V. Equally satisfactory is the evidence to show that none of the books of the New Testament have at any time been lost. Some learned men, indeed, have imagined that they have found allusions to writings in the New Testament, from which they have been persuaded that Paul wrote several other epistles to the Christian churches besides those we now have: but a little examination of the passages referred to will show that their conjectures have no foundation. 1. Thus in 1 Cor. v. 9. the following words occur-Eyp they are repeated in the books themselves. But in the histori- | may safely live ignorant here, and for which we shall never cal books there was not the same reason for specifying the be responsible hereafter.4 names of their authors; because, in matters of fact which are past, an author may easily be disproved, if he relates what is false concerning his own times, or concerning times of which there are memorials still extant. But the credit of prophecies concerning things which are not to come to pass for a very long time must depend on the mission and authority of the prophet only; and therefore it was necessary that the names of the prophets should be annexed, in order that their predictions might be depended upon, when they were known to be delivered by men, who, by other predictions already fulfilled, had shown themselves to be true prophets. 4. The bare citation of any book in an allowedly canonical writing is not sufficient to prove that such book ever was canonical. If this were to be admitted, we must receive as the word of God, the Greek poems of Aratus, Menander, and Epimenides; for passages are quoted from them by Paul.' Thus, This, which in our version is rendered-I have written to you in an epistle. From this text it has been inferred that Paul had already written to the Corinthians an epistle which is no longer extant, and to which he alludes; while others contend that by Tristan he means only the epistle which he is writing. A third opinion is this, viz. that Paul refers to an epistle which he had written, or begun to write, Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus, he suppressed that, but had not sent; for, on receiving further information from and wrote this, in which he considers the subject more at large. 5. Lastly, we may observe that most of the pieces supposed to be lost are still remaining in the Scriptures, though [i] To the hypothesis, which supposes that Paul wrote a under different appellations; and that such as are not to be former letter which is now lost, there is this formidable objection, found there were never designed for religious instruction, that no such epistle was ever mentioned or cited by any ancient nor are they essential to the salvation of mankind. In il-writer, nor has any one even alluded to its existence, though lustration of this remark, we may adduce the following ex- both the received epistles are perpetually quoted by the fathers amples, which are taken exclusively from the Old Testament. from the earliest period. To which we may add, that the reverence of the first professors of Christianity for the sacred writings, and their care for the preservation of them, were so great, as to render it extremely improbable that a canonical book should be lost. From the third hypothesis the praise of ingenuity cannot be withheld; but as it is a mere conjecture, unsupported by facts, we therefore apprehend that this first Epistle to the Corinthians, and no other, was intended by the Apostle. The grounds on which this opinion rests are as follow: [i] The Book of the Covenant, mentioned in Exod. xxiv. 7., which is supposed to be lost, is not a distinct book from the body of the Jewish laws; for whoever impartially examines that passage will find that the book referred to is nothing else but a collection of such injunctions and exhortations as are expressly laid down in the four preceding chapters. [ii.] The Book of the Wars of the Lord, cited in Num. xxi. 14., and supposed also to be lost, is, in the opinion of an eminent critic, that very record, which, upon the defeat of the Amalekites, Moses was commanded to make as a memorial of it, and to rehearse it in the ears of Joshua. So that it seems to be nothing more than a short account of that victory, together with some directions for Joshua's private use and conduct in the management of the subsequent war, but in no respect whatever dictated by divine inspiration, and consequently no part of the canonical Scriptures. [iii] The Book of Jasher, mentioned in Josh. x. 13., is supposed by some to be the same with the book of Judges, because we find mention therein of the sun's standing still; but the conjecture of Josephus3 seems to be better founded, viz. that it was composed of certain records (kept in a safe place at that time, and afterwards removed into the temple), which contained an account of what happened to the Jews from year to year, and particularly of the sun's standing still, and also directions for the use of the bow (see 2 Sam. .i. 18.), that is, directions for instituting archery and maintaining military exercises. So that this was not the work of an inspired person, but of some common historiographer, who wrote the annals of his own time, and might therefore deserve the name of Jasher, or the upright; because what he wrote was generally deemed a true and authentic account of all the events and occurrences which had then happened. [iv.] Once more, the several books of Solomon, mentioned in 1 Kings iv. 32, 33., were no part of the canonical Scriptures. His Three thousand Proverbs' were perhaps only spoken, not committed to writing. His 'Songs,' which were one thousand and five in number, were in all probability his juvenile compositions; and his universal history of vegetables, and that of animals of all kinds, belonged to philosophy. It was not necessary for every one to be acquainted with them; and though the loss of them (considering the unequalled wisdom conferred upon their author) is to be deplored, yet it is a loss which only the busy investigators of nature have cause to lament. Upon the whole, therefore, we may conclude, that if any books of the Old Testament seem to be wanting in our present canon, they are either such as lie unobserved under other denominations; or they are such as never were accounted canonical, such as contained no points essential to the salvation of man, and consequently such of which we (1.) The expression TM 15 does not mean an epistle, but that which Paul is writing. Thus Tertius, who was Paul's amanuensis, speaking of the Epistle to the Romans, says, "I Tertius, who wrote this epistle (Tv ET50), salute you." (Rom. xvi. 22.) Similar expressions occur in Col. iv. 16. 1 Thess. v. 27. and Thess. iii. 14. (2.) With regard to the word pafa, I wrote, some commentators refer it to what the Apostle had said in verses 5. and 6. of this chapter: but it may also be considered as anticipative of what the Apostle will be found to have written in subsequent parts of this epistle, viz. in vi. 13., again in v. 18., and also in vii. 2. It is probable, therefore, that Paul, on reading over this letter after he had finished it, might add the expression in verse 9., and take notice of what he says afterwards, "I have (says he) written to you in this epistle," viz. in some of the following chapters, against fornication, and joining yourselves to persons addicted to that sin. (3.) The word fa, however, is not necessarily to be understood in the past tense. There are nearly one hundred instances in the New Testament in which the past is put for the present tense. Thus, in John iv. 38., Jesus Christ, speaking of the mission of the apostles, says, auλa, I sent you, though it had not yet taken place. A more material example occurs in a subsequent chapter of this very epistle (ix. 15.), where Paul uses pf in the sense of yeaça, I write. Neither (says he) have I written these things, that is, at this time, in this epistle which I am now writing. In the passage now under consideration, therefore, the expression gafa μ TN ETTISOLN, is equivalent to grow iw, I write unto you in this epistle, not to associate with fornicators: and that this view of the passage is correct, is evident from v. 11. of this chapter, which is only a repetition of v. 9. Nu se gata, Now I write unto you. The adverb wow, now, shows that it is spoken of the present time, though the verb be in the past tense. The following, then, is the plain sense of the text and context: "I write unto you," says the Apostle, "in this my letter, not to associate (literally, be mingled) with fornicators, yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then indeed ye Edwards's Discourse concerning the Authority, Style, and Perfection of the Old and New Testament, vol. iii. pp. 451-463. Jenkins's Reasonablethe Canon of the New Testament, vol. i. ness and Certainty of the Christian Religion, vol. ii. pp. 95-97. Jones on pp. 130-135. This observation is so applicable to the epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, which is extant in the Armenian tongue, that any further notice of that pseudo-epistle is unnecessary. The curious reader may find an Aratus is cited in Acts xvii. 28.; Menander in I Cor. xv. 33.; and Epi- English translation of it, as also of a pretended epistle of Paul to the Co menides in Titus i. 12. Dr. Lightfoot. Joseph. Ant. Jud. lib. v. c. 2. H rinthians, accompanied with satisfactory observations to prove their spu riousness, in Jones on the Canon, vol. i. pp. 143–147. must go out of the world (renounce all worldly business what-Timothy, because the Greek subscription to the first epistle to ever, there being so great a multitude of them). But I mean this-that ye should avoid the company of a brother (that is, a professed Christian), if he be given to fornication, covetousness, or idolatry. This is the thing which I at this time write unto you." Timothy is Пges Thμeder gap arо Audinuas. This opinion is defended by Theophylact: but it is undoubtedly false. For it is evident from Col. ii. 1. that Paul had never been at Laodicea, when he wrote his epistle to the Colossians; and if he had, he would not have distinguished an epistle, which he had written there, by the place where it was written, but by the person or community to which it was sent. It was not Paul's custom to Putting all these circumstances together, we conclude that the internal evidence seems to be unfavourable to the hypothesis, that a letter to the Corinthians had preceded that date his epistles; for the subscriptions, which we now find anwhich Paul was now writing. The external evidence is de-nexed to them, were all added at a later period, and by unknown cidedly against such hypothesis. Upon the whole, therefore, persons. If, therefore, he had meant an epistle, which he himwe have no doubt that the two epistles still preserved are the self had written at Laodicea, he certainly would not have deonly epistles which Paul ever addressed to the Corinthians. noted it by the title of san Audinwas. 2. In 2 Cor. x. 9-11. we read as follows: That I may (3.) There remains, therefore, no other possible interpretation not seem as if I would terrify you BY LETTERS. For his LET- of these words, than an "epistle, which the Laodiceans had reTERS, say they, are weighty and powerful, but his bodily pre-ceived from Paul," and which the Colossians were ordered to prosence is weak, and his speech contemptible. Let such an one cure from Laodicea, when they communicated to the Laodiceans think this, that such as we are in word by LETTERS when we are their own epistle. absent, such will we be also in deed when we are present. Hence it has been argued that Paul had already written more than one-even several letters to the Corinthians. But to this it is answered, that it is very common to speak of one epistle in the plural number, as all know; and Paul might well write as he here does, though he had hitherto sent only one epistle to the persons to whom he is writing. And from so long a letter as the first Epistle to the Corinthians is, men might form a good judgment concerning his manner of writing LETTERS, though they had seen no other.2 3. In Col. iv. 16. Paul desires the Colossians to send to Laodicea the epistle which they themselves had received, and to send for another from Laodicea, which was also to be read at Colossæ. His words are these: When this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea —και την εκ Λαοδίκειας ένα και ύμεις αναγνώτε. Now the former part of this verse is clear: but it is not so clear what epistle St. Paul meant by й erisean ex Aucduas. These words have been interpreted three different ways. : (1.) H 150an en Aardmaas has been explained, as denoting an epistle, which had been written from Laodicea to Paul." This epistle has been supposed to have contained several questions, proposed to the apostles by the Laodiceans, which he answered in the epistle to the Colossians; and hence it has been inferred that Paul ordered them to read the former, as being necessary toward a right understanding of the latter. But, as among the epistles of Paul in our own canon, not one is addressed to the Laodiceans in particular, the question again occurs: Which, and where is this epistle? 1. There exists an epistle, which goes by the name of Paul's epistle to the Laodiceans. This, however, is undoubtedly a forgery, though a very ancient one; for Theodoret, who lived in the fifth century, in his note to the passage in question, speaks of it as then extant. But this is manifestly a mere rhapsody, collected from Paul's other epistles, and which no critic can receive as a genuine work of the Apostle. It contains nothing which it was necessary for the Colossians to know, nothing that is not ten times better and more fully explained in the epistle which Paul sent to the Colossians; in short, nothing which could be suitable to Paul's design. 2. As the epistle, therefore, which now goes by the name of the epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans, is a forgery, the Apostle might mean an epistle, which he had sent to the Lao diceans, and which is now lost. An objection, however, to this opinion (namely, that he had sent an epistle to the Laodiceans in particular), may be made from Col. iv. 15., where Paul requests the Colossians to salute Nymphas, who was a Laodicean. If he had written a particular epistle to the Laodiceans he would have saluted Nymphas rather in this epistle, than in that to the Colossians. with the preceding difficulty, namely, that Paul meant an 3. There remains a third explanation, which is not clogged epistle, which he had written partly, but not solely for the use of the Laodiceans. But this opinion is erroneous: for if Paul had received an epistle from Laodicea, the capital of Phrygia, he would have returned the answer to the questions which it contained to LaoThis epistle, in all probability, is that which is called the episdicea itself, and not to a small town in the neighbourhood. Be-tle to the Ephesians; because Laodicea was a church within the sides, there would have been a manifest impropriety in sending circuit of the Ephesian church, which was the metropolitan of all to the Colossians answers to questions, with which they were not Asia. And as Ephesus was the chief city of Proconsular Asia, acquainted, and then, after they had the epistle which contained this epistle may refer to the whole province. the answers, desiring them to read that which contained the questions. (2.) Another opinion is, that Paul meant an epistle which he himself had written at Laodicea, and sent from that place to Michaelis, vol. iv. pp. 62-68. Ferdinandi Stosch, АHOEтOAIKON OAOKAHPON, sive Tractatus Theologicus de Epistolis Apostolorum non deperditis, pp. 75-94. (Groningen, 12mo. 1753.) Rosenmüller, Scholia in N. T. tom. iv. pp. 71, 72. Bishop Middleton on the Greek Article, pp. 469. Dr. Lardner's Works, 8vo. vol. vi. pp. 668–671.; 4to. vol. iii. pp. 468, 469. Dr. John Edwards on the Authority, &c. of Scripture, vol. iii. pp. 467469. Dr. Storr, Opuscula Academica, vol. ii. pp. 279. Jones on the Canon, vol. i. pp. 136-142. 474. Lardner's Works, 8vo. vol. vi. pp. 668.; 4to. vol. iii. pp. 467, 468. The preceding are the most material instances which have afforded occasion for the supposition that Paul wrote epistles which are now lost. There are indeed three or four other examples, which have been conjectured to refer to lost epistles; but as these conjectures are founded on misconceptions of the Apostle's meaning, it is unnecessary to adduce them. We have, therefore, every reason to conclude that NO PART OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IS LOST, and that the canon of Scripture has descended to our times, entire and uncorrupted. Michaelis, vol. iv. pp. 124–127. Edwards on the Perfection, &c. of Scripture, vol. iii pp. 470, 471. Alber. Hermeneutica Novi Testamenti, toin. i. pp. 233, 234. CHAPTER III. ON THE CREDIBILITY OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. SECTION 1. DIRECT EVIDENCES OF THE CREDIBILITY OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. Their Credibility shown, I. From the Writers having a perfect knowledge of the subjects they relate.-II. From the Moral Certainty of Falsehood being detected, if there had been any. This proved at large, 1. Concerning the Old Testament; and, 2. Concerning the New Testament.-III. From the subsistence, to this very day, of Monuments instituted to perpetuate the memory of the principal facts and events therein recorded.-And, IV. From the wonderful Establishment and Propagation of Christianity. SATISFACTORY as the preceding considerations are, in demonstrating the genuineness, authenticity, and uncorrupted preservation of the books of the Old and New Testaments as ancient writings, yet they are not of themselves sufficient to determine their cred bility. An author may write of events which have happened in his time and in the place of his residence, but should he be either eredulous or a fanatic, or should we have reason to suspect his honesty, his evidence is of no value. In order, therefore, to establish the credibility of an author, we must examine more closely into his particular character, and inquire whether he possessed abilities sufficient to scrutinize the truth, and honesty enough faithfully to relate it as it happened. tions there related, as legislator and governor of the Jews. Every thing was done under his eye and cognizance; so that this part of the history, with the exception of the last chapter of Deuteronomy (which was added by a later writer), may, not improperly, be called the history of his life and times. He speaks of himself, it is true, in the third person; but this affords no ground for suspecting either the genuineness of his writings or the credibility of their author. Xenophon, Cæsar, and Josephus write of themselves in the third person; yet no one ever questions the genuineness or credibility of their writings on that account. And for the first book of the Pentateuch, or that of Genesis, we have already seen that he is competent to the relation of every event, and that he had sufficient authority for all the facts therein recorded.2 In like manner, the authors of the subsequent historical books, as Joshua, Samuel, Ezra, and Nehemiah, relate the transactions of which they were witnesses; and where they treat of events prior to their own times, or in which they did not actually participate, they derived their information from ancient coeval and public documents, with such care as frequently to have preserved the very words and phrases of their authorities; and very often they have referred to the public annals which they consulted. Moreover, they pub. That the histories contained in the Old and New Testaments are CREDIBLE; in other words, that there is as great a regard to be paid to them, as is due to other histories of allowed character and reputation, is a FACT, for the truth of which we have as great, if not greater, evidence than can be adduced in behalf of any other history. For the writers of these books had a perfect knowledge of the subjects which they relate, and their moral character, though rigidly tried, was never impeached by their keenest opponents: if there had been any falsehoods in the accounts of such transactions as were public and generally known, they would easily have been detected; and their statements are confirmed by monu-lished their writings in those times when such documents ments subsisting to this very day, as also by the wonderful propagation and establishment of Christianity. I. In the first place, THE WRITERS OF THE BOOKS OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT HAD A PERFECT KNOWLEDGE OF THE SUBJECTS WHICH THEY RELATE; AND THEIR MORAL CHARACTER, THOUGH RIGIDLY TRIED, WAS NEVER IMPEACHED BY THEIR KEENEST OPPONENTS. The authors of these books were, for the most part, contemporary with and eye-witnesses of the facts which they have recorded, and concerning which they had sufficient op: portunity of acquiring full and satisfactory information; and those transactions or things which they did not see, they derived from the most certain evidences, and drew from the purest sources. If a man be deemed incompetent to record any thing but that which he sees, history is altogether useless but a satisfactory degree of certainty is attainable on events, of which we were not eye-witnesses; and no one who reads these pages doubts the signing of Magna Charta, or the battles of Agincourt or Waterloo, any more than if he had stood by and seen the latter fought, and the seals actually affixed to the former. We owe much to the integrity of others; and the mutual confidence, on which society is founded, requires, with justice, our assent to thousands of events which took place long before we were born, or which, if contemporary with ourselves, were transacted at some remote spot on the face of the globe. Who will affirm that Rapin or Hume were incompetent to produce a history, which, making some allowances for human prejudices, is worthy the confidence and the credit of our countrymen? Yet neither the one nor the other was the witness of more than an insignificant portion of his voluminous production. But if, by drawing from pure sources, a man is to be deemed competent to relate facts, of which he was not an eye-witness, then the writers of the Bible, in those particular events of which they were not eyewitnesses, but which they affirm with confidence, are entitled to our credit.1 1. With regard to the authors of the several books of the OLD TESTAMENT, it is evident in the four last books of the Pentateuch, that Moses had a chief concern in all the transac Dr. Collyer's Lectures on Scripture Facts, p. 553. and annals were extant, and might be appealed to by their See pp. 34-36. supra. "If any one having access to the journals of the lords and commons, to the books of the treasury, war office, privy council, and other public documents, should at this day write an history of the reigns of George the first and second, and should publish it without his name, would any man, three or four hundreds or thousands of years hence, question the authority of that book, when he knew that the whole British nation had received it as an authentic book, from the time of its first publication to the age in which he live? This supposition is in point. The books of the Old Testament were composed from the records of the Jewish nation, and they have been received as true by that nation, from the time in which they were written to the present day. Dodsley's Annual Register is an anonymous book, we only know the name of its editor; the New Annual Register is an anonymous book; the Reviews are anonymous books; but do we, or will our posterity, esteem these books as of no authority? On the contrary, they are admit ted at present, and will be received in after-ages, as authoritative records of II. Secondly, IF THERE HAD BEEN ANY FALSEHOODS IN THE ACCOUNTS OF SUCH TRANSACTIONS AS WERE PUBLIC and geneRALLY KNOWN, THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN EASILY detected: FOR THESE ACCOUNTS WERE PUBLISHED AMONG THE PEOPLE WHO WITNessed the events WHICH THE HISTORIANS RELATED. BUT NO SUCH DETECTION Ever was or could be MADE IN THE WRITINGS OF THE AUTHORS OF THE OLD AND NEW TEStaMENTS. 2. In like manner, the writers of the NEW TESTAMENT consequently the circumstantiality of the evange ical historiwere contemporary with the facts which they have recorded, ans establishes their credibility. The same remark is appliand had sufficient means of acquiring correct information cable to the Acts of the Apostles, which, like the Gospels, concerning them. The chief writers of the New Testament were published in the place and among the people where the are Matthew, John, Peter, James, and Jude, all Jews by facts recorded were transacted, and were attested by those birth, and resident at Jerusalem, the scene of the history who opposed Christianity." What shall we do to these men? which they relate. They were all the immediate disciples for that indeed a notable miracle hath been done by them is maniof Jesus Christ, and eye-witnesses of his miracles as well fest to all them that dwell at Jerusalem, AND WE CANNOT DENY as of the wonderful effects produced by his discourses on IT." (Acts iv. 16.) the people. Paul, it is true, was a native of Tarsus, and not among those who had been the friends of Jesus and the eye-witnesses of his actions; but he had lived a long time at Jerusalem, had studied theology under Gamaliel (a Jewish teacher at that time in the highest repute), and diligently employed himself in acquiring a thorough knowledge of the Jewish religion. Mark, it is well known, composed his Gospel under the immediate inspection of Peter, and Luke composed his Gospel and Acts under the immediate inspection of Paul. Their histories, therefore, are of as great authority as if they had been written by the above-mentioned eye-witnesses. It is an extraordinary but singular fact that no history since the commencement of the world has been written by an equal number of contemporary authors. We consider several histories as authentic, though there has not been transmitted to our times any authentic monument in writing, of equal antiquity with those facts of which we are fully persuaded. The history of Alexander, king of Macedon, and conqueror of Asia, is not attested by any contemporary author. And the same remark may be made on the history of Augustus, Tiberius, and others, of which no doubt can be entertained, though it has been written by authors who were not witnesses of the facts therein contained. It is exceedingly rare, when the facts are ancient, to have well circumstantiated proofs of the same date and age. In fact, we cannot charge Moses with having asserted falsehoods in the writings that bear his name, without charging him with being the greatest knave as well as the most wicked impostor that ever lived. The injustice and impossibility of such charges as these (which, however, the impugners of the Scriptures persist in asserting, regardless of the convincing evidence to the contrary) will readily appear from the following considerations : [i.] It is almost incredible that so great an impostor as Moses must have been, if he had asserted such falsehoods, could have given to men so perfect and holy a law as he did; which not only does not allow of the smallest sins, but also condemns every evil thought and every criminal desire. This at least must be conceded, that no impostor has ever yet been seen, who enacted such excellent laws as Moses did. [ii.] As Moses did not impose upon others, so neither was he imposed upon himself; in other words, he was neither an enthusiast (that is, one labouring under the reflex influence of a heated imagination), nor a dupe to the imposition of others. This will be evident from a brief view of his early education and apparent temper of mind. That all the writers of the New Testament were contemporaries with the events which they have related, is manifest from the following considerations. So many facts and circumstances indeed are recorded, that, if the narrative were not true, they might have been easily confuted. The scenes of the most material events are not laid in remote, obscure, Moses was educated in all the learning of Egypt, which counor unfrequented places; the time fixed is not some distant try (we know from profane writers) was at that time the seat age; nor is the account given obscure and general. The of all the learning in the then known world; and though we facts are related as of recent occurrence, some of them as cannot, at this distant period, ascertain all the particulars of having taken place at Jerusalem, then subject to the Roman which that learning consisted, yet we are told that he learned government, and garrisoned by a band of Roman soldiers; arithmetic, geometry, rhythm, harmony, medicine, music, philoothers as having happened at Cæsarea; others, in cities of sophy as taught by hieroglyphics, astronomy, and the whole cirgreat resort in Syria, and elsewhere. The Gospels are a cle of the sciences in which the kings of Egypt were wont to be history of no obscure person. Jesus Christ was a subject instituted. Now the effects of a profound knowledge of philo of universal curiosity: he preached and wrought miracles in sophy are very seldom either enthusiasm or superstition. Such the presence of thousands, and was frequently attended by knowledge, in an age when it was exclusively confined to the great numbers of persons of all ranks and characters. When kings and priests of Egypt, might admirably qualify a man to the high-priest interrogated him concerning his disciples and make dupes of others, but it would have no tendency to make doctrine, he answered, "I spake openly to the world; I ever the possessor himself an enthusiast; though, for the purposes taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews of deception, he might affect to view his own experiments in the always resort, and in secret have I said nothing" (John xviii. light of miraculous interpositions from heaven. Moreover, the 20.); and he appealed to those who had heard him, for the Hebrew legislator was brought up in all the luxury and refinepublicity of his conduct. Both Jews and Gentiles severely ment of a splendid court, which is obviously very far from being scrutinized his character and conduct; and he was ultimately favourable to enthusiasm; and the temper of mind with which put to death publicly, and during a solemn festival, when the he describes himself to have received his commission, was not Jews were assembled at Jerusalem. While the principal that of an enthusiast. The history of past ages shows us that facts, related in the Gospels, were fresh in the memory of an enthusiast sees no difficulties, dangers, or objections, no protheir countrymen, the four evangelists published their seve-babilities of disappointment in any thing he wishes to underral memoirs of the life and death of Jesus Christ. In relating take. With him the conviction of a divine call is sufficient to his miraculous operations, they mention the time, the place, silence every rational argument. But no such precipitate forthe persons concerned, and the names of those whom he wardness or rash confidence is to be traced in the conduct of healed or raised from the dead. They delivered their his- Moses; on the contrary, we may plainly observe in him a very tories to the people among whom he had lived, while that strong degree of reluctance to undertake the office of liberating generation was alive who beheld the scenes which they had the Israelites from their Egyptian bondage. Repeatedly did he described. Now the enemies of Christ and his disciples were request to be excused from the ungrateful task, and start every sufficiently able and willing to detect falsehoods, if there had difficulty and objection which the wit of man can imagine. been any, in these publications: their credit was at stake, and for their own vindication, it was incumbent on those who and that I should bring forth the children of Israel out of First, he asks, Who am I that I should go unto Pharaoh, put him to death, and persecuted his disciples, to contradict their testimony, if any part of it had been false. But no at- Egypt? (Exod. iii. 11.) Next he urges, When I come unto tempt was ever made to contradict or to refute such testimony: the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of on the contrary (as will be shown in a subsequent page), it your fathers hath sent me unto you, and they shall say unto is confirmed by the historical testimony of adversaries, and me, What is his name? What shall I say unto them? (Exod. iii. 13.) Then he objects, Behold, they will not believe me, nor hearken unto my voice; for they will say, The Lord hath not appeared unto thee. (Exod. iv. 1.) Afterwards his plea is, O my Lord, I am not eloquent, neither heretofore, nor since thou hast spoken to thy servant; but I am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue. (Exod. iv. 10.) At length, when all his objections are overruled, he fairly owns his utter dislike of the the civil, military, and literary history of England, and of Europe. So little foundation is there for our being startled by the assertion, 'It is anonymous and without authority." Bp. Watson's Apology, in answer to Paine's Age of Reason, p. 36. 12mo. London, 1820. See the testimonies of Origen, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Papias, in Dr. Lardner's Credibility of the Gospel History, part ii. chapters 38. 27. 22. and 9. See § 2. of the following section. 66 task, and beseeches God to appoint another. O my Lord, send | ference, every one sees the real drift of these elaborate I pray thee by the hand of him whom thou wilt send. (Exod. iv. 13.)" This reluctance is unaccountable on the supposition that Moses was a discontented and impatient enthusiast; but it is perfectly intelligible, if we allow him to have been free from that mental disorder, as the whole of his conduct, together with the sound moral feeling, and the deep political wisdom that pervade his code of laws, proclaim him to have been.' [iii.] It is absolutely incredible that he should have imposed on the Israelites, as true, things that were notoriously false, and of the falsehood of which they could convict him. volumes; every one sees that they are composed in such a way as to excite the highest opinion, not only of their abilities as generals, but also of their justice, generosity, and benevolence, and, in short, of the moral qualities of their respective authors. It evidently appears that they designed to be their own panegyrists; though none but such men could have executed that design in so successful and inoffensive a manner. But, however accomplished these great men were, can we doubt but that many exceptionable steps were taken by them in the affairs they managed? that, on some occasions, their prudence failed them, and their virtue in others? that their counsels and measures were conducted, at times, with too little honesty or too much passion? Yet, in vain shall we look for any thing of this sort in their large and particular histories. There, all is fair, judicious, and well advised; every thing speaks the virtuous man and able commander, and the obnoxious passages are either suppressed, or they are turned in such a way as to do honour to their relators.3 For he relates facts and events which had taken place in the presence of six hundred thousand men, and urges the reality and truth of those facts upon them as motives to believe and obey the new religion, which he introduced among them: Ye KNOW this day, says he, for I speak not unto your children which have not known them; and after relating a number of awful events, he concludes by saying, for your EYES have seen all these great acts of the Lord which he did. (Deut. xi. 2-7.) But now, if we turn to the authors of the Bible, we shall Is it likely that Moses could have established his authority among find no traces of their thus eulogizing themselves. They the Israelites (who on many occasions rebelled against him) by narrate their story unambitiously, and without art. We find relating that he had performed various miracles in their behalf in it no exaggerations of what may be thought praiseworthy previously to their departure from Egypt, and that they had seen in themselves; no oblique encomiums on their own best rivers turned into blood,-frogs filling the houses of the Egyp-qualities or actions; no complacent airs in the recital of what tians, their fields destroyed by hail and locusts,-their lands may reflect honour on their own characters; no studied recovered with darkness, their first-born slain in one night,-the serve and refinement in the turn and language of their hisRed Sea forming a wall for the Israelites, but overwhelming their tory. enemies, a pillar of a cloud and of fire conducting them,manna falling from heaven for their food,―the earth opening and destroying his opponents,-if all these things had been false? The facts and events related by Moses are of such a nature, as precludes the possibility of any imposition; and, by appealing to his adversaries, who witnessed the transactions he records, he has given the world the most incontestable evidences of his veracity as an historian, and also of his divine commission. Indeed, if Moses had not been directed and supported by supernatural aid, and by a divine commission, his attempt to release the Israelitish nation from their servitude in Egypt must have been characterized by no other term than adventurous folly; and all his subsequent proceedings must, in any other view of the fact, be regarded as imprudent and insane.2 [iv.] We cannot conceive for what end, or with what view, Moses could have invented all these things. Was it to acquire glory or riches? he does not appear to have sought either riches or profit. Though he had ample opportunities of aggrandizing his family, he left not to his own children any office of honour or emolument; and, on his decease, he appointed an individual from another tribe to be the general who was to conduct the Israelites into the promised land. On the contrary, his writings are marked by the strictest veracity, candour, and impartiality. More particularly, with respect to MOSES, whom we find mentioned by ancient writers with very high encomiums, we see him taking no advantage of his situation or talents, or placing them in the most advantageous point of view. On the contrary, he takes very particular notice of his own infirmities, as his want of eloquence, and being slow of speech (Exod. iv. 10.); of his impatience (Num. xi. 10.); his unbelief (Num. xx. 12.); his rebelling against the commandment of God, for which he was excluded from entering the promised land (Num. xxvii. 14.); of his great anger (Exod. xi. 8.); and of his being very wroth. (Num. xvi. 5.) He takes notice of his repeated declining of the measures to which he was called, and ascribes the new modelling of the government to Jethro's advice, and not to his own wisdom and policy. In short, he spares neither himself, nor his people, nor their ancestors the patriarchs, nor his own family or relatives. "Of the patriarchs he speaks in such a way as not only did not gratify the vanity of his countrymen, but such as must most severely wound their national pride: he ranks some of their ancestors very high indeed, as worshippers of the true God, and observers of his will, in the midst of a world rapidly degenerating into idolatry; yet there is not one of them (Joseph perhaps excepted) of whom he does not recount many weaknesses, which a zealous partisan would have been careful to suppress; and to If we consider those apologists for themselves, who have many he imputes great crimes, which he never attempts to pallileft us memoirs of their own lives, we shall find in most of ate or disguise. In this point, the advocates of infidelity may them an ambitious display of those moral virtues, by which be appealed to as judges; they dwell upon the weaknesses and they desire to be distinguished: they lose no opportunity of crimes of the patriarchs with great triumph; let them not deny, setting forth the purity of their designs, and the integrity of then, that the Scripture account of them is impartial and true in their practice. The rest may do this with less pomp and all its points, good as well as bad; and we fear not but it will affectation; they may preserve a modesty in the language, be easily proved, that notwithstanding their weaknesses and even and a decent reserve in the air and cast of their narration; crimes, they were upon the whole, and considering the moral still, however, the same purpose is discoverable in all these and religious state of the human mind in that age, characters writers, whether they openly proclaim or nicely suggest and not unworthy of pardon and acceptance with God, and fit instruinsinuate their own importance. When men are actuated by ments for the introduction of the divine dispensations. Of the a strong desire of appearing in the fairest light to others, it Jewish nation in general, the author of the Pentateuch speaks, unavoidably breaks out in some shape or other, and all the indirect ways of address cannot conceal it from the intelli- it may be said, not only impartially, but even severely; he does gent observer. This remark we see exemplified in Xeno- not conceal the weakness and obscurity of their first origin, that phon and Julius Cæsar, two of the most extraordinary per-degrading slavery in Egypt: their frequent murmurings and a Syrian ready to perish was their father;'5 nor their long and sons of the pagan world. They thought fit to record their own acts and achievements, and have done it with that air of neglect and unpretending simplicity, which has been the wonder of mankind. Yet, through all this apparent indif Faber's Hora Mosaicæ, vol. i. pp. 210-224. in which the topics, above briefly noticed, are treated at length with great force of argument. See this argument fully considered and illustrated in M. Du Voisin's Autorité des Livres de Moyse, pp. 157-169.; and in Mr. Bryant's Dissertation on the Divine Mission of Moses, forming the fourth part of his Treatise on the Plagues inflicted upon the Egyptians (pp. 175-274.), London, 1810. 8vo. M. Cellerier has also collected many circumstances in the character and conduct of Moses (some few of which are similar to those above stated), but all of which, taken together, confirm his credibility as a writer, besides affording a strong evidence of his divine mission. De l' Origine Genève, Authentique et Divine de l'Ancien Testament, pp. 181-221. 1826. 12mo. 6 criminal distrust of God, notwithstanding his many interposi- Bp. Hurd's Works, vol. vii. pp. 179. 181. Numb. xiii. and xiv. |