The only other way by which we can suppose the divine | God, and which Christians have received as such, fur.

will to be revealed to man, is that which the Scriptures affirm to have been actually employed; namely, the qualifying of certain individuals to declare that will to others, by infallible signs and evidences that they are authorised and commissioned by God.

But it was not only necessary that a divine revelation should be communicated to mankind, in a way best calculated to accomplish the end proposed, but also that effectual means should be employed, in order to preserve such revelation for the benefit of mankind, and to deliver it down genuine and uncorrupted to posterity. Now we know of no method better calculated for preserving and transmitting a divine revelation, than that of writing; for oral tradition is in its own nature so uncertain and insecure, that a revelation could not really be preserved by such means, without a miracle, without the occasional interposition of Almighty God to renew the memory of it at particular intervals, or his continual assistance and inspiration to keep it always alive and vigorous.

nishes sufficient evidence in support of its claims.—Horne's Introd. vol. i.—Bishop Newton's Works, vol. iv.

Now any candid and reflecting person, when he first directs his attention to this wonderful volume, and notices the awful and authoritative language which it often assumes, the sublimity and importance of the subjects of which it treats, the wonderful events and transactions which it records, and the promises and threatenings which it holds forth, will be naturally impelled to inquire, Is this book what it professes to be, the word of God? Were its various authors instructed and commissioned by God to relate the histories, announce the doctrines, enforce the precepts, predict the events, which are the subjects of their respective books? Were these holy men of God who spake as they were moved by his Spirit, or were they impostors? Or to reduce these inquiries into a methodical form, it will be asked generally, Are the books of the Old and New Testaments (excluding those which are avowedly apocryphal) genuine; that is, actually written by the persons to whom they are ascribed? Are they Writing is a much more secure method of convey-authentic; that is, do they relate matters of fact as they ance than tradition, inasmuch as it is neither so liable to involuntary mistakes, through weakness of memory or understanding, nor so subject to voluntary falsifications, suppressions or additions, either out of malice In discussing these momentous topics, writers on the or design. It is likewise a mode of conveyance evidences of religion generally prove, first, the genuinemore complete and uniform, more general and diffusive. ness, authenticity and inspiration of the New Testament; Farther, experience shows that writing is a method of and having established its divine authority, they thence conveyance more lasting than tradition. Every event infer that of the Old Testament, for if the claims of the or matter of any consequence, we desire to commit to New Testament to be received as a divinely inspired writing. By this, laws are promulgated; by this, arts book, be once admitted, no reasonable doubt can be enterand sciences are propagated; by this, titles and estates tained of the divine inspiration of the Old Testament, are secured. And what do we know of ancient history, because the writers of the New Testament incessantly but those memorials which have been transmitted to us appeal to it as the word of God, and make ample by books and writings? The early accounts of nations quotations from it. This is perhaps the simplest and which tradition has handed down, are so full of fables shortest method, and will be adopted in the introduction and prodigies, that it is impossible to separate truth to the New Testament part of the present work. (See ch. from mere fiction. Tradition passes away like the morn-iii. p. 831). But as it has been the practice of modern ing cloud, but books may live as long as the sun and sceptics, to endeavour to shake the foundations of Chrismoon endure.

Besides, it is certainly more fair and open, more free from suspicion of any fraud or contrivance, to have a religion preserved in writing, there to be read and examined by all, than to have it committed only to a few, to be by them communicated in discourses to others, and so on, from age to age, as we find that no two persons express the same thing exactly in the same manner, nor even the same person at different times.

Hence we conclude that a divine revelation must necessarily be committed to writing, otherwise it cannot be preserved in its purity, or serve mankind as a certain rule of faith, and of life: and we may add, that the importance of the matter, the variety of the subjects, and the design of the institutions, contained in those books which Jews and Christians account to be sacred, are additional reasons why they should be committed to writing.

The necessity of a divine revelation having been shown, as well as the probability, that such a revelation would be given to mankind, and the most effectual mode of communicating and transmitting it, the next point of inquiry which naturally arises is, whether that collection of writings which professes to be a revelation coming from

really happened? Are they inspired; that is, were they written under divine influence and guidance, so as to contain the words of God and not of man ?

tianity, by undermining the authority of the Old Testament; and as their attacks have been particularly directed against the genuineness and credit of the books of Moses, upon which the other ancient Scriptures greatly depend, it is of importance to prove, that the Pentateuch, or five books of Moses, were really written by him, and are of divine authority. And if we can establish the genuineness, authenticity, and inspiration of these books, the genuineness, &c. of the remaining books of the Old Testament will follow as a matter of course, on account of their mutual and immediate dependance; and in this way also, we might prove the truth of the New Testament, because, if the Jewish Scriptures be true, the dispensation which they contain being introductory to that contained in the New Testament, the latter, as it is founded on, and the perfection of the former, must of necessity be true also.

Let it not be supposed that the question, Whether the books of the Old Testament are genuine or spurious, is one of small importance; for if these books were not written by the authors to whom they are ascribed, or nearly in ages to which they are supposed to belong, but on the contrary, were written by authors who lived at a much later period, that is, if they were supposititious or spurious, the history which is related in them would

by no means be worthy of the great credit that is given | sion was first adopted in the Septuagint version, as the to it; the design which pervades these books would have | titles prefixed are of Greek derivation; the Pentateuch been an imposition upon a later age, and the accomplish-was, however, distinguished as five books in the private ment of that design in the New Testament would be alto- copies used by the Jews in the time of Josephus. gether an extraordinary and singular occurrence; the miracles therein recorded to have been anciently performed, would have been the invention of a later age, or natural events would have been metamorphosed into miracles; the prophecies asserted to be contained in those books would have been invented after the historical facts which are narrated in them; and lastly, Jesus Christ and his apostles would have approved and recommended the works of impostors. Hence it is evident of what great importance the question is, Whether these books are genuine. It is also of equal importance, to determine whether they are authentic, or relate matters of fact as they really happened, and in consequence possess authority. For a book may be genuine that is not authentic; a book may be authentic that is not genuine, and many books are both genuine and authentic, which are not inspired. These three characteristics of genuineness, authenticity, and inspiration, can meet no where but in a divine revelation.

The book of Genesis, which may be considered as an introduction to the rest of the Pentateuch, contains the history of 2369 years, according to the common chronology. It commences from the beginning of the world itself, and concludes with the death of the patriarch Joseph. It has received the name of Genesis, because it describes the creation of the world, the generation of man, and of all other creatures. The book of Exodus relates the tyranny of Pharoah, the bondage of the Israelites under him in Egypt, and their miraculous deliverance from this bondage, under Moses, from which circumstance it derives its name. It describes also the entrance of the Israelites into the wilderness of Sinai, the promulgation of the law, and the building of the tabernacle. It comprehends a period of about 145 years. The book of Leviticus has its name from its giving an account of the Jewish service and worship, the offices of the Levites, and the whole Levitical order. It embraces only about the space of a month. The book of Numbers relates several remarkable incidents in the passage of the Israelites through the wilderness. It has its denomination from the numbering of the tribes by Moses, according to the command of God. It records the events of about thirty-eight years. The book of Deuteronomy, which signifies a second law, contains a summary repetition of the moral, ceremonial, and judi

The books of the Old Testament are written in Hebrew, and they are the only writings now extant in that language. The Old Testament, according to our Bibles, consists of thirty-nine books, but among the Jews they formed only twenty-two, which was also the number of letters in their alphabet. They divided these twentytwo books into three classes: the first class consisted of five books, namely, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Num-cial laws, which had before been delivered by Moses, hers and Deuteronomy, which they called the Law; accompanied by certain additions and explanations. the second class consisted of thirteen books, namely, It contains also many exhortations, admonitions, and Joshua, Judges and Ruth, in one book; the two books warnings, addressed to the Israelites, with the view of inof Samuel, of Kings, and of Chronicles, respectively, citing them to obedience. The period of time comprised in single books; Ezra and Nehemiah in one book; in this book is, according to some, five lunar weeks, and Esther, Job, Isaiah, the two books of Jeremiah, in one; according to others, about two months. The first arguEzekiel, Daniel, and the twelve minor prophets, in one ment to be adduced in favour of the genuineness of the book; these thirteen books they called 'The Prophets;' Pentateuch, is the universal concurrence of all antiquity. the third class consisted of the four remaining books, The rival kingdoms of Judah and Israel, the hostile sects namely, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Jews and Samaritans, and every denomination of early of Solomon, which four books the Jews called Chetubim, Christians, received the Pentateuch, as unquestionably and the Greeks Hagiographa, or holy writings; this written by Moses; and we find it mentioned and referred class was also called the Psalms, from the name of the to by many heathen authors, in a manner which plainly first book in it. This threefold division was naturally shows it to have been the general and undisputed opinion suggested by the books themselves; it was used merely in the pagan world that this book was the work of the for convenience, and did not proceed from any opinion Jewish legislator. Nicholaus of Damascus mentions of difference in the authority of the books of the several the deluge, and the resting of the ark upon a high mounclasses. In like manner, the minor prophets were so tain of Armenia, and the preservation of Noah by means called from the brevity of their works, and not from any of the ark, and adds, this might be the man about whom supposed inferiority to the other prophets. The books | Moses the legislator of the Jews wrote, (Joseph. Antiq. are not in all instances arranged in our Bibles, accord-b. i. c. 3.). We are told that Alexander Polyhistor ing to the order of time in which they were written; but mentioned a history of the Jews written by Cleodamus, the book of Genesis was the earliest composition con- which was agreeable to the history of Moses the legistained in the sacred volume, except, as some think, the lator (Ibid. b. i. c. 15). Diodorus Siculus mentions book of Job, and the book of Malachi was certainly the Moses as the legislator of the Jews in three different latest. The five books of Moses, namely, Genesis, Ex-places of his remaining works, and plainly ascribes to odus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, usually distinguished by the name of "The Pentateuch,' from two Greek words pente, five, and teuchos, volume, were originally written in one continued work, and still remain in that form in the public copies read in the Jewish synagogues. It is uncertain when this portion of Scripture was divided into books, but probably the divi

him the laws delivered in the Pentateuch, stating also that they were prescribed by divine authority. Strabo speaks of the description which Moses gave of the deity, and says that he condemned the religious worship of the Egyptians. This statement, though not very accurate, is sufficient to show that he considered the Pentateuch as written by Moses. Both Justin and Tacitus

learned men, as derived from the Jewish scriptures, or from other sources, the credit of the Mosaic history will perhaps be equally established, since they quoted from earlier authors.

For, let it be remembered that Josephus appeals to the public records of different nations, and to a great number of books extant in his time, but now lost, as indisputable evidence, in the opinion of the heathen world, for the truth of the most remarkable events related in his history, the earlier periods of which he professes to have taken principally from the Pentateuch. For a more particular account of heathen testimonies in favour of the truth of the Mosaic writings, see Bishop Newton's Works, vol. i.-Stillingfleet's Orig. Sac.-Marsh on the Divine Authority of the Pentateuch.-Faber's Hor. Mos.Bishop Tomline's El. of Christ. Theol.

Of the many traditions which accord with the Mosaic history and which prevailed among the ancient nations, and still exist in several parts of the world, the following must be considered as singularly striking: that the world was formed from rude and shapeless matter by the Spirit of God; that the seventh day was a holy day; that man was created perfect, and had the dominion given him over all the inferior animals; that there had been a golden age, when man in a state of innocence had open intercourse with heaven; that when his nature became corrupt, the earth itself underwent a change, that sacrifice was necessary to appease the offended gods; that there was an evil spirit continually endeavouring to injure man and thwart the designs of the good spirit, but that he should at last be finally subdued, and universal happiness restored through the intercession of a Mediator; that the life of man, during the first ages of the world, was of great length; that there were ten generations previous to the general deluge; that only eight persons were saved out of the flood, in an ark, by the interposition of the Deity: these, and many other similar traditions, are related to have been prevalent in the ancient world, by Egyptian, Phoenician, Greek and Roman authors.-See Stillingfleet's Orig. Sac.-Maurice's Hist. of India, and Horne's Introd. vol. i.

seas to the extreme Gades, to their original, and recorded at once the period and occasion of their dispersion.'-History of Hindostan, vol. i.

This fact, and the conclusions from it, which are thus incontrovertibly established by the lately acquired knowledge of the Sanscrit language, were contended for and strongly enforced by Bochart and Stillingfleet, who could only refer to oriental opinion and traditions, as they came to them through the medium of Grecian interpretation. To the late excellent and learned Sir W. Jones, we are chiefly indebted for the light recently thrown from the east upon this important subject. The result of his laborious inquiries into the chronology, history, mythology, and languages of the nations, whence infidels have long derived their most formidable objections, was a full conviction that neither accident nor ingenuity could account for the very numerous instances of similar traditions and near coincidences, in the names of persons and places which are to be found in the Bible, and in ancient monuments of eastern literature.-Asiatic Researches, and Maurice's History, vol. i. Whoever, indeed, is acquainted with the writings of Bryant and Maurice, and with the Asiatic Researches, cannot but have observed, that the accounts of the creation, the fall, the deluge, and the dispersion of mankind, recorded by the nations upon the vast continent of Asia, bear a strong resemblance to each other and to the narration in the sacred history, and evidently contain the fragments of one original truth, which was broken by the dispersion of the patriarchal families, and corrupted by length of time, by allegory, and idolatry. From this universal concurrence on this head, one of these things is necessarily true: either that all the traditions must have been taken from the author of the book of Genesis, or that the author of the book of Genesis made up his history from some or all of such traditions as were already extant; or lastly, that he received his knowledge of past events by revelation. Were then all these traditions taken from the Mosaic history? It has been shown by Sir W. Jones and Maurice, that they were received too generally and too early to make this supposition even possible; for they existed in different parts of the world in the very age when Moses lived. Was the Mosiac history composed from the traditions then existing? It is certain that the Chaldeans, the Persians, the most ancient inhabitants of India, and the Egyptians, all possessed the same story; but they had, by the time of Moses, wrapped up in their own mysteries, and disguised it by their own fanciful conceits: and surely no rational mind can believe, that if Moses had been acquainted with all the mystic fables of the East as well as of Egypt, he could out of such an endless variety of obscure allegory, by the power of human sagacity alone, have discovered the real origin; much less, that from a partial knowledge of some of them, he could have been able to discover the facts which suit and explain them all.* His

It is no small satisfaction to the friends of revealed religion, that this argument has of late years received great additional strength, from the discovery of an almost corresponding tradition, traced up among the nations whose records have been the best preserved, to times even prior to the age of Moses. The treasures of oriental learning which Maurice collected with so much industry, and explained with so much judgment, in his History and Antiquities of India, supply abundance of incontrovertible evidence for the existence of opinions in the early ages of the world, which perfectly agree with the leading articles of our faith, as well as with the principal events related in the Pentateuch. In one passage he says, 'Whether the reader will allow or not the inspiration of the sacred writer, his mind, on the perusal, must be struck with one very remarkable fact, namely, that the names which are assigned by Moses to eastern countries It is highly probable, as will be shown afterwards, that both and cities, derived to them immediately from the patri- the facts recorded in the book of Genesis from tradition; that Moses and the Israelites had acquired a knowledge of many of archs, their original founders, are for the most part the very Noah was acquainted with the principal events and transactions names by which they were anciently known over all the relative to Antediluvian times; and that these were transmitted east, many of them were afterwards translated, with little by his son Shem to Abraham, from whom they passed to the variation, by the Greeks, in their systems of Geography.could not have been compiled from materials drawn from these other patriarchs. Still, it is evident that the book of Genesis Moses bas traced, in one short chapter, (Gen. x.) all the traditi mary sources; much less from the corrupted traditions inhabitants of the earth, from the Caspian and Persian here alluded to.

the least ground or pretence for it.-Bp. Tomline's Christ. Theol. part i. ch. 1.—Bp. Newton's Works, vol. i. dissert. I.—Grave's Lect. on the Pent.

It may be observed that we have the strongest possible

admitted the Pentateuch to have been written by Moses. Pliny the elder mentions a system of magic,' as he calls it, which was derived from Moses. Juvenal the satirist speaks of the volume of the law written by Moses. Galen makes a reference to the book of Genesis. Nu-negative testimony to the authenticity of the Mosaic menius, a Pythagorean philosopher of the second century, says that Plato borrowed from the writings of Moses his doctrines concerning the existence of a God, and the creation of the world. Longinus, in his treatise on the sublime, says "so likewise the Jewish legislator, who was no ordinary person, having conceived a just idea of the power of God, has nobly expressed it in the beginning of his laws, And God said,'-What? Let there be light, and light was. Let the earth be, and the earth was.'" Porphyry, one of the most acute and learned enemies of Christianity, admitted the genuineness of the Pentateuch, and acknowledged that Moses was prior to the Phoenician Sanchoniathon, who lived before the Trojan war; he even contended for the truth of Sancho- | niathon's account of the Jews from its concidence with the Mosaic history. Nor was the genuineness of the Pentateuch denied by any of the numerous writers against the gospel in the first four centuries, although the Christian fathers constantly appealed to the history and prophecies of the Old Testament, in support of the divine origin of the doctrines which they taught.

history. The laborious Whiston asserts, and in support of his assertion appeals to a similar declaration of the learned Grotius, That there does not appear in the genuine records of mankind belonging to ancient times, any testimonies that contradict those produced from the Old Testament; and that it may be confidently affirmed there are no such to be found.'-Grot. b. iii. sect. 13, 14, 16.-Whist. Joseph. We are not however confined to negative testimony; for it would be easy to bring forward evidence almost amounting to demonstration, to prove the positive agreement of antiquity with the narrative of the sacred historian; but we can only men- | tion briefly some of the leading facts, concerning which the most ancient historians and earliest traditions very remarkably coincide with the Pentateuch. Thus Manetho, Cheremon, Apollonius, Lysimachus, and many others testify that Moses was the leader of the Jews, as well as the writer of their law, and conducted them from Egypt where they served as slaves. Eupolemus, Artapanus, Strabo, Trogus Pompeius, Chalcidius, and Juvenal speak of Moses as the author of a volume To this testimony from profane authors may be added which was preserved with great care among the Jews, the positive assertions of the sacred writers both of the by which the worship of images, and eating of swine's Old and New Testament. Moses frequently speaks of flesh, were forbidden, circumcision and the observance himself as directed by God to write the commands which of the sabbath strictly enjoined. Longinus who has he received from him, and to record the events which been already quoted, expressly mentions the account of occurred during his ministry. (See Exod. xvii. 14. xxiv. the creation of the world, as having been written by 4. Num. xxxiii. 2.) And in Deut. xxxi. 9, 24. he speaks Moses the Jewish lawgiver. Diodorus Siculus in his of himself as the writer of the book of the law, in the catalogue of those lawgivers who affected to have remost express terms; and it may safely be asserted, that ceived the plan of their laws from some deity, mentions no person who had forged the Pentateuch, or even Moses as ascribing his to that God whom he calls Jaoh written it in a subsequent age from existing materials, or Jah. And further he speaks of Moses as a man ilwould have inserted such passages, as they must have lustrious for his courage and prudence, who instituted excited inquiry, and have caused the fraud to be de- the Jewish religion and law, divided the Jews into tected. In many subsequent books of the Old Testa- twelve tribes, established the priesthood among them ment, the Pentateuch is repeatedly quoted and referred with a judicial power, &c. Numenius, a Pythagorean, to under the names of The Law,' and The book of held the Jewish scriptures, and especially the books of Moses; and in particular we are told that Joshua read Moses, in such great esteem, that his books are full of all the words of the law, the blessings and cursings, ac- passages quoted from Moses and some of the prophets cording to all that is written in the book of the law; with great reverence. He says, Plato was only Moses there was not a word of all that Moses commanded which speaking Greek,' and affirms that Moses by his prayers Joshua read not before all the congregation of Israel.' brought dreadful calamities upon Egypt. Justin Martyr (Josh. viii. 34, 35.) From which passage it is evident enumerates many poets, historians, and lawgivers, and that the book of the Law, or Pentateuch, existed in the philosophers of Greece, who mention Moses as the time of Joshua, the successor of Moses, and was acknow-leader and prince of the Jewish nation. Berosus and ledged by him. In the New Testament also the writ-Abydenus mention the deluge; Artapanus, Eupolemus, ing of the Law, or Pentateuch, is expressly ascribed to and Abydenus, speak of the tower of Babel; and the Moses. In a variety of passages in the Gospels, Acts, latter of the failure of the attempt to build the tower. and Epistles, Moses is evidently considered as the Diodorus Siculus, Strabo, Tacitus, Pliny, and Solinus, author of the Pentateuch, and every one of the five books give an account of the destruction of Sodom and Gois quoted as written by him. morrah, in the main, agreeable to that of Moses. Berosus, Alexander Polyhistor, and others make express and honourable mention of Abraham and some of his family; and even speak of his interview with Melchisedec.— Gregory's Letters on Christ. Rel. let. v. To this enumeration of testimonies from the remains of early writers in favour of the truth of the Mosaic writings, many others might be added. And whether we consider the information to be found in the later works of

Thus the books of Moses have constantly been received as his, and have been delivered down to us as his by the consent of all ages, by Jews, Heathens, and Christians; nor was their genuineness ever denied or questioned by those whose interest it was to deny it; by any of the Jews in their frequent apostasies, or by the greatest enemies of the Jews, the Samaritans, and they both certainly would have done so, if there had been

|