tures-The Word will never meet with credit in men's minds, till it be fealed by the internal teftimony of the Spirit, who wrote it. Much the fame we meet with in the publick Confeffions of faith set forth by the reformed Churches; for inftance, in the Dutch Confeffion, publifhed in French in 1566, in the name of all the Belgian Churches, after having recited a catalogue of the Scriptures, Thefe, fay they, we receive as the only Sacred and Canonical books, not because the Church receives them as fuch, but because the Holy Spirit witnesseth to our conSciences, that they proceeded from God, and themselves testify their authority'. The Gallican Church, in their Confeffion, go fomewhat farther; not only declaring their faith in the Scriptures to depend upon the teftimony and internal perfuafion of the Spirit, but that hereby they knew the Canonical from Ecclefiaftical: i. e. Apocryphal books. I fhould proceed no farther in citations to this purpose, were it not for the zealous affertions of a Divine famous among us in England, whofe own words are ", The Scriptures of the Old and New Teftament do abundantly and uncontroulably manifest themselves to be the word of the living God; fo that merely on the account of their own propofal to us, in the name and majesty of God as fuch, without the contribution of help or affistance from tradition, Church, or any thing else without themselves, we are obliged, upon the penalty of eternal damnation, to receive them with that subjection of foul, which is due to the word of God. The authority of God fhining in them, they afford unto us all the divine evidence of themselves, which God is willing to grant to us, or can be granted to us, or is any way needful for us. Such have been the affertions of the Reformers, and many great men after them; which, for my part, I freely own, seem to be of a very extraordinary naFor though I would by no means detract, either from the dignity of the Canon, or from the influences of God's ture. 3 Happy men who, in fuch numbers, were bleffed with fo fatiffying an evidence. Confeff. Belgic. Art. 5. w See Dr. Owen's Difcourfe concerning the Divine Original of the Scripture, Ch. 2. §. 5. and Ch. 4, 5. Holy Holy Spirit (to whom we certainly owe more than we commonly imagine), yet I can by no means think the doctrine of our Reformers in this matter to be very evident and clear ; for neither by the internal evidences of the Scriptures themfelves, nor the teftimony of the Spirit attending them, do men generally believe, that the Scriptures of the present Canon are the word of God. To confider each distinctly; 1. As to the internal evidences of the Scriptures, I readily grant, they are fuch as bespeak them plainly to be the most excellent books in the world; but that these are fuch as will prove, or ought to extort our affent to, their divinity, upon pain of eternal damnation, without any other arguments, feems to be a very unguarded and groundless position. Were the great number of Apocryphal books and Epiftles, under the names of the Apoftles, now extant, and had they happened to have been put in and continued in the Canon till now, is it likely, is it poffible, that every Chriftian, who now believes the Scripture to be the word of God, would have distinguished between these and the books we now receive, by the divinity and majesty that appear in the one above the other? Can it be supposed, that out of a hundred books, or, as we may well fuppofe, out of ten thousand (for the argument will be just the same with the largest affignable number) that private Chriftians, or even our most learned Reformers, should by any internal evidence, agree precifely, on the number of twenty-feven, which are now efteemed Canonical, induced thereto by fome characters those books contain, of their being written by the infpiration of the Holy Ghoft? Especially when we confider, how various and divided the sentiments of Chriftians are, who now agree in the fame Canon? If of these books claiming and pretending to infpiration under fuch names, we are to judge of their inward evidences, without any external arguments from tradition, it is moft certain each party would be proportionably fond of any book, as it more or less favoured their particular scheme of notions; and those which we now know to be Apocryphal books, must have been judged Canonical above others, as they had more evidences of what they reckoned the mind of God, than others. If men therefore are stript of all other ways of determining, to me it seems very clear, that, confidering the zeal of the contending denominations of Chriftians for their particular opinions, feveral of the books of the prefent Canon would have been rejected, and perhaps most of them in their turns by one party or other; and so nothing could enfue but perpetual quarrels and difagreement. This will appear more probable, because it was really matter of fact, in a great measure, in the first ages of Chriftianity. It is well known that the hereticks of those times, disregarding the true teftimony or tradition of the Church, and other rational arguments, wonderfully cried up their fpurious pieces under Apoftles' names, because they favoured their peculiar fystems. Thus, for inftance, the Manichees rejected many of the books of the New Teftament which we now receive, and substituted * others in their room; because the former agreed, and the latter disagreed, with thofe ridiculous ideas they had formed of Christianity; and fo contemned all other proofs, that were brought by good teftimonies, &c. to evidence that our present books were the only rule of faith. But the folly and madnefs, as St. Austin calls it, of this fort of reasoning, is fo well confuted by that Father, that I need fay no more. Those therefore who are zealous for this fort of proof, would do well to confider, that this argument alone, without other external ones, does certainly make the Canon of Scripture uncertain, and lay men under a neceffity of continual brangles and difputes. St. Paul tells us, there were in the Church of Corinth falfe Apoftles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the Apofiles of Chrift: and no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light: fuch who would artfully imitate their doctrines. And if fuch as they had published their books under the Apostles' names, imitating their ftyle and doctrine, would it not have been exceeding difficult, yea, almoft impoffible, without some rational arguments, for the common Christians at Corinth to have seen the clear evidences of divinity in the one, which were not in the other? Could they, without fome other affistance, have been affured, that the first and second Epiftles, wrote to them under Paul's name, were his, and the third was not? Sure I am, St. Paul did not put the Chrif tians, to whom he wrote, upon this method of knowing the genuineness of his Epiftles. Though he knew them to be from God, though he proposed them as such, yet he did not apprehend the evidences of their divinity were such, as would always manifeft them to be fuch, and infallibly direct the Chriftians to diftinguish them from all fpurious writings under his name: elfe what need of the caution he gives them against counterfeit Epistles, and a particular mark, which he made use of in all his Epiftles, to distinguish his real ones from all fuppofititious ones a? This was certainly needlefs and fuperfluous, if the books themfelves would extort affent from those who read them. And if it be, as Calvin fays, prepofterous to endeavour, by any folid arguments, to beget a folid credit to the Scriptures, distinct from their internal evidence ; then it was certainly prepofterous in St. Paul to add that mark to his Epiftles, as an evidence they were his. But perhaps it will be urged, that it is not the inward characters of the Scriptures alone, but the inward teftimony of the Spirit along with them, that manifefts them to be genuine and of divine authority. Some indeed there are, who join these two arguments together as one, but generally they are made distinct; I fhall therefore confider, 2. How far the opinion of our Reformers, and others after them, concerning the teftimony of the Spirit to the truth of the Scriptures, is to be depended upon. What their opinion is, may be seen from their own words, produced at large above: the fubftance is, that we are to have recourse to some secret illumination or teftimony of the Spirit, by which alone we can be convinced rightly, what Scriptures are the word of God. That the influences of the Holy Spirit are necessary to produce fuch a faith in divine things, as fhall effectually transform the heart, and powerfully incline the foul to a due • 2 Theff. ii. 2, &c.iii. 17. See above, p. 24, 25. obedience obedience to the Gospel, can be reasonably denied by none, who own the account the Scripture has given of his offices to be true. To open our eyes to fee that evidence of Scriptureverity which is already extant, to remove our blindness, and, by farther fanctifying, to remove our natural enmity to the truth, &c. is a teftimony of the Spirit, which every good Christian ought to hope and pray for ". Some have thought this was all our Reformers meant, among whom is Dr. Ca`lamy, in his excellent Sermons of Inspiration: but the paffages above make it evident, as Mr. Baxter obferves", that it is another kind of teftimony than this, which many great Divines refolve their faith into; in fhort, no other than an immediate revelation or infpiration, like that of the Prophets or Apostles. But concerning this I observe, 1. That if any are made happy with this argument to convince them, it can only be an argument to himself, and cannot be made use of to convince another; because he may juftly except either against the judgment or veracity of him who pretends to it. This is only an argument (fays Bishop Burnet) to him that feels it, if it be one at all. If therefore we attempt to reconcile a Heathen, Jew, or unbeliever, as all men once were, to the belief of the Scriptures, it must be by fome other arguments. 2. To affert, the Scriptures only can be proved by the teftimony of the Spirit, is very likely to introduce fuch enthusiasm among Chriftians, as will infallibly render the Canon of Scripture uncertain and precarious. For as every perfon is, and muft be, judge of this teftimony, it is not strange if men should urge it for other books, which are not commonly received: and if they do fo, how can these Divines answer them? Will they say, the Spirit never does nor can give his testimony, but to books of his own infpiration, and confequently not to any but the books of our prefent Canon? This would be plain trifling, because it fuppofes the thing, which is to be proved, for granted; it first supposes the books are inspired, |