have been damned notwithstanding absolute necessity knowes no dispensations But therefore he produceth a Text for absolute necessity St. Iohn the 3.5 Except a man be borne of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdome of heaven Ans If we compare this verse with the third we need not make any other construction then of a necessity of being born from above Neither is it likely that Christ would have spoken no otherwise to Nicodemus of baptism had he meant it so And Ferus though he speaks of this sense ad literam yet hath he other senses thereof And if it be compared with the other Text St. Matthew 3.11 you shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost and with fire as that Text is to be understood by an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so may this also notwithstanding the order of the words But 2. Dato non concesso that it is to be understood of Baptismal water yet the Rhemists upon the place do confess that in two cases Baptismal water is not necessary Namely in the case of martyrdome and if they have a desire of it but are prevented necessarily by death And the reason thereof is sufficient because God hath not bound his grace in respect of his own freedome to the Sacraments and so Ferus upon the place Deus enim non alligavit potentiam suam Sacramentis c. God hath not tied his own power to the Sacraments By his ordinate will indeed he gives grace by the Sacraments But nevertheles he can give it without the Sacrament Let them then tell me why Infants may not have rem Sacramenti without the seale as if God should have no favour for Infants because they cannot be qualified for the priviledge Let then the Rhemists and Ferus be compurgators for the pernicious doctrine of mine as he calls it And now whatsoever testimony he produceth of the necessity of baptism unles St. Austin's as to Infants they will stand very well with my termes in their ordinary sense which doth not contradict an ordinary necessity of it to Infants but again that all the Fathers were of this opinion I can deny I except Tertullian And St. Austin for those of age holdes but an ordinary necessity as appears in his 4. b. De Bapt. Contra Donat. 23. ch This ordinary necessity I stand for He himself intends no more by his testimonies Dr. Tayler's and others and therefore he absolves me himself but I cannot absolve him from ignorance in the Elench This doth not contradict me who do dispute now against an absolute necessity which he must maintain or else in this he comes short of his design And also that that allowance of baptism of Infants after it be done doth not inferre an absolute necessity of their being damned in the judgment of the Fathers if they were not Baptized if they will take Mr. Hookers opinion for all let them consult him in his 5. b. 33. p. where he saith I know there are many sentences found in the books and writings of the antient Fathers to prove both Ecclessiastical and Moral defects in the Ministers of Baptism a bar to the heavenly benefit thereof Now in Lay-men I trow there are Ecclesiastical defects for there is a defect in not being Ecclesiastical And therefore whether others mistake the Fathers either in the point of fact or in the reason of that allowance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But he gives me a Syllogism which we will not neglect because it is very rare with him He disputes upon my distinction of necessity thus This precept is necessarily to be fulfilled this precept is not plainly set down in Scripture therefore all necessary points are not plainly set down in Scripture This hath the face but not the form of a Syllogism But to pass that we answer therefore that this Syllogism doth not conclude contradictorily to the state of the question which is whether all things necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture Now all that is necessary to be done is larger then all that is necessary to be done unto Salvation Though all things necessary to be done unto Salvation are necessary to be done yet all that is necessary to be done is not necessary to be done unto Salvation The former are necessary necessitate medii the latter necessitate praecepti Now the knowledg of the former is simply necessary the knowledg of the latter is not so necessary Whatsoever is known to be praecepted is to be necessarily done but whatsoever is praecepted is not necessary to be known So that also his Syllogism was peccant in the fallacie of the consequent He followes me then your Answer will not helpe you out here whatsoever is necessarily inferred from the Scriptures is binding in the vertue of the principles why so because he saies because you cannot shew that this precept given to the parents is necessarily inferred out of Scripture So now he is upon the minor of the former Syllogism he would then prove it by a negative Induction Not out of the Institution of our Saviour for he also instituted the Sacrament of the Eucharist not necessary for Infants Ans first this is no argument it doth not follow from the denial of one species to another because he did not institute the Eucharist as necessary for infants threfore he did not institute the Sacrament of baptism as necessary for Infants 2. they know there is not the same reason for the Institution of the Eucharist for Infants as for the Institution of baptism For this is administred to the child without its own faith the other is administred upon faith to confirmation 3. If they will be ruled by tradition and the authority of the Church the Eucharist was accounted also as necessary for Infants Now that tradition came from Christ as his institution or not if it did then there is some reason for baptism to Infants if not how shall we believe tradition or the authority of the Church He proceeds not out of substitution to Circumcision for so it should not be necessary to women To be even with them The high Priest was only of males the Pope succeeds the high Priest therefore the Popedome was not competible to Ioane some of them would fain have somewhat for woman to be proportionable to Circumcision of males towards the taking away of original sinne which should be an object of tradition But as the unmarried was included in the parent so the woman included under her husband as to this Yet such another argument we have then it should be necessary only for those of the Iewish nation As if Circumcision was inioyned to the Iew upon the quatenus of the nation and not as they were members of the Church under the same Covenant with Christians as to the substance thereof and therefore Eusebius saies of some of those under the law that they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they were reall Christians or in
to shew that all points necessarie be clearly determined according to truth in Scripture you are put upon a necessitie to say that lesse clear Texts suffice to determine this controversie for you though you stifly maintain that more clear Texts are not able to determine against you By which it is apparent how false that Principle is which forceth you to utter these inconsequent consequences By this also you may see that the Contradiction you would find in my words for saying on the one side these Texts are clear and on the other side that this Controversie the Scripture doth not decide doth arise out of my speaking according to your principles For you on the one side say that other Texts which are manifestly lesse clear are clear enough to end the controversies therefore these which are clearer must needs be clear enough for that end And again you say on the other side by these our Texts clearer then yours this Controversie is not clearlie decided Therefore I must consequentlie say that according to you This Controversie the Scripture doth not decide It is according to your Principles that these Texts must be clear because they be clearer then those which you are forced to affirme clear and again you must say they be not clear for fear you should confess them to decide against you Now if these two places be denied to be clear with a clarity sufficient to put an end to the Controversie then according to my principles scarce any Controversie will ever be decided by any Text. And this is most for my turn to shew the necessity of a living Judge whereas afterwards you take occasion to dispute of this Sacrament you do not do it as it should here have been done to the present purpose to wit by alledging more clear Texts to prove that Christs true body is not really in the Sacrament then I alledge to prove that it was really in it For these Texts I do call These Texts I require Without you give me these more clear Texts you will never give me a satisfactorie answer All other things I wave of until I have these clearer Texts The difference of these two hundred interpretations about these four words This is my Body though they be not owned by you yet they make strongly against you in this respect that they shew the Text of Scripture not to have ended but to have occasioned these endlesse differences And consequently they shew this point not to be clear out of Scripture You in vain are busie about other things which are not to the purpose so to entertain your Reader that he may not mark your omitting the main point which was to shew this great Controversie to be clearly decided on your side by Scripture onely Of my 15th Number 60. I go on still pressing other points the belief of which points your self hold necessarie to salvation and yet you cannot shew them evidently taught in Scripture For you cannot produce an evident Text teaching that God the Father is not begotten God the Son is not made but begotten by his Father onely that the Holy Ghost is neither made nor begotten but proceedeth and that both from the Father and the Son And that God the Son is Consubstantial to his Father Your answer to this is most highly unsatisfactorie You say that although the matter of these points be not found in terminis in Scripture yet the sense of them according to equivalence may as well as Transubstantiation To be as clearly set down as Transubstantiation in Scripture is according to your own principles not to be clearly set down at all In your answer you were to shew that these points were clearly set down in Scripture and you answer that they are as clearly set down as a point which is not clearly set down Is this any way satisfactorie Neither is it more satisfactorie if you mean to argue out of our own principles for according to us all points necessarie and this point in particular are not clearly set down in Scripture And to prove this I have laboured all this Chapter So that you neither satisfie according to your own nor our Principles Your second answer is destroyed by your former for whilest in that you professe to hold these Articles and not hold them upon the authoritie of the Church you leave your self no other authoritie upon which you can hold them but onely such Texts of Scripture as are not clear and no more sufficient to ground faith then other places are to ground a belief of Transubstantiation Be such places sufficient 61. For another necessarie point not plainly set down in Scripture I urge Baptisme of children Of my 16th Number which is by no evident Text of Scripture taught us You answer that it is not necessary for the salvation of the children to be baptized And to prove this pernicious doctrine you bring a Text which clearly speaketh onely of men old enough to believe and desire Baptisme For your Text is He that believeth he is then old enough to believe and is baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not and consequently would positively not be baptized shall be damned This Text you see speaketh nothing of children and whilest it damneth those who would not so much as believe it sheweth it self to speak of those who would not be baptised and these it damneth How doth it then intimate that those who are children and could have onely baptisme in re and not in voto should be saved without Baptisme for which point you bring it and yet of this point it speaketh not at all much lesse doth it speak as clearly as another text speaketh the quite contrary to wit Except a man be born of water and the spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdome of Heaven Jo. 3. v. 5. Hear your own Doctor Tayler in his defence of Episcopacy Sect. 19. P. 100. Baptisme of Infants is of ordinary necessitie to all that ever cried and yet the Church hath founded this Rite Rule upon the Tradition of the Apostles And wise men of whom I hope you are one do easily observe that the Anabaptists can by the same probability of Scripture inforce a necessitie of communicating Infants upon us as we doe of baptizing Infants upon them Therefore a great Master of Geneva in a Book he writ against the Anabaptists was forced to flie to Apostolical traditional Ordination They that deny this Ordinarie necessitie of baptizing Infants are by the just Anathema of the Catholick Church confidently condemned for Heretickes so he This ordinary necessitie of Baptisme to all that ever cried You denie Therefore by the just Anathema of the Catholick Church you are condemned for an Heretick yea you go further then the Pelagian Heresie for they were counted Hereticks See Saint Aust Heresi 88. for saying Although Infants be not baptized they shall possesse an eternal and blessed life though it be out of the Kingdome of God You will admit them
13. And you must pardon me if I say that which he had said before But how can I take it for full satisfaction that before I am referred to the third chap. and here we are sent back again to the place from whence he came This if we might say so is plain bo peep He hath my answer there which is yet good The Scriptures thus Profaned and by such interpretations truely discanoned as I may say are rather subject to that effect which St. Pauls Epistles according to St. Peter had with some men i. e. they are subject to be depraved by them to the perdition of their Interpreters But what is this to us And yet will they say because men are subject to deprave the Scripture therefore is Scripture subject to be depraved And after the same manner that the Scriptures may be discanoned by such interpretations so may also the Decrees of the Councils if men have a greater reverence of the Decrees and Canons of Councils than of the Holy Scriptures And if Scripture be discanoned by a false sense then Scripture is canoned by a true and so then by giving a true sense of Scripture the Church should make Scripture which yet is denied by the learnedst Pontificians And also if we must put upon Scripture the corruptions of men as he doth by a fallacy of accident then have we lesse reason to esteem of Scripture by the authority of men Whereby the way you are again to take notice c. unto it was then true To that which he says here we answer again since he will have it so that the act of wresting Scripture is damnative not by the error of the understanding but by the perversenesse of the will whatsoever the matter of that Scripture be whether necessary or not And he does well to conclude for us Consequently these places did not according to your Doctrine contain points necessary to salvation namely because they were hard It is right yet not because they were wrested they did not contain points necessary for points necessary may possibly also be wrested but rather because they were hard to be understood Points hard to be understood are more like to be wrested than points wrested hard to be understood And the perdition follows not upon the ignorance of the things not necessary but upon the depravation of the texts And therefore our allowance of some liberty of Interpretations even in hard points may not easily prove damnable First the liberty is not so much allowed as necessary Secondly the liberty is not damnable but the abuse Thirdly the allowance is not so much to hard points but things plain where the Lamb may wade Fourthly it is necessary that the people should know that which is necessary to be known it is accidentall that they should mis-interpret the text which doth not contain that which is necessary Now shall he be deprived of that which is necessary upon a contingent inconvenience which also if he hath a sober mind cannot betide him Felix periculum in necessariis Sapiens non curat de accidentalibus It was then true which I told you in another place that though the Scripture be a most right rule yet it is very commonly so crookedly applied that we stand in need of a better security of the Interpretation of it in which the very kernell of the letter doth consist than we have of the Interpretation finally stood unto made by the private judgement of our own discretion Ans My Adversary by his fallacy of accident is falling upon another question namely this whether it be not dangerous to let men have the free use of Scripture which although it seems to conclude for him yet doth not punctually conclude against me in the particular point of Controversie namely whether the Srcipture doth plainly deliver things necessary As it is said by some that some Hares when they are hotly hunted will squart before another hare to put the Hunters upon a new chase so he would start as it were another question to put me off from the prosecution of the right question But secondly we will follow this also and we say that he here grants as much as which extensively concludes against him For if the Scripture be a most right rule as he confesseth then are we to be ruled by it Let me ask why did God give us this most right rule what to be laid aside because by some it is crookedly aplied Is this a good consequence Because the authority of the Church hath been urged by Hereticks therefore we should not urge the Authority of the Church Because the Gospel doth harm to some by their corruption therefore we should not have it preached Because Dudithius the Bishop of five Churches said of the Trent Council that the Holy Ghost had nothing to do with the Council and that he was carried in a Carriers Portmantle to Trent and that the Spirit of God which moved upon the waters could not come to Trent because the waters were up therefore we must not make use of Councils for the ending of Controversies Such consequences his argumentation affords let them own these or retract their reasoning Thirdly where shall we have a better security of the Interpretation of it Let them first secure a better security of the Interpretation of it It is true if the Interpretation of a Council be compared with the Interpretation of a private judgement it is probable that the Interpretation of a Council should be better but the question is whether we can have security for faith by the Interpretation of a Council This we deny since Councils may possibly erre in the Interpretations of some texts and particularly the Trent Council did err in some Interpretations as some of the Divines therein have signified And then fourthly he doth freely or inconsiderately mistake our cause in the allowances we give to the private judgement of discretion for we do not say that we should finally stand to our private Interpretation either as to determine others thereby or to prefer our own Interpretation before that publick judgement of a Council but this we say that the sense of Scripture cannot be obtruded to us as to believe it upon their account unlesse we see good reason out of Scripture for it The private judgement of discretion hath not it self in this case as in a contrary competition to the Council but hath it self negatively and is upon the suspense till it sees Gods word for it But he knew my answer as it seems I know your answer is that it is accidentall to this rule to be misapplied and this cannot infringe the authority of Scripture Yes this was in substance my answer before But now it will not serve as my Adversary would perswade me by his distinction It doth not indeed infringe the authority of Scripture useth as God would have it used with due submission to the publick Interpretation of the Church Otherwise c. unto neither Ans He means
that though it be not found in Scripture in the term yet according to equivalence But what saith Bellarmin in his 3. b. de sacr Euch. cap. 23. Etiamsi Scriptura quam supra adduximus videatur nobis tam clara ut possit cogere hominem non protervum tamen an ita fit merito dubitari potest So then the Scripture seems to him to be in this point so clear that it might compel a man not pertinacious Yet he must needs spill the milk he gives lest we should come no more to the Roman Cow But if a Scripture may be so clear to them in a point of controversie why not to us in points necessary Yea the Trent Counsel goes further in their 13 Sess They say the words do carry before them that proper and most open signification propiam illam apertissimam significationem prae se ferunt And I hope they carried a plain and most open signification did they not if they did not then here is a falsity to the Councils Declaration if they did so may Scripture have a plain and most open signification in points of faith Again if the Sacrament of extreme unction was determined by the Trent Counsel with respect to Scripture as before why should we not stand to Scripture in other points And this may be sufficient out of their own principles And as for our own principles as to the question about the properties of the Divine Persons we need not labour therein For if we hold that all things necessary are plainly set down in Scripture then it is consequent hereunto that the truth of those properties is no more necessary to be believed than according to what clearness they are delivered in by Scripture And then Secondly to answer to the point it self those opposite relations as Aquinas calleth them whereby the H. persons are distinguished in their personalities do connotate themselves sufficiently For the Father being the first Person must be of himself the Son as such must be begotten The H. Ghost since there is but one only Son as is plain in Scripture must not be begotten but proceeds which is the expression of Scrip-there Indeed there is a question whether the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son But as to this we need not consult the antient reading of the Athanasian Creed if the Mr. of the sentences may be believed who thinks there is not so vast a difference as that either part did destroy salvation And if it be absolutely necessary to believe as the Roman Church in this point why could not Pope Urban see the truth hereof in the dispute with the Greeks about it as well as our Anselm Why did he bring him into the Lists with this Preface Includamus hunc in orbe nostro tanquam alterius orbis papam And surely it seems to be as possible for the unlearned people to be saved without a positive faith herein as it was for the learned Greeks in a positive difference unless our adversaries will damn them all who hold not with them herein He goes on your second answer is destroyed by the former Answ Yes surely if our adversaries are to be our judges we need not hold our articles which we hold necessary upon the authority of the Church but upon clear Texts and clearer Texts too than they have for their transubstantiation or authority of the Church But to the main matter of my answer he makes no return I said although we believe what is said in Athanasius his creed yet therefore we are not bound to believe it upon the Authority of the Church since he would have believed it though the Church had not as he did sometimes differ from the common profession of the Church in the consubstantiality of the sonne of God And what saies he to this nothing And besides the Authority of the Church hath not it selfe equally to the passages in the Creed and to transubstantiation And therefore Scotus said that this transubstantiation was no dogma fidei before the Lateran Council as Bellarmin saies in his 3. b. de sacram Euch. 23. ch For as for the consent of the Fathers which he saies he did non read surely Scotus did very well know what it was since the consent of the Fathers is by the Schoolemen laid for the foundation of school-Divinity It remaineth therefore that both my answers may be good according to both principles Another instance of things necessary not clearly taught by Scripture he does here re-urge N. 61. namely Baptism of Infants And here he names my answer that it is not necessary for the Salvation of the Children to be baptized But here I distinguished of a necessity of praecept and a necessity of mean the former we granted the latter we denied so as that if it be not baptized it is undoubtedly damned These words do make my sense to be understood against an absolute necessity without which no possibility of Salvation To prove this I brought the Text St. Marke the 16.6 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved but he that believeteh not shall be damned now this Text he saith speaketh nothing of Children And this gloss he gives upon the latter part of that Text He that believeth not and consequently would positively not be baptized shall be damned Ans He trifles I acknowledge that the Text speaks not of Infants for the drift of my discourse upon this Text was otherwise namely upon the case of those of age And my argument did runne upon advantage thus if the H. Gh. Did not reduplicate damnation upon defect of baptism to those of age then much less reason is there to exclude Infants from Salvation who may have baptism in re but in voto not as they speak This was the effect of my discourse let the point come to the pinch Though they do believe yet should they have the seale of faith but if they do not believe damnation here proceeds not upon defect of baptism but upon defect of faith which if Bellarmin had considered he would not have annexed Salvation imediately to baptism in his 2. b. de ef sacr c. 3. And not to faith but as a disposition to baptism 2. All positive refusal of baptism makes a defect of baptism but all defect of baptism doth not make even in those of age a refusal thereof Now it is casus dabilis that one of age may believe and yet may not have baptism as the necessity may fall out Shall this man be damned though he hath faith because he hath not baptism which he could not have and this was the case which the Martyr that on a suddain when one of the forty shrunke stepped in and made up the number as St. Basil relates it he believed and was not Baptized What was he damned no they will say he had baptism in voto and the baptism of bloud Well but if there were an absolute necessity of baptism as there is of faith he must