Page images
PDF
EPUB

the art of forging hiftorical writings, the most difficult of all others, was brought to the greatest perfection all at once, a fuppofition that cannot be admitted. Indeed, there does not appear to have been the leaft fufpicion of the forgery of any books till after the time in which all thofe of the Old Teftament are well known to have been extant. There cannot, therefore, be any reasonable doubt but that the books afcribed not only to Mofes, but those to the prophets Ifaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel, are genuine, except fo far as they may have fuffered by tranfcribers.

The objection of Porphyry to the book of Daniel, that it was written after the time of Antiochus Epiphanes (for which it does not appear that he had any other evidence than the exact fulfilment of fome part of his prophecies in the events) is certainly not to be regarded. It can derive no more weight from the time in which he wrote than if it had been first advanced at this day, because it is only an argument from what appears on the face of the book it felf, which is before us, as it was before him. And at that time

the evidence of the whole Jewish nation,

which had always received that book, and in fact that of the Samaritans too, who, as far as appears, never objected to it, was against him.

It is moreover felf-evident, and indeed never was denied, that the books of the Old Teftament were written by different perfons, and at different times. That any number of them should have been written by the fame perfon, or a combination of persons, and impofed upon a whole nation as written in former times, and by different persons in those times (especially confidering the many ungrateful truths contained in these books), is an hypothefis which no perfon will fay is even poffible. Confequently, the references to particular books from others, may fafely be admitted as an evidence of their genuineness, which is the principal argument for the and the genuinenets, of all other ancient writings. Now it appears from the books of Kings and Chronicles, that Ifaiah lived in the time of Hezekiah, and from the fame that Jeremiah lived at the time of the fiege of Jerufalem by Nebuchadnezzar, which is abundantly evident from his own writings. The narrative part of the book of Jeremiah is remarkably

S 2

age,

markably circumftantial, fo as to render its internal evidence unquestionable. I do not even think it poffible for any person of the leaft degree of judgment in thefe matters to entertain a fufpicion of its being a forgery of a later time. Jeremiah is also mentioned in the book of Daniel. Such too is the internal evidence for the genuinenefs of the book of Ezekiel, who makes mention of Daniel, of that of Daniel too, and of all the other prophetical books, in which there is any mention

of or allufion to hiftorical facts.

A circumftance which adds to the authenticity of the writings of Mofes is, that the folemn customs and religious rites of the Jews, fuch as their public feftivals, and efpecially the obfervance of the paffover, were coeval with them, fo that they, as it were, vouch for each other. The paffover was a folemn cuftom, exprefsly inftituted, in commemoration of the deliverance of the Ifraelites from their bondage in Egypt, and began to be obferved at the very time; fo that, accompanied as it is with the written account. of it, it is the moft authentic of all records. No other event in hiftory is fo fully authenticated as this, except that of the death of Chrift,

Chrift, by a fimilar rite, viz. that of the Lord's Supper.

The early exiftence of the fect of the Samaritans affords a proof that the books of Mofes have not undergone any material alteration from before the time of the Babylonish captivity. If Ezra, who collected the books after that event, had made any material alteration in them, the Samaritans, who were then extremely hoftile to him, and to all who refided and worshipped at Jerufalem, would, no doubt, have expofed it. But in our Saviour's time, they had the fame respect for the books of Mofes that the Jews themselves ever had, and this they have at this very day. It is probable too, that they had the fame respect for the writings of the prophets, though they did not make use of them in their religious worship, and therefore had no copies of them; for they appear (John iv. 25) to have expected a Meffiah, of whom there is no account but in the writings of the prophets.

There is fimilar evidence, internal and external, that the principal books of the New Teftament, by which I mean the hiftorical ones, and also that the epiftles of Paul, were written while the events were recent, and

[blocks in formation]

that they were received as fuch, by thofe who were moft interested in their contents. This was never queftioned by any unbeliever, within feveral hundred years of the time of their publication. It was admitted by Celfus, and the emperor Julian, both of whom wrote against Christianity, and did not even question the truth of the greater part of the miracles recorded in them. And yet Mr. Paine, ignorant of this, afferts, in the second part of his Age of Reason, p. 83, that "there is not "the leaft fhadow of evidence who the per"fons were that wrote the books afcribed to "Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John; that none "of the books of the New Teftament were "written by the men called apofties; and "that there was no fuch book as the New

Teftament till more than three hundred years "after the time that Chrift is faid to have

lived," that is, about the time of Conftantine. On this fuppofition how ftupendous a miracle muft have been the overthrow of heathenifm, and the general reception of Christianity, in the Roman empire at that period. This would have been far more extraordinary than all the miracles recorded in the fcriptures. But to this obvious confe

quence

« PreviousContinue »