An Apology for the True Christian Divinity. Robert Barclay

led?

      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.

      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;

      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. 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.

      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.

      

      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? 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,