Review of the Arguments of Romanists from the Infallibility of the Church and Testimony of the Fathers in behalf of the Apocrypha, discussed and refuted. By JAMES H. THORNWELL, Professor of Sacred Literature and Evidences of Christianity, in the South Carolina College. New York: Leavitt, Trow & Company. Robert Carter. Boston: Charles Tappan, &c., &c., &c., 1845. Pp.417.
IN 1841, Mr. Thornwell published in the “Spirit of the Nineteenth Century,” an essay on the claims of the Apocrypha to divine inspiration. In reply to that essay the Rev. Dr. Lynch, a Romish clergyman of Charleston, S. C., addressed to him a series of letters, to which the present volume is an answer, and a very complete one. It is, as to its form and manner, as well as to thoroughness, a specimen of the old-fashioned mode of controversy. The arguments of his opponent are given at length, and then submitted to the torture of remorseless logic, until the confession of unsoundness is extorted. In this way Dr. Lynch is tracked step by step until he is hunted out of every hiding-place, and is seen by others, however he may regard himself, to be completely run down. As a refutation, this work of Mr. Thornwell, is complete. There is much in this book that reminds us of Chillingworth. There is a good deal of the acumen, the perspicuity, and logic of that great master of sentences. There is the same untiring following up of an opponent, giving him the benefit first of one then of another hypothesis, until he has nothing left on which to hang an argument. This mode of discussion, while it has many advantages, has some inconveniences. It is difficult, in such cases, for the respondent to prevent his book assuming more the character of a refutation of a particular author, than of a discussion of a subject. His antagonist’s arguments give form to his reply; and the reader feels that he is listening to a debate between two disputants, rather than to a continuous exhibition of the point in controversy. This disadvantage every one must feel to be a very serious one, in the writings of Chillingworth. Their value would, to the present generation at least, be greatly enhanced, had he made it more his object to exhibit the whole truth on the subjects on which he wrote, than to pull to pieces the sophistries of his antagonists. Mr. Thornwell has not entirely avoided this inconvenience, though in his case it is not a very serious one, and is less felt in the latter than in the earlier portions of his work. The book exhibits distinguished ability and diligent research, and is not only a valuable accession to our theological literature, but welcome as a specimen of what the church may expect from its author.
Among the blemishes of the work is the profusion of the mere technicalities of logic. The words, major, and minor proposition, middle term, and the like, are of too frequent occurrence. It adds nothing to the perspicuity of the argument, to say that one proposition is of that peculiar species, that the removal of the consequent is a removal of the antecedent; or that another “is a destructive disjunctive conditional.” We do not wish to see in a painting, the pencil marks protruding through the coloring; nor is it desirable to have brought constantly to view in actual discussion, the formulas by which reasoning as an art is taught in the schools. When a man comes to fight, it is easy to see whether he has learned to fence, without his exclaiming at every thrust or feint, prime, tierce, quart; and Professor Thornwell’s skill in logic would be quite as apparent, and more effective, if he could forget, as we doubt not he soon will do, its technical terms.
The point in which the work before us is most open to criticism, is its want of unity. It is really the discussion of a single question: Are the Apocrypha a part of the inspired writings? So much prominence, however, is given to the consideration of the infallibility of the church, as to exalt it into a separate question. As Romanists rely mainly on the authority of the church in their arguments in behalf of the Apocrypha, the competency of the church, in their sense of the term, authoritatively to decide the question, is unavoidably brought into the discussion But still it is a subordinate question, in the present instance, and should be made to appear so. We think the unity, and of course the force of Mr. Thornwell’s argument, would be increased by treating the infallibility of the church, not so distinctly as he has done, but in strict subordination to his main purpose.
We also regret that he has made so little use of the internal character of the Apocrypha, as an argument against their inspiration. In his original essay this topic is adverted to; we are surprised, therefore, not to see it brought forward in this larger work. It is after all one of the soundest, and of all others perhaps the most effective argument, in the minds of ordinary Christians, against the divine origin of these writings. Believers will find it impossible to transfer the reverence they feel for the true word of God, commending itself as it does to their reason, heart, and conscience, to writings replete with silly stories and gross contradictions. We advert the more readily to what we regard defects in this work, because we think it will become a standard book, likely to be often reprinted; we therefore wish to see it as perfect as may be.