The Grounds of the Christian Faith, Book 2 · Chapter 1
CHAP. I. The certainty of the Writings of Moses.
In order to the proving the truth of Scripture-history, several Hypotheses laid down. The first concerns the reasonableness of preserving the ancient History of the world in some certain Records, from the importance of the things, and the inconveniences of meer tradition or constant Revelation. The second concerns the certainty that the Records under Moses his name, were undoubtedly his. The certainty of a matter of fact enquired into in general, and proved as to this particular by universal consent, and settling a Common-wealth upon his Laws. The impossibility of an Imposture as to the writings of Moses demonstrated. The plea's to the contrary largely answered.
HAving sufficiently demonstrated the want of credibility in the account of ancient Sect. 1.times, given by those Nations who have made the greatest pretence to Learning and Antiquity in the world, we now proceed to evince the credibility and certainty of that account which is given us in sacred Screptures: In order to which I shall premise these following Hypotheses.
It stands to the greatest reason, that an account of things so concerning and remarkable, should not be always left to the Hyp. 1.uncertainty of an oral tradition; but should be timely entred into certain Records, to be preserved to the memory of posterity. For it being of concernment to the world, in order to the establishment of belief as to future things, to be fully setled in the belief that all things past were managed by Divine providence, there must be some certain Records of former ages, or else the mind of man will be perpetually hovering in the greatest uncertainties: Especially where there is such a mutual dependence and concatenation of one thing with another, as there is in all the Scripture-history. For take away but any one of the main foundations of the Mosaical history, all the superstructure will be exceedingly weakened, if it doth not fall quite to the ground. For mans obligation to obedience unto God, doth necessarily suppose his original to be from him; his hearkening to any proposals of favour from God, doth suppose his Apostacy and fall; Gods designing to shew mercy and favour to fallen man, doth suppose that there must be some way whereby the Great Creator must reveal himself as to the conditions on which fallen man may expect a recovery; the revealing of these conditions in such a way whereon a suspicious (because guilty) creature may firmly rely, doth suppose so certain a recording of them, as may be least liable to any suspicion of imposture or deceit. For although nothing else be in its self necessary from God to man, in order to his salvation, but the bare revealing in a certain way the terms on which he must expect it; yet considering the unbounded nature of Divine goodness, respecting not only the good of some particular persons, but of the whole society of mankind, it stands to the greatest reason that such a revelation should be so propounded, as might be with equal certainty conveyed to the community of mankind. Which could not with any such evidence of credibility be done by private and particular revelations (which give satisfaction only to the inward senses of the partakers of them) as by a publick recording of the matters of Divine revelation by such a person who is enabled to give the world all reasonable satisfaction, that what he did was not of any private design of his own head, but that he was deputed to it by no less then Divine authority. And therefore it stands to the highest reason, that where Divine revelation is necessary for the certain requiring of assent, the matter to be believed should have a certain uniform conveyance to mens minds, rather then that perpetually New revelations should be required for the making known of those things; which being once recorded are not lyable to so many impostures as the other way might have been under pretended Revelations. For then men are not put to a continual tryal of every person pretending Divine revelation, as to the evidences which he brings of Divine authority, but the great matters of concernment being already recorded and attested by all rational evidence as to the truth of the things, their minds therein rest satisfied without being under a continual hesitancy, lest the Revelation of one should contradict another.
For supposing that God had left the matters of Divine Sect. 2.revelation unrecorded at all, but left them to be discovered in every age by a spirit of prophecy, by such a multitude as might be sufficient to inform the world of the truth of the things; We cannot but conceive that an innumerable company of croaking Enthusiasts would be continually pretending commissions from heaven, by which the minds of men would be left in continual distraction, because they would have no certain infallible rules given them, whereby to difference the good and evil spirit from each other. But now supposing God to inspire some particular persons, not only to reveal, but to record Divine truths, then what ever evidences can be brought attesting a Divine revelation in them, will likewise prove the undoubted certainty and infallibility of those writings, it being impossible that persons employed by a God of truth should make it their design to impose upon the world; which gives us a rational account, why the wise God did not suffer the History of the world to lye still unrecorded, but made choice of such a person to record it, who gave abundant evidence to the world that he acted no private design, but was peculiarly employed by God himself for the doing of it, as will appear afterwards. Besides, we finde by our former discourse, how lyable the most certain tradition is to be corrupted in progress of time, where there are no standing records, though it were at first delivered by persons of undoubted credit. For we have no reason to doubt, but that the tradition of the old world, the flood and the consequences of it, with the nature and worship of the true God, were at first spread over the greatest part of the world in its first plantations, yet we see how soon for want of certain conveyance, all the antient tradition was corrupted and abused into the greatest Idolatry. Which might be less wondered at, had it been only in those parts which were furthest remote from the seat of those grand transactions; but thus we finde it was even among those families, who had the nearest residence to the place of them, and among those persons who were not far off in a lineal descent from the persons mainly concerned in them; as is most evident in the family out of which Abraham came (who was himself the tenth from Noah) yet of them it is said, that they served other Gods. How unlikely then was it, that this tradition Josh. 24. 2.should be afterwards preserved entire, when the people God had peculiarly chosen to himself, were so mixed among the Aegyptians, and so prone to the Idolatries of the Nations round about them, and that even after God had given them a written Law attested with the greatest miracles? what would they have done then, had they never been brought forth of Aegypt by such signs and wonders, and had no certain records left to preserve the memory of former ages? Thus we see how much it stands to the greatest reason, that so memorable things should be digested into sacred records.
We have as great certainty that Moses was the author of the records going under his name, as we can have of any matter of Sect. 3. Hyp. 2.fact done at so great a distance of time from us. We are to consider that there are two very distinct questions to be thought of concerning a Divine revelation to any person at a considerable distance of time from us; and those are what evidences can be given that the matters recorded are of a true divine revelation; and what evidence we have of the truth of the matter of fact, that such things were recorded by such persons. They who do not carefully distinguish between these two questions, will soon run themselves into an inextricable labyrinth, when they either seek to understand themselves, or explain to others the grounds on which they believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God. The first step in order to which must be the proving the undoubted certainty of the matter of fact, or the truth of the History, that such persons were really existent, and did either do or record the things we speak of: After this, succeeds the other to prove, not only the real existence of the things, but that the persons who recorded the things were assisted by an infallible spirit; then there can be no reason at all to doubt, but those records are the Word of God. The first of these, is, that which at present we enquire after, the certainty of the matter of fact, that the records under the name of Moses were undoubtedly his. And here it will be most unreasonable for any to seek for further evidence and demonstration of it, then the matter to be proved is capable of. But if they should, I suppose we have sufficient reason to demonstrate the folly of such a demand, and that on these accounts.
1. Whoever yet undertook to bring matters of fact into Mathematical demonstrations, or thought he had ground to 1.question the certainty of any thing that was not proved in a Mathematical way to him? Who would ever undertake to prove that Archimedes was kild at Syracuse by any of the demonstrations he was then about? or that Euclide was the undoubted Author of the Geometry under his name? or do men question these things for want of such demonstrations? Yet this is all we at present desire, but the same liberty here which is used in any thing of a like nature.
2. I demand of the person who denyes this moral certainty to be sufficient for an assent, whether he doth question 2.every thing in the world, which he was not present at the doing of himself? If he be peremptorily resolved to believe nothing but what he sees, he is fit for nothing but a voyage to Anticyrae, or to be soundly purged with Hellebore to free him from those cloudy humours that make him suspect the whole world to be an imposture. But we cannot suppose any man so destitute of reason, as …o question the truth of every matter of fact which he doth not see himself; if he doth then firmly believe any thing, there must be supposed sufficient grounds to induce him to such a belief. And then what ground can there be to question the certainty of such things which have as great evidence as any of those things have which he most firmly believes? and this is all we desire from him.
3. Do we not see that the most concerning and weighty 3.actions of mens lives, are built on no other foundation then this moral certainty? yet men do not in the least question the truth of the thing they rely upon: As is most evident in all titles to estates derived from Ancestors, either by donation or purchase: In all trading which goes upon the moral certainty, that there are such places as the Indyes, or France, or Spain, &c. In all journyings, that there is such a place, as that I am going to, and this is the way thither; for these we have but this moral certainty; for the contrary to both these are possible, and the affirmatives are indemonstrable. In eating and drinking there is a possibility of being poisoned by every bit of meat or drop of drink; do we therefore continually doubt, whether we shall be so or no? Chiefly this is seen in all natural affection and piety in Children towards Parents, which undoubtedly suppose the truth of that, which it was impossible they could be witnesses of themselves; viz. their coming out of their Mothers wombs. And doth any one think this sufficient ground to question his mother, because the contrary is impossible to be demonstrated to him? In short, then, either we must destroy all Historical faith out of the world, and believe nothing (though never so much attested) but what we see our selves, or else we must acknowledge, that a moral certainty is a sufficient foundation for an undoubted assent, not such a one cui non potest subesse falsum, but such a one cui non subest dubium, i. e. an assent undoubted, though not infallible. By which we see what little reason the A…heist on one side can have to question the truth of the Scriptures, to the History of it; and what little ground the Papists on the other side have to make a pretence of the necessity of infallibility, as to the proposal of such things where moral certainty is sufficient, that is, to the matter of f…ct.
Which I now come to prove, as to the subject in hand; Sect. 4.viz. that the writings of Moses are undoubtedly his, which I prove by a twofold argument: 1. An universal consent of persons, who were best able to know the truth of the things in question. 2. The setling of a Commonwealth upon the Laws delivered by Moses. 1. The universal Consent of persons most capable of judging in the Case in hand. I know nothing the most scrupulous and inquisitive mind can possibly desire in order to satisfaction, concerning any matter of fact beyond an universal Consent of such persons who have a greater capacity of knowing the truth of it then we can have. And those are all such persons who have lived nearest those times when the things were done, and have best understood the affairs of the times when the things were pretended to be done. Can we possibly conceive, that among the people of the Iews, who were so exceedingly prone to transgress the Law of Moses, and to fall into Idolatry, but if there had been any the least suspition of any falsity or imposture in the writing of Moses, the ringleaders of their revolts would have sufficiently promulged it among them, as the most plausible plea to draw them off from the worship of the true God? Can we think that a Nation and religion so maligned as the Iewish were, could have escaped discovery, if there had been any deceit in it, when so many lay in wait continually to expose them to all Contumelies imaginable? Nay, among themselves in their frequent Apostacies, and occasions given for such a pretence, how comes this to be never heard of, nor in the least questioned, whether the Law was undoubtedly of Moses his writing or no? What an excellent plea would this have been for Ieroboams Calves in Dan and Bethel; for the Samaritans Temple on Mount Gerizim, could any the least suspition have been raised among them, concerning the aut bentickness of the fundamental records of the Iewish Commonwealth? And which is most observable, the Iews who were a people strangely suspitious and incredulous, while they were fed and clothed with miracles, yet could never find ground to question this. Nay, and Moses himself, we plainly see, was hugely envied by many of the Israelites even in the wilderness, as is evident in the Conspiracy of Corah and his complices, and that on this very ground, that he took too much upon him; how unlikely then is it, that amidst so many enemies he should dare to venture any thing into publick records, which was not most undoubtedly true, or undertake to prescribe a Law to oblige the people to posterity? Or that after his own age any thing should come out under his name, which would not be presently detected by the emulato…rs of his glory? What then, is the thing it self incredible? surely not, that Moses should write the records we speak of. Were not they able to understand the truth of it? What? not those, who were in the same age, and conveyed it down by a certain tradition to posterity? Or did not the Israelites all constantly believe it? What? not they, who would sooner part with their lives and fortunes, then admit any variation or alteration as to their Law?
Well, but if we should suppose the whole Iewish Nation Sect. 5.partial to themselves, and that out of honour to the memory of so great a person as Moses, they should attribute their ancient Laws and records to him: Which is all that Infidelity its self can imagine in this Case: Yet this cannot be with any shadow of reason pretended. For,
1. Who were those persons, who did give out this Law to the Iews under Moses his name? Certainly they, who 1.undertake to contradict that which is received by common consent, must bring stronger and clearer evidence then that on which that consent is grounded; or else their exceptions deserve to be rejected with the highest indignation. What proof can be then brought, that not only the Iewish Nation, but the whole Christian world hath been so lamentably befooled to believe those things with an undoubted assent, which are only the contrivances of some cunning men?
2. At what time could these things be contrived? Either while the memory of Moses and his actions were remaining, 2.or afterwards. First, how could it possibly be, when his memory was remaining? for then all things were so fresh in their memories, that it was impossible a thing of this universal nature could be forged of him. If after, then I demand, whether the people had observed the Law of Moses before or no? if not, then they must certainly know it at the time of its promulgation to be counterfeit, for had it been from Moses, it would have been observed before their times; if it was observed before, then either continually down from the time of Moses, or not? If continually down, then it was of Moses his doing, if we suppose him to have had that authority among the people which the objection supposeth; if not, then still the nearer Moses his time, the more difficult such a counterfeiting could be; because the Constitutions which Moses had left among them, would have remained in their memories, whereby they would easily reject all pretences and counterfeits.
3. How can we conceive the Nation of the Iews would have ever embraced such a Law, had it not been of Moses 3.his enacting among them in that state of time when he did? For then the people were in fittest capacity to receive a Law, being grown a great people, and therefore necessary to have Laws; newly delivered from bondage, and therefore wanting Laws of their own; and entring into a setled state of Commonwealth, which was the most proper season of giving Laws.
These considerations make it so clear, that it is almost impossible to conceive the Nation of the Iews could have Sect. 6.their Laws given to them but at the time of their being in the wilderness, before they were setled in Canaan. For suppose we at present, to gratifie so far the objection, that these Laws were brought forth long after the constitution of the government and the national settlement, under Moses his name; how improbable, nay how impossible is it to alter the fundamental Laws of a Nation after long settlement? what confusion of interests doth this bring? what disturbance among all sorts of people, who must be disseised of their rights, and brought to such strange unwonted customs so seemingly against their interests, as many of the Constitutions among the Iews were? For can we imagine, that a people alwayes devoted to their own interest, would after it had been quietly setled in their land, by Constitutions after the custom of other Nations, presently under a pretence of a coppy of Laws found (that were pretended to be given by one in former ages of great esteem, called Moses) throw open all their former inclosures, and part with their former Laws for these of which they have no evidence, but the words of those that told it them? We have a clear instance for this among the Romans; although there were great evidence given of the undoubted certainty, that the books found in Numa's grave by Petilius were his, yet because they were adjudged by the Senate to be against the present Laws, they were without further enquiry adjudged to be burnt. Was not here the greatest likelyhood that might be, that these should have taken place among the Romans, for the great veneration for wisdom which Numa was in among them, and the great evidence that these were certain remainders of his, wherein he gave a true account of the superstitions in use among them? yet lest the state should be unsetled by it, they were prohibited so much as a publick view, when the Praetor had sworn they were against the established Laws. Can we then conceive the Iewish Nation would have embraced so burdensome and ceremonious a Law as Moses's was, had it been brought among them in such a way as the books of Numa, though with all imaginable evidence, that it was undoubtedly his, especially when they were engaged to the observation of some Laws or customs already, by which their Commonwealth had been established? And with all these Laws of Moses seeming so much against the interest and good husbandry of a Nation, as all the neighbour Nations thought, who for that accused them to be an i…le and slothful people, as they judged by their resting wholly one day in seven, the great and many solemn feasts they had, the repairing of all the males to Jerusalem thrice a year; the Sabbatical years, years of Iubilee, &c. These things were apparently against the interest of such a Nation, whose great subsistence was upon pasturage and agriculture. So that it is evident these Laws respected not the outward interest of the Nation, and so could not be the contrivance of any Politicians among them, but did immediately aim at the honour of the God whom they served, for whom they were to part even with their civil interests: The doing of which by a people generally taken notice of for a particular Love of their own concernments, is an impregnable argument these Laws could not take place among them, had they not been given by Moses at the time of their unsettlement, and that their future settlement did depend upon their present observation of them; which is an evidence too that they could be of no less then divine original? Which was more then I was to prove at present.
4. Were not these writings undoubtedly Moses's; Sect. 7.whence should the neighbour Nations about the Iews notwithstanding the hatred of the Iewish religion, retain so venerable an opinion of the Wisdom of Moses? The Aegyptians accounted him one of their Priests (which notes the esteem they had of his learning) as appears by the testimonies produced out of Chaeremon and Man…tho by Iosephus. C. App. l. 1. Bib. l. 1. Geog. 16. De sublim.Diodorus Siculus speaks of him with great respect among the famous Legislatours, and so doth Strabo, who speaks in commendation of the Religion established by him. The testimony of Longinus is sufficiently known, that Moses was no man of any vulgar wit (foreign) Chalcidius calls him sapientissimus Moses (although I must not dissemble that Chalcidius hath been, I think, undeservedly reckoned among heathen writers, though he comments on Plato's Timaeus, V. Vos. de Idol. l. 2. cap. 45.it being most probable that he was a Christian Platonist, which might more probably make Vaninus call him circumforaneum blateronem) but though we exempt Chalcidius out of the number of those Heathens, who have born testimony to the wisdom of Moses, yet there are number enough besides him produced by Iustin Martyr, Cyrill, and V. Grot. An. deverit. rel. Christ. l. 2.others, whose evidence is clear and full to make us undoubtedly believe, that there could never have been so universal and uninterrupted a tradition concerning the writings and Laws of Moses, had they not been certainly his, and conveyed down in a continual succession from his time to our present age. Which will be yet more clear, if we consider in the second place, that the national Constitution and setlement of the Iews, did depend on the truth of the Laws and writings of Moses. Can we have more undoubted evidence, that there were such persons as Solon, Ly…urgus, and Numa, and that the Laws bearing their names were theirs, then the History of the several Commonwealths of Ath…ns, Sparta, and Rome, who were governed by those Laws? When writings are not of general concernment, they may be more easily counterfeited; but when they concern the rights, priviledges, and government of a Nation, there will be enough whose interest will lead them to prevent impostures. It is no easie matter to forge a Magna Charta and to invent Laws; mens caution and prudence is never so quick sighted as in matters which concern their estates and freeholds. The general interest lyes contrary to such impostures, and therefore they will prevent their obtaining among them. Now the Laws of Moses are incorporated into the very Republick of the Iews, and their subsistence and Government depends upon them, their Religion and Laws are so interwoven one with the other, that one cannot be broken off from the other. Their right to their temporal possessions in the land of Canaan depends on their owning the Soveraignty of God who gave them to them; and on the truth of the History recorded by Moses concerning the promises made to the Patriarchs. So that on that account it was impossible those Laws should be counterfeit on which the welfare of a Nation depended, and according to which they were governed ever since they were a Nation. So that I shall now take it to be sufficiently proved, that the writings under the name of Moses were undoubtedly his; for none, who acknowledge the Laws to have been his, can have the face to deny the History, there being so necessary a connexion between them; and the book of Genesis being nothing else but a general and very necessary introduction to that which sollows.