* Praesentem clamat qurelibet herba Deum,
* Vide Rob. Baron., Contra Turnebul.
<^0G AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURE.
(a divine one, such as we speak of) being always Luilt upon revela- tion, whatever it be which is the first revelation, whereon our faith is built, must be sufficient to notify itself to us; otherwise, our faith is not founded upon any revelation at all, if that revelation needs some- thing else, which is not revelation, to give credit to it, or if that which is the first revelation yet needs another to make it manifest to us it is not itself the first ; — which is a palpable contradiction. And for the antecedent, I thus make it appear: — In the business of faith, either we must come to some first revelation, or we must go on from one to another without any end ; for either the faith whereby 1 believe this revelation — that " the Scripture is the word of God" — to be divine, is founded upon this very revelation itself, — namely, the Scripture, which so many times tells me it is of God, — or upon some other reve- lation. If upon this itself, then I have what I would, — that this is the first revelation whereon my faith is built; but if on another, I ask again, Must I believe that for itself, or for some other? If for itself, then that must be the first ; if for some other, I shall ask again, Am I to beUeve that for itself, or for another? And so there will be no end, no first revelation on which my faith is founded, but I must go higher, and higher, even in infinitum.
Other arguments might be produced to confirm what we assert, and are by our divines; but I intended brevity in these; — and the truth we maintain will be more confirmed by what I am in the next place to say against the Papists' assertion.
III. That, therefore, the testiinony of the church is not the only sufficient ground (nor indeed a sufficient one at all) of our believing the divinity of the ScrijJture, I shall prove by several arguments.
Arg. I. I argue from Eph. ii. 20, And we "are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets." The Scripture is the foundation of the church, and therefore hath not its authority, even in respect of us, from the church; but, on the contrary, the cliurch hath its authority from the Scrijyture, upon which it depends in its very being, and without tvhich it is not the church, nor if built upon any other foundation ; it hath no authority but from the Scripture, — none in. itself, but as thence it derives it, and ive know none [thai] it hath but as there we find it. And this is spoken of the true church, and not merely the church in the popish sense. If ever we would find out the nature and definition of the church, we must seek it in the Scripture, where alone it is that we see it to be God's will to have a church upon earth, and by what means it is called, and of whom it is constituted, and with what power and privileges it is endowed. He that will question whether the Scripture be the word of God, will as easily question whether the church be the church of God, or whether God have any church or not. Now, if the church have all its autho-
AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURE. 507
rity from the Scripture, by which alone it is a church, and known to be so, how can it be with any reason said that the Scripture hath its authority, even as to us, from the church? For if the church have no authority but from the Scripture, then the authority of the church must suppose that of the Scripture, and the Scripture must be owned, or the church cannot be owned. For who knows what or which the church is, but as the Scripture describes it to us ? And so the Scrip- ture hath not its authority, as to us, from the church. For can the Scripture both give authority to the church, and yet receive its own authority from it? Can it authorize the church, before it be itself autho- rized by it? Can it give the church a power to communicate autho- rity to it, and yet have no authority hitherto itself? Nay, can it be consistent with common sense, that the Scripture should give the church a power to bind men to the belief of it, and yet have no power in itself to bind the church to the belief of it ?
Again : when they say the Scripture hath its authority from the church, I ask. How shall I know that there is a church? For if I be one that own no such thing as the Scripture (which the church is persuading me to believe), withal I own no such society as the church ; and how will they prove there is such an one, but by the Scripture? For I, who am supposed to acknowledge no church, do acknowledge no authority it hath, and shall not take its own word. And yet if I grant there be a church, hoAV shall I know that such a company of men as pretend to be the church are really so? I shall not take their own testimony; I am not satisfied in their being witnesses to themselves. And if they will prove them- selves to be the church by the Scripture, then either the Scripture must have authority, as to me, before the church, or else they prove one obscure thing by another. If they say there be certain signs and marks of the church inherent in it, by which it may be known, — alas! I know not those marks but by the Scripture, which de- scribes the church. If they say the Spirit witnesseth by those marks that this is the church, why may not I say the same of the Scripture; and so, that be known without the testimony of the church to be the word of God, as well as the church to be the church of God? And yet, after all this, granting this society of men to be the church, how shall I know that this church is infallible? And if I know it not to be so, I am not so mad as to build my faith upon its authority. If 'they say, " Because it is governed by the Holy Ghost," how shall I know that? for it is not obvious to me that it is. If they say, " Because Christ hath promised that it should," I ask, Where? where can it be but in the Scripture? Sure, then, the Scripture must be owned, and have its authority, as to me, or their proof is invalid, and they do but trifle instead of arguing.