SECTION IV. The Necessity and Certainty of a Divine Revelation; and the Impossibility of discovering the Things mentioned in the Sacred Writings, by any Efforts of Human Reason. Of the various Readings of the Old and New Testaments; and the Integrity of Divine Revelation. THE principles, which I have made the foundation of the following treatise, are, that human reason was not originally a sufficient guide for man, without some express revelation from God; and that positive precepts given by God, however we may be apt to conclude of them, from their not appearing intrinsically of real moment to the rectitude of our lives, are not therefore unreasonable and vain. The professed opposers of revelation must be herein unanimously against me; and some valuable writers, not apprehending a necessity, и though allowing the expediency of a revelation, do not entirely think with me in these particulars. The reader will find their way of reasoning considered in the following pages. All I would here offer is, that if authority was of moment, I might cite even Dr. Middleton for me in these points; for it is obvious, that he knew there might be found "the testimony of all ages; the experience of all the great reasoners of the heathen world, that reason (human reason alone) had not light enough to guide mankind in a course of virtue and morality," that there was "such an universal conviction and experience," he says, "of the insufficiency of reason, as seemed to be the voice of nature disclaiming it, as a guide, in the case of religion." In like manner, treating of positive precepts, he deduces an argument from what may be observed of God's works; that "the wise of all ages have, from the excellency of b * See chap. v. Letter to Dr. Waterland, edit. 8. p. 49, 50. God's works, collected the excellency of his nature. Yet in those works all still agree, that there are some particulars, not only whose nature, but whose use or reason of existence cannot be discovered by the most curious searchers into nature; nay, some things, which considered separately, appear even noxious to the rest; all which, though not understood, are yet reasonably presumed to be good and perfect in their several kinds, and subservient to the general beauty and excellency of the whole system. He proceeds: ""Tis full as unreasonable to charge all positive precepts, supposed to come from God, whose use and relation to morality we cannot comprehend, to fraud and imposture; as, in the visible works of God, to impute every thing we do not understand, or even every thing that seems hurtful, to the contrivance of some malicious power opposite to the divine nature. As, on the one hand, we do not exclude from the catalogue of God's works, Letter to Dr. Waterland, edit. 8. p. 61. VOL. IV. all those particulars, in which we cannot trace the marks of divine wisdom; so, on the other, we cannot exclude from the body of his laws, those few injunctions, which seem not to have impressed on them the legible characters of morality."" In examining the text of Moses, I have proposed to the learned reader's disquisition, whether in the 19th and 20th verses of the second chapter of Genesis, two words, nepesh chajah, have not been, by the mistake of transcribers, removed in the text from one line into another. The mistake is so easy to be made, and the true and clear meaning of the place rendered so indisputable, by allowing such a transposition, that, I apprehend, what I have suggested, may, perhaps, carry its own vindication. If I had the opportunity of which a learned author is making a very commendable use,' to search such manuscript copies as we have of the Hebrew bible, I should very carefully • See p. 56. Letter to Dr. Waterland, p. 62. f See Kennicott's State of the printed Hebrew text of the Old Testament. have examined whether any can be found, which may justify my supposition. I could name other texts, into which I would make a like enquiry: I will mention two: one is the latter part of the 24th verse of the fortyninth chapter of Genesis. The enquiry should be, whether the words now printed -are not in any manu משם רעה אבן ישראל -The sup' ? בשם רעה אבן ישראל script written posed difference is in one letter only; whether the first letter in the first word be a mem or a beth; a difference so small, that a reader, not very attentive, may not see it; the least dash of the pen, added or omitted, (the letters are so similar,) may make it the one or the other.* The other text is, Psal. cv. 28; He sent darkness and made it dark: in our bibles the translation of the latter part of the verse is, and they rebelled not against his word. The old version, still used in our common prayer, is, and they were not obedient unto his word. The two *This alteration is not authorised by any of the MSS. collated either by Kennicott, or De Rossi. EDIT |