Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

Secondly, that Chrift preached in Judæa and Galilee, made many difciples, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, at the inftigation of the chief men among the Jews; alfo that his difciples preached after his death, not only in Judæa, but all over the Roman empire; that they converted multitudes, were perfecuted, and at laft fuffered death, for their firm adherence to their mafter; and that both Chrift and his difciples pretended to work many miracles; are facts attefted by civil hiftory in the ampleft manner, and which cannot be called in queftion. Now these facts are fo connected with the other facts mentioned in the New Teftament, that they muft ftand or fall together. There is no probable account to be given of these facts, but by allowing the reft. For the proof of this, I appeal to every reader who will make the trial. It may also be concluded from the remarkable unwillingness of the prefent unbelievers to allow even the plaineft facts in exprefs terms; for it fhews them to be apprehenfive, that the connexion between the feveral principal facts mentioned in the New Teftament is infeparable, and that the atteftation given to fome by civil hiftory may eafily be extended to all.

[ocr errors]

It has been objected, that more mention ought to have been made of the common facts by the profane writers of those times, alfo fome acknowledgment of the miraculous ones, had they been true. To this we may anfwer, firft, that Judea was but a fmall and diftant province of the Roman empire; and the Jews themfelves, with whom the Chriftians were for a long time confounded, much defpifed by the Romans. Secondly, that hiftorians, politicians, generals, &c. have their imaginations fo much preoccupied by affairs of ftate, that matters purely religious are little regarded by them. Gallio cared for none of thefe things. Thirdly, that a perfon who attended in any great degree to the Chriftian affairs, if a good man, could fearce avoid becoming a Chriftian; after which his teftimony ceafes to be Pagan, and becomes Chriftian; of which I fhall speak under the next head, Fourthly, that both thofe who were favourers of the Chriftians, and those averfe to them in a moderate degree, one of which must be the cafe with great numbers, would have motives to be filent: the halfchriftians would be filent for fear of being perfecuted; and the others would affect to take no notice of what they difliked, but could not difprove; which is a fact that occurs to daily obfervation. Laftly, when these things are laid together, the atteftations of the profane writers to the common facts appear to be fuch as one might expect, and their filence as to the miraculous ones is accounted for.

Thirdly, all the Chriftian writers, from the time of the apoftles and downwards, bear teftimony to the genuineness of the books of the New Teftament, and the truth of the facts, in a great variety of ways direct and indirect, and in fuch manner as might be expected. Their quotations from them are numberless, and agree fufficiently with the prefent copies. They go every where upon the fuppofition of the facts, as the foundation of all their difcouries, writings, hopes, fears, &c. They difcover every where the higheft regard, and even veneration, both for the books and the authors. In fhort, one can

not

not fee how this teftimony in favour of the Books of the New Teftament can be invalidated, unless by fuppofing all the ecclefiaftical writings of the firft centuries to be forged alfo; or all the writers to have concurred to write as if they believed the genuineness and truth of these books, though they did not; or to have had no ability or inclination to diftinguish genuineness and truth from forgery and falfehood; or by fome other fuch fuppofition as will scarce bear to be named.

Here three questions may be afked, that bear fome relation to this fubject; and the anfwers to which will, I think, illuftrate and confirm what has been advanced in the laft paragraph.

Thus, firft, it may be afked, why we have not more accounts of the life of Chrift tranfmitted to us. To this I anfwer, that it is probable from St. Luke's preface, that there were many fhort and imperfect accounts handed about very early; the authors of which, though they had not taken care to inform themfelves accurately, did not, however, endeavour to impofe on others defignedly; and that all these grew into difufe, of course, after the four Gofpels, or perhaps the three first, were published, or at leaft after the canon of the New Teftament was formed; alfo that after this the Chriftians were fo perfectly fatisfied, and had the four Gofpels in fuch efteem, that no one prefumed to add any other accounts, and especially as all the apostles were then dead.

The fecond queftion is, How come we to have fo little account, in the primitive writers, of the lives, labours, and fufferings of the apoftles? I answer, that the apoftles feem to have refided in Judæa, till Nero's army invaded it, and afterwards to have travelled into diftant parts; and that neither their converts in Judæa, nor those in the diftant barbarous countries into which they travelled, could have any probable motive for writing their lives: alfo, that, as to other Chriftians, they had neither opportunities nor motives. The Chriftians looked up to Chrift as their mafter, not to the apostles. Their great bufinefs was, to promote Christianity, not to gratify their own or others fruitlefs curiofity. They were not learned men, who had spent their lives in the ftudy of annalifts and biographers. They did not fufpect, that an account of the lives of the apoftles would ever be wanted, or that any one could call their integrity, infpiration, miracles, &c. in queftion. St. Luke feems to have defigned by his Acts, chicfly to fhew how the Gospel firft got firm footing amongft Jews, profelytes of the gate, and idolatrous Gentiles; in order to encourage the new converts to copy the examples of the apostles and first preachers, and to publifh the Gofpel in all nations. Laftly, the primitive Chriftians had early difputes with Jews, Heathens, Heretics, and even with one another, which took up much of their attention and concern.

Thirdly, it may be afked, who were the perfons that forged the fpurious acts and revelations of teveral of the apoftles, &c. I answer, that, amongst the number of thofe who joined themselves to the Chriftians, there must be many whofe hearts were not truly purified,

and

and who, upon apoftatizing, would become more felf-interested, vain-glorious, and impure, than before. These were Antichrifts, as St. John calls them, who left the church because they were not of it. Some of these forged books, to fupport themfelves, and establish their own tenets; others might write partly like enthufiafts, partly like impoftors; and, laftly, there were fome both weak and wicked men, though not fo abandoned as the ancient Heretics, who, in the latter end of the fecond century, and afterwards, endeavoured to make converts by forgeries, and fuch other wicked arts. However, all those who are ufually called Fathers, in the firft ages, ftand remarkably clear of fuch charges.

Fourthly, the propagation of Chriftianity, with the manner in which it was oppofed by both Jews and Gentiles, bears witness to the truth and genuineness of the books of the New Teftament. But I forbear entering upon this argument, as it will come more properly in another place. Let me only obferve here, that there are many paffages in the Talmudical writings, which afford both light and confirmation to the New Teftament, notwithstanding that one principal defign of the authors was to difcredit it.

PROP. X.

THE AGREEMENT OF THE BOOKS OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS WITH THEMSELVES AND WITH EACH OTHER, IS AN ARGUMENT BOTH OF THEIR GENUINENESS AND TRUTH.

THE truth of this propofition will be evident, if a fufficient number of these mutual agreements can be made out. It is never found, that any fingle perfon, who deviates much from the truth, can be fo perfectly upon his guard, as to be always confiftent with himfelf. Much lefs therefore can this happen in the cafe of a number, living alfo in different ages. Nothing can make them confitent, but their copying faithfully after real facts. The inftances will make this

clearer.

The laws of the Ifraelites are contained in the Pentateuch, and referred to in a great variety of ways, direct and indirect, in the Hiftorical Books, in the Pfalms, and in th Prophecies. The hiftorical facts alfo in the preceding books are often referred to in thofe that fucceed, and in the Pialms and Prophecies. In like manner the Gofpels have the greatest harmony with each other, and the Epiftles of St. Paul with the Acts of th: Apostles. And indeed one may fay, that there is icarce any book of either Old or New Teftament, which may not be fhewn to refer to many of the reft in fome way or other. For it is to be obferved, that the Bible has been tudied and commented upon far more than any other book what oever; and that it has been the bufinefs of believes in all ages to find out the mutual relations of its parts, and of unbelievers to fearch for inconfiftencies; alio that the first meet every day with more and more evidences in favour of the Scriptures from the utual agreements and coincidences here confidered; and that unbeli. vers have never be a able to alledge any inconfiftencics that could in the least invalidate

the

[ocr errors]

the truth of the principal facts; I think, not even affect the divine inspiration of the hiftorical books, according to the fecond or third hypothefis above mentioned.

It will probably illuftrate this propofition, to bring a parallel inftance from the Roman writers. Suppofe then that no more remained of these writers than Livy, Tully, and Horace. Would they not, by their references to the fame facts and customs, by the fameness of ftyle in the fame writer, and differences in the different ones, and numberless other fuch like circumftances of critical confideration, prove themselves and one another to be genuine, and the principal facts related, or alluded to, to be true?

It is also to be obferved, that this mutual harmony and felf-confiftency, in its ultimate ratio, is the whole of the evidence which we have for facts done in ancient times, or diftant places. Thus, if a perfon was fo fceptical as to call in queftion the whole Roman history, even the most notorious facts, as their conquefts first of Italy, and then of the neighbouring countries, the death of Cæfar, and the fall of the Western empire by the invafions of the Goths and Vandals, with all the evidences of these from books, infcriptions, coins, cuftoms, &c. as being all forged in order to deceive; one could only fhew him, that it is inconfiftent with what he fees of human nature, to fuppofe that there should be fuch a combination to deceive; or that the agreement of these evidences with each other is far too great to be the effect of any fuch fraudulent defign, of chance, &c. And all these arguments are, in effect, only bringing a number of concurring evidences, whofe fum total foon approaches to the ultimate limit, i. e. to unity, or abfolute certainty, nearer than by any diftinguishable difference. It does not therefore import, in refpect of real conviction, after a certain number are brought, whether we bring any more or no; they can only add this imperceptible defect, i. e. practically nothing. Thus I fuppofe, that the remaining writings of Livy, Tully, and Horace, alone would fatisfy any impartial man fo much of the general extensiveness of the Roman conquefts, &c. that nothing perceptible could be added to his conviction; no more than any common event can, or ever does in fact, appear more credible from the teftimony of a thousand than of ten or twenty witne fles of approved integrity. And whoever will apply this reafoning to the prefent cafe, muft perceive, as it appears to me, that the numberless minute, direct, and indirect agreements and coincidences, that prefent themselves to all diligent readers of the Scriptures, prove their truth and genuineness beyond all contradiction, at least according to the first and loweft hypothefis concerning divine infpiration.

As to thofe few and fmall apparent inconfiftencies, which are fuppofed to confine the infpiration of the Scriptures to this loweft fenfe; one may obferve, that they decreafe every day as learned men inquire farther; and that, were the Scriptures perfectly exact in every particular, there must be fome apparent difficulties, arifing merely from our ignorance of ancient languages, cuftoms, diftant places, &c. and confequently that, if thefe be not more than our ignorance makes

it

it reasonable to expect, they are no objection at all. And of apparent inconfiftencies, one may remark in particular, that they exclude the fuppofition of forgery. No fingle forger, or combination of forgers, would have fuffered the apparent inconfiftencies which occur in a few places, fuch as the different genealogies of Chrift in St. Matthew and St. Luke, and fome little variations in the narration of the fame fact in different Gofpels. These are too obvious at firft fight, not to have been prevented, had there been any fraud.

I will here add an hypothefis, by which, as it appears to me, one may reconcile the genealogies of St. Matthew and St. Luke. I fuppofe, then, that St. Matthew relates the real progenitors of Jofeph; St. Luke, the feries of thofe who were heirs to David by birthright; and that both tranfcribed from genealogical tables, well known to the Jews of thofe times. St. Matthew after David takes Solomon, from whom Jofeph lineally defcended. St. Luke takes Nathan, upon whom, though younger than fome others, and even than Solomon, we muft fuppofe the birthright to be conferred, as in the inftances of Jacob and Jofeph. St. Matthew proceeds by real defcent to Salathiel at the time of the captivity; St. Luke proceeds by the heirs, according to birthright, and comes to Salathiel likewife. We muft therefore fuppofe, that Salathiel, Solomon's heir, was now David's alfo, by the extinction of all the branches of Nathan's family. St. Matthew then takes Zorobabel as Jofeph's real progenitor; St. Luke takes him as heir or eldeft fon to Salathiel. Again, St. Matthew takes Abuid the real progenitor; St. Luke, Rhefa, the elder fon : and thus St. Matthew proceeds by lineal defcent to Jofeph; St. Luke, by heirs, to the fame Jofeph for we are to fuppofe, that Heli dying without heirs male, Jofeph became his heir by birthright, i. e. heir to Zorobabel, i. e. to David. If we farther fuppofe, that the Virgin Mary was daughter to Heli, for which there appears to be fome evidence, the folution will be more complete and more agreeable to the Jewish cuftoms. It confirms this folution, that St. Matthew uses the word yno, which reftrains his genealogy to lineal defcent; whereas St. Luke uses the article 78, which is very general. It confirms it alfo, that St. Luke's defcents, reckoning from David to Salathiel, are but about twenty-two years apiece; which is much too short for descents from father to fon, but agrees very well to defcents by birthright. As to St. Matthew's defcents, they are far too long, after the captivity, for defcents from father to fon; but then it is eafy to fuppofe, that fome were left out on account of dying before their fathers, or fome other reafon. Three of the Kings of Judah are left out after Joram, perhaps on account of their being of the immediate pofterity of the idolatrous Ahab's daughter Athaliah. Others are left out after the captivity, perhaps for fome fimilar reafon.

VOL. V.

D

PROP.

« EdellinenJatka »