Apologetics
A Closing Remark on the Apocrypha
By Dr. C. Matthew McMahon
If the Apocryphal books are connected with canonical books, it does not follow that they are of equal authority, but only that they are useful in the formation of manners and a knowledge of history (where they do not err), not for establishing faith.
Although some of the Apocryphal books are better and more correct than the others and contain various useful moral directions (as the book of Wisdom and the Son of Sirach), yet because they contain many other false and absurd things, they are deservedly excluded from the canon of faith, not being inspired by their own testimony under scrutiny.
And as Turretin says, “Although some have questioned the authenticity of a few books of the New Testament (i.e., the epistle of James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John and Revelation, which afterwards were received by the church as canonical), it does not follow that the same can be done with the Apocryphal books because the relation of the books of the Old and New Testaments to this subject are not the same. For the books of the Old Testament were given to the Christian church, not at intervals of time and by parts, but she received at one and the same time from the Jews all the books belonging to her written in one codex after they had been stamped with an indubitable authority, confirmed by Christ and his apostles. But the books of the New Testament were published separately, in different times and places and gradually collected into one corpus. Hence it happened that some of the later books (which came to some of the churches more slowly, especially in remote places) were held in doubt by some until gradually their authenticity was made known to them. (2) Although in certain churches some of the epistles and Revelation were rejected, yet those who received them were always far more numerous than those who rejected them. Yet there was no dispute about the Apocryphal books because they were always rejected by the Jewish church.”
The previous articles show valid proof why all should abandon the notion that the Apocryphal books ought to be included in the canon and deemed inspired, and that the RCC has no prudence in the way they handled receiving these books. If any are able to prove what I have written and compiled as caricatures, incorrectly quoted authors, or the like, please recite the corrections and the included bibliographic material, as I have done, in those corrections for me to reread. And please do not send me bibliographic information from Jewish Liberals or RCC liberals who have varied opinions today (I can do that myself). For they cannot even agree on many of the basic issues due to a need for modern novelty. Deal with the “fathers” (though they ought to be called “children” of the faith), Jerome, Augustine, the councils etc.
