ANALYSIS WATSON'S THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. PART GENERAL DIVISION. I. EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. II. DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY "ii. 468 IV. INSTITUTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY lxxxiii. ❝ ii. 572 PART FIRST. EVIDENCES OF THE DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. L PRESUMPTIVE evidence. OUTLINE. A. That a direct revelation would be made in some way. (Pp. 1–62.) B. That it would be made in this way, i. e., in the manner in which Chris-tianity professes to have been revealed. (Pp. 62-70.) II. DIRECT evidence, preliminary to the introduction of which are considered (1.) The kind and degree of evidence necessary to authenticate a revelation. (Pp. 70-95.) (2.) The use and limitation of reason in religion; (pp. 95–105;) after which the positive evidences are introduced under the following heads :-viz. (1.) EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. I. Preliminaries. (A.) Antiquity of the Scriptures. (Pp. 105-133.) (B.) Uncorrupted preservation of the books of Scripture. (Pp. 184141.) (C.) Credibility of the testimony of the sacred writers; (pp. 141-146;) which being established, of course proves the genuineness and authenticity of the books of Scripture. II. Argument. (A.) From miracles. Real miracles were wrought. (Pp. 146–156.) Objections to the proof from MIRACLES answered. (Pp. 156-175.) (B.) From prophecy. Real predictions were delivered. (Pp. 175-193.) Objections to the proof from PROPHECY answered. (Pp. 194-204.) (II.) INTERNAL EVIDENCE. (A.) The excellence and beneficial tendency of the doctrines of Scrij ture. (Pp. 205-225.) (B.) Moral tendency of the Scriptures. (Pp. 225-230.) (C.) Style and manner of the sacred writers. (Pp. 220, 231, 232.) (III.) COLLATEral Evidence. (Pp. 232-236.) And finally (IV) Miscellaneous OBJECTIONS are answered. (Pp. 236-262.) PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE. ▲ Presumptive evidence that a direct revelation would be made in SOME way. L. (Chap. i.) 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 julged 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 a.) Creation implies government—and government implies law-which II (Chaps. 3, 4, 5.) A is proved by THE WEAKNESS OF HUMAN REASON AND THE WANT OF AUTHORITY IN HUMAN OPINIONS. (Pp. 15--44.) 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 origin ally. (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. (2.) Creation of matter. Ancient doubts. Modern Budhists. 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. (P. 27.) (2.) (Pp. 27, 28, &c.) Adam, a moral agent, must have had instruction from the Creator, and his knowledge might easily have bee 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 descendar ts, 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. (P. 33.) 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 deities 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 coun. teracted by other opinions. The Epicureans denied it; Plato The note to this chapter are very valuable, and should be studied carefully, in con Dexion with the text. joined fortune with God; and Polytheism gave up the world to opposing and conflicting powers. 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. vii.) 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. Gladia Treatment of slaves and children. torial combats. (2.) Hatred and revenge. Cicero. Aristotle. (8.) Adultery, divorce, fornication, &c. Laws in regard to these, though acknowledged, yet grossly violated among heather nations, even down to crimes Tūpa ḍvoiv. (4.) Theft and rapine. Honesty almost unknown among heathen (5.) Lying. Menander. Plato. India. .) By the fact, that their religions themselves were destructive of morality (Chap. viii.) 1. Their gloomy superstitions fostered ferocity and cruelty. Humar 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 i. e., in the manner in which Christianity professes to have been revealed. (Pp. 62-70.) 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; D.) 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. |