$13.

Divine authority of the Old Testament.

The very same kind of arguments which proves the divine authority of the writings of Mark and Luke (§ 12), will also prove the divine authority of the books of the Old Testament(1); for they have alike received the sanction of men whose credentials were.divine. As it has been proved (§§ 6-11,) that the religious instructions of Jesus and his apostles are of divine authority, it follows that all their declarations, and of course their assertions relative to the Old Testament (2), must be received implicitly as being accordant with truth. But Jesus and his apostles not only declare that God is the author of the Mosaic Laws (3), but they receive other parts of the writings of Moses as true (4); not excepting his account of events which took place before his birth (5); and they assume that the books of Moses were written at the special instance (6) of God, and under his particular guidance (7). They assert that the Pentateuch (8), and the sacred books of the Jews in general (9), contain divine predictions (10),-(not the conjectures and fictions of men) (11),—which are therefore (12) prophecies of indisputable certainty (13). And not only the prophecies, but the whole of the Old Testament, all its moral instructions (14), its narratives (15), and in short, the whole contents of the book, whether prophetic, doctrinal, or historical, and even the very expressions used (16), they assume as indisputably true (17). And this claim of the Old Testament to our implicit credence, they found on the divinity of the book (18).

ILLUSTRATION 1.

The books of the New testament were reckoned equally sacred with those of the Old Testament, even in the apostolic age.

It is evident from the declarations of Jesus and his apostles, that they ascribed divine authority to writings, no less than to oral communications. Hence it is the more improbable that the promises of Jesus, and the declarations of the apostles (§ 9, 10), as to the divine influence and aid which they had while instructing men, were confined to a part of their teaching, namely the oral, to the exclusion of the written. On the contrary, we know that even in the apostolical age, the writings of the New Testament were held in as high estimation as those of the Old. Thus I. James, in his second chapter (v. 8), quotes a Gospel, and seems to have the passage Matth. 22: 39, 36, in his view. In other passages also he seems to have his eye on the Gospel of Matthew; compare James 2: 13 with Matth. 24: 41 -45, 34-40. James 1: 22 with Matth. 7: 24 &c. James 3: 11, 12 with Matth. 7: 15 &c. James 5: 10 with Matth. 5: 12. James 5: 12 with Matth. 5:34-37.1 II. In chap. 4: 5, James quotes an epistle of Paul under the title of n yoagn. He seems to allude to Gal. 5: 17 &c.; and in the next verse he quotes, in conjunction with it, a passage from the Old Testament (Prov. 3: 34) with the expression dialsyɛı (i. e. ǹ roaqn, which must be supplied from the preceding verse). The epistle to the Galatians and the Proverbs are therefore equally accounted parts of the "Holy Scriptures."2 That Gal. 5: 17 (compared with v. 20, 21) is probably the passage to which James here refers, is proved in § III. of the dissertation just referred to in the margin. For there is no passage in the Old Testament to which

1 See Dissert. on the Epistle of James, Note 62. Opuscul. acad. vol. II. p. 25.

2 See Dissert. on the Catholic Epistles, Note 48.

μα

1

James could possibly have referred; but his citation agrees very well with Gal. 5: 17 &c. The words of Paul to пvενμa ɛñiθυμεί κατα της σαρκος the spirit lusteth against the flesh, are indeed expressed by James, thus : προς φθονον επιποθεί το πνευua the spirit lusteth to envy; yet Paul in the above passage, not only mentions φθονον (envy) among the εργοις της σαρκος works of the flesh (v. 19, 20), but the whole passage contains an exhortation to brotherly love (v. 13), and a reprehension of envy (v. 15.)1 III. Polycarp denominates the book of Psalms and the epistle to the Ephesians alike, the Sacred Scriptures. He says, "Ut his scripturis dictum est: Irascimini et nolite peccare. Et sol non occidat super iracundiam vestram, i. e. as it is said in these Scriptures: Be ye angry and sin not; and let not the sun go down upon your wrath. The first quotation, irascimini, is from Psalm 4: 5, and the latter, et sol non &c. from Eph. 4: 26, and both are denominated "Scripture." In the New Apology for the Revelation, it is proved that there is a spurious addition to the epistle of Polycarp (§ 13), which Eusebius does not seem to have read; but that the epistle itself is on that account by no means to be regarded as spurious.3

ILLUSTRATION 2.

2

The declarations of Jesus and the apostles relative to the Old Testament, are not an accommodation to popular opinion and prejudice.

Those who consider the declarations of Christ and his apostles concerning the Old Testament, as also many of their dec

1 See the different explanations of this passage, in Pott. epistol. cathol. Fasc. I. Excurs. III. p. 247-270. C. C. Flatt, Spicilegium Observat. in epist. Jacobi catholicam, p. 35-42, Tüb. 1806.

2 XII. Pol. Epist.

3 See p. 179 of the Apology. Compare Schmidt's Kirchengeschichte, 1 Th. S. 213.

larations on other subjects, as being an accommodation," (that is, as a speaking in accordance with the erroneous opinions of their hearers, who had too exalted ideas of the Scriptures of the Old Testament, and as not expressing precisely and truly their own opinions,) not only make a very arbitrary supposition, but they violate the fundamental and unexceptionable principles of interpretation, and deny that authority and credibility which we are compelled to ascribe to both Jesus and his apostles. But in the present case, there is an appropriate argument against the supposition of such accommodation, namely, that precisely the same language is used by Jesus respecting the Old Test. when conversing with his apostles (Matth. 26:24, 31. Luke 22:37. 24: 44-47), and even in his prayers to his heavenly Father (e. g. John 17: 12); and likewise by Paul, when addressing his confidential friend Timothy, whom he terms tooчuzov 1 of the same mind with himself; and also when addressing those who were opposed to Judaism.” See 2 Tim. 3: 15, 16. 1 Cor. 9: 8-10. 10: 1-11. 14: 21, 34. 15: 3, 4, 25-27.3

The principal arguments against the supposed Accommodation of Jesus and his apostles, and which are fully stated and defended in the works mentioned at the close of this illustration, are the following:

I. The moral character of Jesus and his apostles, renders such a supposition inadmissible.

1 Phil. 2: 20-22.

2 In the Dissert. on the epistles to the Corinthians (9), it is remarked, that these epistles, and especially the first, were addressed to that part of the Corinthian church, which were "of Paul," and " of Apollos" (1 Cor. 3: 4), and which was not the Judaizing party.

3 Compare Reinhard's Vorlesungen über die Dogmatik, herausgegeben von Berger 1801. s. 60 f.

II. The supposition, that Jesus and his apostles propagated falsehoods under the garb of truth, is overturned by the fact that miracles evinced their high authority as teachers.

III. No sure criterion can be given which shall enable us to distinguish between those of their declarations which they believed themselves, and those in which they accommodated themselves to the erroneous notions of the Jews. The Scriptures no where make a distinction between what is universally true; and what is only local or temporary. The theory of accommodation involves the whole of revelation in uncertainty.

IV. Many of those coincidences between the instructions of Christ and the Jewish opinions, which have commonly been referred to accommodation, cannot even be proved to be historically true. The Rabbinical writings which are appealed to, are of more recent origin than the age of Christ and his apostles; the works of Philo and Josephus do not uniformly exhibit the ideas which were prevalent among the Jews resident in Palestine. Moreover, the representations contained in these works, and also in some apocryphal books, differ in a variety of respects from the doctrines of the New Testament. If, however, some of the instructions of Jesus and his apostles, did coincide with the popular opinions of the Jews, it by no means follows that they must therefore have been erroneous. So far as these Jewish opinions were correct, they were worthy of the approbation of Jesus. And the providence of God may, by previous intimations of them, have paved the way for the reception of the peculiar doctrines of christianity.

V. The necessity for such accommodation on the part of Jesus and his apostles, cannot be proved.

The principal authors against the scheme of accommodation, are Storr, on the Historical Sense of the N. T. § IX— XXI, 1778. Opusc. academ. Vol. I. No. 1. His Dissertation,