THE SCRIPTURES' CONTROVERSY.

Thames Star, Volume XI, Issue 3637, 23 August 1880, Page 2

THE SCRIPTURES' CONTROVERSY.

(To the Editor of the EvwSHa Stir.)

Si*, —I postponed writing in continuation of this subject under the impression that the lectures/ announced, to be given would so exbaustably deal with the subject as to convince me and others of our errors, and so render further observations unnecessary-—a consummation so devoutly to be wished not having been obtained. I must with your permission return to its consideration.

If this subject is to be discussed for a useful purpose, it must be done in a lowly, humble, considerate, and reverent spirit. We must avoid giving any offence to one another, and to treat each other's thoughts and words with respectful kindness and oandid consideration. I, for my part, object to the terms that some of your correspondents apply to any persons who differ from them on any subject, but more especially upon questions theological. I dispute their right or authority to judge or condemn any man. They do not know what we are, and much less what we or they may be. We see throughout all time that as the old bubbles of superstition burst, new forms of error emerge, while empires pass away eren as a shadow. 1 objeot to be sent to eternal punishment before my time, because I do not believe in it, or because I cannot believe in the doctrine of the immaculate conception, or because I cannot believe the world is coming to an end on or before the year 1887, and order my creed and conduct by by the teaching of. those who assume to be wiser than their neigh bors upon these and kindred subjects. Those who do entertain such opinions have perfect right to enjoy them; but they have no proper right, either human or divine, to condemn those who do not agree with them ; but if they will persist in doing so, and if they will not oondoot enquiries in a respectful and philosophic spirit, they will be treated by the irritable after their own manner, and by the cool and well regulated minds with pity and silence; in either case frustrating useful enquiry. No serious answer has yet been attempted to the numerous questions asked in the public papers as to the authenticity of the scriptures, but muoh calling of names, and abuse instead of answers. As it would be very wrong to treat our opponents in the same way as they treat us, it is desirable to answer the question of your correspondent, as to " What better proofs have they that Csßsar wrote the commentaries ascribed to him than the proofs that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote the simple narratives of our Lord's sayings and doings ?" I am not aware that " these sceptics " have, or that there, any proofs better or otherwise as to the authenticity of Csssar'B commentaries, than there are proofs of the writings attributed to Matthew, Mark, Ac, but it may now ba answered that many, and, most conclusive tests can be affirmatively applied to the question of the authenticity of Caesar's Commentaries, which must be negatively answered when applied to the authenticity, of the Scriptures. The authorship of Casar's Commentaries has never been doubted or questioned. No spurious works of the kind claiming to be his have ever been discovered, or attempted to be palmed off on the world as his. The clear and decisive statement of all contemporaneous historians and many modern authors mention that work as Cesar's work, as also his authorship of other works, poems, : Ac, and several authors quote from those works as being Camr's. The ' works bear on the face the name of the authors. All historians—Roman, Greek, and others—agree as to the authorship. In addition to uncontrolled and uncontra* dieted tradition, all internal evidence affords positive proofs of authorship. Caius Julius C»sar was a man of powerful intellectual qualities. He was a great soldier, a grand orator, a wise statesman, a truthful historian, and a considerable poet; his talents were cultivated under the renowned Apolonius Molo; he held high and important offices under the Roman Government; he travelled exten* sively. There is nothing in the internal evidence of the books to contradict the external evidence of authorship, or to make it appear, even for a moment, im» probable that he was the author. Hit avocations, his studies, his disposition, his experience, everything go to prove him competent to write as he has written. Varro, Cicero, Sallust, Livy, and many other anoieut authors confirm the authen*

ticity of the Commentaries; while, in the* first century, Tacitus and Surtoaius specially confirm it. All modern authors, without exception, ascribe the Commen« Uries to Caesar. Now, as I shall hereafter show at large, the Tory opposite of all this is the case with respect to the authenticity of the Gospels —they have been disputed from the earliest times to the present. The historical contemporaries' evidence, little ■as there is of it, conflict greatly. There is nothing upon the face of the documents to establish their authenticity. Some contemporaries' history condemn! these books an spurious, and as a fact numerous false books treating'of similar subjects are admitted to hare been written, as also other Gospels bearing the name of other Apostles, are mentioned as having existed in the early axes of Christianity. These books are found to contradict themselves: they contain improbable and impossible statements, which are derogatory from and tend to diminish the traditions concerning these four Gospels, which have been and are re* ceived with doubt by some and oontra* dieted by others from the earliest times. If these reasons apply to human works, how much more forciable do they beoome when applied to supernatural or inspired works. The Commentaries of Caesar are never said to be infallible, they may contain errors of various kinds without invaladating the authorships, but this cannot be admitted in a divinely inspised work which cannot be imperfect in any one particular, and yet Clemens Alexandrians, according to Eusebrus 614 says, that " Mark's gospel was revised byJPe^f According to the New Testament Matthew, Mark, and John were Apostles, and eye witnesses of the things they'relate were' with Christ during his ministry, listened to his sermons, witnessed miracles. " They beheld his crucifiotion and asseution and conversed with him afterwards. To them had been given inspiration added to utter* anceand illumination. By these meant they were absolutely- prevented from fal* ling into any error of any kind, either in doctrine or discipline. For the tame reason they could make no. mistake verbal or otherwise, in their speeehesor writings. They were specially promised that words and wisdom should be supplied to them, which no sceptic should be able to resist. And . that "The spirit of the father should speak in them," see Mathew 10th eh. 18th, \ 20th v. Luke, 21st eh., 15th v. An effusion of the Holy Ghost was sent to them which at once enabled them to speak the various languages under heaven: as fluently as if they had been their native tongues. * To them was also given the power of working miracles themselves, and impacting similar power to others to the end; that their teachings and commands might be received everywhere with a submission due to suoh powers; but wherein ancient or modern times has there been any proof of the consummation of such /things amongst themselves P According; to the ' most favorable authorities, these infallible writings require revision, and, as" I shall hereafter snow, these inspired .persons contradict, abuse, dispute, contend And, quarrel with each other. Do any of these, differences or contradictions occur in the commentaries to involve them in the same doubt as to their authenticity. I have written thus far, not in continuation of. the subjest, but to show your correipon* dent that soeptics are not as some be> lieve, unwilling or unable, to answer questions, but, on the contrary; prefer doing so to the best of their ability, in a kind and considerate spirit, rather than by evasions or a presumptuous condemnation of their opponents to everlasting punishment.—l am, &c, - . T .; '. '', ..,.' . '.' "' BCfTTIC. _'"