, which from time to time If the reader is desirous of further the rejection of the Apocryphal
obtained, never once doubted in information concerning these Apo- writings. The Epistles had been cryphal writings, than is contained authenticated by certain known in this brief abstract of Mr. Ren- marks at the time of their publicanell's argument, he will find in tion, and copies had been transmitJones's New Method of settling ted to other Churches under the the Canon of the New Testament,'
authority of the Bishop, while the the originals of these Apocryphal original copies were preserved with treatises, accompanied with accurate scrupulous
care among the archives translations(which have been copied of the Church to which they were into the Apocryphal New Testa. addressed. The original facilities ment,) with extracts from the Fa- of such authentication in the primithers concerning them, and with tive Church, are ingeniously illusarguments and annotations demon- trated by a reference to the letters strative of their spuriousness, and of Junius, the canon of which was want of canonical authority. It easily settled among his contempomay be necessary to see the Apo- raries. Before the settlement of cryphal New Testament itself, to
the Sacred Canon, fabrications know the art of modern infidelity: were unknown and were impracticathere is no occasion to violate the ble; and after its settlement they just and conscientious scruples of
were useful in confirming the canon those, who are unwilling to give of the Scriptures. The mutilations countenance and circulation to that and corruptions of Marcion in the work, to possess any real or valu- second century, and the correction able information which it contains of those corruptions by Tertullian, The works of doubtful and of un- sufficiently establish the authenti: doubted authority will be found in city of the writings, from which Archbishop Wake's translation of alone they severally make their citathe Apostolical Fathers; the rest tions. The canon, as it is now setis contained in the elaborate work tled, was recognized by Irenæus, of Jeremiah Jones.
Origen, and Tertullian, and is conIn the Apocryphal volume it is formed by the Syriac Version. insinuated, that the Sacred Canon was settled in the fourth century, 6 From the best and most ancient tegand hence it is inferred, that the timony, therefore, we conclude, that the REMEMBRANCER, No. 45.
canon or catalogue of the Scriptures of the praise to itself, and receives no New Testament, was framed pot by the obligation without appropriate acdecision of any individual, por by the knowledgment. The student will authority of any council, but by the gener take advantage of these directions, --that this consent immediately followed and the more he pursues the inthe death of the Apostles—that no other quiry, the more he will approve the Gospel or Epistle ever claimed an admis- comprehensive simplicity of Mr. sion into the Sacred Volume, besides Rennell's “ Proofs of Inspiration.” those which we at preseut possess —that The reader, whose inquiries shall two centuries before the council of Lao- be restricted to these proofs, will be dicea, the matter was settled without dif. thankful for the instruction and conficulty or dispnte. Some little doubt might once have been entertained, for viction which they convey on a reasons which it is now immaterial to topic of deep research, popularly notice, in the two great Churches with explained, and will admire the aurespect to one or two books, which were thor's prudence and circumspection, soon after generally admitted : but none in separating the error from the rewas ever expressed with respect to any futation, the bane from the antidote Apocryphal compositions, whether of
of modern infidelity. those which are now in existence, or of those whose names only have descended to posterity.” P. 146. of the canonical Scriptures none
A Speech delivered in the House of has been lost, none could have been
Lords, on Friday, June 7, 1822, omitted, nor is the loss probable in
by Herbert, Lord Bishop of Peitself or attested by any anthority
terborough; on the Presentation An exception may possibly be made
of a Petition against his Exami
nation Questions. With Expla. from 1 Cor. v. 9. in which the Apostle says, “I wrote in an Epis.
natory Notes, a Supplement, and tle" to the Corinthians. The ex
a Copy of the Questions. Riving
tons. 1822. pression has been understood of another epistle, not now extant:
Tue Bishop of Peterborough comMr. Rennell with the conciseness plains, (p. 40, Note,) and with very and spirit, which mark his critical great reason, that more abusive expositions of Scripture, shews, pamphlets have never been written that it would be more grammati- than those which have been written cally interpreted of a former part by Clergymen against his Examinaof the or this Epistle, viz. ver. 2. tion Questions and in the followA similar objection from Col. iv. 16. ing page he informs us, that the has been anticipated.
consent of the House of Lords that The design of the few notes Mr. Grimshawe's petition should be which are annexed 10 the publica- laid upon the table, has been consition is
dered as a sort of triumph. We know
not whether the Bishop bad seen “ To direct the attention of the reader the following passage when he sent to those authors from whom I have taken bis Speech to the press, but it anany particular line of argument or illus. tration, both for the sake of owning my swers so completely to the descripobligations, and of discovering the sources tion just mentioned, that we consiof more ample and satisfactory informa- der it not unworthy of the reader's tion. Should I bowever have omitted attention. · any opportunity of acknowledging what
“ The subject of the Peterbo. might require an acknowledgment, I trast that it will not be attributed to any brought
before the House of Lords,
rough Questions. has been again intentional peglect." P. 155.
in consequence of a petition from This is the genuine expression of the Rev. Mr. Grimshawe, complainmodest merit, which assumes no ing of the rejection of the Rev. Mr.
Thurtell as his curate, on account said to the other parts of this reof the Rev. Mr. Thurtell's answers port? Was there ever a more conto the questions being unsatisfac, temptible suppression of what is tory to the Bishop. Lord Dacre, true, or 'a more artful insinuation of Lord Holland, Lord Calthorp, and what is false. Compare it with the the Earl of Harrowby, expressed a following authentic statement, and strong opinion against the proceed. then ask what persons, or what ings of his lordship, who was obliged party, have disgraced themselves to become his own advocate ; not one by such laboured misrepresentation, of his right reverend brethren, of whom many were present, having tition, intended to conclude with a motion
“ Lord Dacre, wbo presented the pethought fit to utter a syallable in
for an address to the throne, which adsupport of his mode of proceeding dress his lordship shewed me in the comthough urgently called upon to favour mittee room before the debate began. the house with their views on the But as this motion could not be made, till question. We certainly could have the petition was properly before the house, wished that, on a subject so pecu.
and no petition is properly before the liarly within their province, some of house till it has been laid upon the table their lordships had frankly stated should object to its being laid on the
of the house, Lord Dacre asked me if I their opinion. The Lord Chancellor table. I answered that in the present voted for the reception of the peti- instance I should not, because it was a tion, though without meaning to in. mere preliminary step, without which the culpate the Bishop. The petition
sense of the house could not be taken on was ordered to be received. In the his concluding motion, on which I was do former instance the petition had not house, than the petitioner himself. Nor
less anxious to know the sense of the been laid upon the table--their did I in the whole course of my speech lordships appearing to entertain a
object to that preliminary step: I argued hope that the strong disapprobation only against the prayer of the petition. expressed of the Bishop's proceeding The motion, therefore, for its being laid on by all who took any part in the dis. the table, passed without any observation cussion, would prevent any necessity Lord Chancellor, who protested against its
worthy of notice, except one from the for having recourse to ulterior mea
being considered as imputing blame to the sures, Our own views of the whole
Bishop of Peterborough. I have thought subject have been so often stated, it necessary to state these circumstances, that we do not think it necessary to because the consent of the house, that the enlarge upon it at present. His petition be laid on the table (with another lordship intimated that he had to the same purport) has been considered abridged his list of questions. We
as a sort of triumph. The trial of strength have not yet seen the amended edi
was on the concluding motion. This mo
tion, which was originally intended for an tion, and therefore can say nothing address to the throne, was exchanged for of it. We understand that the sub.
a motion to refer the petition to a comject is likely to be noticed in the mittee. But it appeared on a division House of Commons before the close that there were only nineteen in favour of of the present session."
it, while there were fifty-eight against it." The concluding words shew that Bishop of Peterborough's Speech, P. 41.
Note. the writer is in the confidence of Mr. Fowell Buxton, who undertook Of writers thus convicted of the to introduce Mr. Grimshawe to the most gross and wilful mis.stateHouse of Commons; but Mr. Bux- ments, it is unnecessary to say anton has been so completely occu other word. We need not ask what pied in defending his brewhouse they would have thought of the against the assaults of Mr. Bishop of Peterborough, if he had Brougham, that his anti-episcopal left his defence to others --we need oration is postponed until this day not consider what remark they Ihree months.' But what will he would have inade upon the rest of
the bench, if their lordships had was not stated in the petition itself, deemed it expedient to express in a circumstance which did not indi. words those sentiments which are cate much confidence on the part sufficiently intelligible from their of the petitioner that the case presence and their votes-we need was such as to require redress. not enquire whether the Bishop The fact was, that the Curate of Peterborough can survive the nominated by Mr. Grimshawe re. disgrace of Lord Dacre's, or Lord fused to give short or direct anHolland's, or Lord Calthorp's dig- swers to the Bishop's questionsapprobation. The last is a fre- replied in so ambiguous and circuquenter and
patron of Bethel itous a manner, that it was imposFlag Societies and Hone-mission sible to ascertain with any precision Meetings; the two former have what his opinions were ; was most long been distinguished as party- obscure where he should have been leaders, and can hardly have for most explicit; and sent in an Apgotten the severe wound which pendix of ten folio pages, which their party received from Dr. Her- instead of explaining served only to bert Marsh. They have always conceal. Having refused to answer sought and obtained political sup- in a more intelligible manner, the port from the Dissenters; and have Curate was rejected—and that rerepaid it by political encouragement jection produced the petition to the and approbation. But their reli- Lords; the several allegations of gious zeal is not absolutely as noto. which the Bishop of Peterborough rious as
Lord Calthorp's, and a considers and refutes. candid judge might be inclined to The first and second allegations say, that his being exposed at once are stated and exposed in the fol. to two such opposite fires, is a proof lowing extract, and we request the that the Bishop of Peterborough particular attention of our readers holds that middle course which is to his Lordship's note, as it removes agreeable to reason and truth. Nor one of the principal objections will the disapprobation of Lord Har- which have been made to his quesrowby convince us of the contrary; tions. We certainly ventured to for however great may be the repu- doubt the expediency of examining tation which he enjoys and desires, candidates for orders in the Calvinthis is not the first occasion upon istic controversy. But if we had which his lordship has taken an in- known that they never are rejected correct view of ecclesiastical polity. for their opinions upon this subject, Nothing therefore remains, but to unless they directly impugned the state the source from which the pa- doctrines of the Liturgy and Arragraph under consideration pro- ticles upon plainer questions we ceeds. It is not taken from the should not-have hesitated to say files of Sherwin or Cobbett, nor even that such a practice was suited to from the invectives of the Times or the evils of the present day. Church the Chronicle, but the inquisitive Calvinists of former times qualified reader may find the sentence in the their belief in absolute predestina. View of PUBLIC AFFAIRS, con- tion, by admitting baptismal regentained in the Christian Observer, for eration. And it is for them to reJune, 1822!!!
concile the inconsistency between Having exposed this piece of flip- these tenets, which perplexes their pant and flagrant misrepresentation, acuter descendants. But those dewe shall proceed to make some ex- scendants have no right to say
that tracts from the Bishop of Peter- they will put a positive sense upon borough's Speech. His Lordship the seventeenth Article, and a loose commenced by observing, that the upon the twenty-seventh. case which gave rise to the petition in the first the Church speaks
guardedly, and limits and qualifies “ The second Allegation is, 'That her declaration. In the second to the above 87 Questions, his Lordship she speaks positively, and leaves no
has very recently added 36 more, on one
doctrine alone : and tbat on the same prindoubt of her meaning. How then can there be a question wbether there is no limit but the will and pleasure
ciple the number may be multiplied till Bishop Marsh is fully justified in of the Diocesan.” refusing to ordain the advocates of
Here, my Lords, is another misreprean opposite system? The men who sentation. Instead of adding, I have subendeavour to explain away the ob tracted. Instead of adding 36 to 87, I
have substituted 36 for 87, namely in the vious signification of the Twentyseventh Article, and the Baptismal having been made in the examination for
examination of Curates: no alteration service, ought not to be allowed to
Orders. But let me substitute what I entangle themselves in the mazes of will
, it is impossible to please the Petiequivocation, by accepting orders tioner, whose objections are in fact directfrom the Church.
ed, not against this or that set of Ques“ The first Allegation is, "That the
tions, but against all questions which relate
to doctrines *. Lord Bishop of Peterborough has for some time introduced into his Diocese a The third allegation asserts the new mode of Examination, consisting of illegality of this mode of examina. 87 Questions, embracing the minutest mo. tion, but as this mode has been difications of doctrine, and peremptorily shewn to be a mere fiction, the requiring all Candidates for Ordination, and Curates applying for a Licence, to
charge is already answered. conform thereto, or to incur the penalty “ The fourth Allegation is,' That the of being rejected.'
Clergy recognize no standard, to which “ My Lords, it is absolutely false, that they are bound to conform, but the 39 I propose Questions to be answered, on Articles as by law established.'. the terms stated in this Allegation. Nei “ My Lords, this Allegation is again ther in practice nor in principle do I im untrue. Conformity to the Liturgy, as pose such hard conditions. When I was by law established, is vo less required of Bishop of Landaff, the Questions were the Clergy, than conformity to the Artiaccompanied with Directions for answer. cles. It is true, that conformity to the ing them, in which the Candidates were Liturgy has been understood in a different cautioned to pay due attention to them, sense from conformity to the Articles. It because an unsatisfactory answer, (as was was understood, for instance, in a different there added) may tend to their exclusion sense, by the Clergy who returned from from the sacred office. But as this cau Geneva in the time of Elizabeth, with the tion, though never carried into effect, was tenets of Calvin, tenets so adverse to our liable to misrepresentation, I re-printed Liturgy, that Calvin, in one of his epistles, the Questions before I canie to Peterbo calls it the leavings of popish dregs t. roagh and omitted the Directions. Every
terborough, the extent to which I expect copy, without exception, which has been delivered, either to Curates, or to Candi- satisfactory answers can be determined dates for Orders, in the Diocese of Peter- only by the rule, which I adopt in prac
tice. And by this rule I have never reborough, has been delivered according to the re-printed form, that is, without the jected any one for unsatisfactory anDirections. Yet the Petitioner represents Free-Will, and Grace, unless they were
swers on such subjects as Original Sin, the Bishop of Peterborough, as ' peremptorily requiring what he calls a conformity accompanied by answers to other qnesto my Questions, under the penalty of tions, directly impugning the doctrine of being rejected. And even the Directions, the Liturgy and Articles, on subjects of which I gave as Bishop of Landaff, (with the greatest importance.”
«* This is evident from the tenor of the which, however, he bas no concern) are
whole Petition. A Bishop may examine grossly misrepresented. I there said, that an unsatisfactory answer
in the Greek Testament, or in Grotius; exclusion, whereas, according to this Alle. but he must ask no questions abont doc
trine.” gation, it must tend to exclusion *." P.14.
+ The doctrine of conditional salvation, * Asfno terms or conditions are ex which pervades the whole of our Liturgy, pressed in the Examination Paper, nor is irreconcilable with Calvin's doctrine of have been since I became Bishop of Pe absolute election.
may tend to