A TRACT concerning the SIN against the HOLY GHOST.

MAny have Writ­ten of the Sin against the Ho­ly Ghost, and in defining or des­cribing of it, fol­low their own zealous conceits, and not the Canon of Holy Scrip­tures. The more dreadful the Sin is, the more fearful we must be, in charging it upon any spe­cial crime, or particular person. In defining a sin of so heynous a nature, direct and evident proof [Page 2] from Scripture is requisite. It is not enough to consider, (as many do) what sins are most desperate and deadly, and therefore to conclude such sins are against the Holy Ghost. Thus indeed the School­men have done, who have made six differences of this sin, V. in fine. without any ground or warrant from Scripture for so do­ing. And Bellarmine is so liberal in bestowing on such as he calls Hereticks, that his opinion is, that a Man can scarce be a learned Pro­testant, without committing the sin against the Holy Ghost. Neither are the Papists the only Men that are mistaken about this sin: but too many Divines of the Refor­med Churches, have started aside from the Scripture, and have gi­ven us such intricate and contra­dictory [Page 3] definitions of this sin, as tend only to the perplexing the tender Consciences of weak Chri­stians. To make good this Cen­sure, I will briefly set down so much touching this sin, as I con­ceive is warranted by the Word of God, and humbly submit to the judgment of the Learned.

The Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, was an evil speak­ing of, or slandering of the Mi­racles which our Saviour did, by those, who though they were con­vinced by the Miracles, to believe that such Works could not be done, but by the power of God, yet they did malitiously say, they were wrought by the power of the Devil.

In this Definition, these points are observable.

[Page 4]1. I forbear to call it the sin against the Holy Ghost, but the Blasphemy; for though every Blasphemy be a sin in general, yet our Saviour Christ, terms it the Blasphemy. And the Evan­gelists do all agree, to give it the same term: and 'tis now here in ho­ly Scripture called the sin against the Holy Ghost; and yet it appears both in St. Mathew and St. Mark, that there was just occasion offe­red to our Saviour to call it so; where he compares it with the sin against the Son of Man; but he forbears to call it any thing, but the Blasphemy; thereby, no doubt, to teach us, it consisteth only in cursed speaking and Blas­pheming. A serious conside­ration of this point, may teach us so much moderation, as to [Page 5] confine our selves to that term which our Saviour in the three Evangelists hath prescribed unto us. I cannot find that any Man that hath writ upon this Argu­ment, hath made any observati­on, or noted this phrase and term used by the Evangelists, in pro­nouncing the dreadful sentence of our Saviour against the Blas­phemy of the Holy Ghost, I will cite these Texts, where it is named, Math. 12. 31. Mark 3. 28▪ Luke▪ 12▪ 10.

2. A second Observation is, That Blasphemy is a speaking against another, as both St. Ma­thew and St. Luke expound the word, for in the Original, it is a blasting the Fame, or blaming of another; for from the Greek word [...] both the French [Page 6] Nation and our English by con­traction have made the word blame.

3. To pass from the Name to the Thing it self, we may observe by the coherence of the Texts, that Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, was spoken of by our Sa­viour, concerning the Scribes and Pharisees. It was (saith St. Mark) because the Pharisees said, he had an unclean spirit, and that he cast our Devils by Belze­bub, &c. This speech of the Pharisees, whereby they slande­red his Miracles, wrought by the power of the Holy Ghost, is properly the Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. How transcen­dent a crime it was, to traduce that power by which our Saviour wrought his Miracles, may ap­pear, [Page 7] from the end for which these Miracles were wrought; which was, to prove to the peo­ple that saw them, that he was the Messias; which is evident from the places of Scripture, wherein he appealed to his works, 10 Joh. 37. 38. 14. Joh. 11. 11 Math. 4. 4. Joh. 29. These and other places shew, that the working of Miracles, was an act of the most glorious manifestation of the power of God, by which at the first view, the simplest peo­ple were led by their outward sense, to the great mystery of inward Faith in Christ their Re­deemer.

Therefore, for those men that were eye-witnesses of those Mi­racles which did make them know that Christ was a Teacher come [Page 8] from God, to Blaspheme that power, by which these Miracles were wrought, and to say they were done by the help of the De­vil, was the most spightful and malicious slander that could be invented; for thereby they at­tempted, as much as in them lay, to destroy the very principles of Faith, and to prevent the very first propagation of the Gospel, to the universal mischief of all Mankind. And though these Pharisees were no Christians, and therefore could not fall away from faith, which they never had, yet they did know and believe that Christ was a Teacher come from God; for so our Saviour tells them, 7 Joh. 28. Ye both know me, and whence I am. They did not believe him as a Saviour, [Page 9] but as a great Prophet from God; (as the Mahometans do at this very day) they trusted to be saved by their Law, and because he taught such things as did abrogate their Law, in which they so much gloried, they were so malicious to his Doctrine, which they did not believe, that they spoke evil of his Miracles which they did believe; least the people by ap­proving his Miracles, should be­lieve his Doctrine.

4. Observe, that its said to be Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, because, by the Holy Ghost, the Miracles were wrought Math. 12 28. 1 Cor 12. 10.

5. The Blasphemy against the Son of Man was, when men considered Christ as a mere man, and did disgracefully tax his con­versation, [Page 10] by saying, behold a glutton, a bibber of Wine, a friend to Publicans and sinners. But the Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, was, when Men be­holding Christs Miracles, did enviously ascribe them to the De­vil, which they knew and believed to be done by Gods power.

6. The Texts formerly cited out of the three Evangelists, being all the places wherein the Blas­phemy against the Holy Ghost is named; we cannot find by them, that we have any safe rule to conclude, that any but the Scribes and Pharisees, and their confederates, committed that sin. I dare not say, that Judas, Julian the Apostate, or Simon Magus, or those that stoned Stephen, were guilty thereof.

[Page 11]7. The Apostles have not in any of their Epistles once men­tioned this Blasphemy, and yet they were most careful and fre­quent in exhortations from all sorts of sin: It were much there­fore if they should omit or forget such a fearful crime, without of­ten and precise admonishing to beware of it. And though ne­gative proofs from Scripture, are not demonstrative, yet the ge­neral silence of the Apostles, may at least help to infer a pro­bability, that the Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, is not committable by any Christian, which lived not in the time of our Saviour. As for those Texts in the sixth and tenth Chapter to the Hebrews, and in 1 John 5. 16. (which by late Divines are▪ [Page 12] expounded of the sin against the Holy Ghost) I do not find that the Ancient Fathers did so un­derstand them, excepting only St. Austine, who so interprets that one place in St. John, that all men confess him to be in an error. There be three Texts in the Epistles, wherein although the Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost be not named, yet, most think, it is intended and meant. And Bellarmine confuting St. Austin's opinion, who held, that final impenitency was the sin against the Holy Ghost) affirms, that it seems the three Texts in the Epistles, are spoken of that sin; and yet this great Cardinal forgetting what he had said in the same Chapter contradicts him­self, and shews how that those [Page 13] three places are not to be inter­preted of that sin. I will cite the Texts, and then his inter­pretation of them, according to the exposition of St. Ambrose, Chrysostom, Hierom, and other Fathers, as he saith.

The first is Heb. 6. It is im­possible, &c. The Apostle here speaks only of Repentance, which did go before Baptisme, for so Chrysostome and Ambrose, &c. expound it; which the Apostle intimates in these words. Which were once enlightened, that is, Baptized, for anciently, to be illuminated, signified to be Baptized. Secondly, in these words (to renew again) for we are properly renewed in Bap­tisme. Thirdly, in these (cruci­fying the Son of God afresh) for [Page 14] when we are Baptized, we are conformed to the likeness of his death, 6 Rom. And as Christ was only once crucified, so also we are only once Baptized; and he that will be again Baptized, should again crucifie to himself Ghrist. Let me add this, that in the verses next before this Text, the Apostle speaks of the founda­tion of Repentance, and the Doctrine of Baptisme. And in this Text, our new Translation followeth Beza (who hath vari­ed from the Original, by putting the conditional Si, If, instead of the Copulative Et, And, and by adding the Causal Ut.) so that whereas Beza and our Translati­on is, si prolabantur ut crucifigant, The Greek, and vulgar Latine is, [...], prolapsi [Page 15] sunt crucifigentes; for the word doth not signify to fall away, but to fall casually or negligent­ly, so [...] Galat 6. is trans­lated fault, but not falling away.

The second Text is, Hebrews 10. 26. For if we sin willingly or wilfully, after we have receiv­ed the knowledge of the Truth, there remains no more sacrifice for sin. Answer, I say with Chry­sostom, Ambrose, and other Fa­thers; The sence is, we must not expect another Christ to dye for us, or that he that dyed once, should come again to dye for us.

The third Text, 1 Joh 5. 16. There is a sin unto death: I do not say ye shall pray for it; St. Hierom saith, that nothing else is here meant, but that a Prayer for a sin unto death, is very hard­ly [Page 16] or difficultly heard; and this seems to be the truest sense of this place: for St. John saith, in the verse immediately before, we know we have the Petitions we desire of him; therefore least we should think this to hold true in all Petitions even for others▪ he adds▪ if any Man see his Bro­ther sin a sin, which is not unto death, he shall ask, &c. he shall ask, that is, let him ask with con­fidence, for he shall obtain; but if it be a sin unto death, that is, a great sin, such an one as is not ordinarily pardoned, but puni­shed with death: I do not say, ye shall pray for it, that is I dare not promise that you shall easily obtain, and therefore I do not say that you shall pray for it, that is, with that confidence of obtain­ing; [Page 17] for often in such cases, God doth nothear the Prayers of his Saints; as God saith, Jer. 7. 16. If these expositions upon the former Texts be sound, the Definition of the sin against the Holy Ghost, cannot be grounded upon all or any of them: for as it is not name­ed, so it is not meant in any of them; but if they seem to any to be unsound, let him bring better and more agreeable to the literal meaning and sence, cohe­rence and scope of the Text, and I shall gladly learn. It seems a probable exposition of the first place, Heb. 6. that a learned Di­vine, who produceth this Text for proof of his definition of the sin against the Holy Ghost, doth confess against himself, that the Apostle in this place denieth a se­cond [Page 18] Baptisme, where he speak­eth of Repentance, because they are mentioned together in the same place, and have some affi­nity and correspondence. As for the second Text, Heb. 10. I must say, that if St. Paul in this place, meant the sin against the Holy Ghost, that then this were the only desperate Text in the whole Bible, for what Man is there that sins not willingly; for so the word [...] properly sig­nifies: Beza translates it ultro, the vulgar Latine, voluntariè, or willingly, not wilfully, or ob­stinately. It is but a miserable shift, when St. Paul saith, if we sin willingly, for Mr Calvin to tell us, that the Text doth not mean every willing sin, but only a ma­litious resisting of the Truth. [Page 19] Could not St. Paul, as easily as Mr Calvin, have said, If we sin malitiously, as say, if we sin willingly? My comfort is, that if the Text be advisedly consi­dered, there is no such thing as the sin against the Holy Ghost, or any other desperate conclusi­on, to be found in the Text; the scope of the precedent verses do evidently expound the Apostles meaning to be this, to let the Jews know, that the case was not now with them, as it was under the Law; for under the Law they had daily sacrifice for sin, but now under the Gospel they had but one sacrifice, once for all; every Priest standeth dai­ly ministring and offering often times the same sacrifice, but this Man after he had offered one [Page 20] sacrifice, for ever sate down at the right hand of God, as it is, verse 11. of that Chapter, which may serve for a comment upon the Verse now in question. And it is worth our noting, that the Text doth not say, if we sin wil­fully, there is no sacrifice for sin; this had been an hard saying in­deed; but the words are, there remains no more sacrifice for sin: there is some comfortable diffe­rence, I hope, between these two propositions; there is no sacrifice, and there remains no more 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. [Page 21] 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 [Page 22] 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 [Page 23] 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 [Page 24] 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 [Page 25] 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 [Page 26] 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, [Page 27] 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 [Page 28] 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 [Page 29] 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 [Page 30] 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 [Page 31] 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 [Page 32] 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 [Page 33] 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, [Page 34] 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 [Page 35] 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 [Page 36] 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 [Page 37] 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 [Page 38] against the Son. This opi­nion is false, because the Sin a­gainst the Holy Ghost, must be a Sin of some certain Blasphemy, but malice is no certain Sin, but a General, and 'tis not always a Blasphemy.

The six differences the School­men make of the Sin against the Holy Ghost, are these;

1. Envying of our 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.

A Tract on the Sacra­ment of the LORDS SUPPER.

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 Points therein [Page 40] discust are no other than the sub­ject of every common Pamphlet, and sufficiently known (that I may so say) in every Barbers 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 cōmon 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 [Page 41] 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, [Page 42] and suppose, That upon the pro­nouncing of those words, some­thing befalls that action, which otherwise would not; and that without those words the action were lame. Sir, I must confess my ignorance unto you. I find no ground for the necessity of this do­ing. Our Saviour instituting that Holy Ceremony, commands us to do what he did, leaves us no Pre­cept of saying any words; nei­ther will it be made appear, that either the blessed Apostles, or Pri­mitive Christians had any such Custom: Nay the contrary will be made probably to appear out of some of the antientest Writings of the Churches Ceremonials. Our Saviour indeed used the Words, but it was to express what his meaning was; had he barely act­ed [Page 43] the thing, without expressing himself by some such Form of Words, we could never have known what it was he did. But what necessity is there now of so doing? for when the Congrega­tion is met together, to the break­ing of Bread and Prayer, and see Bread and Wine upon the Com­munion Table, is there any man can doubt of the meaning of it, although the Canon be not read? It was the farther 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 [Page 44] ground for my Religion, neither in Substance nor in Ceremony. The main Foundation that up­holds the necessity of this form of action now in use, is Church-Custom and Church-Error.

Now for that Topique place of Church-Custom, it is generally too much abused: For whereas na­turally the necessity of the thing ought to give warrant to the pra­ctice of the Church; I know not by what device matters are turned about, and the customary practice of the Church is alledged to prove the necessity of the thing; as if things had received their Original from the Church-Authority, and not as the truth is, from an high­er Hand. As for the Churches Er­ror, on which I told you this Form of action is founded, it consists in [Page 45] 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 Gabij, then newly taken? He answered no­thing▪ [Page 46] But with his Wand struck off the tops of the highest Popies; and the Messenger understanding his meaning, cut off the Heads of the chief of the City. Had this been done in Sacris, it had been forth­with truly a Sacrament, or holy Mystery. Cum in omnibus Scientiis vo­ces significent res, hoc habet proprium Theologia, quòd ipsaeres significatae per voces, etiam significent aliquid, saith Aquinas; and upon the second sig­nification are all Spiritual and my­stical senses founded: So that in Sacris, a Mystery or Sacrament is then acted, when one thing is done and another is signified, as it is in the Holy Communion, though nothing be said at all. The ancient Sacrifices of the Jews, whether weekly, monethly, or yearly, their Passover, their sitting in Boothes, [Page 47] &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 [Page 48] 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 many formalities, and cere­monial circumstances upon no warrant but their own; which cir­cumstances by long use, begat in the minds of men a conceit, that they were essential parts of that to which indeed they were but appen­dant; and that only by the device of [Page 49] some who practised a power in the Church morethan was convenient.

Thus much for the first com­mon mistake.

The Second is worse than it; You see that both parts agreed in the acknowledgment of the real presence of the Body of Christ in the Eucharist, though they differ in the manner of his Presence, and application of himself to the recei­ver; though the Protestant Dispu­tant seems to have gone a little be­yond his Leader: Had he 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 [Page 50] 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, [Page 51] 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 [Page 52] 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 [Page 53] 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, [Page 54] 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. [Page 55] 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 [Page 56] 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, [Page 57] 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 [Page 58] 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 [Page 59] 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 [Page 60] 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 [Page 61] 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.

[Page 62]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 [Page 63] 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 [Page 64] 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 [Page 65] 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 [Page 66] 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 [Page 67] 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 [Page 68] 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 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 [Page 69] 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, [Page 70] 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 [Page 71] 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, [Page 72] 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, [Page 73] 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 [Page 74] 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 [Page 75] 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 [Page 76] 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, [Page 77] 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 [Page 78] 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 [Page 79] 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 [Page 80] 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 [Page 81] 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, [Page 82] 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, [Page 83] 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, [Page 84] 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.

A PARAPHRASE on St. Matthews Gospel. CHAP. XII.

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.

[Page 90]

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.

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.

By these Words, at that time, is not meant the very next immediate Instant of time, to that, when he spake the last words going before; but such a conve­nient [Page 91] 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.

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.

How come you to be troubled at that? Is it not said in [Page 92] plain Terms, they plucked the Ears of Corn, & did eat them. Why should not you think that this was their fault?

I shall tell you why: To my thinking, there are three things said, 1. That they went through the Corn. 2. That they plucked the Ears. 3. That they eat them. Now whether all these or one of these was their Fault, I cannot tell; and I shall tell you the Reason of my doubt.

First, It is true that their very Walking might have been their fault, because it was not lawful on the Sabbath, to walk above the space of two thousand Cubits, and we know not how far Christ & the Disciples might have come that day; But yet methinks, if that had been it, they should have reproved Christ as well as his Disciples, be­cause 'tis very likely they walk't the [Page 93] 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.

And peradventure I shall shew you more in that than you thought on. It is true that the ge­neral [Page 94] 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 [Page 95] 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 [Page 96] their fault was, you had best put them both together and you will not miss.

I thank you for this Light, I wish you could give me as good in my next Objection.

I shall do my best, what is that I pray?

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?

[Page 97]

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.

[Page 98]

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.

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.

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?

[Page 99]

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 not thought [Page 100] to prophane the Sabbath; and therefore, there is less reason that my Disciples, who are Prophets, should be thought to prophane it, in doing of that which is a less work than theirs; And that this is the Scope of his Reply, will ap­pear by that which follows, when he saith, That in this place, there is One greater than the Temple, in the 6th Verse; For, the truth is, eve­ry Prophet was greater than the Temple, that is, he was obliged in no case to the Laws & Customs of the Temple; but might sacri­fice out of it, when he pleased, as appears in the practice of Eliah. And whereas it may be Objected, That the Priestly Function, on the Sabbath, could not be performed without the Labour of Offering, but the Prophetical Function of [Page 101] the Disciples might be performed on the Sabbath, without plucking ears and eating: The answer is, that both our Saviour and his Dis­ciples were so intent upon their Prophetical Employment, that, as elsewhere, they forgat to take Bread, So here, they either forgat, or had no time for the provision of victu­als before the Sabbath, whereon to feed on the Sabbath.

I apprehend your mean­ing, and desire you to make the force of Christs third Argument as evident unto me, which fol­lows in the seventh Verse, where he saith, But if ye had known what this meaneth; I will have mercy and not sacrifice, ye would not have con­demned the guiltless.

His meaning is no more but this, That when two Laws [Page 102] seem to clash so against one ano­ther, that both cannot be kept; the better is to be observed, and the worse omitted; The Law which willeth us to do good to all men, and to further them in the means of their Salvation, which to a Christian is a Law Moral, never to be omitted; is better than the Law which willeth us not to work or eat upon the Sabbath, which is onely a Law Ritual: Christ could not intend to teach, and the Disciples intend to pre­pare and fit the minds of the peo­ple to be taught, and withall in­tend the preparing of such things, as were requisite to the strict ob­servation of the Sabbath; And therefore in Equity, the Law of the Sabbath ought to give place to the Law of Instructing the World in [Page 103] the ways of Happiness, and not to have justled with it.

I conceive this Argument, but yet methinks, there follows somewhat like a Reason, which I do not yet conceive, in the next verse; For the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath; Pray shew me what the meaning is of that.

They that by the [ Son of Man] here, understand Christ, or the Messias, do mistake; for in that acceptation of the Words, the Reason doth not hold: for if Christ had meant onely, that he as the Messias, was Lord of the Sabbath, and so could abrogate it at his pleasure, then what need­ed all the three other Arguments, that went before? By the [ Son of Man] therefore is to be under­stood every common ordinary [Page 104] man, as appears most evidently by that of St. Mark 2. 27. The Sab­bath was made for Man, and not Man for the Sabbath. Besides, at this time, Christ neither had preached, nor would have others to preach, that He was the Messiah; and a good while after this, as you may see in Matth. 16. 20. He charged, that they should tell it no man, &c. The sense therefore of the words, is this: That which is ordained for another thing, ought to give place to that thing, for which it is ordain­ed: But the Sabbath was ordain'd for Man, every Man; therefore it ought to give place unto Him; namely, when a thing so nearly concerning Man, as his Salvation, steppeth in between. For, to be [ Lord of the Sabbath] is, to dis­pose and order the Sabbath unto [Page 105] his own use, and to have a Right so to order, and dispose it.

I thank you for the pains: and because I have put you to so much already, I shall trou­ble you with nothing concerning the next Story of the man which had the withered hand, because, I think I do well enough understand it; only, let me desire you to give me your opinion, why, when our Saviour Christ had healed him, and divers other men, of their diseases: It is added in the 16th verse of this Chapter, And he charged them; that they should not make him known?

Truly, that which was the cause of his secess, or his withdrawing himself from them, in the Verse before may very well be conceived the cause also of this injoyn'd silence; namely, that He [Page 106] might be fafer from all violence, and force. But, they which say, that He did it out of charity to those Pharisees who did seek his life, say not amiss: as Origen reports of A­ristotle, that he withdrew himself from Athens, not for his own sake; but for the Athenians sake, lest he should give them an occasion of committing another murther, after the murther of Socrates. Hitherto, as yet, this Zeal and endeavours of the Pharisees to maintain the Tra­ditions of their Elders, and the Re­ligion of their Fathers, might seem somewhat excusable; and there­fore, Christ adding Miracle to Miracle, did wait for their repen­tance and amendment: in the mean time, preventing them by escapes, and concealing of himself, from doing him any violence or [Page 107] mischief, till such time, as that, resisting the Light and Testimony of their own Conscience (as some of them did, very shortly after, as we shall see anon) they had more deservedly drawn upon them­selves, the guilt of that innocent blood, which afterwards fell upon their heads: So, that when Christ, charged them that they should not make Him known; He meant, only that they should not discover where He was, that so with the more silence, and less opposition, He might do the business of his Fa­ther: and this sense is agreeable to that which follows out of the Pro­phet Isaiah, in the 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 Verses.

I take it to be so indeed: but in these words out of Isaiah, there is somewhat which does [Page 108] much trouble me how to under­stand; and that is, the latter part of the 20. verse; where it is said, Till he send forth Judgment unto Victo­ry: Pray, what do you take to be the meaning of those words?

I shall run through the whole words of the Prophet, and by that you will better under­stand that part. These words of the Prophet Isaiah are produced by St. Matth. for a confirmation of that Meekness, Humility, Quietness and Silence, with which the great business of our Salvation was to be dispatched: For, by these words [ I will put my Spirit on Him] is un­derstood the Spirit of Meekness, Gentleness and Humility, which was emblem'd in the Dove, when it came upon him; and by those words [ and he shall shew Judgment [Page 109] unto the Gentiles] is understood the preaching of the Christian Law; and therefore, if you mark it in the 42 of Isaiah, and the 4th verse, it is added, as an explication of the word [ Judgment] going before; And the Isles shall wait for his Law. When He comes to preach this Law, or, to shew forth this Judg­ment, saith the Prophet, He shall not strive, nor cry; that is, He shall discover no sign of anger, or dis­composure in his mind; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets, saith the Prophet; that is, He shall cause no Tumult or popu­lar Hubbub; He shall not expose the vices of Men to the knowledge and censure of the World, of whom He hath but the least Hope that they will amend. A bruised Reed shall he not break, saith the Prophet; [Page 110] that is, the mind which is afflicted, He shall not afflict more: and the smoaking flax shal he not quench; that is, where he does but see a little smoak, He will look for some fire; He will so comply with the weaknesses and infirmities of all Mankind, that he will not be out of hope to cherish them up into Virtues. And all this he will do, saith the Prophet, Till he send out Judgment unto Victory; of which words, whatsoever the sense or meaning be, this is plain, that they contain the success or event of that Meekness, Gentleness, and Quietness, which went before. Now, taking it for granted, that there is nothing left out in these words, as St. Jerom does suspect, I can imagine but two senses that can be put upon them: and those two senses arise out of the two se­veral [Page 111] acceptations of the word [ Judgment.] For, First, If by [ Judgment] in this place, be meant the same, which was meant by [ Judgment] in the 18th verse, going before; then the sense of the words is this; He shall preach the Christian Law, with all Meek­ness and Mildness, maugre all op­position and malice of those that do oppugn it, till that Law have prevailed, or gotten the victory; that is, till the greatest part of all the World embrace it: and this sense is no improper sense, if we look no further. But then, Second­ly, If by [ Judgment] be meant, the disceptation, or discussion of a Cause (in which sense it is often taken in the Scriptures) then the meaning of the words is this; He shall use so much Meekness and [Page 112] Gentleness, in working upon the minds of all Men in the World, that, let any Man sit in Judgment upon that which he hath done, and he shall carry the Cause, or bear away the Victory. To this pur­pose saith the Psalmist of God, that, He is clear when he is judged, Psal. 51. 6. And in this sence God saith of himself, O ye men of Judah, judg ye, I pray you, between my Vmeyard and Me, Isa. 5. 3. And in this Judgment Christ got the Victory, when with all Patience and Long-sufferance, with all Gentleness and Meekness, He en­dured the perverse and crooked dispositions of the People of the Jews, and spared no Time or La­bour to reform them, if they would have hearkned unto him.

[Page 113]

Sir, I confess there is much reason in what you say, but methinks it seems a little strain­ed sense, to be put upon those words, as you read them, Till he shall send forth Judgment; for ac­cording to your sence, we should read them thus, at least, Till he shall carry away the Judgment with Victory, or, to Victory.

You have judged very right, and so indeed should we read them; For the word [...], which we render [ shall send forth] is of the same signification with [...], which doth signify [ to car­ry away.] But you must bear with more faults in the Translation of your Testament than this, and I hope you will bear with me, if I tell you plainly of them when I meet with them.

[Page 114]

I beseech you do, for though I have a very great opinion of those Men who did translate the Testament; yet I would be loth to be a loser by my reverence. But if you please, I will proceed in framing my Objections.

You shall not need, for I foresee whither you are driving, even towards the great Scruple that affrights the World, the Sin against the Holy Ghost, of which there is mention in this Chapter, upon the occasion of Christs heal­ing of the blind and dumb man, possessed of the Devil, in the 22 Verse of this Chapter.

I was indeed, and there­fore if you please, let us come un­to that Story.

With all my heart; And first, I must let you know, that so [Page 115] soon as the Pharisees saw that great Miracle which Christ had done; they said, that he casteth out Devils by Beelzebub, the Prince of the Devils, in the 24th verse of this Chapter; and truly this was no unusual practice amongst the Sor­cerers and Magicians, as is evident by many of the ancient Poets: when they could not prevail any other way, to use the help of the great and chiefest Devil (whose name they would threaten him to publish, if he did not help them) to expell, or cast out other less Devils that possessed Men; In Iamblichus there is mention of that Form, in which they threatned him; and Porphiry says, that his name was Serapis. But, our Sa­viour sufficiently refuteth that ca­lumny, several ways. First, By [Page 116] a common and known Axiom amongst themselves, Every King­dom divided, &c. and the meaning thereof is this; That the Devils are wise, there is no question: but they that are wise, will rather seek to establish Themselves and their own Power, which is done by Concord and Agreement, than to distract and dislocate it, which is done by Faction and Division; therefore it is not likely that the Devils will so differ and disagree, as the one to expell the other, as they would perswade the World. Secondly, By Retortion, in these words, If I by Beelzebub do cast out Devils, by whom do your children cast them out? vers. 27. And the force of Christs Argument is this: In a like Cause, Equity will that men give a like judgment; when your [Page 117] Disciples do cast out Devils, do not you think that they cast them out by a divine Power? There­fore so should you even think of me, if you thought aright: But I should take this to be an Ironie rather.

I consess I did partly con­ceive the Scope of these two Argu­ments before, but that which fol­lows, I do not understand, But if I cast out Devils by the Spirit of God, then is the Kingdom of God come unto you: Pray make me understand it, that is, First, What is meant by the [ Kingdom of God?] Secondly, What is the meaning of this Conse­quence, If I by the Spirit of God cast out Devils, then is the Kingdom of God come unto you, For I see not how it follows.

By the Kingdom of God [Page 118] is meant the Time of the Messiah's being in the World, as in Dan. 4. 29. and Dan. 7. 14. And the Consequence there inferred, is this, That as God, by sundry Works and Miracles, gave his people of Israel a Sign of their instant Deli­verance out of Egypt; So the great Miracles of Christ, were ordained by him, to be a Sign unto the World of a greater Deliverance, which was now working for them; and therefore where they saw the one, they should expect the other.

I believe you have guessed right; But what say you to the Verse which follows, Or else how can one enter into a strong mans house, and spoil his Goods, &c. It looks like another Argument, which Christ useth in his own defence against [Page 119] this Calumny of the Pharisees, but I confess, I do not yet appre­hend it.

It is not unlikely, but anon you will. This is indeed a third Argument of Christs, and it toucheth to the quick; for where­as his other two served onely to convince certain men, this comes to the very thing it self, and quite overthrows it: There have been, saith Christ, who have cast out Devils through Beelzebub: it may be so, but this hath been without any harm or loss, from the one unto the other; it hath not come to spoiling of Goods, to extirpate out of the minds of men any of their sins, but rather to encrease them: this hath been nothing but a meer collusion and cheat: But when I cast out Devils, you may [Page 120] see I spoil them to the purpose, I rob them of their power; for, I plant in the minds of men such Doctrine, as will admit of no vice and wickedness to be near it, (wherein the Power of the Devil does consist) and therefore you may well imagine, that I am in good earnest; for, I bind him and spoil him; which no one Devil ever yet did unto another, or ever will.

I shall desire to put you to no more trouble in this Verse: If you please, let us pass unto the next.

As I take it, that is this; He that is not with me, is against me; and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth abroad.

Truly, as the words stand alone, I should not trouble [Page 121] you at all with them, for to my thinking, they are easie enough; but, as they follow upon what went before, I see not what our Saviour Christ might intend by them.

Having declared himself to be so far from casting out De­vils in the name of Beelzebub, that He laboured to bind even Beel­zebub himself, and to spoil him of all his power, which he exercised in the hearts of wicked men; He carries the consideration of this Enmity between the Devil and Himself to such a height, as that He will not admit of any Neutra­lity, in any other Man; profes­sing, that whosoever is not the Devil's enemy, is his; according to that Axiom of the Wars, Me­dii habentur pro Hostibus: All indif­ferent [Page 122] men are Enemies. And if all this be not enough to shew how far He was from operating by the help of Satan, surely, nothing can be. And therefore having said this, conceiving he had said as much as Man could say, He adds: Wherefore I say unto you, (vers. 31.) that is, seeing it is evident by these Reasons and Ar­guments, that all the Signs and Miracles which I do, I do by the Power of God, and not by the help of the Devil: Consider what a wretched punishment you draw upon your selves, that thus do slander and bely me. This Con­nexion St. Mark does teach us plainly, Ch. 3. 30. where he says: Because they said, He hath an un­clean Spirit. And yet it is to be considered, that our Saviour Christ [Page 123] proceeds not meerly upon the strength of his own Arguments; but as knowing their Thoughts, as St. Matthew tells us, in the 2 [...] th verse of this Chapter, that is, He saw in unto them, and He knew that They verily believed, that the Miracle which he wrought, was wrought by the Power of God; but yet he saw, that they would rather invent any Lye, or asperse him with any slander (though they knew it well enough to be a Lye and slander) then to suffer the People to forsake their Chair, and to follow Christ.

I thank you, Sir, for this pains which you have taken, to prepare me for the understanding of my great Doubt, which now methinks, I begin to have a little [Page 124] glimpse of, but desire you to give me better Light.

I shall: But first, I would gladly know what you conceive of those words, in the 31. verse. All manner of Sin and Blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men; because, by understanding of what sin shall be forgiven, you will the more easily understand me, when I tell you, what manner of sin shall not.

Why Sir, I understand any manner of sin whatsoever: and I understand the sin of the Holy Ghost, to be the only sin which shall never be forgiven.

I did fear as much, and therefore I did ask you; But you must know that you are much mistaken, both in the one and in the other opinion; For First, It is to be considered, that Christ speaks [Page 125] not of all sin, but of that sin, which is Blasphemy or Calumny, (for there are many other sins which will never be forgiven, as well as the sin against the Holy Ghost,) And therefore in the next Verse he saith, Whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of Man, that is, whosoever slandereth or calum­niateth any other man, it shall be forgiven him; And in those words he expoundeth what he means by Sin and Blasphemy. Secondly, It is to be considered, that when he saith, All manner of Sin and Blas­phemy shall be forgiven, there is an Hebraism in those words, which is often met withall in Scripture; as in the 5 Chap. of St. Matthew, Heaven and Earth shall pass away, but my Words shall not pass away; that is, Heaven and Earth shall sooner [Page 126] pass away, than my words shall pass away; (and so St. Luke reads them) not that Heaven and Earth shall ever pass away, but that, if it were possible, they should sooner pass away than his Word shal. The meaning therefore of the words is onely this, All manner of Ca­lumnies and Slanders, are heavy sins, and shall hardly be forgiven to those that do commit them; but they will be more easily forgiven, than that Calumny, which he knows to be a Calumny, who doth commit it: and this Christ calls Blaspheming of the Holy Ghost; which was the Case of these Pharisees, who calumnia­ted the Miracle which our Saviour wrought, as proceeding from the Devil, which their own Consci­ence [Page 127] told them, issued from the Holy Spirit of God.

I confess, Sir, this is very plain and easie; and I pray, pro­ceed to the 33. verse. Either make the Tree good, and his Fruit good, &c. saith Christ: The dependance of those words, is this: You say, I work by the Devil, saith Christ: But you do not see any other work of mine, besides this Miracle, which looks like a work of the Devil: You see, I go about doing good; I exhort People to Repentance, I shew them the way to Heaven: These are no works which the Devils use to do: Therefore, ei­ther say, that I do all this in the name of Beelzebub too; or else, acknowledge that I do my Mira­cles by the Power of God: for, Men judge of the Quality of the [Page 128] Mind, by the common Actions, or Habits of their Life, as they do of Trees, by the Fruits which they produce, be they good or evil. And that this is true, saith Christ, you may judge by your own selves: For, How can ye, being evil, speak good things? saith He, ver. 34. That is, you can never do it. A dissembled and forc'd Mind will quickly shew it self, some way or other, and will return unto its wonted habit; and therefore, as you may judge by your selves, that because you speak and do no­thing but that which is evil, there­fore▪ you your selves are evil: So you should judge of Me, that be­cause you see, I say and do no­thing but that which is Good, there­fore I am good; and therefore [Page 129] that Spirit which works in Me is good.

I apprehend all this; and therefore shall save you the labour of expounding that which follows, for I see, it all tends to the same end and scope; only, methinks I am much streightned in my mind, about the 36th verse, which forbids all idle words: for, if we must give account of every one such, God be merciful unto me, and to many thousand more; Pray, make me to understand the full latitude of this Commination of Christ.

Whatsoever is meant by this idle Word here, you may be sure it hath reference to that Word which the Pharisees had spoke of Christ, when they said, He cast out Devils in the name of Beelzebub, for Christ hath not done with this [Page 130] Calumny of theirs yet; but conti­nues his discourse upon it, till the 38. Verse of this Chapter; Now considering this [ Idle Word] in that reference, it is most reasona­ble to expound it, not of every Word which a man speaks, of which there is no profit, or which is good for nought, (for if that Exposition should be true, which God forbid, yet it were not perti­nent,) but of such a Word, where­in there is no Truth; For by Idle, and Vain, in holy Scripture, is of­ten understood that which is false: And so to take the Name of God in Vain, in the Commandments, is to swear falsely: So that the Scope of Christ in those Words is this, Do you think that you shall escape for this horrid Calumny which you have cast upon me, [Page 131] knowing it to be a Calumny in your own hearts? I tell you nay; for no man shall escape in the day of Judgment, for calumniating another man falsely, though he do not know that that Calumny is false; and therefore much less shall you. By which we may learn, if not to avoid all idle Words, (which to the nature and education of man is almost quite impossible,) yet to beware of calumniating persons, not only when we know that Calumny is false, (which doubtless is a very grievous sin) but when we are not evidently ascertain'd that the thing is true. And therefore it is the special Office of a good Christian, to refrain his Tongue altogether in that Point, for it is a rare thing for a man to give him­self [Page 132] the liberty, to repeat that of another which is false, and not to wish it true.

I thank you for this Satis­faction, and by Gods help shall endeavour to frame my Life and Conversation accordingly; for I perceive it is a Sin, which the World taketh little notice of; though indeed it be the destructi­on of Charity, without which no man is a Christian: For so they avoid doing of that which is notoriously Evil, they care not what they say of any man. Now if you please, we will proceed to that which follows, I pray, what do the Scribes and Pharisees mean to desire a Sign from Christ, in the 31th Verse of this Chapter, who had seen so many before; [Page 133] for, methinks it seems a very im­pertinent Request.

Some Interpreters are of opinion that these Scribes and Pha­risees were not the same, who saw those late Miracles which our Sa­viour did; and they ground their opinion upon Luke 11. 16. where it is said, That others tempted him, seeking a Sign from Heaven; But, up­on examination, that opinion will not hold. The better answer is, that they did not desire a bare sign, or a Miracle, of which they had seen enough already; but they de­sired a Sign from Heaven (as St. Luke speaks) that is, that God by some strange Prodigy there, should declare him to be a Prophet sent from him, if so be he were so in­deed: For, as for those Miracles which he did on Earth, they were [Page 134] not satisfied with them, as appre­hending them pendulous between two several Powers; for as they they might come from God, so they might come from the Devil; but, in Heaven they thought the Devil had no Power.

I like your reason well; but, I pray, what doth Christ mean by that answer which he gives to their request in the 39, 40, 41, and 42 verses for I do not understand it perfectly?

The meaning of His An­swer is this; You would have a Sign from Heaven, and then you will believe me: God, that will omit no occasion to leave you un­excusable, hath given you Signs enough, here upon Earth; but he is not bound to satisfie your hu­mours, and give them where and [Page 135] when you would have them, he knows these which you have seen are sufficient to perswade Belief, if that your Avarice, and Profit, and Places which you hold in the present Jewish State, did not make you seek all Occasions and Cloaks for your Incredulity: And therefore, if those Signs which I have done on Earth, will not serve you; you shall have none from Heaven, but if you will, you shall have one from under the Earth, even the Sign of the Prophet Jonas, and that Sign not a Sign to convert you, who after so many Signs and Miracles will not be converted; but a Sign of my In­nocence, and your Malice, which will persecute me even unto the death, for all that Good which I have done amongst you.

[Page 136]

By this which you have said, I do not only perceive the Scope and Purport of Christs An­swer, which he gives them; but the Drift of Verse 41 and 42 also, wherein he complains, That they who had had so many Signs done amongst them, never would be­lieve; whereas those of Nineveh, and the Queen of the South, without any Sign or Miracle▪ wrought, either by Jonas, or Solomon, belie­ved all that was told them. But, I pray, how comes the next Dis­course in, concerning the unclean Spirit going out of a man, in the 43 Verse? And what is the Scope and Purport of that Discourse?

It is not improbable, That our Saviour Christ, being much afflicted with the evil and incredulous hearts of the people [Page 137] of the Jews, taketh a kind of Survey of that whole Na­tion, even from the time where­in they were first led away captive into Babylon, to the time when they were utterly destroyed by Titus. Before their Captivity, they were full of all manner of Wickedness, as appeareth by the Prophets; Under their Captivity, they were a little reclaimed, and upon that Amendment, were brought back again: But then af­ter their Return, in the times not long before our Saviours coming, they fell into such Vices, as were abominable, even in the Hea­thens themselves, as is manifest in Story; and to shut up all, added thereunto the Contempt of their own Messiah, sent amongst them with so much power, and yet with [Page 138] so much meekness, as man never came: Whereupon being justly forsaken of God, whom they had thus forsook, they became the most wretched and vicious people in the World, as Josephus doth de­scribe them to be, about their lat­ter times; And this Contemplati­on of their miserable Condition, our Saviour seems to insinuate, even unto themselves, in this kind of Parable of the unclean Spirit going out of a man, and return­ing back again. Of which, If that which I have said be not the Occasion, (as I do not avow, but only offer it unto you) yet cer­tainly this is the sence, That those men, who have once left and for­saken the vicious courses of their carnal life, if they ever relapse, and fall back again into them; [Page 139] all their latter sins are far more sinful than their former; Almighty God justly revenging the Con­tempt of that Grace, which he hath offered to them, by giving them up to all manner of wicked­ness and uncleanness.

I think you have guessed right, and to the purpose; But there are some terms, and phrases in this Parable or Story, or what­soever you will call it, which I do not understand as, First I pray what do you think Christ means by walking through dry places, and seeking rest, and finding none.

Dry and sandy Grounds are no fit places of Habitation, and such kind of places are all those places where the Devil doth abide when he is out of man, who is only capable of Vice and Sin, [Page 140] wherein the Devil taketh pleasure: And the meaning of Christ is this, That as a man that travels, is wea­ried with heavy, sandy, and dry way, more than with green, soft, and pleasant Fields; so the Devil is not half so well satisfied, when he enters into any other Creature, as when he enters into Man.

It may be so indeed but then, why taketh he seven Spirits, more wicked than himself? why is the number of Seven here pitch­ed on, more than any other?

The Number of Seven is the Number of Perfection, or the signification of that which, in its own kind, is grown to full ma­turity, whether it be good or evil. So St. John calleth the Holy Spirit of God the Seven Spirits, Rev. 1. 4. [Page 141] So the Barren is said to have born Seven, 1 Sam. 2. 5. that is, to have been as fruitful as any other Wo­man is, or can be. And there­fore when the unclean Spirit is said to take Seven other Spirits with him, the meaning only is, that that man becomes perfectly wick­ed, when that Spirit once returns again, whom before he had cast out.

I approve your Expositi­on of the Word, and think it like­ly. But I pray can you guess what business the Virgin, and the Brethren of Christ might have with him, because the Scripture saith They staied without, to speak with him, in the 47 Verse of this Chapter; peradventure you may think me curious, and therefore if Expositors have made no [Page 142] Conjecture thereupon, I will not urge you.

Truly they have, and I shall not conceal it from you: They do imagine, that his Mo­ther and his Kindred, having had some Inckling of the Pharisees conspiring against him, to do him mischief, desired to speak with him in private, and to contrive some way, to withdraw him out of danger: This will seem the more probable, if we consider that which St. Mark saith, Chap. 3. 21. That his Friends would fain have laid hold on him, saying, that he was beside himself; which in all likeli­hood, they said to make the Pha­risees the less active in contriving any mischief to him, as conceiving him a fitter Subject for their pity, than their hate; But it seems [Page 143] Christ would not hearken unto them, nay would not know them, as appears by the three last Verses of this Chapter, which are so plain and easy, that I dare not suspect your sense, and apprehen­sion of them.

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 com [...] to your par­ticulars, I will discover, as far as generality will give me leave, what it is which we intend, when we use this phrase of Speech. At the first appearance, it is plain, the [Page 148] form of words is not Proper, but Metaphorical. Now some Truth there is in that which you learnt in the Books of your Minority, from your Aristotle, [...]; and indeed could we but once agree what it is which that Metaphor doth intimate, the greatest part of the Dispute were at an end. The natural way to dis­cover this, is to see what the Use of Keys, properly taken, is; and after that, what means they are, which in our endeavours to attain to the Kingdom of Heaven, have some­thing proportionable to the Use of Keys: and thi [...] being once discove­red, there can remain no Question What are the Keys.

Now nothing is more known, than that the only Use of Keys is to Open and Shut, to admit us Unto, [Page 149] or exclude us from the possession of what we seek. Now since the Kingdom of Heaven is compared to a House, from which all the Sons of Adam, by Nature are excluded; whatsoever then it is that gives us way, that removes all Obstacle [...] which hinder us from entrance of that House, that certainly must be understood by the Name of Keys. Now all these means, or whatso­ever else it is which doth further us towards the possessing our selves of Eternal Life, they were all laid down in the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, committed by him fully and first of all to the dispen­sation of the blessed Apostles, to be reported by them, or their means, all the World over. So that I think I may safely lay thus much for the first Ground of the Question be­twixt [Page 150] your self and me, Claves Regni Coelorum sunt Doctrina Evan­gelii.

Now since Keyes are nothing without some hand to manage them, we must in the second place discover into whose hands they are committed. And for this purpose, first of all, It must not be denyed that principally and properly, (I might well enough add only, if I listed, but that I spare you) the Hand of God it is, that manages and applies these Keys; For of God and Christ it is written, He hath the Keys, he opens, and no man shuts; he shuts, and no man opens. Yet since it hath plea­sed God to use the Ministry of Men, to the saving of Men, and bringing them into the Kingdom of Heaven; In a secondary sense [Page 151] the Keys of that Kingdom are said to be put into the hands of Men. In as much as it hath pleased the Wisdom of God, not to use these Keys, at least as far as concerns the beneficial and opening part, some act of Man not first premi­sed; for since that Faith in Jesus Christ is the Sum of the Doctrine of the Gospel, and Faith cometh not but by hearing, and hearing cometh not but by preaching, and preaching is the act of Men alone, (for God employs not Angels in that behalf,) It appears that this Preaching, or manifestation of the Doctrine of the Gospel not per­formed, the Keys must needs be unprofitable. By the manifestati­on of the Gospel of God, I mean not only the labour of the lip, in expounding, praying, reproving, [Page 152] or the like, but the administration of Sacraments, the acting (if any thing beyond this is to be acted) whatsoever the manifestation of the Gospel requireth. So that I think I may set down for a second Ground towards the setling of the Point in question, thus much, That the managing or application of the Keys, so far forth as men are in­trusted with them, is, The Mani­festation of the Doctrine of the Gospel. Thus far have we opened in gene­ral the Substance of the Keys, and the Use of them. I come now to your Queries.

First, You ask of the quality of the Apostles receiving this Pow­er, whether they had it as Judg­es Authoritativè, or as Messengers, Declaratativè, only to propound, or denounce? You manifest your self [Page 153] for the former, and Reasons you bring, such as they be. Your Rea­sons I shall consider in their place, but I must first tell you that you ask amiss, for your question is concerning the whole Power of the Keys, but you answer only of a part, that is, of Sacramental Absolution only, as if all the Pow­er of the Keys resided there. So that here you use the Fallacy pluri­um Interrogationum; And I might well grant you, that indeed that part were Judicativè, but yet contend that all the rest were only Declarativè. To reduce you there­fore, I must do with you, as Phy­sicians in some cases deal with their Patients; ere I can come to purge the humour you are sick of, I must a little prepare you. The power of the Keys is exprest by [Page 164] the Learned in three yokes, or pairs of Words.

• 1. To remit, and to retain.
• 2. To loose, and to bind.
• 3. To open, and to shut.

On the one side, to remit, to loose, to open, which is the one half of the power, agree in one, and signify the same thing; so do the other three, to retain, to bind, to shut, which contain the other half. To your Question then, whether the power of the Keys be declara­tive only, I answer first: For this latter part or half, it is meerly de­clarative, neither can it be other­wise; which that you may see with your eyes, I must request you to observe, That all shutting of the Kingdom of Heaven, is ei­ther common to all, or casual, befalling only some. The common [Page 155] Exclusion is that state of Nature, wherein we all are involved, as we spring from the first Adam; The second Exclusion is that which befals Christians relapsing into sin. The first shutting was at the fall, and was then Prefigured unto us, by the barring up of the way unto the Tree of Life. What active, what judiciary part can a­ny Minister of the Gospel have here? all that the Apostles could do here, was but to open to men this their misery, a thing, before the death of our Saviour, either very sparingly, or not at all reveal­ed. Of this therefore you must needs quit your hands, and so you must of the other, I mean exclusi­on upon casuality and relapse. For when a man converted to Christianity, falleth eftsoons into [Page 156] some mortal sin, doth the Gate of Heaven stand open to him, till he fall upon some curst Priest, that used his Key to shut it?

There are in the World a kind of deceitful Locks with sliding Bolts, I have seen my self and o­thers much deceived by them, when the doors have fallen at our heels, and lockt us out when we intended no such thing. Sir, Hea­ven door hath a sliding Lock, up­on occasion of mortal sin, it will shut without any use of a Key.

Perchance I do not well, [...], yet the sober mean­ing of what I have spoken merrily, is but this, that either you must make the Ministry of the Gospel only Declarative, or else it will follow that every impenitent Relapser, that hath the good fortune to e­scape [Page 157] the Priests being privy to his Sin, is like to find Heaven open at the last. So then it is apparent, that notwithstanding your heap­ing up of Interrogatories, and your pressing of Ligaveritis & vos, and telling me what I never knew, that Solvere and Ligare be Actives; yet in this part of our Power, all your Activity is lost, and there remains nothing for you but to report up­on good evidence, what you find done by your betters to your hand.

Half your Jurisdiction then is fallen: and if I had no other Me­dium but this: I might with good probability conclude against you for the other part. For if the one half made in the same Form, in the like phrase and garb of speech, yet enforceth no more but Decla­ration [Page 158] and Denouncing: then why should you think the other half, (which in all likelyhood is homo­geneal to the former) to be more? Nay, there is far more natural Equity that you should be here only Declarative than in the other. Politicians tell us, That it is Wis­dom for Princes, who desire to gain the love of their Subjects, to administer themselves all Favours and Graces, but to leave action of Justice and Harshness to be per­formed by others.

Sir, No Prince can be so am­bitious of the Love of his Subjects as God is of the Love of Man­kind: why then should I think him so ill a Politician, as to make himself the Administrator of the Rough, Unpleasing, Love-killing Offices, of Binding, Shutting, Retain­ing; [Page 159] and then pass over to the Priest, the dispensation of the Fair, Well-spoken, Ingratiating Offices of Remitting, Loosing, and Opening? But I will leave this kind of Topick and Dialectical arguing, because you are a pretend­er to convincing Reasons; I will directly enter even upon that part of your power of Opening, and Re­mitting, being the other part of your Territory, and by main strength, take all activity from you there too. Give me leave to ask you one Question, you may very well favour me so far, for you have asked me very many.

The Conversion of a Sinner, is it an act of the Keys, yea or no?

By your Principles it is not; for you make the power of the Keys to be judiciary, and therefore [Page 160] the Conversion of an Infidel per­tains not to them: The Church of Rome will help you with a Medium to make this Argument good. Do we not judge those that are within? for those that are without, God shall judge, saith Paul: Whence she infers, That a converted Infidel, not yet admitted to the Church, is a Stran­ger to the Judiciary Power of the Keys; but being once admitted in­to the Church, he is now become the Churches Subject, and so fit matter for the Priest to work on upon his next Relapse. What think you of this Reason? Do you take it to be good? Take heed; or else it will give you a deadly stripe. For the Conversion of an Infidel, out of question is a most proper act of the Keys. For, since the opening of the Kingdom of Hea­ven [Page 161] is confest to belong unto the Keys; and Heaven, which was shut against the Infidel in time of his Infidelity, upon his Conversion is acknowledged to be opened unto him; certainly whoever convert­ed him, used the Keys; or else he must pretend to have either a Pick­lock, or the Herb Lunaria, which, they say, makes Locks fall off from Doors, and the Fetters from Horses heels. If then the Conversion of a Sinner be an act of the Keys, and by the Argument of the Church of Rome it be not judiciary, it fol­lows then, that all Acts of the Keys are not Judiciary; and if not Ju­diciary, then Declarative only? For betwixt these two I know no mean.

But because to dispute against a man out of his own Principles, [Page 162] which perchance are false (for this we know oft falls out, that by the power of Syllogisms, men may and do draw True Conclusions from False Premises) because, I say, thus to do, in the judgment of Aristotle, leaves a man [...]; and I am willing not on­ly to perswade you, but to better you: I will draw the little which remains to be said in this Point, from other Places.

First, In all the Apostles pra­ctice in Converting Jews and Gen­tils, find you any thing like unto the act of any Judiciary Power? They neither did nor could use any such thing. That they did not, appears by Philip, who having Catechised the Eunuch, and finding him de­sirous of Baptism, immediately upon profession of his Faith, ad­mitted [Page 163] him into the Church. That they neither did nor could, ap­pears by Peter and the rest of the Apostles in the Acts, who could never in the space of an afternoon, being none but themselves, have converted three thousand souls, had they taken any such way, as you seem to misfancy. Again, imagine with your self all circum­stances you can, which are of force to make a power judiciary, apply them all to the practice of the A­postles, in the Conversion of In­fidels, and if you find any one of them agree to that action, let me be challenged upon it, and be thought to have abused you with a Fallacy.

To conclude then, since your Ligaveritis, which is the one half of your pretended Jurisdiction, [Page 164] pretends to nothing above Decla­rative: And since your Solveritis, in so great an act as is the Conversion of Infidels, lays claim to no more, what act of the power of the Keys is it, wherein we may conceive hope of finding any thing active or judiciary? I see what you will say, There yet remains a part, you think, wherein you have hope to speed, and that is the reconciling of relapsing Christians: As you fancy that in every sinning Christi­an, there is a duty binding him to repair, and lay his sin open to the Minister of the Gospel, and in him a power to consider of the sins of such as repair unto him, to weigh particulars, to consider circum­stances, and occasions, and accord­ing to true Judgment, either upon penance imposed to absolve sin, [Page 165] (which you call remitting of the sin) or to with-hold him for a time, from participation of holy duties with Catholick Christians, which you call retaining of sins, supposing that God doth the like in Heaven, as it is written, What you bind in Earth, is bound in Heaven, and what you loose in Earth, is loosed in Heaven. Now the Rock on which you labour to found so ex­travagant a Conceit, is no other than the Words which I have quo­ted out of Scripture; you press earnestly the Ligaveritis & vos, all which can yield you small relief; for if they help you not at all in those weighty parts of the Power of the Keys, which but now were laid before you; by what Analo­gy can you expect they should af­ford you any assistance here? As [Page 166] is Ligare, so is Solvere; as is the Conversion of an Infidel, so is the reconciling of a relapsing Christian, for any thing you can make appear; Either all is Declara­tive, which is very possible, and in many cases necessary, or all Ju­dicative, which in some cases is impossible, and in none necessary; so that to fit the Scripture to your Fancy, you are constrained to dis­tract and rend it without any War­rant at all. But you have found out in the Text a stronger Argu­ment against the declarative Pow­er, I contend for: You espie an Insufflavit, a great, a solemn, and unwonted Ceremony, undoubted­ly concluding some greater matter than a poor power declarative: What? did our serious Master thus spend his breath to no purpose, and [Page 167] like a Hocus Pocus with so much shew act us a solemn nothing? I pray whose words are these? I should have thought them to have been Porphiries, or Julians, (but that I know your hand) for you sub­scribed not your name to your let­ters: [...]: They are the Words of your Pindarus, upon an occasion not much unlike unto this

Sir, you have no Skill to judg, or set a price upon so divine an act; He lost not his breath, when he spent his Insufflavit; he opened their wits, that they might under­stand the Scripture; he revealed to them the Mysteries of Jesus Christ, dying and rising again for the Worlds salvation, the greatest news that ever was reported in the World, and till then concealed; [Page 168] He commanded them to be the first bringers of this good News, and that they might the more un­dauntedly perform their Charge, he endowed them with Infallibility, with infinite Constancy and Forti­tude, with Power of working such Wonders as none could do unless God were with them. Appello Con­scientiam tuam: Were those things such nothings, that they deserve to be thus jeered? But that befalls you which befalls the Stares that dwell in the Steeple, who fear not the Bells, because they hear them every day. These wonderful Be­nefits of God have every day sounded in your ears, and the fre­quency of them hath taught you to forget your Reverence to them. Yet all this Insufflavit, this Ceremo­ny, was for no other end but to [Page 169] further a Declarative Power; Their undaunted Fortitude, their power of Miracling, their Infallibility did but add countenance and strength to their Declarative Power, by by which they went up and down the World, to manifest the good tydings of Salvation. So that e­ven these which served thus to set off the Gospel, were nothing else but means of the better manifesta­tion of it, therefore may they ve­ry well pass, if not amongst the Keys, yet amongst the necessary Wards. Whereas your Fancy of an active or judicative Power in the Priest, concurring with God in reconciling relapsing Christians, is neither one nor other, but is in­deed like unto the work of some deceitful Smith, who the better to countenance and grace his work, [Page 170] adds to his Key superfluous and idle Wards, which in the opening of the Lock, are of no use at all.

To your second Query, Whe­ther the Keys were confined to the Apostles only? The Answer is in no case hard to give, it may perchance in some case be dange­rous; for there is a Generation of men in the World (the Clergy they call them) who impropriate the Keys unto themselves, and would be very angrie to under­stand, that others from themselves should claim a right unto them. To your Question then, no doubt but originally none received the Keys from the mouth of our Savi­our, but the Apostles only; none did nor ever could manage them with that authority and splendor [Page 171] as the Apostles did, who were a­bove all most amply furnished with all things fitting so great a work. For whereas you seem to intimate, that the preaching Missi­on was communicated to others, as the seventy two Disciples, as well as the Apostles; you do but mistake your self, if you conceive that the Keys of the Gospel were any way committed to them; for concerning the Mysteries of Jesus Christ, and him crucified for the sins of the World (where­in indeed the opening of the King­dom of Heaven did consist) they received it not, they knew it not. To be the prime Reporters of this, was an honour imparted on­ly to the Apostles: Yet were they not so imparted, as that they should be confined to them. E­very [Page 172] one that heard and received the Light of the saving Doctrine from them, so far forth as he had understanding in the waies of Life, had now the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven committed to his pow­er, both for his own and others use. Every one, of what state or condition soever, that hath any occasion offered him, to serve a­nother in the ways of Life, Cler­gie, or Lay, male or female, whatever he be, hath these Keys, not only for himself, but for the benefit of others. For if natural Goodness teach every man, Lu­men de Lumine, Erranti comitèr mon­strare viam, &c. Then how much more doth Christian Goodness require of every one, to his ability to be a Light to those who sit in darkness, and direct their steps, [Page 173] who most dangerously mistake their way? To save a soul, every man is a Priest. To whom I pray you, is that said in Leviticus, Thou shalt not see thy Brother sin, but thou shalt reprove, and save thy Brother? And if the Law binds a Man, when he saw his enemies Cattel to stray, to put them into their way; How much more doth it oblige him to do the like for the Man himself? See you not how the whole World conspires with me in the same opinion? Doth not every Father teach his Son, e­very Master his Servant, every Man his Friend. How many of the Laitie in this age, and from time to time, in all ages have by writing for the publick good, pro­pagated the Gospel of Christ, as if some secret instinct of nature had [Page 174] put into mens minds thus to do. I shame to dwell so long upon so plain a Theme, yet because I feel your pulse, and perceive what it is that troubles you, I must say something to an Objection, which I know you make. You conceive that forthwith upon this which I have said, must needs follow some great Confusion of estates, and degrees, the Laitie will straitway get up into our Pulpits, we shall lose our credit, and the adorati­on which the simple sort do yeild us is in danger to be lost.

Sir, Fear you not, the sufficient and able of the Clergy, will reap no discountenance, but honour by this: For he that knows how to do well himself, will most willing­ly approve what is well done by another. It is extream poverty of [Page 175] mind to ground your Reputation upon another mans Ignorance, and to secure your self, you do well, because you perceive perchance, that none can judge how ill you do. Be not angry then to see o­thers joyn with you in part of your Charge. I would all the Lords Peo­ple did Preach, and that every Man did think himself bound to dis­charge a part of the Common Good: and make account that the Care of other mens Souls con­cerned him as well as of his own. When the Apostles took order to ordain some, upon whom the publick burden of Preaching the Gospel should lie, it was not their purpose to impropriate the thing to those persons alone; but know­ing that what was left to the care of all, was commonly worst [Page 176] lookt unto, in wise and most Christian Care, they designed some, whose duty it should be to wait upon the Gospel alone, the better to preserve the Profession to the Worlds end: It hath been the wisdom of those, who have taken care of the propagation of Arts, and Sciences, not only to appoint means, that multitudes should study and make professi­on privately, but that some should be constituted publick Professors to teach è Cathedra, that so all might know to whom to repair, in the doubts incident to their fa­culties, and this hath been thought a sovereign way to preserve Scien­ces. Sir, we are the publick Pro­fessors of Christianity, we speak è Cathedra, which none can do, but such as are ordained. Let the [Page 177] private profession and practice of Christianity improve it self never so much, yet the honour of the publick Professor, so he deserve his place, can never impair. It greives me to stand so long upon so plain, so unwelcom a Lesson, I will ease my self and you, and reflect upon your third Que­ry.

In the third place, you require to know, what necessity, or what convenience there is of Confessi­on: You mean, I think, that con­fession, which is as foolishly as commonly called Sacramental, for it hath nothing of a Sacrament in it. Did I know your mind a little more in particular, what form of confession you speak of, whether as it is used in the Church of Rome, or in some refined Guise, [Page 178] as it seems some would, who have of late called for it in the Church of England, I should speak perad­venture more appositely to what you desire. But since you have proposed Confession only in a ge­nerality, my answer shall be in like manner. And

First of all, Confession of sins is a thing, not only convenient, but unavoidably necessary to Sal­vation, without which none shall ever see God. And thus far I suppose, all Christians do agree. The main Difference is in the manner of practising it, the Que­stion being, What Parties are to be interessed in it? Natural E­quity informeth us, that unto e­very Partie, justly offended, Sa­tisfaction some way or other is due.

[Page 179]The first party wronged in every offence, is God, against whose Honour, and express Command every sin is committed. To him therefore in the first place, Satis­faction is due, by submission and acknowledgment, since there re­mains no other way of composi­tion with God. But there are some sins committed against God, some committed against God and Men. In the former it is sufficient if we pacifie God alone; in the latter, our Neighbour, against whom we have trespast, must receive Satis­faction for the wrong done him, at least, if it be in the power of the Trespasser. Your Primer of Sarum will tell you, That not to make restitution, if you be able, and not to pardon, unavoidably exclude from the Kingdom of Heaven. Now [Page 180] might the Doctrine of Confession and acknowledgment in case of Offence given, have been per­mitted to run fair and clear, as it descends from God, and good reason, the first Fountains of it. There needed no more to be said in this argument, than I have al­ready told you. But I know not what intempestive foolish Ambiti­on hath troubled the stream, and it hath past now for a long time (till the Reformation altered it) for a general Doctrine in the Church, That in all kind of sins, whether against God or our Neighbour, there can be no reconciliation be­twixt the parties offending, and offended, but by interposition of a Priest, a thing utterly besides all reason and common sense, that you should open your private [Page 181] imperfections to one whom they concern not, (for it is granted, that all Parties concerned in an Of­fence, must have reason at the hands of the Offender) and who can no ways help you; For He that is conscientious of his sin, (and without trouble of Consci­ence I think none would ever re­pair to his Confessor) knows ve­ry well, that there is no sin so great, but upon submission, God both can and will pardon it; and none so small, but pardon for it must be sought, or else he hath been ill catechised. And more than this what can any Priest tell him: Plin. Nat. Hist. l. 28. c. 10. Your Pliny, somewhere tells you, That he that is stricken by a Scorpion, if he go im­mediately, and whisper it into the ear of [Page 182] an Ass, shall find himself immediate­ly eased: That Sin is a Scorpion, and bites deadly, I have always believed, but that to cure the bite of it, it was a Sovereign Remedy to whisper it into the Ear of an [ ] a Priest, I do as well believe as I do that of Pliny. The Patrons of this Fancy, for defect of reason and common congruity, are fain to betake themselves to Scripture; and the mischief is, there is there no direct Text for it, and therefore they are constrained to help themselves with a meer conjectural consequence; For since it is taken for certain, that there is a Power to Remit and to Retain sins, how shall they who have this Power given them, know how fit it is to Remit or to Retain a sin, except they know the sin, and [Page 183] know it they cannot, but by Con­fession. For answer to this,

First, We have found and pro­ved, That the Words of Scripture must receive such a sense, as from whence no such Consequence can be inferred.

Secondly, We have indeavoured to prove, That the Dispensation or Application of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, (being no­thing else, but the duty of saving of Souls) is a Duty, which pro Occa­sione oblatâ, lies upon every Christi­an: Which if it be true, (as in good faith I think it,) and the Clergy perceive it, I think they would never go about to urge that Text, although we should yield it them in their own meaning. For they must needs see, that it follows, that you may as well [Page 184] make your Muletter, (if you have one) your Confessor, as your Parish Priest. Tell me in good earnest, if you can, out of what good intent can this desire to know another mans sin, which concerns you not, proceed? Is it to teach him that it is a sin? he knew that, or else he had never repaired to you, to confess it: Is it to tell him, that he is to repent, to restore, to pray, to give alms, &c. All this he knew, or else he hath had his breeding under an evil Clergy. Yea, but how shall the Physician cure the Disease, if he know it not? Suppose all Diseases had one Remedy, (as all spiritual Diseases have) and what matters it if the Patient be sick, to know whether it be an Ague, or the Meazels, or the Pleurisie, since one Potion [Page 185] cures them all? Yea, but if he know not the particulars, how shall he judg of the Quantity of the Doses? for the same Disease upon sundry circumstances, may require Majus or Minus in the Phy­sick. This is the poorest scruple of a thousand; for in the Regiment of Patients spiritually sick, there can be but one mistake, that is, if you give too little: Be sure you give enough, and teach your Pa­tients to think no sin to be little, (which in men spiritually sick is Error saluberrimus) and you can never err: For natural Physick is only Physick; but spiritual Phy­sick is both Physick and Diet, and may be indifferently administred both to the sick and the sound Re­pentance perchance only except­ed, of which upon occasion, assure [Page 186] your self you can hardly take too much. What reason now can you give me, why you should desire to dive into any mans Breast, & scire Secreta Domûs? except it be that which followes in the next Verse, indè teneri, as I must confess, I suspect it is. The truth is, some mistaken Customs of the ancient Church, the craft and power of the Clergy, the simpli­city and ignorance of the Laity, these begat the Tragelaphus, of which we now speak. It may be you take the practice of the anci­ent Church, and the Point of Ex­communication, to make some­what for you: When those Cards shall come to be play'd (though that of Church custom is not great­ly material, which way soever it looks) I believe you will not find [Page 187] the Game you look for. Indeed I was once minded to have conside­red something of that: But I think you look for a Letter, not for a Book, and I perceive my self al­ready to have gone beyond the compass of a Letter. Another parley therefore, if you please, shall put an end to those and other scruples, if any do arise. And for the present give, I pray you, a little respite unto

A TRACT Concerning SCHISM.

HEresie and Schism as they are in com­mon use, are two Theological [...] or scar-crows, which they, who uphold a party in Re­ligion, use to fright away such, as making inquiry into it, are ready to relinquish and oppose it, if it appear either erroneous or suspi­cious. For as Plutarch reports of a Painter, who having unskilful­ly painted a Cock, chased away all Cocks and Hens, that so the [Page 192] imperfection of his Art might not appear by comparison with Na­ture; so men willing for ends to admit of no fancy but their own, endeavour to hinder an inquiry into it by way of comparison of somewhat with it, peradventure truer, that so the deformity of their own might not appear. But howsoever in the common ma­nage, Heresie and Schism are but ridiculous Terms, yet the things in themselves are of very considera­ble moment, the one offending against Truth, the other against Charity, and therefore both dead­ly, where they are not by impu­tation, but in deed.

It is then a matter of no small importance, truly to descry the nature of them, that so they may fear, who are guilty of them, and [Page 193] they on the contrary strengthen themselves, who through the ini­quity of men and times, are inju­riously charged with them.

Schism (for of Heresie we shall not now treat, except it be by ac­cident, and that by occasion of a general mistake, spread through­out all the writings of the Ancients, in which their names are familiar­ly confounded) Schism, I say, up­on the very sound of the word, imports Division; Division is not, but where Communion is, or ought to be. Now Communion is the strength and ground of all Society, whether Sacred or Civil; Whoso­ever therefore they be, that offend against this common Society and Friendliness of men, and cause se­paration and breach among them: If it be in civil occasions, are guil­ty [Page 194] of Sedition or Rebellion; if it be by occasion of Ecclesiastical dif­ference they are guilty of Schism: So that Schism is an Ecclesiastical Se­dition, as Sedition is a Lay Schism. Yet the great benefit of Communion not­withstanding, in regard of divers distempers men are subject to, Dissention and Disunion are often necessary; For when either false or uncertain Conclusions are ob­truded for Truth, and Acts either unlawful, or ministring just scru­ple, are required of us to be per­form'd; in these cases, Consent were Conspiracy, and open Con­testation is not Faction or Schism, but due Christian Animosity.

For the further opening there­fore of the nature of Schism, some­thing must be added by way of difference to distinguish it from [Page 195] necessary Separation, and that is, that the causes upon which Divi­sion is attempted, proceed not from Passion, or Distemper, or from Ambition, or Avarice, or such other Ends, as humane folly is apt to pursue; but from well weighed and necessary Reasons, and that, when all other means having been tryed, nothing will serve to save us from guilt of Conscience, but open Separation. So that Schism, if we would de­fine it, is nothing else but an un­necessary Separation of Christians from that part of the visible Church, of which they were once Members. Now as in Mutinies and Civil Dissentions, there are two Attendants in ordinary be­longing unto them; one the choice of one Elector or Guide in [Page 196] place of the General, or ordinary Governor, to rule and guide; the other the appointing of some pub­lick place or Rendezvous, where publick Meetings must be celebra­ted: So in Church Dissentions and quarrels, two Appurtenances there are, which serve to make a Schism compleat;

First, The choice of a Bishop in opposition to the former, (a thing very frequent amongst the Ancients, and which many times was both the cause and effect of Schism.)

Secondly, The erecting of a new Church and Oratory, for the dividing Party to meet in publick­ly. For till this be done, the Schism is but yet in the Womb.

In that late famous Controver­sy in Holland, De Predestinatione, & [Page 197] Auxiliis, as long as the disagreeing Parties went no further than Dis­putes and Pen-combats, the Schism was all that while unhatched; but as soon as one party swept an old Cloyster and by a pretty Art suddenly made it a Church, by putting a new Pulpit in it, for the separating Party there to meet; now, what before was a Contro­versy, became a formal Schism. To know no more than this, if you take it to be true, had been enough to direct how you are to judge, and what to think of Schism and Schismaticks; yet because in the Ancients, (by whom many Men are more affrighted than hurt) much is said, and many fearful Dooms are pronounced in this case; will we descend a little to consider of Schisms, as it were by way of Story, [Page 198] and that partly further to open that which we have said in gene­ral, by instancing in particulars; and partly to disabuse those who reverencing Antiquity more than needs, have suffered themselves to be scared with imputation of Schism, above due measure; for what the Ancients spake by way of censure of Schism in general, is most true; for they saw (and it is no great matter to see so much) that unadvisedly, and upon fancy to break the knot of Union be­twixt man and man (especially amongst Christians, upon whom above all other kind of men, the tye of Love and Communion doth most especially rest) was a crime hardly pardonable, and that nothing Absolves a man from the guilt of it, but true and unpre­tended [Page 199] Conscience; yet when they came to pronounce of Schisms in particular (whether it were be­cause of their own interests, or that they saw not the Truth, or for what other cause God only doth know) their Judgments many times (to speak most gently) are justly to be suspected; Which that you may see, we will range all Schism into two ranks.

For there is a Schism, in which only one party is the Schismatick; for where cause of Schism is ne­cessary, there not he that separates, but he that occasions the separati­on is the Schismatick.

Secondly, There is a Schism, which both parts are the Schisma­ticks: For where the occasion of se­paration is unnecessary, neither side can be excused from the guilt of Schism.

[Page 200]But you will ask, who shall be the Judg what is necessary? In­deed that is a Question, which hath been often made, but I think scarcely ever truly answered; not because it is a point of great depth or difficulty truly to assoil it, but be­cause the true solution carries fire in the tail of it. For it bringeth with it a peice of Doctrine which is seldom pleasing to Superiors. To you for the present this shall suffice. If so be you be Animo de­foecato, if you have cleared your self from froath and grownds, if neither sloth, nor fears, nor am­bition, nor any tempting Spirits of that nature abuse you, (for these and such as these, are the true Im­pediments▪ why both that, and other Questions of the like danger are not truly answered) if all this [Page 201] be, and yet you see not how to frame your resolution, and settle your self for that doubt; I will say no more of you than was said of Papias, St. John's own Scholar, you are [...], your abi­lities are not so good as I pre­sumed.

But to go on with what I in­tended, and from which that in­terloping Question diverted me; that you may the better judge of the nature of Schisms by their oc­casions; you shall find that all Schisms have crept into the Church by one of these three ways; ei­ther upon matter of Fact, or mat­ter of Opinion, or point of Ambi­tion. For the first; I call that matter of Fact, when something is required to be done by us, which either we know, or strongly [Page 202] 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 [Page 203] 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 [Page 204] 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 [Page 205] 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 [Page 206] 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, [Page 207] 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, [Page 208] 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 [Page 209] 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 [Page 210] 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 cujus (que) Praeceptum quod dubitas, ne feceris. Long it was ere the Church fell upon Schism upon this occasion, though of late [Page 211] 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 Image­worship, 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 acknowledged by all, That it is not a thing neces­sary; Secondly, It is by most sus­pected; Thirdly, It is by many held utterly unlawful. Can then the enjoyning of the practice of such a thing be ought else but a­buse? Or can the refusal of Com­munion here, be thought any other [Page 212] thing than duty? Here, or upon the like occasion, to separate, may peradventure bring personal trou­ble and danger, (against which it concerns every honest man to have Pectus bene praeparatum) further harm it cannot do. So that in these cases, you cannot be to seek what to think, or what you have to do.

Come we then to consider a little of the second sort of Schism, arising upon occasion of variety of opinion. It hath been the com­mon disease of Christians from the beginning, not to content themselves with that measure of Faith, which God and Scriptures have 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 [Page 213] 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; [Page 214] 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, Valentinianism, Mar­cionism, Mahometanism, are tru­ly and properly Heresies; For we know that the Authors of them re­ceived them not, but minted them themselves, and so knew that which they taught to be a Lye. But can any man avouch that Arri­us and Nestorius, and others that taught erroneously concerning the Trinity, or the Person of our Sa­viour, did maliciously invent what they taught, and not rather fall up­on it by error and mistake? Till [Page 215] that be done, and that upon good Evidence, we will think no worse of all Parties than needs we must, and take these Rents in the Church to be at the worst but Schisms up­on matter of Opinion. In which case what we are to do, is not a point of any great depth of under­standing to discover, so be Distem­per and Partiality do not inter­vene. I do not yet see, that Opi­nionum Varietas, & Opinantium Uni­tas, are [...], or that Men of different opinions in Christian Re­ligion, may not hold communion in Sacris, and both go to one Church. Why may I not go, if occasion require, to an Arrian Church, so there be no Arrianism exprest in their Liturgy? And were Liturgies and publick Forms of Service so framed, as that they [Page 216] 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, [Page 217] 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 and 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 over­rigid either in reviving obso­lete Customs, or imposing new, [Page 218] 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, yeeld a little to the imbecil­lities of Inferiors, a thing which St. Paul would never have refused to do. Mean while, wheresoever false or suspected Opinions are made a peice of the Church Liturgy, he that separates is not the Schisma­tick; For it is alike unlawful to make profession of known or sus­pected falshoods, as to put in practice unlawful or suspect acti­ons

The third thing I noted for matter of Schism was Ambition, I mean Episcopal Ambition, shewing it self especially in two heads; one concerning Plurality of Bi­shops in the same See, another the [Page 219] Superiority of Bishops in divers Sees. Aristotle tells us, that Ne­cessity causeth but small faults, but Avarice and Ambition were the Mothers of great Crimes; Episco­pal Ambition hath made this true: For no Occasion hath produced more frequent, more continuing, more sanguinary Schisms, than this hath done. The Sees of A­lexandria, of Constantinople, of An­tioch, and above all of Rome, do abundantly shew thus much, and our Ecclesiastical Stories witness no less, of which the greatest part consists in the factionating and tu­multuating of great and potent Bishops. Socrates Apologizing for himself, that professing to write an Ecclesiastical Story, he did oft­times interlace the actions of se­cular Princes and other civil busi­nesses, [Page 220] tells us that he did thus to refresh his Reader, who otherwise were in danger to be cloyd by reading so much of the Acts of unquiet and unruly Bishops, [...], in which as a man might say, they made Butter and Cheese one of another; For [...], (that I may shew you a cast out of my old Office, and open you a Mystery in Grammar) properly signifieth to make Butter and Cheese: Now because these are not made without much agitation of the Milk, hence [...], by a borrowed and translated significa­tion, signifies to do things with much agitation and tumult.

But that I may a little consider of the two heads, which I but now specified; The first I mentioned was the Pluralitie of Bishops in one [Page 221] Sea. For the general practice of the Church from the beginning, at least since the original of Epis­copacy, as now it is, was never to admit at once more than one Bi­shop in one Sea; And so far in this point have they been careful to preserve unity, that they would not suffer a Bishop in his Sea to have two Cathedral Churches; which thing lately brought us a Book out of France, De Monoga­mia Episcoporum, written by occa­sion of the Bishop of Langres, who, I know not upon what fan­cy, could not be content with one Cathedral Church in his Di­ocess, but would needs have two, which to the Author of that work seems to be a kind of spiritual Po­lygamy. It fell out amongst the An­cients very often; sometimes upon occasion [Page 222] of difference in Opinion, sometimes because of difference amongst those who were interessed in the choice of Bishops, that two Bishops and sometimes more were set up, and all Parties striving to maintain their own Bishop, made themselves several Churches, se­veral Congregations, each refu­sing to participate with others, and many times proceeding to mutual Excommunication. This is that which Cyprian calls Erigere Altare contra Altare: to this doth he impute the Original of all Church disorders; and if you read him, you would think he thought no other Church-Tumult to be a Schism but this. This perchance might plead some excuse; For though in regard of Religion it self, it matters not whether there [Page 223] be one or more Bishops in the same Diocess, and sometimes two are known to have sat at once (for Epiphanius reckoning up the Bishops of Rome, makes Peter and Paul the first: and St. Austin ac­knowledgeth, that for a time he sat fellow Bishop with his Prede­cessor, though he excuseth it, that he did so by being ignorant that the contrary had been decreed by the Council of Nice,) yet it be­ing a thing very convenient for the Peace of the Church to have it so; neither doth it any way sa­vour of vice or misdemeanor; their Punishment sleeps not, who unnecessarily and wantonly go a­bout to infringe it.

But that other Head of Episcopal Ambition, concerning Supremacy of Bishops in divers Sees, one claim­ing [Page 224] Superiority over another, as it hath been from time to time, a great Trespasser against the Churches Peace, so it is now the finall Ruine of it. The East and the West, through the fury of the two prime Bishops, being irre­mediably separated without all hope of Reconcilement. And be­sides all this mischief, it is founded in a vice contrary to all Christian humility, without which no man shall see his Saviour; For they do but abuse themselves and others, that would perswade us, that Bi­shops, by Christ's Institution, have any Superiority over other men, further than of Reverence; or that any Bishop is Superiour to ano­ther, further than positive order agreed upon amongst Christians, hath prescribed. For we have be­lieved [Page 225] him that hath told us, That in Jesus Christ there is neither high nor low; and that in giving honour, every man should be ready to prefer another before himself; which sayings cut off all claim most certainly to Superi­ority, by title of Christianity; except men can think that these things were spoken only to poor and pri­vate Men. Nature and Religion a­gree in this, that neither of them hath a hand in this Heraldry of se­cundum sub & supra; all this comes from Composition and Agree­ment of men among themselves. Wherefore this abuse of Christia­nity, to make it Lacquey to Am­bition, is a vice for which I have no extraordinary name of Igno­miny, and an ordinary I will not give it, lest you should take so transcendent a vice to be but tri­vial.

[Page 226]Now concerning Schism arising upon these Heads, you cannot be for behaviour much to seek; for you may safely communicate with all Parties as Occasion shall call you, and the Schismaticks here are all those who are heads of the Faction, together with all those who foment it: for private and indifferent Persons, they may be Spectators of these contentions as securely in regard of any peril of Conscience (for of danger in Purse or Person, I keep no ac­count) as at a Cock fight. Where Serpents fight, who cares who hath the better? the best Wish is, that both may perish in the fight.

Now for Conventicles, of the nature of which you desire to be informed, thus much in general. [Page 227] It evidently appears, that all Meet­ings upon unnecessary Occasions of Separation are to be so stiled, so that in this sense, a Conventicle is nothing else but a Congregation of Schismaticks; Yet Time hath ta­ken leave sometimes to fix this Name upon good and honest Meetings, and that perchance not altogether without good reason; For with publick Religious Meet­ings thus it fares: First, it hath been at all times confessed necessa­ry, that God requires not only in­ward and private Devotion, when Men either in their hearts and Closets, or within their private walls, pray, praise, confess and acknowledge; but he further re­quires all those things to be done in Publick, by troops and shoals of Men, and from hence have [Page 228] proceeded publick Temples, Al­tars, Forms of Service, appointed Times, and the like, which are required for open Assemblies; yet whilst men were truly pious, all Meetings of men for mutual help of Piety and Devotion, wheresoe­ver and by whomsoever celebra­ted, were permitted without ex­ception.

But when it was espied that ill af­fected persons abus'd private Meet­ings, whether Religious or Civil, to evil ends, Religiousness to gross impiety, (as appears in the Eth­nick Fleusinia, and Bacchanalia; and Christian Meetings under the Pagan Princes, when for fear they durst not come together in open view, were charged with foul imputations, as by the report of Christians themselves plainly ap­pears; [Page 229] and Civil Meetings many times under pretence of friendly and neighbourly Visits, sheltered treasonable Attempts against Prin­ces and Common-weals:) Hence both Church and State joyned, and jointly gave order for Forms, Times, Places of Publick Con­course, whether for Religious or Civil Ends; and all other Meet­ings whatsoever, besides those of which both Time and Place were limited, they censured for Routs and Riots, and unlawful Assemblies in the State, and in the Church for Conventicles.

So that it is not lawful, no not for Prayer, for Hearing, for Con­ference, for any other Religious Office whatsoever, for people to assemble otherwise, than by Pub­lick Order is allowed. Neither [Page 230] may we complain of this in Times of Incorruption, for why should men desire to do that suspiciously in private, which warrantably may be performed in publick? But in Times of manifest Corrup­tions and Persecutions, wherein Religious Assembling is dange­rous, private Meetings, howsoe­ver besides publick Order, are not only lawful, but they are of Ne­cessity and Duty; else how shall we excuse the Meetings of Christians for publick Service, in time of danger and persecutions, and of our selves in Queen Maries days? and how will those of the Roman Church amongst us, put off the imputation of Conventicling, who are known amongst us pri­vately to assemble for Religious Exercise against all established or­der, [Page 231] both in State and Church? For indeed all pious Assemblies in times of persecution and corrupti­ons howsoever practised, are in­deed, or rather alone the lawful Congregations; and publick As­semblies, though according to form of Law, are indeed nothing else but Riots and Conventicles, if they be stained with Corrupti­on, and Superstition.

Miscellanies.