Arg. 3.

The anointing

recom

Therefore the object of faith, and revelation of the knowledge of God to every true Christian, is inward, immediate, and objective.

The assumption is the express words of scripture the proposition then must needs be true, except that which is put into the mind, and written in the heart, were either not inward, not immediate, or not objective, which is most absurd.

§. XII. The third argument is from these words of John, 1 John ii. ver. 27. But the anointing, which ye have received of him, abideth in you, and ye need mended,as not that any man teach you: but the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie; and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in

1.

Common.

2.

him.

First, This could not be any special, peculiar, or extraordinary privilege, but that which is common to all the saints, it being a general epistle, directed to all them of that age.

Secondly, The apostle proposeth this anointing Certain in them, as a more certain touch-stone for them to discern and try seducers by, even than his own writings; for having in the former verse said, that he had written some things to them concerning such as seduced them, he begins the next verse, But the anointing, &c. and ye need not that any man teach you, &c. which infers, that having said to them what can be said, he refers them for all to the inward anointing, which teacheth all things, as the most firm, constant, and certain bulwark against all seducers.

8.

And Lastly, That it is a lasting and continuing Lasting thing; the anointing which abideth. If it had not been to abide in them, it could not have taught them all things, neither guarded them against all hazard. From which I From which I argue thus,

He that hath an anointing abiding in him, which teacheth him all things, so that he needs no man to teach him, hath an inward and immediate teach

er, and hath some things inwardly and immediately revealed unto him.

But the saints have such an anointing:

Therefore, &c.

I could prove this doctrine from many more places of scripture, which for brevity's sake I omit; and now come to the second part of the proposition, where the objections usually formed against it are answered.

§. XIII. The most usual is, That these revelations Object

are uncertain.

But this bespeaketh much ignorance in the op- Answ. posers; for we distinguish between the thesis and the hypothesis; that is, between the proposition and supposition. For it is one thing to affirm, that the true and undoubted revelation of God's Spirit is certain and infallible; and another thing to affirm, that this or that particular person or people is led infallibly by this revelation in what they speak or write, because they affirm themselves to be so led by the inward and immediate revelation of the Spirit. The first is only asserted by us, the latter may be called in question. The question is not who are or are not so led: But whether all ought not or may not be so led?

tainty of

proved.

Seeing then we have already proved that Christ The cerhath promised his Spirit to lead his children, and the Spirit's that every one of them both ought and may be led guidance by it, if any depart from this certain guide in deeds, and yet in words pretend to be led by it into things that are not good, it will not from thence follow, that the true guidance of the Spirit is uncertain, or ought not to be followed; no more than it will follow that the sun showeth not light, because a blind man, or one who wilfully shuts his eyes, falls into a ditch at noon-day for want of light; or that no words are spoken, because a deaf man hears them not; or that a garden full of fragrant flowers has no sweet smell, because he that has

By experi

ence.

The absur

conse

lost his smelling doth not smell it; the fault then is in the organ, and not in the object.

All these mistakes therefore are to be ascribed to the weakness or wickedness of men, and not to that Holy Spirit. Such as bend themselves most against the certain and infallible testimony of the Spirit use commonly to allege the example of the old Gnostics, and the late monstrous and mischievous actings of the Anabaptists of Munster, all which toucheth us nothing at all, neither weakens a whit our most true doctrine. Wherefore, as a most sure bulwark against such kind of assaults, was subjoined that other part of our proposition thus: Moreover these divine and inward revelations, which we establish as absolutely necessary for the founding of the true faith, as they do not, so neither can they at any time, contradict the Scriptures' testimony, or sound reason.

Besides the intrinsic and undoubted truth of this assertion, we can boldly affirm it from our certain and blessed experience. For this Spirit never deceived us, never acted nor moved us to any thing that was amiss; but is clear and manifest in its revelations,which are evidently discerned by us, as we wait in that pure and undefiled light of God (that proper and fit organ) in which they are received. Therefore if any reason after this

manner,

(That because some wicked, ungodly, devilish men have committed wicked actions, and have yet more wickedly asserted, that they were led into these things by the Spirit of God;

Therefore, No man ought to lean to the Spirit of God, or seek to be led by it,)

I utterly deny the consequence of this proposition, dity of the which, were it to be received as true, then would all quence. faith in God and hope of salvation become uncertain, and the Christian religion be turned into mere Scepticism. For after the same manner I might reason thus:

Because Eve was deceived by the lying of the serpent ;

Therefore she ought not to have trusted to the promise of God.

its:

Because the old world was deluded by evil spir

Therefore ought neither Noah, nor Abraham, nor Moses, to have trusted the Spirit of the Lord.

Because a lying spirit spake through the four hundred prophets, that persuaded Ahab to go up and fight at Ramoth Gilead;

Therefore the testimony of the true Spirit in Micaiah was uncertain, and dangerous to be followed. Because there were seducing spirits crept into the church of old;

Therefore it was not good, or it is uncertain, to follow the anointing, which taught all things, and is truth, and is no lie.

Who dare say, that this is a necessary consequence? Moreover, not only the faith of the saints and church of God of old, is hereby rendered uncertain, but also the faith of all sorts of Christians now is liable to the like hazard, even of those who seek a foundation for their faith elsewhere than from the Spirit. For I shall prove by an inevitable argument, ab incommodo, i. e. from the inconveniency of it, that if the Spirit be not to be followed upon that account, and that men may not depend upon it as their guide, because some, while pretending thereunto, commit great evils; that then, neither tradition, nor the scriptures, nor reason, which the Papists, Protestants, and Socinians do respectively make the rule of their faith, are any whit more certain. The Romanists 1. Instanreckon it an error to celebrate Easter any other ways than that church doth. This can only be decided by tradition. And yet the Greek church, which equally layeth claim to tradition with herself, doth it otherwise. Yea, so little effectual is

of tra

ces dition.

Euseb.

Hist. Ec

c. 26.

tradition to decide the case, that Polycarpus, the cles. lib. 5. disciple of John, and Anicetus, the bishop of Rome, who immediately succeeded them, according to whose example both sides concluded the question ought to be decided, could not agree. Here of necessity one of them must err, and that following tradition. Would the Papists now judge we dealt fairly by them, if we should thence aver, that tradition is not to be regarded? Besides, in a matter of far greater importance the same difficulty will occur, to wit, in the primacy of the bishop of Rome; for many do affirm, and that by tradition, that in the first six hundred years the Roman prelates never assumed the title of Universal Shepherd, nor were acknowledged as such. And, as that which altogether overturneth this precedency, there are that allege, and that from tradition also, that Peter never saw Rome; and that therefore the bishop of Rome cannot be his successor. Would you Romanists think this sound reasoning, to say as you do?

*Conc.

quodam

Many have been deceived, and erred grievous. ly, in trusting to tradition;

Therefore we ought to reject all traditions, yea, even those by which we affirm the contrary, and, as we think, prove the truth.

Lastly, In the *council of Florence, the chief docFlor. Sess. tors of the Romish and Greek churches did debate 5. decreto whole sessions long concerning the interpretation Conc.Eph. of one sentence of the council of Ephesus, and of 11 & 12. Epiphanius, and Basilius, neither could they ever agree about it.

Act.6.Sess.

Conc. Flor. Sess. 18, 20.

Conc.

Flor. Sess.

& seq.

Secondly, As to the scripture, the same difficulty occurreth: the Lutherans affirm they believe con21. p. 480. substantiation by the scripture; which the Calvinists deny, as that which, they say, according to the same scripture, is a gross error. The Calvinists again affirm absolute predestination, which the Arminians deny, affirming the contrary; wherein both