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 Churches Infallibility I shall indeavour 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 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 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 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 dy 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 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 malitious 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 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-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 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 Waies 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 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 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 PARAPHRASE ON S. Matthew's Gospel By the ever Memorable Mr. JOHN HALES of Eaton-Colledge c. 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
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 beâ—â— 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 illâ— 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
Protestant Disputant seems to have gone a little beyond his Leader Had he exprest himself in the point of Bread and Wine what became of it whether it remain'd in its proper nature yea or no I could the better have fathom'd 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 nonsence 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 Catholick 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 Catholick 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 shew us at what price he purchased that degree of knowledg 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 knowledg 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 shew of knowledge abuse easie 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 erre out of some Protestant Writings For generally the Reformed Divines do falsly 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 meer Trope and from hence it must needs follow that in some sence they must needs be taken literally which is enough to plead authority for the Gentlemans Error But that which they preach concerning a real presence and participation of Christs Body in the Sacrament they expound not by a supposal that the Bread becomes Gods Body but that together with the Sacramental Elements there is conveighed into the Soul of the worthy Receiver the very Body and Blood of God but after a secret ineffable and wonderfull 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 Scepticks and determine not This conceit besides the falshood of it is a meer novelty neither is it to be found in the Books of any of the Antients 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 imploy 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 testifie 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 subsistance 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 Gods 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 Judgment both of the thing it self 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 fince 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 sence 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 my self 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 Catholick 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 my self 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 Catholick 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 willfully then there could be no Heresie Heresie being nothing else but wilful Error For if we account mistakes befalling us through humane Frailties to be Heresies then it will follow That every man since the Apostles time was an Heretick 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 confest 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 indued 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 confest 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 Souldier indeed may run away but a whole Army cannot especially having Hannibal for their Captain and since it is confest 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 vertuous the most likely to walk uprightly No the greatest the most ambitious and many times men neither of Judgment 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 shews That Nunquam ita bene agitur cum rebus humanis ut plures sint meliores It was never heard
is not meant the very next immediate Instant of time to that when he spake 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 Christs dwelling in Nazareth when he was a Child of about two years old immediately subjoyns 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 't is very likely they walk't 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 then 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 shew me Mast And peradventure I shall shew 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 Carryers and Merchants with such others even on the Sabbath-Day I should rather encline 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 seemes 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 Shew-Bread 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 expresly that David did eat the Shew-Bread 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 entred 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 prophane 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 hindred 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