Part 6

[Sidenote: _2. Certain._] _Secondly_, The Apostle proposeth this Anointing 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.

[Sidenote: _3. Lasting._] And _Lastly_, That it is a lasting and continuing 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, so that he needs no Man to teach him, hath an inward and immediate Teacher, 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. [Sidenote: Object.] The most usual is, That _these Revelations are uncertain_.

[Sidenote: _Answ._] But this bespeaketh much Ignorance in the Opposers; 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?

[Sidenote: _The Certainty of the Spirit’s Guidance proved._] Seeing then we have already proved, that Christ hath promised his Spirit to lead his Children, and that every one of them both ought and may be 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 Sun sheweth not Light, because a Blind Man, or one who wilfully hurts 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 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 this certain and infallible Testimony of the Spirit, use commonly to alledge the Example of the old _Gnosticks_, 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_.

[Sidenote: _By Experience._] Besides the intrinsick 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_;

[Sidenote: _The Absurdity of the Consequence._] I utterly deny the Consequence of this Proposition; which, were it to be received as true, then would all _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_.

Because the old World was deluded by _Evil Spirits_:

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. [Sidenote: _1. Instances of Tradition._] The _Romanists_ reckon 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. [43]Yea, so little effectual is Tradition to decide the Case, that _Polycarpus_, the Disciple of _John_, and _Anicetus_, the Bishop of _Rome_, who immediately succeeded them, according to whole 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 Presidency, there are that alledge, and that from Tradition also, That _Peter_ never saw _Rome_; and that therefore the Bishop of _Rome_ cannot be his Successor. Would ye _Romanists_ think this sound Reasoning, to say as you do?

[43] Euseb. _Hist. Eccles. Lib. 5. c. 26._

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.

_Lastly_, In the[44] Council of _Florence_, the chief Doctors of the _Romish_ and _Greek Churches_ did debate whole Sessions long, concerning the Interpretation of one Sentence of the Council of _Ephesus_, and of _Epiphanius_, and _Basilius_, neither could they ever agree about it.

[44] _Conc. _Flor._ Sess. 5. decreto quodam Conc. _Eph._ Act. 6. Sess. 11. & 12. Concil. _Flor._ Sess. 18, 20. Conc. _Flor._ Sess. 21._ P. 480. & _Seq._

[Sidenote: _2. Of Scripture._] _Secondly_, As to the Scripture, the same Difficulty occurreth: The _Lutherans_ affirm they believe Consubstantiation 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 affirm themselves to be ruled by the Scripture and Reason in the Matter. Should I argue thus then to the _Calvinists_?

Here the _Lutherans_ and _Arminians_ grossly err, by following the Scripture:

Therefore the Scripture is not a good nor certain Rule; and _è contrario_.

Would either of them accept of this Reasoning as good and sound? What shall I say of the _Episcopalians_, _Presbyterians_, _Independents_, and _Anabaptists_ of _Great Britain_, who are continually buffeting one another with the Scripture? To whom the same Argument might be alledged, though they do all unanimously acknowledge it to be the Rule.

[Sidenote: _3. Of Reason._] And _Thirdly_, As to Reason, I shall not need to say much; for whence come all the Controversies, Contentions and Debates in the World, but because every Man thinks he follows right Reason? [Sidenote: _The Debates hence arising betwixt the old and late Philosophers._] Hence of old, came the Jangles between the _Stoicks_, _Platonists_, _Peripateticks_, _Pythagoreans_, and _Cynicks_, as of late betwixt the _Aristotelians_, _Cartesians_, and other Naturalists: Can it be thence inferred, or will the _Socinians_, those great Reasoners, allow us to conclude, because many, and those very wise Men, have erred, by following, as they supposed, their Reason, and that with what Diligence, Care and Industry they could, to find out the Truth, that therefore no Man ought to make use of it at all, nor be positive in what he knows certainly to be Rational? And thus far as to Opinions; the same Uncertainty is no less incident unto those other Principles.

§. XIV. [Sidenote: Anabaptists _for their wild Practices, and_ Protestants _and_ Papists _for their Wars and Bloodshed, each pretending Scripture for it._] But if we come to Practices, though I confess I do with my whole Heart abhor and detest those wild Practices, which are written concerning the _Anabaptists_ of _Munster_; I am bold to say, as bad, if not worse Things, have been committed by those that lean to Tradition, Scripture, and Reason: Wherein also they have averred themselves to have been authorized by these Rules. I need but mention all the Tumults, Seditions, and horrible Bloodshed, wherewith _Europe_ hath been afflicted these divers Ages; in which _Papists_ against _Papists_, _Calvinists_ against _Calvinists_, _Lutherans_ against _Lutherans_, and _Papists_, assisted by _Protestants_, against other _Protestants_ assisted by _Papists_, have miserably Shed one another’s Blood, Hiring and Forcing Men to kill each other, who were Ignorant of the Quarrel, and Strangers one to another: All, mean while, pretending Reason for so doing, and pleading the Lawfulness of it from Scripture.

[Sidenote: _Tradition, Scripture, and Reason, made a Cover for Persecution and Murder._] For what have the _Papists_ pretended for their many _Massacres_, acted as well in _France_ as elsewhere, but _Tradition_, _Scripture_, and _Reason_? Did they not say, That _Reason_ persuaded them, _Tradition_ allowed them, and _Scripture_ commanded them, to Persecute, Destroy, and Burn _Hereticks_, such as denied this plain Scripture, _Hoc est Corpus meum, This is my Body?_ And are not the _Protestants_ assenting to this Bloodshed, who assert the same Thing, and encourage them, by Burning and Banishing, while their Brethren are so treated for the same Cause? Are not the Islands of _Great Britain_ and _Ireland_, yea, and all the Christian World, a lively Example hereof, which were divers Years together as a Theatre of Blood; where many lost their Lives, and Numbers of Families were utterly destroyed and ruined? For all which no other Cause was principally given, than the Precepts of the Scripture. If we then compare these Actings with those of _Munster_, we shall not find great Difference; for both affirmed and pretended they were called, and that it was lawful to Kill, Burn, and Destroy the Wicked. _We must Kill all the Wicked, _said those_ Anabaptists, that we, that are the Saints, may possess the Earth. We must Burn obstinate Hereticks, _say the_ Papists, that the _Holy Church of Rome_ may be purged of rotten Members, and may live in Peace. We must cut off _Seducing Separatists, say the_ Prelatical Protestants, who trouble the Peace of the Church, and refuse the _Divine Hierarchy_, and _Religious Ceremonies_ thereof. We must Kill, _say the_ Calvinistick Presbyterians, the Prophane Malignants, who accuse the _Holy Consistorial_ and _Presbyterian Government_, and seek to defend the _Popish_ and _Prelatick Hierarchy_; as also those other _Sectaries_ that trouble the Peace of our Church._ What Difference I pray thee, Impartial Reader, seest thou betwixt these?

[Sidenote: Object.] If it be said, _The _Anabaptists_ went without, and against the Authority of the _Magistrate_; so did not the other_;

[Sidenote: _Answ._] I might easily Refute it, by alledging the mutual Testimonies of these _Sects_ against one another. [Sidenote: Examples of Popish Cruelties.] The Behaviour of the _Papists_ towards _Henry_ the third and fourth of _France_; their Designs upon _James_ the sixth in the Gunpowder Treason; as also their Principle of the _Pope_’s Power to depose Kings, for the Cause of _Heresy_, and to absolve their Subjects from their _Oath_, and give them to others, proves it against them.

[Sidenote: _Protestants Violences and Persecutions in_ Scotland, England, _and_ Holland.] And as to the _Protestants_, how much their Actions differ from those other above-mentioned, may be seen by the many Conspiracies and Tumults which they have been active in, both in _Scotland_ and _England_, and which they have acted within these Hundred Years, in divers Towns and Provinces of the _Netherlands_. Have they not oftentimes sought, not only from the _Popish Magistrates_, but even from those that had begun to Reform, or that had given them some Liberty of Exercising their Religion, that they might only be permitted, without Trouble or Hindrance, to Exercise their Religion, promising they would not hinder or molest the _Papists_ in the Exercise of theirs? And yet did they not on the contrary, so soon as they had Power, trouble and abuse those Fellow-Citizens, and turn them out of the City, and, which is worse, even such, who together with them had forsaken the Popish Religion? Did they not these Things in many Places against the Mind of the Magistrates? Have they not publickly, with contumelious Speeches, assaulted their Magistrates, from whom they had but just before sought and obtained the free Exercise of their Religion? Representing them, so soon as they opposed themselves to their _Hierarchy_, as if they regarded neither God nor Religion? Have they not by violent Hands possessed themselves of the _Popish Churches_, so called, or by Force, against the Magistrates Mind, taken them away? Have they not turned out of their Office and Authority whole Councils of Magistrates, under Pretence that they were addicted to _Popery_? Which _Popish Magistrates_ nevertheless they did but a little before acknowledge to be Ordained by God; affirming themselves obliged to yield them Obedience and Subjection, not only for Fear, but for Conscience Sake; to whom moreover the very Preachers and Overseers of the Reformed Church had willingly sworn Fidelity; and yet afterwards have they not said, That the People are bound to force a wicked Prince to the Observation of God’s Word? There are many other Instances of this Kind to be found in their _Histories_, not to mention many worse Things, which we know to have been acted in our Time, and which for Brevity’s Sake I pass by.

[Sidenote: Lutheran _Seditions against the Reformed Teachers, and Assault upon the Marquis of _Brandenburg_, &c. in _Germany.] I might say much of the _Lutherans_, whose tumultuous Actions against their Magistrates, not professing the _Lutheran Profession_, are testified of by several Historians worthy of Credit. Among others, I shall propose only one Example to the Reader’s Consideration, which fell out at _Berlin_, in the Year 1615, “Where the seditious Multitude of the _Lutheran_ Citizens, being stirred up by the daily Clamours of their Preachers, did not only with Violence break into the Houses of the reformed Teachers, overturn their Libraries, and spoil their Furniture; but also with reproachful Words, yea, and with Stones, assaulted the Marquis of _Brandenburg_, the Elector’s Brother, while he sought by smooth Words to quiet the Fury of the Multitude; they killed ten of his Guard, scarcely sparing himself, who at last by Flight escaped out of their Hands.”

All which sufficiently declares, that the Concurrence of the Magistrate doth not alter their Principles, but only their Method of Procedure. So that for my own Part, I see no Difference betwixt the Actings of those of _Munster_, and these others, (whereof the one pretended to be led by the _Spirit_, the other by _Tradition_, _Scripture_, and _Reason_) save this, that the former were rash, heady, and foolish, in their Proceedings, and therefore were the sooner brought to nothing, and so into Contempt and Derision: But the other, being more politick and wise in their Generation, held it out longer, and so have authorized their Wickedness more, with the seeming Authority of Law and Reason. But both their Actings being equally Evil, the Difference appears to me to be only like that which is between a simple silly Thief, that is easily catched, and hanged without any more ado; and a Company of resolute bold Robbers, who being better guarded, though their Offence be nothing less, yet by Violence do, to shun the Danger, force their Masters to give them good Terms.

From all which then it evidently follows, that they argue very ill, who despise and reject any Principle, because Men pretending to be led by it do evil; in case it be not the natural and consequential Tendency of that Principle to lead unto those Things that are evil.

Again, It doth follow from what is above asserted, that if the Spirit be to be rejected upon this Account, all those other Principles ought on the same Account to be rejected. And for my Part, as I have never a Whit the lower Esteem of the blessed Testimony of the Holy Scriptures; nor do the less respect any solid Tradition, that is answerable and according to Truth; neither at all despise Reason, that noble and excellent Faculty of the Mind, because wicked Men have abused the Name of them, to cover their Wickedness, and deceive the Simple; [Sidenote: _Let none reject the Certainty of the unerring Spirit of God because of false Pretenders to it._] so would I not have any reject or doubt the Certainty of that Unerring Spirit, which God hath given his Children, as that which can alone guide them into all Truth, because some have falsely pretended to it.

§. XV. And because the Spirit of God is the Fountain of all Truth and sound Reason, therefore we have well said, That _it cannot contradict either the Testimony of the Scripture, or right Reason_: “_Yet _(as the Proposition itself concludeth, to the last Part of which I now come)_ it will not from thence follow, that these Divine Revelations are to be subjected to the Examination either by the outward Testimony of Scripture, or of the human or natural Reason of Man, as to a more noble and certain Rule or Touch-stone; for the Divine Revelation, and Inward Illumination, is that which is evident by itself, forcing the well-disposed Understanding, and irresistibly moving it to assent, by its own Evidence and Clearness; even as the common Principles of natural Truths do bend the Mind to a natural Assent._”

He that denies this Part of the Proposition, must needs affirm, that the Spirit of God neither can nor ever hath manifested itself to Man, without the Scripture, or a distinct Discussion of Reason; or that the Efficacy of this Supernatural Principle, working upon the Souls of Men, is less evident than Natural Principles in their common Operations; both which are false.

For, _First_, Through all the Scriptures we may observe, That the Manifestation and Revelation of God by his Spirit to the Patriarchs, Prophets, and Apostles, was _Immediate_ and _Objective_, as is above proved; which they did not examine by any other Principle, but their own Evidence and Clearness.

[Sidenote: _The Self-Evidence of the Spirit._] _Secondly_, To say that the Spirit of God has less Evidence upon the Mind of Man than Natural Principles have, is to have too mean and too low Thoughts of it. How comes _David_ to invite us, to _taste and see that God is good_, if this cannot be felt and tasted? This were enough to overturn the Faith and Assurance of all the Saints, both now and of old. How came _Paul_ to be persuaded, that _nothing could separate him from the Love of God_, but by that Evidence and Clearness which the Spirit of God gave him? The Apostle _John_, who knew well wherein the Certainty of Faith consisted, judged it no ways absurd, without further Argument, to ascribe his Knowledge and Assurance, and that of all the Saints, hereunto in these Words, _Hereby know we, that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit_, 1 John iv. 13. And again, Ver. 6. It is _the Spirit that beareth Witness, because the Spirit is Truth_.

Observe the Reason brought by him, _Because the Spirit is Truth_; of whose Certainty and Infallibility I have heretofore spoken. [Sidenote: _The Spirit contradicts not the Scripture, nor right Reason._] We then trust to and confide in this Spirit, because we know, and certainly believe, that it can only lead us aright, and never mislead us; and from this certain Confidence it is that we affirm, That no Revelation coming from it can ever contradict the Scripture’s Testimony, nor right Reason: Not as making this a more certain Rule to ourselves, but as condescending to such, who not discerning the Revelations of the Spirit, as they proceed purely from God, will try them by these _Mediums_. Yet those that have their Spiritual Senses, and can savour the Things of the Spirit, as it were _in prima Instantia_, i. e. at the first Blush, can discern them without, or before they apply them either to Scripture or Reason: [Sidenote: _Natural Demonstrations from_ Astronomy _and_ Geometry.] Just as a good _Astronomer_ can calculate an Eclipse infallibly, by which he can conclude (if the Order of Nature continue, and some strange and unnatural Revolution intervene not) there will be an Eclipse of the Sun or Moon such a Day, and such an Hour; yet can he not persuade an ignorant Rustick of this, until he visibly see it. So also a _Mathematician_ can infallibly know, by the Rules of Art, that the three Angles of a right Triangle are equal to two right Angles; yea, can know them more certainly than any Man by Measure. And some _Geometrical Demonstrations_ are by all acknowledged to be infallible, which can be scarcely discerned or proved by the Senses; yet if a _Geometer_ be at the Pains to certify some ignorant Man concerning the Certainty of his Art, by condescending to measure it, and make it obvious to his Senses, it will not thence follow, that that Measuring is so certain as the Demonstration itself; or that the Demonstration would be uncertain without it.