Chapter 3
Chapter 3.
Arguments of two sorts. Inartificial Arguments by way of Testimony, to the Truth. To whom these Arguments are valid. Isaiah 8:20. 2 Timothy 3:16. of [illegible]. The [illegible] that accompanies the voice of God. Jeremiah 3:26, 27, 28, 29. The rejection of a plea of [illegible], wherein it consists. Luke 16:31. of miracles, their efficacy to beget faith, compared with the word. 2 Peter 1:16, 19, 20.
Section 1. Having declared the Divine Original, and Authority of the Scripture, and explained the Position laid down as the foundation of our ensuing discourse, way is now made for us, to the consideration of those self-Evidences of its divine Rise, and consequently Authority that it is attended withal, upon the account whereof we receive it, as, (believing it to be) the Word of God.
Section 2. The Arguments whereby any thing is confirmed are of two sorts; Inartificial, by the Way of Testimony; and Artificial, by the Way of Deductions and Inferences. Whatever is capable of contributing Evidence unto Truth, falls under one of these two heads. Both these kinds of Proofs we make use of, in the business in hand. Some profess they own the Authority of the Scriptures, and also urge others so to do; but they well dispute on what grounds and Accounts they do so. With those we may deal in the first way, by Testimony from the Scriptures themselves, which upon their own Principles they cannot refuse. When they shall be pleased to inform us, that they have relinquished those Principles, and do no longer own the Scripture to be the Word of God, We will withdraw the Witnesses upon their Exceptions whom for the present we make use of. Testimonies that are innate and ingrafted in the Word itself, used only as Mediums of Artificial Arguments to be deduced from them, which are of the second sort, may be used towards them who at present own not the Authority of the Scripture on any account whatever, or who are desirous to put on themselves the Persons of such men, to try their skill and Ability for the management of a Controversy against the Word of God.
Section 3. In both these cases the Testimony of the Scripture is pleaded, and is to be received; or cannot with any pretense of Reason be refused; in the former, upon the account of the acknowledged Authority and Veracity of the Witness though speaking in its own case; in the latter upon the account of that self Evidence which the Testimony insisted on is accompanied withal, made out by such Reasonings and Arguments as for the kind of them, Persons who own not its Authority, cannot but admit. In human things; if a man of known Integrity and unspotted Reputation bear Witness in any cause, and give uncontrollable Evidence to his Testimony, from the very nature and Order of the things whereof he speaks, as it is expected that those who know and admit of his Integrity and Reputation do acquiesce in his Assertion, so those to whom he is a Stranger, who are not moved by his Authority, will yet be overcome to assent to what is witnessed by him, from the nature of the things he asserts, especially if there be a coincidence of all such circumstances, as are any way needful to give Evidence to the matter in hand.
Section 4. Thus it is, in the case under consideration. For those who profess themselves to believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God, and so own the credit and fidelity of the Witness, it may reasonably be expected from them, yea in strict Justice demanded of them, that they stand to the Testimony, that they give to themselves, and their own divine Original. By saying that the Scripture is the Word of God, and then commanding as to prove it so to be, they render themselves obnoxious unto every Testimony that we produce from it, that so it is; and that it is to be received on its own Testimony. This Witness they cannot wave without disavowing their own Professed Principles; without which Principles they have not the least color of imposing this task on us.
Section 5. As for them, with whom we have not the Present advantage of their own Acknowledgment, it is not reasonable to impose upon them with the bare Testimony of that Witness concerning whom the Question is, whether he be worthy the Acceptation pleaded for; But yet Arguments taken from the Scripture, from what it is, and does, its Nature and Operation, by which the causes and springs of all things are discovered, are not to be refused.
Section 6. But it is neither of these, that principally I intend to deal withal; my present Discourse is rather about the satisfaction of our own consciences, than the Answering of others Objections. Only we must satisfy our Consciences upon such Principles as will stand against all men's Objections. This then is chiefly enquired after; namely what it is that gives such an Assurance of the Scriptures being the Word of God, as that relying thereon we have a sure Bottom and foundation for our receiving them as such; and from whence it is, that those who receive them not in that manner, are left inexcusable in their damnable unbelief. This we say, is in, and from the Scripture itself; so that there is no other need of any further witness or Testimony, nor is any, in the same kind, to be admitted.
Section 7. It is not at all in my Purpose to insist largely at present on this subject, and therefore I shall content myself with instancing in some few Testimonies and Arguments, beginning with one or two of the first sort. Isaiah 8:20. To the law and to the Testimony, if they speak not according to this Word, there is no light in them. Whatever any one says be it what, or who it will, Church, or Person, if it be in or about the things of God, concerning his Will or Worship, with our Obedience to him, it is to be tried by the Law and Testimony. Hither we are sent; This is asserted to be the Rule and standard, the touchstone of all speakings whatever. Now that must speak alone for itself, which must try the speaking of all, but itself, yea its own also.
Section 8. But what does this Law and Testimony, that is, this written Word plead, on the account whereof, it should be thus attended unto? What does it urge for its Acceptation? Tradition, Authority of the Church, Miracles, consent of men? or does it speak [illegible], and stand only upon its own Sovereignty? The Apostle gives us his Answer to this Enquiry, 2 Timothy 3:16. [illegible]. Its Plea for Reception in Comparison with, and Opposition unto all other ways of coming to the knowledge of God, his Mind and Will, founded whereon, it calls for attendance and submission with supreme uncontrollable Authority is its [illegible] or divine inspiration. It remains then only to be enquired, whether, when [illegible] is pleaded, there be any middle way, but either that it be received with divine faith, or rejected as false.
Section 9. Suppose a man were [illegible], divinely inspired, and should so profess himself in the name of the Lord, as did the Prophets of old, Amos 7. supposing I say he were so indeed; it will not be denied, but that his message were to be received and submitted unto on that account. The denial of it, would justify them, who rejected and slew those, that spoke unto them in the name of the Lord. And it is to say in plain terms, we may reject them whom God sends. Though miracles were given only with respect to Persons, not things, yet most of the Prophets, who wrought no miracles, insisted on this, that being [illegible] divinely inspired, their doctrine was to be received, as from God. In their so doing, it was sin, even Unbelief, and Rebellion against God, not to submit to what they spoke in his name. And it always so fell out, to fix our faith on the right bottom, that scarce any Prophet that spoke in the name of God, had any Approbation from the Church, in whose days He spoke. Matthew 5:12. chapter 23:29. Luke 17:47, 48. Acts 7:52. Matthew 21:33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38. It is true! [illegible]; 2 Peter 2:1. there were false Prophets, that spoke in the name of the Lord, when he sent them not, Jeremiah 23:22. Yet were those whom he did send, to be received on pain of damnation: on the same penalty were the others to be refused. Jeremiah 23:28, 29. The foundation of this duty lies in the [illegible], that accompanied the Word that was [illegible]; of which afterwards. And without a supposal hereof, it could not consist with the Goodness and Righteousness of God, to require of men, under the penalty of his eternal displeasure, to make such a discrimination, where he had not given them [illegible], infallible tokens to enable them so to do.
Section 10. But that he had, and has done so, he declares, Jeremiah 23. How long shall this be in the heart of the Prophets that Prophesy lies? that are Prophets of the deceit of their own heart; which think to cause my people to forget my name by their dreams, which they tell every man to his neighbour, as their fathers have forgotten my name for Baal. The Prophet that has a dream, let him tell a dream, and he that has my word, let him speak my word faithfully; what is the chaff to the wheat, says the Lord; is not my word like a fire, says the Lord, and like a hammer that breaks the mountains in Pieces. In the latter days of that Church, when the People were most eminently perplexed with false Prophets, both as to their number and subtlety, yet God lays their Eternal and Temporal safety, or Ruin, on their discerning aright between his Word and that which was only pretended so to be. And that they might not complain of this imposition, he tenders them security of its easiness of Performance. Speaking of his own Word comparatively, as to every thing that is not so, he says, it is as Wheat to Chaff, which may infallibly, by being what it is, be discerned from it; and then absolutely that it has such Properties, as that it will discover itself; even Light and heat, and Power. A Person then who was truly [illegible], was to be attended unto, because he was so.
Section 11. As then was said before, the Scriptures being [illegible], is not the case the same, as with a man that was so? is there any thing in the Writing of it by Gods Command, that should impair its Authority? nay is it not freed from innumerable prejudices that attended it, in its first giving out by men; arising from the personal infirmities, and supposed interests of them that delivered it? Jeremiah 43:3. John 9:29. Acts 24:5.
Section 12. This being pleaded by it, and insisted on, its Testimony is received, or it is not. If it be received on this account, there is in it we say the proper basis and foundation of faith, whereon it has its [illegible] or subsistence. If it be rejected, it must be not only with a refusal of its witness, but also with a high detestation of its pretense to be from God. What ground or plea for such a refusal and detestation any one has, or can have, shall be afterwards considered. If it be a sin to refuse it, it had been a duty to receive it: if a duty to receive it as the Word of God, then was it sufficiently manifested so to be. Of the objection arising from them who pretend to this inspiration falsely, we have spoken before; and we are as yet dealing with them that own the Book whereof we spoke to be the Word of God, and only call in Question the Grounds on which they do so; or on which others ought so to do. As to these it may suffice, that in the strength of all the Authority and truth they profess to own and acknowledge in it, it declares the foundation of its Acceptance to be no other, but its own divine inspiration; hence it is [illegible].
Section 13. Again in that dispute, that was between Abraham and the Rich man, Luke 16:31, about the best and most effectual means of bringing men to Repentance: The Rich man in Hell, speaking his own conception, fixes upon Miracles; if one rise from the dead, and preach, the work will be done: Abraham is otherwise minded, that is, Christ was so, the Author of that parable: He bids them attend to Moses and the Prophets, the Written Word, as that which all faith and Repentance was immediately to be grounded on. The enquiry being, how men might be best assured, that any message is from God, did not the Word manifest itself to be from him, this direction had not been equal.
Section 14. The Ground of the Request for the rising of one from the dead, is laid in the common Apprehension of men not knowing the power of God in the Scriptures; who think, that if an evident miracle were wrought, all pretences and pleas of Unbelief would be excluded; who doth not think so? Our Saviour discovers that mistake, and lets men know, that those who will not own, or submit to the Authority of God in the Word, would not be moved by the most signal miracles imaginable. If an holy man, whom we had known assuredly to have been dead for some years, should rise out of his grave, and come unto us with a message from God; could any man doubt whether he were sent unto us of God or no? I suppose not. The rising of men from the dead was the greatest miracle that attended the Resurrection of our Saviour, Matthew 27:52, 53. Yea greater than his own, if the Socinians may be believed: namely; in that he raised not himself by his own power; yet the evidence of the mission of such an One, and the Authority of God speaking in him, our Saviour being Judge, is not of an Efficacy to enforce belief beyond that which is in the Written Word, nor a surer foundation for faith to repose itself upon.
Section 15. Could we hear a Voice from Heaven, accompanied with such a divine power, as to evidence itself to be from God, should we not rest in it as such? I suppose men think they would; can we think that any man should withdraw his Assent, and say, yea but I must have some Testimony that this is from God? All such Evasions are precluded in the supposition, wherein a self-evidencing Power is granted. What greater miracles did the Apostles of Christ ever behold, or hear; than that Voice that came [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], from the most excellent Glory; This is my beloved Son: yet Peter who heard that voice tells us, that comparatively we have greater security from, and by the Written Word, than they had in, and by that miraculous voice: We have [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]; we heard saith he that voice indeed, but we have a more sure word of Prophecy to attend unto. More sure! Not in its self, but in its giving out its Evidence unto us. And how doth it appear so to be? The Reason he alleges for it, was before insisted on, 2 Peter 1:18, 19, 20.
Section 16. Yea suppose that God should speak to us from Heaven, as he spake to Moses; or as he spake to Christ; or from some certain place, as Numbers 7:8, 9. How should we be able to know it to be the Voice of God? Cannot Satan cause a Voice to be heard in the Air, and so deceive us? Or, may not there be some way in this kind found out, whereby men might impose upon us with their delusions. Pope Celestine thought he heard a voice from heaven, when it was but the cheat of his Successor. Must We not rest at last in that [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], which accompanies the true Voice of God, evidencing itself, and ascertaining the Soul beyond all possibility of mistake. Now did not this [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] accompany the written Word at its first giving forth? If it did not, as was said, how could any man be obliged to discern it from all delusions? If it did, how came it to lose it? Did God appoint his word to be Written, that so he might destroy its Authority? If the Question be whether the doctrines proposed to be believed, are Truths of God, or cunningly devised fables, we are sent to the Scripture itself, and that alone, to give the Determination.
Chapter 3.
Arguments of two kinds. Non-logical arguments by way of testimony to the truth. To whom these arguments are valid. Isaiah 8:20. 2 Timothy 3:16 on divine inspiration. The self-evidencing power that accompanies the voice of God. Jeremiah 23:26-29. The rejection of the claim of divine inspiration, and what it involves. Luke 16:31 on miracles, their effectiveness in producing faith compared with the Word. 2 Peter 1:16, 19-20.
Section 1. Having explained the divine origin and authority of Scripture and set forth the foundational position for our discussion, we are now prepared to consider the self-evident proofs of its divine origin and resulting authority -- the proofs on the basis of which we receive it as (believing it to be) the Word of God.
Section 2. Arguments used to confirm anything are of two kinds: non-logical (by way of testimony) and logical (by way of deductions and inferences). Whatever can contribute evidence for truth falls under one of these two categories. We use both kinds of proof in the matter at hand. Some people claim they accept the authority of Scripture and urge others to do the same, but they debate the grounds and reasons for doing so. With these people, we may use the first approach -- testimony from the Scriptures themselves -- which on their own principles they cannot refuse. When they decide to inform us that they have abandoned those principles and no longer accept Scripture as the Word of God, we will withdraw the witnesses they object to, whom we currently rely on. Testimonies that are built into and woven throughout the Word itself, used only as foundations for logical arguments to be drawn from them (which belong to the second category), may be employed with those who do not currently accept Scripture's authority on any grounds whatsoever, or who wish to adopt the role of such people in order to test their skill and ability in mounting an argument against God's Word.
Section 3. In both of these cases, the testimony of Scripture is presented and should be accepted -- or at least cannot be refused with any reasonable basis. In the first case, it should be accepted because of the acknowledged authority and truthfulness of the witness, even though speaking in its own case. In the second case, it should be accepted because of the self-evident quality that accompanies the testimony, demonstrated by such reasoning and arguments that even those who do not accept its authority cannot dismiss them on principle. In human affairs, if a person of known integrity and spotless reputation testifies in any case, and provides undeniable evidence for their testimony from the very nature and order of the things they describe, then those who know and accept their integrity and reputation are expected to trust their claim. At the same time, even those who are strangers to them and are not moved by their personal authority will still be persuaded to agree with what they testify, because of the nature of the things asserted -- especially if all the circumstances needed to give evidence to the matter are present.
Section 4. This is how it works in the case before us. For those who profess to believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God, and so accept the credibility and faithfulness of the witness, it is reasonable -- indeed, strictly required of them -- that they stand by the testimony Scripture gives about itself and its own divine origin. By saying that Scripture is the Word of God, and then demanding that we prove it to be so, they make themselves subject to every testimony we bring from it proving that it is -- and that it should be received on its own testimony. They cannot dismiss this witness without denying their own professed principles, and without those principles they have no basis for imposing this task on us.
Section 5. As for those who have not given us the advantage of their own acknowledgment, it is not reasonable to press them with the bare testimony of a witness whose very worthiness of acceptance is the question under debate. But arguments drawn from the Scripture -- from what it is and does, its nature and effects, by which the sources of all things are revealed -- cannot reasonably be refused.
Section 6. But it is neither of these groups that I chiefly intend to address. My present discussion concerns the satisfaction of our own consciences more than the answering of others' objections. Yet we must satisfy our consciences on such principles as will stand against all people's objections. What is chiefly being asked is this: what gives such assurance that the Scriptures are the Word of God, that by relying on it we have a sure foundation for receiving them as such? And why are those who do not receive them in that way left without excuse in their damnable unbelief? We say this assurance is in and from the Scripture itself, so that no further witness or testimony is needed, nor should any other be admitted in the same category.
Section 7. It is not at all my intention to go into this subject at great length, so I will content myself with offering a few testimonies and arguments, beginning with one or two of the first kind. Isaiah 8:20. To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this Word, there is no light in them. Whatever anyone says -- no matter what or who it is, whether Church or individual -- if it concerns the things of God, His will or worship, or our obedience to Him, it must be tested by the law and testimony. This is where we are directed. This is declared to be the rule, standard, and touchstone for all claims whatsoever. Now that which must test the claims of all others -- and even its own -- must speak for itself alone.
Section 8. But what does this law and testimony -- that is, this written Word -- claim as the reason it should receive such attention? What does it present as grounds for its acceptance? Tradition? The authority of the Church? Miracles? The agreement of people? Or does it stand solely on its own sovereign claim? The apostle gives us his answer to this question in 2 Timothy 3:16. Its claim for acceptance -- set against and above all other ways of coming to know God, His mind and will -- the foundation on which it demands attention and submission with supreme, unchallengeable authority, is its divine inspiration. It remains only to ask whether, when divine inspiration is claimed, there is any middle ground -- or must it either be received with divine faith or rejected as false?
Section 9. Suppose a man were divinely inspired and professed himself to be so in the name of the Lord, as the prophets of old did (Amos 7). Suppose, I say, he truly were so. No one would deny that his message should be received and submitted to on that basis. To deny this would justify those who rejected and killed the ones God sent to speak to them in His name. In plain terms, it would be saying: we may reject those whom God sends. Though miracles were given only in connection with persons, not things, most of the prophets -- who performed no miracles -- insisted on this: that being divinely inspired, their doctrine was to be received as from God. When they did so, it was sin -- specifically unbelief and rebellion against God -- not to submit to what they spoke in His name. And it always turned out this way -- to fix our faith on the right foundation -- that hardly any prophet who spoke in God's name received any approval from the Church in whose day he spoke. Matthew 5:12; 23:29; Luke 11:47-48; Acts 7:52; Matthew 21:33-38. It is true that there were false prophets who spoke in the Lord's name when He had not sent them (2 Peter 2:1; Jeremiah 23:22). Yet those whom He did send were to be received on pain of damnation; and on the same penalty, the false ones were to be refused. Jeremiah 23:28-29. The foundation of this duty lies in the self-evidencing power that accompanied the Word that was divinely inspired -- which we will discuss later. Without this assumption, it could not be consistent with God's goodness and righteousness to require people, under threat of His eternal displeasure, to make such a distinction when He had not given them sure, infallible signs to enable them to do so.
Section 10. But that He had and has given such signs, He declares in Jeremiah 23: How long will this go on in the hearts of the prophets who prophesy lies? They are prophets of the deceit of their own hearts, who think to make My people forget My name by their dreams which they tell one another, just as their fathers forgot My name because of Baal. The prophet who has a dream, let him tell a dream, and he who has My word, let him speak My word faithfully. What is the chaff to the wheat? says the Lord. Is not My word like a fire? says the Lord, and like a hammer that shatters rock? In the final days of that community, when the people were most severely troubled by false prophets -- both in number and cunning -- God still placed their eternal and temporal well-being or ruin on their ability to correctly distinguish His Word from what was merely pretending to be His Word. And so that they could not complain about this requirement, He assured them that it would be easy to carry out. Speaking of His own Word by comparison to everything that is not His Word, He says it is like wheat compared to chaff -- something that can infallibly be told apart from the other simply by being what it is. Then, speaking absolutely, He says it has such qualities that it will make itself known: namely, light and heat and power. A person who was truly divinely inspired was therefore to be listened to, because he was truly inspired.
Section 11. If that was the case with an inspired person, is not the situation the same with the Scriptures, which are likewise divinely inspired? Is there anything in the writing of them by God's command that should diminish their authority? On the contrary, are they not freed from the countless objections that attended their original spoken delivery by human beings -- objections arising from the personal weaknesses and supposed self-interest of those who delivered them? Jeremiah 43:3; John 9:29; Acts 24:5.
Section 12. When this claim of divine inspiration is made and insisted on, it is either received or it is not. If it is received on this basis, then in it, we say, is the proper foundation of faith on which it rests and has its stability. If it is rejected, the rejection must include not only a refusal of its testimony but also a strong condemnation of its claim to be from God. What grounds anyone has or could have for such a refusal and condemnation will be considered later. If it is a sin to refuse it, then it would have been a duty to receive it. If it was a duty to receive it as the Word of God, then it was sufficiently shown to be so. We have already addressed the objection arising from those who falsely claim divine inspiration. And we are still dealing with those who accept the book we are discussing as the Word of God and are only questioning the grounds on which they do so, or on which others should do so. For these people, it is enough that, on the strength of all the authority and truth they profess to acknowledge in Scripture, it declares the foundation of its acceptance to be nothing other than its own divine inspiration. From this it follows:
Section 13. Again, in the dispute between Abraham and the rich man in Luke 16:31, about the best and most effective way to bring people to repentance: The rich man in hell, speaking from his own reasoning, settles on miracles. If someone rises from the dead and preaches, the job will be done. Abraham disagrees -- or rather, Christ did, since He was the author of that parable. He tells them to pay attention to Moses and the prophets -- the written Word -- as the foundation on which all faith and repentance was to be directly built. Since the question was how people could best be assured that a message is from God, this direction would not have been appropriate if the Word did not demonstrate itself to be from Him.
Section 14. The basis for the request that someone rise from the dead is rooted in the common assumption of people who do not know the power of God in the Scriptures. They think that if an obvious miracle were performed, all excuses and arguments for unbelief would be eliminated. Who does not think so? Our Savior exposes that mistake and shows that those who will not acknowledge or submit to God's authority in the Word would not be moved by even the most remarkable miracles imaginable. If a holy person whom we knew for certain had been dead for several years were to rise from his grave and come to us with a message from God -- could anyone doubt whether he was sent to us by God? I would think not. The rising of people from the dead was the greatest miracle connected with our Savior's resurrection (Matthew 27:52-53). It was even greater than His own resurrection, if the Socinians are to be believed -- namely, in that He did not raise Himself by His own power. Yet the evidence of such a person's mission, and the authority of God speaking through him, is not -- by our Savior's own judgment -- more effective in producing belief than what is found in the written Word, nor a surer foundation for faith to rest upon.
Section 15. If we could hear a voice from heaven, accompanied by such divine power as to prove itself to be from God, would we not rest in it as such? I think most people believe they would. Can we imagine anyone would withhold their agreement and say, 'But I need some additional testimony that this is from God'? All such evasions are ruled out by the very premise, which grants a self-evidencing power. What greater miracles did Christ's apostles ever see or hear than that voice that came from the most excellent glory: This is My beloved Son? Yet Peter, who heard that voice, tells us that comparatively we have greater security from the written Word than they had from that miraculous voice. We have, he says, a more sure word of prophecy to attend to. More sure! Not more sure in itself, but in the way it gives out its evidence to us. And how does it prove to be so? The reason he gives was discussed earlier (2 Peter 1:18-20).
Section 16. Suppose God were to speak to us from heaven, as He spoke to Moses, or as He spoke to Christ, or from a specific place (Numbers 7:8-9). How would we be able to know it was the voice of God? Could Satan not cause a voice to be heard in the air and deceive us? Or might not some other method be found by which people could impose their delusions on us? Pope Celestine thought he heard a voice from heaven when it was really just the trick of his successor. Must we not ultimately rest in the self-evidencing power that accompanies the true voice of God -- the power that proves itself and assures the soul beyond any possibility of mistake? Did this self-evidencing power not accompany the written Word when it was first given? If it did not, then as we said, how could anyone be required to distinguish it from counterfeits? If it did, how did it come to lose that power? Did God command His Word to be written in order to destroy its authority? If the question is whether the doctrines proposed for belief are truths from God or cunningly devised fables, we are directed to the Scripture itself, and to it alone, for the answer.
