Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

or near the times of the transactions there recorded, perhaps Mordecai, though some conjecture it was Exra; the book of Joв by a Jew, probably by Moses; the PSALMS by David, Asaph, Moses, and other pious persons; the books of PROVERBS and CANTICLES by Solomon; the book of ECCLESIASTES by Solomon, towards the close of his life, when distress and anguish had reclaimed him from idolatry; the PROPHECIES by the prophets whose names they bear; (h) and the books of the NEW TESTAMENT by the persons to whom they are usually ascribed. There are many internal evidences, and, in the case of the New Testament, many external ones too (which will be touched upon as we proceed), by which these books may be shown to belong to the authors here specified. Or, if there be any doubts, they are merely of a critical nature, and do not at all affect the authenticity of the books, nor materially alter the application of the arguments in favour of this proposition. Thus, if the Epistle to the HEBREWS be supposed to have been written not by St. Paul, but by Clement, or Barnabas, or Luke, the evidence therein given to the miracles performed by Christ and his followers, will not be at all invalidated by this circum

stance.

Thirdly. The great importance of the facts mentioned in the Scriptures makes it still more improbable

(h) For the doubts expressed by sound biblical critics respecting the last six chapters of the prophecies ascribed to Zechariah, and the reasons on the whole for concluding that they were composed by Jeremiah, see Newcome's Improved Version of the Minor Prophets, pp. 303-305 of the Pontefract edition.

that the several authors should either have attempted to falsify, or have succeeded in such an attempt. This, indeed, is an argument for the truth of the facts, which proves the genuineness of the books at the same time. The truth of the facts, however, is inferred more directly from their importance, if the genuineness of the Scriptures be previously allowed. The same thing may be observed of the great number of particular circumstances of time, place, persons, &c. mentioned in the Scriptures, and of the harmony of the books with themselves, and with each other. These are arguments both for the genuineness of the books, and the truth of the facts distinctly considered, and also arguments for deducing the truth from the genuineness. And indeed the arguments for the general truth of the history of any age or nation, where regular records. have been kept, are so interwoven together, and support each other in such a variety of ways, that it is extremely difficult to keep the ideas of them distinct, so as not to anticipate, and not to prove, more than the exactness of logical method requires one to prove. Or, in other words, the inconsistencies of the contrary supposition are so great, that they can scarcely stand long enough to be confuted. You may easily try this upon the history of England or France, Rome or Greece.

Fourthly. If the books of the Old and New Testaments were written by the persons to whom they are ascribed above; i. e. if they be genuine, the moral characters of these writers afford the strongest assurance that the facts asserted by them are true. Falsehoods and frauds of a common nature shock the moral

sense of common men, and are rarely met with except in persons of abandoned characters: how inconsistent, then, must those of the most glaring and impious nature be with the highest moral characters! That such characters are due to the sacred writers appears from the writings themselves, by an internal evidence; but there is also strong external evidence in many cases ; and indeed this point is allowed in general by unbelievers. The sufferings which several of the writers underwent both in life and death, in attestation of the facts delivered by them, is a particular argument in favour of these.

Fifthly. The arguments here alleged for proving the truth of the Scripture History from the genuineness of the books, are as conclusive in respect of the miraculous facts, as of the common ones. But besides this, it may be observed, that if we allow the genuineness of the books to be a sufficient evidence of the common facts mentioned in them, the miraculous facts must be allowed also, from their close connection with the common ones. It is necessary to admit both or neither. It is not, for instance, to be conceived, that Moses should have delivered the Israelites from their slavery in Egypt, or conducted them through the wilderness for forty years, at all, in such manner as the common history represents, unless we suppose the miraculous facts intermixed with it be true also. In like manner, the fame of Christ's miracles, the multitudes which followed him, the adherence of his disciples, the jealousy and hatred of the chief priests, scribes, and pharisees, with many other facts of a com

mon nature, are impossible to be accounted for, unless we allow that he did really work miracles. And similar observations apply in general to the other parts of the scripture history.

Sixthly. There is even a particular argument in favour of the miraculous part of the Scripture history, to be drawn from the reluctance of mankind to receive miraculous facts. It is true that this reluctance is greater in some ages and nations than in others, and probable reasons may be assigned why this reluctance was, in general, less in ancient times than in the present (which, however, are presumptions that some real miracles were then wrought); but it must always be considerable, from the very frame of the human mind, and would be particularly so amongst the Jews at the time of Christ's appearance, as they had then (according to their own account) been without miracles for at least four hundred years. Now this reluctance must make both the writers and readers very much upon their guard; and if it be now one of the chief prejudices against revealed religion, as unbelievers unanimously assert, it is but reasonable to allow also, that it would be a strong check upon the publication of a miraculous history at or near the time when the miracles were said to be performed; i. e. it will be a strong confirmation of such a history, if its genuineness be granted previously.

And, upon the whole, we may conclude certainly, that the principal facts, both common and miraculous, mentioned in the Scriptures, must be true, if their genuineness be allowed. But the particular evidences

of miraculous facts, as well as the principal objections which have been urged against them, will be stated more fully in a future letter.

The converse of this proposition is also true, namely, if the principal facts mentioned in the Scriptures be true, they must be genuine writings. This converse proposition is much more important than it may appear at first sight; for there are many evidences for the truth of particular facts mentioned in the Scriptures; such, for example, as those taken from natural history, from geography, and the contemporary profane history, which no way presuppose, but, on the contrary, prove, the genuineness of the Scriptures; and this genuineness, thus proved, may, by the arguments alleged under this proposition, be extended to infer the authenticity of the rest of the facts. Nor is this to argue in a circle, and to prove the truth of the Scripture history from its truth; but to prove the truth of those facts which are not attested by natural or civil history, from those which are, by the medium of the genuineness of the Scriptures.

II. The Language, Style, and Manner of Writing, used in the Books of the Old and New Testaments, are Arguments of their Genuineness.

Here let it be observed, First, that the Hebrew language, in which the Old Testament was written, being the language of an ancient people, and one that had little intercourse with their neighbours, and whose neighbours also spake a language that had great affinity with their own, would not change so rapidly as modern languages have done, since nations have been

« EdellinenJatka »