CYGNEA CANTIO: OR, LEARNED DECISIONS, AND MOST PRUDENT AND PIOUS DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENTS IN DIVINITY; Delivered by our late Sovereign of Happy Memory, KING JAMES, At White Hall a few weeks before his Death.  Eccles 12. 11. The words of the wise are as goad, and as nails fastened by the masters of the assembly. 
LONDON, Printed for Robert Mylbourne at the Sign of the Greyhound in Paul's Churchyard. 1629.   

TO THE KING'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY.  
Dread Sovereign:  
THere is nothing can dry the overflowing spring ofteares in all your loyal Subjects eyes for the inestimable loss of our late Sovereign, your most Noble Father, but the Orient beams, & bright lustre of your Majesty's Imperial Crown, and most happy reign over us: whereby that is come to pass which the ancient English Poet so much admired, Sol occubuit nox nulla secuta est: The Sun set, and no night ensued thereupon: Blessed and glorified be his Name for it, that dwelleth in a light which none can approach unto. Who had no sooner fitted the King your Father for a throne in heaven, but he fitted you his Son for his throne upon earth, and hath peaceably settled you in it. 
Vno avulso non deficit alter  
Aureus ac simili frondescit virga metallo.   
No sooner that golden branch was plucked away, but another of the same stock groweth up in the room: Under whose shade the Church and Common wealth now shelter themselves. If any man have any of your Father's jewels, he ought to bring them to you his sole Heir. The learned resolutions, and divine instructions which I lately received from your Father's mouth, I value no less than peerless Pearls: And because the last speech of a departing friend maketh the deepest impression, and Art herein imitating Nature holdeth out long the last note of the dying sound in the Organ; I thought it my duty to offer unto your Majesty the ensuing Relation of the last polemical discourses of his Majesty your Father, in matter of controversy in Divinity. I read in Martial of a Fly that by a drop of Amber casually falling upon it, grew in such request, that a great sum of money was given for it. 
implicuit succina gutta feram  
Et sic quae fuerat vitâ, contempta, manente  
Facta est funeribus mox pretiosa suis.   
The like I am persuaded of the enclosed Narration, that many will esteem of it not for the flies sake, but for the Amber; not for itself or the penners sake, but for his Majesty's remarkable passages related in it. For my part I challenge no more therein than S. Austin did in his child Adeodatus, Nihil agnosco meum nifi peccatum: I own nothing in it but the faults and defects. All my hope is, that the darker the foil is, the brighter the Diamonds of his Majesty's speeches inserted therein will appear; which with all humility I present to your Majesty with the tender of my bounden duty, and service to God for you, to you for God as becometh  
Your Majesty's meanest, yet most humble and affectionately devoted Subject, Daniel Featly.   

THE COPY OF A LETTER SENT TO THE RIGHT WORSHIPFUL THE DEANE OF W:  
Relating diverse difficult points, and remarkable directions to Students in Divinity, delivered by King james our late Sovereign of blessed memory; by the occasion of the publishing Mr. Elton his exposition upon the Commandment, entitled Gods holy mind; and Mr. Crompton his answer to Mr. Brearly, entitled St. Augustine's Summos. jan. 6. 1624.  
WHat Varius Geminus spoke sometime to Augustus, Qui apud te audent dicere, ignorant tuam magnitudinem; qui non audent, humanitatem: Those that dare speak before thee know not thy greatness; those that dare not, know not thy goodness: I may as truly apply to the admirable temper of Majesty and gracious Clemency in our late Sovereign King james. Those that were not afraid to come before him, were ignorant of his Princely Majesty; those that were afraid, were unacquainted with his benign affability. To omit manifold instances for proof hereof, which more learned pens have and will commend to posterity: the sweet close which his Majesty set (a little before the changing of his corruptible Crown with an incorruptible) to the late harsh sounding business about the publishing of two Treatises, the one penned by M. Elton, the other by M. Crompton, deserveth a thankful acknowledgement of all that were any way interessed in the making or setting forth of those Books. The special passages of his Majesty's learned and pious discourses upon that occasion I have here, though not perfectly yet faithfully related. 
Pind.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
First, his Majesty questioned me for licensing M. Elton his book, and he seemed to be very much displeased that any should be permitted to print books in the Church of England, who were not conformable to the discipline of the Church of England. Whereunto my conscience beareth me witness that my answer was according to the truth.  
First, that M. Elton had set forth in print other books before this, at which I never heard any exception taken for matter of inconformity.  
Secondly, that if he had been a man unconformable, doubtless my Lord of Winton, no favourer of nonconformitants, would never have suffered him to have discharged his Ministry so many years so near him, without ever calling him in question, much less suspending him for non-conformity.  
Thirdly, that the general good report of M. Elton his meek spirit and peaceable carriage as well as his extraordinary painfulness in his pastoral function, even to the enfeebling of his body, moved me to gratify him so far, being my neighbour, as at his request to peruse that his book, and if I thought it fit, commend it to the Press.  
Fourthly, that of this book I perused but 52. pages, in which I was confident that there was nothing contrary to the discipline or doctrine of the Church of England; and that my approbation extends no further than the 52. page, appeareth by my Imprimatur, and the Warden of the Stationer's hand affixed to the 52. page, and not to the last page of the book: at which we usually set our hands, if we allow the whole book. After that first part of the book allowed by me, I made a stop, because I then understood the Author had made a period of his life. Whilst he lived I might and did alter with his consent, what we thought fit: but after his decease I left oft intermeddling in such a work wherein I could not suffer all things to pass as they were in that copy, bonâ conscientiâ, nor yet change or mend any thing bonâ fide. Yet the book took the liberty of fly out of the Press without licence: But that which then escaped virgulam censoriam, hath since met with facem expiatoriam. On Sunday the 13. of February 1624. we saw a februation or purging by fire of all the errors discovered in that Posthumus, some concerning the Sabbath itself, there were burnt above 800 Copies. The greatest holocaust that hath been offered in this kind in our memory, for aught I know. Whereupon the wits of the City (which usually will be working upon such occasions) have made a conceited Pageant: And although even innocent mirth may be subject to censure, when the occasion rather presents matter of pensive, or at least serious thoughts; yet because the Emblem and Motto devised upon this occasion discovereth the affections of many that were there present, I hold it not altogether unfit here to set them down. Saint Paul's Cross is drawn at large, and a number of men, partly running away that they might not see such a spectacle, partly weeping, and wiping their eyes to see a book so full (as they conceived) of heavenly zeal and holy fire, sacrificed in earthly and unhallowed flames: their Motto was, 
Ardebant sancti sceleratis ignibus ignes, 
Ovid fast. de incendio templi vestae.   
Et mista est flammae flamma profana piae.   
In the midst of the area there is described a huge pile of books burning; and on the one side the Author casting his books into the fire, with this Motto: Sancte (nec invideo) sine me liber ibis in ignem. And on the other side a Popish shaveling Priest answering him with this motto in the next verse: Hei mihi quod domino non licetire tuo. Before the burning of the Books, the Preacher at the Cross declared diverse erroneous assertions therein, condemned (as he said) by Authority. Among which that assertion in the forefront, Inter damnatos, 
* See Amphilochius in vita Batalii. Paulinus in vita Ambrosii. Eusebius lib. 6. histor. cap. 36. Amillarius de officiis Ecclesiast. lib. 3. cap. 35. Micrologus de rebus eccles cap. 17. Concilium Turonicum lib. 3 cap. 9 Concil. Bracher. 3. Can. 1  touching the denial of the Sacrament to the sick requiring it on their deathbed, collected by consequences from some passages of that book, seemed to me most blame worthy. For what law of God or man depriveth the sick in their greatest extremity of pains of body, and troubles of mind, of that unspeakable comfort which the participating of the blessed Sacrament affordeth to all that worthily receive it. What devout Christian would not desire with Simeon to take his Saviour into his hands before his departure, that he might the more cheerfully sing his Nunc dimittis? Is the Church so charitable to send the other Sacrament home to sick infants? and will any deny this Sacrament to men of ripe years, hungering for this bread of life? what though this Sacrament be not of like necessity as the other is? yet is it of as great virtue, and greater comfort, by present apprehension: whereof men stand in great need amidst the temptations of Satan, and terrors of conscience, and fear of death, and the strict account to be given after death. Who knoweth not that the Primitive Church took special care that all those who were taking their last journey to another world should be provided of this celestial Viand, which they 
* Ignat epist. ad Ephe.  call Viaticum morientium, nay 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, yet such is the nature of misguided zeal, that under colour of weeding out superstition, it will pluck up by the roots many plants of Paradise, and acts of true Religion.  
But because M. Elton himself hath now made his account before the supreme judge of all, I will amplify no longer upon this or any other error rehearsed out of those books, published after his death, nor enter any action of unkindness against any concerning that business; but bury all in his grave: because though some of them perhaps intended much evil against me, yet God (through his Majesty's grace and goodness) hath turned it to good.  
Pliny writeth of a marble Image of Diana set up in Chios, the face whereof was so drawn by Art, that the Goddess seemed to look sad upon her worshippers as they entered into her Temple, but smiled upon them as they came out. This Statue presenteth to me a copy of his Majesty's countenance in this business, which was sad and dreadful at my coming to him, but cheerful and comfortable at my departing. It is well known what a bitter storm fell at my first appearance before his Majesty, which yet the day following, through God's mercy, in whose hands the hearts of Kings are, turned a golden shower; which fell 
* For he received 40. pieces in gold of his Majesty.  literally upon M. Crompton, and allegorically upon me. Seldom or never heard I (especially on the sudden) such apt solutions of knotty and entangled questions, so pithy and sinewy Arguments, such useful observations, such divine instructions, from any Chrysostome in our Church, as I heard that day from his Majesty's mouth: Had not fear and sorrow for his Majesty's displeasure, much crazed my memory, and deadened my spirits at the present, I should have carried away more, and have given a better account of his Majesty's learned resolutions, and pious admonitions, given to me and M. Crompton that day: Now I can but present bracteolas sermonis purè aurei & stricturas ingenii vere ignei.  
THe first thing to my remembrance questioned touching M. Cromptons' book, was a clause in my written defence, that I was rather induced to licence the book out of a respect to my Lord, D. his Grace, to whom the book is dedicated by his Chaplain. What a reason is this, (said his Majesty?) Is it an honour to my Lord D. to be a patron of errors? Is it any honour to me that the Arians in Polonia have dedicated one of their books to me, containing damnable heresies? I account it rather a dishonour, and cannot with patience look upon their dedication to me. For answer hereunto I humbly beseeched his Majesty, that he would be pleased to hear that clause in my answer entirely read unto him. Whereupon my Lord of Durham reached me the paper wherein I read as followeth: That although I found many errors in M. Crompton his book, for which I might have wholly rejected the book, yet I chose rather to purge those errors, and mend those faults in the book, and therein used the help and advise of M. Cook, (who lately set forth a Treatise of the same argument, entitled. S. Austin's Religion,) to the end I might gratify. M. Crompton out of a respect to the Duke, to whom the Book was dedicated.  
The next thing examined by his Majesty was the reason of the suppressing three of the Author's Sections, whereof he complaineth in Print in the conclusion of his book. My answer to this charge was, That I crossed out those Sections because they crossed the doctrine and discipline established in this Kingdom, and savoured of that humour which never yet bred good blood in the Church. And for proof of my exceptions against those sections I produced the original copy written with M. Cromptons' own hand, which tendering to his Majesty, he commanded M. Crompton to read the first Section suppressed touching a parity amongst the Clergy: Upon the hearing whereof his Majesty much distasting M. Crompton his assertions, took occasion fully to enucliate that question touching the distinction of Bishops and Presbyters jure divino. Beside the judgement of the primitive Church, and consent of all ancient writers, his Majesty much pressed the subscription of the Epistle to Titus, 
Ordained the first Bishop of Crect.  and of the second Epistle to Timothy, as also the Apostles charge to Timothy, 1. 5. 19 
Ordained the first Bishop of the Church of Ephesus.  Receive not an accusation against an Elder, but before two or three witnesses. And to Titus the 1. and 5. For this cause left I thee in Crect, to ordain Elders in every Church. Out of which passages of Scripture his Majesty so clearly and evidently evicted a superiority in Bishops over Presbyters, jure divino, that as he reform master Crompton in his opinion, so he much more confirmed and settled my judgement in that tenet, which I held before, and delivered in two several Consecration Sermons preached in his Grace's Chapel at Lambeth: viz. That the distinction of Bishops and Presbyters is the jure divino, or Apostolico, not the Ecclesiastico only, and that according to the Canon of the great Council of Chalcedon, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to bring down a Bishop to the low rank of Presbyters of Priests, is sacrilege. The first I find that ever went about to break down the partition wall between Bishops and Presbyters, was Aerius, a man like his name, light and easy to be carried away with the wind of ambition: For as Epiphanius writeth, (Heres. 75.) this Aerius standing for a Bishopric, and being put by it by Eustathius, invented this heresy, ut se consolaretur, to comfort his heart upon the repulse: So when he could not raise up himself to the higher rank of Bishops, he sought to pull down Bishops to his lower rank of Presbyters. What (saith he) doth a Bishop differ from a Priest? nothing at all, 
A Bishop differs nothing at all from a Priest, for they are both of one and the same rank and dignity.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But for this saucy malipartnesse he felt the smart of the Crosiers staff, and for ranking Bishops among Presbyters or Elders, was himself ranked amongst heretics.  
After this point touching different degrees in the Clergy was discussed, the two other suppressed sections in M. Cromptons' book were read, the former touching the unlawfulness of any contract of matrimony between parties of a different Religion. The latter touching the marriage of the innocent party after divorce for adultery. In both which Sections such offensive matter was found, that his Majesty was pleased to say that master Crompton was beholding to me for suppressing them.  
Thus it appeareth my defence for striking out of those sections in master Cromptons' book was very easy: the harder province was to excuse such sections which I struck not out, for his Majesty distasted many tenets of master Crompton, but especially insisted upon four. 
First, Touching the sign of the Crosse.  
Secondly, Touching women's baptising in case of necessity.  
Thirdly, Touching some kind of ignorance supposed to be in Christ according to his humanity.  
Fourthly, Touching S. Augustine's opinion of Children dying without baptism.   
1. TOuching the sign of the Cross his Majesty very much disliked that which M. Crompton averreth, pag. 81. That the sign of the Cross was not received in the Church till one hundred and sixty years after Christ, and that the author thereof was Valentinus the heretic, who coming to Rome stayed there twelve years, and brought up the use of the Cross, as Irenaeus reporteth. This observation, said his Majesty, is most false, the sign of the Cross is more ancient, Valentinus brought it not first into the Church, neither doth Irenaeus report any such thing.  
Since his Majesty's speech with us, I have examined the place alleged by M. Crompton out of Irenaeus, and I find that Irenaeus affirmeth no such thing as is fathered upon him. Valentinus the heretic was not the first inventor or author of the sign of the Cross, but our arch Cartewritist, or raith Catherist Parker, was the first inventor of this slanderous untruth: it seemeth M. Crompton ploughed with Parker's lame heifer, which drew his ploughshare awry. This Parker in his book, which he arrogantly and affectedly entitleth, Scholastical discourse against symbolising with Antichrist in ceremonies, especially in the sign of the Cross, pag. 75. saith, we use Valentinus his Cross; I call it his, because he was the first that used this figure the very first that made account of it: and a few lines after, Valentinus the heretic being the first deviser of it: and he quoteth (for proof of this his bold assertion) Ireneus in his first book against heresies. But how grossly herein he abuseth Irenaeus, will appear by setting down Irenaeus his own words, which are these, Adhuc etiam de Horo suo, quem pluribus nominibus vocant, duas operationes habere eum ostendunt, confirmativam, & seperativam, & secundùm id quidem quod confirmat & stabilit Crucemesse, secundùm id verò quod dividit & distinguit Horum esse: Further he relateth of his fantastical Aeon, that he hath diverse names according to diverse virtues and operations, and giveth instance in two, the virtue of establishing, according to which he calleth him Cross, and a virtue of severing, according to which he is called Bound or Term. Irenaeus here speaks not of Christ's Cross, but of the fantastic Aeons' Cross; nor of the sign of the Cross, but of the name of the Cross: Neither saith he so much, as that Valentinus was the deviser either of the name, or of the sign, but only that one of his Aeons had two names: the one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Term or Bound, the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Cross: And if we may not make the sign of the Cross, because one of Valentinus his feigned Aeons was called Cross, by the same reason we may not make any bound in our fields, nor definition of anything, because the same Aeon was called by the heretics 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, bound or definition. And by M. Parker's Logic, one of his Majesty's Pursivants must abjute his own name, and be no more called Cross, lest he symbolise with Valentinus, or offend his god Aeon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seculum crux: yet this is one of the least absurdities in that book of Parker. No Scholar ever spilt so much wit and learning as this brainsick Amsterdamian doth in his Treatise of the Cross: wherein he layeth all his wit and learning upon it, to prove that the making of the sign of the Cross is the breach of all the ten Commandments. He is not content to write of the Superstition and Idolatry of the Cross only, which are notes we have often heard sung by the Martin's brood; but he spendeth 18. whole Sections in discoursing of the hypocrisy of the Cross, and a whole large book of the Injustice of the Cross, chap. 5. and of the Murder of the Cross, chap. 6. and of the Adultery of the Cross, chap. 7. and of the Wrong of the Cross, chap. 8. and of the Slander of the Cross, chap. 9 and lastly, pour fair un bon bouche, of the concupiscence of the Cross, chap. 10.  
For proof of these his prodigious conclusions, he so detorteth Scriptures, and depraveth ancient and modern Writers, that what was said by the witty Epigrammatist of Gretzers' book De adorandâ cruse, may be applied to this book of Parkers De abolendâ cruse.  
Dignum authore opus est, dignus at ille opere est, nempe cruse.  
It will be here said, if this escape in M. Cromptons' book were so gross, how came it to pass, that it escaped my censure in perusing and licensing the same? my answer hereunto is direct, That it did not escape me, but I took notice thereof in reading that Chapter, and both corrected it in that place, and afterwards. In that place I inserted these words (as some report,) thereby giving the Reader to understand, that I avowed not the thing there reported, but branded it with suspicion: and pag. 84. I determined the clean contrary in the conclusion of the Chapter, in these words following line 9 To conclude than it is most certain, that the sign of the cross was first invented and practised against Pagans, who used to make it only in derision of Christianity. The Valentinian heretics after abused the Cross to a fantastical end, etc.  
2. TOuching women's baptising in case of necessity, his Majesty in part disliked that which M. Crompton delivers, pag. 95. that for a lay man, and much more for a woman to baptise in case of necessity, in S. Austin's opinion it is a pardonable sin: though pardonable, yet a sin, and the usurping of another's office. The answer hereunto made, as I take it, by M. Crompton, (for I remember not that I spoke any thing at all to this point) was that in the Conference at Hampton Court women's baptising was utterly condemned: and that thereupon an alteration was made in the Book of Common Prayer: and whereas before women were allowed to baptise in case of necessity, in the book set out by his Majesty, baptism in private houses in time of necessity is restrained to the Minister of the Parish, or any other lawful Minister that can be procured. Against this answer his Majesty excepted, That neither in the Common Prayer book set out by King Edward, nor in that by Queen Elizabeth, there was any mention of women's baptising. In King Edward's Common Prayer Book printed Anno Dom. 1540 in the Rubric before private Baptism we read of them that are to be baptised in private houses in time of necessity:  
First, Let them that be present call upon God for his grace, and say the Lords Prayer, if the time will permit, and then one of them shall name the child, and dip it in the water, or pour water upon it, saying these words, N. I baptise thee, etc. and let them not doubt but that the child so baptised is lawfully and sufficiently baptised. King Edward's book reform anno Dom. 1552. hath the same rubric verbatim: Queen Elizabeth's book hath likewise the same words: The book set out upon the conference at Hampton Court, hath altered it on this wise: Of them that are to be baptised in private houses, in time of necessity, by the Minister of the Parish or any other lawful Minister that can be procured, First, let the lawful Minister, and them that be present, call upon God for his grace, and say the Lords prayer, if the time will suffer, and then the child being named by some one that is present, the said lawful Minister shall dip it in water, etc.  
In all which passages, in all the several Impressions of the books of Common prayer, there is nothing said of a woman's baptising, neither to warrant it to be done, nor to condemn it when it is done. Neither doth S. Austin simply condemn a Lay man or woman baptising in case of necessity, as a sin, but saith, either it is no fault, or a pardonable. His words, Tom. quarto, lib. 2. contra. Epist. Parmenionis, are, Nulla cogente necessitate si fiat, alieni muneris usurpatio est: si autem necessitas urget, aut nullum, aut veniale delictum est; sed etsi nulla necessitate usurpetur et a quolibet cuilibet detur, si datum fuerit non potest dicinon datum, quamvis rectè dici potestillicitè datum. And this said his Majesty was the sum of the resolution at Hampton Court in this point, howsoever some have mistaken it.  
3. TOuching some kind of ignorance supposed to be in Christ according to his humane nature; His Majesty disallowed Master Cromptons' peremptory resolution, set down pag. 23, viz. That Christ as man was subject to some kind of ignorance, and this was the Primitive truth taught by St. Austin, and maintained by the Church of England. I cannot endure (saith his Majesty) that my Saviour should be said to be ignorant of any thing. For in him the divine nature was hypostatically united to the humane, in one person; and that person being divine, could not, nor cannot be subject to any kind of ignorance. Here I humbly beseeched his Majesty to be pleased to hear what might be probably alleged, in defence of M. Cromptons' opinion. The rather because junius in his answer to Bellarmine, 
junius resp▪ ad Bell. contr. 2. l. 4 Humanitas profecit in se tum effasione spiritus tum acquisitione scientiae.  and D. Feild, a worthy writer of ours, in the 5. book of the Church, cap. 14. deliver the same doctrine in effect; as M. Crompton doth in this section. 
Feild of the Church, cap. 14.  These authorities satisfied not his Majesty, 
It may be said that Christ grew in wisdom and knowledge, non quo ad habitus essentiam & extentionem, sed quo ad actualem cognitionent not according to the essence of the habit, but according to actual knowledge.  who said, that he would not that we should ground our judgement upon later writers, especially those beyond the Seas, which were not well acquainted with the Tenets of our Church: and moreover differed from us in discipline and judgement, touching the decent, ancient and laudable Ceremonies used in our Church. Upon this occasion, his Majesty gave M. Crompton and Me many most useful instructions in our study in Divinity, agreeable to those Directions sent heretofore to the Universities, which deserve to be written with the point of a Diamond, for the perpetual use of the Church, and advancement of sacred knowledge and learning. For these Directions, having given his Majesty thanks, and promised to follow them, I propounded those words of our Saviour, Mark 13. 32. But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no not the Angels, neither the Son, but the Father; Which, as I conceived, made for M. Cromptons' opinion, viz. That Christ, according to his humane nature, might be said, if not subject to ignorance, yet to a nescience of some particulars, such as that which is mentioned in the Text; for, as for the jesuits interpretation of that Text, (viz.) That Christ knew not the day of judgement, [ad dicendum nobis,] to tell us; I never could like of it, because it is forced, and serveth to give support to the doctrine of Aequivocation. Neither do I, said his Majesty, allow of the Gloss of the Jesuits, but you must observe, said he, that Christ said not, that neither the Son of God doth know, but neither the Son himself. And he was the Son of God as well as the son of man; and though as man, or by his humane nature he knew not the day of judgement, yet as the Son of God he knew it. In this exposition of his Majesties, according to the interpretation of the ancient fathers Ambrose and Cyril, 
Ambros. in hunc locum, temporum finem non per naturam hominis, sed per naturam Dei novit.  we rested both satisfied, and I humbly desired his Majesty that he would be pleased to resolve us in what sense those words of Saint Luke 21. 52. 
Cyril. non dicit spiritum sanctum, sed Angelos, & filium; nec filium Dei, sed filium solummodo, de seipso loquens ut homine; nec sibi derogans ut Deo. scit enim, ut Deus, quod ut homo ignorat. He knew the end of time, not by the nature of man, but by the nature of God. He saith not, the Holy Ghost knoweth not, but that the Angels know it not, nor the Son: neither doth he say, the Son of God knoweth not, but only the Son knoweth not; speaking of himself as man, and not derogating from himself as God, for he knoweth that as God, which as man he is ignorant of.  were to be taken; And jesus increased in wisdom, and stature, and favour with God and man. For if Christ increased in wisdom and knowledge, he had then more knowledge in his riper years, than he had in his Infancy; and if he had less knowledge in his younger years then in his elder, it seemeth that we may without any disparagement to his omniscience, according to his divine nature, attribute comparative ignorance, or rather nescience to him, according to his humane nature. This knot his Majesty thus dexterously untied. In the same verse, saith his Majiesty, it followeth, That he increased in favour with God: now saith he, was not Christ always in highest and greatest favour with God? Did God favour and love him more at one time then another? Doubtless not, yet is he said truly to increase in favour with God, because God more manifested & declared his love & favour unto him by the effects, and outward tokens thereof; as he grew in years, so likewise may he be said to grow and increase in wisdom and knowledge, because he more manifested and declared his wisdom and knowledge, as he came to riper age. To this observation of his Majesty, I replied; I could not imagine any thing that might with any colour be objected against it, save only that it is said in the same place, That jesus increased in wisdom, and stature, but his growth and increase in stature was not only in appearance to the world, but in truth and properly, and therefore his growth, and increase in wisdom might be conceived to be real, and in inward habit, and not only in outward manifestation thereof.  
To this his Majesty said, that these words, He increased in wisdom, may as well be interpreted by the other, He grew in favour, as by these, He grew in stature, yet said he, Christ might also be said truly to increase in wisdom, and knowledge in himself, as he did in stature; If we speak of experimental knowledge, whereof S. Paul saith, Heb 5. 6. That he learned obedience by the things he suffered; but from this increase in experimental knowledge, none could infer any ignorance at all in Christ, because, though he knew not some things experimentally in his Infancy, which he knew afterwards in his riper years, yet he knew the self same things before otherwise by his divine knowledge, and by his habitall infused humane.  
The last point questioned by his Majesty in M. Cromptons' book, was his undertaking to vindicate St. Augustine from the imputatioon of being durus pater infantum, a hard censurer of poor children dying unbaptised; whom he excludeth from all hope of salvation. Although saith his Majesty, I like it better especially in a young Divine, to endeavour to defend an ancient Father, where the truth will bear it, then like Cham to seek to discover the nakedness of the Fathers; Yet I like not your defence of Saint Augustine in this particular, because it is a known error in him, and you ought to have observed three Caveats in reading of Austin, and other ancient Father's works.  
First, You should observe what they write out of their private opinion, and what they deliver as the judgement of the Church. When any of them go alone, it is not so safe following them, but where we have their unanimous and joint consent in any material point, we may more securely rely upon them. All the Jesuits in the world shall never be able to produce the unanimous consent of the Fathers against us; or for themselves in any substantial point of Faith, as I have maintained in my books against them.  
Secondly, That you should distinguish what the Fathers write dogmatically, and what rhetorically: For sometimes they may strain somewhat too far in flourish of exornation and we ought to make the best, not the worst of their sayings.  
Thirdly, You should observe what they deliver in rofessed discourse, and for positive doctrine, and what they write in heat of opposition; wherein sometimes through too much vehemency they over strain in their polemical tractates against Heretics; For instance, in this very point S. Austin in his worthy treatises, extant in the seventh Tome of his works, in vehemently oppuguing those Heretics, that agree with our Arminians, (to wit) the Pelagians, who denied original sin in Infants and consequently the necessity of Baptism, was so far transported to urge the necessity thereof, that he excludeth all Infants dying unbaptised from all hope of salvation.  
Whether his Majesty received these Observations from any ancient Father, or late judicious Writer: Or whether the same spirit which directed them immediately, instructed him, I know not. But after I took a note of these Cautions jointly from his Majesty's mouth, I found them severally delivered by diverse renowned Authors. The first by Vincentius Lirinensis adversus harese. Tunc operam dabit ut collatas inter se majorum consulat, interrogétque sententias eorum duntaxat, qui diversi licèt temporibus & locis in unius tamen Ecclesiae Catholicae communione & fide permanentes, magistri probabiles extiterunt, & quicquid non unus aut duo tantum sed omnes pariter uno eod ●mque consensu apertè, frequenter, perseveranter tenuisse, scripsi●e, docuisse cognoverit, id sibi quoque intelligat sine ulla dubitatione esse credendum.  
The second Caution is so necessary that even the most learned among our Adversaries subscribe unto it. 
〈…〉.  Sixtus Senenses saith, Sae●e monuimus non esse concionatorum verba semper ●origore accipienda, quo primùm ad aures auditorum perveniant. multa enim declamatore per Heperbolen enunciant, & hoc interdum Chrysostomo contingit. If C. Bellarm. and others of Sixtus Senensis profession, had well observed this Caution of his, they would never have grounded any Article of Faith upon flowers of speech, and Rhetorical exornations in the Fathers as they do in the point of invocation of Saints, which they build upon an Apostrophe: nor the carnal eating of Christ with the mouth, upon the Hyperboles of some of the Fathers, viz. Nazianzen, and Chrysostome.  
In the last Caution his Majesty concurreth with great S. Basil, who noteth it of Dionysius, that he gave the first occasion and birth to the Error of the Anomaei, by certain speeches that fell from him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Not out of any evil mind he had to broach a new Heresy, but out of an over vehement desire to contradict and confute Sabellius. Sixtus Senenses, and Vasques ingenuously confess, that many of the ancient Fathers, in opposition to the Manichean Heresy of fatality, spoke too freely of men's freewill. And doth not St. Jerome in heat of opposition to Vigilantius, who too much undervalved Virginity, run somewhat upon the other extreme, by too highly extolling the same, even to the disparaging (in some sort) of holy wedlock? It cannot likewise be denied, but that Saint Augustine was carried too far in the point in question, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Not out of any evil meaning; but out of opposition to Pelagius his Heresy. In censuring Pelagius his Heresy, he goeth so far in urging the absolute necessity of Baptism, that he holdeth all children dying unbaptised in the state of damnation. For which his severe censure of poor Infants, he is called durus pater Infantum. And this, said his Majesty, I learned when I was but 22. years old, and therefore marvel that a Doctor of Divinity, and a Writer against Papists should be ignorant thereof. My answer hereunto was, I was not ignorant, that no children dying unbaptised, according to S. Austin's opinion, ordinarily were, or could be saved. And in this regard, he might justly be called, durus pater Infantum. But yet I could not think S. Austin so severe against poor Infants, as to deny, but that some children dying without Baptism, especially borne of religious parents, might by the extraordinary mercy of God be saved, as the Thief was upon the Cross, without receiving that, or the other Sacrament, and for proof of this my opinion touching St. Austin, I alleged these words out of his fourth book de baptismo contra Donatistas', ca 24. Sicut in illo latrone quod ex baptismi sacramento deficerat complevit omnipotentis benignitas, quia non superbiâ, aut contemptu, sed necessitate defuerat; sic in iis infantibus, qui non baptisati moriuntur, eadem gratia omnipotentis implere credenda est. Of this place of Saint Austin, his Majesty said, That the words were misalleaged, that Saint Austin's words were not, [Sic in infantibus, qui non baptizati moriuntur,] but sic in infantibus, qui baptisati moriuntur, eadem omnipotentis gratia implere credenda est. Hereunto craving leave to speak what I could, with submission yet to his Majesty's better judgement, I said, that I thought, the former reading was the truer, because there was never any question of the salvation of Infants borne of faithful parents, which died being baptised; Neither seemed there to me any good correspondence between the parts of the similitudes, If we read the words without the negative particle thus: As the thief upon the Cross by the extraordinary mercy of God was saved without baptism, so Infants are saved dying with baptism by the mercy of God. Moreover the reason which S. Augustine here urgeth to prove the thief on the Cross was saved without baptism, because he contemned not baptism, makes as strongly or more strongly for infants, who questionless cannot be thought any way to contemn baptism. If necessity excuse the thief on the Cross, it seemeth that the same necessity in S. Augustine's judgement might excuse Infants for the want of baptism. To this his Majesty answered, That the similitude in S. Austin stood thus, That as the thief on the Cross was saved without baptism, because the want thereof was of necessity, and not of contempt, so also children that are baptised are saved by the extraordinary mercy of God, without actual faith and confessing thereof. And to prove this to be S. Augustine's meaning, he commanded my Lord of Durham to read the words immediately following, which are these: Quòd non ex impia voluntate, sed ex aetatis indigentia, nec corde credere ad justitiam possunt, nec ore confiteri ad salutem. Which words, when I heard read, I confessed that his Majesty had more exactly viewed the place, with the several editions, than I; and that not only the Authors, but the Licensers of books were subject to mistaking, especially in variety of Editions of the same Author.  
And here as I began to entreat his Majesty's favourable construction of what I had said in all this defence of myself and M Crompton, my Lord of Durham prevented me herein, & his Majesty graciously reached me out his hand to kiss; and thus with fatherly admonitions, and benedictions also, he dismissed us both.  
FINIS.   

THE PRINTER TO THE READER.  
COurteous Reader, this Relation enclosed in a Letter to the D. of W. was showed to King james our late Sovereign of blessed memory and order was given by his Majesty for the present printing thereof: it was licenced for the Press, and entered for my Copy, jan. 19 1625. with an Epistle Dedicatory prefixed to his most excellent Majesty that now is, shortly after his Coronation. Since which time (the Author not urging the printing thereof) I let it lie by me, and employed myself in printing diverse other books which were then more sought after; whereby I hoped in some measure to repair that exceeding great loss which I sustained by Fire, in the burning of M. Elton his book on the ten Commandments, and Lords Prayer, the greatest loss (in that kind) that ever any Stationer received: for I had taken from me almost nine hundred books, bound and in quires. which (with my 
* Albeit for my releasement I was and will acknowledge myself much obliged to a great and reverend Prelate in this Church.  Imprisonment, and other charges) cost me above threescore and ten pounds.  
And though I have since been beholding to my good friends for some good Copies, that would have helped to make me whole again, (if they might have passed freely without check or rub) yet I found, to my great disadvantage, that the Informer, who so persecuted M. Elton after his death, held on his course to calumniate the writings of my friends living, and to procure them either to be altogether suppressed or to be so gelded and mangled, that the sale of them thereby was very much hindered: Neither was he content to do me and my friends this wrong while he hovered here about London for such preys, but since his flight into the North, he triumphed and boasted at the table of a great personage, that he had procured Pelagius Redivivus to be called in, and utterly suppressed; and that 300. of them were taken from the Printer. But herein he was not his crafts-master, but was Cozened himself: for though a great number of the Copies of that Work were taken from me, upon his clamour, and delivered to the Bishop of London that then was, yet they were all given me back again: and by the stir he made about them, they were much more inquired after and sold the better, being called for even from the remotest parts of Scotland.  
As for this Relation, I fear not his, nor any others misinformation, which had (three years ago) not only the approbation of diverse reverend Divines▪ but also of the most learned Prince King james; there being nothing contained in it, but that which tendeth to the glory of God, and the honour of that religious King; who showed his constancy in the true Religion established, and his Zeal for it, as well against the Papists, as other Heterodox Opiners even to the death.  
Robert Mylbourne.