God as it is verse 11. of that Chapter which may serve for a comment upon the Verse now in question And it is worth our noting that the Text doth not say if we sin wilfully there is no sacrifice for sin this had been an hard saying indeed but the words are there remains no more sacrifice for sin there is some comfortable difference I hope between these two propositions there is no sacrifice and there remains no more sacrafice for sin So that if we do not believe in that one sacrifice as sufficient but look every day for some new sacrifice for every new sin we must expect nothing but judgment As to the third place 1 Ioh. 5. 16. many would conclude there is a sin for which we may not pray First because it is irremissable and this they think must needs be the sin against the Holy Ghost meant by St. Iohn Their best argument is Iohn's not saying we should pray is a saying we should not pray his silence to them is prohibition This is bad Grammar and worse Logick For we find that St. Stephen prayed for them that stoned him and yet told them they resisted the Holy Ghost And St. Peter exhorted Simon Magus to Repentance and yet both he and those that stoned Stephen are commonly reputed sinners against the Holy Ghost St. Ambrose is of that charitable opinion that he thinks the sin against the Holy Ghost may be pardoned by Repentance because the people of the Iews that had said of Christ that he cast out Devils by Belzebub afterwards at the preaching of St. Peter are said to be converted Acts 2. St. Austine in a Retract concludes we must despair of no Man no not of the wickedest as long as he liveth and we safely pray for him of whom we don't despair For though it be expresly said That the Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven yet these words may justly receive a qualification if we will but allow the same mitigation of these words which all Men confess we must needs allow to the precedent words in the same verse to which these have relation where it is said generally all Sins and all Blasphemies shall be forgiven it cannot be meant of all sins always and to all Men for then no sin could be damnable but the sin against the Holy Ghost which is most false and therefore the meaning must be all sins shall be forgiven ordinarily and for the most part so on the contrary Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not ordinarily but hardly be forgiven Even those who are most strict to maintain the Sin against the Holy Ghost to be unpardonable will yet acknowledge that some times in Scripture Impossibility is used to note a difficulty and those things are spoken indefinitely to all which belong but to a part only Thus the difficulty of a rich Mans entering into the Kingdome of Heaven is presented to us by our Saviour under the similitude of an impossibility Having dispatch'd these Texts of Scripture which do either name or are thought to concern the sin against the Holy Ghost it remains to examine those common Definitions of this sin which are now current though different in the terms by which they define it some call it a total or final falling away from faith or a wilful Apostacy or a malicious resisting of the truth yet when they come to explain their meaning the difference among them is not considerable I shall chiefly apply my self to Mr Calvin's definition because his judgment hath gained the greatest reputation among the multitude as also for that he himself promises such a true definition as shall easily by it self overthrow all the rest In his Institut Lib. 3. Chap. 3. he saith they sin against the Holy Ghost Qui divinae veritati cujus fulgore sic perstringuntur ut ignorantiam causari nequeunt tamen destinata malitia resistunt in hoc tantum ut resistant Arminius also useth Mr Calvins words The Rhetorical Parenthesis which might well have been spared in a definition being reduced to plain and brief terms this definition of Calvin may be thus Englished They sin against the Holy Ghost who of determined malice resist the known Truth of God to the end only to resist In this Mr Calvin doth not define what the sin is but who they are that commit it whereas by the Rules of Logick Concretes admit of no definition but only Abstracts But taking the definition as it is it consists principally upon these three terms First Truth Secondly Known Thirdly Resisted or a resisting of the known Truth The words being general and doubtful we will consider them singly First If by the truth Mr Calvin understands the Word of God or the whole Doctrine revealed in the Scriptures then the sense of this Term will be too large for even the Pharisees which spoke against the Holy Ghost did not resist the whole Truth of God in the Scripture for they believed in the Law of Moses and had confidence to be saved by the keeping of it And in defence of that Law as they thought they did Blaspheme the Holy Ghost Therefore properly by the Truth of God Mr Calvin must confine his meaning to the Truth of the Gospel or Doctrine of Faith for so both he himself and others expound themselves by terming the sin against the Holy Ghost a falling away or turning away from Faith or Apostacy Secondly By this word Known Mr Calvin must mean belief for Faith is properly by believing not knowing the truth Thirdly The Word Resisting must mean unbelieving for if receiving of the Truth be by belief then Resisting of the Truth must beâ—â— unbelief And indeed Mr. Calvin explains himself in the same Chapter saying there is no place for pardon where knowledge is joyned with unbelief Non esse veniae locum c. So then by this definition to resist the known Truth is all one as if Mr Calvin had said in proper terms for a Man at once to unbelieve that which he doth believe which two things it is impossible to do together and if they be not together there can be no resistance It is true that for some reasons a Man may be brought not to believe that which he formerly believed This cannotbe in an instant but successively unbelief comes in the place of belief And this may not be called a resisting for that all resistance consists in a violence between two at the least but where two succeed one another and are never together it cannot possibly be I confess a Man may resist the Truth when it is a Truth in it self only or in the understanding of some other but to resist the Truth which is known and believed by the resister himself is a direct contradiction for the nature of Truth is such that if the understanding apprehend it for Truth it cannot but assent unto it No Man can force himself to believe what he lists or when he lists Sometimes a Man knows
Points therein 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 the Churches mistaking it self about Fundamentals For the first It consisteth of two parts of a Proposition and of a Reply The Proposition expresses at least he that made it intended it so to do though he mistakes the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches concerning the presence of Christ in the Eucharist The Reply doth the like for the Church of Rome in the same Argument Now that you may see how indifferently I walk I will open the mistakes of both parties that so the truth of the thing it self being unclouded of Errors may the more clearly shine forth The first mistake common to both is That they ground themselves much upon the words of Consecration as they are called and suppose That upon the pronouncing of those words something befalls that action which otherwise would not and that without those words the action were lame Sir I must confess my ignorance unto you I find no ground for the necessity of this doing Our Saviour instituting that Holy Ceremony commands us to do what he did 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 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 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 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 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 c. These were all Sacraments yet we find not any sacred forms of words used by the Priests or People in the execution of them To sum up that which we have to say in this Point the calling upon the words of consecration in the Eucharist is too weakly founded to be made argumentative for the action is perfect whether those words be used or forborn And in truth to speak my opinion I see no great harm could ensue were they quite omitted Certainly thus much good would follow that some part though not a little one of the superstition that adheres to that action by reason of an ungrounded conceit of the necessity and force of the words in it would forthwith pill off and fall away I would not have you understand me so as if I would prescribe for or desire the disuse of the words only two things I would commend to you First That the use of the Canon is a thing indifferent And Secondly That in this knack of making Sacraments Christians have taken a greater liberty than they can well justify First In forging Sacraments more than God for ought doth or can appear did ever intend And Secondly In adding to the Sacraments instituted of God 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 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
greater Deliverance which was now working for them and therefore where they saw the one they should expect the other Sch. I believe you have guessed right But what say you to the Verse which follows Or else how can one enter into a strong mans house and spoil his Goods c. It looks like another Argument which Christ useth in his own defence against this Calumny of the Pharisees but I confess I do not yet apprehend it Mast It is not unlikely but anon you will This is indeed a third Argument of 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 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 Schol. I shall desire to put you to no more trouble in this Verse If you please let us pass unto the next Mast As I take it that is this He that is not with me is against me and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad Schol. Truly as the words stand alone I should not trouble 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 Mast Having declared himself to be so far from casting out Devils in the name of Beelzebub that He laboured to bind even Beelzebub himself and to spoil him of all his power which he exercised in the hearts of wicked men He carries the consideration of this Enmity between the Devil and Himself to such a height as that He will not admit of any Neutrality in any other Man professing that whosoever is not the Devil's enemy is his according to that Axiom of the Wars Medii habentur pro Hostibus All indifferent men are Enemies And if all this be not enough to 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 proceeds not meerly upon the strength of his own Arguments but as knowing their Thoughts as St. Matthew tells us in the 2â— 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 Schol. I thank you Sir for this pains which you have taken to prepare me for the understanding of my great Doubt which now methinks I begin to have a little glimpse of but desire you to give me better Light Mast I shall But first I would gladly know what you conceive of those words in the 31. verse All manner of Sin and Blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men because by understanding of what sin shall be forgiven you will the more easily understand me when I tell you what manner of sin shall not Schol. Why Sir I understand any manner of sin whatsoever and I understand the sin of the Holy Ghost to be the only sin which shall never be forgiven Mast I did fear as much and therefore I did ask you But you must know that you are much mistaken both in the one and in the other opinion For First It is to be considered that Christ speaks not of all sin but of that sin which is Blasphemy or Calumny for there are many other sins which will never be forgiven as well as the sin against the Holy Ghost And therefore in the next Verse he saith Whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of Man that is whosoever slandereth or calumniateth any other man it shall be forgiven him And in those words he expoundeth what he means by Sin and Blasphemy Secondly It is to be considered that when he saith All manner of Sin and Blasphemy shall be forgiven there is an Hebraism in those words which is often met 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 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 told them issued from the Holy Spirit of God Sch. 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 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 that Spirit which works in Me is good Schol. 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 Mast Whatsoever is meant by this idle Word here you may be sure it hath reference to that Word which the Pharisees had spoke of Christ when they said He cast out Devils in the name of Beelzebub for Christ hath not done with this Calumny of theirs yet but continues his discourse upon it till the 38. Verse of this Chapter Now considering this Idle Word in that reference it is most reasonable to expound it not of every Word which a man speaks of which there is no profit or which is good for nought for if that Exposition should be true which God forbid yet it were not pertinent but of such a Word wherein there is no Truth For by Idle and Vain in holy Scripture is often understood that which is false And so to take the Name of God in Vain in the Commandments is to swear falsely So that the Scope of Christ in those Words is this Do you think that you shall escape for this horrid Calumny which you have cast upon me knowing it to be a Calumny in your own hearts I tell you nay for no man shall escape in the day of 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 the liberty to repeat that of another which is false and not to wish it true Sch. I thank you for this Satisfaction and by 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 for methinks it seems a very impertinent Request Mast Some Interpreters are of opinion that these Scribes and Pharisees were not the same who saw those late Miracles which our Saviour did and they ground their opinion upon Luke 11. 16. where it is said That others tempted him seeking a Sign from Heaven But upon examination that opinion will not hold The better answer is that they did not desire a bare sign or a Miracle of which they had seen enough already but they desired a Sign from Heaven as St. Luke speaks that is that God by some strange Prodigy there should declare him to be a Prophet sent from him if so be he were so indeed For as for those Miracles which he did on Earth they were not satisfied with them as apprehending them pendulous between two several Powers for as they they might come from God so they might come from the Devil but in Heaven they thought the Devil had no Power Schol. I like your reason well but I pray what doth Christ mean by that answer which he gives to their request in the 39 40 41 and 42 verses for I do not understand it perfectly Mast The meaning of His Answer is this You would have a Sign from Heaven and then you will believe me God that will omit no occasion to leave you unexcusable hath given you Signs enough here upon Earth but he is not bound to satisfie your humours and give them where and 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 Sch. 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 Mast It is not improbable That our Saviour Christ being much afflicted with the evil and incredulous hearts of the people of the Jews taketh a kind of Survey of that whole Nation even from the time wherein they were first led away captive into Babylon to the time when they were utterly destroyed by Titus Before their Captivity they were full of all manner of Wickedness as appeareth by the Prophets Under their Captivity they were a little reclaimed and
Vera effigies doctissimi Viri D. IOHANNES HALES Colleg. Eton. Socii et Eccles. Colleg. Windesoriensis Canonici SEVERAL TRACTS By the ever memorable Mr. JOHN HALES Of Eaton Coll. c. VIZ. I. Of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper II. Paraphrase on St. Matthew's Gospel III. Of the Power of the Keys IV. Of Schism and Schismaticks Never before printed by the Original Copy V. Miscellanies Printed in the Year 1677. A TRACT Concerning the SIN Against the Holy Ghost By the ever Memorable Mr. JOHN HALES of Eton Colledge c. LONDON Printed for John Blyth at Mr Playfords Shop in the Temple 1677. A TRACT concerning the SIN against the HOLY GHOST MAny have Written of the Sin against the Holy Ghost and in defining or describing of it follow their own zealous conceits and not the Canon of Holy Scriptures The more dreadful the Sin is the more fearful we must be in charging it upon any special crime or particular person In defining a sin of so heynous a nature direct and evident proof from Scripture is requisite It is not enough to consider as many do what sins are most desperate and deadly and therefore to conclude such sins are against the Holy Ghost Thus indeed the Schoolmen have done who have made six differences of this sin V. in fine without any ground or warrant from Scripture for so doing And Bellarmine is so liberal in bestowing on such as he calls 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 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 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 't is 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 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 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 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 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 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 it s said to be Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost because by the Holy Ghost the Miracles were wrought Math. 12 28. 1 Cor 12. 10. 5. The Blasphemy against the Son of Man was when men considered Christ as a mere man and did disgracefully tax his conversation by saying behold a glutton a bibber of Wine a friend to Publicans and sinners But the Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost was when Men beholding 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
Exercise against all established order both in State and Church For indeed all pious Assemblies in times of persecution and corruptions howsoever practised are indeed or rather alone the lawful Congregations and publick Assemblies though according to form of Law are indeed nothing else but Riots and Conventicles if they be stained with Corruption and Superstition FINIS Miscellanies WRITTEN By the ever Memorable Mr. JOHN HALES of Eaton-Colledge c. Printed 1677. Miscellanies How to know the Church MArks and Notes to know the Church there are none except we will make True Profession which is the Form and Essence of the Church to be a Mark. And as there are none so is it not necessary there should be For to what purpose should they serve That I might go seek and find out some Company to mark This is no way necessary For glorious Things are in the Scriptures spoken of the Church not that I should run up and down the World to find the persons of the Professors but that I should make my self of it This I do by taking upon me the Profession of Christianity and submitting my self to the Rules of Belief and Practice delivered in the Gospel though besides my self I knew no other Professor in the World If this were not the Authors end in proposal of the Title it is but a meer Vanity To the Description of the Church The Church as it imports a visible Company in Earth is nothing else but the Company of Professors of Christianity wheresoever disperst in the Earth To define it thus by Monarchy under one visible Head is of novelty crept up since men began to change the spiritual Kingdom of Christ to secular Pride and Tyranny and a thing never heard of either in the Scriptures or in the Writings of the Ancients Government whether by one or many or howsoever if it be one of the Churches contingent Attributes it is all certainly it is no necessary Property much less comes it into the Definition and Essence of it I mean outward Government for as for inward Government by which Christ reigns in the Hearts of his Elect and vindicates them from spiritual Enemies I have no occasion to speak neither see I any reference to it in all your Authors Animadversions How Christ is the Head of the Church From the Worlds beginning till the last hour of it the Church is essentially one and the same howsoever perchance in Garment and outward Ceremony it admits of Difference And as it was from the beginning of the World so was it Christian there being no other difference betwixt the Fathers before Christ and us but this As we believe in Christ that is Come so they believed in Christ that was to Come Jesus Christ yesterday and to day and the same for ever Reference unto Christ is the very Essence of the Church and there neither is nor ever was any Church but Christ's and therefore the Church amongst the Jews was properly and truly Christian quoad rem as we are Now as this Church at all times is Christ's Body so is Christ the Head of it For it is as impossible for the Church as for the Body to be without its Head it is not therefore as your Author dreams Christ came not to found a New Church or to profess a Visible Headship of it That Relation to this Church which we express when we call him the Head of it is one and the same from the Beginning to all Eternity neither receives it any alteration in this respect because the Person in whom this Relation is founded is sometimes Visible sometimes not 'T is true indeed the Head of the Church sometimes became Visible but this is but contingent and by Concomitancy For Christ the second Person in the Trinity becoming Man to Redeem this Church and manifest the way of Truth unto it It so fell out that the Head of the Church became Visible Of this Visibility he left no Successor no Doctrine no Use as being a thing meerly accidental I ask Had the Church before Christ any Visible Head if it had then was not Christ the first as here our Teacher tells us If it had none why then should the Church more require a Visible Head than it did from the Beginning To speak the Truth at once All these Questions concerning the Notes the Visibility the Government of the Church if we look upon the Substance and Nature of the Church they are meerly Idle and Impertinent If upon the End why Learned Men do handle them it is nothing else but Faction Of Peter's Ministerial Headship of the Church In your Authors Paragraphs concerning the visible Encrease or Succession of the Church there is no Difference betwixt us As for the Proofs of Peters Ministerial Headship this first concerning his being the Rock of the Church that cannot prove it For Peter was the Rock then when our Saviour spake but then could he not be the visible Head for Christ himself then was living and by our Teachers Doctrine supplied that room himself Peter therefore howsoever or in what sence soever he were the Rock yet could he not be the visible Head except we will grant the Church to have had two visible Heads at once Secondly The Keys of Heaven committed to Peter and Command to feed his Sheep import no more than that common Duty laid upon all the Disciples To teach all Nations for this Duty in several respects is exprest by several Metaphors Teaching as it signifies the opening of the way to life so is it called by the name of Keys but as it signifies the Strengthning of the Soul of Man by the Word which is the Souls spiritual Food so is it called Feeding Thus much is seen by the Defenders of the Church of Rome and therefore they fly for refuge to a Circumstance It is observed that our Saviour delivered this Doctrine to Peter alone as indeed sometimes he did in this it is supposed that some great Mystery rests For why should our Saviour thus single out Peter and commend a common Duty to him if there were not something extraordinary in it which concerned Him above the rest This they interpret a Preeminence that Peter had in his Business of Teaching which they say is a Primacy and Headship inforcing thus much that all the rest were to depend from Him and from Him receive what they were to preach For Answer Grant me there were some great Mystery in it yet whence is it proved that this is that Mystery For if our Saviour did not manifest it then might there be a thousand Causes which Mans Conjecture may easily miss It is great boldness out of Causes concealed to pick so great Consequences and to found Matters of so great weight upon meer Conjectures Thirdly The Prayer for Confirmation of Peters Faith whence it came the Course of the Story set down in the Text doth shew It was our Saviours Prevision of Peters danger to relapse which danger he had certainly run