but those things which as well the Prophets as Moses had foretold that they would come to pass that it behooveth that the Christ should suffer †Acts 26.22 23. and finally how could he in another place assure the * 1 Cor. 15 34. Corinthians that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures that he was buried and that he rose again the third Day according to the Scriptures since it is evident that none of these propositions is literally and expresly so written in any of the Books of the Old Testament but only are gathered from thence by consequence Now if that which is drawn from the Scriptures by good consequence is really in the Scriptures why do you reject it since you confess with me that there is nothing in the Scripture but what is Holy True and Divine conclusions of Truth are not formally in their principles but one cannot deny them to be there in Vertue and Power so that admitting of a principle one admits also all things that can be inferred from it by that very act as for instance he who saith that we have four gospels saith also that we have two and two of them these numbers being evidently contained in that which he hath expressed And the Scripture saying that Jesus Christ is a man saith also by those very words that he hath a soul and body the two parts of the nature of mans 'T is very true that a man may sometimes lay down things the consequences of which he will not allow of but this proceeds from the weakness of his understanding which doth not see all the Lawful consequences which may be drawn from them God whose Wisdom is infinite never affirms any thing without Knowing all the consequences which can be drawn from it so that we need not fear that he will go back from his word or deny any Doctrine to be his that can reasonably be concluded out of his word Since then that all things that can be lawfully inferred from the Holy Scripture are unavoidably true and Divine it is clear that one doth sufficiently prove the truth and holiness of a Creed when he shews that it follows from the positions expressed in the Holy Scripture without any need as formerly the Arians and now the new Methodists pretend to shew it in so many words This is the first principle which Scholarius a Greek indeed but of the side of the Latins laid down at the beginning of his Dispute against those of his own nation concerning the procession of the Holy Ghost first a Scholar orat Henet 3. part Act. Conc. Flor. p. 580. then we must not exspect saith he to find all the proofs expresly and in so many words in the Scripture for this is an excuse which many Hereticks used to save themselves but if there be any thing that may be deduced from what is said in the Scriptures we must Also receive it with the same honour as the Scriptures it self Cardinal Bellarmin who alone hath more desert and reputation in the Roman party then all the Authors and defenders of this new Method have put them all together acknowledgeth this same truth That which one inferreth evidently from the Scriptures saith he is evidently true the Scriptures presupposing it b Bellar. l. 4. de Ec. c. 3. Melchior Canus c Can. loc Theol. l. b. c. 8. Bishop of the Canaries Vega d Veg. l. 9. dê justificat c. 39. Gabril Vasques e Vasques Tom. 1 in Thom. dispute 5.6 3. and disput 12. art 8.6 ◠Alfons Salmeron f Salmer T. 1 prolegum de Canc. 91. all very famous amongst our adversaries make the same judgment of it and the last especially speaks thus of it We ought to hold for Doctrins of Divine Authority and worthy to be received by Faith not only the things which are expresly contained in the Scriptures but those also which are inferred from them by an necessary and evident consequence Certainly 't is enough for us to prove to our adversaries the truth of our beliefs either that we read them in the Scripture or that we infer them from thence since they agree with us that 't is a book Divinely inspired CHAP. X. That this pretended Method takes away certitude from all humane Knowledge and plungeth Religion the Sciences and all the life of men into a horrible confusion But these men demand of us here how we can assure our selves that the consequences which we draw from the Scripture are good and lawful for say they reason is sometimes abused concluding from a principle that which cannot truely be inferred from it Arians and Eutichians who demand formal Passages of the Chatholicks did not they pretend to conclude their false and pernicious opinions from divers places of Scripture where notwithstanding they were not Nestorius Palagius and before them all Origen were deceived in the same manner and there is not perhaps any Heresie which hath not endeavoured to ground it self upon the Scripture by false and abusive discourse Reason then being faulty how can we be assured of the truth of the things which by its means we have discovered in the Scripture for since it is often deceived who can tell us that it is not so now I do not think it strange that an Atheist should make this objection to us since his impiety obliges him to confound all knowledge in an infinite and remedisess incertitude But that men who make profession of the Christian Religion and whose interest t is to preserve Faith Assurance and Credulity in the world should propose to us a discourse which rums all these things from top to bottome in my opinion 't is either an impudence or an extream passion For consider I beseech you how far this fine discourse goeth reason say they is faulty therefore we cannot be assured of the conclusion which it draws from the Scripture But if this consequence be good what assurance can we have First what will become of this so much bragged of certainty of the Catholick Faith which they have alwaies in their mouths it will be accounted to them no other then a meer in discretion For whether they will or no 't is our understanding which receives the things of Faith which considers them and is lead to believe them by the reasons of truth which it seeth in them If our understanding by mistakes and abuses sometimes makes its aprehensions and conclusions uncertain our faith must necessarily be so too The consent of the people the ancient and uninterrupted successions of the Bishop of Rome the Majesty and brightness of the power Beauty Order and pomp of the ministers the light of the divine protection and such like considerations may perswade you that Rome is truely the Church of Jesus Christ but I say how can you be sure of it since this reason to whose report you give credit is false and if it may be faulty in other things why not in this and
abide with you eternally viz. The Spirit of truth which the world cannot receive because it neither seeth him nor knows him but you know him for he shalld well with you and be in you and verse the 26. The Comforter which is the Holy Ghost whom the Father will send in my name shall teach you all things and shall inspire into you all things which I have said Matt. 28.19 Teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost This appears because he proceeds from the Father and is sent by the Son When the Comforter shall come saith the Lord which I will send to you from my Father the Spirit of truth which proceedeth from my Father that shall witness of me John 15.26 If I go I will send to you the Comforter Joh. 16.7 and ver 13 14. When the Spirit of truth shall come he will teach you all truth for he will not speak of himself but will say all which he shall have heard and will tell you things to come he shall gloryfie me for he shall take of mine and shew it unto you 4. That the Holy Ghost is God Acts. 5.3 4. Peter said to Ananias Ananias why hath Satan filled thy heart to lie to the Holy Ghost c. Thou hast not lied unto men but God This is proved evidently because the proprieties and works of the true God are attributed to him in the Scripture as first His presence in all places Psal 138 Heb 139. 7 8. Where shall I go back from thy Spirit or where shall I flee back from thy face if I go into heaven thou art there if I descend into hell thou art present there Secondly his presence in the persons of all the faithful Rom. 8.9 You are not in the flesh but in the Spirit if the Spirit of God dwells in you 1 Cor. 6.19 1 Cor. 3.16 Know you not that you are the Temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you 2 Tim. 1.14 The Holy Ghost dwells in us Thirdly His knowing all things 1 Cor. 2.10 11. The Spirit searcheth all things yea even the deep things of God for what is it in men which knows the things of man except the Spirit of man which is in him likewise no man hath known the things of God except the Spirit of God John 14.26 The Comforter which is the Holy Ghost which the Father will send in my Name shall teach you all things see also John 14.13 Fourthly His knowledge and prediction of things to come 1 Tim. 4.1 The Spirit saith expresly that in the last times some shall revolt from the Faith Fifthly His all powerfulness 1 Cor. 12.11 One and the same Spirit doth all things distributing to every one particularly according as he will Sixthly His right of having a Temple an evident sign of his Divinity 1 Cor. 6.19 Do not you know that your body is the Temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you the which you have of God Seventhly His vertue of creating Job 26.13 His Spirit hath adorned the heavens Job 33.4 The Spirit of God hath made me and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life Luk. 1.35 The Angel answered and said to Mary The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee and the Vertue of the Soveraign shall over shadow thee and therefore the Saint which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God Eighthly That t is he which teacheth the faithful of Jesus Christ which is a work of God as it appears by Isai 54.13 alledged by the Lord John 6.45 They shall be all taught of God 1 Cor. 2.10 God hath revealed to us heavenly things by his Spirit and verse 12. and in John 16.13 The Spirit of truth shall teach you all truth Ninthly That he subsisted before the creation of all things Gen. 1 2. The Spirit of God moved upon the waters 5. That the Holy Ghost is that same God which is called the Lord or Eternal in Scripture This appears clearly For since there is no other God but the Lord Eternal as we have already proved by Scripture the Holy Ghost being God as we have shown it must necessarily be concluded that he is the same Lord eternal since otherwise he would not be God Moreover this is proved most evidently thus he who hath instructed sent and inspired the ancient Prophets of the Old Testament is the true eternal God worshipped heretofore in Israel as it appears through all their prophecies now it is the holy Spirit which hath instructed sent and inspired them 2 Pet. 1.21 The holy men of God being inspired by the holy Spirit have spoken 'T is he perticularly Acts. 1.16 who hath foretold that which we read in David Psal 40. Heb. 41. 10. 'T is he who spake by Isai Acts. 28.25 and commanded him to say that which we read in the 6 Chap. verse 9. of his prophecy 'T is he Heb. 9.1 8. who gave to Moses the ordinance which we read Levit. 16.2 'T is he Heb. 10.15 who spake in the 31 Chap. verse 32. of Jeremy 'T is he lastly Heb. 3.7 who saith in the 94 Psal Heb. 95. 8. that which we read there it follows then of necessity that he is the same Lord Eternal whom the Faithful under the Old Testament adored Thus have we clearly proved the Doctrine of the Trinity That there is three of them the Scripture teacheth it expresly 1 John 5.7 There are three which gives witness in heaven the Father the Word and the Spirit and these three are one Matt. 28.19 Teaching all Nations baptizing them in the name of the Father of the Son and of the holy Ghost 2 Cor. 13.13 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the Communion of the Spirit be with you all Amen And when the Lord Jesus was baptized these three persons were manifested distinctly the Father crying from heaven this is my beloved Son in whom I have taken delight the Son receiving the baptism in his humanity the Holy Ghost descending from heaven upon hm in form of a dove Matth. 3.16 17. And that these three persons are one and the same divinity appears by what we have all ready said Now that the Father is the true eternal God adored by the Israelites all the Scripture saith it and the words alone of Jesus Christ John 17.3 sufficiently teacheth it were speaking to the Father this is life eternal saith he that they should know the only true God That Jesus Christ is likewise the true eternal God and that the Holy Spirit is so also we have proved here above Since then that all the Scripture professeth that this eternal Lord is one only God as we have also justified one must then of necessity conclude that these three blessed and glorious persons the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost are but one and the same God which is that which the Church nameth the doctrine of the
say then to this procedure of the Heretiques do they grant them that one ought to hold nothing but that for a doctrin of Scripture which we read there in so many words and not reading exactly there the words of which the question is have they recourse to the Church to defend by its authority that which they think cannot be proved by the formal words of the Scripture which is the point at which all the cheating blowes of our methodists aim They do nothing of all this They doe not put the infalibilitie of the Church in play They hold themselves to the Scriptures and use its authority but for the defence of their cause and confessing that the terms of their questions are not read there exactly they protest that t is enough that the thing it selfe is found there and that t is gathered and deduced lawfully from thence and prove upon discourse found upon diverse passages and after having so proved it conclude that they have demonstrated it by the Scripture T is no matter saith S. Athan. Ep. de Synod Arim. Seleuc. T. p. 913. D. Athanasius in one of his bookes above named whither the words which one makes use of be in the Scripture or not provided that the sense of them be Orthodox and in the treatise of the decrees of the Council of Nice c idem l. de decret Synod Nic. p. 270. B. although that the words saith he be not so laid down in Scripture t is no matter so long as they have a sence truly drawn from the Scripture as it hath been said before what can one call more contentious saith S. Austin answering to Pascentius then to dispute of the name when the thing is manifest a Aug. Ep. 17 T. 2. p. 150. F and a little after you see saith he to him that from those words which are not in the Scripture one may give such reason by which it may appear that they are truths b Ibid. O. Maximinus who pressed him to prove by express terms of the Scripture that one ought to adore the holy Ghost t is well said answered he as if from the things which we read there we could not learn certain other things which we do not read there c Id l. 3. contr Max. c. 3. and following this distinction he professeth elswhere to have said what he read in or understood by the Scriptures conforming himself to their authority and St. Chrysostome d Id. l. 15 de civit D. cap. 1. gives us this rule that we ought to hold those things for holy writ whose sence is found in the Scriptures although they are not found there in the same words e Chrysost Hom. 7. in 1 Cor. p. 380. S. Gregory of Nazianzen in his thirty seventh speech disputes against the Hereticks who denying the divinity of the Holy Ghost urged him with the same wrangling to produce them a passage of Scripture which testifieth it expresly a Greg Nazian c. col 37.599.605 edit paris an 1609. Our methodists would have yielded to this assault and would have granted them that there being no formal passage to shew this truth it could not be proved by the Scriptures But S. Gregory on the contrary makes to them this wise and judicious remarke with the Style and manner of the teaching of the holy Scriptures b p. 605. that there are things which are said there which notwithstanding are not there and there are other things which are not said there which nevertheless are not wanting there some others are not said there nor are they there in effect and in fine some others are there and are spoke there He puts in the first ranck sleeping wakeing and the motions of God in the second his impassibility and that he is without beginning for though the Scriptures say often that God sleepeth or that he awaketh or that he moves locally yet notwithstanding it doth not signifie so And though that be in these words 't is not in that sence And though it never sayes expresly that he is impassible or without beginning c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it signifies it notwithstanding in divers places in other words Which the Divine made his adversaries confess who held that God was not begotten and without beginning and yet they could not produce any one passage which said it formally from whence he concludes that since by their own confession own may very well prove by the Scriptures that God is without beginning although it saith no where so expresly their procedure is altogether ridiculous for concluding that the divinity of the Holy Spirit cannot be proved by Scripture under pretext that t is not expressed there Shew me these things saith he that God is not begotten and without begining written in so many words or else we will reject them because they are not written a p. 606. And a little after how saith he dost thou keep thy self so closely to the letter and how dost thou side with the Judaical wisdome tying thy self to syllables and leaving the things if thou shouldst name twice five or twice seven and I should come and conclude from thence ten or fourteen or conclude that this thing which you call a mortal and rational animal is a man should I talk idly in thy opinion in discoursing after this manner but how canst thou think so fince I say but the very same things which thou saidst before For the determination is not more from who saith it then from him who doth oblidge necessarily to speak it b p. 606. D. viz. in saying things from whence it necessarily and inevitably follows See how this great man clearly establisheth the consequences which are drawn from Scripture Theodoret in a Dialogue printed with the works of S. Athanasius brings in one of these Hereticks which they call Macedonians from Macedonius their Author who alledged likewise that t is no where writ that the holy Ghost is God a Dialog contr Macedon tom 2. operum Athan p. 276 B. edit Paris An. 1627. To which the Orthodox Divine answered let us suppose that the name of God is not attributed to him in the Scriptures do but acknowledge that he hath the nature and operations of God and that satisfies me for the confession of his divinity But saith the other why do you say that which is not written 't is sufficient answers the Orthodox if you but only acknowledge his nature for though it were not written his nature of it selfe would consequenly draw this name from it For if once one confesseth that the holy Ghost is a person subsisting sanctifying and uncreated he of necessity is God though thou will not confess it Where is it that t is written saith the Macedonian that the Spirit is God even there answers the Orthodox where it is written that he is of the same essence And upon this Groand the Heretick having replyed that the Fathers had called the Son consubstantial
receive us into eternal habitations where the Scripture saith that he doth a thing which is the reason for which he doth it although to speak properly and exactly he doth not do it Secondly They abuse also the words of the Lord where he saith that the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven Matt. 12.32 neither in this age nor in the other that is to say add they neither in this life nor in Purgatory But why should not we rather say that by the age to come the Lord according to the Style of the Scriptures understands the Age which shall follow after the Resurrection from the dead and that it signifieth that God will never pardon this crime to the men who are guilty of it neither now nor at the last Judgment that he will never give them absolution for it neither in this life by the voice of his Spirit in their hearts nor in the other by the mouth of his Son Or why do not we say that he means that this sin shall be grievously and irresistably punished as well in this Age with temporal pains as in the other with eternal For as remitting or pardoning a sin signifieth not to punish so the not pardoning it signifieth to punish it yea to punish it grievously and certainly In that great day the Lord will also remit the sins to the faithful but not to impenitent sinners and besides what the thing saith of its self St. Paul testifieth it expresly where he prays God to have mercy on the house of Onesiphorus in that day 2 Tim. 1.18 Acts 1.19 20. and St. Peter where he exhorts the Jews to believe to the end that their sins might be blotted out in the time of the refreshment of the Lord. Thirdly 1 Cor 3.15 The most part of the Adversaries turn to the Service of their Purgatory that which St. Paul writes in the first to the Corinthians If the work of any one be burnt he shall suffer loss but he shall be saved yet as amidst the fire or rather by the fire pretending that this fire is that of Purgatory But first this passage by the common consent of Ancients and Moderns is reckoned amongst the obscure and Allegorical and by Consequence not proper to ground an Article of Faith upon Secondly I say that nothing can force us to take it for Purgatory For to leave the Expositions of Chrysostom of St. Augustin and of many others which take it otherwise why shall we not rather understand it of the Judgment which God shall make at the last day of the Doctrine of those Preachers who having retained the foundation of the Gospel have built upon it vain Beliefs which shall be reprehended by the light of the Advent of Jesus Christ but in such manner Amos 4.11 that losing the liking and praise of their own works they themselves shall not perish their works shall perish and not their persons which shall be saved but nevertheless as plucked out of the fire that is to say very hardly Paraphrase upon the Epistles of St. Paul to the Corinth Gal. Eph. Printed by Touss du Bray An. 1632. with Priviledge and Approbation as if they escaped from a fire as a fire-brand rescued from the burning as Amos saith and in such manner that they shall hold their Souls for a prey being obliged only to the bounty and Divine mercy for not having been devoured together with their works by the heat of that consuming fire which shall trie all men as many Learned men expound it and even the Author of the French Paraphrase upon the Epistle to the Corinthians Published lately at Paris and approved by three Doctors of Sorbonne Fourthly They have also-recourse to the Old Testament and alledge that the Lord in Zechary promised Zech. 9.11 That he would draw his prisoners out of the lake in which there is no water These are say they the Spirits which suffer in Purgatory But this is to play and not to reason For what is there in the Text of the Prophet which obligeth us to take this Lake for Purgatory I leave the literal Interpretation which understands it to be the Captivity and calamity of the Jews deprived of the refreshments of the Divine word and of the exercises of their Religion If we must Allegorize why should not we rather bring this passage to the eternal redemption which the Lord Jesus hath acquired to us by his blood drawing his mystical Israel that is to say his Church from the sad and pitiful condition where it was naturally being a prisoner of the Devil a slave of sin and guilty of the wrath of God the true Lake where there is no water since in that state there is no confolation whereas the Souls which they shut up in their Purgatory notwithstanding their griefs have according to what they say Bellar. of Purgl 2. c. 4. an incredible consolation because of the certain hope of their Salvation CHAP. VII That Justification by Works is not taught in the Scriptures FIrst To the validity of the good works which the regenerate do such as they pretend as merit the remission of sins and life eternal it can no more be proved by the Scriptures than the precedent Doctrines It is true that the Lord said of the penitent sinner Luke 7.47 Many sins are forgiven her for she hath loved much But it is also clear both by the precedent similitude and by the opposition which the Lord adds in saying Ver. 41 42. that to him to whom less is forgiven loves less that he sheweth her love which she bare to him not as the meritorious cause but as the signe and argument of the Grace which he had done her So we say very often Ver. 47. the Sun is risen for it is high day to signifie that the clearness of the day is not the cause but the effect and signe of the rising of the Sun And so it is that the Jesuit Villalpandus understands this passage in his Commentaries upon Ezech. Villalp in Ezech. 19.10 where having remarked that quoniam because is taken very often in the Scripture to signifie therefore and he alledgeth this passage for an example of it Many sins are forgiven her for she hath loved much that is to say Behold why she hath loved much saith he for the Argument of the Lord drawn from the Parable of the Creditor required such an epiphonema as is evident to the Reader As to the rest that faith was the cause of the remission of the sins of this woman the Lord shews it clear enough saying to her in the two Verses following Thy faith hath saved thee go in peace and that love to God Charity to our Neighbours and good works are the effects of the Grace which God doth us in pardoning us all the Scriptures teacheth clearly and namely Saint Paul Eph. 2.10 where he saith That we are the work of God created in Jesus
our selves than to consider the just value of that which is attributed to the Church in these places whether that this Infallibility and Sovereignty be pretended or real it is enough to resolve their Reasons to say that they can conclude nothing for themselves until they have proved that the Christians of Rome are the true Church of Jesus Christ which they can never prove by the Scriptures 6ly Now this Sovereign Authority which they give to the Pope and to the Church wch acknowledgeth him being impossible to be proved by the Scriptures it followeth that all the things which depend on it are not grounded there Such for Example is that distinction which they make between meats at certain days permitting the Christians to eat fish and not flesh in Lent and other-like times the establishing of Feasts the single life of the Ministers of their Religion the retrenchment of the Sacred Cup to all those who communicate except to him who hath consecrated the Eucharist and other-like things for which they alledge for the most part no other soundation than the Authority of the Pope and of the Church which depends upon him At least it is clear that they cannot prove by the Scriptures all that which any one of them affirm eth or useth for this purpose it being so slight and so far from their purpose that I do not think it worthy the relating CHAP. XII That the Scripture doth no where assert the five pretended Sacraments which Rome adds to Baptism and the Lords-Supper I Come now to the Sacraments the number of which they have increased adding five to the two which we allow of The first is the Ceremonie of the Confirmation where the Bishop anoints the person baptized with Oyl and Balm consecrated after a certain manner giving him a light box on the ear and making the signe of the Cross sayeth I signe thee with the Signe of the Cross and confirm thee with the Oyl or Chrysm of Salvation In the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost All this to strengthen him that he may be the better able to resist temptations Where is it that the Scriptures orders or commands us this Ceremony Certainly it so little agreeth with the Scripture that Alexandre and Bonaventure two of the first and most famous Authors of their School held that it was instituted neither by Jesus Christ Biel in 4. Sent. dist 7. nor by his Apostles as Gabriel Biel witnesnesseth writing upon these Sentences Others seeing that it cannot be a Sacrament of the Christian Church unless it had been ordained by the Lord they wrack the Scriptures to finde it there Dominic a Sot in 4. dist 7. art 1. They produce some Testimonies such according to their own confession which without the Authority of their Church who were not capable of shewing and concluding their Opinion And first they remark that which is written in the Acts Acts 8.17 that the Apostles laid their hands on those who had been baptized in Samaria But what hath this in common with the Roman Confirmation Where is it there spoken of the Oyl which is the matter of it From these words I signe thee c. which are the form of it of the increase of Justifying Grace which is the end of it for it doth not appear that the Apostles anointed with Oyl or consecrated with the Signe of the Crose those upon whom they layed their hands And as to the end for which they layed their hands upon them Acts 19.6 it appears from the nineteenth Chapter which was to communicate to them the extraordinary Grace of the Holy Ghost as the gift of Tongues and other the like things which are very different from justifying Grace Secondly The Imposition of hands Heb. 6.2 of which there is mention made in the Epistle to the Hebrews not being accompanied with any anointing or visible Consecration can serve for nothing to establish the pretended Sacrament of the Roman confirmation of which these things are the two essential parts Thirdly Concerning Repentance we agree that it is necessary and that the Pastors have Authority to forgive sins to those who repent and to retain them to the impenitent according to that which the Lord said to his Apostles John 29.23 To all those to whom you remit their sins they are remitted or rather shall be and to whomsoever you retain them they are retained Only we deny that such an action is a Sacrament and there appears nothing in the Scriptures which obligeth us to believe it Fourthly For the Confession which they make part of this wonderful Sacrament we believe that every faithful one is obliged to prove himself before he approacheth the Table of the Lord 1 Cor. 11.28 For St. Paul orders it expresly But none of the Divine Authors prescribes to any Christian to go and reveal to a Priest all his sins yea even his most secret ones before he communicates at the Table of the Lord. 'T is true they alledge the words of St. James James 5.16 Confess your faults one to another But how far is this from their Auricular Confession Cajetan upon this passage The Cardinal Cajetan one of their most subtle and most famous Writers and a great Adversary of Luthers being sent Legat against him into Germany answereth there for us I speak not here said he commenting upon this passage in the City of Rome when he was above threescore years of age of the Sacramental Confession as it appears in that which he sayeth Confess you one to the other For the Sacramental Confession is not done mutually from one to the other but to the Priests only But of the Confession by which we discover our selves mutually one to another that we are sinners to the end they may pray for us and of the confession of faults committed of the one part and the other to appease and reconcile us one to another 5ly This same Cardinal confesseth ingeniously also Eph. 5.32 Cajetan upon this passage That that passage which he alledgeth in the 5 Chap. of the Epistle to the Ephes to demonstrate that Marriage is a Sacrament is nothing to the purpose Wary Reader saith Cajetan upon these words St. Paul doth not furnish you with any thing in this place to prove that Marriage is a Sacrament For he saith not this Sacrament but this Mystery is great viz. of the words which St. Paul in the preceding Verse alledged of Moses For this a man shall leave his father and his mother shall cleave unto his wife and they two shall be one flesh Sixthly 1 Tim. 4.14 5.22 and 2 Tim. 1.6 As to the Orders we confess that the Apostles laid their hands upon those whom they established in charge and that this Ceremony is holy and praise-worthy and practised carefully amongst us in ordaining our Pastors But that this action is one of the common and properly-named Sacraments of the New Testament neither Scripture nor reason