Part First. Evidences of the Divine Authority Of the Holy Scriptures.
ANALYSIS OF WATSON’S THEOLOGICAL
INSTITUTES.
J. M’Clintock
PART FIRST. EVIDENCES OF THE DIVINE AUTHORITY
OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
OUTLINE.
I. PRESUMPTIVE evidence.
A. That a direct revelation would be made in some way. B. That it would be made in this way, 1.e., in the manner in which Christianity professes to have been revealed.
II. DIRECT evidence, preliminary to the introduction of which are considered
(1.) The kind and degree of evidence necessary to authenticate a revelation.
(2.) The use and limitation of reason in religion; after which the positive evidences are introduced under the following heads: — viz. (I.) EXTERNAL EVIDENCE.
I. Preliminaries.
(A.) Antiquity of the Scriptures.
(B.) Uncorrupted preservation of the books of Scripture. (C.) Credibility of the testimony of the sacred writers; which being established, of course proves the genuineness and authenticity of the books of Scripture.
II. Argument.
(A.) From miracles.
Real miracles were wrought.
Objections to the proof from MIRACLES answered.
(B.) From prophecy.
Real predictions were delivered.
Objections to the proof from PROPHECY answered.
(II.) INTERNAL EVIDENCE.
(A.) The excellence and beneficial tendency of the doctrines of Scripture. (B.) Moral tendency of the Scriptures.
(C.) Style and manner of the sacred writers.
(III.) COLLATERAL EVIDENCE. And finally
(IV.) Miscellaneous OBJECTIONS are answered.
PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE.
A. Presumptive evidence that a direct revelation would be made in SOME way.
I. (Chap. 1.) MAN A MORAL AGENT.
a.) Man has always been considered capable of performing moral actions, which are — voluntary actions, having respect to some rule. b.) Antecedent to human laws, there must have been a perception of the difference of moral actions, because many actions would be judged good or evil, were all civil codes abolished.
c.) This perception may be traced, in part, to experience and observation of the injurious tendency of vice, and the beneficial results of virtue; — but d.) It cannot be so traced entirely. There has been, among all men, a constant reference to the will of God, or of supposed deities, as a rule to determine the good or evil of the conduct of men.
We derive from these considerations two weighty presumptions: supposing the Theist to grant the existence of a Supreme Creator, of infinite, power, wisdom, &c.: —
FIRST, (from a, b, and c,) That those actions which men consider good, have the implied sanction of the will of the Creator.
SECOND, That they were originally, in some way, enjoined as his law, and their contraries prohibited.
II. (Chap. 2.) THE RULE WHICH DETERMINES THE QUALITY OF MORAL ACTIONS MUST BE PRESUMED TO BE MATTER OF REVELATION FROM GOD. a.) Creation implies government — and government implies law — which must be revealed: — and a revelation of divine will may be made either,
(1.) By significant actions, or (2.) By direct communication in language. The Theist admits that (1) has been done. The Christian admits (1) and (2) both: declaring (1) to be insufficient, and the question is, On which side is the presumption of truth?
b.) We assert that natural indications are insufficient for the formation of a virtuous character, and illustrate the deficiency by reference to temperance — justice — benevolence — worship — prayer — a future state, and the pardon of sin.
III. (Chaps. 3., 4., 5.) A is proved BY THE WEAKNESS OF HUMAN REASON AND THE WANT OF AUTHORITY IN HUMAN OPINIONS.
a.) Granting that a perfect reason could determine the moral quality of actions, — Yet (1.) That perfect reason is not to be found; (2.) Men differ greatly in their reasoning powers; (3.) Men are not sufficiently contemplative, nor sufficiently honest, for such inquiries; (4.) We find that men bring down the rule to the practice, rather than raise the practice to the rule.
b.) But supposing truth discovered, and intellectual men appointed to teach others, what authority have they?
1. We answer a priori, no other authority than the opinion of a teacher, which might be received or not.
2. And facts are sufficiently in proof of this. — Cicero, &c. c.) (Chap. 4.) But reason, alone, cannot determine the moral quality of actions. (1.) Reason is an erring faculty, and its exercise is limited by our knowledge. (2.) It is one thing to assent to a doctrine when discovered and proposed, and another to make such discovery originally. (3.) The principles of (what is called) natural religion command the assent of reason, but the question is, Whence came they? (4.) Certainly they were never mentioned as discoveries, either by the sacred writers, or sages of antiquity.
d.) In fact, sober views of great religious truths have been found nowhere, since patriarchal times, save in the sacred writings: — thus,
(1.) Existence of GOD. Ancient doubts. Modern Budhists.
(2.) Creation of matter. Eternity of matter was the doctrine of the Ionic, Platonic, Italic, and Stoic schools. Aristotle.
(3.) Individuality of the human soul.
(4.) Doctrine of Providence. Ancients believed in conflicting and subordinate gods.
(5.) Immortality of the human soul. Ancient doctrine of absorption. Modern Hindoo notion of annihilation.
e.) (Chap. 5. *) Those truths which are found in the writings and religious systems of the heathen can be traced to revelation.
(1.) There was a substratum of common opinions among all early nations, in regard to facts and doctrines which are contained in the Old Testament: — thus, golden age, sacrifice, formation of the world, &c.
(2.) Adam, a moral agent, must have had instruction from the Creator, and his knowledge might easily have been transmitted to Noah’s time, for Methuselah was contemporary with both Adam and Noah. Then after the flood, the system would of course be propagated by Noah’s descendants, and we find it received in the family of Abraham. Subsequently it was doubtless vastly diffused by the dispersions and restorations of the children of Israel. Nine conclusions.
IV. A is proved by the NECESSITY OF REVELATION, — evinced, a.) By the state of religious knowledge among the heathen, (chap. vi,) with regard to the first principles of religion: viz.
1. God. The notion of subordinate deifies obtained equally with that of one supreme God. The eternity of matter and its perversity, not to be controlled even by God, were favourite opinions.
2. Providence. If admitted at all, the doctrine was vitiated and counteracted by other opinions. The Epicureans denied it; Plato joined fortune with God; and Polytheism gave up the world to opposing and conflicting powers. * The notes to this chapter are very valuable, and should be studied carefully, in connexion with the text.
3. Future state. Oriental doctrines of transmigration and absorption. Periodical destruction and renovation. Aristotle, Democritus, Heraclitus, and Epicurus either denied or refused to countenance the doctrine of the soul’s existence after death. Cicero doubted; Pliny and Cesar denied it; Seneca wavered.
b.) By the state of morals among the heathen. (Chap. 7.)
1. Their moral and religious systems were doubtless from a common source,
2. But the rules had become involved in obscurity, their injunctions lacked authority, and the general practices of men had become vicious. The subject is illustrated by adverting to certain precepts of the second table, and showing that, although heathen nations have been sensible of the obligation of these, among all of them the rule has been perverted in theory and violated in practice.
(1.) Murder and suicide. Disregard of life among heathen. Gladiatorial combats. Treatment of slaves and children.
(2.) Hatred and revenge. Cicero. Aristotle.
(3.) Adultery, divorce, fornication, &c. Laws in regard to these, though acknowledged, yet grossly violated among heather nations, even down to crimes pa>ra fusin.
(4.) Theft and rapine. Honesty almost unknown among heathen
(5.) Lying. Menander. Plato. India.
c.) By the fact, that their religions themselves were destructive of morality. (Chap. 8.)
1. Their gloomy superstitions fostered ferocity and cruelty. Human sacrifices among ancients, and also in modern Africa, Asia, and America.
2. Their religions were as productive of impurity as of bloodshed Roman Floralia. Mysteries. Indian temple worship.
B. Presumptive evidence that a direct revelation would be made in THIS WAY, 1.e., in the manner in which Christianity professes to have been revealed.
a.) A supernatural manifestation of truth should,
1. Contain explicit information on those subjects which are most important to man;
2. Accord with the principles of former revelations:
3. Have a satisfactory external authentication;
4. Contain provisions for its effectual promulgation;
b.) All these conditions are fulfilled in the Scriptures.
1. They give information as to GOD, MAN, a MEDIATOR, PROVIDENCE, FUTURE STATE, &c,
2. Three distinct religious systems, the Patriarchal, Mosaic, and Christian, harmonize in their doctrines and objects.
3. The Mosaic and Christian revelations profess to rest on external evidence.
4. Provision made (1.) By writing. (2.) By commemorative rites, (3.) By accredited teachers.
II. DIRECT EVIDENCE.
Two preliminaries.
(1) (Chap. 9.) The evidences necessary to authenticate a revelation.
1. EXTERNAL, principal and most appropriate: if not to the immediate recipient, at least to those to whom he communicates it. There are two branches of the external proof, Miracles and Prophecy. (a.) MIRACLES.
1. Definition. 1.) Popular. 2.) Philosophic. 3.) Theological.
2. Possibility of miracles.
3. Distinction between real miracles and prodigies. Criteria.
4. Necessity of connexion between even such real miracles, the messenger, and his message.
5. Human testimony sufficient to establish the credibility of miracles.
(1.) Hume’s objection.
(2.) Replies to it by Paley — Llandaff — Campbell.
6. Fitness of the evidence of miracles as a ground of universal belief. (b.) PROPHECY.
1. Possibility not to be denied. Dilemma.
2. Adequateness as a proof.
2. INTERNAL.
(a.) Nature of the evidence.
(b.) Its rank in the scale of evidence.
1. Not necessary: sufficient proof without it: but nevertheless useful.
2. Not primary, but confirmatory. The contrary opinion not only supposes us capable of judging fully of the doctrines revealed, but also renders the external testimony comparatively nugatory. Two sources of this error.
(1.) The notion that miracles might be wrought to attest unworthy doctrines.
(2.) A confounding of the rational with the authenticating evidence.
3. Not so well adapted to the mass of mankind as external evidence.
3. COLLATERAL. Nature of the evidence stated.
(II.) (Chap. 11.) The use and limitation of reason in religion. (a.) USE of reason in regard to revelation.
1. To investigate the evidences of its divine authority.
2. To interpret the meaning of the record.
(b.) LIMITATION.
1. It must not decide in cases where the nature of things is not known. either by or without revelation.
2. The things compared must be of the same nature, and the comparison must be made in the same respects.
These preliminaries being settled, we now proceed to adduce positive evidences, of which there are three heads, viz.: —
I. EXTERNAL EVIDENCE.
(I.) Preliminaries.
(A.) (Chap. 12.) ANTIQUITY OF THE SCRIPTURES, a.) The PERSONS who were the immediate instruments of these revelations, existed at the periods assigned. Proved,
(1.) By the very existence of 1.) The Jewish polity; and 2.) The Christian religion.
(2.) By the testimony of ancient authors.
1. As to Moses. Manetho, Apollonius, Strabo, Justin, Pliny, Tacitus, Juvenal, Longinus, Diod. Siculus, &c.
2. As to Christ. Suetonius, Tacitus.
b.) The BOOKS which contain the doctrines are of the date assigned to them. Proved,
(1.) As to Old Testament.
1. By the language in which it is written.
2. By Josephus’ Catalogue.
3. By the Septuagint, and by Samaritan Pentateuch.
4. By LESLIE’S ARGUMENT, which gives four rules for determining the truth of matters of fact, all which are applied with success to the Old Testament, viz.:
(1.) The matter of fact must be cognizable by the senses.
(2.) The matter of fact must be publicly done.
(3.) The matter of fact must be commemorated by monuments and outward actions,
(4.) Which must date from the time of the matters of fact.
(2.) As to New Testament.
1. By Leslie’s Argument, as before.
2. By internal evidence from the narration itself.
3. Testimony of adversaries. CELSUS, PORPHYRY, HIEROCLES, JULIAN.
4. Quotations by subsequent authors, from the apostles downward. (B.) (Chap. 13.) UNCORRUPTED PRESERVATION OF THE BOOKS OF SCRIPTURE.
a.) The books are SUBSTANTIALLY the same as when written. Proved,
(1.) As to Old Testament. By the list of Josephus, Septuagint, and Samaritan Pentateuch.
(2.) As to New Testament, By the Catalogues of Origen, Athanasius, b.) But it can be shown also, that they have descended to us without any material alteration whatever.
(1.) As to Old Testament.
1. Before the time of Christ, they were secured from alteration by their being generally known, — by the jealousy of the Samaritans, — by the public reading on Sabbath, — by Chaldee Paraphrase and the Greek version.
2. After the birth of Christ, by mutual jealousy of Jews and Christians, and the general diffusion of the books.
3. All this is confirmed by the agreement of the manuscripts in all important respects.
(2.) As to New Testament.
1. From their contents. Same facts and doctrines.
2. Impossibility of corruption because of general knowledge of the books, and mutual restraints of orthodox and heretics, Eastern and Western churches.
3. From the agreement of the manuscripts.
4. From the agreement of ancient versions and quotations. (C.) (Chap. 14.) CREDIBILITY OF THE TESTIMONY OF THE SACRED WRITERS.
(1.) That they were persons of virtuous and sober character was never denied.
(2.) They were in circumstances to know the truth of what they relate. They could not be deceived, for instance, as to the feeding of the four thousand, gift of tongues, &c.
(3.) They had no interest in making good the story. Their interests all lay in the opposite direction.
(4.) Their account is circumstantial, and given in a learned age, when its falsity might easily have been detected.
(II.) After these preliminaries, establishing the genuineness and authenticity of the books, it remains now to present the argument. (A.) FROM MIRACLES.
(1.) (Chap. 15.) Their reality proved.
(a.) Definition of a true miracle.
(b.) Claims of Scriptural miracles to be considered true, illustrated —
1. As to those of Moses. Darkness, destruction of first-born passage of Red Sea, falling of manna.
2. As to those of Christ. Illustrated especially by the greatest miracle, the RESURRECTION, in regard to which it is shown, a. That Christ was really dead.
b. That the body was missing. That c. Every attempt to account for (b,) except on the supposition of a resurrection, is absurd, and d. That the story was confirmed by the subsequent testimony and conduct of the disciples.
(2.) (Chap. 16.) Objections answered.
(a.) It is asserted that miracles have been wrought in support of other doctrines.
I. On the authority of Scripture. For, it is said,
(1.) That Scripture gives instances of such: e. g., of magicians in opposition to Moses, and the raising of Samuel by the witch of Endor, etc. In reply to this,
1. As to the feats of the magicians, it is to be noticed, 1. That they were professed wonder-workers; 2. That they could imitate but three of Moses’ miracles; 3. That their works were wrought to maintain the equality of their idols with Jehovah. Two explanations are given.
1. Some suppose these were exercises of legerdemain.
2. Our author admits a supernatural evil agency: which is not unreasonable, inasmuch as the design was, not to disprove the divinity of Jehovah, but to maintain their own authority.
2. As to the witch of Endor, and Satan’s bearing our Lord through the air: — Granting these events to have been miraculous, it cannot be shown that they were wrought in opposition to a divine mission.
(2.) That Scripture assumes the possibility of such. Deuteronomy 13:1; Matthew 24:24; 2 Thessalonians 2:8, 9. As to this,
1. Notice the nature and work of Satan. — Six points.
2. Observe the limitations of the power of evil spirits, four points: (1.) No work of creation. (2.) No power of life and death. (3.) No knowledge of future events. (4.) No certain knowledge of the thoughts of men.
3. Apply these considerations to show
(1.) That no real miracle can be performed in opposition to the truth. Illustrated,
(1.) By the case of the Egyptian magi.
(2.) By that of false Christs, &c.
(2.) Nor any prophecy be uttered implying certain knowledge of future events: though great sagacity may be exhibited. N. B. No evidence recorded in favour of falsehood that might not readily be refuted on the spot by counter evidence.
II. On the authority of profane writers. Miracles of Aristeas, Pythagoras, Alexander, Vespasian, Apollonius Tyanmus, and the Romish Church. To this we reply,
(a.) These pretended miracles are all deficient in evidence. (b.) They are insulated and destitute of any reasonable object, while the miracles of Scripture combine for the establishment of one system. (B.) FROM PROPHECY.
(1.) (Chap. 17.) Their reality proved.
(a.) Preliminary considerations.
1. The instances are numerous.
2. Many have clearly come to pass.
3. They all tend to one great end.
4. This last characteristic is peculiar to the Scripture prophecies.
5. There is no obscurity in them that can be a just ground for cavil.
6. The double sense of prophecy, so far from being an objection, is a confirmation of the infinite wisdom that inspired it.
(b.) Examples of such predictions.
1. The prediction to Adam of the protracted conflict between the serpent and the seed of the woman, with the ultimate triumph of the latter.
2. Jacob’s prediction respecting the time when Shiloh should come.
3. Predictions respecting the Jewish nation, viz.: — (1.) Their apostacies.
(2.) Their punishments. (3.) Their restoration.
4. Predictions respecting the Messiah.
(1.) Upward of one hundred distinct predictions as to his birth, life, sufferings, death, and resurrection.
(2.) Wonderful prophecy, especially, contained in Isaiah 53.
(2.) (Chap. 18.) Objections answered.
(a.) It is objected to some of the prophecies, that they were written after the event. This cannot be sustained: illustrated as to Isaiah and Daniel. (b.) The Scripture prophecies are compared to the heathen oracles. Let us take the Delphic oracle for an example. Of this we say,
1. None of its predictions ever went deep into futurity.
2. Its responses were ambiguous.
3. Venal and servile, it was easily corrupted. None of which can be alleged of Scripture prophecies.
(c.) The character of the prophets is aspersed. E. g., Balaam, and Jewish false prophets. Singular proceeding to condemn the true on account of the false, who were not received by the Jews themselves.
(d.) It is asserted that some of the prophecies have failed.
1. Promise to Abraham. Ans. But this was fulfilled in the time of David and Solomon.
2. Promise of great wealth and dominion to the Jews. (Voltaire.) Ans. Civil blessings promised conditionally, and spiritual blessings generally predicted under figures of speech.
3. Prediction of Isaiah to Ahaz. Ans. This was fulfilled.
4. Prophecy of Jeremiah to Zedekiah. Ans. This was fulfilled in all particulars, as far as we know.
5. That of Ezekiel respecting the desolation of Egypt. Ans. We know not that it has not been fulfilled: and the very same prophecy contains a prediction that has been remarkably accomplished.
(e.) Sundry actions of the prophets have been ridiculed. Ans. They were appropriate to the occasions, and in accordance with primitive and oriental usage.
II. INTERNAL EVIDENCE.
Notice two preliminaries.
(1.) The distinction between rational and authenticating evidence.
(2.) Those doctrines which have no rational evidence do not suffer in authority on that account.
We have now to consider,
A.) THE EXCELLENCE AND BENEFICIAL TENDENCY OF THE DOCTRINES OF SCRIPTURE. Among which are a.) The existence of God — his character, attributes, &c. b.) The moral condition of man: viz.
1. The race is absolutely vicious.
2. And vicious in consequence of a moral taint in their nature: for the evil is not to be accounted for by the influence of education or example, as some vainly say.
3. The divine government, in regard to man, is of a mixed character. c.) The atonement. Doctrine much objected to, as being deficient in rational evidence. The Christian doctrine of atonement is grounded on
1. Future punishment, which is
2. Unlimited: for which two arguments may be assigned. (1.) Present analogies. (2.) Doctrine of immortality.
3. The problem of the possibility of pardon, without such a relaxation of the divine government as would effectually nullify it, can only be solved by this great doctrine. Repentance and reformation are not only unavailing, but would, from the nature of the case, be impracticable. Illustration, Zaleucus.
d.) Doctrine of the influence of the Holy Spirit.
1. No physical objection to this doctrine.
2. No moral objection. Free agency not destroyed.
3. It is adapted to the moral destitution of man.
4. It presents an affecting view of the divine character.
5. It elevates our aspirations, and encourages us to the performance of the most difficult duties.
This branch of the internal evidence may be properly closed by noticing e.) The wonderful agreement in doctrine among the writers, though numerous, and writing at different periods.
(B.) MORAL TENDENCY OF THE SCRIPTURES.
a) It has been asserted that the Bible has an immoral tendency, because it records the failings of some of its leading characters! Answered: — These frailties are always recorded for admonition; illustrated by David’s case. N. B. The moral characters of Blount, Tyndal, Hobbes, Voltaire, &c., not very honourable to the cause which they espouse.
b.) Compare pagan morality with that of the Scriptures.
1. Great moral qualities attributed to the divine Being were abstract with them; but in Christ they are all exemplified.
2. No authority for moral rules among Pagans.
3. Their apprehension of moral principles was indistinct.
4. The same writers among heathen are of a lower grade than among Christians.
5. Beauty and symmetry of the Christian morals. Wesley. Taylor. (C.) STYLE AND MANNER OF THE SACRED WRITERS.
a.) Style, various, as it should be, being the productions of different individuals, in different ages. Marsh. Michaelis.
b.) Manner, artless and natural, possessing all the simplicity of truth. III. COLLATERAL EVIDENCE.
(A.) MARVELLOUS DIFFUSION OF CHRISTIANITY, especially during the first three centuries, confirmed by Tacitus, Pliny, Justin, Tertullian, Origen, until A. D. 300, when Christianity became the established religion of the Roman empire.
(B.) ACTUAL EFFECT PRODUCED UPON MANKIND. Idolatry. Immorality. Infanticide. Condition of woman.
IV. MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS ANSWERED.
Preliminary remarks. (Chap. 20.)
1. Objections are often raised in great ignorance of the volume itself.
2. Hasty theories have been constructed, which have been found or thought to contradict the Scriptures; thus Deism arose in the sixteenth century in France, and in the seventeenth in England.
3. HERBERT, HOBBES, SHAFTESBURY, and HUME, the chief English infidels; and the great principle of error with them all, is that of Herbert of Cherbury, viz., “the sufficiency of our natural faculties to form a religion for ourselves, and to decide upon the merits of revealed truth.” I. Objections on moral grounds.
1. The command to the Israelites to exterminate the Canaanites. Ans. It cannot be proved inconsistent with the character of God to employ human agents, as well as natural, in such a work.
2. Law in Deuteronomy authorizing parents to accuse their children, &c. Ans. In fact this was a merciful regulation.
3. Intentional offering of Isaac by Abraham.
Ans. (1.) Abraham had no doubt of the divine command.
(2.) He obeyed, in faith that God would raise his son.
4. Indelicacy and immodesty have been charged upon the Scriptures. Ans. (1.) These sins are everywhere denounced as offensive to God.
(2.) The passages alluded to are generally prohibitions of crime.
(3.) The simplicity of early manners is to be considered. Several others might be adduced, but a little skill in the languages and antiquities of Scripture will always clear up the main difficulties. II. Objections on philosophical grounds.
1. Infidels are fond of contrasting (what they call) the simplicity of the book of nature with the mystery of the book of God.
Ans. (1.) Many doctrines and duties are comprehensible.
(2.) Facts may be revealed, and yet be incomprehensible: e. g., it is revealed that God is omnipresent, but not how he is so, &c.
(3.) But even in their boasted natural philosophy, revelation and mystery go hand in hand. The real causes of the phenomena named gravitation, cohesion, evaporation, &c., are unknown; and even in pure mathematics, such incomprehensibles occur.
2. From the minuteness of the earth as contrasted with the vastness of the material universe, infidelity argues the insignificance of man: thence the improbability of redemption.
Answered, (1.) By Dr. Beatty. (2.) By Granville Penn.
3. Objections are brought against the Mosaic chronology from two sources:
(1.) The chronology of ancient nations.
(2.) The structure of the earth.
As to the (1) class, the ancient chronologies are rapidly losing character, especially the Hindoo and Chinese, which make the greatest pretensions to antiquity. No reliance whatever is placed upon them.
As to the (2) geological objection, two solutions have been offered.
1. That the days of the Mosaic history are indefinite periods.
2. That an indefinite time elapsed between the beginning spoken of in Genesis 1:1, and the work of the six days. To both these solutions our author objects, and prefers the views of Mr. Granville Penn.
4. It is objected that light was created on the first day, and the sun not until the fourth.
Several solutions.
5. Objections to Mosaic account of the deluge.
6. Objections as to number of animals taken into the ark with Noah.