sequitur pontificem malum non esse câ—put ecclesiae alios episcopos si mâ—li sunt non esse capita suarum ecclesiarum Caput enim non est humor aut pilus sed membrum quidem praecipuum This put him on distinguishing and yet at last he could bring it but to this Dico episcopum malum presbyterum malum Doctorem malum esse meÌ„bra mortua perinde non vera corporis Christi quantuÌ„ attinet ad rationem meÌ„bri ut est pars quaedam vivi corporis tamen esse verissima membra in ratione instrumenti id est papâ—m episcopos esse vera capita c. ratio est quia membra viva constituuntur per charitateÌ„ qua impâ—i carent at instrumenta operativa constituuntur per potestatem sive ordinis sive jurisdictionis And what is this more then the wooden leg or silver teeth which our Divines compare them to But the new Papists since Bellarmine do see a necessity of a further distinguishing the Church as a visible political society from the Church as truly sanctified But that which we and all the ancients do make to be but the Profession distinct from the thing professed the body distinct from the soul the chaff distinct from the wheat the shell distinct from the kernel they make to be as the lower order which is the way to a higher as the Alphabet or lower Rudiments which are the way to Grammar as an apprentiship to a trade I mean as a state of preparation to a state of infallible salvation And because it favoureth their main design they seem to draw near to the same conceit which they were wont falsly to fasten on the Protestants viz. that there are two â—hurches one Political and visible the other regenerate Invisible And Bellarmine confesseth that some of them were of this mind in his time And all this stir is that they may advance their visible Church in the estimation of men thereby the more easily keep the rule in their own hands and exalt themselves above Scripture and draw as many as may be into their society and therefore they drive the poor ignorant Americans by hundreds to be baptized as we drive our beasts to watering or our sheep to be washed and in stead of staying till they make Profession of a saving faith with any seeming seriousness they make Baptism an entrance into the state of the Catechumeni which was wont to be the passage thence into the state of Christians that per fas aut nefas they may engage people to themselves under pretence of engaging them to Christ therefore it is that they so over extoll the visible Political state of the Church as Dr. Prideaux saith Lect. de visibil eccles pag. 128. Experti demum perciperunt externam ecclesiae pompam speciosos titulos apud instabiles plus lucrari quam non lectam vel saltem non intellectam scripturae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hinc ecclesiam ad ravint usque crepant Catholicam quam admissam statim restringunt ad Romae synagogam suco quidem veteratorio sed conspicuo satis ridiculo ut ex conficta ecclesia formeiur doctrina non ex veritate doctrinae reformetur firmetur ecclesia The chief adversaries therefore we have here to deal with are the Papists who over-magnifie the visible face of the Church make the faith of men unjustified to be true faith though not formatacharitate and make Hypocrites and and wicked Professors to be truly and properly fideles and members of the Church whom the Protestants affirm to be but secundum quid materially analogically yea equivocally called members or fideles and therefore they make Baptism to be an appointed means to admit men into this visible Political Church as into the ordinary way and passage to the state of saving grace or justification but not ordinarily into the present possession of it And therefore in conformity to all this they maintain that we must admit persons to Baptism upon the bare Profession of faith that is Assent with consent to be under the Government of the Church and the use of ordinances in order to be a better state For saith Bellarmine it is not Charity but Faith which makes a Christian which our divines admit as true in our sense of the word Faith which includeth the will and is proper to the truly regenerate but they deny it in his sense of it who maketh faith to be the only Assent of the intellect Against this adversary therefore I shall principally bend the force of my Arguments though to my great trouble I must be forced to deal also with a Reverend Brother of our own especially in answering his many fallacious arguments which he hath lately heaped up for that part which I must oppose 4. Before I can positively answer the question in hand I must premise these few necessary Distinctions 1. We must distinguish between a Profession of faith according to the Ministers sense of the words and a Profession according to the speakers sense 2. Between the Children of those that profess not saving faith as theirs and claiming Baptism on the account of some lower Profession and the same Children as owned by some other that do profess saving faith 3. Between the unlawfulness of Baptizing and the Nullity of the Baptism Those distinctions that are necessary for the answering of the objections will come in their places Upon these few I answer the question negatively explained in the following Propositions 1. It is not a Profession of saving Faith in the real intention of the Professor that we affiâ—m necessary but in the Apprehension of the Minister judging of the words according to their common use and acception For we know not the heart of the Professor and therefore know not certainly whether he intend those words as a Profession or not I do not mean whether he be sincere in his Profession and intend the thing Professed for that 's no part of the Profession it self but I mean whether he use the words which he speaks in the sense which they seem to us to import and which they are used in by those that best understand their common signification For example a Papist presenteth a Child to be Baptized Professing to believe in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost I know that these words according to the Scripture use of them signifie a true saving faâ—th but I am not sure whether the speaker do understand any more by them then a lower faith of meer Assent If I knew he meant no more I would require him to express a saving faith before I would Baptize his Child on his account but if I know it not nor have just reason to question it I must take the words as they are commonly used and seem to be intended by him and so if it appear to me to be a Profession of saving faith though I err and my errour be innocent it is my duty
jus Ecclesiastiâ—um and in foro exteriori to be in the visible Church we deny it and he shall never be able to prove it And pag. 20. He hath the like And pag. 23 and 25. passiâ—o the like And pag 20.30 He saith Concl. 2. A serious sober outward Profession of the Faith and true Christian Religion together with a serious Profession of former sinfull courses a serious consideration of these things as such considered abstractâ—vely abstractions simplici from the work 〈◊〉 saving Grace and heart-conversion by true Repentance Faith is sufficient qualification in the Ecclesiastick Court to constitute a person sit matter to be received as a member of the visible Church accounted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Among these that are within If I be asked what I mean by a serious Profession I Answ. Such a Profession as hath in it at least a moral sincerity as Divines are wont to distinguish though happily not alwaies a â—upernatural sincerity i. e. that I may speak more plainly which is not openly discernably simulate histrionick scenical and hypocritical in that hypocrisie which is gross but all circumstances being considered by which ingenuity is estimate among men giving credit one to another there appears no reason why the man may not and ought not to be esteemed as to the matter to think and purpose as he speaketh from whatsoever habitual principle it proceedeth whether of saving Grace or Faith or of faith historical and conviction wrought by some common operation of the Spirit A man that hath such a Profession as this and desireth Church-Communion the Church ought to receive him as a member And all be it I deny not but where there is just or probable ground of suspition that the Profession hath simulation and fraudulent dealing under it as in one new come from an heretical Religion or who hath been before a Persecutor of the Faith and Professors thereof there may be a delay in prudence and time taken to try and prove if he dealeth seriously and ingenuously c. And in Page 150 speaking of my self he saith 1. The Learned Author and I are fully agreed upon the mater concerning the outward ground upon which persons are to be admitted and acknowledged members of the visible Church viz A serious Profession of the faith including a Profession of subjection to the commands and Ordinances of Christ is sufficient for this and that persons making this Profession are without delay or searching for tryal and Discoveries of their heart-conversion to be admitted I do heartily approve his weighty Exhortation subjoyned But I cannot yet agree with him in this that men are not to be received into the visible Church but under the notion of true Believers and positively judged to be such though but probably And Pag. 151. I confess also that were a mans outward carriage and way such as did discover him to be an unregenerate man he were not to be received into the fellowship of the visible Church but wiâ—hall I say He were not to be debarred or not received not upon the account of non-Regeneration or upon that carriage considered under this formality and reduplication as a â—â—gn and discovery of non Regeneration but materially as being contrary to the very outward profession of Faith My reason is because I conceive it is Gods revealed Will in his Word that men be received into the visible Church that they may be regenerate and converted and that the Ministerial dispensation of the Ordinances are by Gods revealed will set up in the Church to be means of Regeneration and Conversion as well as Edification of such as are Regenerate 3. I conceive that between such as are in a course discovering certainly non-regeneration there are a middle sort of whom there is no sufficient ground probably to judge them regenerate My reason is because to gâ—ound a positive act of Judgement that a man is regenerate in foro exteriori there is requisite some seemingness of a spiriâ—ual sincerity in a mans profession i. e that he doth it from a spiritual principle upon spiritual motives to a spiritual End But a meer sober not mocking serious Profession without more is not a positive appearance of spiritual supernatural sincerity I humbly conceive there cannot be had positive probable Evidences of this ordinarily without observation of a mans way after Profession for a time wherein notice may be taken of his walking equally in the latitude of Duties and constantly in variety of cases and conditions To conclude Mr. Baxter and are at agreemâ—nt upon the Matter concerning the quâ—lification that is sufficient for admitting persons into the visible Church viz. Serious profession without delay to enquire for more and so we are agreed in the main about the matter of the visible Church We differ in this that he thinks persons are not to be admitted but under consideration of persons judged at least probably converted and regenerated My mind is that they are to be admitted under the name of serious sober outward Professors abstracting from Conversion or Non-conversion I have thus at large recited the words of this Reverend Brother that the Reader may perceive the true state of the Controversie and how we are agreed in the main and on what grounds he proceedeth and that if there be any that consent not with me in the point wherein he and I differ they may yet be perswaded to take up in his way and not remove so far from the truth as I conceive Mr. Blake hath done And as to the difference it self 1. The main thing wherein I perceive that I differ from this Reverend man and some other about such matters is that my Judgement of Charity is much more extensive then theirs seems to be I confess that when it comes to a confident perswasion of another mans sincerity I am apt to be jealous as well as they and also when we speak of the Profession of men collectively considered I am forced to some harder thoughts of many then some have but when I have to do with Individuals I am apt to extend this charitable Judgment further then I see many do not by making the way to heaven any broader than they For when we are upon the point in thesi what is the proper qualification of a Saint I think there is no difference among us but when we speak of it in hypothesi and of the actual qualification of this Individual person whether he have the foresaid life or not I am apt to think it my duty to judge the best till I know the worst and to hope well though with much fear where some think they see no ground of hopes I confess it seems to me but cold charity that can afford men our good thoughts so far as to take them for visible Church members but can find no room for a hope of their being in a state of Salvation I have hopes of the Salvation of many thousands that I perceive some
Chuâ—ch These are both so groundlesly pleaded and by so few that are neer us that I think it not meet to trouble you with them any more 3. A condition pretended to be necessary is A true Justifying faith This also is a mistake but yet how far it is necessary to a true Right I shall open anon none of these three are meant by us in the question for these are not short of saving faith though we exclude the necessity of these as is said 4. Another qualification pleaded necessary and sufficient to the ends expressed in the question is A Profession of a saving Faith which is it that we are to defend 5. A fifth claim is laid upon the pretended sufficiency of a Faith short of Justifying But you will perhaps say what faith is that Those words tell us what Faith it is not viz. It is not justifying faith but they tel us not what faith â—t is To which I must say I know not my self nor can I learn of all the writings of those that go that way so perplexed and confounded or uncertain are they saying sometime one thing and sometime another But I shall have a fitter opportunity to enquire further into their mind or words anon 6. Another claim is laid upon the pretended sufficiency of the Profession of a faith short of that by which we are juâ—â—ified I say the Profession as distinct from that faith it self which the former claim made mention of Some other there are that yet go lower and think we may Baptize any that consent to be Baptized though they profess no faith at all nor their Parents nor pro-Parents neither And there have been so some foolish as to think that it is a work of charity to catch them and Bapâ—ize them whether they will or not But it is not our present business to deal with these The great adversary that we have here to deal with is the Papists And I shall in few words shew you part of their doctrine which we are now to oppose Their great Fundamental error on which they build their tottering Babel and tyrannical usurpation is this that the Catholike â—hurch is one Political society united in one visible head and governed by those that hold their power from him or at least are ruled by him and are conjoyned under these overseers in one Profession of faith and use of Sacraments Bellarmines words are these De Eccles. lib. 3. Nostra autem sententia est ecclesiam unam tantum esse non duas et illam unam et veram esse coetum hominum ejusdem Christianae fidei Professione et eorundem sacramentorum communione colligatum sub regimine legitimorum Pastorum ao praecipue unius Christi in terris vicarii Romani Pontificis And he addeth afterward Hoc interest inter sententiam nostram et alias omnes quod omnes aliae requirunt internas virtutes ad constituendum aliquem in ecclesia et propterea ecclesiam veram invisibilem faciunt nos autem et credimus in ecclesia invâ—niri omnes virtutes fidem spem charitatem et caeteras tamen ut aliquis aliquo modo dicipossit pars verae ecclesiae de qua scripturae loquuntur non putamus requiri ullam internam virtutem sed tantum externam professionem fidei et sacramentoruÌ„ communionem quae sensu ipso percipitur Ecclesia enim est coetus hominum ita visibilis palpabilis ut est coetus populi Romani vel Regnum Galliae aut respublica Venetorum Yet other Papists be not so strict with us but that they will distinguish between the professing Church and the true believing Church And Bellarmine in the next words citeth a passage as Austins which he commendeth which maketh Faith Hope and Charity to be the soul of the Church and the external profession of faith and use of sacraments to be the Body of it and some persons to be in it in one respect only some in the other only and some in both They confess indeed that of duty men should be found Believers at the first but ordinarily they say that is not to be expected and therefore they are first to be entered into the Church this visible Church by Baptism that this may be a means to bring them higher and by this entrance they are put under right guides and into the true body and so are fed with true ordinances yea with Christs body and blood and so are in the way to a true spiritual state The terms on which they must be admitted they say into this Political Church which is not the holiest of all is a Profession of faith and a consent to be a member of the society and to be under those Pastors and use those ordinances in order to further growth so that these they suppose to have a true faith and to be such as have right to this Church state but yet to be but in the way to a special saving faith for theirs is but fides informis or meer faith which is onely Assent say they joyned with the foresaid consent to live in a Church state but when Love is added then it is fides charitate formata and then they are become of the true spiritual society and have part in the soul as well as in the body of the Church so that though they desire fidem formatam in all yet it is not to be expected that so much as a Profession of it be exacted of those that enter into the first order by Baptism but when they enter into a retired monastical life then it must be expected and it is found in all that are fully justified For say they Baptism which entreth men into the visible Church doth put away their original sin and justifie them that is change them in tantum viz. from Heathenism or infidelity if they lay in it before but it doth not justifie them from their more spiritual latent sins such as lie in the heart and keep out the power of Grace but it is the work of special Grace which is given upon the good use of their Church state and Ordinances that doth this by giving them fidem formatam with charity and hope Among all this there is some truth and some error we confess that the Church is one Political society or Republâ—ck but not headed by men but only by Christ the several particular Churches being as so many distinct corporations that all make up this one Republick and are conjoyned internally by faith love and obedience to the same Lord and laws and externally by the use of the same confession worship c. and holding correspondency and brotherly communion as far as occasion and natural capacity shall enable them but not united in one visible frame of policy so as to be under the same Governors some as subordinate and one person or a General council being the supream No more then all the schools in England or in the world must have such a Political constitution and Government
by combinations of schoolmasters We confess also that the Church is but one as well as they that they are to make the same profession and use the same worship in regard of which they are called visible members and the Church a visible Church as by reason of their faith and the spirit within them it is called invisible as if we should distinguish a man into visible and invisible in respect to his body and soul which make not two men we confess also that there is an ineffectual faith of assent that goeth without a hearty consent and that many are to be admitted by us into the visible Church by Baptism by solemnization upon a bare Profession who have not faith either of one sort or other And we confess that such as so remain in the Church do live under those benefits and means which have a special tendence to their true conversion But yet we very much dâ—ffer in this The Papists make the Primary sense of the word Church to be of the visible Church as the samosius significatum and therefore they say that to be entred by Baptism 1. Into a Profession of assent 2. Into communion in Ordinances and 3. Under one and the same Government or external policy is all that is requisite to make a Church-member But we say that the first and famosius significatum is the whole multitude of true Believers that have the spirit of God and his saving Grace and that it is one and the same Church that is called first mystical as being called out of the world to Christ by true faith and then visible because of their Profession of that same faith and therefore if any Profess that faith who are without it these are members but secundum quid or equivocally as the hair and the nails are members of the body which indeed are no members in the proper and first sense or as a wooden leg is a member or as a body without a soul is a man or as the peas or chaff and straw are corn The body may be said to be part of the man when it is animated but a corps or body that never was animated is not properly a part the straw and chaff are called part of the corn-field though indeed but appurtenances to the corn but if there were no corn they should have no such title and when they are separable they shall lose it Moreover t is not a Profession of the same faith that the Papists and we maintain to be necessary to Church entrance For they require as necessary only a Profession of the Dogmatical or Historical faith of Assent aforesaid with a consent to subjection and use of Ordinances But we require a Profession of that faith which hath the promise of pardon and salvation They take their Church-entrance to be a step towards saving conversion and formed faith we take it quoad primam intentionâ—m Christi ordinantis to be an entrance among the number of the converted true Believers and that it is accidental through their failing and hypocrisie that any ungodly are in the Church and so enjoy it's external priviledges and that if we could know them to be such they should not be there it being the work of the Gathering Ministry to bring men to true faith and repentance and of the Edifying perfecting ministry to build them up and bring them on And the Papists themselves having received by Tradition a form of words to be used in Baptism which are sounder then their doctrine and which in the true sence do hold forth all that we say are put to their shifts by palpable mis-interpretation to deprave their own form They do themselves require of the Baptized a Profession that he believe in the Father Son and Holy Ghost and when we prove that this is justifying faith and that to believe in doth signifie Affiance the Papists say it is but a naked Assent or Historical faith and when themselves require the â—aptized to â—enounce the Devil the world and the flesh they say that this signâ—fieth no more but that at present they profess so far to renouâ—ce them as to enter into the visible Church as the way to a future saving abâ—enunciation And when themselves do dedicate the person to Christ they say it is but directly to his Church that is to leave the world of Infidels and be numbred with the visible Church as the means to a saving sanctification And these notions they have filed and formed more exactly of late than heretofore to make the snare more apt to catch the simple still magnifying to the uttermost the visible church-Church-state as the only way to a state of justification and salvation But yet as our Divines have observed against him Bellarmine himself when he hath superficially pleaded his own cause doth frequently in the pleading it let fall such words at unawares that do destroy it and grant what we say As lib 3. de Eccles. cap. 10. he saith Verissime etiam dici potuisse ecclesiam fidelium id est eorum qui veram fidem habent in corde unam esse ecclesia enim praecipuè ex intentione sideles tantum colligit cum autem admâ—scentur aliqui ficti qui vere non credunt id accidit praeter intentionem ecclesiae Si enim eos nôsse posset nunquam admitteret aut casu admissos continuò excluderet yet I confess it is but his nudus ascensus or fides informis that he seemeth here too mean I pray you read over especially his 9. Chap. ibid. There pag. 227 he answereth one of our Objections thus Ad ultimum dico malos non esse membra viva Corporis Christi hoc significari illis scripturis Ad id quod addebatur igitur sunt aequivocè membra c. a multis solet concedi malos non esse membra vera nec simpliciter corporis ecclesiae sed tantum secundum quid aequivocè Ita Johan Turrecremata l. 1.57 ubi id probat ex Alex. de Ales Hugone D. Thoma idem etiam docent Petrus à Soto Melchior Canus aliiâ—qui tamen etsi dicant malos non esse meÌ„bra vera dicuÌ„t nihilominus verè esse in eeclesia sive in corpore ecclesiae esse simpliciter sideles sen Christianos neque enim solae meÌ„bra sunt in corpore sed etiam humores dentes pili alia quae non sunt membra Neque sideles aut Christiani dicuntur tales à charitate sed à side sive ù fidei profesâ—ione It appeareth then that the Papists are put of late to refine this fundamental doctrine of theirs from the soundness that it formerly had among themselves and to fit it more to their own turns And I blame them not because their whole kingdom lyeth on it and would be subverted utterly if the foresaid exposition hold which is so much like to ours It s a cutting objection which turned Bellarmine out of his rode At si ita est
faith 2. But a proper right from promise or proper gift which may warrant them to claim or require the thing from God or man this I deny to any but true believers and their seed They may not lawfully require it though we must give it them if they do require it upon such a profession 3. But without a profession of saving faith they may neither require it nor we give it if they do require it whatever other short faith they have or profess 4. Thus also the Case was with the Jews allowing the difference made by the foresaid peculiar Promise to them ARGUMENT II. Mr Blake Those that are a People by Gods gracious dispensation nigh to God comparative to others have right in the sight of God to visible admittance to this more near relation This I think is clear men have right to be admitted to their right But those that come short of Justifying faith are a people by Gods gracious dispensations nigh unto God comparative to others this is plain in the whole visible Nation of the Jews as appears Deut. 4 7. Psal. 147.19 and 148.14 Those therefore that are short of Justifying faith have right in the sight of God to admission to this nearer relation ANSWER The Jews were nigher to God than other people 1. In that they had the offers of Grace which other people had not 2. And many great Deliverances and temporal priviledges which others had not Both these Infidels and Heathens may now have and therefore they prove no Right to Baptism 3. They were nigher by some promises peculiar to that Nation which is nothing to us 4. They were nigher by their Consent to the offers of Grace and the Covenant of the Lord which was proper in sincerity to the sanctified 5. And by their profession of Consent and external engaging themselves to the Lord whether they had inwardly faith or not Now to the Major I grant it but add that the three first sorts of Nearness give not right to Baptism All admission to near Relation comparatively to others is not by Circumcision or Baptism But it is only a Nearness in the two last senses that are questionable as to this And I have before shewd in what sense true Consent to the Covenant gives right and in what sense an outward profession of Consent gives right and that your common faith gives none in either sense Lastly if your conclusion were granted it s nothing to our question For as is said all admission to near relation is not by baptism One Infidel may be nearer God and the Kingdom of Heaven then another and yet 〈◊〉 be baptizable for all that ARGUMENT III. Mr. Blake Those that God ordinarily calls his People and owns as his openly avouching himself to be their God have right in the sight of God to the signs and cognizance of his People and are to have admission into the society and Fellowship of his People This is plaâ—n if God in Covenant will own servants then his stewards may open the door to them if he will own sheep his servants doubtless may mark them But God owns all in visible communion though short of faith that is Justifying as his People and openly avouches himself to be their God as in abundant places of Scriture is evident See Deut. 26.18 These have therefore right to the signs and cognizances of his people to admission into the Society and Fellowship of his People ANSWER 1. To the Major with the fore-mentioned distinction of Right applyed as before I grant it 2. To the Minor I say God owneth them as his people by internal consent and covenanting who indeed are so and he owneth them as his People by outward Covenanting or Expression or Profession of consent who are such But those that have neither of these but only profess some shorter faith or consent to some other Covenant or but part of this he will not own in either relation nor would have them taken into the Communion of his Church Nor do you prove any such thing for Deut. 26.18 is so much against you that I marvel you were not troubled at the citing of it For that Text alone is enough to confute all your pompous allegations out of the Old Testament from the Church state of the Jews The words are Thou hast avouched the Lord this day to be thy God and to walk in his waies and to keep his Statutes and his Commandments and his Judgements and to hearken to his voice And the Lord hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people c. Do you think that they that in heart consent that the Lord be their God and to walk in his waies c. have not saving faith Then there was no such thing then on the earth And if they had such faith who sincerely consented then they Professed such faith that Professed such consent And the word avouching sheweth that it was present profession and not only a promise for some distant futurity This Argument therefore is but like the rest ARGUMENT IV. Mr. Blake Those whom the Spirit of God ordinarily calls by the name of Circumcision they had a right in Gods sight to Circumcision and those of like condition have like right to baptism This I think is clear the Spirit of God doth not mis-name doth not nick-name nor ordinarily at least give equivocal names But men short of Justifying faith are called by the Spirit of God by the name of Circumcision as needs no proof Christ was a Minister of the Circumcision Rom 15.8 And he was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel Those then of a faith short of that which is Justifying have right in the sight of God to Baptism ANSWER 1. I have no need to deny the Major but it is not sound for they are called the Circumcision i. e. the Circumcised because they were actually Circumcised and not because that all that were so had right to it 2. To the Minor I grant it but with this note that it is not because of their short faith that they were to be circumcised but upon the Parents or their own profession and sincere consent to the Covenant The Conclusion again containeth not your Thesis There 's nothing in it about giving title or any thing of necessary connexion ARGUMENT V. Mr. Blake Those that are the servant of God whom God owns as his servants have right in his sight to be received into his house and to be entitled to the Priviledges of his Church This we think should not be denyed and that God will take it ill if any shall deny it But men short of that faith which Justifies are owned of God as his servants as is clear Lev. 25.41 42. There every Israelite that was sold to any of the Children of Israel and his Children are called of God his servants and that as Israelites of which a great part were void of that faith which Justifies Therefore those that are short of faith
I have no true faith I cannot believe Faith is a perswasion of Gods love to me or a resting on him for salvation and I cannot be perswaded of his love to me nor can I rest upon him And when I have convinced them that the Gospel is 1. a Narrative of what Christ is and what he hath done and suffered for us and 2. an offer of Christ and life to all that will accept the offer And therefore that faith is 1. an Assent to the truth of his Report and 2. a Consent to be Christs and that he shall be ours And when I have asked them whether they do these two things or not whether they believe the Gospel to be true and are willing that Christ and Life be theirs and that they be Christs they profess very cheerfully both this Assent and Consent they are wâ—lling to have Christ if they know their own hearts and yet they dare not say that they are true believers partly through general fears and partly because they know not that this which they profess is saving faith Now in such a case we are to let them know that it is the thing and not their Certainty of the thing that God hath mâ—de necessary And therefore we do not nor must not ask them in Sacramental Administrations whether they have saving faith by meer name without description but whether they believe in God the Father Son and the Holy Ghost and renounce the World Flesh and Devil and whether they are willing to have God for their only God and Christ for their only Saviour and the Holy Ghost their Sanctifier And he that saith yea doth profess a saving faith though he know it not so to be And what would Mr. Blake do with him if he say neither Yea nor Nay Having thus vindicated the Proposition against their Objections and shewed the vanâ—ty of all other waies and that we can have no certainty what Profession to expect if we expect not a Profession of saving Faith I may well sum up all and still insist on the 19th Argument that we must expect the profession of a saving Faith seeing if we take up with any other we are utterly at a loss Mr. Blake cannot agree with himself what faith to require nor hath given any certain description of it when he hath so voluminously talkt for it and what he or others seem to require as a thing distinct from saving faith we see sufficient Reason to reject as being wholly unproved and by us proved insufficient to this use I shall now therefore proceed to my 20th and last Argument for the Proposition which is drawn from the constant practice of the Universal Church of Christ. It hath been the constant practice of the Catholike Church since the Apostles daies till now to require that Profession of saving Faith and Repentance as necessary before they would baptâ—ze and not to baptize any upon the Profession of any lower kind of Faith Therefore it must be our practice also And here I must confess my self in as great an admiration at the words and dealings of Mr. Blake and some godly learned Divines that go with him in this Cause as ever I was brought to by the groundless confidence of such men He must shut his eyes against the fullest Evidence of Historie and Church-practice that will deny that it hath been the practice of the Universal Church of Christ to baptize upon the profession of a saving faith and not otherwise Insomuch that I must profess that I am not for my own part able to prove that ever any one person since the daies of the Apostles was baptized upon the profession of any other faith by any save the gross Hereticks even those whose Baptism was accounted invalid I desire Mr. Blake or his Neighbours of his mind to help me to an instance of any one approved Baptism since Christs time or his Apostles upon the account of a faith that was short of justifying and not upon the Profession of a justifying Faith Hitherto this is not done by them the contrary is fully done by others and yet to my admiration they as confidently affirm that all the Church of Christ hath gone their way or that it hath been their constant practice and that they should forsake the example of the Church if they should do otherwise and they except against my Opinion as novelty I must confess that such Experience hath brought me to lower thoughts of the credit even of good men than formerly I have had and to resolve to try before I trust One would think that the matter of fact in such a point as Baptism which we all pass through should have been out of question before this day For the proof of the Churches practice 1. I have already said enough about the Apostles own practice and the Church in their daies Even when they describe the faith which they require expresly by assent alone yet they shew that it is a saving Assent which they require and the promise of pardon and salvation is in the same or other Scriptures affixed to that Assent But this I shall not recite now 2. The constant practice of the Church since the â—postles to this day is undoubtedly known 1. by the very form of words in Baptism and 2. be the historie of their proceedings therein 1. It is certain that the Church did ever Baptize into the Name of the Father Son and holy Ghost And as I have proved before the voluntary seeking and reception of that Baptism containeth the actual profession of a saving Faith 2. It is certain that the persons to be baptized if at age did profess to believe in the Father Son and holy Ghost whâ—ch as is shewed is saving faith 3. It is also certain that they did profess to renounce the Flesh the World and the Devil which is a profession of saving Repentance 4. And it is certain that they promised for the future to live in new obedience which is the consequent of saving faith and thus they publikely entered the three stipulations Crediâ— Credo Abronuncias Abrenuncio Spondes Spondeo And no man can do this that hath not saving faith therefore the professing of it is not without the professing of a saving faith Nay indeed it containeth the profession of that faith 5. Moreover it is a known case that the ancient Churches commonly took all those that were duly baptized to be in a state of salvation That they supposed them to have the pardon of all their sins I think none doubteth that ever read much of their writings Davenant in his Epistle of Baptism giveth many proofs and many hundred more may be given if any be so blind as to deny it All the doubt is Whether they also ascribe Regenerating Renewing Grace to all the rightly baptized And though Davenant deny that they ascribe the infusing of habits to it as to infants yer 1. he denieth it not as to the Adult nor 2. that they ascribed
in such a condition as that the first thing you are bound to do with them is to cast them out or suspend them till then When you are bound presently to cast him out you are not at the same time to give him the Sacrament of the Lords Supper nor his Infants on his account the Sacrament of Baptism Indeed if they had Right to Church-membership their Infants might have so too 2 I deny the Minor Other ungodly persons are visible members but notorious ungodly ones are not They are pso jure excommunicate not meerly as mâ—riting iâ— but on the Notoriousness of their incapacity and the pleasure of the Legislator as is afore declared Obj. The Notorious ungodly were Church-members among the Jews therefore they may be sâ— now Answ. 1. Prove the Antecedent 2. The question is not what men mis-judged them but how God esteemed or pronounced them 3. God would not have them to be Church-members while such whom he commanded the Magistrate to put to death But c. Ergo. Obj They were not to be excommunicate or put away from the Passover Answ. 1. He that is stoned to death is excommunicate and put away from the Passover He that is cut off from the living is put out of the Church on earth 2. I will not waste time to prove Jewish excommunication till I know of some tolerable answer given to that which Mr Gilespie beside many others hath written so largely already Argum. 3. Infants in Covenant have right to Baptism The Infants of Notorious Ungodly Parents are in Covenant Ergo. Ans. I have in my account to Mr. Blake told you so fully how far they are in Covenant and how far not that I must refer you thither and not here recite it I deny that God is actually engaged to them in the covenant of Grace which Baptism sealeth but conditionally only and so he is to Infidels that persecute it Though they may be engaged more to God by their own Verbal covenant to him but that altereth not the case Argu. 4. Dogmatical faith giveth Right to Baptism Notoous ungodly Parents have a Dogmatical faith Ergo. c. Answ. I have said so much to Mr. Blake on this that I need not now to add any more Obje Simon Magus had a faith which gave him right to baptism But Simon Magus was then a Notorious ungodly man therefore a Notorious ungodly man may have a faith that may entitle him and his to baptism Ans. See what is said to this in the place before cited Further 1. I yield that Simon had a faith of superficial Assent such as the Devils have in a greater measure and that he professed more than he had and that hereupon the Apostle was warranted to baptize him 2. But I deny the Minor that he was then notoriously ungodly Consider well of Psalm 50.16 Argu. 5. Josiah was lawfully Circumcised upon the Right of Manasseh and Ammon but Manasseh and Ammon were Notoriously ungodly Ergo. Ans Either Josiah was born before his Father Ammon proved Notoriously ungodly or after If before then he received not his right from a Notoriously ungodly Parent If after 1. Then was it contrary to Gods Laws and so could be no true Right For by Gods Laws Manasseh and Ammon should have been put to death And if it be said that these Laws were not to be executed on the Soveraign I answer the want of a power of execution doth not hinder but that they notoriously lost their Right though they kept possession and therefore could convey no Right It follows therefore that either Josiah was circumcised without Right if it be first proved that his father was such at the time of his birth or else that he had his right some other way intimated in the General answer to the Jews case And to them that think the former a hard saying I shall anon shew that the rule holds good in this case that Quod fieri non debet factum valet Argu. 6. Deut. 24 16. The Children shall not be put to death for the Fathers sin and we read not that Ecclesiastical censure should be more severe The child of a Thief is not committed with him to prison and I see no reason that he is committed with him to Sathan therefore there is right to Baptism in the child of an excommunicate person Answ. The question is not of excommunicating a child or committing him to Satan but of addmitting him into the Church at first The Parent cannot convey to the child the Right whith he hath lost we speak only of the Children born after the Parents are excommunicated vel sententiâ vel ipso Jure But of this enough I think before the state of the question is by these Arguers strangely over-lookt Argu. 7. Those that the Apostles Baptized had been ungodly immediately before only at the present they did profess Repentance And so do many of these that you call Notoriously ungodly Ergo. Answ. 1. If it be a probably serious and credible profession fit for that name then are they not Notoriously ungodly 2. According both to Scripture and Reason and common use a mans first or second profession may be credited But if he frequently break his word his credit is lost he is not capable at present of covenanting again till he have by actual Reformation recovered his credit I have such Neighbours as this twenty years together have been constant drunkards and lament it and promise Reformation when they have done and yet once a week or fortnight usually are still drunk To take these mens oft breaking words were to delude Scripture and all Discipline and cross common Reason Yet here we must carefully distinguish between Repentance for such gross sins as continued in are inconsistent with true Grace and Repentance for such infirmities as may stand with Grace not only to live in but not to have or manifest a particular Repentance of As those which are not convinced to be sins c. We speak now of the first Argum. 8. By denying them Baptism we may exasperate the wicked to engage themselves against Christ and us Answ. The Primitive Church under Heathen Princes had much more cause to fear this than we have and yet it did not change their course I take not such carnal Reasons to be worthy to have place among the servants of such a Master who fears not his enemies and will make them bend and return to him but will not himself bend and return to them The truth is had we Magistrates that would so severely punish notorious ungodliness as I think they should do according to Gods Laws that most of this Controversie would be ended and instead of driving men from Gods Ordinances they should be driven from such ungodliness But when Magistrates are so tender of hurting mens Bodies that they let their souls perish or are so much against formality and outside Reformation that they had rather men were Heathens and openly wicked and sinned with Body
of their Duty and we ought not to refuse any part of a mans Duty Answ. 1. It is not a duty but a sin to do the External later part without the former Internal part It is a duty to intend to relieve the poor and perhaps to express it by promise but to promise without any intent to perform it is to lye and so to sin The tongue must not go before and without the heart because the action of both is a duty It were better say nothing at all 2. The Sacrament of Baptism is not appointed to be affixed to every kind of duty but to our dedication to God and Gods acceptance of us Object If their Profession may engage them then may we seal it by baptism but it may engage them Ergo. c. Answ. I deny the Consequence A false dissembling may oblige the Promiser but Baptism was not appointed to seal every notorious false promise It is also Gods Seal as well as mans Circumcision is his sign and called his Covenant Gen. 17. And Abraham received it as a seal Rom. 4. And it signifieth Gods action of washing the soul by the blood of Christ. Therefore where we are sure God disclaimeth it and withdraweth his Action there may we not apply the Mutual Seal and Sign Object We see in New England the sad effects of denying baptism to the children of the unregenerate now they are all come to be obstinate Infidels Answ. Thâ—s is more than I have heard any good testimony of and therefore am not bound to believe it Secondly They in N. England as we hear do refuse to baptize all that are not children of the members of their own Churches but so do not we they baptize not the members of the Universal Church unless they be in a particular Church but we do otherwise And it s reported that they requâ—red positive proof of Conversion beyond a profession of faith and Repentance but so do not we Thirdly Mens obstinacy in sin and proceeding worse will not warrant us to take an unlawful course in pretence to do them good Fourthly Do you give us any reason to believe that a notorious ungodly person in your Church is in any better a state than an Infidel Nay that they are not in a state much worse It is they therefore that should chiefly move you to compassion Can you so lament the estate of the less miserable and not of the more miserable Object But it is good that at least in words they confess Christ. Answ. Either you speak of a Good of Duty or a Good of Means For the first it is a Duty and so good to confess Christ with heart and tongue but if with the tongue alone it is a sin and no duty Indeed the tongue conjunct with the heart doth part of the duty but separated it loseth the Goodness And as a means First to their own salvation it is not good but rather condemneth them Secondly As to Gods honor if he make it a means in providence thereto that 's no thanks to them And if you did not now speak of the Notoriously Ungodly but should suppose men to be near to the Kingdom of God it doth not follow that therefore they must be baptized because they have some good in them for some good must go before the nearest aptitude nor yet that this good is the effect of Baptism in the unlawfully baptized or if it were occasioned by Baptism it followeth not that therefore unmeet persons should in hope of it be baptized Use Gods means to his appointed Ends and do not frame a course of means of your own heads for Gods ends For it is the means of his appointment and blessing that must succeed Though I have done with the Quesâ—ion it self yet I suppose it is not the least matter in reference to our practice that is yet behind though I shall dispatch it in brief What the better are we to know that we may not baptize the children of the Notoriously ungodly till we know who these are Let us therefore answer this Question Whom must we take for Notoriously ungodly As in all that is gone before I doubt not but I shall be thought too rigid so in this which followeth I as little question but I shall be censured as too loose in my Doctrine and charitable beyond the warrant of reason But Truth is Truth which I will search after as well as I can And first on the Negative I lay down these Propositions Proposition 1. In General We are not Certain of every mans ungodliness whom we probably strongly and groundedly suspect to be ungodly We may have more reason of fear than of hope concerning them and yet not be able to conclude that they are certainly ungodly Secondly In General It is not easie judging of the certainty of mens ungodliness at a distance nor by some actual gross sins till we have spoke to them and admonished them and discern what degree of obstinacy and impentency and wilfulness they are guilty of or till we understand this certainly by those that have admonished them and heard their Answers Thirdly It is hard judging of the certainty of a mans ungodliness by one or two or a few Actions without knowing the course and scope of a mans life Fourthly I think it is few among a thousand of the common people that we can say are certainly ungodly though we have reason to think that the most by far are so More particularly Fifthly A man must be guilty of more sin than Noah was than Peter was in denying and forswearing Christ that is notoriously ungodly Yea than Lot was who was drunk two nights together and committed Incest with his own Daughters twice that after the miraculous destruction of Sodom of his own Wife his own miraculous deliverance The Opinion of most of our Divines is that a man that is Notoriously Ungodly in the sense in hand or unsanctified must be a greater sinner than Solomon was 1 King 11. He loved many strange women of the Nations which God forbad the Israelites to joyn with such as Ezâ—a caused them to put away after Marriage He kept three hundred Concubines besiâ—es seven hundred Wives When he was old his Wives turned away his heart after other gods and his heart was not perfect with the Lord as Davids was He went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians and after Milcom the abomination of the Amonites and he did evil in the sight of the Lord. He built an high place for Chemosh the abomination of Moab in the hill that is before Jerusalem and for Molech the abomination of the children of Ammon And likewise did he for all his strange Wives which burnt Incense and sacrificed to their gods And the Lord was aâ—gry with him because his heart was turned from the Lord God of Israel which appeared to him twice and had commanded him that he should not go after other gods but he kept not that which the
the Infant to Baptism meerly because the Parents are excluded from one or more particular Churches because Baptism doth necessarily and directly enter them among the number of Christians but not into any one particular Church And therefore I will not forbid or disswade the baptizing of such Prâ—position 2. Yet do I take it to be no duty of mine to baptize any such more than any other Ministers further than I have a special Call or Reason For Example Here live some hundreds in this Parish that upon publike Proposal Whether they take me for their Pastor and themselves for members of this Church do disown it or not own it when they are told that their owning or declaring it shall be taken as the sign to know it I take my self no more bound to baptize their children than any strangers else For I cannot be their Pastor whether they will or not nor can I take them for any special charge of mine that will not take themselves to be so nor take me for their Pastor Therefore they can no more blame me than any stranger if I refuse to baptize their children Though yet I deny not their right to Baptism I am not bound to baptize all the children in the Countrey and therefore not theirs Proposition 3. It ordinarily falls out that a Minister hath more work to do in his own special charge than five men are able to do So that he cannot bestow so much time as to Baptize the children of others and to take an account of them concerning their Faith or Profession such as is more necessary from strangers and refusers of Discipline than others without neglecting some duty to his own Charge the while While I am speaking to them there are twenty poor souls of my own Charge that call for my help And I am more strictly tied to those of my special charge than to others Proposition 4. Yet in case that for the avoiding of offence or for an advantage to win them to a better temper or the like reason I see any special cause for it I doubt not but I must rather omit a lesser duty to my own Charge than a greater to others Proposition 5. If a man reject Church-communion or withdraw himself from one Church upon a reason common to all Churches as Incorporated as for Example because he will not be under any Discipline he gives us reason to question his very Christianity And therefore we must call him to account on what grounds he doth this And if the grounds are found such as are consistent with Christianity we may not deny the right of his Infants to Baptism though our selves may have no Call to baptize them Proposition 6. If the Parents do either produce no Title to the baptizing of their child that is do not seem Christians or Godly Or if they give us grounds of a violent presumption that their profession is false and counterfeit in either of these cases as we are to exclude them from Christian communion so are we to refuse the baptizing of their children that is to suspend both till such a Title be shewed or till the grounds of that strong presumption be removed Although we may not declare such persons to be no members of the universal Church nor absolutely deny their children to have any Right in the Covenant or fundamentally and remotely to Baptism as not being certain that their Parents are in a Graceless ungodly state This last Proposition is it that I am now to give my Reasons of For indeed it is a matter of such exceeding difficulty to conclude another man to be certainly graceless that it is not one of multitudes nay it is but few of the commonly scandalous gross sinners that we should be able to prove it by which I desire the Cesorious well to consider of But yet a strong presumption we may have of more that they are graceless and thereupon may suspend them and their Children as is said before Arg. 1. If the Parent have given just cause for us to question his own Christianity and Right to Christian communion thereupon then hath he given us sufficient cause to question his childs right to Baptism and so to suspend the baptizing it But the Antecedent is confessed For our dissenting Brethren in this case will suspend yea excommunicate the Parent Ergo The reason of the Consequence is clear in that the Right of the Infant to Baptism is meerly on the Parents account and on supposition of his Right to Membership of the Universal Church If therefore his Right be justly questioned and â—e suspended then the Infants Right must be questioned and it suspended on the same ground For Baptism Sealeth a right of Union and putteth into actual communion of the Body Catholick Argum. 2. We ought not to dispense Gods Seals and Church-Priviledges to any without a produced Title Else we must give them to all that we can But for the baptism of such mens children as are aforementioned there can be or is no Title produced Ergo. The Major is further clear in that Non esse non Apparere are to us all one For it must be discernable to us by some evidence or else it is naturally impossible for us to know it For the Minor its clear that if the Parents Title to membership be questionable the Infants is so too because the ground is the same and it is from the Parent that the Infant must derive it and no man can give that which he hath not Argum 3. In civil Administrations and according to the Rules of right Reason a very high probability commonly called Violenta Praesumptio sufficeth to sentence and execution especially when it is but in the withdrawing or suspending of a Priviledge Therefore it must be so here Because 1. here is no reason to put a difference 2. Because our distance from other mens hearts doth in most cases make us uncapable of more Impenitency and â—nfidelity lie within and we cannot know them but by their signs and fruits And 3. It is their fault in giving occasion of such presumption and in being so like the ungodly if we deny them the Priviledges of the Godly and not our fault The Antecedent is clearly known If a man be known to bear another malice and be found standing by him with a bloody sword the person being murdered the Judge will justly condemn him for the murder though yet it be not absolutely certain that he did it If a man be found nudus in lecto cum nuda he shall be judged a Fornicator or Adulterer though it be uncertain So in other cases Argum. 4. If such violent presumption must not stand for sufficient proof for such suspension of parent and child then all Discipline and all civil justice if it be not so there will be eluded For then as no vice almost or but few will be punished among men nor few men have right so almost no ungodly or scandalous sinners or few that
of that will say that wicked men may come to Baptism for these advantages But the most Learned of them conclude that no man ought to come that hath not a purpose to forsake all his mortal sins at least and that they are not to be Baptized that profess not this and that others get into the Church praeter intentionem Ecclesiae as Bellarmine saith so that in this the chief of their Doctors own the cause that I maintain Aquin. 3. Qu. 68. ar 4. doth purposely dispute it Vtrùm peccatores sint Baptizandi And resolves it negatively that though Peccator quoad reatum may be Baptized yet not Peccator ex voluntate peccandi proposito persistendi in peccato he gives three good Reasons 1. Because such are unmeet to be incorporated into Christ which Baptism doth 2. Because Baptism with them cannot attain its end to take away their sin and in the works of God and the Church nothing must be done in vain or that cannot reach the appointed end 3. Because else there would be falshood in the sacramental signs which must not be And one would think by his Answers ad 2 m 3 m that he saith as much as I is for the necessity of a fides formata and Conversion it self before Baptism Saith he ad 2. Ideo sacramentum baptismi non est exhibiendum nisi ei in quo interioris conversionis aliquod signum apparet sicut nec medicina corporalis adhibetur infirmo nisi in eo aliquis motua vitalis nature appareat And ad 3 m answering those objectors that I intended p. 51. he saith Dicendum quod Baptismus est fidei sacramentum Fides autem informis non sufficit ad salutem nec ipsa est fundamentum sed sola fides formata quae per dilectionem operatur ut Aug. l. de sid oper Vnde nec sacramentum baptismi salutem conferre potest cum voluntate peccandi quae fidei formam excludit Non est autem per impressionem Characteris baptismalis aliquis disponendus ad gratiam quamdiu in eo apparet voluntas peccandi he here plainly speaks de fide formata ut afferendâ and not ut recipiendâ per baptismum So that he is here fully for me in the main cause of these Disputations and so must they all that do affirm a true death to sin to be one of the prerequisites if they will not contradict themselves and that 's common For it 's a vain conceit that preparatory grace kills sin and special grace afterward giveth a new life that which expelleth death is life and that which expelleth darkness is nothing else but the light it self Add also what Aquinas saith sup Qu. 2. a. 3. c. Nullum peccatum dimittitur nisi quis justificetur sed ad justificationem requiritur contritio And what he saith 3. Qu. 49. a. 1. ad 2 m Per fidem applicatur nobis passio Christi ad percipiendum fructum ipsius Fides autem per quam à peccato mundamur non est fides informis quae potest esse etiam cum peccato sed est fides formata per Charitatem ut sic passio Christi nobis applicetur non solùm quantum ad intellectum sed etiam quantum ad effectum Yet I know they here confound themselves by their sophistry telling us that Contrition is before Charity materially and after it effectively and that Contritio se habet ut ultima dispositio ad gratiam consequendam and that Poenitentia quae est sacramentum is before Poenitentia qâ—â— est virtus and is the instrument of effecting it as though a dissembling Ceremony or false profession would work grace so that there is no hold of them at the best for they have lost themselves in contradictions I know also that they make the Sacrament of Baptism to justifie and sanctifie infallibly all Infants that are offered by the Church on their allowed Titles let the Parent be never so bad because they think the Churches Faith may serve instead of the Parents as the Churches Intention may serve instead both of the Ministers saith Aquinas and the Infants yea and the Church it self need not lend an Infant any Contrition for they are agreed that neither other mens sins nor our own Original sin which is all that the Infant hath are the Object of Contrition but only our own actual sin Yet one would think that the ordinary doctrine that the votum vel propositum may save without Baptism should imply that before Baptism the desires of it are supposed to have Charity or special Grace The Roman Catechism saith Par. 2. pag. 142. Baptismi suscipiendi propositum atque consilium malae acta vitae pâ—enitentia satis futura sit ad gratiam justitiam si repentinus aliquis Casus impediat quò minùs solutari aquâ ablui possint And they confess that none can be saved without Charity therefore those that die before Baptism must be supposed to have Charity But ordinarily they make Attrition sufficient and by the Sacrament give to the attrite justification and so Charity is conferred And thus by an outward act a man that hath but common grace may get special grace Yea if they Counterfeit Attrition it self yet they receive the foresaid indelible Character which gives them the jura Ecclesiae and as the Roman Catechism saith Par. 2. qu. 19. pag. 125. by this Character ad alia sacramenta percipienda redduntur idonei And then the other Sacraments at least by the help of Attrition will sure justifie and save them And thus they make a common grace sufficient to let them into the Church by Baptism yea the meer Baptism it self without any grace at all and so make their Character and church-Church-state the way to justification which is the thing I charge them with Pag. 50 51. And those that do seem exceedingly to comfort and encourage their proselytes by telling them of the certain efficacy of the Sacraments and that they surely put away all sin and guilt open heaven to them so that one would think there were assurance of Salvation or exceeding comfort reached forth yet they take it all away again and do but Tantalize and delude the people For they that with us require Contrition before the Sacrament do withall tell us that no man can know by any ordinary means but only by Revelation whether he be Contrite or not and consequently whether he shall be justified pardoned or saved ever the more for all the Sacraments And those that take up with Attrition do both confound themselves and their followers with their many degrees of Attrition and quarrels about it and also assure them that they cannot know whether they have the necessary degree and so after all Sacraments they cannot tell whether they be justified This much I thought meet to add for further explication of the Papists doctrine and the state of our Controversies with them herein Which I shall conclude in the words