And if we look to the apostles that followed Christ, and preached
512 AUTHOEITY OF THE SCKIPTURE.
the same doctrine, we sliall see that it was not received on the account of the church, no more than commanded to the hearers thereon. In Acts ii. 41, upon Peter's preaching, three thousand beheved: " Tliey gladly received the word ; " they did not, it seems, expect the testi- mony of the church to tell them whether it were the word or not. In Acts iv. 4, we read of either five thousand more, or so many as made up the whole five thousand. And in Acts viii. the Samaritans receive the gospel on Philip's preaching; and afterward, the eunuch. And, to pass by others, the Bereans and Thessalonians receive the word, in Acts xvii. Of the former it is said, that " they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so," verse 11. Of the latter, Paul testifies that " they received the word, not as the word of man, but as it is in truth, the word of God," 1 Thess. ii. 13. All this while, here is no church interposing its authority, or asserting the divineness of what Peter, or Philip, or Paul preached. On what account, then, did these people believe the word preached by the apostles? " On the authority of the church," say the Papists. But what church? " Why," says a great one among them,^ speaking of the Thessalonians, " the voice of Paul was the voice of the church, when he preached to the Thessalo- nians ; and so they, in receiving the word on Paul's authority, received it on the authority of the church." Say the same of Peter and Philip. Paul, it seems, then, was the church; or else how could Paul's preaching be the voice of the chinch? What kind of church, then, was Paul? Was he the church vu-tual? Was he a pope, and Avas Peter, and Philip, and the rest of the apostles and evangelists, so too? A. blessed church, sure, that had so many popes ! or rather, a miser- able one, that either had no visible head or had so man}^ ! If tliey say, Paid's voice was the voice of the church, because he was an officer of it, by whom the church published the doctrine she believed and was to propagate ; — Paul was indeed an officer of the chm'ch ; but yet made so by Jesus Christ himself, — not an apostle of men, nor by man. Gal. i. 1. And the doctrine he preached was no othei'wise the doc- trine of the church, than as it was the same which the church believed, but never taught it him; for he " received it not of men, neither was taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ," verse 12. And, therefore, tlu-y might more reasonably have said, that the voice of Paul was the voice of Christ ; the word he preached being more pro- perly the word of Christ, who was the author of it, than the word of the church, Avho only received it of Christ. But what will become of this fine invention of our Jesuit, if the Thessalonians did not receive the word on the authority of Paul himself, whether in his single or representative capacity, or call it as you please? And, surclv. thov
' Stapleton.
AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURE. 513
did not; for then bis authority must be owned, ere, on the account of that, his preaching could be beheved. But both Paul and his autho- rity, whatever it were, were unknown to the Thessalonians when he first preached among them; and therefore could not induce them to believe what he taught. The same we may say of the other apostles, in their first planting the gospel when they came to the Gentiles; they were unknown till they made themselves and their authority kno\NT3 by their preaching. And when they came to the Jews, where they were known, yet they were not trusted, nor their apostolical authority acknowledged. And so it could prevail neither with the one nor with the other, till their doctrine was first believed.
Arg. III. The Scripture hath its authority, in relation to us, be- fore the church pass its judg'inent concerning it; and therefore it hath not that authority frorn the church. This will appear, —
1. By the concession of the Papists themselves, who acknowledge that the church oidy declares the Scripture to be authentic, but doth not make it so. Surely, then, it was authentic in itself before that declaration of the church, which is only a pronouncing that to be which was before. And if it be in itself authentic, it is so to us too ; that is, it hath in itself a power of binding us to the belief of it, so soon as we come to hear of it, whether the church hath declared its authenticness or not.
2. If the Scripture hath not its authority as to us, before the judg- ment of the church, then either it nmst be a piivate or public judg- ment of the church which gives it that authority. A private one it cannot be : for when we speak of the authority of the Scripture as to us, it is understood of all Christians everywhere ; and it is not fit that a private judgment of the church, or, which is the same, the judg- ment of a private church, should give laws to all the rest. Nor can it be the public testimony, or that of the catholic church ; for none such can be produced by the Papists from whence the Scripture hath its authority. Let them, if they can, show us the first general council that ever declared the Scripture to be the word of God. The council of Jemsalem, in Acts xv., if it were a general one, is the first we read of; and that toucheth not the point in hand, — doth not declare the Scripture to be authentic, but takes it for granted. They that were there met cite the scripture of the Old Testament, and thereby own its authority, but do not then first establish it. And Peter and the rest do the like in their preaching. Acts ii., iii. And dare the Papists say, then, that the Old Testament was not authentic before this coun- cil? Had the church hitherto no certain canon, nor authentic Scrip- ture, to be the rule of its faith? After this council we find no general one till that of Nice. And was the church of God all this while too (for three hundred years) without the canon of the Scripture? to say