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: Delivering 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 been 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 Apos tolic Fathers, we find both phrases and passages from the Sacred Volume, 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, will 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 anthenticity 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 remarkable 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 to believe that the gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke were severally transcripts of the preaching of St. Peter and St. Paul,-written under their superintendence, and recommended by their authority, we cannot hesitate to receive them as compositions guided and assisted by the Spirit of God. Even in the first age of Christianity, they were cited as freely and as frequently as the other two; the earliest fathers of the Church made no distinction between them; no more should we." P. 56. It is true that these writings were read in the Church in the same Homilies are read in the present manner as the Apocrypha or the 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 books. It is very doubtful who was are next applied to the doubtful 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 Romanus. The work is written in imitation of the Apocalypse, but on 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 contained in the apocryphal New Tes. tament, whether those treatises are authentic, as the writings of Cle- the two works by Mr. Rennell, the a comparison of passages cited from mens, Ignatius, and Polycarp, or of inferiority of the Pastor is very obdoubtful authenticity as the Pastor vious, nor does the writer, as St. of Hermas and the Epistle of Bar. John does, assert his inspiration. nabas; or unquestionable forgeries, The failure of the internal evidence as the other pieces of which the is not counteracted by any external apocryphal Volume consists.. a writing, carefully, as Mr. Rentestimony. Irenæus calls the work nell, on the authority of Lardner, explains the word, distinguishing it from the Scriptures. Neither does the Scriptures. Tertullian is so far Clemens Alexandrinus class it with from admitting its authority, that be 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. 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 in spiration 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 mod 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. 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, and of The Calvinistic Clergy, therefore, in the reign of Elizabeth, as also in those of her two immediate successors, regarded a conformity to the Liturgy as implying only the reading it from the desk, whether they believed in its doctrines or not. But no Clergyman of the present age can take refuge in such explanations. By the Act of Uniformity, which passed on the Restoration, it is required that all Clergymen, within two mouths after their admission to a Benefice, shall make the following declaration, openly in the church, in the presence of the congregation to which they are appointed. I do here declare my unfeigned assent and consent to all and every thing contained, and prescribed, in and by the book intituled the Book of Common Prayer.' Now, my Lords, when a Clergyman declares his unfeigned assent to all and every thing contained in the Book of Common Prayer, he necessarily declares his unfeigned assent to the doctrines therein contained. It is not true, therefore, that the Thirty-nine Articles are the sole standard of faith for the Clergy of the Established Church. But though the Petitioner has failed in his attempt to exclude the Liturgy from all participation in the standard of national faith, your Lordships cannot fail to remark the principles which are displayed in this allegation. In 1641, when similar principles prevailed with regard to the Liturgy, the House of Lords appointed a Committee of religion, the ouly instance, I believe, on record. The first resolution of this Committee was, that the five points, as they are called, should be explained in the Calvinistic sense. They then undertook to reform the Liturgy: and not long afterwards the Liturgy was abolished. My Lords, I sincerely hope, that our Liturgy will not be abolished again. But of this I am certain, that Petitions to the House of Lords, in which such principles are revived, must prepare the way for it." P. 18. The fifth, sixth, and seventh allegations refer to the old charge of introducing a new standard or doctrine. The Bishop of Peterborough briefly shews the inaccuracy of the petitioner's language, and the unfounded nature of his accusation. as this part of the question has been formerly before our readers, we proceed to less beaten ground. But "The eighth Allegation is, That the Royal Declaration asserts no less that 'no man shall put his own sense or comment to be the meaning of the Article.' "My Lords, I cannot deny that these words, when taken by themselves, appear at least, to militate against interpretation generally. For if no man shall put his own sense upon the Articles, no sense whatever can be, put on the Articles.. Such an assent to Articles of Religion would indeed be a very unmeaning assent it would in fact be an assent to nothing. But if the words, quoted by the Petitioner, are taken in connection with what precedes and follows, the effect is very different. The sentence from which he has extracted a few words, is as follows, And that no man hereafter shall either print or preach, to draw the Article aside any way, but shall submit to it in the plain and full meaning thereof; and shall not put his own sense, or comment to be the meaning of the Article, but shall take it in the literal and grammatical sense. From this sentence your Lordships will perceive that the Royal Declaration is so far from prohibiting an interpretation of the Articles (which would be a perfect absurdity) that it prescribes even the rules of interpretation. It enjoins that the Articles shall be interpreted in their literal and grammatical sense ;' that they shall not be drawn aside from this sense; and that no man shall put on them any other meaning, than their plain and literal meaning. My Lords, these are rules of interpretation, from which I have never swerved. They are rules, which I have uniformly and zealously maintained, as the Petitioner himself might have known, if he had read his Diocesan's Lectures on Interpretation. "But in the Answers to my Examination Questions I have met with woeful instances of departure from these rules. I have met with instances, in which the words, both of the Liturgy and of the Articles have been so drawn aside from their literal meaning, as to make them express the reverse of that meaning. And such interpretations have been given, not merely in matters of curious search,' where a latitude of opinion might be allowed, but on points of doctrine, which are too clearly expressed to admit of doubt, and too important to he regarded as not essential to the Established Church*. And I can solemnly assure your Lordships, that in the few instances, in which my duty has compelled me to reject on account of doctrine, I have never done it for deviations of the former kind, unless accompanied by deviations of the latter kind. And as my conduct in this respect has been grossly misrepresented, I beg permission to add, in answer to the charge of undue severity, that I have spared no pains to recover those, who had departed from the doctrines of the Church. And my endeavours in this respect have been so successful, that the total number of rejections on account of doctrine has, in the course of five years, amounted only to threet." P. 26. "For instance, the doctrine of our Church respecting the Sacrament of Baptism, which has been directly and grossly impugued in some of the Answers which I have received to my Examination Questions. If I had admitted those, who gave such answers, I might have been justly charged with having recruited for dissenters.'" "This may serve as an answer to the charge of undue severity. But I had hardly known what answer to give, when I am charged with want of toleration in the use of these Questions. Toleration is a term, which applies only to dissenters from the Established Church. It is quite inapplicable to those who profess conformity to the thirty-nine Articles, which were published for avoiding diversities of opinions.' Though we can understand therefore what is meant by the toleration of dissenters, when they have perfect liberty to preach their own doctrines in their own places of worship, we involve ourselves in a contradiction, when we speak about the toleration of dissent on the part of those, who are bound by Articles, for the establishing of consent touching true religion.' But if the toleration, which the Examination Questions are supposed to infringe, denotes the privilege of preaching dissent from the doctrines of the Church, as well in our own pulpits, as in licensed meeting-houses, it is a species of toleration which would shortly end in the destruction Lest this should not be considered a sufficient answer to the favourite topic of the royal declaration, the tenth allegation (the ninth being mere repetition and tautology) affords his lordship an opportunity of saying a few words respecting Laud, which must have astonished his deeply learned ecclesiastical opponents. "The tenth Allegation, still in reference to my Examination Questions, is, That no similar attempt has ever been made since the time of Archbishop Laud, when it produced the most serious consequences, alike affecting both Church and State.' "My Lords, I cannot deny, that the Prelate to whom the Petitioner alludes, did make a similar attempt.' The Royal Declaration, prefixed to the Articles, was prefixed at the suggestion of Laud, when Bishop of London. And that Declaration has the same object with my Examination Questions, namely, literal and grammatical interpretation. The Declaration also gave as much offence to the Calvinists of that age, as my Examination Questions in the present age. The former prepared an Address to the King against the Declaration and it seems a similar Address is now in contemplation against the Examination Questions. Nor is it improbable that the fate which attended Archbishop Laud, would befall the Bishop of Peterborough, if the same party should again obtain the ascendancy in the Church. Be this, however as it may, I shall not be deterred from the performance of what I believe in my conscience to be niy bounden duty." P. 32. The plan which Lord Dacre condescended to father was thus completely done up. He had been per suaded to move for an address to the throne to enforce the royal declaration of Charles I.-rather a strange proposition to be made by of the Church. The foundation indeed might thereby be widened: but it would be widened with materials, which would soon let down the whole superstructure." "Though the motion for an Address was changed into a motion for a Committee, there is a parallel also to this motion, in the Committee of Religion appointed in 1641. See the Remarks on the fourth Allegation." > a distinguished whig. His spiritual advisers, however, had long solaced themselves with the anticipation of its efficacy, and Lord Dacre consented to surrender his historical knowledge, and his constitutional jealousy of the prerogative, in or der to silence Bishop Marsh. The Bishop, in ten sentences, proved the scheme to be absurd, convinced Lord Dacre that the address would be a waste of powder and shot, and compelled him to substitute a motion for a committee. This had been Lord King's plan a year ago. A profound knowledge of ecclesiastical law enabled his lordship (see Christian Remembrancer, Vol. iii. p. 486.) to recommend the House of Lords to go into a committee on the Bishop of Peterborough's Questions, or in other words, to do nothing at all. Lord Dacre came forward under happier auspices, but in the course of one short half hour he was constrained to change his tack, and to steer, in some confusion, for the old port? The learned Prelate had the magnanimity to pity his si tuation, and to lay before him (what none of the evangelical privy-council had discovered) a mode in which the object of the petitioner might be obtained. "My lords, I now come to the prayer of the petition, in which is proposed an address to his Majesty as Head of the Church, to enforce the royal declaration. But the enforcing of the royal declaration will, for reasons already stated to your lordships, defeat rather than promote the purpose of the petitioner. That purpose, if answered by an address to the throne, can be answered only by an address inploring his Majesty to issue his royal mandate to the Bishop of Peterborough, and prohibit the questions, of which the petitioner complains. My lords, if his Majesty could be induced to issue such a mandate, I would bow in obedience to the royal commands. But before your lordships concur in a motion to that effect, it is necessary to consider, whether such an exercise of the royal prerogative would be consistent with the constitution in Church and state. In the use of those questions I exercise a right, which I enjoy under ex isting laws and laws cannot be annulled by one branch only of the legislature. The 34th canon is my warrant for an examination in the articles. My questions constitute an examination in the articles. And whether I propose for that purpose the questions which I now employ, or introduce another set as circumstances may re quire, is a matter which must depend on my own discretion, and in which no one bas a right to dictate. My lords, I do not deny, that bishops, as well as other men, may abuse their authority. With such an abuse of authority I am charged in the present petition: but whether truly or not must depend on the truth or falsehood of the allegations. lords, I have sifted those allegations to allegation contains a direct falsehood; the bottom. I have proved, that the first My that the second is a misrepresentation; that the third allegation, in which the pe titioner contends for an abuse of authority, is dependent on the two former, and consequently devoid of truth. I have further proved that his fourth and fifth allegation while his attempt to exclude the Iaturgy exhibit other deviations from the truth; as a standard of faith, betrays a creed, which ill deserves the protection of your lordships. Of the remaining allegations, as far as they have any reference to the pretended abuse of authority, I have shewn, that they are altogether fallacious. accede to the prayer of a petition, which 46 I ask then your lordships, will you is founded in sophistry and falsehood? That the noble lord who has presented it was not aware of its sophistry and falsehood, when he yielded to the solicitations, with which I know, that he was earnestly pressed, I am well assured, or he would have rejected those solicitations with disdain. The noble lord could not suspect, that any man would dare to affront the house of lords by the tender of unfounded allegations. My lords, before I conclude, I beg permission to say a few words concerning myself. Whatever be the fate of the questions, I have no personal interest at stake. I shall be no personal loser, if they are wholly abandoned. I have no other desire to retain them, than what arises from the belief, that they have contributed to the welfare and security of the Church. The voice of faction has been raised against them, and in the ontcry episcopal anthority has been treated with insolence, and ecclesiastical discipline has been set at naught. But, my lords, this very opposition, when viewed in its true light, may be regarded as an argument in their fa |