John Owen · 79 of 157

Sermon XIV. Luke xvi. 29. · Part 3

Arg. VII. If the testimony of the church is necessary, and the only sufficient reason of our believing the divineness of the Scripture, then it will certainly follow, that no man who is out of the church can be called into the church by the Scripture; — which is pretty strange doctrine, and yet I see not how possibly the Papists can evade it. For they that are called into the church by the Scripture are persuaded by the Scripture, and convinced by it, that it is their duty to join themselves to the church; but this can never be if the Scripture be of no authority with them. Whatever convinceth or persuades a man, must certainly have some authority with him; and if, therefore, the church persuades men by the Scripture, that Scripture must needs be received and owned ere they be joined to the church, the Scripture being the very reason and argument whereby they are persuaded. The conclusion will not be yielded to, if the medium from whence it is inferred be not first granted; and in this case the Scripture is the medium the church makes use of, in persuading men to embrace her society. Thus it was in the beginning of the gospel church; Peter disproves the conceit some of the Jews had of him and the rest of the apostles, that they were “full of new wine,” Acts ii. 13, by the testimony of Scripture, prophesying concerning the pouring out of the Holy Ghost in the latter days, Joel ii. 28–32. Then he proves the resurrection of Christ by Ps. xvi. 8, etc.; and his ascension into heaven by Ps. cx. 1; and his being the Christ promised to David to be of the fruit of his loins, by Ps. cxxxii. 11. And hereupon follows the bringing into the church three thousand of the hearers, who, “when they heard these things, were pricked in their hearts,” Acts ii. 37. And so, in Acts iii., how often doth Peter cite the prophets, particularly Moses! verse 22. And Philip thus preacheth to the eunuch out of the prophet Isaiah, Acts viii. 27–39; and Peter again to Cornelius out of the prophets, Acts x. 43; and Paul, in Acts xiii., where we find some, both Jews and Gentiles, wrought on by his preaching, and brought into the church. And was it the authority of these apostles (that is, in the Papists’ style, the church) that persuaded thus many? Alas! they that heard them did not once dream of their being the church; and therefore did not believe on that account.

Arg. VIII. No law receives its authority of binding men to subjection to it from those that are merely subject to it, and did not make it; therefore the Scripture hath not its authority from the church, which is merely subject to it as a law, and is not the author of it. The whole church is so, and not only pastors, but people; and if the pope himself be not under the Scripture, as the law by which he is to be ruled, well may he pass for ὁ ἄνομος, “that wicked or lawless one,” spoken of in 2 Thess. ii. 8. True, indeed, a law may be made known by a herald that proclaims it; but who can say it receives its authority of binding the subjects from him, when he himself is one of them, and as much bound to it as any else? Allow the church to be the herald which proclaims and publisheth this law, must she therefore give authority to it? Put [a] case: a subject hears of a law, though not by a herald; — is he not bound to submit to it, because he did not hear it proclaimed? Suppose a man come to the knowledge of the Scripture some other way than by the ministry of the church, in the popish sense, — that is, the pastors of it (as it is storied the Indians and the Iberians did, by the help of private persons), — is he not bound to submit to it? Must he suspend his belief till he have the testimony of the church to assure him that the Scripture is of God?

If it be said, that “a law doth not bind till it be promulged, and the promulgation of it is the church’s business;” I answer, God hath published his law sufficiently in the Scripture, and to it all must be subject to whom the Scripture comes, whether the church farther tells them that it is the word of God or not; as in the case mentioned, it was received and submitted to. I wonder how the church was the herald that proclaimed the law of God to the Iberians, when they received it from a poor captive woman. Stapleton (before) tells us, that when Paul preached to the Thessalonians, his voice was the voice of the church; and, I pray, was this poor woman’s voice the voice of the church too? By my consent, let her even be the church itself, virtual, infallible, — a mere pope Joan I. But, farther: if the church publish this law we speak of, and it doth not bind till published by her, upon what account did she herself believe it when she first published it? (Let the question be concerning the herald himself, why he believes the law which himself proclaims.) Doth the church believe the Scripture to be the word of God at all, antecedently to her own publishing and propounding it to others, or not? Is her faith wrought in her by the testimony she herself gives to the Scripture, or by something before? I suppose the Papists will scarce be so mad as to say the former; for what kind of faith must that be, when a man believes merely upon his own testimony? And how can the church be the church before she believes? If they say the church’s faith in the Scripture was wrought in her before her own testimony concerning its divineness, I would fain know what that is by which it is wrought. If it be any thing in the word itself, or be the testimony of the Spirit, why may not I, or any man else, believe the Scripture, before the church give in her testimony concerning it, upon the same account that she herself doth? But if she believe the divinity of the Scripture upon the testimony of the former church, I would know, again, what better assurance she hath of the testimony of the former church than of the Scripture itself, seeing she can know it only out of the writings of the ancients; and whoever questions the authority of the Scripture, may, upon much better grounds, question the writings of fathers, and decrees of councils, as was said before.

Arg. IX. They that believe not the Scripture to be the word of God, when propounded to them as such, though they have not the testimony of the church to confirm them in it, yet sin in their not believing it; and are therefore bound to believe it antecedently to the church’s testimony (for if they were not bound to believe it, they should not sin in disbelieving it): and consequently the Scripture hath its authority in itself, and before the testimony of the church, and therefore not from it. That men sin in not believing the Scripture even without the church’s testimony, is proved from Acts xiii. 46, 51, where Paul shakes off the dust of his feet against the unbelieving Jews, and tells them they “judge themselves unworthy of eternal life.” See Acts xxviii. 24, etc., where he declares their actual unbelief to be the effect of their hard-heartedness; which, though it might be judicial, they being left of God to themselves and their own lusts, yet withal it was sinful too, and contracted by themselves. And will any man say that these Jews, in refusing the gospel, did not sin? I suppose the Papists themselves scarcely will. If they say, as formerly, that Paul’s testimony was the testimony of the church; I answer, those Jews owned no such thing as a gospel church, nor any authority it had to bind them to the belief of the gospel; and consequently could not own Paul as an officer of that church, his apostleship being merely a gospel office; which a man could not submit to who did not first receive the gospel by which he was constituted an apostle. If they say, they might know him to be an apostle by the miracles he wrought; I answer again, that when he preached at Antioch in Pisidia, we have no mention of any miracle he there wrought; yet some, both Jews and Gentiles, believed, Acts xiii. 42, 43: and therefore they neither received himself nor his preaching upon the account of his miracles; nor could miracles make it the duty of the unbelieving Jews to submit to Paul as an officer of the gospel church, when no miracle was wrought by him. If it be said that he was known by the fame of his miracles elsewhere wrought, which gave credit to him; then it will follow that Paul was to be believed for his miracles’ sake, as well as the gospel for his sake; and thence, again, that the gospel was not to be believed merely for Paul’s own authority, but principally for his miracles, it being for their sake that he himself was owned as having any authority. And if so, either Paul’s authority was not the authority of the church, or the authority of Paul as the church was not supreme; for that of his miracles was above it, — that which procured credit to him was of greater authority than himself. Upon the whole, it seems, by this reply of the Papists, that miracles were the great thing which procured credit to Paul’s preaching; and if they did, the authority of the church did not, — unless, as before they made Paul and the church the same, so here they will make miracles and the church the same.

Arg. X. It cannot be certainly known, by the testimony of the church, that the Scripture is the word of God; and therefore it hath not, as to us, its authority from the church. If it may be certainly known that the Scripture is the word of God by the testimony of the church, then either it must be by the testimony of the universality of believers, or of the pastors. Not the former: for (beside that the Papists themselves exclude them, and say that the Scripture is to have authority with them, but not from them,) either we speak of the multitude of believers separately and disjunctively; and so they cannot give credit to the Scripture, when they are all of them fallible and liable to error: or else all together and in conjunction; but so likewise they cannot certify us of the divineness of the Scripture, because they never did, never will, meet together to do it. And we may stay long enough ere we believe the divinity of the Scripture, if we tarry till all the believers in the world meet together to give in their verdict concerning it. If we speak of the church merely in the popish sense, for the pastors of it, there will be as much uncertainty as in the other; for either we must consider them separately too, or in conjunction. If separately, they are all liable to error; and, according to the Papists themselves, they do all believe the Scripture on the authority of the church; and therefore cannot give authority to it. If we consider them all together, when did, or when will, the pastors of all the churches in the world meet together, to give their joint testimony to the Scripture? And if they should, why are we bound to believe them? They were not infallible singly, nor can they be any more so conjunctly. If all the several parts of the integral — the church — be liable to error or corruption, why is not the whole? But suppose the pastors meet by their delegates in a general council, will that mend the matter? Not at all, that I see; for it is not yet determined by the Papists themselves, where the supreme authority, which should give testimony to the Scripture, doth reside, — whether in pope, council, or both. And so we are left at uncertainties, and know not to whom to go, — whose word to take; but must suspend our belief of the divineness of the Scripture, till it be agreed upon among our adversaries whose authority is indeed supreme, and to be relied upon.

Yet put [the] case, [that] a general council be the chief which gives testimony to the Scripture: how shall we know that this council hath not erred, in determining the Scripture to be the word of God? Shall we know it by the Scripture? It is supposed we doubt concerning that; and so its testimony is not valid. Or by the testimony of the church? Why, this council is the church itself, which determines in its own case; and so we must believe this council hath not erred, because it says it hath not erred. If the pope be the church virtual, and we must receive the Scripture on his credit, the same objection will be against him; for how shall we know he doth not err? By the Scripture? But it is yet in question. Or by the testimony of the church? The pope himself is this church; and then we must believe he hath not erred, only because he saith he hath not erred.

Lastly, let pope and council both together be this church: how shall we know they both together do not err? Not by the Scripture, for that is not yet owned; nor by the testimony of the church, for pope and council together, are this church, and their testimony concerning themselves is not to be received. And, to conclude, how shall we know that pope and council are the church? Not because they themselves say so, nor because the Scripture doth; for that is not yet believed. Not by the testimony of the Spirit; for why shall that bear witness any more to the church, that it is the church, than to the Scripture, that it is the word of God? Nor yet by notes or marks inherent in the church; for why may not the same be allowed 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 Scripture is not believed.

IV. This may suffice, to show the absurdity of the popish doctrine. Let us, in the next place, see what grounds they have for it, and how they oppose the truth. I shall only speak to the chief of their arguments, and reduce them to as few heads as I well can. Any that would see them more largely handled, may consult several of our protestant divines, who speak more fully to this point than the shortness of a sermon 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 first.”

First. That it cannot be known by 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 may be known by the Scripture itself. For, —

1. The authority of one part of it may be proved by another part, 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. 1. But when he dealt with others of the Jews who 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 we may argue with men that acknowledge the one, so as, by 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 Moses and the Prophets. And Christ, mentioning a place out of the Psalms, bears witness to the whole Old Testament under the name of” The Scripture:” “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 authority, 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 especially Heb. xi., the historical part of the Scripture is confirmed. 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 New Testament is confirmed by the Old. For how often do Christ and his apostles prove their doctrine out of the Old Testament! 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.”

2. “But now, what if we have to do with those that deny the whole Scripture, — admit no part of it? how shall we convince them that it is the word of God?” I answer, —

(1.) Not by the church, be sure; for if they have no reverence for any part of the Scripture, they will have as little for the church, which hath no being, as a church, but from the Scripture. And therefore it will be a most vain thing to attempt a proof of the Scripture, either in part or in the whole, by the church, which is as unknown, in the nature of a church, to them that question the Scripture, as the Scripture itself is.

(2.) We would prove the whole Scripture by the whole, as well as one part of it by another. For as the whole system of God’s works in the creation proves itself to be of God, and to have him for its author, Ps. xix. 1, etc., by all those eminent signs and effects of God’s goodness, power, and wisdom, which are to be seen in the whole; so likewise doth the whole Scripture prove God to be the author of it, by all those signs and evidences of his wisdom, goodness, power, and holiness, which appear in the whole, and manifest it to be of God. Nor doth it follow from hence, that if the whole Scripture prove itself, it is, as the Papists say, more known than itself, simply and absolutely, though in some respects it certainly may be so; as a man in one respect, may be more known than himself in another. A man, when he hath given some eminent proofs of his learning, is thereby more known than without them he is; so the Scripture, too, considered with all those evidences of God’s goodness, wisdom, holiness, etc., which appear in it, is more known than itself, when these are not considered. How do we prove the sun to be the sun, but by the glory of its light, which so far excels the light of other stars? And is not the sun, considered with its light, more known to us than considered in itself. How do we come to the knowledge of the nature of things in the world, but by considering their properties, qualities, effects, etc.; which plainly declare what their nature is, seeing such properties, etc., could not be but where such a nature is? So likewise here, there are those properties in the Scripture, those excellencies, which could be from none but God; and, therefore, make it appear that that writing, which hath those excellencies in it, is of God. To speak of these distinctly is not my present business, not having to do with them that deny the Scripture.

Secondly. “We cannot,” say the Papists again, “know the Scripture to be the word of God by the testimony of the Spirit. For either it is by the public testimony, which is that of the church” (and if this be granted, they have enough); “or it is private testimony. But then,” they say, “it will follow, — 1. That our faith in the Scripture is enthusiasm. 2. That if the private testimony of the Spirit be questioned, it cannot be proved but by the Scripture; and so the Scripture being proved by the Spirit, and the Spirit again by the Scripture, we shall run in a round, which is no lawful way of arguing.”

Ans. To this I answer, that we know the Scripture to be of God by the public testimony of the Spirit; but I deny his public testimony to be his witnessing by the church. It is indeed his witnessing by the Scripture itself, when he witnesseth it to be of God, by those excellencies of it which evidence it so to be; and this he witnesseth to all that have their eyes open to see it: and in that respect it may be called “public.” And when he witnesseth the same thing, by the same means, in the hearts of particular believers, and so applies his public testimony to private consciences, enlightening and enabling men to believe upon his public testimony, you may, if you please, call that “his private testimony.” This clearly cuts off all that the adversaries object; and no such things will follow, as they pretend, upon what we maintain. We know no other private testimony of the Spirit, but this particular application of his public one; and then, I am sure, there is no danger of enthusiasm. For that is properly enthusiasm, when God reveals any thing to men’s minds immediately and in an extraordinary way, and without the intervention of the usual means whereby he is wont to make himself known to men; as in former times he did to the patriarchs, prophets, and apostles (and the enthusiasm both the Papists and we find fault with is, when men pretend to this, which yet they have not): but when God makes known his will in an ordinary way, by the use of instruments and means for the conveying of spiritual knowledge to them, this is not enthusiasm; as when “faith comes by hearing,” Rom. x. 17. And so it is in the case before us: when the Spirit witnesseth to the hearts of private believers that the Scripture is the word of God, he doth it in an ordinary way, — working in them a faith of the Scripture by those arguments of divinity which are in the Scripture itself; and makes use of them as means to induce them to believe. As the light and brightness of the sun is the medium whereby it is known to be the sun; so that divine light and power which is in the word, is the very medium and argument whereby the Spirit, enabling us to perceive it, persuades us that that word is the word of God. And I would ask our adversaries, Can a private man believe the divinity of the Scripture merely on the authority of the church, without the Spirit’s witnessing it to him by that authority? If they say, “Yes,” then they must acknowledge that faith to be merely human, because not wrought by God. If they say, “No,” (as they must if they be constant to themselves, in holding that the Spirit witnesseth by the church,) then, when the Spirit witnesseth to the conscience of a private believer by the church, why is not that enthusiasm too? For when he witnesseth to a private conscience by this application of his public testimony, here is as much a private spirit, and a private testimony, as any we speak of. The only difference is in the medium the Spirit useth in this private work; which they say is the testimony of the church, and we say is the Scripture itself. Both of us agree that it is the Spirit’s public testimony; but they call one thing so, and we another. If they say that yet this is not enthusiasm, because here is no immediate revelation, but means are made use of; I say the same of the Spirit’s witnessing to the divinity of the Scripture in the heart of a private believer by the Scripture itself, or those notes of divinity which are apparent in the word. This is no more immediate than the other, nor any less [so], by the intervention of means.

And for the other consequent they would infer from the private testimony of the Spirit, — that then “we shall run in a round, and prove the Scripture to be the word of God by the testimony of the Spirit, and prove the Spirit again by the Scripture,” — there is as little fear of this as of the other For we bring not the private testimony of the Spirit in our consciences (against which only this objection is made), or his applying his public testimony to us in a way of illumination and conviction of our minds, as the argument inducing us to believe; but that, we say, is his public testimony in the word, when he witnesseth its divinity to us by that excellency, light, and power which is in the word itself, and makes use of that to persuade us to believe. The Spirit, indeed, is the efficient of our faith, or the agent which causeth us to believe, enlightening our minds, and drawing our hearts to consent to the truth; but the evidences of divinity we see in the Scripture, through the Spirit’s enlightening us, is the reason or motive of our believing: they move us to believe objectively, but the Spirit effectively. So that here is no danger of a circle in our discourse, or proving idem per idem. For if I be asked, how I know the Scripture to be the word of God; this question may have a double sense: for either it is meant of the power and virtue whereby I believe; and then I answer, By the power and efficiency of the Spirit of God, opening the eyes of my understanding, and enabling me to believe; — or it is meant of the medium or argument made use of, and by which, as a motive, I am drawn to believe; and then I answer, Those impressions of divinity the Spirit hath left on the word, and by which he witnesseth it to be of God, are the argument or motive persuading me to believe. Now, when they ask how I know the Spirit, who witnesseth in my conscience to the divinity of the Scripture, to be the Spirit of God, the question is plainly, by what means or argument I am persuaded that it is the Spirit of God; and then I answer, By those properties of the Spirit which the Scripture mentions. And so the question, how I know the Scripture to be the word of God, either is concerning the efficient of my belief of the Scripture, or else it is not to the purpose (for I do not allege the efficiency or inward operating of the Spirit as the motive of my faith); and the latter is concerning the objective cause or argument inducing me to believe the Spirit to be the Spirit of God. The mistake is this, — they would fasten upon us, that we make the Spirit in his inward work upon our hearts to be the motive to our faith; whereas we only make it to be the efficient of our faith.