By none of its greatest admirers was it ever considered as forming a part of the Sacred Volume, or as endowed with a similar authority. The Epistle of Barnabas may be satisfactorily proved to have been the composition of a late author: it cannot therefore maintain the slightest claim to inspiration.

"With respect to the remaining pieces, the evidence of the several forgeries is so decisive, that we cannot for a moment

hesitate in assigning them their place either among pious frauds or heretical impostures.

"The same proofs, which when applied to the Scriptures of the New Testa ment, shewed them to be the Word of God, when applied to the contents of the Apocryphal Volume, shew them to be the word of man. The original and the authority even of its best and most valuable portions is purely human." P. 130.

If the reader is desirous of further information concerning these Apocryphal writings, than is contained in this brief abstract of Mr. Rennell's argument, he will find in Jones's New Method of settling the Canon of the New Testament," the originals of these Apocryphal treatises, accompanied with accurate translations (which have been copied into the Apocryphal New Testament,) with extracts from the Fa thers concerning them, and with arguments and annotations demonstrative of their spuriousness, and want of canonical authority. It may be necessary to see the Apocryphal New Testament itself, to know the art of modern infidelity: there is no occasion to violate the just and conscientious scruples of those, who are unwilling to give countenance and circulation to that work, to possess any real or valuable information which it contains. The works of doubtful and of undoubted authority will be found in Archbishop Wake's translation of the Apostolical Fathers; the rest is contained in the elaborate work

of Jeremiah Jones.

In the Apocryphal volume it is insinuated, that the Sacred Canon ·was settled in the fourth century, and hence it is inferred, that the REMEMBRANCER, No. 45.

judgment exhibited in the `collection and selection may be suspected. In answer to these gratuitous as sumptions, it is shewn by Mr. Rennell, that the canon was not settled at that period, when it was only ordered that none but canonical Scriptures should be read in the Church. This order implies the and the necessity at that time of previous adjustment of the canon, discountenancing the spurious or Apocryphal writings. The canon had been long since completed by the death of John, and not by any particular council, but with the consent of the universal Church, which in all the varieties of religi ous belief, which from time to time the rejection of the Apocryphal obtained, never once doubted in writings. The Epistles had been authenticated by certain known marks at the time of their publication, and copies had been transmitted to other Churches under the authority of the Bishop, while the original copies were preserved with scrupulous care among the archives of the Church to which they were addressed. The original facilities of such authentication in the primitive Church, are ingeniously illustrated by a reference to the letters of Junius, the canon of which was easily settled among his contempo raries. Before the settlement of the Sacred Canon, fabrications were unknown and were impracticable; and after its settlement they were useful in confirming the canon of the Scriptures. The mutilations and corruptions of Marcion in the second century, and the correction of those corruptions by Tertullian, sufficiently establish the authenti city of the writings, from which alone they severally make their citations. The canon, as it is now settled, was recognized by Irenæus, Origen, and Tertullian, and is confirmed by the Syriac Version.

"From the best and most ancient testimony, therefore, we conclude, that the 4 A

canon or catalogue of the Scriptures of the New Testament, was framed not by the decision of any individual, nor by the authority of any conncil, but by the general consent of the whole Christian Church -that this consent immediately followed the death of the Apostles-that no other Gospel or Epistle ever claimed an admission into the Sacred Volume, besides those which we at present possess that two centuries before the council of Laodicea, the matter was settled without difficulty or dispute. Some little doubt might once have been entertained, for reasons which it is now immaterial to notice, in the two great Churches with respect to one or two books, which were soon after generally admitted: but none was ever expressed with respect to any Apocryphal compositions, whether of those which are now in existence, or of those whose names only have descended to posterity." P. 146.

Of the canonical Seriptures none has been lost, none could have been omitted, nor is the loss probable in itself or attested by any authority An exception may possibly be made from 1 Cor. v. 9. in which the Apostle says, "I wrote in an Epis. tle" to the Corinthians. The expression has been understood of another epistle, not now extant: Mr. Rennell with the conciseness and spirit, which mark his critical expositions of Scripture, shews, that it would be more grammatically interpreted of a former part of the or this Epistle, viz. ver. 2. A similar objection from Col. iv. 16. has been anticipated.

The design of the few notes which are annexed to the publication is

"To direct the attention of the reader

to those authors from whom I have taken any particular line of argument or illus tration, both for the sake of owning my obligations, and of discovering the sources of more ample and satisfactory information. Should I however have omitted any opportunity of acknowledging what might require an acknowledgment, I trust that it will not be attributed to any

intentional neglect." P. 155.

This is the genuine expression of modest merit, which assumes no

praise to itself, and receives no obligation without appropriate acknowledgment. The student will take advantage of these directions, and the more he pursues the inquiry, the more he will approve the comprehensive simplicity of Mr. Rennell's "Proofs of Inspiration." The reader, whose inquiries shall be restricted to these proofs, will be thankful for the instruction and con

viction which they convey on a topic of deep research, popularly explained, and will admire the author's prudence and circumspection, in separating the error from the refutation, the bane from the antidote of modern infidelity.

A

4 Speech delivered in the House of Lords, on Friday, June 7, 1822, by Herbert, Lord Bishop of Peterborough; on the Presentation of a Petition against his Examination Questions. With Expla. natory Notes, a Supplement, and a Copy of the Questions. Rivingtons. 1822.

THE Bishop of Peterborough complains, (p. 40, Note,) and with very great reason, that more abusive pamphlets have never been written than those which have been written by Clergymen against his Examination Questions-and in the following page he informs us, that the consent of the House of Lords that Mr. Grimshawe's petition should be laid upon the table, has been considered as a sort of triumph. We know not whether the Bishop had seen the following passage when he sent his Speech to the press, but it answers so completely to the description just mentioned, that we consider it not unworthy of the reader's attention.

"The subject of the Peterborough Questions has been again brought before the House of Lords, in consequence of a petition from the Rev. Mr. Grimshawe, complaining of the rejection of the Rev. Mr.

Thurtell as his curate, on account of the Rev. Mr. Thurtell's answers to the questions being unsatisfactory to the Bishop. Lord Dacre, Lord Holland, Lord Calthorp, and the Earl of Harrowby, expressed a strong opinion against the proceedings of his lordship, who was obliged to become his own advocate; not one of his right reverend brethren, of whom many were present, having thought fit to utter a syallable in support of his mode of proceeding, though urgently called upon to favour the house with their views on the question. We certainly could have wished that, on a subject so peculiarly within their province, some of their lordships had frankly stated their opinion. The Lord Chancellor voted for the reception of the petition, though without meaning to inculpate the Bishop. The petition was ordered to be received. former instance the petition had not been laid upon the table-their lordships appearing to entertain a hope that the strong disapprobation expressed of the Bishop's proceeding by all who took any part in the discussion, would prevent any necessity for having recourse to ulterior measures. Our own views of the whole subject have been so often stated, that we do not think it necessary to enlarge upon it at present. lordship intimated that he had abridged his list of questions. We have not yet seen the amended edition, and therefore can say nothing of it. We understand that the subject is likely to be noticed in the House of Commons before the close of the present session."

In the

His

The concluding words shew that the writer is in the confidence of Mr. Fowell Buxton, who undertook to introduce Mr. Grimshawe to the House of Commons; but Mr. Buxton has been so completely occupied in defending his brewhouse against the assaults of Mr. Brougham, that his anti-episcopal oration is postponed until this day three months. But what will be

said to the other parts of this report? Was there ever a more contemptible suppression of what is true, or a more artful insinuation of what is false. Compare it with the following authentic statement, and then ask what persons, or what party, have disgraced themselves by such laboured misrepresentation.

"Lord Dacre, who presented the petition, intended to conclude with a motion for an address to the throne, which address his lordship shewed me in the committee room before the debate began. But as this motion could not be made, till the petition was properly before the house, and no petition is properly before the house till it has been laid upon the table of the house, Lord Dacre asked me if I should object to its being laid on the table. I answered that in the present instance I should not, because it was a mere preliminary step, without which the sense of the house could not be taken on his concluding motion, on which I was no less anxious to know the sense of the house, than the petitioner himself. Nor did I in the whole course of my speech object to that preliminary step: I argued only against the prayer of the petition. The motion, therefore, for its being laid on the table, passed without any observation worthy of notice, except one from the

Lord Chancellor, who protested against its being considered as imputing blame to the Bishop of Peterborough. I have thought it necessary to state these circumstances, because the consent of the house, that the petition be laid on the table (with another to the same purport) has been considered as a sort of triumph. The trial of strength was on the concluding motion. This motion, which was originally intended for an address to the throne, was exchanged for a motion to refer the petition to a committee. But it appeared on a division that there were only nineteen in favour of it, while there were fifty-eight against it." Bishop of Peterborough's Speech, P. 41.

Note.

Of writers thus convicted of the most gross and wilful mis-statements, it is unnecessary to say another word. We need not ask what they would have thought of the Bishop of Peterborough, if he had left his defence to others we need not consider what remark they would have made upon the rest of

the bench, if their lordships had deemed it expedient to express in words those sentiments which are sufficiently intelligible from their presence and their votes-we need not enquire whether the Bishop of Peterborough can survive the disgrace of Lord Dacre's, or Lord Holland's, or Lord Calthorp's disapprobation. The last is a frequenter and patron of Bethel Flag Societies and Home-mission Meetings; the two former have long been distinguished as partyleaders, and can hardly have forgotten the severe wound which their party received from Dr. Herbert Marsh. They have always sought and obtained political support from the Dissenters; and have repaid it by political encouragement and approbation. But their religious zeal is not absolutely as noto rious as Lord Calthorp's, and a candid judge might be inclined to say, that his being exposed at once to two such opposite fires, is a proof that the Bishop of Peterborough holds that middle course which is agreeable to reason and truth. Nor will the disapprobation of Lord Harrowby convince us of the contrary; for however great may be the reputation which he enjoys and desires, this is not the first occasion upon which his lordship has taken an incorrect view of ecclesiastical polity. Nothing therefore remains, but to state the source from which the paragraph under consideration proceeds. It is not taken from the files of Sherwin or Cobbett, nor even from the invectives of the Times or the Chronicle, but the inquisitive reader may find the sentence in the VIEW OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, contained in the Christian Observer, for June, 1822!!!

Having exposed this piece of flip. pant and flagrant misrepresentation, we shall proceed to make some extracts from the Bishop of Peterborough's Speech. His Lordship commenced by observing, that the case which gave rise to the petition

was not stated in the petition itself, a circumstance which did not indicate much confidence on the part of the petitioner that the case was such as to require redress.The fact was, that the Curate nominated by Mr. Grimshawe re. fused to give short or direct answers to the Bishop's questionsreplied in so ambiguous and circuitous a manner, that it was impossible to ascertain with any precision what his opinions were; was most obscure where he should have been most explicit; and sent in an Appendix of ten folio pages, which instead of explaining served only to conceal. Having refused to answer in a more intelligible manner, the Curate was rejected-and that rejection produced the petition to the Lords; the several allegations of which the Bishop of Peterborough considers and refutes.

The first and second allegations are stated and exposed in the following extract, and we request the particular attention of our readers to his Lordship's note, as it removes one of the principal objections which have been made to his questions. We certainly ventured to doubt the expediency of examining candidates for orders in the Calvinistic controversy. But if we had known that they never are rejected for their opinions upon this subject, unless they directly impugned the doctrines of the Liturgy and Articles upon plainer questions we should not have hesitated to say that such a practice was suited to the evils of the present day. Church Calvinists of former times qualified' their belief in absolute predestina. tion, by admitting baptismal regeneration. And it is for them to reconcile the inconsistency between these tenets, which perplexes their acuter descendants. But those descendants have no right to say that they will put a positive sense upon the seventeenth Article, and a loose sense upon the twenty-seventh. In the first the Church speaks

guardedly, and limits and qualifies her declaration. In the second she speaks positively, and leaves no doubt of her meaning. How then can there be a question whether Bishop Marsh is fully justified in refusing to ordain the advocates of an opposite system? The men who endeavour to explain away the ob vious signification of the Twentyseventh Article, and the Baptismal service, ought not to be allowed to entangle themselves in the mazes of equivocation, by accepting orders from the Church.

"The first Allegation is, That the Lord Bishop of Peterborough has for. some time introduced into his Diocese a new mode of Examination, consisting of 87 Questions, embracing the minutest modifications of doctrine, and peremptorily requiring all Candidates for Ordination,

and Curates applying for a Licence, to conform thereto, or to incur the penalty of being rejected.'

"My Lords, it is absolutely false, that I propose Questions to be answered, on the terms stated in this Allegation. Neither in practice nor in principle do I impose such hard conditions. When I was Bishop of Landaff, the Questions were' accompanied with Directions for answer-' ing them, in which the Candidates were cautioned to pay due attention to them, because an unsatisfactory answer, (as was there added) may tend to their exclusion from the sacred office." But as this caution, though never carried into effect, was liable to misrepresentation, I re-printed the Questions before I came to Peterborough and omitted the Directions. Every copy, without exception, which has been delivered, either to Curates, or to Candidates for Orders, in the Diocese of Peterborough, has been delivered according to the re-printed form, that is, without the Directions. Yet the Petitioner represents the Bishop of Peterborough, as ' peremptorily requiring' what he calls a conformity to my Questions, under the penalty of being rejected. And even the Directions, which I gave as Bishop of Landaff, (with' which, however, he has no concern) are grossly misrepresented. I there said, that an unsatisfactory answer may tend to exclusion, whereas, according to this Allegation, it must tend to exclusion*." P.14. As no terms or conditions are expressed in the Examination Paper, nor have been since I became Bishop of Pe

The second Allegation is, That to the above 87 Questions, his Lordship has very recently added 36 more, on one doctrine alone : and that on the same principle the number may be multiplied till there is no limit but the will and pleasure of the Diocesan.

"Here, my Lords, is another misrepre sentation. Instead of adding, I have sub tracted. Instead of adding 36 to 87, 'I

have substituted 36 for 87, namely in the having been made in the examination for

examination of Curates: no alteration

Orders. But let me substitute what I

will, it is impossible to please the Petitioner, whose objections are in fact directed, not against this or that set of Questions, but against all questions which relate to doctrines*.

The third allegation asserts the illegality of this mode of examina. tion, but as this mode has been shewn to be a mere charge is already answered. fiction, the

66.

"My Lords, this Allegation is again untrue. Conformity to the Liturgy, as by law established, is no less required of the Clergy, than conformity to the Articles. It is true, that conformity to the Liturgy has been understood in a different sense from conformity to the Articles. It was understood, for instance, in a different sense, by the Clergy who returned from Geneva in the time of Elizabeth, with the tenets of Calvin, tenets so adverse to our Liturgy, that Calvin, in one of his epistles, calls it the leavings of popish dregs t. terborough, the extent to which I expect satisfactory answers can be determined only by the rule, which I adopt in prac tice. And by this rule I have never rejected any one for unsatisfactory auFree-Will, and Grace, unless they were swers on such subjects as Original Sin, accompanied by answers to other ques tions, directly impugning the doctrine of the Liturgy and Articles, on subjects of the greatest importance."

"This is evident from the tenor of the, whole Petition. A Bishop may examine in the Greek Testament, or in Grotius; but he must ask no questions about ductrine."

+ The doctrine of conditional salvation,› which pervades the whole of our Liturgy, is irreconcilable with Calvin's doctrine of absolute election.