Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	according_a	spirit_n	true_a	2,352	5	4.6188	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A70260	Several tracts, by the ever memorable Mr. John Hales of Eaton Coll. &c. 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 schismaticks, (never before printed by the original copy.) V. Miscellanies	Hales, John, 1584-1656.; Hales, John, 1584-1656. Tract concerning sin against the Holy Ghost.; Hales, John, 1584-1656. Tract concerning schisme.	1677 (1677)	Wing H276A; Wing H280; ESTC R14263	61,040	260

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 Supream 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 musick 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 Prophesie that the Church should perpetually adhere to him if any man think he hath it is his part to inform us where this Prophesy 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 Christs 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 spake 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 Christs 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 Church-Yard 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 de 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 shews that the pretence of the Spirit in this sence 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 sence 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 then 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 frō 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 it self to the Church in publick And if any Catholick except against you for saying so warrant your self 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

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 sacrafice 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 judgment As to the third place 1 Ioh. 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. Iohn Their best argument is Iohn'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 Logick 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 Iews 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. Austine 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 expresly 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 Mans entering into the Kingdome of Heaven is presented to us by our Saviour under the similitude of an impossibility Having dispatch'd 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 Apostacy 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 my self to Mr Calvin's definition because his judgment hath gained the greatest reputation among the multitude as also for that he himself promises such a true definition as shall easily by it self 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 Calvins 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 Logick 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 then 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 Apostacy 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 joyned with unbelief Non esse veniae locum c. 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 it self 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 it self for truth it self 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 shew 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 Apostacy falling away c. relate to a real not verbal Apostacy 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 extream 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 impugne 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 Calvins let others judge There is a just cause I. presume to except against Mr Galvin and all others who in this concurr 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 fighting and runing away which are little less than contraries The last point I shall touch in Mr Calvins definition is where he saith the Sinners against the Holy Ghost resist to the end only that they may resist and yet withall he tells they resist out of a determinate malice If they resist out of malice then 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 bare 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 Baptisme 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 Gost but this opinion is false The Novatian Hereticks 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. Lumbard 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 't is not always a Blasphemy The six differences the Schoolmen make of the Sin against the Holy Ghost are these 1. Envying of our Brothers 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 Calvins 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 Lords Supper By the ever Memorable Mr. JOHN HALES of Eaton-Colledge c. Printed 1677. A Tract on the Sacrament of the LORDS SUPPER Kind SIR IN perusal of your Letters together with the Schedule inclosed no Circumstance did so much move me as this that so ordinary Points as are discust there and that in a bare and ordinary manner should amuse either your self or any man else that pretends to ordinary Knowledge in Controversies in Christian Religion For the

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 Judaism 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 Schismaticks 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 befel them through the ignorance of their Guides for I will not say their malice and that through the just judgment of God because through sloth and blind obedience Men examined not the things which they were taught but like Beasts of Burthen patiently couched down and indifferently underwent whatsoever their Superiours 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 extream grosness 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 perswaded 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 mixt 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 Fathers Disputation against the Donatist Now in one part of this Controversie betwixt St. Augustine and the Donatist there is one thing is very remarkable The Truth was there where it was by meer 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 Africk was the only Orthodox Party yet it might have been true notwithstanding any thing Saint Austine 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 Austine 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 ought 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 Controversie may afford perchance matter of pity to see Men so strangly distracted upon fancy but of doubt or trouble what to do it can yield none For though in this Schism the Donatist be the Schismatick 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 publick 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 publick 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 perswaded 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 our selves 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 untill that Rout did set up Image-worship there was