On this page
dently , however , he did not affix to it the import assigned by Bishop , Watson . Had he intended to say that the apostolic epfe ties are authentic , because they relate . matters of fact aa they really UappenecJ , * Jtie wpuld h $ ve saia what was t , Qtsii ] y irrelevant to hia subject and ; h | s reasoning . If this had been his design , it could not be
liecessar y that he shojujd advise those whx ) n \ he imi ^ ed i ^ eiy addresses to visit Corinth , or 'Phiiippi , <> r Thessalonica , or Ephesus , or Rome . To the word authentic he jprpbably annexed the Idea conveyed , vx Bishop Marsh ' s definition . His topic is the testimony of the apostles to the Christian doctrine . For this testimonv he refers to their
epistles , which might fairly be supposed to exist in an authentic state , uninterpolated and undisputed , among the churches to which they were originally and severally written , and in which they were known to be the productions of the authors to whom they are respectively ascribed .
Thus far we agree with Lardner m his construction of the phrase authentiote literce . We feel ourselves compelled to dissent from him when he says , that by this phrase we are not to understand " authentic letters or
epistles , " but " scriptures , ' all the Scriptures of the New Testament . It is true , passages may be found in Tertullian where the word liter te has such an acceptation . The sentence before
us , however , is connected with others , in which the apostles are specifically mentioned . We therefore presume that the rules of just interpretation , and the whole scope of the African father ' s argument , will require us to take the term literce in the more
restricted sense of letters or epistles . The Margaret Professor , we find , makes the same application which Tertullian does of the epithet " authentic " to the books of Scripture . * At the same time , we have perceived , in the course of our rea 4 ing > that some
readop j ed by Mr . Travis and Mr . Nolan , but is rejected by Porson . ( Letters to Archdeacon T ., &c . pp . 276 , 277 ; Inq . into the Gr . Vulg . p . 115 , &c . ) * This observation may be confirmed by an appeal to a valuable tract which Bishop Marsh published many years since , and which is entitled " The Authenticity of the Five Books of Moses vindicated . "
cent and poptilar writers employ the iyrqt | v& < jrds genuine and authentic indiscriminately and convertibly ; * a practice which it seeds ' expedient to discourage . Perhaps , a 3 the effect of
Bishop Marsh ' s ex ^ jpplp and argu , ments , greater prepi ^ io ^ and correctness may distinguish , / in tliis instance , the language of the niaxt race of th eologians . ..
Our author points out very carefully and successfully the 'influence of an inquiry into the authenticity of the New Testament on the , divine origin tli ^
of Christianity . He ^ arrang ^ s evidence for this authenticity glider two heads , the external , cx consisting of the testimony of ancjent writers , ajid the existence of certain early translations , " and the internaly " which is
drawn from the contents of the books : ** the external he now places in the foremost rank , because it is here eminently decisive , and ' * no preparation is wanted for its reception . "
" In the disposition of the several parts , of which external evidence consists , " he has t € ventured to depart from the general practice . " For this deviation he offers an apology . " In quoting , " says he , " ecclesiastical
writers , as evidence for the authentic city of the New Testament , it has been usual to begin with the Apostolic Fathers , or the fathers who were contemporary with the apostles ; and thence to proceed to the fathers of the second ,
third , fourth , and as many following centuries , as appeared expedient for the purpose . But there is a disadvantage attending this chronological arrangement , inasmuch as it exposes the proof of authenticity to various objections at the very outset . Barnabas and Hermas do not afford the
testimony for which they are quoted . Clement of Rome , Ignatius and Polycarp were certainly acquainted with some books of the New Testament ; but they have been alleged as evidence for other books , where the quotations
produced for that purpose are really insufficient . We cannot , indeed , ew ~ pect to find in their writings such ample testimony to the books of the New Testament , as we find in the works of later writers . And it is not
* For example , Paley and Bishop Por--tCUS . ; , ' . »" . ' :..
474 Review .- —Marsh ' s Course of Lectures . PdrtY .
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Aug. 2, 1820, page 474, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2491/page/30/