Vera effigies doctissimi Viri D. JOHANNES HALES Colleg. Eton. Socii et Eccles. Colleg. Windesoriensis Canonici.    

SEVERAL TRACTS, By the ever memorable Mr. JOHN HALES Of Eton Coll. etc. VIZ. 

I. Of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper.  
II. Paraphrase on St. Matthew's Gospel.  
III. Of the Power of the Keys.  
IV. Of Schism and Schismatics, (Never before printed by the Original Copy.)  
V. Miscellanies.    
Printed in the Year, 1677.   

A TRACT Concerning the SIN Against the Holy Ghost.  
By the ever Memorable Mr. JOHN HALES, of Eton College, etc.  
LONDON, Printed for John Blyth, at Mr Playfords Shop in the Temple, 1677.   

A TRACT concerning the SIN against the HOLY GHOST.  
MAny have Written of the Sin against the Holy Ghost, and in defining or describing of it, follow their own zealous conceits, and not the Canon of Holy Scriptures. The more dreadful the Sin is, the more fearful we must be, in charging it upon any special crime, or particular person. In defining a sin of so heinous a nature, direct and evident proof from Scripture is requisite. It is not enough to consider, (as many do) what sins are most desperate and deadly, and therefore to conclude such sins are against the Holy Ghost. Thus indeed the Schoolmen have done, who have made six differences of this sin, V. in fine. without any ground or warrant from Scripture for so doing. And Bellarmine is so liberal in bestowing on such as he calls Heretics, that his opinion is, that a Man can scarce be a learned Protestant, without committing the sin against the Holy Ghost. Neither are the Papists the only Men that are mistaken about this sin: but too many Divines of the Reformed Churches, have started aside from the Scripture, and have given us such intricate and contradictory definitions of this sin, as tend only to the perplexing the tender Consciences of weak Christians. To make good this Censure, I will briefly set down so much touching this sin, as I conceive is warranted by the Word of God, and humbly submit to the judgement of the Learned.  
The Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, was an evil speaking of, or slandering of the Miracles which our Saviour did, by those, who though they were convinced by the Miracles, to believe that such Works could not be done, but by the power of God, yet they did maliciously say, they were wrought by the power of the Devil.  
In this Definition, these points are observable.  
1. I forbear to call it the sin against the Holy Ghost, but the Blasphemy; for though every Blasphemy be a sin in general, yet our Saviour Christ, terms it the Blasphemy. And the Evangelists do all agree, to give it the same term: and 'tis now here in holy Scripture called the sin against the Holy Ghost; and yet it appears both in St. Matthew and St. Mark, that there was just occasion offered to our Saviour to call it so; where he compares it with the sin against the Son of Man; but he forbears to call it any thing, but the Blasphemy; thereby, no doubt, to teach us, it consisteth only in cursed speaking and Blaspheming. A serious consideration of this point, may teach us so much moderation, as to confine ourselves to that term which our Saviour in the three Evangelists hath prescribed unto us. I cannot find that any Man that hath writ upon this Argument, hath made any observation, or noted this phrase and term used by the Evangelists, in pronouncing the dreadful sentence of our Saviour against the Blasphemy of the Holy Ghost, I will cite these Texts, where it is named, Math. 12. 31. Mark 3. 28▪ Luke▪ 12▪ 10.  
2. A second Observation is, That Blasphemy is a speaking against another, as both St. Matthew and St. Luke expound the word, for in the Original, it is a blasting the Fame, or blaming of another; for from the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both the French Nation and our English by contraction have made the word blame.  
3. To pass from the Name to the Thing itself, we may observe by the coherence of the Texts, that Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, was spoken of by our Saviour, concerning the Scribes and Pharisees. It was (saith St. Mark) because the Pharisees said, he had an unclean spirit, and that he cast our Devils by Belzebub, etc. This speech of the Pharisees, whereby they slandered his Miracles, wrought by the power of the Holy Ghost, is properly the Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. How transcendent a crime it was, to traduce that power by which our Saviour wrought his Miracles, may appear, from the end for which these Miracles were wrought; which was, to prove to the people that saw them, that he was the Messias; which is evident from the places of Scripture, wherein he appealed to his works, 10 Joh. 37. 38. 14. Joh. 11. 11 Math. 4. 4. Joh. 29. These and other places show, that the working of Miracles, was an act of the most glorious manifestation of the power of God, by which at the first view, the simplest people were led by their outward sense, to the great mystery of inward Faith in Christ their Redeemer.  
Therefore, for those men that were eye-witnesses of those Miracles which did make them know that Christ was a Teacher come from God, to Blaspheme that power, by which these Miracles were wrought, and to say they were done by the help of the Devil, was the most spiteful and malicious slander that could be invented; for thereby they attempted, as much as in them lay, to destroy the very principles of Faith, and to prevent the very first propagation of the Gospel, to the universal mischief of all Mankind. And though these Pharisees were no Christians, and therefore could not fall away from faith, which they never had, yet they did know and believe that Christ was a Teacher come from God; for so our Saviour tells them, 7 Joh. 28. Ye both know me, and whence I am. They did not believe him as a Saviour, but as a great Prophet from God; (as the Mahometans do at this very day) they trusted to be saved by their Law, and because he taught such things as did abrogate their Law, in which they so much gloried, they were so malicious to his Doctrine, which they did not believe, that they spoke evil of his Miracles which they did believe; lest the people by approving his Miracles, should believe his Doctrine.  
4. Observe, that it's said to be Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, because, by the Holy Ghost, the Miracles were wrought Math. 12 28. 1 Cor 12. 10.  
5. The Blasphemy against the Son of Man was, when men considered Christ as a mere man, and did disgracefully tax his conversation, by saying, behold a glutton, a bibber of Wine, a friend to Publicans and sinners. But the Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, was, when Men beholding Christ's Miracles, did enviously ascribe them to the Devil, which they knew and believed to be done by God's power.  
6. The Texts formerly cited out of the three Evangelists, being all the places wherein the Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is named; we cannot find by them, that we have any safe rule to conclude, that any but the Scribes and Pharisees, and their confederates, committed that sin. I dare not say, that Judas, Julian the Apostate, or Simon Magus, or those that stoned Stephen, were guilty thereof.  
7. The Apostles have not in any of their Epistles once mentioned this Blasphemy, and yet they were most careful and frequent in exhortations from all sorts of sin: It were much therefore if they should omit or forget such a fearful crime, without often and precise admonishing to beware of it. And though negative proofs from Scripture, are not demonstrative, yet the general silence of the Apostles, may at least help to infer a probability, that the Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, is not committable by any Christian, which lived not in the time of our Saviour. As for those Texts in the sixth and tenth Chapter to the Hebrews, and in 1 John 5. 16. (which by late Divines are▪ expounded of the sin against the Holy Ghost) I do not find that the Ancient Fathers did so understand them, excepting only St. Austin, who so interprets that one place in St. John, that all men confess him to be in an error. There be three Texts in the Epistles, wherein although the Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost be not named, yet, most think, it is intended and meant. And Bellarmine confuting St. Austin's opinion, who held, that final impenitency was the sin against the Holy Ghost) affirms, that it seems the three Texts in the Epistles, are spoken of that sin; and yet this great Cardinal forgetting what he had said in the same Chapter contradicts himself, and shows how that those three places are not to be interpreted of that sin. I will cite the Texts, and then his interpretation of them, according to the exposition of St. Ambrose, Chrysostom, Hierom, and other Fathers, as he saith.  
The first is Heb. 6. It is impossible, etc. The Apostle here speaks only of Repentance, which did go before Baptism, for so chrysostom and Ambrose, etc. expound it; which the Apostle intimates in these words. Which were once enlightened, that is, Baptised, for anciently, to be illuminated, signified to be Baptised. Secondly, in these words (to renew again) for we are properly renewed in Baptism. Thirdly, in these (crucifying the Son of God afresh) for when we are Baptised, we are conformed to the likeness of his death, 6 Rom. And as Christ was only once crucified, so also we are only once Baptised; and he that will be again Baptised, should again crucify to himself Ghrist. Let me add this, that in the verses next before this Text, the Apostle speaks of the foundation of Repentance, and the Doctrine of Baptism. And in this Text, our new Translation followeth Beza (who hath varied from the Original, by putting the conditional Si, If, instead of the Copulative Et, And, and by adding the Causal Ut.) so that whereas Beza and our Translation is, si prolabantur ut crucifigant, The Greek, and vulgar Latin is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, prolapsi sunt crucifigentes; for the word doth not signify to fall away, but to fall casually or negligently, so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Galat 6. is translated fault, but not falling away.  
The second Text is, Hebrews 10. 26. For if we sin willingly or wilfully, after we have received the knowledge of the Truth, there remains no more sacrifice for sin. Answer, I say with Chrysostom, Ambrose, and other Fathers; The sense is, we must not expect another Christ to die for us, or that he that died once, should come again to die for us.  
The third Text, 1 Joh 5. 16. There is a sin unto death: I do not say ye shall pray for it; St. Hierom saith, that nothing else is here meant, but that a Prayer for a sin unto death, is very hardly or difficultly heard; and this seems to be the truest sense of this place: for St. John saith, in the verse immediately before, we know we have the Petitions we desire of him; therefore lest we should think this to hold true in all Petitions even for others▪ he adds▪ if any Man see his Brother sin a sin, which is not unto death, he shall ask, etc. he shall ask, that is, let him ask with confidence, for he shall obtain; but if it be a sin unto death, that is, a great sin, such an one as is not ordinarily pardoned, but punished with death: I do not say, ye shall pray for it, that is I dare not promise that you shall easily obtain, and therefore I do not say that you shall pray for it, that is, with that confidence of obtaining; for often in such cases, God doth nothear the Prayers of his Saints; as God saith, Jer. 7. 16. If these expositions upon the former Texts be sound, the Definition of the sin against the Holy Ghost, cannot be grounded upon all or any of them: for as it is not nameed, so it is not meant in any of them; but if they seem to any to be unsound, let him bring better and more agreeable to the literal meaning and sense, coherence and scope of the Text, and I shall gladly learn. It seems a probable exposition of the first place, Heb. 6. that a learned Divine, who produceth this Text for proof of his definition of the sin against the Holy Ghost, doth confess against himself, that the Apostle in this place denieth a second Baptism, where he speaketh of Repentance, because they are mentioned together in the same place, and have some affinity and correspondence. As for the second Text, Heb. 10. I must say, that if St. Paul in this place, meant the sin against the Holy Ghost, that then this were the only desperate Text in the whole Bible, for what Man is there that sins not willingly; for so the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifies: Beza translates it ultro, the vulgar Latin, voluntariè, or willingly, not wilfully, or obstinately. It is but a miserable shift, when St. Paul saith, if we sin willingly, for Mr Calvin to tell us, that the Text doth not mean every willing sin, but only a malicious resisting of the Truth. Could not St. Paul, as easily as Mr Calvin, have said, If we sin maliciously, as say, if we sin willingly? My comfort is, that if the Text be advisedly considered, there is no such thing as the sin against the Holy Ghost, or any other desperate conclusion, to be found in the Text; the scope of the precedent verses do evidently expound the Apostles meaning to be this, to let the Jews know, that the case was not now with them, as it was under the Law; for under the Law they had daily sacrifice for sin, but now under the Gospel they had but one sacrifice, once for all; every Priest standeth daily ministering and offering often times the same sacrifice, but this Man after he had offered one sacrifice, for ever sat down at the right hand of God, as it is, verse 11. of that Chapter, which may serve for a comment upon the Verse now in question. And it is worth our noting, that the Text doth not say, if we sin wilfully, there is no sacrifice for sin; this had been an hard saying indeed; but the words are, there remains no more sacrifice for sin: there is some comfortable difference, I hope, between these two propositions; there is no sacrifice, and there remains no more sacrifice for sin: So that if we do not believe in that one sacrifice, as sufficient, but look every day for some new sacrifice for every new sin, we must expect nothing but judgement.  
As to the third place, 1 joh. 5. 16. many would conclude, there is a sin for which we may not pray; First, because it is irremissable, and this they think must needs be the sin against the Holy Ghost, meant by St. john, Their best argument is, John's not saying we should pray, is a saying we should not pray; his silence to them is prohibition. This is bad Grammar, and worse Logic. For we find, that St. Stephen prayed for them that stoned him, and yet told them they resisted the Holy Ghost. And St. Peter exhorted Simon Magus to Repentance, and yet both he and those that stoned Stephen, are commonly reputed sinners against the Holy Ghost. St. Ambrose is of that charitable opinion, that he thinks the sin against the Holy Ghost may be pardoned by Repentance, because the people of the jews, that had said of Christ, that he cast out Devils by Belzebub, afterwards at the preaching of St. Peter, are said to be converted, Acts 2. St. Austin in a Retract concludes, we must despair of no Man, no not of the wickedest, as long as he liveth; and we safely pray for him, of whom we don't despair. For though it be expressly said, That the Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven, yet these words may justly receive a qualification, if we will but allow the same mitigation of these words, which all Men confess we must needs allow to the precedent words in the same verse, to which these have relation; where it is said generally, all Sins, and all Blasphemies shall be forgiven, it cannot be meant of all sins always, and to all Men, for then no sin could be damnable, but the sin against the Holy Ghost, which is most false; and therefore the meaning must be, all sins shall be forgiven ordinarily, and for the most part; so on the contrary, Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not ordinarily, but hardly be forgiven. Even those who are most strict to maintain the Sin against the Holy Ghost, to be unpardonable, will yet acknowledge, that some times in Scripture, Impossibility is used to note a difficulty, and those things are spoken indefinitely to all, which belong but to a part only. Thus the difficulty of a rich Man's entering into the Kingdom of Heaven, is presented to us by our Saviour, under the similitude of an impossibility.  
Having dispatched these Texts of Scripture which do either name, or are thought to concern, the sin against the Holy Ghost, it remains to examine those common Definitions of this sin which are now current; though different in the terms by which they define it; some call it a total or final falling away from faith, or a wilful Apostasy, or a malicious resisting of the truth; yet when they come to explain their meaning, the difference among them is not considerable. I shall chiefly apply myself to Mr Calvin's definition, because his judgement hath gained the greatest reputation among the multitude; as also, for that he himself promises such a true definition, as shall easily, by itself overthrow all the rest. In his Institut. Lib. 3. Chap. 3. he saith, they sin against the Holy Ghost, Qui divinae veritati (cujus fulgore sic perstringuntur ut ignorantiam causari nequeunt) tamen destinata malitia resistunt, in hoc tantum, ut resistant. Arminius also useth Mr calvin's words. The Rhetorical Parenthesis, which might well have been spared in a definition, being reduced to plain and brief terms; this definition of Calvin may be thus Englished, They sin against the Holy Ghost, who of determined malice, resist the known Truth of God, to the end only to resist. In this Mr Calvin doth not define what the sin is, but who they are that commit it; whereas by the Rules of Logic, Concretes admit of no definition, but only Abstracts. But taking the definition as it is, it consists principally upon these three terms. First, Truth; Secondly, Known; Thirdly, Resisted; or a resisting of the known Truth. The words being general and doubtful, we will consider them singly.  
First, If by the truth Mr Calvin understands the Word of God, or the whole Doctrine revealed in the Scriptures, than the sense of this Term will be too large: for even the Pharisees which spoke against the Holy Ghost, did not resist the whole Truth of God in the Scripture, for they believed in the Law of Moses, and had confidence to be saved by the keeping of it. And in defence of that Law, (as they thought) they did Blaspheme the Holy Ghost. Therefore properly by the Truth of God, Mr Calvin must confine his meaning to the Truth of the Gospel or Doctrine of Faith, for so both he himself and others expound themselves, by terming the sin against the Holy Ghost, a falling away, or turning away from Faith, or Apostasy.  
Secondly, By this word Known, Mr Calvin must mean belief, for Faith is properly by believing, not knowing the truth.  
Thirdly, The Word, Resisting, must mean unbelieving: for if receiving of the Truth be by belief, then Resisting of the Truth must be●● unbelief. And indeed Mr. Calvin explains himself in the same Chapter, saying, there is no place for pardon where knowledge is joined with unbelief, Non esse veniae locum, etc. So then by this definition, to resist the known Truth, is all one, as if Mr Calvin had said in proper terms, for a Man at once to unbelieve that which he doth believe; which two things it is impossible to do together? and if they be not together, there can be no resistance. It is true, that for some reasons, a Man may be brought, not to believe that which he formerly believed. This cannotbe in an instant, but successively unbelief comes in the place of belief. And this may not be called a resisting, for that all resistance consists in a violence between two at the least; but where two succeed one another, and are never together, it cannot possibly be. I confess a Man may resist the Truth, when it is a Truth, in itself only, or in the understanding of some other; but to resist the Truth which is known, and believed by the resister himself, is a direct contradiction; for the nature of Truth is such, that if the understanding apprehend it for Truth, it cannot but assent unto it. No Man can force himself to believe what he lists, or when he lists. Sometimes a Man knows not what to believe, but finds a suspension of his Faith, or trepidation of his understanding, not knowing which way to turn. This cannot be called a resisting of the Truth, when the Truth is not known, but doubted of. Again, some Truths there be, though they be assented to by the understanding for Truths, yet they are not desired as good; for truth is one degree nearer the Soul of Man than goodness. The Pharisees did apprehend the Miracles of our Saviour as true, but not as good; because they tended to the derogation of their Law, which they esteemed a better Truth. And for this cause, they Blasphemed that Truth, which in their hearts they believed for Truth. For the truth of words, or speech, is, (as the Schools say) nothing else but the sign of truth, not truth itself; for truth itself is seated in the understanding, and not in the speech. That Truth which the understanding assents to, the speech may affirm to be false; there are many things believed in deed, which are denied in word: but such a denial is not resisting, but only making show of resisting, the Truth; for resistance must be in the same place where Truth is; Truth being seated in the understanding, resistance must be placed there also; the understanding can resist no Truth, but by unbelieving of it. If Mr Calvin had intended of the Truth only in word, he had come one step nearer to the Truth of Scripture, but he was not so happy in the expression of his meaning: nay his terms of Incredulity, Apostasy, falling away, etc. relate to a real, not verbal, Apostasy, and Unbelief. It remains then to my understanding, that Mr Calvin makes the resistance of the Truth to be a not believing of what we do believe; which being a contradiction, he defines the Sin against the Holy Ghost, to be such a Sin, as no Man possibly can commit. And yet in the other extreme, in expounding his own definition, he makes it such a Sin, as no Man living but commits; for by his Doctrine, (as I take it) any Sin may be the Sin against the Holy Ghost. His words are these, Quorum convicta est conscientia verbum Dei esse quod repudiant & impugnant, impugnare tamen non desistant, ill● in spiritum blasphemari dicuntur. What Man is there that doth not daily, in some Point or other, for sake the word of God, and ceases not to impugn it, and is convinced thereof in his Conscience: I know Mr Calvin was far from thinking, that St. Paul, did Sin against the Holy Ghost, and yet St. Paul it seems was convinced in his Conscience, that it was the Word of God he fought against, and yet ceased not to fight against it, when he saith, he delighted in the Law of God, yet another Law warring against the Law of his mind, brought him into Captivity of the Law of Sin. What dangerous consequences weak Consciences may draw to themselves, out of this unbridled, unlimited proposition of Mr calvin's, let others judge. There is a just cause I. presume to except against Mr Galvin, and all others, who in this concur with him, to omit the term of Blasphemy in their definitions; for this is perpetually observed by our Saviour in his speech concerning this Sin, by the Evangelists with one consent: but instead of the word Blasphemy, he hath brought in the word, resist, for a Genus of this Sin; but by what Authority I know not; I cannot find it, or the equivalent to it, in any of these places, which are thought to touch this Sin I find only falling away mentioned, Heb. 6. which phrase is used by Mr Calvin, for resisting; whereas falling away, and resisting, are no more alike, than fight and running away, which are little less than contraries. The last point I shall touch in Mr calvin's definition, is, where he saith, the Sinners against the Holy Ghost resist, to the end only that they may resist; and yet withal he tells, they resist out of a determinate malice. If they resist out of malice, than the end for which they resist, is for the satisfaction of their malice. The Pharisees here condemned by our Saviour, had an other end than bore resisting. The defence of the Law of Moses, was the end for which they Blasphemed, and not any pleasure they could have in the bare and simple act of resistance. We find three old opinions, concerning the Sin against the Holy Ghost, but they were long since exploded; I will but only name them. Origen thought, all Sins committed after Baptism, were Sins against the Holy Ghost: his reason was only a witless conceit of his own, That God the Father was in all things, the Son only in all reasonable Creatures, the Holy Ghost in all regenerate Men. Therefore when Men Sin against the Divine Person, which is in them, if they be Heathen, they Sin against God the Father, or Son; if they be Christians, they Sin against God the Holy Ghost; but this opinion is false. The Novatian Heretics agreed with Origen in opinion, for they denied remission of Sins to any that fell, thinking all falls of Christians to be Sins against the Holy Ghost; but this opinion is false; else all Sins were unpardonable to Christians. Yet we find St. Paul, to remit the Sins of the incestuous Corinthian.  
Our Saviour also chargeth the Pharisees with this, who were no Christians. St. Austin thought final impenitency to be the Sin against the Holy Ghost; but final impenitency is no Blasphemy, but only a general circumstance, that may accompany any Sin: besides, our Saviour intends, that this Sin may be found in this life. And the Pharisees were alive when they were accused of it Pet. Lombard, and Tho. Aquinas, thought Sins of Malice, to be Sins against the Holy Ghost, and Sins of infirmity against the Father, and Sins of ignorance against the Son. This opinion is false, because the Sin against the Holy Ghost, must be a Sin of some certain Blasphemy, but malice is no certain Sin, but a General, and 'tis not always a Blasphemy.  
The six differences the Schoolmen make of the Sin against the Holy Ghost, are these;  
1. Envying of our Brother's Graces; 2. Impugning of the Known Truth; 3. Desperation; 4. Obstinacy; 5. Presumption; 6. Final Impenitency.  
In this determination of the point of Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, and the inquiry made into Mr calvin's and others new definition; I hope I have delivered nothing contrary to the Articles of the Church of England.  
FINIS.   

A TRACT Concerning the SACRAMENT OF THE Lord's Supper.  
By the ever Memorable Mr. JOHN HALES, of Eaton-Colledge, etc.  
Printed, 1677.   

A Tract on the Sacrament of the LORDS SUPPER.  
Kind SIR,  
IN perusal of your Letters▪ together with the Schedule enclosed, no Circumstance did so much move me as this, that so ordinary Points as are discussed there, and that in a bare and ordinary manner, should amuse either yourself or any man else, that pretends to ordinary Knowledge in Controversies in Christian Religion. For the Points therein discussed are no other than the subject of every common Pamphlet, and sufficiently known (that I may so say) in every Barber's Shop. Yet because you require my Opinion of matters there in question, I willingly afford it you, though I fear I shall more amuse you with telling you the Truth, than the Disputants there did, by abusing you with Error. For the plain and necessary (though perhaps unwelcome) Truth is, that in the greater part of the Dispute, both parties much mistake themselves, and that fell out which is in the common Proverb, sc. Whilst the one milks the Ram, the other holds under the Sieve. That you may see this Truth with your Eyes, I divide your whole Dispute into two Heads; the one concerning the Eucharist, the other concerning the Churches mistaking itself about Fundamentals.  
For the first, It consisteth of two parts; of a Proposition, and of a Reply: The Proposition expresses (at least he that made it intended it so to do, though he mistakes) the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches, concerning the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The Reply doth the like for the Church of Rome in the same Argument. Now that you may see how indifferently I walk, I will open the mistakes of both parties, that so the truth of the thing itself (being unclouded of Errors) may the more clearly shine forth.  
The first mistake common to both is, That they ground themselves much upon the words of Consecration, as they are called, and suppose, That upon the pronouncing of those words, something befalls that action, which otherwise would not; and that without those words the action were lame. Sir, I must confess my ignorance unto you. I find no ground for the necessity of this doing. Our Saviour instituting that Holy Ceremony, commands us to do what he did, leaves us no Precept of saying any words; neither will it be made appear, that either the blessed Apostles, or Primitive Christians had any such Custom: Nay the contrary will be made probably to appear out of some of the ancientest Writings of the Church's Ceremonials. Our Saviour indeed used the Words, but it was to express what his meaning was; had he barely acted the thing, without expressing himself by some such Form of Words, we could never have known what it was he did. But what necessity is there now of so doing? for when the Congregation is met together, to the breaking of Bread and Prayer, and see Bread and Wine upon the Communion Table, is there any man can doubt of the meaning of it, although the Canon be not read? It was the farther solemnising, and beautifying that holy action which brought the Canon in; and not an opinion of adding any thing to the substance of the action. For that the words were used by our Saviour to work any thing upon the Bread and Wine, can never out of Scripture or Reason be deduced; and beyond these two, I have no ground for my Religion, neither in Substance nor in Ceremony. The main Foundation that upholds the necessity of this form of action now in use, is Church-Custom and Church-Error.  
Now for that Topique place of Church-Custom, it is generally too much abused: For whereas naturally the necessity of the thing ought to give warrant to the practice of the Church; I know not by what device matters are turned about, and the customary practice of the Church is alleged to prove the necessity of the thing; as if things had received their Original from the Church-Authority, and not as the truth is, from an higher Hand. As for the Church's Error, on which I told you this Form of action is founded, it consists in the uncautelous taking up an unsound ungrounded conclusion of the Fathers for a religious Maxim. St. Ambrose, I trow, was he that said it, and posterity hath too generally applauded it, Accedat verbum ad elementum, & fiat Sacramentum. By which they would persuade us, against all experience, that to make up a Sacrament, there must be something said and something done; whereas indeed to the perfection of a Sacrament, or holy Mystery (for both these are one) it is sufficient that one thing be done whereby another is signified, though nothing be said at all. When Tarqvinius was walking in his Garden, a Messenger came and asked him, what he would have done unto the Town of Gabijs, then newly taken? He answered nothing▪ But with his Wand struck off the tops of the highest Popies; and the Messenger understanding his meaning, cut off the Heads of the chief of the City. Had this been done in Sacris, it had been forthwith truly a Sacrament, or holy Mystery. Cum in omnibus Scientiis voces significent res, hoc habet proprium Theologia, quòd ipsaeres significatae per voces, etiam significent aliquid, saith Aquinas; and upon the second signification are all Spiritual and mystical senses founded: So that in Sacris, a Mystery or Sacrament is then acted, when one thing is done and another is signified, as it is in the Holy Communion, though nothing be said at all. The ancient Sacrifices of the Jews, whether weekly, monthly, or yearly, their Passover, their sitting in Booths, etc. These were all Sacraments, yet we find not any sacred forms of words, used by the Priests or People in the execution of them.  
To sum up that which we have to say in this Point, the calling upon the words of consecration in the Eucharist, is too weakly founded to be made argumentative, for the action is perfect, whether those words be used or forborn: And in truth to speak my opinion, I see no great harm could ensue, were they quite omitted. Certainly thus much good would follow, that some part (though not a little one) of the superstition that adheres to that action, by reason of an ungrounded conceit of the necessity and force of the words in it, would forthwith pill off and fall away: I would not have you understand me so, as if I would prescribe for, or desire the disuse of the words; only two things I would commend to you, First, That the use of the Canon is a thing indifferent. And, Secondly, That in this knack of making Sacraments, Christians have taken a greater liberty than they can well justify: First, In forging Sacraments, more than God (for aught doth or can appear) did ever intend: And Secondly, In adding to the Sacraments instituted of God many formalities, and ceremonial circumstances upon no warrant but their own; which circumstances by long use, begat in the minds of men a conceit, that they were essential parts of that to which indeed they were but appendent; and that only by the device of some who practised a power in the Church morethan was convenient.  
Thus much for the first common mistake.  
The Second is worse than it; You see that both parts agreed in the acknowledgement of the real presence of the Body of Christ in the Eucharist, though they differ in the manner of his Presence, and application of himself to the receiver; though the Protestant Disputant seems to have gone a little beyond his Leader: Had he expressed himself in the point of Bread and Wine, what became of it, whether it remained in its proper nature yea or no, I could the better have fathomed him: Now these words of his, that the Bread and Wine after consecration are truly▪ and really the Body of Christ, howsoever they are suppled and allayed with that clause, not after a carnal, but after a spiritual manner, yet still remain too crude and raw, and betray the Speaker for a Lutheran at least, if not for a favourer of the Church of Rome; for as for that Phrase, of a spiritual manner, which seems to give season and moderation to his conclusion, it can yield him but small relief: For first, To say the flesh of Christ is in the Bread, but not after a carnal manner, is but the same nonsense, which the Divines of Rome put upon us on the like occasion, when telling us, that the Blood of Christ is really sacrificed, and shed in the Sacrament, they add by way of Gloss, that it is done incruente, unbloodily▪ by the like Analogy they may tell us, if they please, that the body of Christ is there incorporated unbodily, Flesh not carnally may pass the Press jointly the next Edition of the Book of Bulls. Again, in another respect, That clause, of a spiritual manner doth your Protestant Disputer but little service, if any at all; for the Catholic Disputant contriving with himself how to seat the Body of God in the Eucharist, as may be most for his ease, tells us, that he is there as Spirits and glorified Bodies (which St. Paul calls spiritual) are in the places they possess; so then, the one tells you the Body of Christ is there really, but spiritually; the other, that he is there really, but as a Spirit in a place; and what now, I pray you, is the difference between them? By the way, in the passage you may see what account to make of your Catholic Disputer. Aristotle, and with him common sense, tells us thus much, That he that compares two Bodies together, must know them both; Doth this Gentleman know any thing concerning the site and locality of Spirits, and Bodies glorified? if he doth, let him do us the courtesy as to show us, at what price he purchased that degree of knowledge, that so we may try our Credit, and see if we can buy it at the same rate; Tertius è Coelo cecidit Cato? Is he like a second Paul, lately descended out of the third Heavens, and there hath made us the discovery? for by what other means he could attain to that knowledge, my dulness cannot suggest. But if he doth not know (as indeed he neither doth nor can, for there is no means left to make discovery that way) then with what congruity can be tell us that the Body of Christ is in the Bread, as Spirits, and glorified Bodies are in their places, if he know not what manner of location and site, Spirits and glorified Bodies have? I shall not need to prompt your discretion thus far, as that you ought not to make dainties of such fruitless and desperate Disputers; who, as the Apostle notes, thrust themselves into things they have not seen, and upon a false show of knowledge, abuse easy Hearers, and of things they know not, adventure to speak they know not what.  
To return then, and consider a little more of this second mistake common to both your Disputants, I will deal as favourably as I can with your Protestant Disputer; for though I think he mistakes himself (for I know no Protestant that teacheth, that the common Bread, after the word spoken is really made the Body of Christ) yet he might well take occasion thus to err out of some Protestant Writings: For generally the Reformed Divines do falsely report that Holy Action, whether you regard the Essence or Use thereof.  
For first, if in regard of the Essence, some Protestants, and that of chief note, stick not to say, That the words of Consecration are not a mere Trope, and from hence it must needs follow, that in some sense they must needs be taken literally, which is enough to plead authority for the Gentleman's Error. But that which they preach concerning a real presence and participation of Christ's Body in the Sacrament; they expound not by a supposal that the Bread becomes God's Body, but that together with the Sacramental Elements, there is conveyed into the Soul of the worthy Receiver, the very Body and Blood of God, but after a secret, ineffable, and wonderful manner. From hence, as I take it, have proceeded these crude speeches of the Learned of the Reformed parts, some dead, some living, wherein they take upon them to assure the Divines of Rome, that we acknowledge a Real Presence as well as they; but for the manner how, con, or trans, or sub, or in, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we play the Sceptics, and determine not. This conceit, besides the falsehood of it, is a mere novelty, neither is it to be found in the Books of any of the Ancients, till Martin Bucer rose. He out of an unseasonable bashfulness, and fear to seem to recede too far from the Church of Rome, taught to the purpose now related, concerning the Doctrine of Christ's Presence in the Sacrament; and from him it descended into the Writings of Calvin and Beza, whose Authority have well-near spread it over the face of the Reformed Churches. This is an Error which, as I said, touches the Essence of that holy Action; but there are many now which touch the end and use of it, which are practised by the Reformed parts; for out of an extravagant fancy they have of it, they abuse it to many ends, of which we may think the first Instituter (save that he was God, and knew all things) never thought of: For we make it an Arbitrator of Civil businesses; and employ it in ending Controversies; and for Confirmation of what we say or do, we commonly promise to take the Sacrament upon it; we teach, that it confirms our Faith in Christ, whereas indeed the receiving of it is a sign of Faith confirmed, and men come to it to testify that they do believe, not to procure that they may believe: For if a Man doubt of the truth of Christianity, think you that his scruples would be removed upon the receiving of the Sacrament? I would it were so; we should not have so many doubting Christians, who yet receive the Sacrament oft enough: We teach it to be Viaticum morientium, whereby we abuse many distressed Consciences, and sick Bodies, who seek for comfort there, and finding it not, conclude from thence (I speak what I know) some defect in their Faith. The participation of this Sacrament to sick and weak persons, what unseemly events hath it occasioned, the vomiting up of the Elements anon, upon the receipt of them, the resurging the Wine into the Cup, before the Minister could remove his hand to the interruption of the action? Now all these Mistakes and Errors have risen upon some ungrounded and fond practices, crept long since (God knows how) into the Church, and as yet not sufficiently purged out. I will be bold to inform you what it is, which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the main fundamental fallacy, whence all these abuses have sprung. There hath been a fancy of long subsistence in the Churches, that in the Communion there is something given besides Bread and Wine, of which the Numerality given, men have not yet agreed; Some say it is the Body of God into which the Bread is transubstantiated; Some say it is the same Body with which the Bread is consubstantiated; Some, that the Bread remaining what it was, there passes with it to the Soul the real Body of God, in a secret unknown manner; Some, that a further degree of Faith is supplied us; Others, that some degree of God's grace, whatever it be, is exhibited which otherwise would be wanting: All which variety of conceits must needs fall out, as having no other ground, but conjecture weakly founded. To settle you therefore in your Judgement, both of the thing itself, and of the true use of it, I will commend to your consideration these few Propositions.  
First, In the Communion, there is nothing given but Bread, and Wine.  
Secondly, The Bread and Wine are signs indeed, but not of any thing there exhibited, but of somewhat given long since, even of Christ given for us upon the Cross sixteen hundred years ago, and more.  
Thirdly, Jesus Christ is eaten at the Communion Table in no sense neither Spiritually, by virtue of any thing done there, nor really, neither Metaphorically, nor Literally. Indeed that which is eaten (I mean the Bread) is called Christ by a Metaphor; but it is eaten truly and properly.  
Fourthly, The Spiritual eating of Christ is common to all places, as well as the Lord's Table.  
Last of all, The Uses and Ends of the Lord's Supper can be no more than such as are mentioned in the Scriptures, and they are but two.  
First, The commemoration of the Death and Passion of the Son of God, specified by himself at the Institution of the Ceremony.  
Secondly, To testify our Union with Christ, and Communion one with another; which end St. Paul hath taught us.  
In these few Conclusions the whole Doctrine and Use of the Lord's Supper is fully set down; and whoso leadeth you beyond this, doth but abuse you. Quicquid ultra quaeritur, non intelligitur. The proof of these Propositions would require more than the Limits of a Letter will admit of; and I see myself already to have exceeded these Bounds. I will therefore pass away to consider the second part of your Letter.  
In this second Part, I would you had pleased to have done as in the first you did, That is, not only set down the Proposition of the Catholic, but some Answer of the Protestant, by which we might have discovered his Judgement; I might perchance have used the same Liberty as I have done before, namely discovered the misstakes of both parties; for I suspect that as there they did, so here they would have given me cause enough. Now I content myself barely to speak to the Question. The Question is, Whether the Church may Err in Fundamentals? By the Church I will not trifle as your Catholic doth, and mean only the Protestant Party, as he professeth he doth only the Roman Faction. But I shall understand all Factions in Christianity, All that entitle themselves to Christ, wheresoever dispersed all the World over.  
First, I Answer, That every Christian may err that will: for if men might not err wilfully, then there could be no Heresy; Heresy being nothing else but wilful Error: For if we account mistakes befalling us through humane Frailties to be Heresies, than it will follow, That every man since the Apostles time was an Heretic; for never yet was there any Christian, the Apostles only excepted, which did not in something concerning the Christian Faith mistake himself, either by addition or omission, or misinterpretation of something. An evident sign of this Truth you may see in this by the Providence of God: the Writings of many learned Christians from the Spring of Christianity, have been left unto posterity, and amongst all those, scarcely any is to be found who is not confessed on all hands to have mistaken some things, and those mistakes for the most part stand upon Record by some who purposely observed them. Neither let this (I beseech you) beget in you a conceit as if I meant to disgrace those whose Labours have been and are of infinite benefit in the Church. For if Aristotle, and Aphrodiseus, and Galen, and the rest of those Excellent men whom God had endued with extraordinary portions of natural Knowledge, have with all thankful and ingenious men throughout all Generations retained their Credit entire, notwithstanding it is acknowledged that they have all of them in many things, swerved from the Truth; Then, why should not Christians express the same ingenuity to those who have laboured before us in the Exposition of the Christian Faith, and highly esteem them for their Works sake, their many infirmities notwithstanding? You will say, that for private persons it is confessed they may and daily do err; But can Christians err by whole Shoals, by Armies meeting for defence of the Truth in Synods▪ and Councils, especially General, which are countenanced by the great Fable of all the World, the Bishop of Rome?  
I answer, To say that Councils may not err, though private persons may, at first sight is a merry speech; as if a man should say, That every single Soldier indeed may run away, but a whole Army cannot, especially having Hannibal for their Captain; and since it is confessed, that all single persons not only may, but do err, it will prove a very hard matter, to gather out of these a multitude, of whom being gathered together, we may be secured they cannot err. I must for mine own part confess, that Councils, and Synods not only may and have erred, but considering the means how they are managed, it were a great marvel if they did not err: For what men are they of whom those great Meetings do consist? are they the best, the most learned, the most virtuous, the most likely to walk uprightly? No, the greatest, the most ambitious, and many times men, neither of Judgement, nor Learning; such are they of whom these Bodies do consist: and are these men in common equity likely to determine for Truth? Qui ut in vita, sic in causis, spes quoque improbas alunt, as Quintilian speaks. Again, when such persons are thus met, their way to proceed to conclusion, is not by weight of Reason, but by multitude of Votes and Suffrages; as if it were a maxim in nature, that the greater part must needs be the better; whereas our common experience shows, That, Nunquam ita bene agitur cum rebus humanis ut plures sint meliores. It was never heard in any profession, that Conclusion of Truth went by plurality of Voices, the Christian profession only excepted; and I have often mused how it comes to pass, that the way which in all other Sciences is not able to warrant the poorest Conclusion, should be thought sufficient to give authority to Conclusions in Divinity, the Supreme Empress of Sciences. But I see what it is that is usually pleaded, and with your leave I will a little consider of it.  
It is given out, that Christian meetings have such an assistance of God, and his blessed Spirit, that let their persons be what they will they may assure themselves against all possibility of mistaking; and this is that they say, which to this way of ending Controversies, which in all other Sciences is so contemptible, gives a determining to Theological Disputes of so great Authority. And this music of the Spirit is so pleasing, that it hath taken the Reformed Party too; For with them likewise all things at length end in the Spirit; but with this difference, that those of Rome confine the Spirit to the Bishops and Counsels of Rome, but the Protestant enlargeth this working of the Spirit, and makes it the Director of private meditations. I should doubtless do great injury to the goodness of God, if I should deny the sufficient assistance of God to the whose world, to preserve them both from sin in their Actions, and damnable errors in their opinions; much more should I do it, if I denied it to the Church of God; but this assistance of God may very well be, and yet men may fall into sin and errors. St. Paul preaching to the Gentiles, tells them that God was with them in so palpable a manner, that even by groping they might have found him, yet both he and we know what the Gentiles did. Christ hath promised his perpetual assistance to his Church; but hath he left any Prophecy, that the Church should perpetually adhere to him? if any man think he hath, it is his part to inform us, where this Prophecy is to be found. That matters may go well with men, two things must concur, the assistance of God to men, and the adherence of men to God; if either of these be deficient, there will be little good done. Now the first of these is never deficient, but the second is very often; so that the Promise of Christ's perpetual presence made unto the Church, infers not at all any presumption of Infallibility. As for that term of Spirit which is so much taken up, to open the danger that lurks under it, we must a little distinguish upon the Word. This term [Spirit of God,] either signifies the third Person in the blessed Trinity, or else the wonderful power of Miracles, of Tongues, of Healing, &c, which was given to the Apostles, and other of the Primitive Christians, at the first preaching of the Gospel, but both these meanings are strangers to our purpose; The Spirit of God, as it concerns the Question here in hand, signifies either something within us, or something without us; Without us, it signifies the written Word, recorded in the Books of the Prophets, Apostles, and Evangelists, which are metonymically called the Spirit, because the Holy Ghost spoke those things by their mouths when they lived, and now speaks unto us by their pens when they are dead. If you please to receive it, this alone is left as Christ's Vicar in his absence, to give us directions both in our actions and opinions; he that tells you of another Spirit in the Church to direct you in your way, may as well tell you a tale of a Puck, or a walking Spirit in the Churchyard. But that this Spirit speaking without us may be beneficial to us, oportet aliquid intus esse, there must be something within us, which also we call the Spirit; and this is twofold; For either it signifies a secret Illapse, or supernatural Influence of God upon the hearts of men, by which he is supposed inwardly, to incline, inform, and direct men in their ways, and wills, and to preserve them from sin and mistake; or else it signifies that in us, which is opposed against the flesh, & which denominates us spiritual men, and by which we are said to walk according to the Spirit; that which St. Paul means, when he tells us, The Flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the Flesh, (Rom. 7.) so that we may not do what we list. Now of these two, the former it is, which the Church seems to appeal unto in the ermining Controversies by way of Counsel: But to this I have little to say. First, Because I know not whether there be any such thing yea, or no. Secondly Because experience shows, that the pretence of the Spirit in this sense is very dangerous, as being next at hand to give countenance to imposture and abuse: which is a thing sufficiently seen, and acknowledged both by the Papist and Protestant Party; as it appears by this, that though both pretend unto it, yet both upbraid each other with the pretence of it. But the Spirit in the second sense, is that I contend for; and this is nothing but the Reason illuminated by Revelation out of the written Word. For when the Mind and Spirit humbly conform and submit to the written Will of God, than you are properly said to have the Spirit of God, and to walk according to the Spirit, not according to the Flesh. This alone is that Spirit which preserves us from straying from the Truth; For he indeed that hath the Spirit, errs not at all, or if he do, it is with as little hazard and danger as may be; which is the highest point of Infallibility, which either private Persons or Churches can arrive unto. Yet would I not have you to conceive that I deny that at this day the Holy Ghost communicates himself to any in this secret and supernatural manner, as in foregoing times He had been wont to do; indeed my own many uncleannesses are sufficient reasons to hinder that good Spirit to participate himself unto me, after that manner. The Holy Ghost was pleased to come down like a Dove; Veniunt ad candida tecta Columbae. Accipiet nullas sordida Turris Aves. Now it is no reason to conclude the Holy Ghost imparts himself in this manner to none, because he hath not done that favour unto me. But thus much I will say, that the benefit of that sacred Influence is confined to those happy Souls in whom it is, and cannot extend itself to the Church in public; And if any Catholic except against you for saying so, warrant yourself and me out of Aquinas, whose words are these, Innititur fidei natura revelationi Apostolis & Prophetis factae, qui Canonicos Libros scripserunt, non autem Revelationi, siqua fuit, aliis Doctoribus factae. It being granted then, that Churches can err, it remains then in the second place, to consider how far they may err; I answer for Churches as I did before for private Persons, Churches may err in Fundamentals if they list, for they may be heretical, for Churches may be wicked, they may be Idolaters, and why then not heretical? Is Heresy a more dangerous thing than Idolatry? For whereas it is pleaded, that Churches cannot fall into Heresy, because of that promise of our Saviour, That the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church, is but out of mistake of the meaning of that place; and indeed I have often mused how so plain a place could so long and so generally be misconstrued: To secure you therefore, that you be not abused with these words hereafter, (for they are often quoted to prove the Church's Infallibility) I shall endeavour to give you the natural meaning of them, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Gates of Hell, is an Hebraisme; for in the Hebrew Expression, the Gates of a thing signifies the thing itself, as the gates of Zion, Zion itself, and by the same proportion the gates of Hell signifies Hell itself: Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we English Hell, as in no place of Scripture it signifies Heresy, so very frequently in Scripture it signifies Death, or rather the state of the dead, and indifferently applied to good and bad; Let us then take the Word in that meaning, for what greater means can we have to warrant the signification of a Scripture word, than the general meaning of it in Scripture? So that when our Saviour spoke these words, he made no promise to the Church of persevering in the Truth, but to those that did persevere in the Truth he made a promise of victory against death and hell; And what he there says, sounds to no other purpose, but this, that those who shall continue his, although they die yet death shall not have the Dominion over them; but the time shall come, that the bands of Death shall be broken; and as Christ is risen, so shall they that are his rise again to Immortality: For any help therefore that this Text affords, Churches may err in Fundamentals. But to speak the Truth, I much wonder, not only how any Churches, but how any private man, that is careful to know and follow the Truth, can err in Fundamentals: For since it is most certain, that the Scripture contains at least the Fundamental Parts of Christian Faith, how is it possible▪ that any Man, that is careful to study and believe the Scripture, should be ignorant of any necessary part of his Faith? Now whether the Church of Rome err in Fundamentals, yea or no? To answer this, I must crave leave to use this Distinction; To err in Fundamentals, is either to be ignorant of, or deny something to be fundamental that is, or to entertain something for Fundamental, which is not. In the first sense, the Church of Rome, entertaining the Scriptures as she doth, cannot possibly be ignorant of any principal part of Christian Faith; all her error is, in entertaining in herself, and obtruding upon others, a multitude of things for Fundamentals, which no way concern our Faith at all: Now how dangerous it is thus to do, except I know whether she did this willingly or wittingly, yea or no, is not easy to define: If willingly she doth it; it is certainly high and damnable presumption, if ignorantly, I know not what mercies God hath in store for them that sin not out of malicious wickedness, Now concerning the merriment newly started; I mean the requiring of a Catalogue of Fundamentals, I need to answer no more, but what Abraham tells the rich man in Hell, Habent Mosen & Prophetas, They have Moses, and the Prophets, the Apostles, and the Evangelists, let them seek them there; for if they find them not there, in vain shall they seek them in all the World besides. But yet to come a little nearer to the Particulars; If the Church of Rome would needs know what is Fundamental, in our conceit, and what not, the Answer, as far as myself in Person am concerned in the Business, shall be no other than this; Let her observe what Points they are, wherein we agree with her, and let her think, if she please, that we account of them as Fundamentals, especially if they be in the Scriptures; and on the other hand, let her mark in what Points we refuse Communion with her, and let her assure herself, we esteem those as no Fundamentals. If she desire a List and Catalogue made of all those, she is at leisure enough, for aught I know, to do it herself.  
Last of all, Concerning the imputation of Rebellion and Schism against Church-Authority, with which your Catholic Disputant meant to affright you; all that is but merely Powder without Shot, and can never hurt you; For since it hath been sufficiently evidenced unto us, that the Church of Rome hath adulterated the Truth of God, by mixing with it sundry Inventions of her own; it was the Conscience of our duty to God, that made us to separate: For where the Truth of God doth once suffer, there Union is Conspiracy, Authority is but Tyranny, & Churches are but Routs; And suppose we, that we mistook, and made our Separation upon Error, the Church of Rome being right in all her Ways, though we think otherwise, yet could not this much prejudice us; For, it is Schism upon wilfulness that brings danger with it, Schism upon mistake, and Schism upon just occasion, hath in itself little hurt, if any at all.  
SIR,  
I Return you more than I thought, or you expected; yet less than the Argument required: If you shall favour me so much as to carefully read what I have carefully written, you shall find (at least in those Points you occasioned me to touch upon) sufficient ground to plant yourself strongly against all Discourse of the Romish Corner-creepers, which they use for the Seducing of unstable Souls. Be it much or little that I have done, I require no other reward than the continuance of your good Affection to,  
Your SERVANT, whom you know.   

A PARAPHRASE ON S. Matthew's Gospel.  
By the ever Memorable Mr. JOHN HALES, of Eaton-Colledge, etc.  
Printed, 1677.   

A PARAPHRASE on St. Matthews Gospel. CHAP. XII.  Scholar. 
SIR,  
I Thank you for the pains you have taken in facilitating to my Understanding the scope and purpose of the XI. of St. Matthew: If I might not be too troublesome to you, I would also desire you to take the like pains with me in the Twelfth.  Master. 
I shall, with all my heart; provided that you will make your Objections, as they rise within you; for peradventure, I may think you understand that which you do not, and not understand that which you do, and so lose my Labour.  Scholar. 
I shall obey you readily, and therefore to begin with the beginning of the Chapter; I pray, Sir, how is it said, 1. that, At that time, Jesus went through the Corn, with his Disciples? when in the very next Chapter before, it is said, That he sent all his Disciples away from him.  Master. 
By these Words, at that time, is not meant the very next immediate Instant of time, to that, when he spoke the last words going before; but such a convenient portion of time, wherein the twelve Disciples might have gone about those parts, whereunto they were sent, and returned back again: So St. Matthew, having spoken newly of Christ's dwelling in Nazareth, when he was a Child of about two years old, immediately subjoins, In those days came John the Baptist, as if John had come within some few days after his coming into Nazareth, when we know there passed eight and twenty years between.  Scholar. 
I believe it as you say, and therefore shall pass to that which doth more trouble me, and that is, What that was, which the Disciples did, which was not lawful on the Sabbath day.  Master. 
How come you to be troubled at that? Is it not said in plain Terms, they plucked the Ears of Corn, & did eat them. Why should not you think that this was their fault?  Scholar. 
I shall tell you why: To my thinking, there are three things said, 1. That they went through the Corn. 2. That they plucked the Ears. 3. That they eat them. Now whether all these or one of these was their Fault, I cannot tell; and I shall tell you the Reason of my doubt.  
First, It is true that their very Walking might have been their fault, because it was not lawful on the Sabbath, to walk above the space of two thousand Cubits, and we know not how far Christ & the Disciples might have come that day; But yet methinks, if that had been it, they should have reproved Christ as well as his Disciples, because 'tis very likely they walked the one as much & as far as the other.  
Secondly, It is true, that their plucking the Ears of Corn might have been their fault, but yet methinks it should not, in regard the Law is so clear, in the 23. Deut. 25. When thou comest into the standing Corn of thy Neighbour, than thou mayst pluck the Ears with thine hand, but thou shalt not move a Sickle unto thy Neighbours standing Corn. And, truly why that, which is so plainly lawful at another time, should be unlawful on the Sabbath (being it is so far from being any kind of labour or servile work) I cannot imagine.  
3. It's true, that they did eat them, and I cannot see what fault there is in that, unless you can show me.  Mast. 
And peradventure I shall show you more in that than you thought on. It is true that the general consent of Expositors runs on their plucking the Ears upon the Sabbath-Day, as being the thing condemned by the Pharisees for an unlawful thing: But I think they would be much troubled to prove it. The custom and manner of the Jews, (especially since the times of the Macchabees) being to allow Acts of greater labour and pain than the plucking of an Ear, namely, waging War against their Enemies, the Travelling of Carrier's and Merchant's, with such others, even on the Sabbath-Day. I should rather incline to think, that their Fault was Eating; especially if that be true, which the very Heathen Poets tax and scoff them so with, namely, their Sabbath-Fasts. For if all things be well considered, I believe there will more be said for this, than for the other Crime. And if a man will go no further than that Answer which our Saviour makes for them, he he shall find ground enough to be of this opinion. For, if the pretended fault had been working or labouring, our Saviour Christ might have easily laid his Answer upon Joshua, or upon many others, who did greater work than this upon the Sabbath. But laying it as he doth upon David, and upon his Eating that which was forbidden: He seems to Answer one unlawful Eating with another, when Necessity was a sufficient dispensation for both. I do not oblige you to believe this as a positive Truth, but only tell you that as much may be said for the one as the other; but if you would be sure to know what their fault was, you had best put them both together and you will not miss.  Scholar. 
I thank you for this Light, I wish you could give me as good in my next Objection.  Master. 
I shall do my best, what is that I pray?  Scholar. 
Our Saviour saith, in the third Verse of this Chap. that David did eat of the Shewbread, and they that were with him; and the Holy Ghost saith, 1 Sam. 21. 1 where this History is recorded, That there was no man with him, for it is said there, that Ahimelech the Priest was afraid at the meeting of David, and said unto him, Why art Thou alone, and why is no man with Thee? How shall I reconcile this Contradiction to my Thinking?  Master. 
The truth is, The Words of our Saviour in St. Matthew, are too plain and evident, than to admit of any other Construction, but that there were some other men with David; and if they could admit of it, yet St. Mark would put all out of doubt, for he saith expressly, that, David did eat the Shewbread, and gave it to them that were with him, Mark. 2. 26. And therefore, when the Priest saith, that there was no man with him in Samuel, it is best to understand that of no man in sight, because, peradventure, David might have caused them to withdraw for the present, till he had got relief from the Priest, both for himself and them. And this, I conceive the best▪ Satisfaction unto that doubt.  Scholar. 
I think it not improbable; but before I leave this story of David, I pray, tell me how it comes to pass, that our Saviour saith, David entered into the House of God, in v. 4. of this Chap. when as yet the House of God was not built, (i. e.) when as yet there was no Temple.  Master. 
It was well Objected, and the Answer to be given is this: That our Saviour calls that place where the Tabernacle then was, The House of God, which afterwards became the proper appellation of the Temple.  Scholar. 
It is very likely: Now if you please, let us pass from this Answer concerning David, to that concerning the Priests, in the 5th. V. where Christ saith, That the Priests on the Sabbath-Day, profane the Sabbath, and are blameless: What doth he mean by that?  Master. 
In those words, our Saviour useth another Argument, in behalf of his Disciples; which they call an Argument from the less to the greater, to justify their Plucking and their Eating on the Sabbath-Day. Amongst the Jews, the Law of the Sabbath was ever so to be interpreted, as that it hindered not the Works of the Temple; and therefore it was a kind of Rule in the Jewish Law, that in the Temple there was no Sabbath. From this submission of the Law of the Sabbath to the works of the Temple; Our Saviour argueth to that, which is greater than it, The works of a Prophet, who was above a Priest: His Answer is in brief this; The Priests, by their works in the Temple upon the Sabbath, were not thought to profane the Sabbath; and therefore, there is less reason that my Disciples, who are Prophets, should be thought to profane it, in doing of that which is a less work than theirs; And that this is the Scope of his Reply, will appear by that which follows, when he saith, That in this place, there is One greater than the Temple, in the 6th Verse; For, the truth is, every Prophet was greater than the Temple, that is, he was obliged in no case to the Laws & Customs of the Temple; but might sacrifice out of it, when he pleased, as appears in the practice of Eliah. And whereas it may be Objected, That the Priestly Function, on the Sabbath, could not be performed without the Labour of Offering, but the Prophetical Function of the Disciples might be performed on the Sabbath, without plucking ears and eating: The answer is, that both our Saviour and his Disciples were so intent upon their Prophetical Employment, that, as elsewhere, they forgot to take Bread, So here, they either forgot, or had no time for the provision of victuals before the Sabbath, whereon to feed on the Sabbath.  Scholar. 
I apprehend your meaning, and desire you to make the force of Christ's third Argument as evident unto me, which follows in the seventh Verse, where he saith, But if ye had known what this meaneth; I will have mercy and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.  Master. 
His meaning is no more but this, That when two Laws seem to clash so against one another, that both cannot be kept; the better is to be observed, and the worse omitted; The Law which willeth us to do good to all men, and to further them in the means of their Salvation, which to a Christian is a Law Moral, never to be omitted; is better than the Law which willeth us not to work or eat upon the Sabbath, which is only a Law Ritual: Christ could not intend to teach, and the Disciples intent to prepare and fit the minds of the people to be taught, and withal intent the preparing of such things, as were requisite to the strict observation of the Sabbath; And therefore in Equity, the Law of the Sabbath ought to give place to the Law of Instructing the World in the ways of Happiness, and not to have justled with it.  Scholar 
I conceive this Argument, but yet methinks, there follows somewhat like a Reason, which I do not yet conceive, in the next verse; For the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath; Pray show me what the meaning is of that.  Master. 
They that by the [Son of Man] here, understand Christ, or the Messias, do mistake; for in that acceptation of the Words, the Reason doth not hold: for if Christ had meant only, that he as the Messias, was Lord of the Sabbath, and so could abrogate it at his pleasure, than what needed all the three other Arguments, that went before? By the [Son of Man] therefore is to be understood every common ordinary man, as appears most evidently by that of St. Mark 2. 27. The Sabbath was made for Man, and not Man for the Sabbath. Besides, at this time, Christ neither had preached, nor would have others to preach, that He was the Messiah; and a good while after this, as you may see in Matth. 16. 20. He charged, that they should tell it no man, etc. The sense therefore of the words, is this: That which is ordained for another thing, aught to give place to that thing, for which it is ordained: But the Sabbath was ordained for Man, every Man; therefore it ought to give place unto Him; namely, when a thing so nearly concerning Man, as his Salvation, steppeth in between. For, to be [Lord of the Sabbath] is, to dispose and order the Sabbath unto his own use, and to have a Right so to order, and dispose it.  Scholar. 
I thank you for the pains: and because I have put you to so much already, I shall trouble you with nothing concerning the next Story of the man which had the withered hand, because, I think I do well enough understand it; only, let me desire you to give me your opinion, why, when our Saviour Christ had healed him, and divers other men, of their diseases: It is added in the 16th verse of this Chapter, And he charged them; that they should not make him known?  Master. 
Truly, that which was the cause of his secess, or his withdrawing himself from them, in the Verse before may very well be conceived the cause also of this enjoined silence; namely, that He might be fafer from all violence, and force. But, they which say, that He did it out of charity to those Pharisees who did seek his life, say not amiss: as Origen reports of Aristotle, that he withdrew himself from Athens, not for his own sake; but for the Athenians sake, lest he should give them an occasion of committing another murder, after the murder of Socrates. Hitherto, as yet, this Zeal and endeavours of the Pharisees to maintain the Traditions of their Elders, and the Religion of their Fathers, might seem somewhat excusable; and therefore, Christ adding Miracle to Miracle, did wait for their repentance and amendment: in the mean time, preventing them by escapes, and concealing of himself, from doing him any violence or mischief, till such time, as that, resisting the Light and Testimony of their own Conscience (as some of them did, very shortly after, as we shall see anon) they had more deservedly drawn upon themselves, the guilt of that innocent blood, which afterwards fell upon their heads: So, that when Christ, charged them that they should not make Him known; He meant, only that they should not discover where He was, that so with the more silence, and less opposition, He might do the business of his Father: and this sense is agreeable to that which follows out of the Prophet Isaiah, in the 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 Verses.  Scholar 
I take it to be so indeed: but in these words out of Isaiah, there is somewhat which does much trouble me how to understand; and that is, the latter part of the 20. verse; where it is said, Till he send forth Judgement unto Victory: Pray, what do you take to be the meaning of those words?  Mast. 
I shall run through the whole words of the Prophet, and by that you will better understand that part. These words of the Prophet Isaiah are produced by St. Matth. for a confirmation of that Meekness, Humility, Quietness and Silence, with which the great business of our Salvation was to be dispatched: For, by these words [I will put my Spirit on Him] is understood the Spirit of Meekness, Gentleness and Humility, which was emblem'd in the Dove, when it came upon him; and by those words [and he shall show Judgement unto the Gentiles] is understood the preaching of the Christian Law; and therefore, if you mark it in the 42 of Isaiah, and the 4th verse, it is added, as an explication of the word [Judgement] going before; And the Isles shall wait for his Law. When He comes to preach this Law, or, to show forth this Judgement, saith the Prophet, He shall not strive, nor cry; that is, He shall discover no sign of anger, or discomposure in his mind; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets, saith the Prophet; that is, He shall cause no Tumult or popular Hubbub; He shall not expose the vices of Men to the knowledge and censure of the World, of whom He hath but the least Hope that they will amend. A bruised Reed shall he not break, saith the Prophet; that is, the mind which is afflicted, He shall not afflict more: and the smoking flax shall he not quench; that is, where he does but see a little smoke, He will look for some fire; He will so comply with the weaknesses and infirmities of all Mankind, that he will not be out of hope to cherish them up into Virtues. And all this he will do, saith the Prophet, Till he send out Judgement unto Victory; of which words, whatsoever the sense or meaning be, this is plain, that they contain the success or event of that Meekness, Gentleness, and Quietness, which went before. Now, taking it for granted, that there is nothing left out in these words, as St. Jerom does suspect, I can imagine but two senses that can be put upon them: and those two senses arise out of the two several acceptations of the word [Judgement.] For, First, If by [Judgement] in this place, be meant the same, which was meant by [Judgement] in the 18th verse, going before; then the sense of the words is this; He shall preach the Christian Law, with all Meekness and Mildness, maugre all opposition and malice of those that do oppugn it, till that Law have prevailed, or gotten the victory; that is, till the greatest part of all the World embrace it: and this sense is no improper sense, if we look no further. But then, Secondly, If by [Judgement] be meant, the disceptation, or discussion of a Cause (in which sense it is often taken in the Scriptures) than the meaning of the words is this; He shall use so much Meekness and Gentleness, in working upon the minds of all Men in the World, that, let any Man sit in Judgement upon that which he hath done, and he shall carry the Cause, or bear away the Victory. To this purpose saith the Psalmist of God, that, He is clear when he is judged, Psal. 51. 6. And in this sense God saith of himself, O ye men of Judah, judge ye, I pray you, between my Vmeyard and Me, Isa. 5. 3. And in this Judgement Christ got the Victory, when with all Patience and Longsufferance, with all Gentleness and Meekness, He endured the perverse and crooked dispositions of the People of the Jews, and spared no Time or Labour to reform them, if they would have harkened unto him.  Sch. 
Sir, I confess there is much reason in what you say, but methinks it seems a little strained sense, to be put upon those words, as you read them, Till he shall send forth Judgement; for according to your sense, we should read them thus, at least, Till he shall carry away the Judgement with Victory, or, to Victory.  Mast. 
You have judged very right, and so indeed should we read them; For the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which we render [shall send forth] is of the same signification with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which doth signify [to carry away.] But you must bear with more faults in the Translation of your Testament than this, and I hope you will bear with me, if I tell you plainly of them when I meet with them.  Sch. 
I beseech you do, for though I have a very great opinion of those Men who did translate the Testament; yet I would be loath to be a loser by my reverence. But if you please, I will proceed in framing my Objections.  Mast. 
You shall not need, for I foresee whither you are driving, even towards the great Scruple that affrights the World, the Sin against the Holy Ghost, of which there is mention in this Chapter, upon the occasion of Christ's healing of the blind and dumb man, possessed of the Devil, in the 22 Verse of this Chapter.  Sch. 
I was indeed, and therefore if you please, let us come unto that Story.  Mast. 
With all my heart; And first, I must let you know, that so soon as the Pharisees saw that great Miracle which Christ had done; they said, that he casteth out Devils by Beelzebub, the Prince of the Devils, in the 24th verse of this Chapter; and truly this was no unusual practice amongst the Sorcerers and Magicians, as is evident by many of the ancient Poets: when they could not prevail any other way, to use the help of the great and chiefest Devil (whose name they would threaten him to publish, if he did not help them) to expel, or cast out other less Devils that possessed Men; In jamblichus there is mention of that Form, in which they threatened him; and Porphiry says, that his name was Serapis. But, our Saviour sufficiently refuteth that calumny, several ways. First, By a common and known Axiom amongst themselves, Every Kingdom divided, etc. and the meaning thereof is this; That the Devils are wise, there is no question: but they that are wise, will rather seek to establish Themselves and their own Power, which is done by Concord and Agreement, than to distract and dislocate it, which is done by Faction and Division; therefore it is not likely that the Devils will so differ and disagree, as the one to expel the other, as they would persuade the World. Secondly, By Retortion, in these words, If I by Beelzebub do cast out Devils, by whom do your children cast them out? vers. 27. And the force of Christ's Argument is this: In a like Cause, Equity will that men give a like judgement; when your Disciples do cast out Devils, do not you think that they cast them out by a divine Power? Therefore so should you even think of me, if you thought aright: But I should take this to be an Irony rather.  Sch. 
I confess I did partly conceive the Scope of these two Arguments before, but that which follows, I do not understand, But if I cast out Devils by the Spirit of God, then is the Kingdom of God come unto you: Pray make me understand it, that is, First, What is meant by the [Kingdom of God?] Secondly, What is the meaning of this Consequence, If I by the Spirit of God cast out Devils, then is the Kingdom of God come unto you, For I see not how it follows.  Mast. 
By the Kingdom of God is meant the Time of the Messiahs being in the World, as in Dan. 4. 29. and Dan. 7. 14. And the Consequence there inferred, is this, That as God, by sundry Works and Miracles, gave his people of Israel a Sign of their instant Deliverance out of Egypt; So the great Miracles of Christ, were ordained by him, to be a Sign unto the World of a greater Deliverance, which was now working for them; and therefore where they saw the one, they should expect the other.  Sch. 
I believe you have guessed right; But what say you to the Verse which follows, Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his Goods, etc. It looks like another Argument, which Christ useth in his own defence against this Calumny of the Pharisees, but I confess, I do not yet apprehend it.  Mast. 
It is not unlikely, but anon you will. This is indeed a third Argument of Christ's, and it toucheth to the quick; for whereas his other two served only to convince certain men, this comes to the very thing itself, and quite overthrows it: There have been, saith Christ, who have cast out Devils through Beelzebub: it may be so, but this hath been without any harm or loss, from the one unto the other; it hath not come to spoiling of Goods, to extirpate out of the minds of men any of their sins, but rather to increase them: this hath been nothing but a mere collusion and cheat: But when I cast out Devils, you may see I spoil them to the purpose, I rob them of their power; for, I plant in the minds of men such Doctrine, as will admit of no vice and wickedness to be near it, (wherein the Power of the Devil does consist) and therefore you may well imagine, that I am in good earnest; for, I bind him and spoil him; which no one Devil ever yet did unto another, or ever will.  Scholar 
I shall desire to put you to no more trouble in this Verse: If you please, let us pass unto the next.  Mast. 
As I take it, that is this; He that is not with me, is against me; and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth abroad.  Scholar 
Truly, as the words stand alone, I should not trouble you at all with them, for to my thinking, they are easy enough; but, as they follow upon what went before, I see not what our Saviour Christ might intend by them.  Mast. 
Having declared himself to be so far from casting out Devils in the name of Beelzebub, that He laboured to bind even Beelzebub himself, and to spoil him of all his power, which he exercised in the hearts of wicked men; He carries the consideration of this Enmity between the Devil and Himself to such a height, as that He will not admit of any Neutrality, in any other Man; professing, that whosoever is not the Devil's enemy, is his; according to that Axiom of the Wars, Medii habentur pro Hostibus: All indifferent men are Enemies. And if all this be not enough to show how far He was from operating by the help of Satan, surely, nothing can be. And therefore having said this, conceiving he had said as much as Man could say, He adds: Wherefore I say unto you, (vers. 31.) that is, seeing it is evident by these Reasons and Arguments, that all the Signs and Miracles which I do, I do by the Power of God, and not by the help of the Devil: Consider what a wretched punishment you draw upon yourselves, that thus do slander and belly me. This Connexion St. Mark does teach us plainly, Ch. 3. 30. where he says: Because they said, He hath an unclean Spirit. And yet it is to be considered, that our Saviour Christ proceeds not merely upon the strength of his own Arguments; but as knowing their Thoughts, as St. Matthew tells us, in the 2● th' verse of this Chapter, that is, He saw in unto them, and He knew that They verily believed, that the Miracle which he wrought, was wrought by the Power of God; but yet he saw, that they would rather invent any Lie, or asperse him with any slander (though they knew it well enough to be a Lie and slander) then to suffer the People to forsake their Chair, and to follow Christ.  Scholar 
I thank you, Sir, for this pains which you have taken, to prepare me for the understanding of my great Doubt, which now methinks, I begin to have a little glimpse of, but desire you to give me better Light.  Mast. 
I shall: But first, I would gladly know what you conceive of those words, in the 31. verse. All manner of Sin and Blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men; because, by understanding of what sin shall be forgiven, you will the more easily understand me, when I tell you, what manner of sin shall not.  Scholar 
Why Sir, I understand any manner of sin whatsoever: and I understand the sin of the Holy Ghost, to be the only sin which shall never be forgiven.  Mast. 
I did fear as much, and therefore I did ask you; But you must know that you are much mistaken, both in the one and in the other opinion; For First, It is to be considered, that Christ speaks not of all sin, but of that sin, which is Blasphemy or Calumny, (for there are many other sins which will never be forgiven, as well as the sin against the Holy Ghost,) And therefore in the next Verse he saith, Whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of Man, that is, whosoever slandereth or calumniateth any other man, it shall be forgiven him; And in those words he expoundeth what he means by Sin and Blasphemy. Secondly, It is to be considered, that when he saith, All manner of Sin and Blasphemy shall be forgiven, there is an Hebraism in those words, which is often met withal in Scripture; as in the 5 Chap. of St. Matthew, Heaven and Earth shall pass away, but my Words shall not pass away; that is, Heaven and Earth shall sooner pass away, than my words shall pass away; (and so St. Luke reads them) not that Heaven and Earth shall ever pass away, but that, if it were possible, they should sooner pass away than his Word shall. The meaning therefore of the words is only this, All manner of Calumnies and Slanders, are heavy sins, and shall hardly be forgiven to those that do commit them; but they will be more easily forgiven, than that Calumny, which he knows to be a Calumny, who doth commit it: and this Christ calls Blaspheming of the Holy Ghost; which was the Case of these Pharisees, who calumniated the Miracle which our Saviour wrought, as proceeding from the Devil, which their own Conscience told them, issued from the Holy Spirit of God.  Sch. 
I confess, Sir, this is very plain and easy; and I pray, proceed to the 33. verse. Either make the Tree good, and his Fruit good, etc. saith Christ: The dependence of those words, is this: You say, I work by the Devil, saith Christ: But you do not see any other work of mine, besides this Miracle, which looks like a work of the Devil: You see, I go about doing good; I exhort People to Repentance, I show them the way to Heaven: These are no works which the Devils use to do: Therefore, either say, that I do all this in the name of Beelzebub too; or else, acknowledge that I do my Miracles by the Power of God: for, Men judge of the Quality of the Mind, by the common Actions, or Habits of their Life, as they do of Trees, by the Fruits which they produce, be they good or evil. And that this is true, saith Christ, you may judge by your own selves: For, How can ye, being evil, speak good things? saith He, ver. 34. That is, you can never do it. A dissembled and forced Mind will quickly show itself, some way or other, and will return unto its wont habit; and therefore, as you may judge by yourselves, that because you speak and do nothing but that which is evil, therefore▪ you yourselves are evil: So you should judge of Me, that because you see, I say and do nothing but that which is Good, therefore I am good; and therefore that Spirit which works in Me is good.  Scholar 
I apprehend all this; and therefore shall save you the labour of expounding that which follows, for I see, it all tends to the same end and scope; only, methinks I am much straightened in my mind, about the 36th verse, which forbids all idle words: for, if we must give account of every one such, God be merciful unto me, and to many thousand more; Pray, make me to understand the full latitude of this Commination of Christ.  Mast. 
Whatsoever is meant by this idle Word here, you may be sure it hath reference to that Word which the Pharisees had spoke of Christ, when they said, He cast out Devils in the name of Beelzebub, for Christ hath not done with this Calumny of theirs yet; but continues his discourse upon it, till the 38. Verse of this Chapter; Now considering this [Idle Word] in that reference, it is most reasonable to expound it, not of every Word which a man speaks, of which there is no profit, or which is good for nought, (for if that Exposition should be true, which God forbid, yet it were not pertinent,) but of such a Word, wherein there is no Truth; For by Idle, and Vain, in holy Scripture, is often understood that which is false: And so to take the Name of God in Vain, in the Commandments, is to swear falsely: So that the Scope of Christ in those Words is this, Do you think that you shall escape for this horrid Calumny which you have cast upon me, knowing it to be a Calumny in your own hearts? I tell you nay; for no man shall escape in the day of Judgement, for calumniating another man falsely, though he do not know that that Calumny is false; and therefore much less shall you. By which we may learn, if not to avoid all idle Words, (which to the nature and education of man is almost quite impossible,) yet to beware of calumniating persons, not only when we know that Calumny is false, (which doubtless is a very grievous sin) but when we are not evidently ascertained that the thing is true. And therefore it is the special Office of a good Christian, to refrain his Tongue altogether in that Point, for it is a rare thing for a man to give himself the liberty, to repeat that of another which is false, and not to wish it true.  Sch. 
I thank you for this Satisfaction, and by God's help shall endeavour to frame my Life and Conversation accordingly; for I perceive it is a Sin, which the World taketh little notice of; though indeed it be the destruction of Charity, without which no man is a Christian: For so they avoid doing of that which is notoriously Evil, they care not what they say of any man. Now if you please, we will proceed to that which follows, I pray, what do the Scribes and Pharisees mean to desire a Sign from Christ, in the 31th Verse of this Chapter, who had seen so many before; for, methinks it seems a very impertinent Request.  Mast. 
Some Interpreters are of opinion that these Scribes and Pharisees were not the same, who saw those late Miracles which our Saviour did; and they ground their opinion upon Luke 11. 16. where it is said, That others tempted him, seeking a Sign from Heaven; But, upon examination, that opinion will not hold. The better answer is, that they did not desire a bare sign, or a Miracle, of which they had seen enough already; but they desired a Sign from Heaven (as St. Luke speaks) that is, that God by some strange Prodigy there, should declare him to be a Prophet sent from him, if so be he were so indeed: For, as for those Miracles which he did on Earth, they were not satisfied with them, as apprehending them pendulous between two several Powers; for as they they might come from God, so they might come from the Devil; but, in Heaven they thought the Devil had no Power.  Scholar 
I like your reason well; but, I pray, what doth Christ mean by that answer which he gives to their request in the 39, 40, 41, and 42 verses for I do not understand it perfectly?  Mast. 
The meaning of His Answer is this; You would have a Sign from Heaven, and then you will believe me: God, that will omit no occasion to leave you unexcusable, hath given you Signs enough, here upon Earth; but he is not bound to satisfy your humours, and give them where and when you would have them, he knows these which you have seen are sufficient to persuade Belief, if that your Avarice, and Profit, and Places which you hold in the present Jewish State, did not make you seek all Occasions and Cloaks for your Incredulity: And therefore, if those Signs which I have done on Earth, will not serve you; you shall have none from Heaven, but if you will, you shall have one from under the Earth, even the Sign of the Prophet Ionas, and that Sign not a Sign to convert you, who after so many Signs and Miracles will not be converted; but a Sign of my Innocence, and your Malice, which will persecute me even unto the death, for all that Good which I have done amongst you.  Sch. 
By this which you have said, I do not only perceive the Scope and Purport of Christ's Answer, which he gives them; but the Drift of Verse 41 and 42 also, wherein he complains, That they who had had so many Signs done amongst them, never would believe; whereas those of Nineveh, and the Queen of the South, without any Sign or Miracle▪ wrought, either by Ionas, or Solomon, believed all that was told them. But, I pray, how comes the next Discourse in, concerning the unclean Spirit going out of a man, in the 43 Verse? And what is the Scope and Purport of that Discourse?  Mast. 
It is not improbable, That our Saviour Christ, being much afflicted with the evil and incredulous hearts of the people of the Jews, taketh a kind of Survey of that whole Nation, even from the time wherein they were first led away captive into Babylon, to the time when they were utterly destroyed by Titus. Before their Captivity, they were full of all manner of Wickedness, as appeareth by the Prophets; Under their Captivity, they were a little reclaimed, and upon that Amendment, were brought back again: But then after their Return, in the times not long before our Saviour's coming, they fell into such Vices, as were abominable, even in the Heathens themselves, as is manifest in Story; and to shut up all, added thereunto the Contempt of their own Messiah, sent amongst them with so much power, and yet with so much meekness, as man never came: Whereupon being justly forsaken of God, whom they had thus forsaken, they became the most wretched and vicious people in the World, as Josephus doth describe them to be, about their latter times; And this Contemplation of their miserable Condition, our Saviour seems to insinuate, even unto themselves, in this kind of Parable of the unclean Spirit going out of a man, and returning back again. Of which, If that which I have said be not the Occasion, (as I do not avow, but only offer it unto you) yet certainly this is the sense, That those men, who have once left and forsaken the vicious courses of their carnal life, if they ever relapse, and fall back again into them; all their latter sins are far more sinful than their former; Almighty God justly revenging the Contempt of that Grace, which he hath offered to them, by giving them up to all manner of wickedness and uncleanness.  Sch. 
I think you have guessed right, and to the purpose; But there are some terms, and phrases in this Parable or Story, or whatsoever you will call it, which I do not understand as, First I pray what do you think Christ means by walking through dry places, and seeking rest, and finding none.  Mast. 
Dry and sandy Grounds are no fit places of Habitation, and such kind of places are all those places where the Devil doth abide when he is out of man, who is only capable of Vice and Sin, wherein the Devil taketh pleasure: And the meaning of Christ is this, That as a man that travels, is wearied with heavy, sandy, and dry way, more than with green, soft, and pleasant Fields; so the Devil is not half so well satisfied, when he enters into any other Creature, as when he enters into Man.  Scholar 
It may be so indeed but then, why taketh he seven Spirits, more wicked than himself? why is the number of Seven here pitched on, more than any other?  Mast. 
The Number of Seven is the Number of Perfection, or the signification of that which, in its own kind, is grown to full maturity, whether it be good or evil. So St. John calleth the Holy Spirit of God the Seven Spirits, Rev. 1. 4. So the Barren is said to have born Seven, 1 Sam. 2. 5. that is, to have been as fruitful as any other Woman is, or can be. And therefore when the unclean Spirit is said to take Seven other Spirits with him, the meaning only is, that that man becomes perfectly wicked, when that Spirit once returns again, whom before he had cast out.  Sch. 
I approve your Exposition of the Word, and think it likely. But I pray can you guests what business the Virgin, and the Brethren of Christ might have with him, because the Scripture saith They stayed without, to speak with him, in the 47 Verse of this Chapter; peradventure you may think me curious, and therefore if Expositors have made no Conjecture thereupon, I will not urge you.  Mast. 
Truly they have, and I shall not conceal it from you: They do imagine, that his Mother and his Kindred, having had some Inkling of the Pharisees conspiring against him, to do him mischief, desired to speak with him in private, and to contrive some way, to withdraw him out of danger: This will seem the more probable, if we consider that which St. Mark saith, Chap. 3. 21. That his Friends would fain have laid hold on him, saying, that he was beside himself; which in all likelihood, they said to make the Pharisees the less active in contriving any mischief to him, as conceiving him a fitter Subject for their pity, than their hate; But it seems Christ would not hearken unto them, nay would not know them, as appears by the three last Verses of this Chapter, which are so plain and easy, that I dare not suspect your sense, and apprehension of them.  
FINIS.   

A TRACT Concerning the Power of the KEYS AND Auricular Confession.  
By the ever Memorable Mr. JOHN HALES, of Eaton-Colledge, etc.  
Printed, 1677.   

A Tract concerning the Power of the KEYS, and AURICULAR CONFESSION.  
IN opening the Point concerning the Doctrine of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, I will follow those Lines, that Tract, which yourself hath been pleased to set me. Yet first, ere I com● to your particulars, I will discover, as far as generality will give me leave, what it is which we intent, when we use this phrase of Speech. At the first appearance, it is plain, the form of words is not Proper, but Metaphorical. Now some Truth there is in that which you learned in the Books of your Minority, from your Aristotle, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and indeed could we but once agree what it is which that Metaphor doth intimate, the greatest part of the Dispute were at an end. The natural way to discover this, is to see what the Use of Keys, properly taken, is; and after that, what means they are, which in our endeavours to attain to the Kingdom of Heaven, have something proportionable to the Use of Keys: and thi● being once discovered, there can remain no Question What are the Keys.  
Now nothing is more known, than that the only Use of Keys is to Open and Shut, to admit us Unto, or exclude us from the possession of what we seek. Now since the Kingdom of Heaven is compared to a House, from which all the Sons of Adam, by Nature are excluded; whatsoever than it is that gives us way, that removes all Obstacle● which hinder us from entrance of that House, that certainly must be understood by the Name of Keys. Now all these means, or whatsoever else it is which doth further us towards the possessing ourselves of Eternal Life, they were all laid down in the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, committed by him fully and first of all to the dispensation of the blessed Apostles, to be reported by them, or their means, all the World over. So that I think I may safely lay thus much for the first Ground of the Question betwixt yourself and me, Claves Regni Coelorum sunt Doctrina Evangelii.  
Now since Keys are nothing without some hand to manage them, we must in the second place discover into whose hands they are committed. And for this purpose, first of all, It must not be denied that principally and properly, (I might well enough add only, if I listed, but that I spare you) the Hand of God it is, that manages and applies these Keys; For of God and Christ it is written, He hath the Keys, he opens, and no man shuts; he shuts, and no man opens. Yet since it hath pleased God to use the Ministry of Men, to the saving of Men, and bringing them into the Kingdom of Heaven; In a secondary sense the Keys of that Kingdom are said to be put into the hands of Men. In as much as it hath pleased the Wisdom of God, not to use these Keys, at least as far as concerns the beneficial and opening part, some act of Man not first premised; for since that Faith in Jesus Christ is the Sum of the Doctrine of the Gospel, and Faith cometh not but by hearing, and hearing cometh not but by preaching, and preaching is the act of Men alone, (for God employs not Angels in that behalf,) It appears that this Preaching, or manifestation of the Doctrine of the Gospel not performed, the Keys must needs be unprofitable. By the manifestation of the Gospel of God, I mean not only the labour of the lip, in expounding, praying, reproving, or the like, but the administration of Sacraments, the acting (if any thing beyond this is to be acted) whatsoever the manifestation of the Gospel requireth. So that I think I may set down for a second Ground towards the settling of the Point in question, thus much, That the managing or application of the Keys, so far forth as men are entrusted with them, is, The Manifestation of the Doctrine of the Gospel. Thus far have we opened in general the Substance of the Keys, and the Use of them. I come now to your Queries.  
First, You ask of the quality of the Apostles receiving this Power, whether they had it as Judges Authoritatiuè, or as Messengers, Declaratatiuè, only to propound, or denounce? You manifest yourself for the former, and Reasons you bring, such as they be. Your Reasons I shall consider in their place, but I must first tell you that you ask amiss, for your question is concerning the whole Power of the Keys, but you answer only of a part, that is, of Sacramental Absolution only, as if all the Power of the Keys resided there. So that here you use the Fallacy plurium Interrogationum; And I might well grant you, that indeed that part were Judicatiuè, but yet contend that all the rest were only Declaratiuè. To reduce you therefore, I must do with you, as Physicians in some cases deal with their Patients; ere I can come to purge the humour you are sick of, I must a little prepare you. The power of the Keys is expressed by the Learned in three yokes, or pairs of Words.  

1. To remit, and to retain.  
2. To lose, and to bind.  
3. To open, and to shut.   
On the one side, to remit, to lose, to open, which is the one half of the power, agree in one, and signify the same thing; so do the other three, to retain, to bind, to shut, which contain the other half. To your Question then, whether the power of the Keys be declarative only, I answer first: For this latter part or half, it is merely declarative, neither can it be otherwise; which that you may see with your eyes, I must request you to observe, That all shutting of the Kingdom of Heaven, is either common to all, or casual, befalling only some. The common Exclusion is that state of Nature, wherein we all are involved, as we spring from the first Adam; The second Exclusion is that which befalls Christians relapsing into sin. The first shutting was at the fall, and was then Prefigured unto us, by the barring up of the way unto the Tree of Life. What active, what judiciary part can any Minister of the Gospel have here? all that the Apostles could do here, was but to open to men this their misery, a thing, before the death of our Saviour, either very sparingly, or not at all revealed. Of this therefore you must needs quit your hands, and so you must of the other, I mean exclusion upon casuality and relapse. For when a man converted to Christianity, falleth eftsoons into some mortal sin, doth the Gate of Heaven stand open to him, till he fall upon some cursed Priest, that used his Key to shut it?  
There are in the World a kind of deceitful Locks with sliding Bolts, I have seen myself and others much deceived by them, when the doors have fallen at our heels, and locked us out when we intended no such thing. Sir, Heaven door hath a sliding Lock, upon occasion of mortal sin, it will shut without any use of a Key.  
Perchance I do not well, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, yet the sober meaning of what I have spoken merrily, is but this, that either you must make the Ministry of the Gospel only Declarative, or else it will follow that every impenitent Relapser, that hath the good fortune to escape the Priests being privy to his Sin, is like to find Heaven open at the last. So than it is apparent, that notwithstanding your heaping up of Interrogatories, and your pressing of Ligaveritis & vos, and telling me what I never knew, that Solvere and Ligare be Actives; yet in this part of our Power, all your Activity is lost, and there remains nothing for you but to report upon good evidence, what you find done by your betters to your hand.  
Half your Jurisdiction then is fallen: and if I had no other Medium but this: I might with good probability conclude against you for the other part. For if the one half made in the same Form, in the like phrase and garb of speech, yet enforceth no more but Declaration and Denouncing: then why should you think the other half, (which in all likelihood is homogeneal to the former) to be more? Nay, there is far more natural Equity that you should be here only Declarative than in the other. Politicians tell us, That it is Wisdom for Princes, who desire to gain the love of their Subjects, to administer themselves all Favours and Graces, but to leave action of Justice and Harshness to be performed by others.  
Sir, No Prince can be so ambitious of the Love of his Subjects as God is of the Love of Mankind: why then should I think him so ill a Politician, as to make himself the Administrator of the Rough, Unpleasing, Love-killing Offices, of Binding, Shutting, Retaining; and then pass over to the Priest, the dispensation of the Fair, Well-spoken, Ingratiating Offices of Remitting, Losing, and Opening? But I will leave this kind of Topick and Dialectical arguing, because you are a pretender to convincing Reasons; I will directly enter even upon that part of your power of Opening, and Remitting, being the other part of your Territory, and by main strength, take all activity from you there too. Give me leave to ask you one Question, you may very well favour me so far, for you have asked me very many.  
The Conversion of a Sinner, is it an act of the Keys, yea or no?  
By your Principles it is not; for you make the power of the Keys to be judiciary, and therefore the Conversion of an Infidel pertains not to them: The Church of Rome will help you with a Medium to make this Argument good. Do we not judge those that are within? for those that are without, God shall judge, saith Paul: Whence she infers, That a converted Infidel, not yet admitted to the Church, is a Stranger to the Judiciary Power of the Keys; but being once admitted into the Church, he is now become the Churches Subject, and so fit matter for the Priest to work on upon his next Relapse. What think you of this Reason? Do you take it to be good? Take heed; or else it will give you a deadly stripe. For the Conversion of an Infidel, out of question is a most proper act of the Keys. For, since the opening of the Kingdom of Heaven is confessed to belong unto the Keys; and Heaven, which was shut against the Infidel in time of his Infidelity, upon his Conversion is acknowledged to be opened unto him; certainly whoever converted him, used the Keys; or else he must pretend to have either a Pick-lock, or the Herb Lunaria, which, they say, makes Locks fall off from Doors, and the Fetters from Horses heels. If then the Conversion of a Sinner be an act of the Keys, and by the Argument of the Church of Rome it be not judiciary, it follows then, that all Acts of the Keys are not Judiciary; and if not Judiciary, then Declarative only? For betwixt these two I know no mean.  
But because to dispute against a man out of his own Principles, which perchance are false (for this we know oft falls out, that by the power of Syllogisms, men may and do draw True Conclusions from False Premises) because, I say, thus to do, in the judgement of Aristotle, leaves a man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and I am willing not only to persuade you, but to better you: I will draw the little which remains to be said in this Point, from other Places.  
First, In all the Apostles practice in Converting Jews and Gentiles, find you any thing like unto the act of any Judiciary Power? They neither did nor could use any such thing. That they did not, appears by Philip, who having Catechised the Eunuch, and finding him desirous of Baptism, immediately upon profession of his Faith, admitted him into the Church. That they neither did nor could, appears by Peter and the rest of the Apostles in the Acts, who could never in the space of an afternoon, being none but themselves, have converted three thousand souls, had they taken any such way, as you seem to misfancy. Again, imagine with yourself all circumstances you can, which are of force to make a power judiciary, apply them all to the practice of the Apostles, in the Conversion of Infidels, and if you find any one of them agree to that action, let me be challenged upon it, and be thought to have abused you with a Fallacy.  
To conclude then, since your Ligaveritis, which is the one half of your pretended Jurisdiction, pretends to nothing above Declarative: And since your Solveritis, in so great an act as is the Conversion of Infidels, lays claim to no more, what act of the power of the Keys is it, wherein we may conceive hope of finding any thing active or judiciary? I see what you will say, There yet remains a part, you think, wherein you have hope to speed, and that is the reconciling of relapsing Christians: As you fancy that in every sinning Christian, there is a duty binding him to repair, and lay his sin open to the Minister of the Gospel, and in him a power to consider of the sins of such as repair unto him, to weigh particulars, to consider circumstances, and occasions, and according to true Judgement, either upon penance imposed to absolve sin, (which you call remitting of the sin) or to withhold him for a time, from participation of holy duties with Catholic Christians, which you call retaining of sins, supposing that God doth the like in Heaven, as it is written, What you bind in Earth, is bound in Heaven, and what you lose in Earth, is loosed in Heaven. Now the Rock on which you labour to found so extravagant a Conceit, is no other than the Words which I have quoted out of Scripture; you press earnestly the Ligaveritis & vos, all which can yield you small relief; for if they help you not at all in those weighty parts of the Power of the Keys, which but now were laid before you; by what Analogy can you expect they should afford you any assistance here? As is Ligare, so is Solvere; as is the Conversion of an Infidel, so is the reconciling of a relapsing Christian, for any thing you can make appear; Either all is Declarative, which is very possible, and in many cases necessary, or all Judicative, which in some cases is impossible, and in none necessary; so that to fit the Scripture to your Fancy, you are constrained to distract and rend it without any Warrant at all. But you have found out in the Text a stronger Argument against the declarative Power, I contend for: You espy an Insufflavit, a great, a solemn, and unwonted Ceremony, undoubtedly concluding some greater matter than a poor power declarative: What? did our serious Master thus spend his breath to no purpose, and like a Hocus Pocus with so much show act us a solemn nothing? I pray whose words are these? I should have thought them to have been Porphiries, or julian's, (but that I know your hand) for you subscribed not your name to your letters: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: They are the Words of your Pindarus, upon an occasion not much unlike unto this  
Sir, you have no Skill to judge, or set a price upon so divine an act; He lost not his breath, when he spent his Insufflavit; he opened their wits, that they might understand the Scripture; he revealed to them the Mysteries of Jesus Christ, dying and rising again for the World's salvation, the greatest news that ever was reported in the World, and till then concealed; He commanded them to be the first bringers of this good News, and that they might the more undauntedly perform their Charge, he endowed them with Infallibility, with infinite Constancy and Fortitude, with Power of working such Wonders as none could do unless God were with them. Appello Conscientiam tuam: Were those things such nothings, that they deserve to be thus jeered? But that befalls you which befalls the Stairs that dwell in the Steeple, who fear not the Bells, because they hear them every day. These wonderful Benefits of God have every day sounded in your ears, and the frequency of them hath taught you to forget your Reverence to them. Yet all this Insufflavit, this Ceremony, was for no other end but to further a Declarative Power; Their undaunted Fortitude, their power of Miracling, their Infallibility did but add countenance and strength to their Declarative Power, by by which they went up and down the World, to manifest the good tidings of Salvation. So that even these which served thus to set off the Gospel, were nothing else but means of the better manifestation of it, therefore may they very well pass, if not amongst the Keys, yet amongst the necessary Wards. Whereas your Fancy of an active or judicative Power in the Priest, concurring with God in reconciling relapsing Christians, is neither one nor other, but is indeed like unto the work of some deceitful Smith, who the better to countenance and grace his work, adds to his Key superfluous and idle Wards, which in the opening of the Lock, are of no use at all.  
To your second Query, Whether the Keys were confined to the Apostles only? The Answer is in no case hard to give, it may perchance in some case be dangerous; for there is a Generation of men in the World (the Clergy they call them) who impropriate the Keys unto themselves, and would be very angry to understand, that others from themselves should claim a right unto them. To your Question then, no doubt but originally none received the Keys from the mouth of our Saviour, but the Apostles only; none did nor ever could manage them with that authority and splendour as the Apostles did, who were above all most amply furnished with all things fitting so great a work. For whereas you seem to intimate, that the preaching Mission was communicated to others, as the seventy two Disciples, as well as the Apostles; you do but mistake yourself, if you conceive that the Keys of the Gospel were any way committed to them; for concerning the Mysteries of Jesus Christ, and him crucified for the sins of the World (wherein indeed the opening of the Kingdom of Heaven did consist) they received it not, they knew it not. To be the prime Reporters of this, was an honour imparted only to the Apostles: Yet were they not so imparted, as that they should be confined to them. Every one that heard and received the Light of the saving Doctrine from them, so far forth as he had understanding in the ways of Life, had now the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven committed to his power, both for his own and others use. Every one, of what state or condition soever, that hath any occasion offered him, to serve another in the ways of Life, Clergy, or Lay, male or female, whatever he be, hath these Keys, not only for himself, but for the benefit of others. For if natural Goodness teach every man, Lumen de Lumine, Erranti comitèr monstrare viam, etc. Then how much more doth Christian Goodness require of every one, to his ability to be a Light to those who sit in darkness, and direct their steps, who most dangerously mistake their way? To save a soul, every man is a Priest. To whom I pray you, is that said in Leviticus, Thou shalt not see thy Brother sin, but thou shalt reprove, and save thy Brother? And if the Law binds a Man, when he saw his enemy's cattle to stray, to put them into their way; How much more doth it oblige him to do the like for the Man himself? See you not how the whole World conspires with me in the same opinion? Doth not every Father teach his Son, every Master his Servant, every Man his Friend. How many of the Laity in this age, and from time to time, in all ages have by writing for the public good, propagated the Gospel of Christ, as if some secret instinct of nature had put into men's minds thus to do. I shame to dwell so long upon so plain a Theme, yet because I feel your pulse, and perceive what it is that troubles you, I must say something to an Objection, which I know you make. You conceive that forthwith upon this which I have said, must needs follow some great Confusion of estates, and degrees, the Laity will straightway get up into our Pulpits, we shall lose our credit, and the adoration which the simple sort do yield us is in danger to be lost.  
Sir, Fear you not, the sufficient and able of the Clergy, will reap no discountenance, but honour by this: For he that knows how to do well himself, will most willingly approve what is well done by another. It is extreme poverty of mind to ground your Reputation upon another man's Ignorance, and to secure yourself, you do well, because you perceive perchance, that none can judge how ill you do. Be not angry then to see others join with you in part of your Charge. I would all the Lords People did Preach, and that every Man did think himself bound to discharge a part of the Common Good: and make account that the Care of other men's Souls concerned him as well as of his own. When the Apostles took order to ordain some, upon whom the public burden of Preaching the Gospel should lie, it was not their purpose to impropriate the thing to those persons alone; but knowing that what was left to the care of all, was commonly worst looked unto, in wise and most Christian Care, they designed some, whose duty it should be to wait upon the Gospel alone, the better to preserve the Profession to the World's end: It hath been the wisdom of those, who have taken care of the propagation of Arts, and Sciences, not only to appoint means, that multitudes should study and make profession privately, but that some should be constituted public Professors to teach è Cathedra, that so all might know to whom to repair, in the doubts incident to their faculties, and this hath been thought a sovereign way to preserve Sciences. Sir, we are the public Professors of Christianity, we speak è Cathedra, which none can do, but such as are ordained. Let the private profession and practice of Christianity improve itself never so much, yet the honour of the public Professor, so he deserve his place, can never impair. It grieves me to stand so long upon so plain, so unwelcome a Lesson, I will ease myself and you, and reflect upon your third Query.  
In the third place, you require to know, what necessity, or what convenience there is of Confession: You mean, I think, that confession, which is as foolishly as commonly called Sacramental, for it hath nothing of a Sacrament in it. Did I know your mind a little more in particular, what form of confession you speak of, whether as it is used in the Church of Rome, or in some refined Guise, as it seems some would, who have of late called for it in the Church of England, I should speak peradventure more appositely to what you desire. But since you have proposed Confession only in a generality, my answer shall be in like manner. And  
First of all, Confession of sins is a thing, not only convenient, but unavoidably necessary to Salvation, without which none shall ever see God. And thus far I suppose, all Christians do agree. The main Difference is in the manner of practising it, the Question being, What Parties are to be interessed in it? Natural Equity informeth us, that unto every Party, justly offended, Satisfaction some way or other is due.  
The first party wronged in every offence, is God, against whose Honour, and express Command every sin is committed. To him therefore in the first place, Satisfaction is due, by submission and acknowledgement, since there remains no other way of composition with God. But there are some sins committed against God, some committed against God and Men. In the former it is sufficient if we pacify God alone; in the latter, our Neighbour, against whom we have trespassed, must receive Satisfaction for the wrong done him, at least, if it be in the power of the Trespasser. Your Primer of Sarum will tell you, That not to make restitution, if you be able, and not to pardon, unavoidably exclude from the Kingdom of Heaven. Now might the Doctrine of Confession and acknowledgement in case of Offence given, have been permitted to run fair and clear, as it descends from God, and good reason, the first Fountains of it. There needed no more to be said in this argument, than I have already told you. But I know not what intempestive foolish Ambition hath troubled the stream, and it hath passed now for a long time (till the Reformation altered it) for a general Doctrine in the Church, That in all kind of sins, whether against God or our Neighbour, there can be no reconciliation betwixt the parties offending, and offended, but by interposition of a Priest, a thing utterly besides all reason and common sense, that you should open your private imperfections to one whom they concern not, (for it is granted, that all Parties concerned in an Offence, must have reason at the hands of the Offender) and who can no ways help you; For He that is conscientious of his sin, (and without trouble of Conscience I think none would ever repair to his Confessor) knows very well, that there is no sin so great, but upon submission, God both can and will pardon it; and none so small, but pardon for it must be sought, or else he hath been ill catechised. And more than this what can any Priest tell him: 
* Plin. Nat. Hist. l. 28. c. 10.  Your Pliny, somewhere tells you, That he that is stricken by a Scorpion, if he go immediately, and whisper it into the ear of an Ass, shall find himself immediately eased: That Sin is a Scorpion, and bites deadly, I have always believed, but that to cure the bite of it, it was a Sovereign Remedy to whisper it into the Ear of an [] a Priest, I do as well believe as I do that of Pliny. The Patrons of this Fancy, for defect of reason and common congruity, are fain to betake themselves to Scripture; and the mischief is, there is there no direct Text for it, and therefore they are constrained to help themselves with a mere conjectural consequence; For since it is taken for certain, that there is a Power to Remit and to Retain sins, how shall they who have this Power given them, know how fit it is to Remit or to Retain a sin, except they know the sin, and know it they cannot, but by Confession. For answer to this,  
First, We have found and proved, That the Words of Scripture must receive such a sense, as from whence no such Consequence can be inferred.  
Secondly, We have endeavoured to prove, That the Dispensation or Application of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, (being nothing else, but the duty of saving of Souls) is a Duty, which pro Occasione oblatâ, lies upon every Christian: Which if it be true, (as in good faith I think it,) and the Clergy perceive it, I think they would never go about to urge that Text, although we should yield it them in their own meaning. For they must needs see, that it follows, that you may as well make your Muletter, (if you have one) your Confessor, as your Parish Priest. Tell me in good earnest, if you can, out of what good intent can this desire to know another man's sin, which concerns you not, proceed? Is it to teach him that it is a sin? he knew that, or else he had never repaired to you, to confess it: Is it to tell him, that he is to repent, to restore, to pray, to give alms, etc. All this he knew, or else he hath had his breeding under an evil Clergy. Yea, but how shall the Physician cure the Disease, if he know it not? Suppose all Diseases had one Remedy, (as all spiritual Diseases have) and what matters it if the Patient be sick, to know whether it be an Ague, or the Meazels, or the Pleurisy, since one Potion cures them all? Yea, but if he know not the particulars, how shall he judge of the Quantity of the Doses? for the same Disease upon sundry circumstances, may require Majus or Minus in the Physic. This is the poorest scruple of a thousand; for in the Regiment of Patients spiritually sick, there can be but one mistake, that is, if you give too little: Be sure you give enough, and teach your Patients to think no sin to be little, (which in men spiritually sick is Error saluberrimus) and you can never err: For natural Physic is only Physic; but spiritual Physic is both Physic and Diet, and may be indifferently administered both to the sick and the sound Repentance perchance only excepted, of which upon occasion, assure yourself you can hardly take too much. What reason now can you give me, why you should desire to dive into any man's Breast, & scire Secreta Domûs? except it be that which follows in the next Verse, indè teneri, as I must confess, I suspect it is. The truth is, some mistaken Customs of the ancient Church, the craft and power of the Clergy, the simplicity and ignorance of the Laity, these begat the Tragelaphus, of which we now speak. It may be you take the practice of the ancient Church, and the Point of Excommunication, to make somewhat for you: When those Cards shall come to be played (though that of Church custom is not greatly material, which way soever it looks) I believe you will not find the Game you look for. Indeed I was once minded to have considered something of that: But I think you look for a Letter, not for a Book, and I perceive myself already to have gone beyond the compass of a Letter. Another parley therefore, if you please, shall put an end to those and other scruples, if any do arise. And for the present give, I pray you, a little respite unto  
From my Study, this 8 Day of March. 1637. Yours, J. H.   

A TRACT Concerning SCHISM AND SCHISMATICS. WHEREIN Is briefly discovered the Original Causes of all Schism.  
By the ever Memorable Mr. JOHN HALES, of Eaton-Colledge, etc.  
Never before Printed by the Original Copy.  
Printed, 1677.   

A TRACT Concerning SCHISM.  
Heresy and Schism as they are in common use, are two Theological 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or scarecrows, which they, who uphold a party in Religion, use to fright away such, as making inquiry into it, are ready to relinquish and oppose it, if it appear either erroneous or suspicious. For as Plutarch reports of a Painter, who having unskilfully painted a Cock, chased away all Cocks and Hens, that so the imperfection of his Art might not appear by comparison with Nature; so men willing for ends to admit of no fancy but their own, endeavour to hinder an inquiry into it by way of comparison of somewhat with it, peradventure truer, that so the deformity of their own might not appear. But howsoever in the common manage, Heresy and Schism are but ridiculous Terms, yet the things in themselves are of very considerable moment, the one offending against Truth, the other against Charity, and therefore both deadly, where they are not by imputation, but in deed.  
It is then a matter of no small importance, truly to descry the nature of them, that so they may fear, who are guilty of them, and they on the contrary strengthen themselves, who through the iniquity of men and times, are injuriously charged with them.  
Schism (for of Heresy we shall not now treat, except it be by accident, and that by occasion of a general mistake, spread throughout all the writings of the Ancients, in which their names are familiarly confounded) Schism, I say, upon the very sound of the word, imports Division; Division is not, but where Communion is, or aught to be. Now Communion is the strength and ground of all Society, whether Sacred or Civil; Whosoever therefore they be, that offend against this common Society and Friendliness of men, and cause separation and breach among them: If it be in civil occasions, are guilty of Sedition or Rebellion; if it be by occasion of Ecclesiastical difference they are guilty of Schism: So that Schism is an Ecclesiastical Sedition, as Sedition is a Lay Schism. Yet the great benefit of Communion notwithstanding, in regard of divers distempers men are subject to, Dissension and Disunion are often necessary; For when either false or uncertain Conclusions are obtruded for Truth, and Acts either unlawful, or ministering just scruple, are required of us to be performed; in these cases, Consent were Conspiracy, and open Contestation is not Faction or Schism, but due Christian Animosity.  
For the further opening therefore of the nature of Schism, something must be added by way of difference to distinguish it from necessary Separation, and that is, that the causes upon which Division is attempted, proceed not from Passion, or Distemper, or from Ambition, or Avarice, or such other Ends, as humane folly is apt to pursue; but from well weighed and necessary Reasons, and that, when all other means having been tried, nothing will serve to save us from guilt of Conscience, but open Separation. So that Schism, if we would define it, is nothing else but an unnecessary Separation of Christians from that part of the visible Church, of which they were once Members. Now as in Mutinies and Civil Dissensions, there are two Attendants in ordinary belonging unto them; one the choice of one Elector or Guide in place of the General, or ordinary Governor, to rule and guide; the other the appointing of some public place or Rendezvous, where public Meetings must be celebrated: So in Church Dissensions and quarrels, two Appurtenances there are, which serve to make a Schism complete;  
First, The choice of a Bishop in opposition to the former, (a thing very frequent amongst the Ancients, and which many times was both the cause and effect of Schism.)  
Secondly, The erecting of a new Church and Oratory, for the dividing Party to meet in publicly. For till this be done, the Schism is but yet in the Womb.  
In that late famous Controversy in Holland, De Predestinatione, & Auxiliis, as long as the disagreeing Parties went no further than Disputes and Pen-combats, the Schism was all that while unhatched; but as soon as one party swept an old Cloister and by a pretty Art suddenly made it a Church, by putting a new Pulpit in it, for the separating Party there to meet; now, what before was a Controversy, became a formal Schism. To know no more than this, if you take it to be true, had been enough to direct how you are to judge, and what to think of Schism and Schismatics; yet because in the Ancients, (by whom many Men are more affrighted than hurt) much is said, and many fearful Dooms are pronounced in this case; will we descend a little to consider of Schisms, as it were by way of Story, and that partly further to open that which we have said in general, by instancing in particulars; and partly to disabuse those who reverencing Antiquity more than needs, have suffered themselves to be scared with imputation of Schism, above due measure; for what the Ancients spoke by way of censure of Schism in general, is most true; for they saw (and it is no great matter to see so much) that unadvisedly, and upon fancy to break the knot of Union betwixt man and man (especially amongst Christians, upon whom above all other kind of men, the tye of Love and Communion doth most especially rest) was a crime hardly pardonable, and that nothing Absolves a man from the guilt of it, but true and unpretended Conscience; yet when they came to pronounce of Schisms in particular (whether it were because of their own interests, or that they saw not the Truth, or for what other cause God only doth know) their Judgements many times (to speak most gently) are justly to be suspected; Which that you may see, we will range all Schism into two ranks.  
For there is a Schism, in which only one party is the Schismatic; for where cause of Schism is necessary, there not he that separates, but he that occasions the separation is the Schismatic.  
Secondly, There is a Schism, which both parts are the Schismatics: For where the occasion of separation is unnecessary, neither side can be excused from the guilt of Schism.  
But you will ask, who shall be the Judge what is necessary? Indeed that is a Question, which hath been often made, but I think scarcely ever truly answered; not because it is a point of great depth or difficulty truly to assoil it, but because the true solution carries fire in the tail of it. For it bringeth with it a piece of Doctrine which is seldom pleasing to Superiors. To you for the present this shall suffice. If so be you be Animo defoecato, if you have cleared yourself from froth and grounds, if neither sloth, nor fears, nor ambition, nor any tempting Spirits of that nature abuse you, (for these and such as these, are the true Impediments▪ why both that, and other Questions of the like danger are not truly answered) if all this be, and yet you see not how to frame your resolution, and settle yourself for that doubt; I will say no more of you than was said of Papias, St. John's own Scholar, you are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, your abilities are not so good as I presumed.  
But to go on with what I intended, and from which that interloping Question diverted me; that you may the better judge of the nature of Schisms by their occasions; you shall find that all Schisms have crept into the Church by one of these three ways; either upon matter of Fact, or matter of Opinion, or point of Ambition. For the first; I call that matter of Fact, when something is required to be done by us, which either we know, or strongly suspect to be unlawful; So the first notable Schism, of which we read in the Church, contained in it matter of Fact; For it being upon Error taken for necessary, that an Easter must be kept; and upon worse than Error, if I may so speak, (for it was no less than a point of Judaisme, forced upon the Church,) upon worse than Error, I say, thought further necessary, that the ground for the time of our keeping that Feast, must be the rule left by Moses to the Jews; there arose a stout Question, Whether we were to celebrate with the Jews, on the fourteenth Moon, or the Sunday following? This matter, though most unnecessary, most vain, yet caused as great a Combustion, as ever was in the Church; the West separating and refusing Communion with the East, for many years together. In this fantastical Hurry, I cannot see but all the world were Schismatics: neither can any thing excuse them from that imputation▪ excepting only this, that we charitably suppose that all Parties out of Conscience did what they did. A thing which befell them through the ignorance of their Guides, (for I will not say their malice) and that through the just judgement of God, because through sloth and blind obedience Men examined not the things which they were taught, but like Beasts of Burden patiently couched down, and indifferently underwent whatsoever their Superiors laid upon them. By the way; by this you may plainly see the danger of our appeal unto Antiquity, for resolution in controverted points of Faith, and how small relief we are to expect from thence. For if the discretion of the chiefest Guides and Directors of the Church, did in a Point so trivial, so inconsiderable, so mainly fail them, as not to see the Truth in a Subject, wherein it is the greatest Marvel how they could avoid the sight of it; can we without imputation of extreme grossness and folly, think so poor spirited persons, competent Judges of the Questions now on soot betwixt the Churches? Pardon me; I know not what Temptation drew that Note from me.  
The next Schism, which had in it matter of Fact, is that of the Donatist: who was persuaded (at least so he pretended) that it was unlawful to converse or communicate in holy Duties with Men stained with any notorious Sin. (For howsoever Austin and others do specify only the Thurificati & Traditores, and Libellatici, and the like, as if he separated only from those, whom he found to be such; yet by necessary proportion, he mustrefer to all notorious Sinners) Upon this he taught, that in all places where good and bad were mixed together, there could be no Church, by reason of Pollution, evaporating as it were from Sinners, which blasted righteous Persons who conversed with them, and made all unclean. On this ground separating himself from all whom he list to suspect, he gave out that the Church was no where to be found but in him and his Associates, as being the only Men among whom wicked Persons found no shelter; and by consequence, the only clean and unpolluted Company, and therefore the only Church. Against this Saint Augustine laid down this Conclusion, Unitatem Ecclesiae per totum Orbem dispersae propter nonnullorum peccata non esse deserendam; which is indeed the whole sum of that Father's Disputation against the Donatist. Now in one part of this Controversy betwixt St. Augustine and the Donatist, there is one thing is very remarkable. The Truth was there where it was by mere chance, and might have been on either side▪ any Reasons brought by either party notwithstanding. For though it were de facto false, that pars Donati, shut up in afric, was the only Orthodox Party, yet it might have been true, notwithstanding any thing Saint Austin brings to confute it; and on the contrary, though it were de facto true, that the part of Christians dispersed over the Earth were Orthodox; yet it might have been false notwithstanding any thing Saint Austin brings to confirm it. For where, or amongst whom, or amongst how many the Church shall be, or is, is a thing indifferent; it may be in any Number more or less, it may be in any Place Country, or Nation; it may be in All, and (for aught I know) it may be in none, without any prejudice to the definition of the Church, or the Truth of the Gospel. North or South, many or few, dispersed in many places, or confined to one; None of these either prove or disprove a Church.  
Now this Schism, and likewise the former, to a wise Man that well understands the matter in Controversy; may afford perchance matter of pity, to see Men so strangely distracted upon fancy; but of doubt or trouble what to do, it can yield none. For though in this Schism the Donatist be the Schismatic, and in the former both parties be equally engaged in the Schism; yet you may safely upon your occasions communicate with either, so be you flatter neither in their Schism: For why might it not be lawful to go to Church with the Donatist, or to celebrate Easter with the Quartodeciman, if occasion so require? since neither Nature, nor Religion, nor Reason doth suggest any thing to the contrary: For in all public Meetings pretending Holiness, so there be nothing done, but what true Devotion and Piety brook, why may not I be present in them, and use Communication with them? Nay what if those to whose care the execution of the public Service is committed, do something either unseemly or suspicious, or peradventure unlawful? what if the Garments they wear be censured as, nay indeed be superstitious? what if the Gesture of adoration be used at the Altar, as now we have learned to speak? What if the Homilist or Preacher deliver any Doctrine, of the truth of which we are not well persuaded, (a thing which very often falls out) yet for all this we may not separate, except we be constrained personally to bear a part in them ourselves. The Priests under Eli had so ill demeaned themselves about the daily Sacrifice, that the Scriptures tell us, they made it to stink, yet the People refused not to come to the Tabernacle, nor to bring their Sacrifice to the Priest. For in these Schisms, which concern Fact, nothing can be a just cause of refusal of Communion, but only to require the execution of some unlawful or suspected act; For not only in Reason, but in Religion too, that Maxim admits of no release, Cautissimi cujusque Praeceptum quod dubitas, ne feceris. Long it was ere the Church fell upon Schism upon this occasion, though of late it hath had very many; For until the second Council of Nice, (in which conciliable Superstition and Ignorance did conspire) I say, until that Rout did set up Image-worship, there was not any remarkable Schism, upon just occasion of Fact; All the rest of Schisms of that kind were but Wantonness, this was truly serious. In this the Schismatical party was the Synod itself, and such as conspired with it. For concerning the use of Images in Sacris, First, it is acknowledged by all, That it is not a thing necessary; Secondly, It is by most suspected; Thirdly, It is by many held utterly unlawful. Can then the enjoining of the practice of such a thing be aught else but abuse? Or can the refusal of Communion here, be thought any other thing than duty? Here, or upon the like occasion, to separate, may peradventure bring personal trouble and danger, (against which it concerns every honest man to have Pectus bene praeparatum) further harm it cannot do. So that in these cases, you cannot be to seek what to think, or what you have to do.  
Come we then to consider a little of the second sort of Schism, arising upon occasion of variety of opinion. It hath been the common disease of Christians from the beginning, not to content themselves with that measure of Faith, which God and Scriptures have expressly afforded us; but out of a vain desire to know more than is revealed, they have attempted to discuss things, of which we can have no light, neither from Reason nor Revelation; neither have they rested here, but upon pretence of Church-authority, which is none, or Tradition, which for the most part is but figment; they have peremptorily concluded, and confidently imposed upon others, a necessity of entertaining Conclusions of that nature; and to strengthen themselves, have broken out into Divisions and Factions, opposing man to man, Synod to Synod, till the peace of the Church vanished, without all possibility of recall. Hence arose those ancient and many separations amongst Christians, occasioned by Arrianism, Eutychianism, Nestorianism, Photinianism, Sabellianism, and many more both ancient and in our time; all which indeed are but names of Schism; howsoever in the common Language of the Fathers, they were called Heresies. For Heresy is an act of the Will, not of Reason; and is indeed a Lie, not a mistake: Else how could that known speech of Austin go for true, Errare possum, Haereticus esse nolo. Indeed Manichaeism, Valentinianism, Marcionism, Mahometanism, are truly and properly Heresies; For we know that the Authors of them received them not, but minted them themselves, and so knew that which they taught to be a Lye. But can any man avouch that Arrius and Nestorius, and others that taught erroneously concerning the Trinity, or the Person of our Saviour, did maliciously invent what they taught, and not rather fall upon it by error and mistake? Till that be done, and that upon good Evidence, we will think no worse of all Parties than needs we must, and take these Rents in the Church to be at the worst but Schisms upon matter of Opinion. In which case what we are to do, is not a point of any great depth of understanding to discover, so be Distemper and Partiality do not intervene. I do not yet see, that Opinionum Varietas, & Opinantium Unitas, are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or that Men of different opinions in Christian Religion, may not hold communion in Sacris, and both go to one Church. Why may I not go, if occasion require, to an Arrian Church, so there be no Arrianism expressed in their Liturgy? And were Liturgies and public Forms of Service so framed, as that they admitted not of particular and private fancies, but contained only such things, as in which all Christians do agree, Schisms on Opinion were utterly vanished. For consider of all the Liturgies that are or ever have been, and remove from them whatsoever is scandalous to any Party, and leave nothing but what all agree on, and the event shall be, that the public Service and Honour of God shall no ways suffer: Whereas to load our public Forms with the private Fancies upon which we differ, is the most sovereign way to perpetuate Schism unto the World's end. Prayer, Confession, Thanksgiving, Reading of Scriptures, Exposition of Scripture, Administration of Sacraments in the plainest and simplest manner, were matter enough to furnish out a sufficient Liturgy, though nothing either of private Opinion, or of Church Pomp, of Garments, of prescribed Gestures, of Imagery, of Music, of matter concerning the Dead, of many superfluities, which creep into the Churches under the name of Order and Decency, did interpose itself. For to charge Churches and Liturgies with things unnecessary, was the first beginning of all Superstition, and when scruples of Conscience began to be made or pretended, than Schisms began to break in. If the spiritual Guides and Fathers of the Church would be a little sparing of encumbering Churches with superfluities, and not overrigid either in reviving obsolete Customs, or imposing new, there were far less danger of Schism or Superstition; and all the inconvenience were likely to ensue, would be but this, they should in so doing, yield a little to the imbecilities of Inferiors, a thing which St. Paul would never have refused to do. Mean while, wheresoever false or suspected Opinions are made a piece of the Church Liturgy, he that separates is not the Schismatic; For it is alike unlawful to make profession of known or suspected falsehoods, as to put in practice unlawful or suspect actions  
The third thing I noted for matter of Schism was Ambition, I mean Episcopal Ambition, showing itself especially in two heads; one concerning Plurality of Bishops in the same See, another the Superiority of Bishops in divers Sees. Aristotle tells us, that Necessity causeth but small faults, but Avarice and Ambition were the Mothers of great Crimes; Episcopal Ambition hath made this true: For no Occasion hath produced more frequent, more continuing, more sanguinary Schisms, than this hath done. The Sees of Alexandria, of Constantinople, of Antioch, and above all of Rome, do abundantly show thus much, and our Ecclesiastical Stories witness no less, of which the greatest part consists in the factionating and tumultuating of great and potent Bishops. Socrates Apologizing for himself, that professing to write an Ecclesiastical Story, he did ofttimes interlace the actions of secular Princes and other civil businesses, tells us that he did thus to refresh his Reader, who otherwise were in danger to be cloyed by reading so much of the Acts of unquiet and unruly Bishops, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in which as a man might say, they made Butter and Cheese one of another; For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (that I may show you a cast out of my old Office, and open you a Mystery in Grammar) properly signifieth to make Butter and Cheese: Now because these are not made without much agitation of the Milk, hence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by a borrowed and translated signification, signifies to do things with much agitation and tumult.  
But that I may a little consider of the two heads, which I but now specified; The first I mentioned was the Plurality of Bishops in one Sea. For the general practice of the Church from the beginning, at least since the original of Episcopacy, as now it is, was never to admit at once more than one Bishop in one Sea; And so far in this point have they been careful to preserve unity, that they would not suffer a Bishop in his Sea to have two Cathedral Churches; which thing lately brought us a Book out of France, De Monogamia Episcoporum, written by occasion of the Bishop of Langres, who, I know not upon what fancy, could not be content with one Cathedral Church in his Diocese, but would needs have two, which to the Author of that work seems to be a kind of spiritual Polygamy. It fell out amongst the Ancients very often; sometimes upon occasion of difference in Opinion, sometimes because of difference amongst those who were interessed in the choice of Bishops, that two Bishops and sometimes more were set up, and all Parties striving to maintain their own Bishop, made themselves several Churches, several Congregations, each refusing to participate with others, and many times proceeding to mutual Excommunication. This is that which Cyprian calls Erigere Altare contra Altar: to this doth he impute the Original of all Church disorders; and if you read him, you would think he thought no other Church-Tumult to be a Schism but this. This perchance might plead some excuse; For though in regard of Religion itself, it matters not whether there be one or more Bishops in the same Diocese, and sometimes two are known to have sat at once (for Epiphanius reckoning up the Bishops of Rome, makes Peter and Paul the first: and St. Austin acknowledgeth, that for a time he sat fellow Bishop with his Predecessor, though he excuseth it, that he did so by being ignorant that the contrary had been decreed by the Council of Nice,) yet it being a thing very convenient for the Peace of the Church to have it so; neither doth it any way savour of vice or misdemeanour; their Punishment sleeps not, who unnecessarily and wantonly go about to infringe it.  
But that other Head of Episcopal Ambition, concerning Supremacy of Bishops in divers Sees, one claiming Superiority over another, as it hath been from time to time, a great Trespasser against the Church's Peace, so it is now the final Ruin of it. The East and the West, through the fury of the two prime Bishops, being irremediably separated without all hope of Reconcilement. And besides all this mischief, it is founded in a vice contrary to all Christian humility, without which no man shall see his Saviour; For they do but abuse themselves and others, that would persuade us, that Bishops, by Christ's Institution, have any Superiority over other men, further than of Reverence; or that any Bishop is Superior to another, further than positive order agreed upon amongst Christians, hath prescribed. For we have believed him that hath told us, That in Jesus Christ there is neither high nor low; and that in giving honour, every man should be ready to prefer another before himself; which sayings cut off all claim most certainly to Superiority, by title of Christianity; except men can think that these things were spoken only to poor and private Men. Nature and Religion agree in this, that neither of them hath a hand in this Heraldry of secundum sub & supra; all this comes from Composition and Agreement of men among themselves. Wherefore this abuse of Christianity, to make it Lackey to Ambition, is a vice for which I have no extraordinary name of Ignominy, and an ordinary I will not give it, lest you should take so transcendent a vice to be but trivial.  
Now concerning Schism arising upon these Heads, you cannot be for behaviour much to seek; for you may safely communicate with all Parties as Occasion shall call you, and the Schismatics here are all those who are heads of the Faction, together with all those who foment it: for private and indifferent Persons, they may be Spectators of these contentions as securely in regard of any peril of Conscience (for of danger in Purse or Person, I keep no account) as at a Cock fight. Where Serpents fight, who cares who hath the better? the best Wish is, that both may perish in the fight.  
Now for Conventicles, of the nature of which you desire to be informed, thus much in general. It evidently appears, that all Meetings upon unnecessary Occasions of Separation are to be so styled, so that in this sense, a Conventicle is nothing else but a Congregation of Schismatics; Yet Time hath taken leave sometimes to fix this Name upon good and honest Meetings, and that perchance not altogether without good reason; For with public Religious Meetings thus it fares: First, it hath been at all times confessed necessary, that God requires not only inward and private Devotion, when Men either in their hearts and Closets, or within their private walls, pray, praise, confess and acknowledge; but he further requires all those things to be done in Public, by troops and shoals of Men, and from hence have proceeded public Temples, Altars, Forms of Service, appointed Times, and the like, which are required for open Assemblies; yet whilst men were truly pious, all Meetings of men for mutual help of Piety and Devotion, wheresoever and by whomsoever celebrated, were permitted without exception.  
But when it was espied that ill affected persons abused private Meetings, whether Religious or Civil, to evil ends, Religiousness to gross impiety, (as appears in the Ethnic Fleusinia, and Bacchanalia; and Christian Meetings under the Pagan Princes, when for fear they durst not come together in open view, were charged with foul imputations, as by the report of Christians themselves plainly appears; and Civil Meetings many times under pretence of friendly and neighbourly Visits, sheltered treasonable Attempts against Princes and commonweals:) Hence both Church and State joined, and jointly gave order for Forms, Times, Places of Public Concourse, whether for Religious or Civil Ends; and all other Meetings whatsoever, besides those of which both Time and Place were limited, they censured for Routs and Riots, and unlawful Assemblies in the State, and in the Church for Conventicles.  
So that it is not lawful, no not for Prayer, for Hearing, for Conference, for any other Religious Office whatsoever, for people to assemble otherwise, than by Public Order is allowed. Neither may we complain of this in Times of Incorruption, for why should men desire to do that suspiciously in private, which warrantably may be performed in public? But in Times of manifest Corruptions and Persecutions, wherein Religious Assembling is dangerous, private Meetings, howsoever besides public Order, are not only lawful, but they are of Necessity and Duty; else how shall we excuse the Meetings of Christians for public Service, in time of danger and persecutions, and of ourselves in Queen Mary's days? and how will those of the Roman Church amongst us, put off the imputation of Conventicling, who are known amongst us privately to assemble for Religious Exercise against all established order, both in State and Church? For indeed all pious Assemblies in times of persecution and corruptions howsoever practised, are indeed, or rather alone the lawful Congregations; and public Assemblies, though according to form of Law, are indeed nothing else but Riots and Conventicles, if they be stained with Corruption, and Superstition.  
FINIS.   

Miscellanies WRITTEN By the ever Memorable Mr. JOHN HALES, of Eaton-Colledge, etc.  
Printed, 1677.   

Miscellanies.  

How to know the Church.  
MArks and Notes to know the Church there are none, except we will make True Profession, which is the Form and Essence of the Church to be a Mark. And as there are none, so is it not necessary there should be. For to what purpose should they serve? That I might go seek and find out some Company to mark. This is no way necessary. For glorious Things are in the Scriptures spoken of the Church: not that I should run up and down the World to find the persons of the Professors; but that I should make myself of it. This I do by taking upon me the Profession of Christianity, and submitting myself to the Rules of Belief, and Practice, delivered in the Gospel, though besides myself, I knew no other Professor in the World. If this were not the Author's end in proposal of the Title, it is but a mere Vanity.   

To the Description of the Church.  
The Church, as it imports a visible Company in Earth, is nothing else but the Company of Professors of Christianity, wheresoever dispersed in the Earth. To define it thus by Monarchy, under one visible Head, is of novelty crept up, since men began to change the spiritual Kingdom of Christ to secular Pride and Tyranny, and a thing never heard of, either in the Scriptures, or in the Writings of the Ancients. Government, whether by one or many, or howsoever, if it be one of the Churches contingent Attributes, it is all; certainly it is no necessary Property, much less comes it into the Definition and Essence of it. I mean outward Government; for as for inward Government, by which Christ reigns in the Hearts of his Elect, and vindicates them from spiritual Enemies, I have no occasion to speak, neither see I any reference to it in all your Author's Animadversions.   

How Christ is the Head of the Church.  
From the World's beginning, till the last hour of it, the Church is essentially one and the same, howsoever perchance in Garment, and outward Ceremony, it admits of Difference. And as it was from the beginning of the World, so was it Christian; there being no other difference betwixt the Fathers before Christ and us, but this, As we believe in Christ that is Come, so they believed in Christ that was to Come. Jesus Christ yesterday, and to day, and the same for ever. Reference unto Christ is the very Essence of the Church, and there neither is, nor ever was any Church but Christ's; and therefore the Church amongst the Jews was properly and truly Christian, quoad rem, as we are. Now as this Church at all times is Christ's Body, so is Christ the Head of it. For it is as impossible for the Church, as for the Body to be without its Head; it is not therefore as your Author dreams. Christ came not to found a New Church, or to profess a Visible Headship of it. That Relation to this Church, which we express when we call him the Head of it, is one and the same, from the Beginning to all Eternity, neither receives it any alteration in this respect, because the Person in whom this Relation is founded, is sometimes Visible, sometimes not. 'Tis true indeed, the Head of the Church sometimes became Visible, but this is but contingent and by Concomitancy. For Christ the second Person in the Trinity, becoming Man to Redeem this Church, and manifest the way of Truth unto it; It so fell out that the Head of the Church became Visible. Of this Visibility he left no Successor, no Doctrine, no Use, as being a thing merely accidental: I ask, Had the Church before Christ any Visible Head? if it had, than was not Christ the first, as here our Teacher tells us; If it had none, why then should the Church more require a Visible Head, than it did from the Beginning. To speak the Truth at once. All these Questions concerning the Notes, the Visibility, the Government of the Church, if we look upon the Substance and Nature of the Church, they are merely Idle and Impertinent: If upon the End, why Learned Men do handle them, it is nothing else but Faction.   

Of Peter's Ministerial Headship of the Church.  
In your Author's Paragraphs concerning the visible Increase, or Succession of the Church, there is no Difference betwixt us. As for the Proofs of Peter's Ministerial Headship, this first concerning his being the Rock of the Church, that cannot prove it; For Peter was the Rock then; when our Saviour spoke, but then could he not be the visible Head, for Christ himself then was living, and by our Teacher's Doctrine, supplied that room himself. Peter therefore, howsoever, or in what sense soever he were the Rock, yet could he not be the visible Head, except we will grant the Church to have had two visible Heads at once.  
Secondly, The Keys of Heaven committed to Peter, and Command to feed his Sheep, import no more, than that common Duty, laid upon all the Disciples, To teach all Nations; for this Duty in several respects, is expressed by several Metaphors. Teaching, as it signifies the opening of the way to life, so is it called by the name of Keys; but as it signifies the Strengthening of the Soul of Man by the Word, which is the Souls spiritual Food, so is it called Feeding. Thus much is seen by the Defenders of the Church of Rome, and therefore they fly for refuge to a Circumstance: It is observed, that our Saviour delivered this Doctrine to Peter alone (as indeed sometimes he did) in this it is supposed that some great Mystery rests: For why should our Saviour thus single out Peter, and commend a common Duty to him, if there were not something extraordinary in it, which concerned Him above the rest? This they interpret a Preeminence that Peter had in his Business of Teaching, which they say is a Primacy and Headship; enforcing thus much, that all the rest were to depend from Him, and from Him receive what they were to preach. For Answer, Grant me there were some great Mystery in it, yet whence is it proved, that this is that Mystery? For if our Saviour did not manifest it, than might there be a thousand Causes, which Man's Conjecture may easily miss: It is great boldness, out of Causes concealed, to pick so great Consequences, and to found Matters of so great weight upon mere Conjectures.  
Thirdly, The Prayer for Confirmation of Peter's Faith, whence it came, the Course of the Story set down in the Text doth show, It was our Saviour's Prevision of Peter's danger to relapse, which danger he had certainly run into, had not our Saviour extraordinarily prayed for confirmation of his Faith. And the Precept of confirming his Brethren, is but that charitable Office, which is exacted at every Christians hand, that when himself had escaped so great a Wrack, to be careful in warning and reclaiming others, whom common frailty drives into the like Distress.  
These Circumstances, that Peter is first named amongst the Disciples, that he made the first Sermon, and the like, are too weak Grounds to build the Sovereignty over the World upon; and that he spoke Ananias and Sapphira dead, argues spiritual Power, but not temporal. But that Peter called the first Council in the Acts, is a Circumstance beyond the Text; for concerning the calling of the Council there is no word, all that is said is but this, that the Disciples and Elders met, no Syllable of Peter's calling them together.  
That Peter was 25 Years Bishop of Rome, is not to be proved out of Antiquity, before St. Hierom, who shuffled it into Eusebius Chronicle, there being no such thing extant in his Story. Yea that he was Bishop at all (as now the name of Bishop is taken) may be very questionable: For the Ancients that reckon up the Bishops of Rome until their times, as Eusebius, and before him Tertullian, and before them both Iraeneus, never account Peter as Bishop of that See: And Epiphanius tells us, that Peter and Paul were both Bishops of Rome at once; by which it is plain he took the Title of Bishop in another sense than now it is used: For now, and so for a long time upward, two Bishops can no more possess one See, than two Hedge-Sparrows dwell in one Bush. St. Peter's time was a little too early for Bishops to rise.   

Answer to the Bishop of Rome's Practice of Supremacy.  
To the first, That so many of the Bishops of Rome were Martyrs, what makes that to the purpose? Is Martyrdom an Argument of the Supremacy?  
To the second, That Victor endeavoured to excommunicate the Asiatic Bishops, is true; but withal it is as true, that he was withstood for his Labour: For the Bishops of Asia themselves did sharply reprove him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Words of Eusebius; and Irenaeus wrote against him for it.  
To the third, That the first four Councils were called by the Popes, is an open Falsehood, for in the two first, the Bishops of Rome are not so much as mentioned, save only as persons cited. In the two last they are mentioned only as Petitioners to the Emperor. There are extant the Stories of Eusebius, Socrates, Ruffinus, Theodoret, Sozomenus, the Acts of the Councils themselves, at least some of them, the Writings and Epistles of Leo Bishop of Rome. In all these there is not one word of the Pope farther than a Supplicant, and the whole calling of the Bishops together is attributed to the Emperor. Take for Example but the last of them. Leo, Bishop of Rome, was desirous that some things done in a meeting of Divines at Ephesus, should be disannulled; for this he becomes a Suitor to Theodosius the junior, to have a General Council, but could never procure it of him. After his death he continues his suit to Marcianus, Successor to Theodosius, who granted his request; But whereas Leo had requested the Council might be held in Italy, the Emperor would not hear him; nay which is more, the Pope upon good reason, had besought the Emperor to put off the day designed for the holding of the Council, but the Emperor would not hear him. So that Leo could do nothing, neither for the calling the Council, nor for the Place, nor for the Time. And all this appears by Leo's own Epistles. If the Popes could do so little well near 500 years after Christ, how little could they do before, when their horns were not yet so long.  
The Plea of the Protestants concerning the Corruption of the Church of Rome, which by them is confessed sometimes to have been pure, is no more prejudicial to Christ's Promise to his Church, that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against her, than the known corruption of the Churches in Asia in St. John's time, or of other Churches after.  
The Close of all is a Demonstration. A Word unfortunately used by your Author, to bewray his Logic: For indeed a Reason drawn from so poor and empty a sign, falls many bows wide of demonstrative Proof. First, it is false that all the rest of Patriarchal Sees are extinct. The See of Constantinople yet stands, and shows her Succession of Bishops from St. Andrew till this day, as well as the Church of Rome can from St. Peter: The See of Alexandria yet subsists, and the Bishop of that place calls him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Judge of the World, (as myself have seen in some of his Letters) a Title to which he hath as good Right, as the Bishop of Rome hath to be the World's Sovereign. If any reply they are poor, in misery, in persecution and affliction: this can make no difference, since with Christ there is neither rich nor poor, but a new Creature. And again, their case now is as good as was the Bishops of Rome, under the Ethnic Emperors; for their Lot then was no other than those Bishops is now. But grant that it had lasted longest, what then? some of them must needs have consisted longer than the other, except we would suppose that they should have fallen all together. Peradventure the reason of her so long lasting is no other, but that which the Cyclops gives Ulysses in Homer, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ulysses should be eaten last of all. However it be, this Vaunt seems but like that of the wicked Servant in the Gospel, tardat Dominus venire, and we doubt not but a day of the Lord shall overtake him who now eats and drinks, and revels with the World, and beats his fellow Servants.   
FINIS.