In both these cases the testimony of the Scripture is pleaded, and is to be received, or cannot with any pretence of reason be refused. In the fonner, 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 argu- ments 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 uncon- trollable 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
314 THE DIVINE ORIGINAL OF SCRIPTUEE.
him, firom 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.
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 OAvn 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 divme original. By saying that the Scripture is the word of God, and then commanding us to prove it so to be, they render them- selves 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 waive without disavowing their own professed principles ; without which principles they have not the least colour of imposing this task on us.
As for them with whom we have not the present advantage of their ov/n acknowledgment, it is not reasonable to impose upon them with the bare testimony of that Avitness 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 doth, its nature and operation, by which the causes and springs of all things are dis- covered— are not to be refused.
But it is neither of these that principally I intend to deal withal ; my present discourse is rather about the satisfaction of our o^vn con- sciences, 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 inquired after, viz., 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 founda- tion 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.
It is not at all in my purpose to insist largely at present on this sub- ject, and, therefore, I shall content myself with instancing some few testimonies and arguments, beginning with one or two of the first sort. Isa. viii. 20 : " To the law and to the testimony : if they speak not according to this word, there is no light in them." What- ever any one says — be it what or who it Avill, church or person — if it be in or about the things of God, concerning his wiU 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
ALL SCRIPTURE INSPIRED OF GOD. S] 5
for itself whicli must tiy the speaking of all but itself, yea, its OAvn also.
But what doth this law and testimony — that is, tliis written Word — plead, on the account whereof it should be thus attended unto ? What doth it urge for its acceptation ? Tradition, authority of the church, mhacles, consent of men ? or doth it speak alroKparopiKoJi, and stand only upon its own sovereignty ? The apostle gives us his answer to this inquiry, (2 Tun. iii. 16,) Ilatra 'ypa<pri ^iovnverog. 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, uncon- trollable authority, is its 3soTi/£uffr/a, or " divine inspiration." It remains, then, only to be inquired, whether, when '^iovviveucc is pleaded, there be any middle way, but either that it be received with divine faith or rejected as false.
Suppose a man were SsoVi/sutfros, " divinely inspired," and should so profess himself in the name of the Lord, as did the prophets of old; (Amos vii. ;) 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 spake unto them in the name of the Lord." And that is to say, in plain terms, we may reject them whom God sends. Though miracles were given only with resj)ect to persons, not things, yet most of the prophets who wrought no mhacles msisted on this, that being SsoVvEutfro;, " divinely inspired," their doctrine was to be received as from God. On their so doing, it was sin, even unbelief and rebellion against God, not to submit to what they spake in his name. And it always so fell out — to fix our faith on the right bottom — that scarce any prophet that spake in the name of God had any approbation from the church in whose days he spake. (Matt. V. 12, xxiii. 29; Luke xi. 47, 48; Acts vii. 52; Matt. xxi. 83-39.) It is true, eyhovro ■^ivdoTpotprJTa.i sv rui Xctui, (2 Pet. ii. ] ,) " there were false prophets among the people," that spake in the name of the Lord, when he sent them not. (Jer. xxiii. 21.) Yet were those whom he did send to be received on pain of damnation : on the same penalty were the others to be refused. (Jer. xxiii. 28, 29.) The foundation of this duty lies in the to ^sTov that accompanied the word that was Ix ^io'^vivffriag : of which afteiivard. 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 cUscrmiination, where he had not given them rgx/x^^/a, " infallible tokens," to enable them so to do.