522 AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURE.
marks iriliorent in the church ; for why may not the same be alloAved to the Scripture? And how shall we know these marks to be true, but by the )Scripture ; by which alone we can judge of the nature and properties of the church? And yet still it is supposed that the Scrip- ture is not believed.
IV. This may suffice, to show the absurdity of the popish doctrine. Let us, in the next place, see luhat grounds they have for it, and hovj they oppose the truth. I shall only speak to the chief of their argu- ments, and reduce them to as few heads as I well can. Any that would see them more largely handled, may consult several of our pro- testant divines, who speak more fully to this point than the shortness of a sennon will permit.
Object. I. " Either," say they, " the authority of the Scripture must be known by the church, or by the Scripture itself, or by the testimony of the Spirit; but it cannot be known either of the two latter ways : and therefore can only [be known by] the fii-st."
First. That it cannot be known hy the Scripture itself they prove, because " neither the whole Scripture can be proved by the whole, nor one part of it by another. For if a man deny the whole Scripture, it will be in vain to attempt the proof of one part by another, when such an one doth no more receive the authority of one part than of another. And the whole cannot be proved by the whole ; for then the same thing should be proved by itself: and whereas that which is brought to prove another thing should itself be more clear than that which it is to prove, in this case one obscure thing should prove another; or rather, an obscure thing be brought to prove itself, for the whole Scripture cannot be said to be more clear or better known than itself"
Before I propound the other part of their proof, I shall answer to this.
Ans. The divine authority of the Scripture maybe known by the Scriptiu'e itself For, —
1 . Tlie authority of one part of it may he proved hy another jiart, to those that do not deny the whole. Some there have been, and still may be, who have received some part of the Scriptures, and not others; to such we may prove that part which they deny by that which they allow. The Sadducees acknowledged the Five Books of Moses, but not " the Prophets ; " our Saviour Christ, therefore, when he had to do with them, did not cite the prophecy of Daniel to prove the resurrection of the dead, but Moses' writings, Matt. xxii. But Avhen he dealt with others of the Jews Avho received the whole Old Testament, he proved what he spake out of other parts of it, — out of the prophets themselves; and so bids them, more generally, " search the Scriptures," John v. 39. Why may not we do likewise? We shall see how the Old and New Testament prove each other; so that
AUTHOllITY OF THE SCRIPTURE. 523
we may argue "vvith men that acknowledge the one, so as, Ijy that they allow, to prove that which they deny: —
(1.) The Old Testament is proved by the New. Christ divides the whole Old Testament into Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms; and thereby declares them all to be canonical, Luke xxiv. 44. That was then the usual way by which the Jews did divide the Old Testament. And here in the text Abraham sends Dives' brethren to ]\Ioses and the Prophets. And Christ, mentioning a place out of the Psalms, bears witness to the whole Old Testament under the name of " The Sciipture:" " The Scripture cannot be broken," John x. 34, 35. And we find particular parts of the Old Testament proved in the New. In Matt v., Christ confirms the Law of Moses, as to its divine autho- rity, when he explains it; beside other places, in which he speaks of some particular laws. In Matt. xii. 38—42, and Luke iv. 25-27, and especiciUy Heb. xi., the historical part of the Scripture is confii'med. And how many testimonies have we out of the Psalms and Prophets everywhere which do the same! The twelve lesser prophets are at once proved by Stephen's alleging them, in Acts vii. 42, where the testimony cited is out of Amos: but Stephen mentions the "book of the prophets;" that is, that volume of the smaller prophets which, among the Jews, was reckoned as one book.
(2.) The Neiu Testametit is confirmed by the Old. For how often do Chiust and his apostles prove their doctrine out of the Old Testa- ment! When they quote the Old Testament, it is a good proof of its authority to any that own the New; and when by those quotations they prove their own doctrine, it is a good argument for the proof of the New Testament to them that believe the Old, as the case was of the Jews at that time. And therefore our Saviour Christ refers them to the Old Testament, particularly Moses, John v. 45, 46, for the proof of the great doctrine he held forth to them, — that he was the Messiah that should come into the world. So Peter, in Acts iii. 22, 23, refers to Deut. xviii. 18, 19, to prove what he was preaching: " A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up to you," etc. The same we may say of the types of the Old Testament, — that they confirm the New, in which we find them fulfilled. If any say, " We find no particular confirmation of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther in the New Testament;" I answer, They are confirmed by our Saviour Christ in his general division of the Old Testament, according to the Jewish account, into the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, under which these books were contained, the whole volume of the Hagiographa going under the name of " The Psalms."