CHAPTER VI.

RECAPITULATION OF THE EVIDENCES FOR THE TRUTH AND DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES, ETC.

I. Necessity of a Divine Revelation proved.-II. The Genuineness and Authenticity of the Scriptures, considered simply as compositions, established. III. As also their Uncorrupted Preservation. -IV. And their Credibility.-V. Proofs that the Scriptures were written by men divinely inspired.-VI. The Scriptures a perfect Rule of Faith and Morals.-VII. Moral Qualifications for the study of the Scriptures, and in what order they may be read to the greatest advantage.

SUCH are the principal proofs, external and internal, for the genuineness, authenticity, and inspiration of the Holy Scriptures; and when the whole are taken together, every rational and candid inquirer must be convinced that we have every possible evidence for their truth and divine authority, which can be reasonably expected or desired.

I. No one, who believes that there is a God, and that He is a be-, ing of infinite power, wisdom, and knowledge, can reasonably deny that He can, if He thinks fit, make a revelation of himself and of his will to men, in an extraordinary way, different from the discoveries made by men themselves, in the mere natural and ordinary use of their own powers. And as the works of creation prove that He is a being of infinite power and goodness, so we may be assured that He who has given us the power of communicating our ideas to each other, cannot be at a loss for some proper method, by which to make it apparent to his rational creatures, that it is He who speaks to them. To admit the existence of a God, and to deny Him such a power, is a glaring contradiction.

Since it cannot reasonably be denied, that it is possible for God to reveal His Will to mankind, let us in the next place consider, which is most probable and agreeable to the notions we have of Him, whether He should or should not make such a revelation. Now, if any credit be due to the general sense of mankind in every age, we shall scarcely find one, that believed the existence of a God, who did not likewise believe, that some kind of communication subsisted between God and man. This was the foundation of all the religious rites and ceremonies, which every nation pretended to receive from their deities. Hence also the most celebrated legislators of antiquity, as Zoroaster, Minos, Pythagoras, Solon, Lycurgus, and others, all thought it necessary to profess some intercourse with heaven, in order to give the greater sanction to their laws and institutions, notwithstanding many of them were armed with secular power. And, what gave birth and so much importance to the pretended oracles, divinations,

and auguries of antient times, was the conscious sense entertained by : mankind, of their own ignorance, and of their need of a supernatural illumination, as well as the persuasion that the gods had a perpetual intercourse with men, and by various means gave them intelligence of future things.

The probability and desirableness of a divine revelation further appear from this circumstance, that some of the antient philosophers, particularly Socrates and Plato (though they did not believe the pretences to revelation made by their priests,) yet confessed that they stood in need of a divine revelation, to instruct them in matters, which were of the utmost consequence; and expressed their strong expectation, that such a revelation would, at some future time, be vouchsafed, as should dispel the cloud of darkness in which they were involved.

From the preceding remarks and considerations, we are authorised to infer, that a divine revelation is not only probable and desirable, but also absolutely necessary. In fact, without such revelation, the history of past ages has shown, that mere human reason cannot attain to any certain knowledge of God or of his will, of happiness, or of a future state. Contemplate the most polished nations of antiquity; and you will find them plunged in the grossest darkness and barbarism on these subjects. Though the works of nature sufficiently evidence a deity, yet the world made so little use of their reason, that they saw not God, where even by the impressions of himself, he was easy to be found. Ignorance and superstition overspread the world; the antients conceived the parts of nature to be animated by distinct principles, and, in worshipping them, lost sight of the Supreme Being. The number of deities continually increased; the grossest and most sanguinary idolatry prevailed; human sacrifices were universal; the vilest obscenities were practised under the name of religion; and the heathen temples were commonly places of prostitution, from which many of them derived a considerable revenue. All men, indeed, under pain of displeasing the gods, frequented the temples, and offered sacrifices: but the priests made it not their business to teach them virtue. So long as the people were punctual in their attendance on the religious ceremonies of their country, the priests assured them that the gods were propitious, and they looked no further. It cannot therefore excite surprise, that religion was every where distinguished from, and preferred to, virtue; and that a contrary course of thinking and acting proved fatal to the individual who professed it.

If we advert to the doctrines and practices inculcated by the antient philosophers, who professed to teach the knowledge of virtue, we shall find the light of reason enveloped in equal obscurity. There was, indeed, a very small number of these, who were comparatively wise and good men ; who entertained more correct notions of morality and religion, than the rest of mankind: and preserved themselves, to a certain degree, unpolluted from the world. Yet these were never able to effect any considerable change in the prevailing principles and manners of their respective countrymen; their precepts being

delivered to their own immediate pupils, and not to the lower orders of people, who constitute the great mass of society. Further, the moral systems of the philosophers were too refined for the common people about them, indeed, the Stoics gave themselves no trouble, but seem to have considered them as little better than beasts; and even those moral truths, which the philosophers were able to prove and explain to others with sufficient clearness and plainness, they had not sufficient authority to enforce in practice. At the same time, they entertained the most imperfect and erroneous notions relative to the nature of the divine being, his attributes and worship, and the duties and obligations of morality.

Thus, they were ignorant of the true account of the creation of the world, of the origin of evil, and of the cause of the depravity and misery which actually exist among mankind, and which they acknowledged and deplored. Equally ignorant were they of any method, ordained and established by the Almighty, by which a reconciliation could be effected between God and man, and divine mercy could be exercised without the violation of his attribute of justice. They were, moreover, ignorant—at least they taught nothing of divine grace and assistance towards our attainment of virtue and perseverance in it. Their notions of the true nature of happiness were dark and confused and they had dark and imperfect notions of the immortality of the soul, and of the certainty of a future state of rewards and punishments: for, although their poets fancied an elysium and a hell, and mention the appearance of the ghosts of departed men, in a visible form, and as retaining their former shapes in the shades below, yet these were regarded rather as well-contrived restraints for the vulgar, than as articles of their own belief. Consequently, they had no perfect scheme of moral rules for piety and good manners: indeed, they were grossly ignorant of moral duties. Thus we find several sects esteeming revenge not only lawful but praiseworthy; selfmurder, as a proof of a noble mind; and the love of applause, as the greatest incentive to the practice of virtue: at the same time they countenanced, both by arguments and example, the most flagitious practices. Destitute of proper authority to enforce the virtues and duties which they did recommend, they had no motives powerful enough to over-rule strong temptations and corrupt inclinations: their own example, instead of recommending their precepts, tended to counteract them, for it was generally, even in the very best of them, in direct opposition to their doctrines: and the detestable vices to which many of them were addicted, entirely destroyed the efficacy of what they taught.

Lastly, if we advert to the pagan nations of the present age, we learn from the unanimous testimony of navigators and travellers, that they are enveloped in the grossest ignorance and idolatry; and that their religious worship, doctrines, and practices are equally corrupt: yet they also possess the same light of reason which the antient heathens enjoyed. The consideration of all which facts shows, that a divine revelation is not only possible and probable, but also absolutely

necessary to recover mankind out of their universal corruption and degeneracy, and to make known to them the proper object of their belief and worship, as well as their present duties and future expectations.1

But notwithstanding this mass of evidence, especially the confessions made by the most distinguished antient philosophers, of their need of a revelation, it has been contended by the opposers of revelation in modern times, that the book of creation or of nature is the only word of God; that philosophy and right reason are fully sufficient to instruct and preserve men in their duty; and consequently that no divine revelation is necessary. But it is certain that this book of nature is so far from being universally intelligible or convincing, that, though the existence of a God may be known from it, yet very few of the human race have learned even the principles of deism from it. In every age, where the Scriptures have been unknown, almost all men (as we have shown in the preceding pages), have been gross idolaters. How inadequate indeed, this boasted book of nature is, for the purposes of universal instruction, is evident from the fact, that it requires translators, expositors, and preachers, as well as the Bible; but the bulk of mankind have neither time, money, nor inclination, to become astronomers themselves, nor to attend on the lectures of astronomers, supposing them to become preachers. The book of nature is an excellent book, but there are few indeed who understand it, while the Bible instructs the peasant as well as the philosopher in moral and theological knowledge: and the contradictory and discordant speculations of the enemies of divine revelation2 both in religion and morals, only prove that such a revelation (if it had not already been given) is as absolutely necessary now as ever it was.

II. Such a revelation the Scriptures profess to be: but, are we certain, considering them simply as writings professing to be the productions of certain men, that they are genuine, that is, actually written by the persons to whom the different books are ascribed, and whose names they bear, and authentic, that is, that they relate matters of fact as they really happened? The result of an investigation of these important questions is sufficient to satisfy the mind of every reasonable and candid inquirer.

No nation, indeed, in the world, can be more certain of the genuineness and authenticity of any of their public acts and records, which have been preserved with the utmost care, than we are of the genuineness and authenticity of the writings, called the Scriptures, which are now in our hands. For, in the first place, the manner in which they have been transmitted to us, resembles that in which other genuine books and true histories have been conveyed down to posterity, and the most acute adversaries of the Scriptures have never been able to invalidate or to disprove the fact of their being so transmitted

1 The details of evidence, on which the foregoing conclusions are formed, are given in Chap. I. pp. 1-21, supra.

2 See pp.

22-35. supra.

to us.1 Secondly, the language and style of writing, both in the Old and New Testaments, are such as prove them to have been composed at the time and by the persons to whom they are ascribed, and consequently that they are both genuine and authentic. Thirdly, such a multitude of minutely particular circumstances of time, place, persons, &c. is mentioned in the books of the Old and New Testaments as affords a clear and unquestionable proof of their genuineness and authenticity. No forged or false accounts of things superabound thus in peculiarities: in fact no forger would mention so great a number of particulars, since this would be to put into his reader's hands so many criteria by which to detect him; nor could any forger or relater of falsehoods produce such minute details. It is easy to conceive how faithful records, kept from time to time by persons concerned in the transactions, should contain such minute particulars of time, place, persons, &c. But it would be a work of the highest invention, and greatest stretch of genius, to raise from nothing such numberless particulars as are almost every where to be met with in the books of the Old and New Testament; - particulars, the falsehood of which would most assuredly have been detected by the persons most interested in detecting them if they had been forged, but whose acquiescence with them, as well as their obedience to the injunctions contained in these books, are conclusive evidence in favour of their genuineness and authenticity, abundantly sufficient to convince every candid inquirer.3 Fourthly, the moral impossibility of the books of the Old and New Testaments being forgeries is an additional evidence of their genuineness and authenticity for it is impossible to establish forged writings as authentic, in any place where there are persons strongly inclined and well qualified to detect the fraud. If the books of the Old Testament be forgeries, they must have been invented either by Gentiles, by Jews, or by Christians. By the Gentiles they could not have been invented, because they were alike ignorant of the history and sacred rites of the Hebrews, who most unquestionably would never have given their approbation to writings invented by them. It is equally certain that they are not the fabrications of the Jews, because they contain various difficult precepts and laws, and also relate all the idolatries and crimes of that people, and the very severe punishments inflicted on them by God. Now all these discreditable facts would not be comprised in those books if these had been invented by the Jews. And the Christians could not have forged the books of the Old Testament, because these were extant long before the Christian name had any existence.* Equally impossible is it, that the books of the New Testament could

1 For the transmission of the Old Testament, see Chap. II. Sect. I. pp. 41—46.; and for the New Testament, see Sect. II. pp. 68-109.

2 See pp. 46, 47. supra. for the language and style of the Old Testament, and pp. 96-99. for those of the New Testament.

3. See pp. 47-49, supra, for the Old Testament, especially pp. 51-67. for the Pentateuch, against which the efforts of modern unbelievers are chiefly directed, as the surest way to undermine the New Testament; and also pp. 100-109, for the New Testament.

4 See pp. 41-44. supra.