THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE SCRIPTURE.

Thames Star, Volume XI, Issue 3643, 30 August 1880, Page 2

THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE SCRIPTURE.

(To the Editor of the ETOHINO STAB.) Sib, —When any subject is involved in doubt it is said to be an uncertainty—when all doubt is removed it is said to be certainty. The above subject thus considered, must be placed in the first category. It mast be allowed by all that the writings in the public papers, since my last tend rather to strengthen than to weaken the arguments against the authenticity of the scriptures. Mr taiahley has merely reproduced old reasons and exploded arguments to sustf >n his position, the weakness of which is conspicuously exposed by corelating the question to the authenticity of Cesar's Commentaries, to which a full answer will be found in my last letter to you when replying to another of your correspondents. It will no doubt be a matter of great surprise to all your readers that a comparison should be drawn or a parallel instituted between a divinely \ inspired book and that of a heathen. Dp to the present time all the enquiries for and against the authenticity have been based upon external evidence. Contemporary history, tradition; and modern criticism have been pretty freely and fairly used on «aph Bide, and your columns might be filled with similar arguments and quotations for twelve months; leaving the question where it now stands. From tradition I suppose comes the statements as to 10,000 copies of the gospel being circulated in the first and second centuries,

do basis being offered for such an esti-

mate. Tradition is a dangerous authority to trust to implicitly, it can be proved to change according, to diversities of countries and the condition of men —I do not know upon what authority Mr Laishley founds his state* ment as to " sceptical theory." I did not know that there was any creed amongst doubters —neither is there, as far as I know, any recognised association or organization amongst them. They spring up spontaneously from the people of thoughtful and enquiring minds, and tbey have no settled plan of action, either to destroy or build up any church or institution. Their object is simply the discovery and maintenance of truth in all things. Christians of all denominations should be slow to complain of attempts to destroy the faith and beliefs of others, seeing the vast system of machinery that they set in motion to convert, as they say, the heathen, and the great sums of money they spend to obtain even one proselyte. Whether what they offer to them is better than their old faith is, however, a moot point. Old superstitions die hard. The position of the sceptic and that of the orthodox is represented relatively to-day by Galileo and the Pope of Rome in 1642. If all the evidence for and against the authenticity of the Scriptures could be fairly adjusted, I believe that a considerable — balance would appear in favor of their * non-authenticity; but whether this is or is not so, would it not be wiser, better, and more convincing to test their authenticity by internal evidence. This has only been done in these late arguments by slight allusions and indirect admissions, but as Mr Laishley and other correspondents seems clearly to maintain that the credibility ef the Scriptures rests upon . the mirasles and other doings and sayings - of Christ, surely the internal evidence will afford the best and severest test. This even in the case of heathen or secular writings is generally the most conclusive means of examination, but in a divinely inspired book, which cannot in any particular of word or fact, or in any respect whatever be in error, surely an internal test must prove overwhelmingly conclusive. If the character of a teacher sent from God attributed to Christ, is correct, he would give to his people, or rather to the whole world a statement of duties, doctrines, and will. As an eternally requiring monarch, he would enact laws for eternal government. In his office of Saviour he would make known to all men all over the world the terras of salvation! otherwise his different offices would have been in vain. Now, seeing that writing is so perishable and destructible, so liable to loss, interpolation, alteration, interlineation, forgery, fraud, and even total loss, and that language is constantly undergoing such changes, so that in time, words shall comei to mean the exact opposite of their present significationi; and remembering too that some of the inspired writings have actually been lost, see 2 Thess. ii., 5 and 6, is it not surprising that an All-wise, All-perfect Power should select such an imperfect medium to communicate his will towards men. The scriptures indeed confirm this view, for they say that, Christ did and taught many things which have not been preserved. "He taught the multitude by the sea "-—Mark ii., 13.; beyond Jordan—Mark i.-jj in the Synagogues of Galilee — Luke xiv., 15.,; at Nazareth, 22v., Caperueura, 31v.; out of Simon's ship—Luke v., 3., and very often in the TempleJohn vii., 14, viii, 2. Ho interpreted to the two disciples going to Emmaus throughout all the Scriptures the things concerning . himself—Luke, xxv., 27. He discovered to his disciples after his resurrection touching the things of the Kingdom of God—Apts i., 3. And St. John says there are exceeding many miracles and sermons which Jesus did that are not—xxii, 30. Passing over, however, the difficulty of believing that an all-perfect God would commit his Laws and a record of his Acts and words to an imperfect medium, I will endeavor to test the credibility of the Gospels by considering the account they give of the two first circumstances concerning Christ. It would be indecorous to diseussin your paper the narration and credibility of the miraculous conception and birth of Christ. I will only observe in reference of that subject that Grecian and Italian mythology, as also the superstitions of India, afford many precedents of miraculously born sons of God. It will be found that the genealogies differ, but it is said " that Matthew's is that of Joseph, and. Luke's, Mary. If so why do they agree until brought to David?—but they do agree and contradict each other too. In my next I purpose showing that neither time or place of birth is agreed upon, and that the writers disagree upon a subject so important, and upon which no disagreement would be thought possible. I shall, too, point out many other discrepancies which seriously affect the credibility of the Gospels.—l am, &c, Scbftic.