It is now my purpose to enter into a more particular consideration of the respective principles and ordinances which constitute the Gospel, or plan of man's salvation.
First in order, both from necessity and because of its importance, is the principle of faith. And following the same method of investigation I adopted at the commencement of this inquiry,viz: defining as clearly as I am able, the meaning of the words and terms used, I come to the question. What is faith? And in answer say that it is an assurance in the mind of the existence and reality of things which one has not seen, or which to him have not been demonstrated. It may be an assurance in the mind of the existence of some Being whom we have not seen, but whose works are visible, and who has been seen by others; or it may be of the transpiring of some event at which we were not present, but of which others bear witness; or it may be an assurance of the correctness of certain deductions based upon scientific calculations, though the principles of the science, and the method of dealing with them, by which the conclusions are reached, we neither understand nor are able to follow; in whatever it may be, that assurance of the mind which accepts as truth those things which one has not seen, and does not know for a certainty from his own experience to be absolutely true, is faith. For example, to bring to our aid the assistance of illustration, few, perhaps none of my readers have ever seen the Lord Jesus Christ; yet the writers of the New Testament bear testimony to the reality of his existence, and relate the circumstances which make up his eventful career. The writers of the Book of Mormon do the same in relation to his labors on the western hemisphere Joseph Smith testifies that, in vision, he saw both Jesus and his Father, in the spring of 1820.[A]Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon bear record that they saw him in February, 1832;[B]and Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith say they saw him in the Kirtland Temple, in April, 1836.[C]These evidences establish an assurance, or faith, in the mind, concerning the existence of Jesus, the Lord.
[Footnote A: Pearl of Great Price, p. 59.]
[Footnote B: Doc. and Cov., sec. 76.]
[Footnote C: Doc. and Cov., sec. 110.]
Again, none of us, and perhaps no one living, was at the battle of Waterloo; yet the fact of that battle taking place is testified to by many historians; no one doubts it, and the evidence in the case is so certain, that one may say he has perfect faith or assurance, approaching almost within the lines of absolute knowledge, that the event transpired—that assurance in the mind is faith.
Still another illustration: Mathematicians claim that they can weigh the earth, and measure the distance between our planet and the sun. One may not be acquainted with the methods of their calculations, or the principles involved in them, yet such is the character and learning of the thoughtful men who make the claim, that we accept their statements and conclusions as true, though we may not be able ourselves to comprehend the science which reveals to them, perhaps to the certainty of demonstration, these facts:—this confidence in their statements—this assurance of the mind, is faith.
Other elements enter into this principle, but at this stage of our investigation, I desire to present the subject in its simple rather than in its complex character.
A step further in the investigation of this principle brings us to the consideration of the facts upon which faith rests, or from which it springs. I think a careful reading of the remarks already made in this chapter will lead the reader to see that faith is based upon evidence, upon testimony. It is the evidence we have in the testimonies of the writers of our Scripture, and the prophets of God to which I have alluded, supported to some extent also by the glorious works of nature, that creates in the mind faith in the existence of God. That Paul held these views, that is, that faith is based upon evidence, is clearly seen in this passage: "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How, then, shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach except they be sent? So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God;"[D]or, in plainer terms— "faith cometh by hearing the word of God."[E]
[Footnote D: Rom. x: 13-17.]
[Footnote E: I understand that such is the rendering of this passage—Rom. x: 17—by the Prophet Joseph.]
Faith is based upon evidence, then, and here I would remark, that the faith will be true or false according as the evidence or testimony is truthful or untruthful. Evidence is to faith what the fountain is to the stream; and as an impure fountain cannot send forth pure streams, so incorrect evidence cannot establish a true or profitable faith.
By way of illustration I borrow the following from the Works of Orson Pratt:
"When Europeans first began their explorations in the New World, the Indians whom they met were much amazed at the power and explosive properties of gun-powder, and asked many questions respecting the manner in which it was produced. The Europeans, taking advantage of the ignorance of the savages, and seeing an opportunity to increase their wealth by the deception, told the Indians that it was the seed of a plant which grew in the lands they had come from, and doubtless it would thrive in their land also. The Indians, of course, believed this statement and purchased the supposed seed, giving in exchange for it large quantities of gold. In implicit faith they carefully planted the supposed seed, and anxiously watched for its sprouting and the appearance of the plant; but it never came. They had faith in the statements made to them by the Europeans, but as these statements were false, and therefore the evidence on which the Indians based their belief untrue, their faith was vain."
Thus must it ever be. Only correct evidence, only truthful testimony can produce fruitful, profitable faith. No matter how sincere one's belief may be in an error, that will not transform the error into truth. The sincere faith of the Indians in what the Europeans had said about the "gun-powder seed" did not make that substance produce a plant yielding gun-powder. And so faith in false doctrines, founded upon false testimony, cannot savor of salvation.
It is also worthy of note, in passing, that the character and intensity of the faith depends largely upon the quality and quantity of the evidence. If a credible witness testifies to any matter of fact, however strange or unusual the fact may be, one would have some degree of faith in it; but if another witness to the fact, equally credible with the first, also testifies to the same thing, one's faith would be greatly increased; and so as the evidence was multiplied the faith would grow, until at last faith would become so perfect that it would pass almost into the domain of knowledge.
So much for faith in general. Now to consider it as a principle of revealed religion. Here it occupies a prominent place. It is the foundation on which religion rests, and the source of all righteousness. In religion, it is in God that faith centers; it is to him that religious faith directs the eyes of man, and bids him hope through Christ to obtain eternal life. And as this is the primary principle in religion, it is my purpose to show from the Scriptures that there is an abundance of evidence which, if carefully considered, will not fail to produce faith in the mind of him who is desirous to know the truth as to the existence of God, the divinity of Christ's mission and the truth of the Gospel.
Before I proceed with that investigation from the Scriptures, however, I think it will be profitable to inquire briefly into the authenticity and credibility of the Scriptures themselves; that is, as to the Jewish Scriptures; for I consider such an inquiry respecting our other Scriptures, the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and the revelations contained in the Pearl of Great Price, as altogether unnecessary here.
The reason that I undertake to devote several chapters to this inquiry, is because some have supposed that the testimony of the Bible respecting God is so far imperfect that it is scarcely reliable. And to the extent of my ability, I desire to check a growing skepticism in relation to the Bible, and therefore will endeavor to prove that not only are the revelations contained in the Bible sufficient to lay a sure foundation for an intelligent belief in God, but that the Bible itself is both authentic and credible. I must ask my readers to remember, however, that this of itself is a subject for a volume, and I can but devote a few pages to it; and therefore ask that too much be not expected.
A word, in passing, on the Bible as a whole, I am of the opinion that a very great many people look upon the Bible as simply one book, one testimony—one witness for God; when in fact it is notonebook, but a collection of books; not one witness for God, but the collected testimony of many witnesses for him.
The word does not come, I am assured on very good authority, from the wordbiblos, as many have supposed; nor does it signifythe bookby way of eminence—the Book of books, but it is a word derived from the Greekbiblia, meaningthe books, and is a term first applied by Chrysostom to denote the collection of small books which constitute the Old and New Testaments; and this term with the prefix "Holy," soon came into general use. This is how the Jewish Scriptures came to be called the Holy Bible; meaning, really, the holy or sacred books. The Bible is made up of sixty-six distinct books, bound together in one volume, and written by about forty different authors. And if each book is not a separate and independent witness for God, it cannot be denied that each author is.
The first of the sacred writers is Moses, whom Bacon calls "God's first pen;" the last is the Apostle John. These two writers, the first and the last, are separated by a period of some two thousand years; and the men who wrote as they were moved upon by the Holy Ghost, in that lapse of time, and whose works have been preserved to us in the Bible, occupied various positions in life, ranging from the grand old war king of Israel, David, and the wise king Solomon, down to the humble shepherd Amos, the despised tax collector Matthew, and Peter, the unlearned fisherman. But whatever the condition of life occupied by these men, or whatever the nature of their respective writings, whether histories, biographies, poems, prophecies, or only didactic discourses on morals or religion, they all, in some way or other, bear witness to the existence of God, and give us some information respecting his character and attributes.
It is now our task to inquire briefly into the authenticity and integrity of these writings. For convenience I shall take up the two Testaments, the Old and the New, separately:
First, then, the Old Testament: It is maintained by the best biblical scholars, that the books which now constitute the Old Testament, were collected as we have them, immediately after the return of the Jews from the captivity in Babylon; that would be about the middle of the fifth century, B. C. The work is ascribed to Ezra, Nehemiah; and the men of the great synagogue. In proof of this they point to the testimony of the son of Sirach, who flourished between the years 310-370, B. C.;[A]and who speaks of the canon—with its three divisions as finally made up.[B]By the "three divisions," I mean those divisions made by the Jews in their scriptures, and which are supposed to be contemporary with the completion of the canon. Those divisions are (1) the Pentateuch, or Law;[C](2) the Prophets; and (3) the Hagiographa.[D]It is of these divisions that the son of Sirach speaks.
[Footnote A:VideKitto.]
[Footnote B: See the prologue to the Book of Ecclesiasticus, in the Apocrypha.]
[Footnote C: The five books of Moses—Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.]
[Footnote D: This is a Greek term for the sacred writings not included in the other two divisions. The Talmud places the following books in this division: Ruth, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Lamentations, Daniel, Esther, Ezra and Chronicles. The books not included in this list, nor in the Pentateuch, of course, constitute the division called the Prophets.]
Josephus in his first book against Apion (section viii) enumerates twenty-two books, "Which contain the record of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them, five belong to Moses, which contain his laws, and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years; but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes, king of Persia [5th cent. B. C.], the prophets, which were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their time in thirteen books, the remaining four books[E]contain hymns to God and precepts for the conduct of human life. It is true our history hath been written since Artaxerxes, very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there has not been an exact succession of prophets since that time."
[Footnote E: Our thirty-nine books of the Old Testament were so grouped by the Hebrews as to make but twenty-two, which accorded with the twenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet. What are generally known as the minor prophets, twelve in number, are connected as one book. The Book of Ruth was coupled with Judges; Ezra with Nehemiah; Lamentations with Jeremiah; while the two books of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles were counted but one each.]
This testimony settles the question back to the commencement of the fifth century B. C., that is, for a period of about twenty-four hundred years the authorship of the respective books of the Old Testament has been ascribed to the men who today are regarded as their authors. The rabbis say: "The wise men have left us the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa, combined into one whole;" and then they specify the authors of the sacred books. That specification ascribes the respective books to the men now regarded as the author of them. The Talmud says: "Moses received the law at Sinai, and transmitted it to Joshua; Joshua to the Elders; the Elders to the Prophets; the Prophets to the men of the Great Synagogue," and, as we have seen, it was Ezra, Nehemiah, and the men of the Great Synagogue who made up our present collection of books known as the Old Testament. Josephus in speaking of those who wrote the scriptures says— "Every one is not permitted of his own accord to be a writer, nor is there any disagreement in what is written; they being only prophets that have written the original and earliest accounts of things as they learned them of God himself by inspiration; and others have written what hath happened in their own times, and that in a very distinct manner also."[F]
[Footnote F: Josephus against Apion, Book I, Sec. 8.]
From the books of the Old Testament something may be learned as to the manner in which the original parchments of the sacred books were preserved previous to the days of Ezra, extending as far back even as to Moses himself—1451 B. C. and some of the passages that I shall notice— belonging to a subsequent period to Moses, yet previous to the days of Ezra—refer to a collection of sacred books that leave small doubt that the books of Moses and other sacred writings were the ones to which allusion is made.
We are told that after Moses wrote the Law, he delivered it to the priests, the sons of Levi, with a commandment to put it in the side of the Ark of the Covenant,[G]that it might be there for a witness against Israel, whom Moses by the spirit of prophecy, foresaw would turn away from God.
[Footnote G: Deut. xxxi: 9, 24, 25, 26.]
In laying down the duties of the future King of Israel, Moses says: "And it shall be when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests, the Levites"[H]—showing that it was the intention of Moses to have the Law always preserved by the priests. When Joshua had completed the book that bears his name, it is said: "And Joshua wrote these words in the book of the Law of God";[I]which was doubtless the book which Moses had placed in the Ark of the Covenant in care of the priests.
[Footnote H: Deut xvii: 18.]
[Footnote I: Joshua xxiv, 26.]
When the form of government of Israel was changed into a monarchy, Samuel explained the character of the new kingdom to the people, "and wrote it in a book and laid it up before the Lord."[J]This was three hundred and fifty years after Moses, and yet the practice of laying up these important records before the Lord, as Moses had done with his books, still prevailed; and I doubt not were placed side by side with the books of Moses and Joshua, if not attached to them.
[Footnote J: I. Sam. x: 25.]
Four centuries and a half later than Samuel, bringing us to about 640 B. C., in the reign of good king Josiah, Hilkiah, the high priest, when the temple was undergoing some repairs, found the Book of the Law in the house of the Lord,[K]and sent it to the king, who read it; and when he saw how far Israel had departed from the observance of it, and the judgments pronounced against them on condition of their forsaking the law, he sought to lead his people to repentance.
[Footnote K: II. Kings xxii—see the whole chapter.]
Isaiah, some seventy years before this, when wishing to confirm some of his own prophecies, recommended the people to seek out the Book of the Lord and read it.[L]The value of this passage is, that it gives us the testimony of Isaiah that such a book as "the Book of the Lord" was known to the people, that they had access to it, that it was a recognized authority on questions about which there might arise doubts. And there can scarcely be two opinions as to this book, alluded to by Isaiah, being either the original or an authorized copy of the writings placed in the keeping of the priests, and found by Hilkiah.
[Footnote L: Isaiah xxxiv: 16.]
We have traced this matter down to 640 B. C.; there is one more step to take, to reach Ezra, in whose days the books of the Old Testament were collected, some one hundred and eighty-five years after the date above noted.
What became of the sacred records of the Jews at the time Jerusalem was laid waste by Nebuchadnezzar, about 588 B. C.,[M]is difficult to learn. But the document granting permission to Ezra and the priests to go and rebuild the temple at Jerusalem is addressed to him thus: "Artaxerxes, king of kings, unto Ezra, the priest, a scribe of the law of the God of heaven, perfect peace." Then follows permission for all the people of Israel in his realm to go to Jerusalem with Ezra. He then continues: "Forasmuch as thou art sent of the king * * * to inquire concerning Judah and Jerusalem, _according to the law of thy God which is in thy hand_."[N]From this it appears that during the captivity the priests were permitted to retain possession of the sacred records. At any rate Ezra had them when he departed from Babylon for Jerusalem, so that they had been preserved, and that, doubtless, by the priests. This brings us to the period when the books of the Bible were collected as we have them today. And from that time, more than two thousand years ago, until the present, the Old Testament has been what it is now; the multiplication of copies and of translations, as well as the subsequent controversies between Jews and Christians, combined to secure the sacred writings against alterations.
[Footnote M: This is the Hebrew Chronology, according to Usher.]
[Footnote N: Ezra vii: 12-14.]
No one will contend that the Old Testament contains all the writings of the Jews, perhaps not all the sacred or inspired writings; for there are a number of books and writings of prophets referred to in these very books of the Old Testament, which are not to be found in the collection. But that fact does not destroy the value of these we have, or refute the testimony they bear for God. That very care which may have excluded from the sacred collection some books which were really inspired, has also prevented many worthless and uninspired books from becoming connected with the word of God.
What is set down so far in this chapter relates to the Hebrew version of the Scriptures alone; but about three hundred years B. C., by some set down at 285 B. C., an event occurred which did much to preserve the integrity of the Hebrew Scriptures; by that I mean the probability of alterations being made in them was lessened, and they the more likely to be brought down to us just as they were written originally.
At the date above given, Ptolemy Philadelphus, King of Egypt, was gathering up the books which constituted the splendid Alexandrian Library, and being informed by his librarian, Demetrius Phalerius, concerning the Hebrew Scriptures, he at once set himself at work to procure a Greek translation of them. The better to secure this object he set at liberty many Jews in his kingdom, and sent word to the high priest at Jerusalem, Eleazar, his desire, asking that six Elders from each tribe of Israel, such as were skilled in the law, should be sent to him to translate their Scriptures for him. This was done. and it is said that the work was completed in seventy-two days.[O]
[Footnote O: For a full account of this matter see Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus, Book xii, chapter ii.]
This translation is called theSeptuagint, meaning the seventy, often represented by the Roman numerals LXX; but whether it is so called because it was translated by about seventy Elders, or for the reason that the translation occupied about seventy days is not clear. At any rate copies of this translation were multiplied, and in the days of Messiah's personal ministering in Judea was the version most in use, and the one he and his Apostles usually referred to, when sustaining their teachings by that which aforetime had been written by inspiration.
That this is true is evident from the following facts: There are in the New Testament 225 quotations from the Old;[P]and of these over one half, that is 120, agreeverbatimwith the Septuagint. "That these quotations," says an able writer, "must have been taken from the Septuagint is plain from thecopia verborum, the remarkable fertility of expression, in the Greek language, which forbids us to believe that, had the quotations been from the Hebrew, the Greek rendering would have agreedverbatimwith the passages in the Septuagint version. Of any Old Testament passage made up of only ten words, there are not fewer than thirty modes of translating it into Greek; and such indeed are the possible varieties, that if thirty different persons were translating into Greek a Hebrew sentence ofthree lines, none of them, though all were to give a perfectly correct rendering, would be found exactly agreeing in the Greek words employed, or in the collection of these."
[Footnote P: The only books in the Old Testament not quoted in the New are Ruth, I. and II. Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, Nahum and Zephaniah.]
Again, of the one hundred and five remaining quotations in the New Testament, from the Old, thirty-nine agreeverbatimwith the Septuagint, except that a synonymous word occurs once in two or three lines. There are next, twenty-two quotations agreeingverbatimor nearly so, with the Septuagint, but even in sense differing from the Hebrew text. Hence out of the two hundred and twenty-five quotations in the New Testament from the Old, we may say that not fewer than one hundred and ninety must have been taken from the Septuagint version.
From about three centuries B. C., then, the Old Testament has existed at least in two languages, and this has contributed much, as I before said, to prevent the corruption of the text and preserve the integrity of the Scriptures; for if changes were made in the Hebrew, it would be discovered from the LXX.; and if alterations were made in the LXX., it could be detected from the Hebrew. There were other translations made of the Scriptures into still other languages, but as my space is limited, I cannot give an account of them here.
We have now seen how the books of the Old Testament, as we have them at the present day, were collected by Ezra, some 2400 years ago; we then went to the last book written by Moses— Deuteronomy—and from it learned that his writings were deposited in the ark of the covenant in charge of the priests and Levites; how Joshua and Samuel also laid up their writings before the Lord; and how Isaiah referred the Jews to these sacred writings in confirmation of his own prophecies; how when in 640 B. C. the temple was undergoing some repairs the high priest found in it an ancient copy of the law; and how Ezra in Babylon had the sacred writings in his possession, so that he at that time would have no difficulty in fixing upon the authorship of the sacred books then before him.
I shall further examine this question of the authenticity of the Old Testament in my next chapter, but the testimony I shall there consider will also have a bearing upon its integrity, and will likewise tend to confirm the claims as to its containing the revelations of God to the Jews; and to this latter consideration I especially invite the attention of the reader.
Certain it is that the Hebrew Scriptures, the Old Testament, the same collection of books that we now have, was recognized by the Lord Jesus Christ and the prophets and apostles of that dispensation as the word of God, and was referred to by them as "the law and the prophets." This is evident from the fact of their frequently appealing to those scriptures to sustain their own doctrine and teachings. Nearly every book of the Old Testament is quoted in the New, and therefore all the evidence which may be amassed in support of the divinity of Christ and the inspiration of the New Testament, sustains also the authenticity and inspiration of the Old; for the inspired writers of the former appeal to the latter as an unquestioned authority in matters relating to God. Hence, whatever evidence sustains the New Testament, supports also the Old. I trust the reader will bear this in mind, and when I have considered and proved, as I hope to do, the authenticity and credibility of the New Testament, remember that it is a witness for the Old Testament, an important, I might say an infallible one, since it is inspired; it comes as from God.
In our day the evidences which support the authenticity of the Jewish Scriptures have accumulated in a most remarkable manner. In 1835 the two rolls of papyrus, one filled with the writings of Joseph, who was sold into Egypt, and the other with those of Abraham, came into the hands of Joseph Smith. The roll containing the writings of Abraham was translated by the prophet, at least in part, and is published in the Pearl of Great Price under the title of the Book of Abraham. The manner in which these rolls of papyrus came into Joseph Smith's possession was as follows:
In 1831 the celebrated French traveler, Antonio Sebolo, penetrated Egypt as far as the ancient city of Thebes, under a license procured from Mehemet Ali—then viceroy of Egypt—through the influence of Chevalier Drovetti, the French consul. Sebolo employed 433 men for four months and two days; and entering the catacombs near ancient Thebes on the 7th of June, 1831, they procured eleven mummies. These were shipped to Alexandria, and from thence the great traveler started with his treasures for Paris. Buten routefor the French capital, Sebolo put in at Trieste, where he was taken sick, and after an illness of ten days died. This was in 1832. Previous to his death he willed his Egyptian treasures to his nephew, Michael H. Chandler, who was then living in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, but whom Sebolo believed to be in Dublin, to which city he ordered the mummies shipped.
Mr. Chandler ordered the mummies forwarded to New York, where he took possession of them. There the coffins for the first time were opened, and in them were found two rolls of papyrus covered with engravings. While still in the custom house, Mr. C. was informed by a gentleman, a stranger to him, that no one in the city could translate the characters, but was referred to Joseph Smith, who, the stranger informed him, possessed some kind of gift or power by which he had previously translated similar characters.
Joseph Smith was then unknown to Mr. C. The mummies were shipped to Philadelphia, and from there Mr. C. traveled through the country, exhibiting them and the rolls of papyrus. He finally passed through Kirtland, where Joseph Smith was residing. Joseph, seeing the rolls of papyrus and the record upon them, had the Saints purchase them, and they were translated as before stated.[A]
[Footnote A: The above I have condensed from the account given of this matter by the Prophet Joseph in his history.]
This Book of Abraham, while it has no direct reference to the works of Moses, gives an account of the creation of this earth, which, substantially, is the same account as that given by Moses;[B]and is, at least, a strong collateral evidence to the correctness of the account in Genesis.
[Footnote B: Pearl of Great Price, pp. 41-45]
In the year 1830, the visions of Moses, through which he was enabled to write the account of the creation in Genesis, and the history of the world down to the time of the Flood, were revealed to Joseph Smith. This part of the world's history, as given to the Prophet Joseph, is substantially the same as that in Genesis, only more full and perfect than that; the Lord pointing out here and there where the record of Moses, as we now have it in the Bible, has been marred because of changes made by wicked men. Still, as I say, the accounts substantially agree, and in the revelations to which I have called attention the Lord says over and over again that these things he revealed to Moses, and that Moses bore record of them.[C]
[Footnote C: Pearl of Great Price, pp. from 1 to 31.]
This is testimony of the most direct character as to the authenticity of the books in our Bible giving this history. All ancient tradition says Moses wrote Genesis, and now in this day, a revelation is given from God to Joseph Smith, saying that an account substantially the same as that in Genesis was revealed to Moses, and that he recorded it.
I come now to the strongest witness of all for the authenticity, and also the divinity of the Jewish Scriptures; I mean the Book of Mormon. In the first place let me say that the Book of Mormon itself, as an inspired book, rests on so sure a basis, that however much men may be disposed to doubt the authenticity, credibility, and inspiration of the Jewish Scriptures, they cannot, if they investigate the claims of the Book of Mormon doubt its truth.[D]And in these Nephite Scriptures is contained the most direct and positive proofs relative to the authenticity of the Bible.
[Footnote D: Those who desire to prosecute an investigation of this subject win do well to read the "Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon," by O. Pratt; and "A New Witness for God," by the author of this work.]
According to the Book of Mormon, Lehi and his family left Jerusalem in the first year of the reign of Zedekiah, about 600 B. C. Soon after leaving Jerusalem, from his camp in the wilderness Lehi sent his sons back to that city to obtain the genealogies of his fathers, and a record of the Jews. In this mission his sons were successful, returning to their father's encampment in the wilderness with a set of brass plates on which the record and the genealogies were written.
The return of the sons of Lehi to their father was celebrated with great rejoicing. Nephi in his account of it says: "And after they had given thanks unto the God of Israel, my father, Lehi, took the records which were engraved upon the plates of brass, and he did search them from the beginning. And he beheld that they did contain the five books of Moses, which gave an account of the creation of the world, and also of Adam and Eve, who were our first parents; and also a record of the Jews from the beginning, even down to the commencement of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah, and also the prophecies of the holy prophets, from the beginning, even down to the commencement of the reign of Zedekiah; and also many prophecies which have been spoken by the mouth of Jeremiah."[E]
[Footnote E: I. Nephi v: 10-13.]
Here is a direct reference to the Jewish Scriptures, in which five books are accredited to Moses —the same number as in our present Bible—and the prophecies of Jeremiah are also mentioned.
Then in a vision, in which the future was unfolded to Nephi, he saw that a book would go from the Jews to the Gentiles, and that it would be like the record upon the brass plates. This is the passage: "The angel said unto me, Knowest thou the meaning of the book? And I said unto him, I know not. And he said. Behold it proceedeth out of the mouth of a Jew; and I, Nephi, beheld; and he said unto me, the book that thou beholdest is a record of the Jews, which contains the covenants of the Lord which he hath made unto the house of Israel; and it also containeth many of the prophecies of the holy prophets; and it is a record like unto the engravings which are upon the plates of brass, save there are not so many; nevertheless they contain the covenants of the Lord, which he hath made unto the house of Israel; wherefore, they are of great worth unto the Gentiles."[F]
[Footnote F: I. Nephi xiii: 21-23.]
Nephi further informs us that it was his practice to read frequently to his people from these brass plates, that they might be informed concerning the dealings of God with their forefathers; and all through the Nephite Scriptures these brass plates are referred to. Moreover, whole chapters, and sometimes several chapters together, especially from the writings of Isaiah,[G]are transcribed from the brass plates to the record made by Nephi; and comparing these transcribed portions of the Old Testament found in the Book of Mormon with the parts which correspond to them in our present English version of the Jewish Scriptures, it will be seen that the difference is but slight; substantially they agree. The circumstance not only proves the authenticity of the Scriptures, but it is also a strong proof of the integrity of our present version of them.
[Footnote G: See I. Nephi chapters xx, xxi; II. Nephi vii, viii; also II. Nephi from the xii to xxiv.]
It is true the Book of Mormon informs us that many plain and precious parts of this book, which proceeds from the mouth of the Jew, are taken away and others corrupted, but that does not affect the statement I make that the substantial agreement between these passages in the Book of Mormon and Bible, proves, in the main, the integrity as well as the authenticity of the Jewish Scriptures. Here, so far as the authenticity of the Old Testament is concerned, I shall, for the present, rest my case; and proceed with a like inquiry as to the New.
There is an impression existing, and it is one encouraged by infidel writers, that the acceptance of the books now comprising the New Testament, was the arbitrary action of a council of bishops three or four hundred years A. D. This I believe to be a wrong impression. I do not think the list of books that now constitute the New Testament was made up in an arbitrary manner, at one time, or by any single council. It can be shown that the books and epistles now in the collection known as the New Testament, were accepted as inspired writings by the Christian churches, before the councils of the church undertook any discussion of the subject; and even when this question was before those councils, they merely decided what books before-time had been regarded by the churches as inspired.
The first council which undertook to pronounce a decision on the subject was that of Laodicea in the year 363 A. D. "Probably the decree of this council," as Archdeacon Paley remarks, "rather declared than regulated the public judgment, or, more properly speaking, the judgment of some neighboring churches, the council itself consisting of no more than thirty or forty bishops of Lydia and the adjoining countries;" and after this council the question, "What books were entitled to be received as Scripture?" was discussed with great freedom, and without any reference to the declaration made by the council of Laodicea.[H]
[Footnote H: Paley's Evidences, Part I, ch. ix.]
The list of inspired books of the New Testament, as we have them now, was accepted by the council of Hippo, held 393 A. D. The third council of Carthage, 397 A. D., and also the sixth of Carthage, 419 A. D., confirmed the decisions of the first. Thus, from that early date, the authorship and inspiration of the books of the New Testament may be said to have been fixed.
True, certain early Christian writers doubted the inspiration and authenticity of some of the books now in the New Testament; II Peter, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistle of James and the Apocalypse[I]being among those whose inspiration and authenticity were questioned; and some Bible scholars since those days have held the same doubts; but the preponderance of evidence is in favor of the inspiration of all the books of the New Testament, and of their being the productions of the men accredited in those early days, and by the councils named, with having written them.
[Footnote I: Revelations of St. John.]
It is quite evident, however, that the New Testament does not contain all the inspired writings of the apostles and disciples, since there are references in the books of the New Testament to other books written by the same authors, which would certainly be equally inspired with those we now have in the collection. Such, for instance, as another epistle to the Corinthians,[J]also a second epistle to the Colossians,[K]and another book of Jude.[L]Still, because some inspired books were lost, and others rejected by these councils, that does not affect those that remain as to their authenticity or inspiration; though had we those inspired books that were lost or rejected, many passages in the books that have been preserved to us might be made more plain.
[Footnote J: I. Cor. v.]
[Footnote K: Col. iv: 16.]
[Footnote L: Jude 3.]
Could it be proven even, that some of the books now retained in the New Testament collection were uninspired, and not written by those now accredited with being their authors, that would not affect these books about whose authenticity and inspiration there has never been a question. Suppose all those books I have named as having had their authenticity questioned, should turn out to be forgeries, we would still have the four Gospels, the Acts, the thirteen Epistles of Paul that stand unquestioned; and as long as even one of these books remains unshaken as to its authenticity and inspiration, you have a witness for God and Christ in it—an exposition, to some extent, at least, of the character and attributes of Deity. For the New Testament, like the Old, is not one book, but a collection of books; each independent of the other. It is not one witness for God and Christ, but a collection of the testimonies of a number of witnesses. And if it could be proven (but I do not think it can be) that some of these books were of such doubtful origin that they are unworthy a place in the collection, it does not follow that the other books of the New Testament are also of doubtful origin and unworthy of confidence.
Furthermore, if it be admitted (and I am willing to admit it) that some of the texts in the books comprising the New Testament have been corrupted or changed, and portions thereof taken away, while these things tend to, and do weaken the testimony of the witnesses, and make many parts obscure, and even contradictory, still, after making all these concessions, enough remains uncorrupted and unimpaired, to give us in those books strong and reliable witnesses—whose testimony cannot be impeached—for God. And while some parts have been corrupted, and thus rendered imperfect, yet the narrative of the life of Christ, the Gospel he advocated, the moral precepts he inculcated in his system of truth, together with the revelations contained in those Scriptures respecting the character and attributes of Deity, are all substantially correct.
I refer again to the manner in which the list of books now composing the New Testament was decided upon. I have already stated that I do not think it was by the arbitrary decision of any one council at any one time, that the selection of this list of books was made and all others rejected. On the contrary it was most probably the work of years. "The most plausible supposition," says an unquestioned authority, "is that each of the most influential churches founded by the Apostles in person, made for its own use a collection of all the writings duly ascertained to be apostolic and inspired. The epistles sent to the different churches were soon, doubtless, communicated to the sister associations for the strengthening of each other's faith, hope and virtue." Indeed the Apostle Paul, in one instance at least, commands an interchange of apostolic writings. In his epistle to the Colossian saints he says: "And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read in the church of the Laodiceans, and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea."[M]Doubtless, as stated by Chambers, "The brotherly love which was a notable feature of primitive Christianity, led Christians everywhere to make common property of the local messages from apostles, as valuable to them all alike. Nor did they ever dream of withholding from their brethren copies of such inspired writings as had come into their own hands. No general order from the apostles was needed to prompt individual Christians or congregations that had been favored with an inspired communication to make it equally well known to every neighbor. There must have been the most cordial reciprocity of communication in this matter, an unreserved sharing of new Scripture with each other; the fair and full interchange of apostolic oracles leading to such a multiplication, that each church possessed, for the benefit of its members, a copy of all inspired writings previously issued by the Apostles."[N]And here let me add, that in the multiplication of copies, it is not to be wondered at if the originals were soon lost sight of, or worn out by constant use.
[Footnote M: Col. iv: 16.]
[Footnote N: Information for the People, Vol. II Art. Bible.]
The earliest reference we have to any writings or collection of writings now in the New Testament, and in which they are recognized as authoritative scripture, is in the second Epistle of Peter. That apostle, writing about the year 65 A. D., says: "Account that the long suffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest as they dothe other scriptures, unto their own destruction."[A]
[Footnote A: II. Peter iii: 15, 16.]
It will be observed that the reference to the Epistles of Paul is of such a character that it leads us to infer that those Epistles were well and generally known by the church at large; for this Epistle of Peter's which we quote, is written to no particular branch of the church, but "to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Savior Jesus Christ;"[B]in other words, to the church universal; and it can scarcely be doubted that some of the larger branches of the church, even in that early day, had the Epistles of Paul in a collected form. It will also be observed that Peter places these Epistles of Paul on equal authority with Scripture by saying, that the unlearned and unstable wrest them, "_as they do also the other scripture_, unto their own destruction."
[Footnote B: II. Peter i: 1.]
There is a tradition that the apostle John, on his return from his banishment to Patmos—96 A. D.—made a collection of what he considered the inspired writings of the apostles and disciples of Christ; but the tradition seems not to be well founded. It is generally admitted, however, that he must have had before him the three other gospels when he wrote the one which bears his name, because his book called "The Gospel according to St. John," is supplemental in its character, and in it he gives prominence to those incidents in the life of his Master and the doctrines he taught, about which the other writers are either silent or have said but little. This peculiarity is accounted for by the supposition that John had before him the other three narratives of his Master's life and mission, and that he sought to make prominent what they had omitted or treated but briefly, that the church— in the four books—might have a complete history of Messiah's life, and labors and doctrines.
In his admirable work on the "Evidences of Christianity," Archdeacon Paley maintains that the following allegations respecting the books comprising the New Testament are capable of proof; in fact, to my mind, the learned Archdeacon does prove them, and places them beyond the power of successful contradiction:
I. That the historical books of the New Testament, meaning thereby the four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, are quoted, or alluded to, by a series of Christian writers, beginning with those who were contemporary with the apostles, or who immediately followed them, and proceeding in close and regular succession from their time to the present.
II. That when they are quoted, or alluded to, they are quoted or alluded to with peculiar respect, as booksui generis;[C]as possessing an authority which belonged to no other books, and as conclusive in all questions and controversies amongst Christians.
[Footnote C: That is, of its own kind.]
III. That they were, in very early times, collected into a distinct volume.
IV. That they were distinguished by appropriate names and titles of respect.
V. That they were publicly read and expounded in the religious assemblies of the Christians.
VI. That commentaries were written upon them, harmonies formed out of them, different copies carefully collated, and versions of them made in different languages.
VII. That they were received by Christians of different sects, by many heretics as well as Catholics, and usually appealed to by both sides in the controversies which arose in those days.
VIII. That the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of St. Paul, the first Epistle of John and the first of Peter, were received, without doubt by those who doubted concerning the other books which are included in our present canon—[authorized list].
IX. That the Gospels were attacked by the early adversaries of Christianity, as books containing the accounts upon which the religion was founded.
X. That formal catalogues of authentic scriptures were published, in all of which our present sacred histories were included.
XI. That these propositions cannot be affirmed of any other books claiming to be books of scripture; by which are meant those books which are commonly called apocryphal books of the New Testament.[D]
[Footnote D: Evidences of Christianity, part I. ch. ix. I would also recommend my readers to carefully study Dr. Lardner's Credibility of the New Testament, from which Dr. Paley obtains much, I may say nearly all of the material for his own admirable work. There is also a fine article on the subject, in Chamber's Information for the People, entitledHistory of the Bible; and another in Dr. Kitto's Biblical Literature, under the heading,Canon of Scripture.]
Out of these eleven propositions I shall deal with but two, viz.: the first and tenth; referring my readers to Dr. Paley's work, for information as to the other propositions. And what is said here of these propositions, I shall select or condense from Paley's work, sometimes using his language as well as his facts, without troubling myself to indicate the quotations.
Well, then, as to his first allegation, viz.: that there are a series of Christian writers, beginning with those contemporary with the apostles, and extending on down to the present, who have quoted the chief books of the New Testament. To begin with, there is an epistle ascribed to Barnabas,[E]the companion of Paul, in some of his missionary tours. It is quoted as an Epistle of Barnabas, by Clement of Alexandria, A. D. 194; by Origen, A. D. 230; by Eusebius, A. D. 315, and more frequently by writers after that time, and is referred to by the writers above named, as an ancient work in their time, and as well known and read among Christians, though not accounted a part of scripture. It purports to be written soon after the destruction of Jerusalem under Titus.
[Footnote E: There is a manuscript copy of this epistle in connection with a copy of the New Testament entire, dating back to the fourth century, now in the St. Petersburg Library. It was found by Tischendorf in the convent of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai, in 1859, and is known as the Sinaitic Manuscript—the oldest one in existence.]
In this epistle appears the following remarkable passage: "Let us, therefore, beware lest it come upon us,as it is written; There are many called, few chosen." From the expression, "as it is written," we infer, with certainty, that at the time when the author of this epistle lived, there was a book extant well known to Christians, and of authority among them, containing the words "many are called, few chosen." Such a book is our present Gospel of St. Matthew, in which this text is twice found,[F]and found in no other book which existed in those days; therefore Barnabas must have referred his readers to Matthew's Gospel. Furthermore, the writer of the epistle was a Jew. The phrase, "It is written," was the very form in which the Jews quoted their scriptures. Hence, it follows that he would not have used this phrase, and without qualification, of any books but what had acquired scriptural authority. So that while the quotation "many are called, few chosen," confirms the existence of Matthew's Gospel; the expression "It is written," gives to it the authority or dignity of scripture.
[Footnote F: Matt. xx: 16; xxii: 14.]
There are other passages in the epistle which are the same in sentiment as some of the passages in Matthew,[G]some in which we recognize the same words. For example, "Give to every one that asketh thee;" and he says that Christ chose as his apostles men who were great sinners that he might show that he came, "not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."
[Footnote G: Matt. v: 42; ix: 13.]
There is also extant an epistle of Clement, bishop of Rome, whom the ancient writers without doubt or scruple assert to have been the Clement whom Paul mentions in Phil. iv, 3.[H]This epistle is spoken of by the early Christian writers as an epistle acknowledged by all. Of it Irenaeus says (writing in the second century) it was "written by Clement, who had seen the blessed apostles, and conversed with them, who had the preaching of the apostles still sounding in his ears, and their traditions before his eyes." Dionysius, bishop of Corinth (the epistle is addressed to the Church of Christ) says, about the year 170 A. D., that the epistle of Clement "had been wont to be read in that church from ancient times."[I]
[Footnote H: "With Clement also, and with other my fellow- laborers whose names are written in the book of life"]
[Footnote I: A copy of this epistle dating back to the fifth century, is connected with the Alexandrian manuscript of the New Testament now in the British Museum. The manuscript was given to Charles the I. in 1628 by Cyril Lucas, Patriarch of Constantinople.]
In the said epistle are found the following passages, evidently taken from our New Testament scriptures: "Especially remembering the words of the Lord Jesus which he spake, teaching gentleness and long suffering, for thus he said: 'Be ye merciful, that ye may obtain mercy;[J]forgive that it may be forgiven unto you;[K]as you do so shall it be done unto you; as ye judge so shall ye be judged; as ye show kindness, so shall kindness be shown unto you; with what measure ye mete, with the same shall it be measured to you.'"[L]
[Footnote J: Matt. v: 7.]
[Footnote K: Luke vi: 37, 38.]
[Footnote L: Matt. vii: 1, 2.]
In another place he says: "Remember the words of the Lord Jesus, for he said: 'Woe to that man by whom offenses come; it were better for him that he had not been born, than that he should offend one of my elect; it were better for him that a millstone should be tied about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the sea than that he should offend one of my little ones.'"[M]
[Footnote M: Matt. xviii.]
The reference in the foregoing to the passages I have indicated is too palpable to leave any room for doubt.
Connected with the Sinaitic manuscript copy of the New Testament, now in the St. Petersburg Library, to which I have already called attention in a foot note, is a manuscript copy of the "Shepherd" or "Pastor" of Hermas, dating from the fifth century; but that copies of it existed at a still earlier date is evident from the fact that it is quoted by Irenaeus, A. D. 178; by Clement of Alexandria, A. D. 194; by Tertullian, A. D. 200; Origen, A. D. 230. In this ancient work are many allusions to and some direct quotations from the Gospels of Matthew, Luke and John. Of the allusions may be cited, the confessing and denying of Christ;[N]the parable of the seed sown;[O]and the comparison of Christ's disciples to little children. Of the more direct quotations I mention the following: "He that putteth away his wife and marrieth another, committeth adultery;"[P]the singular expression, "having received all power from his Father," is undoubted allusion to Matthew xxviii, 18; and Christ being the "Gate," or only way of coming "to God," in plain allusion to John xiv, 6, and x, 7, 9.
[Footnote N: Matt. x: 32,33. Luke xii: 8,9.]
[Footnote O: Matt. xiii: 3. Luke viii: 5.]
[Footnote P: Luke xvi: 18.]
I now come to Ignatius, who became bishop of Antioch about thirty-seven years after the ascension of Messiah; and therefore, from his time and station, it is probable that he had known and conversed with many of the apostles. Some of the epistles of this bishop are referred to by Polycarp, his contemporary, the bishop of Smyrna; and some are quoted by Irenaeus, A. D. 178; and by Origen, A. D. 230. In these epistles are plain and undoubted allusions to the Gospels of Matthew and John, of which the following are but specimens: "Christ was baptized of John that all righteousness might be fulfilled by him."[Q]"Be ye wise as serpents in all things and harmless as a dove."[R]"Yet the Spirit is not deceived, being from God, for it knows whence it comes and whither it goes."[S]
[Footnote Q: Matt. iii: 15.]
[Footnote R: Matt. x: 16.]
[Footnote S: John iii: 18]
I now pass over several writers in whose works are similar quotations from the scriptures to those already noted; among them Polycarp, a convert to Christianity through the teachings of the Apostle John; as also Papias, his companion; Justin Martyr, separated from the last named by but twenty years; and also Hegesippus, who came about thirty years after Justin. This brings us to the year 170 A. D. At this time the churches of Lyons and Vienna in France, sent a relation of the sufferings of their martyrs to the churches of Asia and Phrygia. This epistle is found entire in the works of Eusebius [315 A. D.], and in it are direct allusions to the Gospels of Luke, John and the Acts of the Apostles. The one to John is, "Thus was fulfilled that which was spoken by the Lord, that whosoever killeth you, will think that he doeth God's service."[T]
[Footnote T: John xvi: 2.]
At that time these churches in France had for their bishop Pothinus, then about ninety years old, whose time, therefore, must have joined on to the times of the apostles.
"The evidence now," says Dr. Paley, "opens upon us full and clear." Irenaeus succeeded Pothinus as bishop of Lyons. In his youth he had been a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John. * * * He asserts of himself and his contemporaries, that they were able to reckon up in all the principal churches the succession of bishops from the first. * * * The testimony which this writer affords to the historical books of the New Testament, to their authority, and to the titles which they bear, is expressive and positive. One principal passage runs as follows:
"We have not received the knowledge of the way of our salvation by any others than those by whom the Gospel has been brought to us. Which Gospel they first preached, and afterward by the will of God, committed to writing, that it might be for time to come the foundation and pillar of. our faith. For after that the Lord rose from the dead, and they [the apostles] were endowed from above with the power of the Holy Ghost coming down upon them, they received a perfect knowledge of all things. They went forth to all the ends of the earth, declaring to men the blessings of heavenly peace, having all of them, and every one alike, the Gospel of God. Matthew then, among the Jews, wrote a Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel at Rome, and founding a church there; and after their exit, Mark also, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, delivered to us in writing the things which had been preached by Peter; and Luke; the companion of Paul, put down in a book the Gospel preached by him (Paul). Afterward John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned upon his breast, he likewise published a Gospel while he dwelt at Ephesus, in Asia."
Nor is this writer less explicit respecting the book of the Acts of the Apostles.
The force of the testimony we have considered will be strengthened by remembering that it is the testimony, and the concurring testimony of writers who lived in countries remote from each other. Clement flourished at Rome; Ignatius at Antioch, and Irenaeus in France.
I deem it unnecessary to pursue this inquiry further, and shall close by remarking that Clement of Alexandria, one of the most voluminous of Christian writers, follows Irenaeus at a distance of but sixteen years. In the works of Clement which remain, the four gospels are repeatedly quoted by the names of their authors, and the Acts of the Apostles is expressly ascribed to Luke. This brings us to the year 194 A. D. Tertullian joins on to Clement, and is no less explicit in his reference to the New Testament than the writers who preceded him. Then follow numerous writers, among them Origen, A. D. 230; Eusebius, 315; and Jerome, A. D. 392.
So numerous are the references to scripture, in the writings of these men, that were our books of scripture lost, some aver, that they could be reproduced from the works of these writers alone. From the date last given, there can be no question as to the existence of our New Testament or of its acceptance by the whole of Christendom, as containing the account of those events on which Christianity was founded.
I now come to the tenth allegation of Dr. Paley,viz.: "Formal catalogues of authentic scriptures were published, in all of which our present sacred histories were included."
In the writings of Origen which remain, and in some extracts preserved by Eusebius, from works of his which are now lost, there are enumerations of the books of scripture, in which the four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles are distinctly and honorably specified, and in which are no books beside what are now received. The date of Origen's works is 230 A. D.
Athanasius, about a century afterwards (330 A. D.), delivered a formal catalogue of the books of the New Testament, containing our scriptures and no others; of which he says, "In these alone the doctrine of religion is taught; let no man add to them, or take anything from them."
About twenty years after Athanasius (350 A. D.), Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem, sent forth a catalogue of the books of scripture, publicly read at that time in the Church of Jerusalem, exactly the same as ours, except that the book of Revelation is omitted.
Fifteen years after Cyril (365 A. D.), the council of Laodicea delivered an authoritative catalogue of Canonical Scripture, like Cyril's, the same as ours, with the omission of Revelation.[A]
[Footnote A: I have taken the preceding paragraphs of this chapter entire, from Paley's Evidences of Christianity Part I., chap, ix, sec. 10]
About thirty years later, that is, in 393 A. D., followed the council of Hippo, which delivered a catalogue of the books of the New Testament, which agrees with that now in our common English version. This was followed by the third council of Carthage, in 397 A. D., and by the sixth of Carthage 415 A. D., both of which confirmed the list of sacred books made out by the council of Hippo.
It seems to me that proving these two propositions selected from Dr. Paley's list, is sufficient to make out a case for the authenticity of the books of the New Testament; but when the reader remembers that the nine other allegations we quoted in chapter eleven can also be sustained by undeniable proofs, the case is made out so clearly that there can be no room for doubt.
Then the Book of Mormon comes in also as a witness for the New Testament as well as for the Old. Not so much a witness for the authenticity of the books composing it, however, as for the correctness of what is contained in them. —The writers in the Book of Mormon who bear a direct testimony as to what the New Testament scriptures contain, and in that way indirectly establish their authenticity and credibility may be divided into two classes, prophetic and historical. By the former, I mean those who by the inspiration of heaven foresaw the birth and mission of Jesus Christ as it all, afterwards came to pass; by the latter, I mean those who lived at the time and were witnesses to the personal ministrations of Messiah, on the western hemisphere, and made a record of those things they saw and heard.
Of the first class, the prophetic, the first Nephi stands out most prominently; for he gives such a vivid description of the leading outlines of Messiah's life and labors on the earth, that it makes one feel in very deed that "prophecy is but history reversed," for had he lived and written in the first century of the Christian are instead of the fifth century preceding it, I feel sure that he could not have been more vivid or exact in writing the life, mission and doctrines of the Son of God;[B]and all that he predicts is in strict accord with what is contained in the New Testament.
[Footnote B: For the remarkable prophecies which foretell the events here alluded to, I refer my readers to the xi, xii, xiii and xvi chapters of I. Nephi, Book of Mormon.]
Next to Nephi we may place King Benjamin, whose testimony is found in the book of Mosiah, chapter iii, and next to him, Abinadi, whose prophecies in relation to the coming and mission of Jesus, are contained in the thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth and sixteenth chapters of Mosiah; and, lastly, Samuel, the Lamanite prophet, whose testimony is in the fourteenth chapter of Helaman.
All these prophets give the outlines of the life and mission of Jesus Christ, and, as before stated, what they say is in strict accord with what is written in the New Testament, by those who witnessed the events that these prophets of the Western hemisphere foretold.
On the other side of the line, that is, of the historical witnesses, they who lived at the time Jesus visited the western hemisphere and wrote an account of what took place, the III Nephi, the one whom the Lord made the chief of the apostles, is most conspicuous. He records the fact of Messiah's visit to the Nephites, after his resurrection and departure from his disciples in Judea; and gives a most particular account of the several visits of Jesus to his people, and of his organizing a church, after the pattern of the one organized in Jerusalem; also of the doctrines and moral precepts which he taught; in all of which there is a substantial agreement with what is recorded in the New Testament.[C]
[Footnote C: The reader is recommended to read carefully the whole Book of III Nephi, and compare it with the teachings of the New Testament.]
Thus the Book of Mormon, is an additional witness for Jesus, testifying as well as the New Testament, that he is both Lord and Christ. It also sustains the New Testament, that is, if it does not directly prove the authenticity of the various books composing it, it does prove the correctness of what is contained in them, by testifying that the same person who was crucified by the Jews is the Son of God, the Savior of the world, and that he taught the same doctrines, ordinances, and precepts, and organized his church on the Western hemisphere after the pattern of that described in the New Testament; and all this, I take it, is very strong proof of the correctness of what is recorded in the New Testament scriptures—it is, in fact, the testimony of a mighty and numerous people, speaking from the silence of past ages, bearing witness of the truth as contained in the Jewish scriptures; and, withal, is such an evidence of their authenticity, and, likewise of their integrity, in the main—speaking now of both the Old Testament and the New—and of the correctness of the matter they contain, that before this new witness for God unbelief must hide its head; atheism must stand rebuked; the scorner is reproved; they that watch for iniquity are cut off; the terrible ones are brought to naught; they that erred in spirit come to understanding; they that murmured learn doctrine; the meek increase their joy in the Lord and the poor among men rejoice.[D]
[Footnote D: Isaiah xxix: 18-24.]
I have been led thus far into an investigation of the authenticity of the Jewish scriptures touching, too, here and there, the question of the integrity and truthfulness of them, by a desire to fix in the mind of the reader the fact that our principal volume of scripture is worthy of all confidence so far as the question of authenticity is concerned.
I am aware, however, that after treating of the question of authenticity, there still stands the question of credibility. After proving the authenticity of a book, I believe the further questions may be asked, and usually with great propriety—"Is it worthy of belief? Can it be believed? Is it credible?" To this rule I make one exception, and in the case in hand it is important. That exception is this: If it can be proven that God is the author of the book, or, what would be equivalent, if those who wrote it were inspired by his Holy Spirit, then if you prove such an authenticity as that, you prove at the same time the credibility of the book. For, let it be proven clearly that the book emanates from God directly or indirectly, then who could doubt its truth, its wisdom, or the events, however wonderful, it relates? Or who could question the mercy and justice of the acts of God as represented in that book or books that are the fruits of inspiration?
It matters not how at variance their contents may seem to be with our supposed knowledge of the laws of nature; our knowledge of those laws are so limited; our understanding of the mechanism of the universe so imperfect; our acquaintance with the universe and the forces that operate in it so insignificant, that let it be clearly proven that a revelation from God contradicted our supposed facts, and I believe the wisest, and best among the children of men, with becoming humility that would but add to their dignity, would bow in submission to the revelation.
Neither does it matter how much the conduct of Deity, as represented in such books, may violate what we understand to be the relative claims of stern Justice and sweet Mercy; our knowledge of the operation of those qualities, and their effect upon men in time and in eternity, and under varied conditions, is so uncertain and imperfect that we are liable to confound good with evil, and that which is indeed an infinite mercy, we may condemn as a piece of barbaric cruelty. In this matter we would bow also, and say, "Thy will, O Lord, be done," righteous must be all thy judgments, merciful are thy ways! Shall not the God of the whole earth do right?
In connection with these observations, I would remark, that throughout the Jewish scriptures, that is, in their composition, in their diction as well as in the excellence of their matter, whether in the historical, legislative, poetic, or prophetic books of the Old Testament; or in the gospel histories, the epistles or prophetic books of the New, everywhere may be traced the inspiration of Heaven; and the style and matter of the whole volume proclaims that the Spirit which prompted the writers and brought those books into existence, is divine.
Then again, if the prophecies contained in the volume of scripture be studied, and their fulfillment traced out in the history of the rise and fall of nations, cities and peoples; in the calamities that have overtaken the Jews[E]and their country; in the coming of Messiah and the work he performed, all of which was foretold by those holy men of God who spake as they were moved upon by the Holy Ghost—if all these prophecies and their fulfillment be considered, it seems to me that there is an accumulation of evidence to the divinity of the Jewish scriptures, that must break down all the petty objections that unbelief can array against them. And indeed, I may say, that such has been the effect of these considerations on the human understanding that the noblest and brightest intellects of all ages have been so impressed with them, that they have yielded a ready assent to their divine inspiration, and worshiped the God whose character and attributes are unfolded in the revelations contained in them.[F]
[Footnote E: "You may question, if you will" says Bishop Lightfoot in theQuarterly Reviewfor April, 1888, "every single prophecy in the Old Testament, but the whole history of the Jews is one continuous prophecy more distinct and articulate than all. You may deny, if you will, every successive miracle which is recorded therein; but again, the history of the Jews is from first to last one stupendous miracle, more wonderful and convincing than all."]
[Footnote F: In making this observation I do not close my eyes to the fact that there are exceptions to this general assertion; nor will I be so unjust as to claim that among unbelievers there are none who are honest in that unbelief There have been men in all ages, or nearly so, who have doubted the truth of the Jewish scriptures, and some of them have been most brilliant in intellect, and not a few most upright in their manner of life, but these are the exceptions, not the rule; and the remark on this point in the text holds good.]