unto me But thus much will I 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 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 Heresie 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 Hebraism for in the Hebrew Expression the Gates of a thing signifies the thing it self as the gates of Sion Sion it self and by the same proportion the gates of Hell signifies Hell it self Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we English Hell as in no place of Scripture it signifies Heresie so very frequently in Scripture it signifies Death or rather the state of the dead and indifferently aplied 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 spake 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 dye 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 Chucrh 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 her self 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 no 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 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 my self 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 her self we esteem those as no Fundamentals If she desire a List and Catalogue made of all those she is at leisure enough for ought I know to do it her self Last of all Concerning the imputation of Rebellion and Schism against church-Church-Authority with which your Catholick Disputant meant to affright you all that is but meerly 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 and 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 it self little hurt if any at all SIR I Return you more than I thought or you expected yet less than the Argument requir'd If you shall favour me so much as carefully to read what I have carefully written you shall find at least in those points you occasioned me to touch upon sufficient ground to plant your self 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 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 your self hath been pleased to set me Yet first ere I come to your particulars I will discover as far as generality will give me leave what it is which we intend when we use
FOUR TRACTS By the ever memorable Mr. JOHN HALES Of Eaton College VIZ. I. Of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper II. Of the Power of the Keyes III. Of Schism and Schismaticks IV. Missellanies LONDON Printed in the Year 1677. A TRACT ON THE SACRAMENT OF THE Lord's 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 discuss'd 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 Points therein discuss'd 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 mistook 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 it self 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 it self 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 but 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 Churches Ceremonials Our Saviour indeed used the Word 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 as 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 solemnizing 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 Topick 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 alledged to prove the necessity of the thing as if things had received their Original from the church-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 perswade 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 Tarquinius was walking in his Garden a Messenger came and asked him what he would have done unto the Town of Gabii then newly taken He answered nothing but with his Wand struck off the tops of the highest Poppies 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 Cùm in omnibus Scientiis voces significent res hoc habet proprium Theologia quòd ipsae res 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 c. 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 ought doth or can appear did ever intend And Secondly in adding to the Sacraments instituted of God
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 Scripture tells 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 concilable Superstition and Ignorance did conspire I say untill 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 it self and such as conspired with it For concerning the use of Images in Sacris First It is ackowledged 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 enjoyning of the practice of such a thing be ought 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 benè 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 expresly 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 Heresie is an act of the Will not of Reason and is indeed a Lye not a mistake Else how could that known speech of Austine go for true Errare possum Haereticus esse nolo Indeed Manichaeism Valentianism 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 Nostorius 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 erorr 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 Opinontium Unitas are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or that Men of different opininions in Christian Religion may not hold communion in Sacris and both go to one Church Why may I not go if occasion require to and Arrian Church so there be no Arrianism exprest in their Liturgy And were Liturgies and publick 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 Publick Service and Honour of God shall no ways suffer Whereas to load our Publick Forms with the Private Fancies upon which we differ is the most sovereign way to perpetuate Schism unto the Worlds 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 Musick of matter concerning the Dead of many superfluities which creep into the Churches under the name of Order and Decency did interpose it self For to charge Churches Liturgies with things unnecessary was the first beginning of all superstition and when scruples of Conscience began to be made or pretended then Schisms began to break in If the spiritual Guides and Fathers of the Church would be a little sparing of incumbring Churches with superfluities and not over rigid 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