Arg. 3.

mended, as

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

The affumption is the exprefs words of fcripture: the propofition 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 abfurd.

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

I.

Common.

2.

Certain.

3.

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

Secondly, The apoftle propofeth this anointing in them, as a more certain touch-ftone for them to difcern and try feducers by, even than his own writings; for having in the former verfe faid, that he had written fome things to them concerning fuch as feduced them, he begins the next verse, But the anointing, &c. and ye need not that any man teach you, &c. which infers, that having faid to them what can be faid, he refers them for all to the inward anointing, which teacheth all things, as the most firm, conftant, and certain bulwark against all feducers.

And Laftly, That it is a lafting and continuing Lafting 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 argue thus,

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

and

and hath fome things inwardly and immediately revealed unto him.

But the faints have fuch an anointing:

Therefore, &c.

I could prove this doctrine from many more places of fcripture, which for brevity's fake Í omit; and now come to the fecond part of the propofition, where the objections ufually formed against it are answered.

§. XIII. The most ufual is, that thefe revela- Object.

tions are uncertain.

But this befpeaketh much ignorance in the op- Anfw. pofers; for we diftinguish between the thefts and the bypothefis; that is, between the propofition and fuppofition. 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 fo led by the inward and immediate revelation of the Spirit. The first is only afferted by us, the latter may be called in queftion. The question is not who are or are not fo led? But whether all ought not or may not be fo led?

the Spirit's

proved.

Seeing then we have already proved that Chrift The cer hath promised his Spirit to lead his children, and tainty of that every one of them both ought and may be guidance led 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 fun fheweth not light, because a blind man, or one who wilfully fhuts 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 fweet smell, because he E 2

that

By experi

ence.

The abfurdity of the confe

quence,

that has loft his fmelling doth not fmell it; the fault then is in the organ, and not in the object.

All these mistakes therefore are to be afcribed to the weakness or wickednefs of men, and not to that Holy Spirit. Such as bend themselves most against this certain and infallible teftimony of the Spirit ufe commonly to alledge the example of the old Gnofticks, and the late monftrous and mifchievous actings of the Anabaptifts of Munfter, all which toucheth us nothing at all, neither weakens a whit our most true doctrine. Wherefore, as a moft fure bulwark against fuch kind of affaults, was fubjoined that other part of our propofition thus: Moreover thefe divine and inward revelations, which we establish as abfolutely necessary for the founding of the true faith, as they do not, fo neither can they at any time, contradict the Scriptures teftimony, or found reafon.

Befides the intrinfick and undoubted truth of this affertion, we can boldly affirm it from our certain and bleffed experience. For this Spirit never deceived us, never acted nor moved us to any thing that was amifs; 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 reafon after this

manner,

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

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

I utterly deny the confequence of this propofition, which, were it to be received as true, then would all faith in God and hope of falvation become uncertain, and the Chriftian religion be turned into mere Scepticifm. For after the fame manner I might reason thus:

Because

Because Eve was deceived by the lying of the ferpent;

Therefore fhe ought not to have trufted to the promife of God.

Because the old world was deluded by evil Spirits;

Therefore ought neither Noah, nor Abraham, nor Mofes, to have trufted the Spirit of the Lord.

Because a lying fpirit fpake through the four hundred prophets, that perfuaded Ahab to go up and fight at Ramoth Gilead;

Therefore the teftimony of the true Spirit in Micaiah was uncertain, and dangerous to be followed. Because there were feducing fpirits 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 fay, that this is a neceffary confequence? Moreover, not only the faith of the faints, and church of God of old, is hereby rendered uncertain, but alfo the faith of all forts of Christians now is liable to the like hazard, even of those who feek a foundation for their faith elfewhere than from the Spirit. For I fhall 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 fome, while pretending thereunto, commit great evils; that then, neither tradition, nor the fcriptures, nor reason, which the Papifts, Proteftants and Socinians do refpectively make the rule of their faith, are any whit more certain. The Romanifts reckon 1. Inftances it an error to celebrate Eafter any other ways than of tradition. 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 otherwife. Yea, fo little effectual is tradition

Ecclef. lib. 5. c. 26.

Eufeb. Hift. to decide the cafe, that Polycarpus, the difciple of John, and Anicetus, the bishop of Rome, who immediately fucceeded them, according to whofe example both fides concluded the queftion ought to be decided, could not agree. Here of neceffity one of them muft err, and that following tradition, Would the Papifts now judge we dealt fairly by them, if we should thence aver, that tradition is not to be regarded? Befides, in a matter of far greater importance the fame 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 fix hundred years the Roman prelates never affumed the title of Univerfal Shepherd, nor were acknowledged as fuch. And, as that which altogether overturneth this prefidency, there are that alledge, and that from tradition alfo, that Peter never faw Rome; and that therefore the bishop of Rome cannot be his fucceffor. Would you Romanists think this found reafoning, to fay as you do?

$ Conc. Flor. Seff.5.

Eph. Act. 6.

Many have been deceived, and erred grievously, 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.

Laftly, In the council of Florence, the chief decretoquo- doctors of the Romish and Greek churches did debate dam Conc. whole feffions long concerning the interpretation 11. & of one fentence of the council of Ephefus, and of 12. Conc. Epiphanius, and Bafilius, neither could they ever 18, 20. agree about it.

Conc. Flor.

Seff. 21. P.

Secondly, As to the fcripture, the fame difficulty 480. & feq. Occurreth: the Lutherans affirm they believe confubftantiation by the fcripture; which the Calvinists deny, as that which, they fay, according to the fame fcripture, is a grofs error. The Calvinifts again affirm abfolute predeftination, which the Arminians deny, affirming the contrary; wherein both