LECTURE IV. EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. Has a Revelation been given?-Inquiry confined to Christianity-On the genuineness of the Christian Scriptures: Account of the Books of the Old Testament; The Pentateuch; Historical and circumstantial Evidence of its Genuineness stated; General Observations respecting the other Books-Apocryphal Books. IN the preceding lecture, I showed that a revelation is possible; that it is desirable; and that it is necessary. I concluded by stating the general expectations which might be previously entertained respecting its contents. Let us now proceed to inquire whether a revelation has been actually given; whether there is ground to believe that what reason could not teach us, has been made known to us by supernatural means. Pretensions to revelation have been common, of which we have examples in the Sybilline Oracles of the Romans, and the sacred books of the Persians and Hindoos; but it is not necessary to examine their claims, since, with one consent, they are acknowledged to be impostures. Nor shall we spend our time in considering the pretended revelation of Mahomet, which has been received by a large portion of the human race in Asia, Africa, and Europe. Its author was able to produce no evidence of its divine origin, but his own affirmation that it was communicated to him by the angel Gabriel. If he talked of miracles, they were such as had been witnessed by himself alone, and consequently were no ground of belief to others. He appealed, indeed, to the intrinsic excellence of the Koran, as an evidence that it had emanated from a higher source than human ingenuity, and has thus subjected it to the test of criticism. The beauty of the style has been extolled by competent judges, but this amounts only to a proof of the taste of the composer, and, at the most, entitles it to be ranked with the elegant productions of other ages and countries. But it is the language only which has a claim to admiration; an acquaintance with the matter is sufficient to convince us that it is the work of a man, and of a man by no means pre-eminent in intellectual attainments. It is a farrago of incoherent rhapsodies; it abounds in silly and puerile remarks; and, had it appeared among a people whose taste and judgment were disciplined by literature and science, it would have excited universal disgust and contempt. A few passages have been often quoted as specimens of the true sublime, but they have obtained praise much beyond their merit, in consequence of the wretched stuff amidst which they appear, as a green spot planted with trees and abounding in springs, seems a paradise to the traveller who has been journeying for many days in the parched and sandy desert. After all, the passages which have been so much extolled are not original, but have evidently been borrowed from our Scriptures, and have suffered injury in passing through the clumsy hands of the impostor. Posterior to the Jewish and Christian revelations, the Koran is indebted to them for any portion of truth, for any noble sentiments which it contains; and these are neutralized by its falsehoods and immoralities. It does not exhibit a single character of divinity; it is fraught with ridiculous stories and superstitious precepts; while, without any reason, it inculcates total abstinence from wine, it grants almost unbounded license to the sexual appetite; the punishments which it denounces in the future state, although terrible to our animal nature, have been conceived by a low and childish imagination; and the paradise which it promises to his followers is a brothel. We presume, VOL. I.-5 that if a revelation come from God, it will be distinguished by the signatures of his moral perfections, as a work of man discovers the powers and dispositions of the mind which contrived it. The Koran is stamped with the express image and superscription of the profligate in whose brain it was concocted; and in the absence of all internal and external evidence of its truth, it was first propagated and is still supported by the sword. Its success proves only that Mahomet was a conqueror, and that his followers, stimulated to frenzy by enthusiasm, were too strong for the nations whose dominions they invaded under the standard of the crescent. There is not an instance of a nation which embraced the religion of Mahomet from a calm, unbiassed investigation of its claims. No alleged revelation has any semblance of truth but that which is contained in our Scriptures, as infidels themselves will acknowledge. They reject, indeed, every revelation; but they cannot deny that there are arguments in its favour, to meet which, they have been compelled to call forth all the resources of their ingenuity. Mahomet was evidently a favourite with Gibbon, and he has employed all the force of his eloquence to depict the heroism of his followers, and the success of his arms; but he did not for a moment suppose him to be a prophet, or attribute his procedure to any higher cause than enthusiasm or imposture. Other infidels content themselves with laughing at his religion; but besides ridicule, they find it necessary to bring the most powerful arguments which their cause can furnish, to bear against Christianity. It is on this account, and because it is the religion which we have adopted, that our attention shall be exclusively directed to it; and, if we succeed in establishing its divine origin, we virtually disprove all other revelations, because it is obvious, that contradictory systems cannot all proceed from a Being of whom truth is an essential attribute. Before we can establish the truth of revelation, we must ascertain what it is, and where it is to be found. There are certain books in which it is said to be contained, commonly called the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament; and that these are faithful records can be known only by ascertaining that they are genuine, that they are the writings of the persons whose names they bear, or to whom they are ascribed. This is the first step, and it leads to a proof of their authenticity. Let me request your attention to the difference between these two words, which are sometimes confounded. When we call a writing genuine, we mean that it is really the composition of the person whom it claims as its author; when we call it authentic, we mean that its contents are true, that it possesses authority to command belief. These qualities are by no means inseparable. A book may be genuine which is not authentic, because it is a mere assemblage of fictions and falsehoods. On the other hand, a book may be authentic, that is, may contain information on which dependence should be placed, although it was written by a different person from its reputed author. But genuineness and authenticity are inseparably connected in the case of the sacred writings; for if we can show that they were written by the persons whose names they bear, it follows that they are worthy of credit; because, had their contents not been true, they would not have been received, as in fact they were, by those to whom they were addressed. The necessity of ascertaining the genuineness of the Scriptures will be manifest upon reflection. They relate miracles; but how do we know that the miracles were actually performed? This is one argument in favour of them, that the books were published at the time of the miracles, and were then received; for it is evident, that, if the miracles had not been really wrought, the narrative would have been rejected as fabulous. It is only on the supposition of their genuineness, that we can believe their report of supernatural facts to be true. They contain prophecies; but, whether these are to be considered as true predictions, can be determined only by the fact, that the books were written prior to the events which they profess to foretell. You see, then, the reason why, in endeavouring to demonstrate the truth of our religion, we begin with an examination of its records. I shall consider them in the order of publication. I begin with those of the Old Testament. That they existed in the state in which we now find them, in the days of our Saviour and his immediate followers, is evident from his references to them under the titles of the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms; and from the numerous quotations from them by the evangelists and apostles. Among the Jews, the Law signified the five books of Moses; and the Prophets and Holy Writings, or, as they were sometimes called, the Psalms, because this was the first or principal book in this division, comprehended all the rest. We have also the testimony of Josephus,* who wrote in the first century, and informs us, that the Jews had twenty-two sacred books; five of Moses, thirteen of the Prophets, and four containing hymns and moral precepts. You might think, in counting the books, that Josephus has omitted some of them, because you find that there are actually thirty-nine: it is therefore proper to inform you, that the Jews made an arrangement corresponding to their alphabet, which contained only twentytwo letters, and reduced the Sacred Writings to the same number, by making a single book of the twelve minor Prophets, a single book of the Prophecies and Lamentations of Jeremiah; and by joining in one the two books of Samuel, the two books of Kings, the two books of Chronicles, the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, and the books of Judges and Ruth. By a small change in the classification, the modern Jews have made the number twenty-four. Having found the Jewish Scriptures in the days of our Saviour, we can trace them two or three hundred years back to the time when they were translated into Greek. The version is known by the name of the Septuagint, because it has been supposed to be the work of seventy or seventy-two interpreters, who came for this purpose from Judea to Egypt at the request of Ptolemy Philadelphus. Many strange stories have been circulated about it; and in particular, Justin Martyr relates that they were shut up in separate cells, where each made a translation; that when the translations were compared, they were found to agree to a tittle, and that Ptolemy being convinced, as well he might, that they were supernaturally assisted, held them in high honour, and having bountifully rewarded them, sent them back to their own country. The story is now exploded as fabulous; and it is wonderful that it was ever believed. No man who has read the translation can suppose that the authors were inspired. It is full of mistakes and errors, deviates widely from the original in many instances, and sometimes presents passages which it would require an oracle to explain. Its true history is obscure. It is not certain that even the Pentateuch was translated by the order of Ptolemy. It is probable that it was undertaken by the Jews in Egypt, who, not understanding Hebrew, were anxious to have the Scriptures in the vernacular tongue; and that the five books of Moses having been turned into Greek, to be used in the synagogues, where the law was read once a year, the other books were added at different times. The purpose for which I have referred to this translation is, to show that at the time when it was made, the Jews possessed the same books which they still acknowledge as divine. I am not aware that any information respecting them can be derived from any foreign source, at a period more remote. I presume, however, that it will not be denied that they existed in the days of Ezra, about whose time the canon was completed by the writings of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. Joseph. cont. Apion. lib. i. If we will not believe the Jews, when they tell us that the books are inspired, we surely may believe them when they affirm, on the faith of uninterrupted tradition, that they were in being at the termination of the Babylonian captivity. As we are certain that their religion was then observed with all its forms and institutions, we cannot doubt that they possessed the law upon which the whole ritual is founded. We may rest in this conclusion with the more confidence, as no person has ventured to suggest that the books were forged after that period. I have said that they then possessed the Law; and in what follows, I shall direct your attention to the books of Moses. If we may give credit to the historical books of the Old Testament, merely as a narrative of facts, as containing the annals of the nation,—and there is no more reason for calling in question their credibility than those of other national records,-we shall be able to trace back the law of Moses within a few years after his death. In the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, there are numerous references to it, and it was publicly read in their days in an assembly of the people. During the time of the captivity, express mention is made of it by Daniel in his solemn prayer and confession, recorded in the ninth chapter of his prophecies;* and such mention, as being incidental, carries irresistible evidence of its existence. During the reign of Josiah, not long before the captivity, a copy was found in the temple ;t and from the attention which it excited, and the impression made by its contents, it is probable that it was the autograph of Moses, the identical copy written with his own hands, which was deposited in the tabernacle. We can trace it in the reign of Hezekiah, when all things were done "according to the law of Moses the man of God:"‡ in the reign of Jehosaphat, who sent judges through the land, who had "the book of the law of the Lord with them," and "taught the people:" in the reigns of David and Solomon, for we find the former before his death charging the latter "to keep the statutes and commandments, the judgments and testimonies of the Lord, as it is written in the law of Moses."§ During the succession of judges, this law was the rule according to which they governed the people; and this was the charge of Joshua to the Israelites, "Be ye very courageous to keep and do all that is written in the book of the law of Moses, that ye turn not aside therefrom to the right hand or to the left." Unless the whole history of the Israelites be rejected as a forgery, and on better ground we might reject the history of the Greeks and Romans,-the repeated references which are made to the law of Moses, plainly with no design but to appeal to it as the law of the land, furnish sufficient evidence that it existed, not as a tradition, but in writing, from his own time down to the close of the Old Testament Scriptures. Let not the evidence be deemed defective because we cannot produce testimonies that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch from contemporary writers. If there were any at that remote period, their works and their memory have perished. "The Jews, as a nation," says Sumner, in his Treatise on the Records of the Creation, "were always in obscurity, the certain consequence, not only of their situation, but of the peculiar constitution and jealous nature of their government. Can it then reasonably be expected that we should obtain positive testimony concerning this small and insulated nation from foreign historians, when the most ancient of these, whose works remain, lived more than a thousand years posterior to Moses? Can we look for it from the Greeks, when Thucydides has declared that even respecting his own countrymen he could procure no authentic record prior to the Trojan war? or from the Romans, who had scarcely begun to be a people when the Verses 11 and 13. 2 Kings xxii. 8. § 1 Kings ii. 3. 2 Chron. xxx. 16. empire of Jerusalem was destroyed and the whole nation reduced to captivity?"* Such profane testimony as be can produced serves only to show what was the prevailing opinion among heathens; and when we find them not only recording many of the facts in the narrative of Moses, but speaking of him by name, and referring to his law, we conclude that no doubt was entertained that he was the lawgiver of the Jews, or that his writings were genuine. Diodorus Siculus, Strabo, Tacitus, Juvenal, and Longinus make mention of him and his writings, in the same manner as we appeal to Cicero and his works. It is the interest of infidels to bring into doubt the genuineness of the Pentateuch but, having no solid argument to advance, they endeavour to gain their end by assertions, conjectures, and cavils. We can easily see the design with which such men as Hobbes and Spinoza have maintained that the books commonly ascribed to Moses are called his, not because they were written by him, but because they treat of him and his actions. But this opinion has been adopted by some professed Christians, and particularly by two persons well known to theological scholars, the celebrated critic Father Simon, and the not less celebrated Le Clerc. But while they agree in denying that the Pentateuch is the genuine work of Moses, they differ in the grounds of their opinion, and Le Clerc labours to prove that the arguments of Simon are false. His own views of the subject were truly singular. He supposed that the Pentateuch was drawn up by the priest who was sent from Babylon to instruct, in the manner of the god of the land, the new inhabitants whom the king of Assyria had planted in the room of the Israelites; and that with a view to reclaim these from idolatry, he undertook to give them a history of the creation and of the Jews to the giving of the law; from which it would appear that there was only one God, and that it was he whom the Israelites worshipped. The priests in Jerusalem, he adds, would approve of the work, finding nothing in it but what was pious and true; and the Samaritans would receive it, because it came from a person whom they did not suspect. hypothesis has the character of boldness, but I do not see that there is any other quality to recommend it. It is conjectural, improbable, and contrary, not only to the uniform belief of the whole Jewish nation, but also to the testimony of inspiration. He endeavours to support it by an induction of particulars collected from the books which he pretends to be of such a nature that they could not have been written by Moses himself, and therefore prove that the books are falsely ascribed to him. To this objection a satisfactory answer has been returned by different authors, and particularly by Witsius, in the fourteenth chapter of the first book of his Dissertation de Prophetis et Prophelia. It is easy to show that some of the particulars might have been written by Moses, and that others which betray a later hand might have been added for illustration when places had changed their names, and certain facts had ceased to be known. "A small addition to a book," it has been observed, "does not destroy either the genuineness or the authenticity of the whole book."† It is probable that Clericus hastily adopted this opinion; it is certain that on mature reflection, he renounced it,‡ and acquiesced in the common belief of Jews and Christians, which is confirmed by the testimony of our Lord and his apostles, that the first five books of the Bible were written by Moses. This In corroboration of the historical evidence, we may establish the point by reasoning founded on the circumstances of the case. When we affirm that the writings of Moses are genuine, he who denies the assertion is bound to assign his reasons for dissenting from the common opinion. If, however, he shall devolve on us the burden of proof, we would ask him, Since you allege Vol. i. p. 32. D |