Doctrine There are no Papists but confess that the most excellent parts even of the visible Church in this world are invisible or hidden For none but God who searches the heart can know certainly who are truly good men and not hypocrites And there are no Protestants who maintain that they who profess the Christian Religion who are the Church have ever been hidden and invisible But this they say that this Church hath not been always visible free from corruption and that it hath not been at all times alike visible but sometimes more sometimes less conspicuous Now these men by the Visibility of the Church mean such an illustrious state as by its glory splendor and pomp all men may be led to it This is it and no more which Protestants deny And Mr. Chillingworth hath long ago told them that the most rigid Protestants do not deny the Visibility of the Church absolutely but only this degree of it For the Church hath not always had open visible Assemblies and so might be said to have been hidden and invisible when they met under ground and in obscure places There is nothing in the Texts of Scripture which he quotes contrary to this much less expresly contrary V. Mat. 14 15. The first of them V. Mat. 14 15. is manifestly a precept to the Apostles setting forth the duty incumbent upon them by their Office that they might gather a Church to Christ So the before-named Menochius interprets those words Ye are the light of the world who ought to illuminate the world by your Doctrine and Example You ought not to be hid no more than a City can be which is seated on a hill Men do not light a candle much less God to put it under a Bushel Our Saviour saith he exhorts his Disciples by this similitude that they should diligently shine both in their words and in their example and not be sparing of their pains or of themselves by withdrawing themselves from the work but communicate their light liberally to their neighbours But after the world was thus illuminated by their Doctrine which they could not always neither Preach in publick but some times only in private houses Christians were forced to meet together in some places and times very secretly not being able always to hold such publick visible Assemblies that all men beheld them and what they did The second we had before to prove the Church cannot err XVIII Matth. 17. and now it is served up again to prove it was never hid and this not expresly but by a consequence and that a very sensless one For whoever said or thought that no body can see a Church when it is not visible to every body It 's members no doubt see it even when it is invisible to others Any man may be seen by his Friends when he lies hid from his Enemies And a Church is visible in that place where it is planted and by them that belong to it though strangers perhaps take no notice of it especially those that are at a distance from it In the third place we have mention of the Gospel but not a word of the Church 2 Cor. IV. 3 4. which he puts in such is his honesty contrary to the express words of ours and of all Bibles Nor doth the Apostle deny the Gospel to be hid but expresly supposes it 2 Cor. IV. 3. that it is hid from those whose minds are blinded by the god of this world who shut their eyes against the clearest light even the light of the knowledg of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ One would think this man besides himself when he bids us behold the censure of St. Paul upon those who affirm the Gospel can be hid when his words are a plain supposition that it was hid to some people Not indeed because they could not for it was visible enough in it self but because they would not see it And I wish there be not too many of this sort in that Church for which this Writer stickles The last place is an illustrious Prophecy of the setting up the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ II. Isa 2. Which was very visible in its beginning when the Holy Ghost came down upon the Apostles and by them the Law that is the Christian Doctrine went out of Sion and the word of the Lord that is the Gospel from Jerusalem But did not always continue so when grievous Persecutions arose for the Gospel's sake and drove the visible Professors of the Religion into obscure places And I hope he will allow those Scriptures to be as true as these which say there shall be an Apostacy from the Faith and that the Church shall fly into the Wilderness 2 Thess II. 3. XII Revel 6. which is not consistent with such a visibility of the Church as this man dreams of As for the Prophecies which mention a Kingdom of Christ particularly VII Dan. 14. VII Dan. 14. they point at a state of his Church which is not yet come and when it doth come will be with a vengeance to the Roman Church Whose present state will be utterly overturned to make way for the setting up of Christ's Universal and Everlasting Kingdom Which is to be erected when the Mystery of God is finished X. Revel 7. XI 15. and that cannot be till Babylon that is Rome be thrown down XVIII Revel 2. XIX 1 2 6. And we are so far from thinking this Kingdom will be invisible that we believe it will be the most illustrious appearance that ever was of Christian Truth Righteousness Charity and Peace among men He bids us as his manner is see more in other places But if they had more in them than these we should have had them at length And his Fathers also some light touches of which he gives us just as he found them in a cluster altogether word for word in a Book called The Rule of Faith and the Marks of the Church which was answered above LXXX years ago by Dr. J. White who observes * VVay to the True Church Sect. 23. that when Origen whom upon other occasions they call an Heretick saith The Church is full of VVitnesses from the East to the VVest he speaks not of the outward state or appearance thereof but of the truth professed therein Which though clear to the World when he said so yet doth not prove it shall be always so for a Cloud of Apostacy might and did afterward obscure it St. Chrysostome doth not mean that the Church cannot be at all darkned but not so as to be extinguished no more than the Sun can be put out For he could not be so sensless as not to know that it had been for a time eclipsed When St. Austin saith They are blind who see not so great a mountain He speaks against the Donatists who confined the Church to themselves as the Papists now do And he justly calls them blind who
or respect tho no Worship nor Adoration to things that have no sense in them Therefore he might have kept to himself his first Scripture Exod. III. 5. which is brought to prove this not the worshipping of any Creature For putting off the shooes was a respect paid to earthly Princes in those Countries when they came into their presence Ps XCIX 5. In the next place XCIX Psal 5. instead of our Translation Worship at his footstool which he promised to stick unto he gives us their own Adore the footstool of his feet expresly contrary to the Original and to the most ancient Translations particularly the Chaldee Paraphrase which runs thus adore or worship in the House of his Sanctuary for he is holy Which is so plain and literal an Interpretation that Jansenius and Lorinus himself follow it And they among the Ancients who follow the Vulgar Translation thought it so horrible a thing to worship his Footstool thereby underdanding the Earth which is called God's footstep that they expound these words of Christ Hear St. Austin upon the place I am afraid to worship the Earth lest he that made Heaven and Earth condemn me observe that and yet I am afraid not to worship the Footstool of my Lord because the Psalmist saith Worship the Footstool of his Feet What therefore shall I do In this doubt I turn my self to Christ whom here I seek and find how without impiety the Earth may be worshipped without Impiety may be worshipped the Footstool of his Feet For he took Earth from the Earth Flesh being of the Earth and he took Flesh of the Flesh of Mary He must have a brow of brass if he can read this and not be put out of countenance But if they had any shame left they would not draw in St. Hierom to conuntenance this Impiety Whom this man quotes again though he tells us not in what Epistle to Marcella we may find it to prove that the Ark was worshipped in regard of the Images that were set upon it that is the Cherubims A foul Forgery For he only saith the Tabernacle was venerated that is had in honourable regard because the Cherubims were there Veneration is one thing and Religious Worship is another And his meaning is no more than this that they reverenced the Sanctuary as God commanded Moses because of a Divine presence there It was the more impudent to alledg him because he is the Father who saith * L. W. in Ezek. c. 16. We have one Huband and we worship one Image which is the Image of the Invisible Omnipotent God i. e. Christ What he intends by alledging II. Philip. 10. for a proof that Images are to be worshipped I cannot imagine unless he be so sensless as to take the Name of a thing for an Image of it And he could not but know also that when we bow at the Name of Jesus we worship our Lord Christ His long Discourse of the brazen Serpent mentioned XXI Numb XXI 8. Numb 8. is as impertinent For there is no proof that it was an Image nor the least signification that it was set up to be worshipped If it were why did Hezekiah break it in pieces for that very reason because in process of time People burnt incense to it He ought to have known also That Vasquez as I shew'd before together with Azorius both learned Jesuits with a great many other of the best Writers of his own Church acknowledge that no Image among the Jews was set up for worship And Azorius expresly confutes his most learned Dr. Saunders for abusing the Testimony of some Fathers to prove the contrary As this man doth those whom he hath named particularly their Pope Gregory the Great who is known to all the World to have been against the Worship of Images though he earnestly contended to have them in Churches But I refer the Reader to Bishop Montague for satisfaction about his Fathers some of which are forged others say nothing to the purpose and John Damascen was no Father but a superstitious Monk because contrary to his custome he takes notice of some of our Objections against Image-worship and endeavours to answer them which may seem to require consideration though I think the most ordinary Reader might be left to grapple with him His Answer to the first Objection of Hezekiah's breaking the brazen Serpent seeing it the cause of Idolatry if it have any sense in it is an audacious reflection upon that good King nay upon the Holy Ghost who commends him for what he did Whereas this man going about to prove that the abuse of a good thing ought not to take away the use of it doth as good as say Hezekiah should not have broken it but left it as a Monument of God's Mercy to them without destroying it What is this but censuring him instead of answering us His Answer to the next is an impudent denial of their Principles and of their Practice For their greatest Writers say it is the constant Opinion of Divines that the Image is to be worshipped with the same worship wherewith that is worshipped of which it is the Image So Azorius The third is no Answer to what we charge upon them but a false Charge upon us Who do not fall down before the Sacrament and worship it as an Image of Christ but worship Christ himself when we receive it upon our Knees The Fourth is a fresh piece of Impudence in denying Images to be set up in Churches with a special intent that People should worship or adore them and in affirming That the worship is given them as it were by a consequence and rather because it may be lawfully given than because it is principally sought to be given For their great Cardinal Bellarmin * L. 2. de Imag. c. 21 22. to name no other expresly saith That the Images of Christ and of the Saints are honoured not only by accident and improperly but per se and properly so that they terminate the Veneration as they are considered in themselves and not only as they represent their Exemplar And their Opinion savours of Heresie in that Church who say that they are not set up to be worshipped Of which this man I believe was sensible when he tells us They are partly set up in Churches to stir up our minds to follow the Example of those holy men whose Images we behold Which supposes this not the whole end for which they are set up but that they are partly intended for another purpose What that is he durst not confess for fear he should confute himself For he knew that the stirring up of Peoples minds to follow the Saints is but a small part of the reason for which Images are set up in Churches the great end is that they may be worshipped His distinction between an Idol and an Image is as vain as all the rest as our Authors have demonstrated a thousand times and that
Chapter to that which he pretends to prove in the beginning That there is one Infallible Rule for understanding the Holy Scripture Which if he would have spoken sense he should have shown is Tradition But not a syllable of this He only endeavours to lose his Reader in a mist of Words He knew if he understood any thing there is no Traditive Interpretation of Scripture For if there be Why is there such difference among their own Interpreters in the Exposition of it Nay Why do they reject Ancient Interpretations of Scripture for which there is some Tradition As Maldonate a famous Jesuite doth upon XIX Matt. 11. Where he confesses XIX Mat. 11. that almost all expound those words as if the sense of them was that all men cannot live single because all have not the gift of continency And among these almost all he himself mentions Origen Greg. Nazianzene St. Ambrose But I cannot persuade my self saith he to follow this Interpretation A most remarkable instance of the partiality of these men who would tie us to receive the sense of One or Two and miscall us if we will not be bound up by them but take the Liberty to themselves of rejecting almost all when it serves their Interest II. The Protestants he saith affirm That in matters of Faith we must not rely upon the Judgment of the Church and Her Pastors but only upon the Written Word Answer OUR Doctrine is That the Written Word is the only Rule of our Faith And therefore we cannot rely barely upon the Judgment of the Church and of Her Pastors as Papists do but must have what they deliver proved out of the Word of God This is not contrary to our Bibles but conformable to them For they call us to the law and to the testimony VIII Isa 20. And the Apostles themselves we find nay our Blessed Lord and Saviour did not desire to be believed unless they spake according to the Scriptures unto which they appealed XXIV Luke 27.44 1 Cor. XV. 3 4. Whose express words if we contradict we are void of all sense but if we do not it must be confessed he is void of all shame in charging us with affirming that which is contrary to the express words of our own Bibles particularly XXIII XXIII Mat. v. 2 3. Mat. 2. The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses seat All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe that observe and do Let the Reader here seriously consider what a Front this Man hath who talks of express words when there is not an express Syllable in this place either of Church or of Pastors or of their Judgment or of Faith O! but he speaks of Scribes and Pharisees which is the same But doth this answer his Pretensions of giving us express Words and not words Tantamount And if Scribes and Pharises be equivalent to Church and Pastors it must be his own Church and Pastors for they are not our Paterns which is not much for their Honour to be the Successors of the Scribes and Pharisees Whose Authority sure was not such that our Saviour here required his Disciples to rely upon it in matters of Faith For if they had they must have rejected their Lord and Master and denied him to be the Christ Into this Ditch those blind Guides at last plunged those who blindly followed them Therefore all that our Saviour here meant is as wiser Men than this and Jesuits too acknowledg that they should obey them being Teachers in all things not repugnant to the Law and the Divine Commandments So the before-named Menochius upon the place to say nothing of the Ancients who would have thrust out of the Church such a Man as this who maintains that Christ taught his Disciples to obey those Pastors not only in some principal Matters but in all whatsoever without Distinction or Limitation Which I may truly say is a Doctrine of the Devil Nor is there any thing express in the next place and therefore he only makes his Inference from it X. Luke 16. which should have been this if he had known how to discourse That the Apostles were the Legats and Interpreters of Christ as Christ was of God Therefore he that despised the Apostles despised Christ as he that despised Christ despised God But what then Truly nothing to this Man's purpose For the Church and the Pastors now have not the Authority of Apostles If they had they would not desire no more than the Apostles did to be believed without proof from the Scriptures Upon the next place XVI Matth. 19. XVI Mat. 19. which is as impertinent he passes a very wise Note That our Saviour doth not say whosoever but whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth c. Whereby he shuts out St. Peter and his Successors to whom they commonly apply this Text from all Jurisdiction over Persons and confine it unto things only Let his Church reward him for this Service for we are not at all concerned in his Note but rather note how far he is still from bringing express Texts to his purpose here being as little express mention of Faith and of Pastors and of the Church and their Judgment as in the former places And if you will believe Menochius a better Interpreter than this our Saviour speaks of the Supreme Power of remitting or retaining Sins of excommunicating and absolving not a word that he could see of untying Knots and Difficulties in Matters of Faith He bids us see more places in XVII Deut. 8. c. But I would advise the Reader not to trouble himself to turn to them For the first and two last are nothing to his purpose and the second is directly against him For the Prophet doth not bid them go and ask the Priests their Opinion but ask them what the Law of God was in the case propounded And there is as little to be found in the Fathers the last of which is no Father For he lived in the time of our King Henry 1. and was a stickler for his Master Pope Vrban who in this Man's Logick is become the Church and her Pastors upon whose Judgment we must rely In good time they will be Judges in their own Cause and then the business is done III. His next Charge is that we affirm The Scriptures are easy to be understood and that therefore none ought to be restrained from reading of them Answer THIS is neither our Position nor is the contrary theirs For no Protestant will say That all Scriptures are easy to be understood Nor will any Papist say They are all hard to be understood Some are easy as much that is as is necessary to our Salvation Which is the express affirmation of St. Chrysostome in many places 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All things necessary are manifest Hom. 3. in 2 Thess Now let us see what there is expresly contrary to this in our Bible First St. Peter doth not say 2 Pet. III. 16. That the
Text II. Jam. 10. speaks not a word of Faith therefore instead of express words this man tells us by a likeness of reason it is the same in Faith that it is in Sin he who denies one Article denies all We deny none but only their New Articles which are no part of the Ancient Apostolick Catholick Faith IV. Act. 32. The next IV. Acts 32. speaks of the Brotherly affection and unanimity that was among the First Christians And that which follows 1 Cor. I. 10. 1 Cor. I. 10. doth not tell us what was but what ought to be in the Church For among those Corinthians there were very great Divisions as appears by that very Chapter Therefore he is still beside the Book and very childishly objects to us the Sects that are among us as an Argument we are not the true Believers the Apostle speaks of when the Apostolical Churches were not free from them while the Apostles lived nor is the Church of Rome or any other Church at such unity but there are various Sects among them He hath little to do who will trouble himself upon the account of such a Scribler as this to consider that heap of Texts which he hath hudled together without any order or any regard to his Point he was to prove What St. Austin also and the rest of his Fathers say about Unity doth not at all concern us who preserve that Unity which they have broken by preserving that One Faith from which they of the Church of Rome have departed For it will not suffice them to believe as the Apostles did but they have another Faith of their own devising This is that wherein we cannot unite with them And all the Unity they brag of is in truth no better than that of the Jews Hereticks and Pagans who as St. Austin * De Verbis Domini Serm. VI. speaks maintain an Vnity against Vnity In this they combine together to oppose that one Faith the Apostles delivered as insufficient to Salvation Which is a conspiracy in Error rather than unity in the Truth XI That St. Peter was not ordained by Christ the first Head or Chief among the Apostles and that among the Twelve none was greater or lesser than other Answer WE are now come to the great Point which is the support of the whole Roman Cause But he neither knows our Opinion about it nor their own or else dares not own what it is We believe Peter was the first Apostle and that he was a Chief though not the chief Apostle For there were others who were eminent that is Chiefs upon some account or other as well as himself 2 Cor. XI 5. XII 2. But what he means by a first Head or Chief neither we nor those of his own Religion know unless there were secondary Heads and Chiefs among the Apostles one over another This is strange language which none understands Peter was first in Order Place Precedence but not in Power Authority and Jurisdiction in these none was greater or lesser than another Which is not contrary to any Text in the Bible but most agreeable thereunto For so the Text saith X. Matth. 2. X. Matth. 2. and we needed not his Observation to inform us That all the Evangelists when they mention the Apostles which Christ chose put Peter first Which doth not signifie he was the worthiest of them all that no way appears but that he and Andrew his Brother were first called we expresly read and possibly he might be the Elder of the Two But if it did denote his Dignity and Worthiness it doth not prove his Authority over the rest as he is pleased to improve this Observation in the Conclusion of his Note upon this place for tho he had some eminent qualities in him which perhaps were not in others they gave him no Superiority in Power but in that every one of them was his equal What follows upon this Text is so frivolous and childish a reasoning it ought to be despised Next he betakes himself to the Rock XVI Matth. 18. mentioned XVI Matth. 18. which they have been told over and over again but they harden their hearts against it is not spoken of Peter as this man most impudently contrary to his own Bible makes the words sound but of the Faith which Peter confessed as the general current of Ecclesiastical Writers expound it But if we should by the Rock understand Peter it insinuates no Supremacy much less clearly insinuates it For none but such a man as this to whom the Bell clinks just as he thinks would have thought of that at the reading of the word Rock but rather of Firmness Stability or Solidity which the Word plainly enough imports but nothing of Authority Our Blessed Lord himself is not called a Rock or Stone with respect to his being the Soveraign and Absolute Pastor of his Church but because of the firm Foundation he gives to our Hope in God Next to those who by Rock understand as I said the Faith which Peter confessed the greatest number of Ancient Expositors understand thereby Christ himself Unto whom this man hath the face to say these words do not agree because he speaks of the time to come I will build as if Christ were not always what he ever was being the same to day yesterday and for ever It is a burning shame as we speak that such men as this should take upon them to be instructors and to write Books which have nothing in them but trifling observations and false allegations For after all should we grant Peter to be the Rock it will not exclude the rest of the Apostles from being so as much as he for the Church was built upon them all on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets II. Ephes 20. And accordingly St. John had represented to him not One alone but Twelve Foundations of the Wall of the New Jerusalem i. e. the Church of Christ which had in them the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lord XXI Rev. 14. The next place XVIII Matth. 18. XVIII Matth. 18. is so plain a promise to all the Apostles that it is impudence to restrain it to St. Peter or to conclude from thence any Preroragative to him above the rest especially if it be observed that when this Promise was fulfilled they were all equally partakers of it when our Saviour breathed on them and said unto them mark that he breathed on them all and said not to Peter alone but them i. e. the Apostles Receive ye the Holy Ghost Whos 's soever sins ye retain XX. John 22 23. they are retained c. XX. John 22 23. Now he falls a Reasoning again for alas express Texts fail him but it amounts to no more than this That our Saviour did not call him Simon in the forementioned place but gave him another name I am sorry for his ignorance that he did not know or for his dishonesty that he would not consider
our sins to any man but to God only Answer THis is a most impudent falshood for we press this as a Duty in some cases for the quieting of mens Consciences when they are burdned with Guilt particularly before they receive the Communion and when they are sick But that which we affirm in this matter is That God doth not require all Christians to make a particular Confession privately to a Priest of every sin he hath committed tho only in thought under pain of being damn'd if he do not Much less do we believe such Confession to be Meritorious and Satisfactory for sin Nor do the Scriptures which he quotes prove a syllable of this doctrine The first he alledges III. Matth. 5 6. Matth. III. 5 6. speaks of those who confessed their sins before they received Baptism of John the Baptist But what is this to Confession of sins after Baptism And besides there is not a word of their confessing them to John nor of particular Confession of every sin And therefore Maldonate tells such raw Divines as this We ought not to rely upon this Testimony for it is manifest it doth not treat of Sacramental Confession which was not yet instituted And Bellarmine their great Master durst venture no further than to call this which was done at John's Baptism a figure of their Sacramental Confession And this poor man himself concludes no more from hence than this That we may confess our sins who doubts of it not only to God but also to man But this is very short of what he undertook to prove by express Texts That we ought to confess c. Act. XIX 18 19. Nor dare he venture to conclude any more from the next place but that we may confess our sins to men XIX Acts 18 19. Where he bids us Behold Confession but doth not tell us to whom So we are never the wiser because it might be to God and that before all the Company as the words seem to import But he bids us also Behold Satisfaction because several people not the same he spake of before brought forth their curious Books which were worth a great deal of money and burnt them before all men A plain and publick demonstration indeed that they detested those Magical Arts whereby they gave also satisfaction to all men of their sincere renunciation of such wicked practices But what proof is this of a Compensation made to God hereby for their Sins which deserved of him an acquittance His Third Text is still more remote from the business V. Numb 6 7. Numb V. 6 7. and therefore alledged by wiser heads than his such as Bellarmine only as a figure of Sacramental Confession the least shadow of which doth not appear For there is neither Confession of all sins here mentioned but only of that particular for which the Sacrifice was offered nor Confession of the sin to the Priest but rather to the Lord as the words more plainly signifie If a man or wâ—â—an commit any sin that men commit and do trespass against the LORD and that person be guilty then they shall confess their sin which they have done An unbiassed Reader would hence conclude they were bound to confess their sin to the LORD against whom they had trespassed His other Scriptures perhaps he was sensible were nothing to the purpose and therefore he only sets down the Chapter and Verse as his manner is when he bids See more where nothing is to be seen For the first is only the same we had out of St. Matthew The next V. James 16. speaks of one man's confessing his sins to his neighbour The next we had before under the former Head And the last I am willing to think is mis-printed or his mind was much amiss when he noted it XVII Matth. 14. His Fathers also have only the word Confession not saying whether to God or to man and he thinks that enough But it is a shameless thing to quote St. Chrysostom for this Doctrine who in so many places exhorts his people only to confess their sins in private to God that Sixtus Senensis is forced to expound him as if he spake only against the necessity of such Publick Confession as was abolished at Constantinople But Petavius who proves there was no such Publick Confession is fain to desire the Reader to be so kind as not to take St. Chrysostom's words strictly but spoken popularly in a heat of declamation And we are content to do so if they would be so just as to do the same in other cases But still we cannot think St. Chrysostom so very hot-headed but that sometimes he would have been so cool as to have spoken more cautiously and not have so frequently over-lasht as they make him That which he quotes out of Ambrose he is told by Bellarmine is Greg. Nyssen so little doth this poor man know of their own Authors As for his sitting to hear Confessions if his Author be worth any thing which is much suspected by Learned men of his own Communion it is meant of Publick Confession such as was in use in his time XVI That Pardons and Indulgences were not in the Apostles times Answer NOthing truer by the Confession of their own Authors particularly Antoninus * Part I. Tit. X c. 3. in his Sums Of these we have nothing expresly neither in the Scriptures nor out of the sayings of the Ancient Doctors The same is said by Durandus and many others who have been so honest as to confess That such Indulgences and Pardons as are now in use are but of late invention There being no such thing heard of in the Ancient Church as a Treasure of the Church made up of the Satisfaction of Christ and of the Saints out of which these Indulgences are now granted for the profit of the dead as well as of the living Whereas of old they were nothing but Relaxations of Canonical Penances when long and severe Humiliations had been imposed upon great Offenders which sometimes were thought fit to be remitted upon good considerations either as to their severity or as to their length Now this which was done by any Bishop as well as he of Rome we are not against But such Indulgences are in these ages of no use because the Penitential Canons themselves are relaxed or rather laid aside and no such tedious and rigorous Penances are inflicted which the Church of Rome hath exchanged for Auricular Confession and a slight Penance soon finished The first place he produces out of our Bible to countenance their Indulgences 2 Cor. II. 10. we had before to prove men may forgive sins Sect. XIV and others have alledged it to prove men may satisfie for their sins now it is pressed for the service of Indulgences What will not these men make the Scripture say if they may have the handling of it But after all this will not serve their purpose for the Pardon the Apostle here speaks of was nothing
acts Which very well agrees with what he said before and we with him Faith enters us into a state of acceptance with God but we cannot go to Heaven unless we bring forth the fruit of Faith in new Obedience So he explains himself most excellently in that very place a little before in these words which comprehend the whole business I think that the first beginnings and the very foundations of Salvation is Faith the progress and increase of the building is hope but the perfection and top of the whole work is Charity I will not trouble the Reader with what the rest of his Fathers say since they themselves are sensible their Cause is endangered by the Fathers Which is so notorious that they have taken care to have this passage expunged out of the very Index of St. Austin's works * Printed 1543. apud Ambr. Girau upon the Psalms Through Grace we are saved by Faith tho St. Paul affirms the same II. Ephes 8. And out of the very Text of St. Cyril upon Isaiah these words are ordered to be expunged by the Spanish Index of Gasp Quiroga the Grace of Faith is sufficient to the cleansing of sin and Christ dwells in our heart by Faith In I. Isa in 51. No wonder then they have dealt thus with later Authors of theirs own who followed the Fathers Doctrine particularly with Vatablus out of whose Annotations upon VIII Isa 32. they have ordered these words to be blotted out They that beliive in the Lord shall be saved but they that do not shall perish And these upon VIII Luk. Faith saveth XXII That no Good Works are Meritorious Answer AT last he speaks some truth tho very lamely For if by meritorious were meant nothing but that good works are highly valued by God when performed out of love to him and we deny our selves to serve him which undoubtedly he will reward with a glorious Recompence tho far transcending our services there would be no quarrel about this matter But by works meritorious they mean such as are no ways defective and have such an exact proportion to the Reward that God is bound in strict Justice to bestow or rather pay it Now this is it we deny believing that Good works in the rigour of Justice do not deserve eternal life as wages and this is it which they presume but can never prove His first Text XVI Mat. 17. XVI Matth. 17. is so far from express that quite contrary it saith God will only reward every man according to his works not for the merit of his works which imports them to be an adequate cause whereas according signifies nothing of a cause but only of a respect or comparison between the work and the reward so that they who have done evil shall be punished and they that have done good be blessed And he belies St. Austin according to the manner of their Catholick Sincerity to justifie his Interpretation For St. Austin speaks of the Punishment of Sinners Serm. XXXV de verbi Apost not of the Reward of the Righteous I beseech you brethren attend diligently and be ye afraid as well as I for he doth not say He will render to every one according to his mercy but according to their works he saith not a word of their Faith which this man put in of his own head for now he is merciful but then just Would to God they would take St. Austin's counsel and so diligently attend to this as to repent of their shameless Forgeries that they may find Mercy with God which hereafter will be denied The word for Reward in V. Matth. 12. is not to be interpreted Wages and Hire due to the work For the Labourers who came at the Eleventh Hour into the Vineyard as St. Hilary * In Psal 129. in fine observes received Mercedem their Reward not of the work but of Mercy Which is exactly according to St. Paul IV. Rom. 4. where he saith there is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which this man would have translated Wages Reward of Grace not of Debt Which place St. Austin * In Psal XXXI having occasion to mention thus glosses Now to him that worketh that is presumeth of his Works and saith that for their merit the Grace of Faith was given the Reward is not reckoned of Grace but of Debt What 's this but that our Reward is called Grace If it be Grace it is freely given What 's meant by freely given It cost thee nothing Thou didst no good and Remission of sins is bestowed upon thee I have quoted this at large that if it be possible such men as this may be put to the blush if not confounded As one would expect they should be when they read St. Paul who tho he say Death is the wages of sin yet saith Eternal Life is the Gift of God Which the Fathers take great notice of particularly St. Hierom he doth not say the wages of Righteousness as he had said the wages of sin for eternal life is not earned by our labour but graciously bestowed by God's gift The same Answer serves for the next place X. Matth. 42. and all such Texts And 2 Cor. V. 10. was answered before that we shall receive according to what we have done in the body they that have done well shall be rewarded above their deserts and they that have done evil receive what they have deserved Which is the highest encouragement unto well-doing to believe That God will do more abundantly for us out of his infinite bounty than we can ask or think and not consider our merits which are none at all but his own incomprehensible Goodness and Mercy They that teach otherways derogate from the Grace of God and proudly arrogate to themselves a worthiness of which creatures are not capable I need not examine that heap of Scriptures which he confusedly huddles together for they have no more in them than these we have already considered And as for the Fathers it is a most insufferable impudence to say as he doth That they unanimously confirm the same The quite contrary hath been unanswerably proved by our Writers That the Fathers from the first times down to Venerable Bede have taught as he doth That no man ought to think his own merits will suffice him to salvation but let him understand That he must be saved by the sole Grace of God * In Psal 31. It is frivolous to alledg the word Merit so often used by the Fathers for they mean no more thereby but obtaining that which they are said to merit So the word is used in innumerable places and in many Authors Insomuch that in the Passion of St. Maximilian it is said his Mother after he was killed merited his Body of the Judge that is she obtained it by her Intreaties Every Novice in Learning knows this XXIII Faith once had cannot possibly be lost Answer IT was not possible for him to go on to speak some Truth
himself represents their Doctrine which hath as many friends and favourers in the Roman Church as it hath in ours Where no more than this is commonly taught That being assured of the truth of the Divine promises which cannot deceive us we are so far assured of attaining them as we are certain that we faithfully perform our duty which is the condition upon which the attaining of them depends But this is a very strange Man for because every Man ought not to be assured of his Salvation he will allow no Man to be assured no not St. Paul Expresly against the Doctrine of his own Church which looks upon him as a man particularly elected by God not only to the Apostleship but to Salvation Nor doth he contradict this in 1 Cor. XIX 27. 1 Cor. XIX 27. but rather tells us how he secured his Salvation by keeping under his Body By which means we also may be secured for if we continue in his Goodness as the next Scripture speaks XI Rom. 20 XI Rom. 20 21. 21. we ought not to doubt he will continue it unto us to the end And we teach no other assurance of Salvation but by constant Fidelity unto Christ which as long as we maintain we ought to be certain of the other The only fear is lest we should not be stedfast and therefore we are well admonished in the next Scripture 2 Philip. 12. II. Philip. 12. to work out our Salvation with fear and trembling But so doing we shall undoubtedly be saved No Church in the World more beats down vain security than this of ours nor doth any more incourage it than the Church of Rome where men are secured of their Salvation if they can be so vain as to believe it by confessing to a Priest and receiving his Absolution at the last Gasp The other Scriptures which he hath shovelled together are of no different import from these and therefore need not be examined Nor his Fathers neither which they have now made a shift to scrape together tho they had none in the first Edition of this Book For they that read Bellarmine could not but know what a great number of Testimonies are brought out of the Fathers to confirm their Opinion who hold men may be so certain they are in a state of Grace that they may be assured of their Salvation Particularly out of St. Austin in a great number of places more especially in XXII Tract upon St. John where he argues thus Our Saviour hath told me He that hears my words and believes on him that sent me hath eternal life and shall not come into condemnation Now I have heard the words of my Lord I have believed when I was an Infidel I was made a faithful man and therefore as he tells me I have passed from Death unto Life and shall not come into Condemnation not by my presumption but by his own promise Which words are so convincing that Bellarmine * L. III. de Justif C. X. himself acknowledges every one may conclude from this promise of Christ he is passed from Death unto Life c. The only question is with what certainty this can be gathered which St. Austin saith he doth not explain But it is plain to every understanding that there is the same certainty of the Conclusion that there is of the Premises A man may be as certain of his Salvation as he is that he sincerely believes Christ's words and is obedient to them Nor doth the place which this man quotes out of St. Austin contradict this but rather confirm it if the following words be added which this man fraudulently conceals They are these * In Psalm XLI There is no stability nor hope in my self My soul is troubled within me Wilt thou not be troubled do not remain in thy self but say To thee O Lord have I lift up my Soul Hear this more plainly Do not hope from thy self but from God For if thy hope be from thy self thy Soul will be troubled because it hath not yet found whence it may be secure of thy self Which shows St. Austin thought men might attain to security but not in or from themselves but in God alone before whom every one ought to humble himself that he may exalt him It is to no purpose to examine the rest XXVI That every Man hath not an Angel-Guardian or Keeper Answer MEN may believe either that every one hath or hath not and yet not contradict our Church which hath determined nothing about it nor hath it been resolved in any Church but every one left to think as he pleases For all that Suarez and Vasquez other kind of men than this durst say in this case is this that tho this Assertion be not exprest in Scripture nor defined by the Church mind that yet it hath been received with such an universal consent and hath such great foundation in Scripture as understood by the Fathers that it cannot be denied without great rashness and almost Error See here how cautiously these Learned men speak and and how ingenuously they confess the Church hath determined nothing in this Point but it is a kind of popular opinion As for Scripture in direct contradiction to this man they tell us it is not expresly delivered therein And whatsoever foundations they think are there laid for this Opinion it seems to me upon serious consideration that the Scriptures rather suppose that every man no not the good hath not a particular guardian Angel that constantly attends him But God sends either one or more Angels as there is occasion and as he thinks fit to do what he appoints Who after they have dispatch'd that business depart from them till he thinks fit again to employ those or some other Heavenly Messengers for their good This seems very manifest to me in that which is reported concerning Abraham Daniel St. Peter St. John and the Blessed Virgin her self in the I. of St. Luke Let him or any one else show such proofs if he can out of Scripture That the Angels do constantly remain with those whom they sometimes attend and are fixed in their Office of Guardianship to them XVIII Matth. 10. XVIII Matth. 10. Speaks not of One Angel but of more and doth not say they Guard Christs little ones but that they alway behold the face of his Father in heaven that is wait to receive his Commands as Servants who stand before their Master which they are ready to execute This confirms the other Opinion I now mentioned that Angels are only sent as God Orders and are not fixed in their Attendance Neither doth this Text speak of every man as this Scribler idly talks but of Christians and particularly the weaker sort called little ones who most needed their Ministry Mr. Calvin also in that very place which this man mentions restrains his question to the faithful who he dare not say have every one of them a particular Angel to minister to them
merits have so loaded us as to make us not beloved of God we may be relieved by the merits of those whom God doth love For when he saith Let me alone that I may destroy them what is it but to say I would have destroyed them had they not been beloved of thee Now what is this to the meritorious intercession of the Saints in the other World when he speaks of the merits as his phrase is of Moses here on Earth I have been the longer in this 2 Chron. VI. 16. because it will serve to answer all the rest For in 2 Chron. VI. 16. the Prayer expresly relies upon the promise God had made to his Servant David not upon David's merits In the next place CXXXII Psal 1. CXXXII Psal 1. God is desired to remember David's afflictions but how doth it appear that they merited If this Psalm was made by David as many think from the first 8 Verses of it sure he was not so immodest as to plead his own merits with God The truth is the Penner of this Psalm whoever he was most likely Solomon puts God in mind of David and his fidelity to him under all his sufferings because of the Covenant God had made and confirmed by an Oath with that pious man v. 10 11 12. He doth wisely only to name the next place 2 Chron. I. 9. for the words are expresly against him which are these Now O Lord God let thy promise unto David my Father be established But the alledging LXIII Isa 17. argues gross Ignorance for it 's a plain desire God would return to them for the sake of the Twelve Tribes of Israel which contain'd his people who were his inheritance as Menochius and indeed the Text it self expounds it And this desire is founded upon the above-named Covenant Promise or Oath made to their Fathers which he may find in a number of Places 1 King VIII 25 26. 2 Chron. XXI 7. LXXXIX Psal 3 4. Why he adds the two next places unless to make a show I cannot imagine For H ster's Apocryphal Prayer hath nothing in it sounding this way but only those words O God of Abraham And David only says 1 Chron. XXIX 8. O God of Abraham Isaac and Israel our Fathers Which no Man in the World but himself I believe will take to be naming them for his Intercessors as he speaks when they evidently signify the favour and kindness God had to them which he hoped he would graciously continue according to his Promise unto his People Israel The last place XX. Exod. 5. is a direct Confutation of all that he saith for it mentions not the Merits of good Men but the Mercy which God will show unto thousands of them that love him and keep his Commandments God of his infinite Mercy put an end to the reign of these Men who thus fouly abuse his holy word that they may no longer pervert the right way of the Lord and mislead his People into pernicious Errors XXXIV That we ought not expresly to pray them to pray or intercede to God for us Answer HEretofore the words were these That we may not pray to them which is the true point But now they are changed into We may not pray them to pray for us As if the Church of Rome did no more than this when it is manifest they pray directly to them and Invocation according to their Doctrine is a part of that Worship which is due to them whereas praying them to pray for us as one man desires another to do hath nothing of worship in it He could not go on to deal sincerely as he had begun in the former Section Truth is a very great stranger to them and their great business is to misrepresent both our Opinion and their own Luk. XVI 24. The very first Scripture also which he quotes over again if it prove any thing proves more than he would have us think is their Opinion For the Man doth not say I pray Father Abraham pray for me but have mercy on me But I have told him before this is a Parable which he will by no means allow and thinks to choke us with the Voice of ten Renowned and Ancient Fathers who all affirm this to be a true History and not a Parable But this Man hath very ill luck with his Fathers for the very first he mentions who should have been one of the last Theophylact not only calls it a Parable but is so confident of it that he says they think foolishly so it is in the Greek tho in the Latin they leave out that word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 foolishly who take it for an History The Reader I believe blushes for this Man who if he could or would have look'd into Maldonate a Jesuit of no mean note he might have found several other Fathers whom Theophylact follows in this opinion And St. Chrysostome among the rest who indeed sometimes says it is a History but doth not say as this Man makes him that it is not a Parable And if the Cause must be carried by the Voices of Fathers I can name him more than Ten or a Dozen who say the Souls of the Faithful do not enjoy the Glorious Vision of God till the Resurrection And therefore Saints can neither know our Prayers nor are to be invoked as he concludes merely from this Parable Concerning which I think both Maldonate and Menochius two considerable Jesuits have very judiciously resolved for the quieting of this doubt whether it be History or Parable that it is both For that there was a rich man and a poor called Lazarus that the one when he died went to Hell and the other was carried to Abraham's Bosome is a History But that the rich man talk'd with Abraham and desired him to send Lazarus to cool his Tongue with a drop of Water is a Parable adjoyned to the History for they that are in Hell do not ask Courtesies of the Saints Now it happens unfortunately for this man that what he grounds his Argument upon falls within that part which is Parable Father Abraham have mercy on me Which Maldonate judiciously observes is a form of Speech which Beggers use as they lye in the High-way showing their sores and well represents how Lazarus and he had changed Conditions Lazarus was poor here and the rich man stript of all there Here the rich man enjoyed his pleasure and there Lazarus rejoyced No man of sense can reject this Interpretation And yet this Writer cries out Lo two Saints are here prayed to and besought in one verse Nay he hath the Confidence to ask us For God-sake where are your Eyes Truly mine are newly open this morning when men are wont to be most sober and I can see none to whom the rich man addresses his Request but Abraham alone How this man came to see double I leave it to himself to consider Here is not a word said to Lazarus in this Parable
to be raised out of his Grave XXII Luke 18. That which follows also in XXII Luke 18. I will not drink of the fruit of the vine c. plainly belongs to the Paschal Feast as they stand in St. Luke who immediately thereupon proceeds to the Institution of the Sacrament and speaks of the Cup that is there administred as different from the Cup he had before mentioned If this Man had understood his business he should rather have alledged XXVI Matth. 29. where immediately after the Institution of the Sacrament he adds these words But I say unto you I will not drink henceforth of the fruit of the vine c. which St. Luke puts before the Institution But it is a wonderful stupidity to conclude from hence as this Man doth That Christ will drink his own Blood in Heaven or else he concludes nothing because there is no material Bread and Drink in use there Menochius to name no others might have taught him better who thus expounds this passage Our Saviour speaks after the manner of men who being to depart from their Friends for a long time are wont to say We shall Eat and Drink together no more As I shall not drink of this fruit of the vine till that day c. when I shall drink ANOTHER New and Coelestial Wine with you in the Banquet of Eternal Glory And he might have known that we from hence with a wonderful force to use his own phrase conclude That Wine remains in the Sacrament after Consecration because our Saviour calls that which he said before was the New Testament in his Blood the fruit of the Vine that is Wine And so not only we but Origen Cyprian Chrysostom Austin Hierom Epiphanius Bede Euthymius and Theophylact refer the fruit of the Vine unto the Blood of Christ before mentioned as Maldonate himself acknowledges and could not produce so much as one Father to the contrary He might have known also that a great many of his own Church VI. John 51. do not think St. John VI. 51. and other verses of that Chapter speaks of Sacramental Bread as for other reasons so for this that if he did then such as Judas who eat the Sacramental Bread must have Eternal Life Which we find our Lord promises v. 40 47. to those who believe on him and this we take to be the eating he here speaks of as appears by the whole scope of the Chapter For if any such Conversion as they fancy in the Sacrament and call Transubstantiation could be proved out of this Text it would prove the Flesh of Christ is turned into Bread rather than the Bread into his Flesh because he saith The Bread that I will give you is my Flesh To make this good literally it is manifest his Flesh must be made Bread See into what Absurdities these men draw themselves by their perverse Interpretations It is not worth considering what he saith about Beza's interpretation of one word in this Verse there being those of his own Church as well as he that by living Bread understand Bread that gives Life which is must suitable to the words preceding and unto v. 33. We have noted often enough our Saviours words both in XXVI Matth. 26. and XXII Luke 19. And therefore do not say as he slanders us That Christ gave and the Apostles received nothing else but bare Bread for it was the Sacrament of Christ's Body as Druthmarus and a great many more Ancient than he expound those words This is my Body We believe also and thankfully acknowledge that the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament is the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ But those are St. Paul's words 1 Cor. X. 16. not our Saviours which spoils this man's Observation that our Lord calls it his Body both before and at the very giving of it Which if he had done tho these as I said are St. Paul's words who only calls it the Communion of his Body c. it would prove nothing but that the Bread is his Body which we believe and they are so absurd as to deny Tho we have bidden them note how St. Paul in that very place he next mentions 1 Cor. XI often calls that which he saith is the Lord's Body by the name of Bread v. 26 27 28. But they shut their Eyes and will not take any notice of it Why should we then regard his frivolous Argument to which he at last betakes himself against our true and real receiving of Christ by Faith Unto which Dr. Fulk hath long ago given a sufficient Answer in his Notes upon this Chapter We receive him after a Spiritual manner By Faith on our behalf and by the working of the Holy Ghost on the behalf of Christ So there is no need either of our going up to Heaven or Christ's coming down to us as he sillily argues His Ancient Fathers have been so often viewed and shown to be against them by our Writers and that lately particularly the two first he mentions that I will not go about a needless labour to give an account of them XL. That we ought to receive under both kinds and that one alone sufficeth not Answer VEry true for so Christ appointed so the Apostles both received and gave it so the Church of Christ for above 1000 years practised and wo be to them who alter Christ's Institution Which cannot be justified by such fallacious Arguments as this man here uses instead of giving us express Scripture for it That he promised but alas could find none and therefore makes little trifling reasonings his refuge First from VI. John 51. VI. John 51 53. which I have shewn doth not speak of Sacramental eating but if it did the next Verse but one he could not but see told him that it is as necessary to drink Christ's blood as to eat his flesh To which the Answer is not so easy as he fancies for we have only Dr. Kellison's word for it that the conjunction and is used for or Men may put off any thing by such shifts and it is as sufficient and as learned for us to say it is expresly and in our Bible and not or and you do nothing if you confute us not as you undertook by the express words of our own Bible How strangely do men forget what they promise and what they are about Besides the Fathers from these very words prove the necessity * See late Treatise against Communion in one Kind Ch. 3. of giving both the body and blood of Christ and attribute a distinct effect to each of them Particularly the Author of the Comments under the name of St. Ambrose in I. Cor. XI The flesh of Christ was delivered for the salvation of the body and the blood was poured out for our souls He should have proved not barely affirmed that Christ gave the Sacrament to the Disciples at Emaus XXIV Luke 30 35. XXIV Luke 30 35. We say he did not though
dying but of anointing for the health of the Body and the restoring a man to life Therefore he might have spared his Discourse about the matter and form c. of a Sacrament for their Sacrament is not here described but an holy Rite for a purpose as much different from theirs as the Soul is from the Body and Life from Death VI. Mark 13. Mark VI. 13. His own best Writers confess belongs not to this matter containing only an adumbration and a figure of the Sacrament but was not the Sacrament it self as Menochius expounds the place according to the Doctrine of the Council of Trent which saith this Sacrament as they call it was insinuated in VI. Mark Now that is said to be insinuated which is not expresly propounded mark that but adumbrated and obscurely indicated See how ignorant this man is in his own Religion XVI Mark 18. makes not any mention of anointing but only of laying on of hands and yet this man hath the face to ask as if the Cause were to be carried by impudence if they are not sick in their wits who oppose so plain Scriptures When nothing is plainer than that these places speak of Miraculous Cures as they themselves would confess If they would speak the truth to use his words and shame the Devil For Cardinal Cajetan a man of no small learning expresly declares neither of the two places where anointing is mentioned speak of Sacramental Vnction Particularly upon those words of St. James which is the only place the best of them dare rely upon he thus writes It doth not appear that he speaks of the Sacramental Vnction of Extream Vnction either from the words or from the effect but rather of the Unction our Lord appointed in the Gospel for the cure of the Sick For the Text doth not say Is any man sick unto death but absolutely is any man sick And the effect was the relief of the sick man on whom forgiveness of sins was bestowed only conditionally Whereas Extream Vnction is not given but when a man is at the point of death and directly tends as its form sheweth to remission of sins Besides St. James bids them call more Elders than one unto the sick man to pray and anoint him which is disagreeing to the Rite of Extream Vnction Nothing but the force of truth could extort this ingenuous Interpretation from him for he was no Friend to Protestants but would not lie for the Service of his Cause And before him such Great men as Hugo de S. Victori Bonaventure Alex. Halensis Altisiodor all taught that Extream Vnction was not instituted by Christ His Fathers say not a word of this Extream Unction Both Origen and Bede as Estius acknowledges accommodate the words of St. James unto the more grievous sort of sins to the remission of which there is need of the Ministry of the Keys and so they refer it to another Sacrament as they now call it viz. that of Absolution See the Faith of this man who thus endeavours to impose upon his Readers as he doth also in the citing of St. Chrysostome who saith the same with the other two and of St. Austin who only recites the Text of St. James in his Book de Speculo without adding any words of his own to signify the sense As for the 215. Serm. de Temp. it is none of his Next to this he makes us say XLIII That no interior Grace is given by Imposition of Hands in Holy Orders And that Ordinary Vocation and Mission of Pastors is not necessary in the Church Answer HERE are Two Parts of this Proposition in both of which he notoriously slanders us and in the first of them dissembles their own Opinion For we do not say That no interior Grace is given by Imposition of Hands in Holy Orders but that this is not a Sacrament properly so called conferring sanctifying Grace and that the outward Sign among them is not Imposition of Hands but delivering of the Patin and Chalice concerning which the Scripture speaks not a syllable Nor is any man admitted to be a Pastor among us but by a Solemn Ordination wherein the Person to be ordained Priest professes he thinks himself truly called according to the Will of our Lord c. unto that Order and Ministry and the Bishop when he lays hands on him saith in so many words Receive the Holy Ghost c. which is the conferring that Grace which they themselves call gratis data and which the Apostle intends in the Scriptures he mentions 1 Tim. IV. 14. In the first of which 1 Tim. IV. 14. there is no express mention of Grace which he promis'd to show us in our Bible but of a Gift By which Menochius himself understands The Office and Order of a Bishop the Authority and Charge of Teaching And so several of the Ancient Interpreters such as Theodoret St. Chrysostom understands it As others take it to signify extraordinary Gifts such as those of Tongues Healing c. none think it speaks of sanctifying Grace So that I may say alluding to his own words See how plain it is that this Man doth not understand the Scripture And hath made a mere Rope of Sand in his following reasoning for there is this Mission among us of which the Apostle speaks viz. A Designation unto a special Office with Authority and Power to perform it The Apostle speaks of the same thing in 2 Tim. I. 6. 2 Tim. I. 6. where there is no mention of Grace at all but only of the Gift of God which was in him Which if we will call a Grace a word we dislike not it was not a Grace to sanctify but to inable him to perform all the Offices belonging to that Order ex gr strenuously to Preach the Gospel and to propagate the Faith c. They are the words of the same Menochius from whence I may take occasion again to say See how plain the Scripture is against him And how fouly he belies us in saying that we affirm Laying on of Hands not to be needful to them who have already in them the Spirit of God For after the Bishop hath askt the question to one to be ordained Deacon whether he trust that he is inwardly moved by the Holy Ghost to take upon him that Office and Ministration c. And he hath answer'd I trust so then the Bishop after other Questions and Answers layeth hands on him Which is not to sanctify him for that is supposed but to impower him to execute the Office committed to him in the Church of God The Apostles words V. Hebr. 4. are alledged after his manner to prove what none of us deny That no man may take this Office upon him unless he be called to it They who have a mind to see more may soon find that the rest of the Scriptures some of which are the same again prove nothing but a Mission by laying on of Hands which we practice