A TREATISE OF THE TRUE NATURE AND DEFINITION of justifying faith; TOGETHER WITH A DEFENCE of the same, against the Answer of N. Baxter.  
By JOHN DOWN B. in Divinity, and sometime Fellow of EMANVEL C. in Cambridge.  AUGUST. DESPIR. ET LIT. CAP. 30. 
Lex dicit, non concupisces; Fides dicit, Sana animam meam, quoniam peccavi tibi; Gratia dicit, Ecce sanus factus es, jam noli peccare, ne quid tibi deterius contingat; Sanitas dicit, Domine Deus meus, clamavi ad te & sanâsti me; Liberum arbitrium dicit, voluntariè sacrificabo tibi; Dilectio justitiae dicit, narraverunt mihi iniusti delectationes, sed non sicut Lex tua Domine.  
The Law saith, thou shalt not covet; Faith saith, heal my soul, for I have sinned against thee; Grace faith, lo thou art made whole, sin no more lest a worse thing befall thee: Health saith, O Lord my God, I have cried unto thee and thou hast healed me;  saith, I will freely sacrifice unto thee; Love of justice saith, the wicked have showed me delights, but not according to thy law O Lord.  
OXFORD, Printed by JOHN LICHFIELD for Edward Forrest. 1635.   

TO THE READER.  
IT is now somewhat upward of two years, 
This must be referred to the time when the Author writ it.  since passing through the City of Bristol towards the University of Cambridge, I was by the importunity of sundry Citizens, my very good friends, arrested there certain days. For no sooner was I there arrived, but presently they repaired unto me, and like so many jacobs began to wrestle with me, 
Gen 32.24.26. Rom. 1.11. Mat. 11.12.  protesting they would not let me go unless I first promised to bless them, and to bestow some spiritual gift among them. It was no small joy unto me to see the Kingdom of Heaven suffer such violence, and the people of God (like so many thirsty Hearts, 
Psal. 42.1.  braying for the rivers of waters,) & panting after the living God. Wherefore I could not but with jacobs' Angel give them leave to prevail, 
Gen. 32.28. Mat. 5.41.  & yield so fare unto their earnest request, that being angariated to go but one mile, I was notwithstanding content to go with them more than twain, preaching (before my departure thence) diverse sermons unto them.  
One time among the rest I chose for my Theme that of St Paul to the Ephesians, 
Ephes. 6. 16.  Above all take the shield of Faith whereby ye may quench all the fiery darts of that wicked One. Wherein because justifying Faith seemed to be commended as the principallest piece of the Christians panoply, & of surest proof against all the assaults & temptations of Satan, I held it necessary with all diligence to inquire what might be the true nature and definition thereof, and at length I resolved that the Act thereof was not Assurance but Affiance, the Subject not the understanding, but the will; and the Object not present grace and future glory, but the person of the Mediator. So that I defined it, not as vulgarly it is conceived, An assurance that we are already justified and shall be saved; but thus, An affiance upon Christ the Mediator for justification and consequently Salvation. The occasion moving me to entreat of this argument was this; A certain grave and godly Matron of that City having been a long time sore afflicted with sickness both in mind and body, I went upon entreaty with other friends to visit her; and after mutual salutation, Sister quoth I unto her, were I Physician for the body, I would advice you the best I could for the health thereof: but it is not my element, and therefore I may not without great rashness put myself into it: nevertheless if you shall please to discover unto me the wound of your spirit, happily I may apply such a salve thereunto, as by the blessing of God may close it up, or at least give some refocilation and ease unto the anguish thereof. My wound then, quoth she, in a word is this: I want faith; And what may be the ground, quoth I, of this persuasion? Because, quoth she, I am not assured that I am justified and shall be saved: A weak ground, quoth I, seeing a man may have Faith that wanteth such Assurance; how may that be, quoth she? for as hitherto I have been taught, Faith is no other than Assurance: then have you been taught amiss, quoth I: and if this be all the scruple that troubleth you, I hope ere we part to finish the cure. Thereupon I began freely to declare what I conceived of the true nature of justifying Faith, and proved unto her by sundry remonstrances that it was not Assurance but Affiance, and with so good success, that both she and all that were present rested therewith much comforted and contented. Only they prayed me both for their own confirmation, and the farther information of others, that I would be pleased to speak of it again in a more public audience: whereunto (seeing no reason to dissuade me) I readily condescended, and on the text aforesaid handled the matter somewhat largely.  
This Sermon at least so fare as concerns the Definition of Faith was by one Mr Baxter than preacher of that City greatly distasted and disliked: in so much as by message he threatened me with open confutation thereof in the Pulpit, unless I gave him the speedier & better satisfaction; which threatening though I little feared, knowing I had built nor hay nor stubble upon the foundation, 
1 Cor. 3.12.13.  but such doctrines as were well able to endure the trial of the fire: yet because the Apostle chargeth to be ready always to give answer to every man that asketh a reason of the Hope that is in us, 
1 Pet. 3.15.  I was eftsoons willing the best I could to satisfy him. Being therefore by the mediation of some friends brought to a parley with him, I prayed him to remember that whatsoever I said in that Sermon was not barely affirmed but sound proved, and therefore he might not in reason demand satisfaction of me until himself had satisfied my reasons: which if he should substantially do, I would ease him of his Pulpit-confutation, and the same tongue that broached the error, should in the same place again revoke it. Then began I to press him with this argument, If faith be Assurance, than God commanding a Reprobate to believe, commands him also to be assured, which is absurd: whereunto all his answer was, who art thou that disputest with God? I replied, 
Rom. 9.20.  that I neither disputed with God nor controlled his actions: but only denied that God commands a Reprobate to be assured, for so he should command that to be believed for true, which nor is nor ever shall be true. Again I argued thus, If Faith be Assurance, than whosoever wanteth Assurance wanteth Faith, which to a distressed soul is most uncomfortable. To this he answered that desire of Assurance is in the acceptation of God as Assurance itself. I replied, that Mr Perkins being urged with the same Objection answered in the same manner, but unsufficiently: for if actual Faith be necessary to justification, then is actual Assurance also necessary if Faith be assurance: Here Mr Baxter would needs take occasion to expostulate, why I should presume to define otherwise then Mr. Perkins, and so many worthy Divines had done before me. Whereunto I answered roundly and plainly, Socrates is dear, 
Arist. Eth. l. 1. c. 5.  and Plato is dear, but truth is fare dearer: and therefore prayed him that leaving to oppose authority unto reason, and sounding names unto sound proofs, he would return again within the lists, and either satisfy what I had said, or give me leave to proceed to the rest of my arguments; But for this he craved, as then, to be excused, pretending urgent and instant business, yet offering to have our conference adjourned unto some other day: I told him that the time of absence (limited me from the College, whereof I was then Fellow) was almost at an end; so that unless I would hazard my place I might make no longer stay there: nevertheless if he pleased I would before my departure give him my mind in writing, and attend his answer also in writing at his better leisure: To this he presently condescended, holding it the fittest course, and promising (if I held my word with him) within one Month to return me his full answer. I assured him that for my part I would not fail him: and thereupon embracing one the other, and giving hand that we would proceed as we had begun with all peace and love, we broke off talk at that time and departed. The second day after, according to promise, I sent him the Treatise following, Of the true nature & definition of justifying Faith, comprising therein with some addition whatsoever touching the matter in question I had more briefly delivered in the Pulpit: and the next morning taking leave of my friends, & commending them to the grace of God in Christ I set forward for Cambridge.  
The month being expired I looked out for my answer: for I could not think he would prove a bad paymaster, and break day with me: But a month and a month and many other months followed after their predecessor, and all the while not a word from my Antagonist: which though in some Creditors it would have bred suspicion, yet was I content to lay hold on the better handle, and to set the best construction I could upon his overlong silence, 
Epist. Fam. l. 9 ep. 8.  interpreting it as Cicero did his friend Varros forbearance, rather Diligence than Slackness. For as Zeuxis was the longer in drawing his Pictures, because as he said unto Agatharchus, he painted unto Eternity: so Mr Baxter perhaps might the more slowly come off with his answer, that in the mean season he might make it the more exact and accurate, it being seldom seen that the same thing is both hastily and exquisitely done. But while I was thus ingenuously censuring his silence, and resolving yet further to forbear him, remembering that of Cato, Soon enough if well enough: I received certain advertisement that he had erewhile broken silence, and dispersed among his friends a most bitter and contumelious Invective against me, contrary both to his promise that he would proceed with all peace and charity, and the reputation of learning he so much affects, not daring to send me a Copy thereof. Loath I was seeing I have not the rule of other men's pens, that others should have the command of my affections: yet being so urgently & unschollerly dealt withal, the next time I passed through the City I could not but with some indignation challenge him for it to his face: At which time how he faltered and staggered in his tale, now confidently affirming he had by a friend conveyed his answer unto me, & by & by being contested by the party, shamefully retracting it. Pretending for excuse the loss of my paper, I appeal to them who then both saw and heard it. But this I say, that as his inconstancy and distraction bewrayed little friendship betwixt his heart & tongue, & argued a selfe-guiltines of a poor and sorry Reply: so the pretenced loss of my paper was but a silly shift to delay me for the present, and as the event shows a miserable tergiversation. For having a fresh offered within one month to send me an answer, and thereupon engaged both his credit and scholarship if he were supplied with another copy: although the next day I left one for him under my hand, and now not one only but twelve months are since fully finished and expired, yet hath he hitherto been to me ward as silent as midnight: to me ward I say, for otherwise the libel still passed under hand, and at every meeting made his disciples good glee. Whereby it plainly appeareth, his meaning never was by an honest and christian intercourse of writing to sift out the truth: but only by secret pamphleting to disparage me among his followers, that so himself might rise the higher, in the balance of their estimation. For had he sincerely and unfeignedly purposed the maintenance of God's truth, and the reformation of my erroneous judgement, would he thus uncharitably have played his prizes in the dark, and to michingly have gone about to steal an opinion of victory? or would he not rather as became a right Champion of truth boldly have confronted his adversary in the field, yea though he had been armed with no better weapon than a filly sling, as long as he came (for so he pretends) in the name of the Lord of Hosts? But the truth is perceiving himself so fare advanced into the battle that now without shame and confusion he might not retreat, he held it the safest course by writing something to make the world believe he had duly performed with me, and yet by limiting it unto the hands of a few of his trustiest friends to deprive me of all possibility of answering for myself, resting assured that my silence would be taken to proceed rather of weakness and insufficiency in me, than any necessity by his cunning enforced upon me. A new kind of policy, or of malice rather as Hierome saith unto Ruffian, 
Contra Ruffin. ad Pamm. & Marcell. l. 1. c. 1.  to accuse of what you fear to discover, and to write what you would have concealed. And so wary and heedful hath he been herein, that with all the diligence and endeavour I could use, I could not for the space of full two twelve months be seized of his Answer.  
But at length the night-raven fell into the snare, and by the watchfulness of my good friends in Bristol I obtained such a Copy thereof as with all his shifts and excuses he cannot possibly disclaim, being indeed subscribed with his own hand. Perhaps you may think it found me when I first received it, strongly forestalled and possessed with prejudice: and indeed his base and unworthy dealing deserved no other. For how could I entertain any indifferent conceit of that whereof the author's self seemed to be ashamed? Nevertheless before I began to peruse it, so fare prevailed I over my affections, that I throughly cleared them of all partiality and presumption, yea and grew so rigorous & unequal against myself, that I was content to suppose I might be in error, and he happily the Physician to cure the disease of my judgement, resolving if I might plainly be convinced to take unto me Christian severity and recant the same. For if I may not hope in this life to aspire to the highest degree of wisdom, yet would I willingly rise to some degree of modesty: that if I may not in all things say that which is not to be repent of, yet I may at least repent me of what I have said amiss.  
In this temper and disposition I took the book, and casting mine eye upon the front thereof, there I found it thus inscribed. The answer of Nath. Baxter Bachelor in Divinity and Warden of new College in Yoghul to the arguments of Mr Io. Down Bachelor in Divinity in a controversy of justifying Faith, preached by the said Mr Down in Bristol. Then underneath, the Question thus stated M. Downe; justifying Faith is not assurance, persuasion, or firm knowledge of a man's salvation in Christ jesus. M. Baxter; justifying Faith is an assurance and knowledge of our salvation in Christ jesus. And lastly under that again this passage of Calvin vouched, 
In ad Coloss. c. 1. to. 6.  The Faith of the Gospel is properly called a knowledge of the grace of God: because no man ever tasted of the Gospel but he which knew himself reconciled unto God, and apprehended his salvation offered to him in Christ. In the inscription, though it please him in such sort to style himself, I think to make the reader believe that I had met with my peer at least; 
Horat. lib. 1. Sat. 7.  and if I were a Bithus, he were no less than a Bacchius: yet could he not without great arrogance challenge those titles to himself, having never taken such degree in either of the Universities, and being no more Warden of Yoghul then was Captain Stukelie Marquis of Ireland, 
Gentil. exam. Conc. Trid. Sess. 1.  or Robert Venantius in the Council of Trent Archbishop of Armach. As touching the Question that also is very defectively and imperfectly propounded: for neither do I maintain negatively alone that Faith is not Assurance, but affirmatively also that it is Affiance. neither doth he only affirm contradictorily unto me that it is Assurance, but further granteth in his Answer that it includeth also my Affiance. And as for the passage of Calvin, to what end it is here prefixed unless it be to prejudicate me with the greatness of his authority, I know not. But as he would hold it unreasonable if another should urge him therewith in the question of Ecclesiastical Policy & conformity, because himself is of another mind: so neither hath he any reason to press the same upon me in this controversy wherein I profess myself (but with all modesty) to differ from him. These flashings, as it were, and inflammations thus appearing in the very face of his book, made me I confess, somewhat stagger in my former resolution, and to doubt lest they might be symptoms of an unsound and distempered body. Nevertheless I was not so driven from my station but that I easily recovered the same again. For fearing lest as the Physiognomer was foully deceived, judging of Socrates only by his outward Phisnomy and countenance; so I also might be as much mistaken if by the front alone I should make an estimate of the whole Answer: I was soon persuaded, yet further to suspend my verdict until I had taken a full and thorough survey thereof: Which when I had once done, than indeed began I to be greatly abashed, and utterly to condemn myself of foolish lightness and credulity, 
Mat. 7.16.  that could hope so suddenly to gather Grapes of Thorns; or reap other than tares in the field of the envious man. For whereas touching the manner I looked he should have followed the Apostles counsel, who adviseth to instruct with meekness those that are contrary minded, if God at any time will give them repentance to acknowledge the truth: 
2 Tim. 2.25.  he as if he had to deal, not with a brother erring of infirmity, but some obstinate Heretic condemned of his own conscience, 
Tit. 3.11.  inflames his affections against me in as high a degree as was Nabucodonosors' furnace, seven times hotter than Christian charity could have made them: And whereas touching the matter I expected that he who stood so much upon terms of scholarship, should use nothing else but Syllogisms and necessary Demonstrations, that by pure virtue and fine force he might captive my reason unto the obedience of Faith: he rather like an idle declaimer, trusting more to the noise and multitude of his words then the strength and pregnancy of his reasons, traverseth a loof in unnecessary and impertinent discourses, and puffs up his empty Answer with the breath of many frivolous & vainly affected phrases, gaining perhaps thereby applause of the vulgar and simple, but from the grave and learned no better entertainment than the Shepherd's whistle. In a word, 
Cic. l. 1. ep. 13. ad Attic. Hist. nat. lib. 12. c. 19  as the Troglodytes (of whom Pliny reports) venture upon the main Ocean, without either rudder or oar or sail, having in their boats nothing but man and boldness: even so my adversary hazardeth himself upon this deep question, and taketh upon him the Confutation of my Treatise, using therein nor natural reason, nor humanity, nor divinity, but only impudent facing, and desperate asseveration.  
The consideration of all which half persuaded me at the first not to vouchsafe it any Replication at all, but without farther ceremony to commit it to the mercy of the Moth or the Grocer. For how could I reply unto it, but either I must grace it by making it seem worthy to be confuted, or disgrace myself by confuting so unworthy a joy? And what should I rejoine unto it? That which is serious and of importance▪ I could not, because he gives me no occasion: Reproach for reproach, and slander for slander? I might not, because it is : and to answer a fool according to his folly were to prove like unto him, as Solomon saith. 
Prou. 26.4.  Howbeit upon riper advice and deliberation I held it for sundry causes if not necessary yet very expedient and fitting to shape him an answer. And first in respect of him, if it may be to express his audaciousness, and to let him see that they oftentimes leap too short, who think to make another's impeachement arise for their own reputation. For if a fool be not answered according to his folly, 
Prou. 26.5.  he will saith Solomon, wax wise in his own conceit. Then secondly in regard of my own self, and the credit of my Ministry, to wipe away the slanderous aspersions and imputations of I know not what strange opinions and dangerous intentions wrongfully if not maliciously charged upon me: lest if I dissemble them I be thought to confess them, or to approve them if I refel them not. Thirdly and lastly in regard of others, and among the rest those my good friends especially who occasioned the preaching of this doctrine, partly to preserve from recidivation such as by the comfortableness thereof were recovered out of great distress, and partly to prevent others from falling into the like perplexity. Although therefore I deny not but that good hours bestowed upon so bad a subject might have been more profitably employed, especially considering that by the violent struggling thereof against the rook of truth, it hath wholly turned itself into froth, and hath not so much as a drop of clear reason in it: yet notwithstanding for the reasons aforesaid, and that it may perfectly appear how steadfast and unmoved the rock stands, and how little the storms and tempests raised against it have prevailed upon it, I have thought good to skim away the foam of Sophistry wrought about it, and to discover the very ground whereon it is settled. Which when I shall have done, I doubt not, howsoever my adversary with his tong-valiantnes and swelling words may have made unexperienced folk believe that with the breath of his mouth he is able to drive whole armies of arguments before him: yet I shall approve even to the judgement of prejudice itself that whatsoever in this windy & wordie Pamphlet he hath vented against me is vainer than vanity itself.  
And thus, Christian Reader, have I at length fully acquainted thee with the whole story both of the original and progress of this controversy. Now it remaineth ere thou pass thy censure and sentence thereupon, that thou be pleased to bestow a little pains in perusing our adversary writings; and what thou findest in them (said or gainsaid) diligently to examine, not by the deceitful balance of private opinion, but by the public beam of the Sanctuary even the Scriptures of God. For man's silver is mingled with dross, 
Esa. 1.22.  and his wine is tempered with water, neither hath he received such a measure of the Spirit as to know all things, or to be exempted from possibility of erring: but God is light and in him is no darkness, 
1 joh. 1.5.  and truth is unto him so necessary and essential as it is impossible he should either deceive or be deceived, it implying contradiction with his nature. And therefore the privilege of infallibility belonging unto him alone, to him alone belongeth also the prerogative of supreme judicature: so that whatsoever he saith, is simply and absolutely to be believed, whereas the sayings of men are by his word to be tried and determined. This I say not to impeach the credit or estimation of any, only I would reserve unto God the Sovereign authority due unto him: Which if any presume to arrogate or claim unto himself (as indeed the Bishop of Rome doth unto his chair, as if it were made of Irish timber, and might not endure a spider to hang his web thereon) he is undoubtedly possessed with the Spirit of Antichristian pride, and like another Lucifer usurpeth upon the throne of God. But they that are led by the Spirit of Christ, and have been reputed the worthiest instruments and ornaments in the Church, acknowledging holy Writ to be the Standard of truth, and the only unmoved Principle into which all Questions of Faith are finally to be resolved, boldly exact the writings of other men thereunto, and meekly submit their own to be censured thereby. Let one S. Augustin speak for all, The disputations of men, saith he, 
Epist. 111. ad Fortunatian.  how Catholic or laudable soever, we ought not to esteem as Canonical Scripture, as if it were not lawful (saving the honour due unto them) to disallow or reject any thing in their writings, if happily we find aught in them swerving from truth. Such am I in the writings of other men, and so would I have others to understand in me. Now therefore, to draw to a conclusion, seeing to thy upright censure and arbitrement I refer myself, and the rule by which thou art to proceed if thou wilt pronounce righteously, is as we have showed, not the opinion of man, but the oracle of God; I must entreat thee that laying aside all respect of persons thou suffer not thyself to be swayed either with the multitude or greatness of those that are contrary minded, but conferring cause with cause, and counterpoising reason against reason, thou give thy judgement of them as the weight of Divine evidence shall incline thee. For otherwise, if like a partial Festus, willing to do the jews a pleasure, 
Act. 25.9.  thou demand of me, Wither I will go up to jerusalem and there be judged of these things before thee: I must roundly and peremptorily answer thee with S. Paul, 
V 10.11.  I stand at Caesar's bar where I ought to be judged, to the jews I have done no wrong, neither may any man deliver me unto them, I appeal unto Caesar: But if with the same Festus better advised by his Counsel, 
V 12.  thou say unto me as he did unto Paul, Hast thou appealed unto Caesar? Unto Caesar shalt thou go: then look what definitive sentence soever thou shalt give according to Caesar's law, I mean the sacred Scriptures, I shall as becometh a subject of the Kingdom humbly submit myself unto it, and without further provocation or appeal quietly and peaceably rest in it. In the mean season I conclude with that holy and devout prayer of Fulgentius, beseeching the God of all truth, 
De Praedest. to Mon. l. 1.  that by his preventing and pursuing mercy whatsoever truths we know which savingly are to be known he would teach us, in those which already we know to be true he would keep us, wherein as men we fail and are deceived he would correct us, in what truths we doubt of he would confirm us, and from false and pernicious errors he would deliver us: 
Eph. 4.13.  that so at length we may all meet, as the Apostle speaketh, in the unity of Faith and knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfect man, even to the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ. Amen.   

A TREATISE OF THE TRUE NATURE AND DEFINITION of justifying faith;  
IF it be true which Tertullian saith, that even in the very smallest matters regard is to be had of Truth: surely in those weighty & profound mysteries of Religion wherein error doth so much hazard soul and salvation, nothing ought more carefully to be respected then the search and finding out of Truth. For as the same Father saith, 
Apol. aduer. Gen. c. 46.  Although Philosophers Player-like affect the truth as being ambitious of glory, yet Christians studiously follow it, as being careful of their Salvation. Now among the many excellent and heavenly graces, wherewith the spirit of God beautifieth and enricheth the hearts of his Elect, there is no one of more either necessity unto salvation, or importance for comfort and consolation, then that of justifying Faith. For as by the first Act of this faith, our justification before God, our peace with God, our incorporation into the mystical body of Christ jesus, our conversion unto God are first wrought and effected: so by the consequent continued Acts of the same Faith, are we (being fallen) daily renewed, and from both total and final falling away safely preserved and maintained. This (considered methinks) no time can be better employed, nor no pains more profitably taken, then in the quest and enquiry of the true nature and definition of justifying Faith. And although, I cannot deny but he may have faith who cannot like a Logician define it, and may have the benefit of justification, by it, who cannot distinguinsh the nature of it: yet this withal I boldly aver, that the ignorance hereof, or a confused and indistinct apprehension of it, disableth us both from giving and taking direct and evident comfort from it, whereas a clear and distinct knowledge thereof is able to satisfy and replenish with comfort any distressed or afflicted conscience. For this cause have I undertaken (so briefly and perspicuously as I can) to set down my opinion of the definition of Faith, persuading myself I do not, endeavouring at leastwise not to swerve from the wholesome doctrine of Christ and God's word. From the writings and doctrine of most learned and worthy Divines peradventure it doth, and indeed it doth vary: to whom although as fare fare inferior I own all respect & reverence, yet being God's freeman I cannot endure to be man's bondman and swear to all they say. One Paphnutius sometime in the matter of Priest's marriage prevailed against a whole Counsel of most learned and godly Bishops: 
Socrat. l. 1. c. 8.  and young Elihu may speak more opportunely & pertinently then they that are much his Ancients. Therefore as Nisus saith in Virgil, Neque hac nostris spectentur ab annis, 
Aeneid. l. 9  look not how green or how grey his head be that speaketh, but let the touch of truth try all, and what by it shall appear to be base and counterfeit, refuse and reject; that which shall be found true and sound, approve and embrace. And that prejudice too strongly possess thee not, take my protestation; that I never have entertained this opinion rashly and inconsiderately, but upon mature advice and deliberation: nor broach it upon a preposterous humour of novelty or ambition, to build up mine own credit & existimation by the ruin and disparagement of so great Divines (for this were Subulâ leonem excipere, to encounter a Lion with a bodkin, as it is in the Proverb) but upon a sincere affection and desire, to minister solid and found consolation to despairing and perplexed minds, which (as after shall appear) upon this foundation may most firmly be raised. And now trusting what I say shall be weighed in the balance not of prejudice but upright judgement, I leave to preface any farther and come directly to the purprose.  
Because I purpose not to raise my building very high I mean not to lay my foundation very deep: & therefore neither will I play the Phylologer in showing the diverse uses and acceptations of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Fides, id est Faith, or quote Cicero's Fiat quod dictum est, or St. Augustine's Fac quod dicis, 
Offic. l. 1.  to do as a man says, for the notation of Faith: neither will I play the Philosopher in discoursing of Physical or Moral or Civil Faith, wherein it were easy to waste much oil and paper: nor last will I speak of that Theological Faith called Miraculous either in Agent or Patient, which I take to be none other than a divine instinct for the working of a Miracle. For albeit they who at the last day shall say Lord in thy name have we not cast out Devils may seem to have trusted in Miraculous Faith for justification, 
Mat. 7.22.23.  and acknowledgement of Christ: yet notwithstanding never any controversy about it hath exercised the Church of God. To defer your expectations therefore no farther, three Faiths there seem to be, which lay claim and title to the privilege of justification: give me leave to distinguish and denominate them according to their Objects, neither be offended if I handle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and give new terms to old matters.  
The first is Fides Historiae, Historical Faith, which is an Assent of the mind unto the truth of God's word, and specially the Gospel. And this Faith whether it be according to the distinction of the Scoolemen, Acquisite, gotten by much hearing and experience without illumination, or infused and revealed by the spirit of illumination, it hath no interest in the matter of justification. For besides that it is absurd that so general a Knowledge should justify. Acquisite Faith the Devils have; according to that of St james, 
jam. 2. 19  The Devils believe & tremble: Infused faith the Reprobates may have, as Balaam, judas, Magus. Now the Scripture is plain that justifying faith is  and peculiar unto the Elect, and therefore Historical faith cannot justify.  
The second is Fides Promissionum, Faith of promises, which is a Persuasion or Assurance that the promises of God made in Christ, to wit justification, Remission of sins, Adoption, Regeneration, and finally Election itself, and eternal Salvation do particularly pertain to me, and are mine. Now this although I deny not but in Scripture it is called faith, and that every Saint of God both may and aught to have this particular persuasion and Assurance, yet this I confidently deny that this persuasion is that which justifies a man before God; and my reasons are these.  
1. If this were justifying Faith, than whosoever life's and dies without this particular Assurance, he cannot be saved, 
Heb. 11.6.  Without faith it is impossible to please God. But a man may be saved without it; I instance in those our Brethren of Germany, who hold that faith may finally and totally fall away, and consequently that there can be no certainty of Salvation, whom yet the Church of God calleth and counteth brethren, and it were uncharitable to censure of them otherwise. Therefore, or at leastwise probably Faith is not an Assurance.  
2. That which is in time after justifying Faith cannot be that faith. This is undeniable. But this particular knowledge is in time after faith. This I prove out of 1. joh. 5.13. These things have I written unto you that believe in the name of the Son of God, that ye may know that ye have eternal life. Behold Believing goes before, and Knowledge comes after: as for that which followeth in the same verse, and that ye may believe, I interpret it of Perseverance & growth in Faith. Howsoever, believing & Knowing are distinguished, and therefore are not one.  
3. That which in nature comes after justification cannot be justifying faith. This appears because Faith is the Efficient instrumental cause of justification, and every Efficient by the rule of Logic is in nature before the Effect. But this knowledge or Assurance is in nature after justification. This I prove thus, the truth of a proposition is always in nature before the knowledge of the truth: for Propositions are not therefore true because known so, but they are first true and then known so. Therefore this Proposition, I know I am justified spoken by on that is justified, must needs presuppose the party before to be justified. Therefore this knowledge of justification in nature following justification it cannot be justifying faith.  
4. In conditional promises there can be no Assurance of the thing promised before the performance of the condition. V G. This is a conditional promise in the covenant of works, do this and thou shalt live, life is promised, but on condition of doing: and therefore until we have performed the condition, we cannot, nor may not look that God should be reciprocal and give us life: So in the covenant of grace, justification is promised, but upon condition of faith: so saith the Scripture, believe, and thy sins shall be forgiven thee. And therefore the condition of believing must first be performed before we can assure ourselves our sins are forgiven. If so, then faith going before and Assurance following after, Assurance cannot be justifying faith.  
5 That from whence followeth a blasphemous absurdity cannot be a truth: for from truth nought but truth can be concluded. But from this that faith is an Assurance such an absurdity doth follow. What is that? That God commands a man to know an untruth, & to assure himself of that which never shall be. For God being truth cannot command falsehood to be taken for truth. Nether tell me here, for who art thou that disputest with God? for this is a ruled case in divinity, God cannot do things which imply contradiction, and therefore not make untruth to be truth, or knowledge error. Now that this absurdity follows from hence thus I demonstrate it. God commands the Reprobate to believe: For, 
joh. 18.8.9.  for unbelief the world shall be condemned: but no condemnation but for breach of a commandment: 
1 joh. 3.4.  for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sin is the transgression of the law, and therefore they are commanded to believe. I ask you then what it is to believe? you will say, to know, to assure. Therefore God commands the Reprobates to know and be assured. But this is a blasphemous absurdity: therefore is your opinion absurd which infers it.  
6. That which the wicked may have cannot be justifying faith: for it is Fides Electorum, the faith of the Elect. But the wicked may have this persuasion, yea and many have been most confidently persuaded that they are in the favour of God. You will say it is no true persuasion: but I say if form make truth they are as formally and therefore as truly persuaded of it as the godly. And therefore if the godly are therefore and for this cause justified because cause they are strongly persuaded that they are justified: then why should not the wicked likewise be justified by his strong persuasion? But in truth these kind of speeches are unreasonable and senseless, and so the opinion cannot be reasonable.  
These six reasons shall suffice for the present, although many more might be added: only from hence I gather this Corollary, that if justifying Faith be not a Knowledge or Assurance, much less is it a full knowledge or full Assurance. Nay though we should grant it to be a knowledge, yet is it against Logic to define it by the perfection of knowledge. For as there is a strong tree so there is a bruised reed: as there is a burning lamp, so there is smoking flax: as there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Faith come to full age and maturity, so there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Faith, in the nonage and minority. So therefore to define it were to exclude the weak Faith, and to make the Definition narrower and of less latitude than the definite. Besides it is a most uncomfortable doctrine unto a troubled mind, and leads the directest way to desperation: for so the palsy hand of Faith should not receive Christ. And were not this to quench fire with oil, and to add Aloes to wormwood? and might not he that thus comforteth, be counted one of jobs miserable comforters?  
Ob. The godly are said to know and to be persuaded yea the Prophet saith, 
Io. 3.14. joh. 17.3. Esa. 53.11. Heb. 11.1.  By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many, and Faith is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Subsistence and Evidence.  
Ans. First, I grant the godly may and aught to know: but the question is not of their duty, but what it is which justifies them.  
2 Secondly, to know, and so likewise the Verbs of Sense in the Hebrew tongue usually signifieth not only an act of the Mind or outward Sense, but of the Will and affection also. So in the Psalm 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
Psal. 1.6. Mat. 7.13.  The Lord knoweth the way of the Righteous, and in the Gospel Depart I know you not, and elsewhere, I will not hear, see, etc. that is, God will not so know, hear, see, etc. as in favour to love or approve. And so do I interpret that of the Prophet, Christ being so known as to be embraced and rested upon by the Will shall justify many.  
3 Thirdly, that Definition in the eleventh to the Hebrews I deny with Peter Martyr and the rest of our Divines, to be perfect, but rather by the Effects to describe it. And as for that word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Subsistence whereon you seem to stand, take this, first that the writers of the new Testament use words in the same sense that the Seventie Translators do. Secondly, that that which in Hebrew is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Expectation, that the Septuagint turn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as in Ruth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: 
Ruth. 1.12.  so that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Hebrews shall not be Subsistence but expectation or desire of things that are hoped for. But of this umpliandum censeo, I pronounce nothing; only I conclude his second Faith not to be justifying Faith. And because you shall not count me singular or alone in this point, read M. Fox in his book de Christo gratis iustificante, and you shall find him earnest against this opinion.  
The third faith is Fides Person or Personalis meriti, Faith of Person or of Personal merit, and of this I make the Object to be Christ the Mediator meriting; the Act of it Fiducia a Rest or Devolution, the Subject of it the faculty of the Will and not the Understanding, the next End of it justification, the remote End, eternal Salvation. And thus I define it, a Rest of the Will upon Christ and his merits for justification and consequently Salvation. In which Definition:  
1 That the Object of it, is the Person or Personal merit of Christ, the whole tenor of Scripture proves which runs thus, He that believeth in me shall not perish, 
joh. 3.16. joh. 14.1. joh. 1.12.  and, Ye believe also in me, and, As many as received him, to them he gave power to be the Sons of God, that is, to them that believed in his Name, and in six hundred places beside. But if thou wilt be further informed, see M. Fox in the book before quoted.  
2 That the Act of it is Fiducia, Affiance, I report me to all the words used in the original of the old Testament, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to retire unto, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to devolue or Roll upon, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to trust or put confidence in, and all the rest: and to the form of words used in the new, as Credere in, Sperare in; to believe and hope in or upon.  
3 That it is Subiectively in the Will, appears by the Act; for Fiducia, Affiance, without controversy is in the Will: as also by the Object Christ which implies not a Knowledge but Fiducia or Rest.  
Ob. Fiducia, Affiance is Spes roborata, a confirmed Hope; therefore if you make Faith to be Fiducia, Affiance, you make it likewise to be hope, and unskilfully confound two distinct virtues.  
Ans. I deny Fiducia, Affiance to be Hope, although the Prince of Schoolmen, Thomas of Watering and his followers have heretofore taught it. For,  
1 Hope looks to the End which is Salvation; Affiance, to the means, which is Christ's personal merit.  
2 The Act of Hope is expectare, to look out for: the Act of Affiance is tuniti, to lean on, or rest upon.  
3 Hope is of things that are future; but Affiance of that which is present. So yet Faith is Fiducia, Affiance: which I further confirm by S. Augustins' authority, Credere est amare, 
In joh. 7. tract. 29.  & amando in Deum tendere, To believe is to love, and by loving to move unto God, expounding Amare by Confidere, Love by Affiance according to that Father's usual phrase in his Tractates upon john.  
Ob. Faith may be both Notitia & Fiducia, Knowledge and Affiance, and so both in the Will and in the Understanding.  
Ans. It cannot be, because it is impossible for one and the same Habit to be Subiectively in two several Faculties of so different natures: Indeed Bonaventure saith, Hope is in both being Certi expectatio, 
In 3. Scut. citante Kemnit. loco de iustif.  a certain expectation; Expectation being in the will, certitude in the Understanding. But I answer, that Certainty is the ground of divine Hope, but no part of the nature thereof, as knowledge of a thing to be loveworthy is the ground of love, for Ignoti nulla cupido, no desire of that which is unknown, but not of the nature of it, and therefore as you cannot place Love both in the Mind and Will, no more may you Hope or Faith.  
Ob. If Faith be Fiducia, Affiance, than the wicked may have it: for Balaam desired the death of the righteous, 
Num. 23.10. Mat. 13.20.21.  and some receive the Word with joy believing but for a time.  
Ans. There is a double Affiance, the one is sleight and superficial, and grounded on no other foundation than a general apprehension that it is good to be saved by Christ, but leave not their former course and embrace a new: the other is settled and grounded having these precedents.  
1 A particular knowledge of our sinful estate, examined by the rule of God's Word.  
2 An apprehension of God's wrath and eternal death deserved by sin.  
3 Unfeigned sorrow for sin with resolution of new life.  
4 A knowledge of Christ, and here; 

1 Of his sufficiency.  
2 His loving invitation of all to rest on him for justification and Salvation.    
These four things going before, if by the operation of God's spirit shall afterward follow a rest upon jesus Christ for justification & Salvation, I pronounce this Rest to be that Act which doth justify before God. So that these three Faiths shall be as the three Propositions of a Categoricke Syllogism, Faith of Story being the Mayor, Faith of Person or Personal merit being the Assumption, and Faith of Promises being the Conclusion, on this wise.  
De- Whosoever shall (as formerly is declared) rest upon the merits of Christ for his justification and Salvation, he shall be justified and saved: This the Scripture affirmeth, and to acknowledge the truth thereof is Historical Faith:  
ri. But I do so rest upon Christ; This the Conscience privy to the sincerity of the heart assumeth, which act of Resting I term justifying Faith:  
j Therefore I am justified & shall be saved. And this is the Faith of Promise concluded of the former premises, and is the Assurance before mentioned.  
To draw to a Conclusion, concerning these three Faiths I add farther, that to the Faith of Story many do not aspire, namely such Paynims and Gentiles to whom God hath not vouchsafed the Ministry of the Word and means of knowledge: yet many Reprobates do, living within the compass and territory of the Church, and remain for all that uniustified. Unto the Faith of Person, and that Affiance which I call sleight and superficial, many likewise of the vessels of wrath do attain, but cannot go one step farther, whereas all and every of the Elect rest on Christ in the second manner, and upon the precedents before specified, and are thereby justified. Unto the Faith of promise though the children of God may come, and most do come, yet some doubtless partly through the strength of flesh, and mixture of infidelity with their Faith, partly through the force and violence of temptation, do not nor dare not infer the Conclusion, and yet may be justified.  
Lastly and finally, whereas Faith is distinguished into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, full Faith and little Faith, I take it that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not to be restrained to Faith of Promise only, but that both are common to all three: so that a weak assent unto the story is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a strong assent is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a strong Affiance is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a weak Affiance is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a bold and confident inference of the Conclusion is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a fearful and timorous inference is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But yet neither of them in the first doth justify, although one of them of necessity must go before justification, nor yet in the third, although 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may and aught to follow: but in the second the least dram of Affiance though it be but as a grain of mustardseed doth justify as perfectly as the greatest quantity, because it receives all Christ, who is not capable of magis and minus, more and less: as a palsy hand may receive as much though shakingly, as doth the hand of a strong man steadfastly.  
And thus with as much brevity as I could with avoiding of obscurity, I have delivered my mind concerning the true nature and definition of justifying Faith: which whether we have or no, how easy it is to find out, how full of sweet use and comfort it is in comparison of the common received opinion not Eagles only but Moles may see. If any notwithstanding the evidence of my reasons shall persist in his former judgement, suo fruatur per me iudicio, Let him abound in his own sense: but for myself my word shall always be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the right is on my side. Nevertheless if any by sound and substantial arguments shall convince me, I will not prove refractory or opinionate, 
Ep. 9 ad Hier. In Retract.  but according to S. Augustins' counsel unto Hierome, and his own heroical practice, I will 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and retract all I have said or written. For I count it a plain token of a perverse and illiberal mind, for a man seeing his error whereby he was misled, rather to bend his wit for to find reason that he was not in error, and so to be mad with reason; then to frame his wit and will to assent and yield to truth being demonstrated unto him. 
Hor. l. 1. ep. 6. ad Numie.  But until that be, give me leave to conclude with the Poet:  
— Si quid novisti rectius istis,  
Candidus imperti; si non, his utere mecum.  
If ought you know righter than here you see,  
Impart it friendly, else this use with me.  
I. D.   

A DEFENCE OF THE FORMER TREATISE OF JUSTIFYING FAITH, Against the answer of N. B.  N. B. 
IT had been good, M. Downe, you had been advised and warned by Diphilus in Athenaeus who said, 
Lib. 15. in fabula cui titulus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, acceptâ candelâ candelabrum quaerebamus, we took the candle before we had the candlestick; meaning that it savoureth not of providence to light the one before we be sure of the other. Without doubt you would not then have builded your doctrine here in this City, till you had laid a good foundation for the same, even jesus Christ, 
1 Cor. 3.11. Apoc. 1.  who standeth in the midst of the seven golden Candlesticks, and is the sole foundation of the eternal verity. But such was the judgement of God cast upon us for our sins, 
Mat. 18.  that refusing the wholesome doctrine of his Word, and following fantasies and novelties of our own inventions, we should now give heed to lying spirits, and be led away with the spirit of error. But we be to them by whom offences come: you cannot escape the hand of God except you speedily repent, and make satisfaction to this offended flock.  I. D. 
Indeed, M. Baxter, if I have presumed to determine a question merely Theological by such principles as are heterogeneal and Improper unto the science of Divinity: I must needs confess I have foully faulted, and justly deserved the blame of Improvidence you lay upon me. 
Poster. l. 1. c. 7. §. 1. & 4.  For it is impossible to demonstrate, saith the Philosopher, passing from one kind to another: as for Arithmetic to demonstrate a problem or conclusion in Geometry. 
Eccles. 2.14.  But had your eyes been where Solomon saith a wise man's eyes should be when you read my writing, you could not but perceive that I had builded my doctrine upon that very same good foundation you speak of, even jesus Christ and his blessed word. For whatsoever I have affirmed throughout that whole discourse I have sufficiently warranted either by express testimony of Scripture, or (which is equivalent) by necessary collection from it. Unto your advice therefore out of Diphilus in Athenaus I answer with the like but more sanctified words of Athanasius, 
Orat. contra Arrian.  Lo we speak boldly out of the sacred Scriptures of holy and religious Faith, and setting the candle as it were upon the candlestick do we thus pronounce of the nature and definition of justifying Faith.  
But put case M. Baxter I had been mistaken either in the truth of the conclusion, or in the proofs thereof, yet considering at least wise the probability of the one and the comfortablenes of the other, Charity I am sure would have judged the publishing thereof to have proceeded (to use the words of Augustin) rather from the error of love, than the love of error. The more uncharitable are you that being not able to convince me of the least untruth, rank me notwithstanding in the number of lying spirits, and so peremptorily denounce woe and judgement against me. 
1 King. 19.12.  Wherein as you bewray how little you favour of his mild spirit who chose rather to come in a still and soft voice, then in a tempest and whirlwind: so greatly are you deceived if you think such causes and idle means either affright or affect me. No no I am not so simple to believe that the earthquakes when moles begin to heave, or that thunderbolts presently fly abroad the world when every hot brain threatens fire from heaven. 
Prou. 26.2.  For as the bird by wand'ring and the swallow by flying escapeth, so the undeserved curse shall not come, saith Solomon. 
Act. 4.36.  And therefore unless you can prove me in delivering this doctrine to have been an unadvised Barnabas, I have no cause to fear when you prove yourself but a rash and hasty Boanerges. 
Mar. 3.17.   N. B. 
Your Sermon made here in Bristol Novemb. 5. 1601. stuffed with quirks, full of elenches, and subtle distinctions, wholly bend itself against the truth of God, and hath shaken the well affected minds of many, who by your Sophisms seduced scarce know by what means they shall be saved. 
Demosth. in Philip.  You gave us Mandragor as to drink, and under a sugared potion of your own sole contriving cast upon us the spirit of slumber. 
Aristoph. in Pluto.  Was it not a bold part thus in peace to play the Lion, and rend in sunder (under pretence of truth) the blessed union of holy piety? to deliver such new coined, strange, uncouth, and singular definitions, divisions or distinctions of justifying Faith (being indeed Callida mendacia crafty untruths) 
Plaut. Mostel. Athen. Dipnos. li. 3. Cic. pro Cluent.  as Apollo himself could by no means understand (to use the phrase of Antiphanes) and then to boast that scarce Archimedes could better and more lively have depainted his Theorems then you justifying Faith: 
Theocrit. hodaep.  than you forsooth had then against all writers old and new in one sole and silly Sermon walking without fire in the dark delineated yea demonstrated as you say true justifying Faith the comfort of a Christian man.  I. D. 
Three heinous faults you charge my Sermon withal, Untruth in the Matter, Sophistry in the Manner, and Breach of peace in the issue and event: all which, if one dead fly be sufficient to corrupt a whole Alabaster of sweet ointment, 
Eccles. 10.1.  as the wiseman saith, must needs be more then enough to discredit one poor and simple Sermon.  
As touching the Matter, you know that so much thereof as concerns the point in question is every way parallel and agreeing unto the writing I sent you: and therefore if as you say it have bend itself against the truth of God, lo here is Rhodes, according to the Proverb, 
Aesop.  let us see your leap, show it in this and it shall be granted you in that also. Otherwise being so foully overseen in charging a written tract whereof you have taken so long advisement and deliberation, you will hardly be believed in accusing a transient speech which might happily be past your ears before your understanding had leisure to apprehend it.  
As for the Manner, it cannot lightly be more absurd than is your manner of quarrelling at it. For if it be so stuffed with quirks, elenches, sophisms, and subtleties, how is it that by & by you call in contempt a silly Sermon? And if it contain such new coined, strange, uncouth, and singular definitions, divisions, or distinctions as Apollo himself could by no means understand, how come you to know that they are Callida mendacia, crafty untruths, understanding so readily what Apollo himself by no means could? Surely M. Baxter it was somewhat unseasonable while you were challenging me for I know not what Sophisms and Subtleties, thus to entangle yourself in these labyrinths and mazes of contradiction. But in truth you play right Senecas Harpaste with me, and as she being blind herself, 
Sen. ep. 50.  ever complained of the darkness of the house: so you wanting either wit or will to understand tell me that I walk without fire in the dark, and impute Obscurity unto my preaching. A vice from which I have ever been abhorring as they know well who are mine ordinary Auditors, or have had experience of my courses. For as in judgement I have always esteemed Perspicuity a principal virtue in Oratory, utterly disliking the vanity and affectation of those men who with Antony desire rather to be admired then understood: 
Sueton. Aug. c. 86.  so have I continually endeavoured to frame my practice unto this judgement, thinking that then I have used best eloquence when I have spoken with the greatest evidence. If therefore, as Austin saith, I point you out with my finger the old or new moon, or some star not so clear which you would gladly see, 
De doct. Christ. Prologue.  and your sight be so weak that it cannot reach so far as my finger, you have no reason to be offended with me. You should rather pray God to vouchsafe unto you the eye salve of his spirit that you may see: I can but lend you my finger, 
Reu. 3.18.  sight I cannot give you.  
Now for the issue and event, you say that like a potion of Mandrake it hath cast upon you the spirit of slumber, and like a Lion hath rend in sunder the blessed union of holy Piety, that is in other terms hath bred in you at once both a Lethargy and frenzy, which is very near akin unto that witty speech of the Apothecary's wife, that Pepper is hot in working and cold in operation. But tell me M. Baxter in plain sadness, hath that Sermon indeed so shaken the well affected minds of many that now they scarce know by what means they shall be saved? For it seemeth strange to me that one sole and filly Sermon should shake the minds of so many, and those so well affected too, and that in so important a case as the means of salvation: If your meaning be, as I guess it is, that opposing the vulgar definition of Faith, and defining otherwise then formerly they conceived of it, doubts and disputes have grown thereupon, and consequently the interruption of your peace, and the union of Piety: I answer, first, that necessary doctrines must not be suppressed, nor studious minds deprived of wholesome instructions because of some inconveniences which may happen to follow. For as Augustin saith, if upon the publishing of truth offence be taken, 
De lib. ar●.  it is better to give way to such offence than that truth be abandoned. Secondly, all the doubt and dispute that can grow upon that Sermon is no other than this, of two definitions whether is the better, which I suppose is not to call in question the means of salvation. And surely if every difference in the Logical handling of a point in Divinity were the renting in sunder of the union of piety, there is no Divine but plays the Lion, and deserves the same aspersion you cast upon me. Lastly, better is doubting of truth, than resolution in error: for doubting stirs up seeking, and seeking hath the promise of finding, 
Mat. 7.7.  and diverse I know unto whom this promise even in this particular hath graciously been performed to the full satisfaction of their minds, and the unspeakable comfort of their conscience, which comfort of conscience if you understand by the spirit of slumber you do no less then blaspheme: unless you can show that it is grounded upon error which I know you can never do.  N. B. 
Well sith so it pleased you to try your wit and follow your will that upon a sole confident opinion of your sound arguments, you have bidden battle to all the learned men of Christendom, bitten famous Melancthon, honourable P. Martyr, blessed Caluin, renowned Beza, thrice honourable Grynaeus and Polanus, snapped & snarled at glorious Whitaker; and excellent Perkins (whom as you say you driven so hard to the wall with your sudden arguments that he knew not what to answer) yea all Fathers and writers both old and new for these. 
Theocr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  1600. years: Sith I say you would needs come barefoot to these mountains, give leave I pray you to me one of the least but the most offended in the absence of the rest, for the glory of God and the satisfying of our people, to sift your arguments as you have laid them down in writing, and shape you an answer for the defence of justifying Faith, till you grasple with other most learned men's writings which shortly you shall receive. Wherein if your errors be spied, it was your fault so confidently to deliver in writing under your hand such absurdities: praying you to remember 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Dinoloch. apud Hesych.  who spits in an Aunt's nest shall have sore lips.  I. D. 

De Anim. l. 3. cap. 3.  It is not in our power, saith the Philosopher, to entertain what opinion we please, neither doth the mind choose whether it will assent unto the truth of a conclusion yea or no: but simply and of the necessity of its nature yields to that part of the contradiction whereunto by force of syllogism it is determined. If therefore the arguments which I have used in this question be indeed as they seem unto me sound and necessary: you may as well chide the Sun for moving towards the west, or the earth for resting steadfastly on her centre, as me for being swayed and persuaded by them. And yet by your leave I was not so transported with Confidence, but that I still kept myself within the bounds of Modesty. For although it pelase you in the former section to charge me with ●oasting that scarce Archimedes could better and more lively have painted his Theorems then I justifying Faith: yet was I in truth as fare from it, as you are from truth in affirming of it, submitting myself in all humility unto the censure of God's Church, and promising upon conviction of my error to reverse what ever I had said.  
Yea but very insolently I have bidden battle to all the learned men of Christendom, bitten, snapped, and snarled at Melancthon, Martyr etc. yea all Fathers and Writers both old and new for these 1600. years. 
1 Sam. 17.26.  Intolerable arrogance I confess if your accusation be just: for who but a presumptuous and proud Goliath would in such opprobrious manner defy and revile the host of the living God? But tell me I beseech you what are those despiteful and contumelious terms wherewith I have so reproached those famous and excellent men? Nay did I in my Sermon so much as name either Melancthon, or Martyr, or Caluin, or Beza, or Grynaus, or Pelanus, or Whitaker, or Perkins, whom yet you say I snapped and snarled at? For that you add particularly of M. Perkins, as if I had boasted by my sudden arguments to have driven him so hard to the wall as he knew not what to answer, is but a black drop of your slanderous pen. The truth is this, that in a private conference I told you, that he being demanded, if Faith be an assurance of our present state in grace and future salvation, what comfort remained for him who not feeling this assurance thinks himself to be without Faith and consequently in the state of damnation: his answer was (which also in his books he hath published) that desire of assurance is in the acceptation of God as assurance indeed: to the which I said I could no way yield, seeing by the covenant of Grace, actual Faith itself is absolutely required unto justification, and therefore actual assurance, if Faith be assurance. Besides this private speech all I have publicly said or written is no more but this in general, that though my opinion differ from the writings and doctrine of most learned and worthy Divines, to whom as fare inferior I own all respect and reverence; yet being God's freeman I cannot endure to be man's Bondman and swear to all they say. And is not this the same in effect which all our Divines answer when they are charged by the adversary to descent from the Fathers? Let one Whitaker speak for them all; We are, saith he, not the servants but the Sons of the Fathers: 
Contrà Duraeum.  if out of the law and from divine authority they prescribe any thing unto us we obey them as Parents: if they command aught against the voice of the heavenly doctrine, we say we must hearken not unto them but God. You jesuits like bondmen and base slaves admit without judgement and reason all the sayings of the Fathers, fearing I think the gibbet or whip if ye refuse any. Now M. Baxter, say if you dare, that glorious Whitaker with the rest of our Divines bite, and snap, and snarl at the Fathers as well as I: if you dare not, and yet I use no other language than they do, then are biting, and snapping, and snarling, but your own doggish terms, arguing rather notorious sycophancy in you then such barbarous incivility in me.  
Well yet sith you will needs, say you, come barefoot to these mountains give me lea●e to sift your arguments and to shape you an answer for the defence of justifying Faith. 
Exod. 3.5.  Sir it was reason I should pull off my shoes and come barefoot to these mountains, because the ground on which I was to stand is holy. Nevertheless in this encounter with you I trust you shall find my feet so well sh●● with the preparation of the Gospel of peace, 
Ephes. 6.15.  that I need not care what briers or thorns soever you plant in my way. And therefore good leave have you, sift my arguments in God's name at your pleasure, for to that very end sent I them you in writing. But I am afraid lest instead of sifting, I find from you nothing else but mere shifting, as indeed I do not. For to some of my arguments you shape no answer at all, some you unshape and turn clean out of the form I set upon them, to not one of them do you shape so much as probable or tolerable answer. So that although you seem very ambitious and greedy of the title, yet if you have no better skill in sifting arguments, and shaping answers, you will hardly obtain so high an honour as to be styled Defender of the Faith.  
Further you tell me that shortly I shall receive the writings of other most learned men, and grasple with them. They shall be welcome M. Baxter whensoever they come: for the more you are that impugn the truth, the more honourable will the victory be. But I beseech you, Sir, when will that shortly you speak of be expired? for it is now more than two years since you first threatened me with them, as by the date of your writing appeareth: and yet hitherto could I never hear either from them or of them whether they be white or black. Only it seems they are very angry Pismires, that a man cannot spit among them without sore lips. But when I shall speak with these enemies in the gate, as the Psalmist saith, I hope they shall find my lips so seasoned with the salt of grace, and so well provided of an answer; 
Psal. 127.5. Col. 4.6.  that I need not fear if they prove a nest, I say not of Aunts only, but even of Wasps and Hornets also. In the mean season if they be so deeply learned as you pretend, how is it that you so hastily prevent them, and have not the manners to stay till your betters have spoken? It is not, you say; upon presumption of your greater learning, being one of the least but out of a greater measure of zeal, as being the most offended. But, M. Baxter, they that do the works of Zimri, have not lightly in them the affection of Phinees. And seeing you will needs be the most offended, shall I say being the most offending? Certainly having no just cause of offence given you, it is not so much either the glory of God, or the satisfaction of your people, as your own factiousness and vainglory that sets you so forward in this business, and makes you so impatient to think of the second place. Of a colder temper it seems are those learned Rabbis you scare me withal, who while you hazard yourself in the forlorn hope, wisely provide for their own security in the reerward. And as the Turk uses to marshal the basest of his nations in the front of the battle, that the enemy's arms being wearied, & swords blunted upon them, his ●a●j●ars may find the less danger and ●esistance: so these I think are not unwilling that you with your wrangling a while cumber and annoy me, that having spent my strength upon you, I should not be able to endure the force of their second charge. But unto 〈◊〉 ●●ish policy I oppose the old Roman wisdom, 
Veget. l. 1. c. ●1.  and as th●● exercising their young soldiers to skirmish and 〈…〉 Martial activities against a post prepared 〈…〉 ●hereby with more readiness and skill to encounter a true enemy: so will I by trying and experiencing myself upon you) fit and provide myself to the better entertainment unto those learned adversaries whensoever they shall please to assail me.  N. B. 
Your writings are well polished, and show whence you came, and where you were bred: 
Plutarch. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  but as smooth as they be they cannot help you nor save you from blemish, except you speedily (which I wish) snetch the new hatched Mansters. For the fair shoe helpeth no man of the Gout.  I. D. 
Here, M. Baxter, you bestow upon me once for all a few drops of your holy water sprinkle, telling me that my writings are smooth and well polished, savouring something of the place whence I came and where I was bred: but withal remembering me (I think lest I should grow too proud of your praises) that though the shoe be fair, the foot is gouty, that is, though the style and manner of handling be Schollerly, yet the argument and matter is erroneous if not heretical. And so, as Hierome spea● 〈◊〉 you cast upon me an honourable kind of contumely, 
Ep. 6 ad Pam. & Ocean.  comm●●●ing me a little for some good parts, but utterly bereaving one of the truth of Faith. Which commendation also here vousafed me in gross, anon you rob me of again by retail, allowing me nothing but ridiculous, unlearned, and inkhorn speeches, and scarce affording me skill enough to compose a Syllogism. But the best is your judgement is not the truest touch to try desert by▪ and therefore whether you praise or dispraise it no way moves me, the one cannot better me, the other cannot disparage me. Nevertheless if you can plainly and directly show that like another Ixion embracing a cloud instead of juno, I mean my own fancy instead of God's truth, I have begotten thereupon these monsters (as you term them) of opinions: I will as you wish me speedily snetch them, 
Psal. 137.9.  and dash their heads against the stones that they grow not up to the strength and stature of Giants, to the further danger and disturbance of the Church. But till then pardon me, if I neither snetch them, 
1 Pet. 2.2.  nor fear blemish by them: nay if as the blessed offspring of celestial verity I still feed and cherish them with the sincere milk of the word that they may grow thereby to the further comforting of distressed souls, 
jude 20.  and building up of the Saints in their most holy Faith.  
And thus much in brief for answer to your Prologue: now take we a view also of the Disputation itself. Wherein if you observe due proportion and Decorum, as that is no other than a head without wit or brain, so this can be no better than a body without heart and spirit.  N. B. 
But that I may orderly proceed, I will briefly 〈◊〉 the state of the Question betwixt us, and next showing how it is holden by you and denied by me. 
The Quest.  The Question is whether justifying Faith by the Church for 1600. years be rightly defined: you deny it, I affirm it.  I. D. 
In word you promise orderly proceeding, but indeed you lay the foundation of Babel, and by perverting the state of the Question disorder and confound the whole Disputation. For whereas I inquire What is the true Nature and definition of justifying Faith, and determine that that act whereby a man stands justified before God, is not Assurance in the Mind but Affiance in the Will: you to forestall the reader on your side, and to work all the prejudice you can against me, substitute instead thereof this envious demand, Whether justifying Faith by the Church for 1600. years be rightly defined, and boldly aver that I maintain it negatively & you affirmatively. How you can quit yourself of manifest prevarication herein I see not, unless perhaps you say that albeit directly & in precise terms I affirm not so much: yet defining otherwise then the Church hitherto hath done, indirectly and by consequence I avouch no less; But this figleaf is not broad enough to cover your nakedness. For suppose it were so, yet was it your duty to have retained the Question in that very form of words I propounded it unto you, and not in lieu of my Conclusion to place a Consectary of your own collection. If whereas you hold that Faith is Assurance, I should state the Question thus, Whether God command a lie to be believed as true, and then peremptorily pronounce that you affirm it and I deny it, would you not think yourself much wronged and abused? And yet this absurdity necessarily following upon that opinion, as in my fift Argument is firmly proved: I should so doing but serve you with your own sauce and repay you in your own coin. How forcible therefore soever your Consequence may be, in this place it is very unseasonable, and with more credit should you have performed your promise of orderly proceeding, if you had reserved it thither where you mean to argue against me. But Camels, saith Pliny, love not to drink till they have troubled the water, 
Hist. Nat. l. 8. ca 18.  nor Sophisters to dispute till they have clouded the Question.  
Nevertheless because you vaunt so much and so often of all the learned men of Christendom, all the Church, all the world, all Fathers, all Writers, old and new, Greek and Latin for these 1600. years: give me leave in this place once for all to apply mine answer thereunto. I say therefore that it is but a vain and idle brag full of Arrogance, Temerity, and Untruth; Arrogance in that you would seem to have read all Authors that have wrtten these 1600. years: which if you were such a glutton of books, and withal had the strength of an oak and the time of Mathuselah; yet could you not by any means perform: Temerity in that you think with the countenance of one inartificial argument, to outbrave so many sound Demonstrations grounded on God's Word and according with right reason: Untruth, in that you bear the world in hand as if all Writers both old and new were clearly against me, not so much as one giving his suffrage and voice with me, whereas in my Treatise I have expressly showed the contrary.  
For first touching the Negative, that Faith is not Assurance, I vouched therein the authority of that reverend and worthy man of God M. Fox, whose words anon you shall hear at large: In the mean season it behooveth you, if you will be believed in this point, to produce the cloud of witnesses you so much boast of, that we may hear whether they will depose the contradictory hereunto, namely that Faith is Assurance. For howsoever, you say you have no fewer than All, yet it may be when all comes to all you will prove as ill stored of testimonies as the wise man of Athens was of shipping, who being not worth the poorest shallop in the harbour, bore himself notwithstanding for owner of all the galleys that arrived therein. And surely having throughly searched your Answer to this purpose, I find the number (by you cited) so small, that I need not much skill in Arithmetic to sum them up: for, the total amounts to no more than an Unity, and all your Authors are but one Caluin, once alleged in the front thereof. Unto whom I deny not but you might have joined some other of the later Writers: but what are they to all both old and new for 1600. years? For as for the ancient Fathers, not one of them (so fare as I can learn) affirmeth the justifying act of Faith to be Assurance: and among the Modern it is more than manifest that a good part of them flatly denyeth it. So that being backed of so few, and yet craking so loudly of All, 
Ter. Eunuch. act. 4. Scen. 7.  you play right the glorious Soldier in the Comedy, who having but four men in all the world, bestirred himself so busily with three of them as if he had been mustering a whole Legion, and at length missing the fourth, gallantly demanded where all the rest were.  
Again touching the Affirmative, that Faith is Affiance, I quoted that passage of S. Augustin, To believe is to love, add by loving to move unto God. 
In my Treatise De morib. Eccl. ca 15.  Now Love (by which that Father usually defineth Virtue) properly is not an act of Faith, because of Charity; Charity & Faith being two different and distinct Habits. 
1 Cor. 13.13.  And therefore by Love you are to understand generally an act of the will, it being an affection of that Faculty: as if in plainer terms he should have said, To believe is that act of the Will whereby we move unto God: Which elsewhere he expresseth more clearly, saying, He that cometh unwillingly believeth not, 
In joh. 6. tract. 26.  and he that believeth not cometh not: for we run not unto Christ by walking but believing; neither come we by the motion of the body, but by the will of the heart. So that Faith being in S. Augustins' judgement an act or motion of the Will, what other can it be then Affiance? 
12. q. 40. a. 2. ad 2.  For, as Thomas saith, that motion in the appetite which immediately followeth Desire to obtain that good which we esteem possible to be obtained, is Affiance: Add unto him Theophylact; He that with great affection believeth, 
In Marc. 11.  stretcheth out his heart towards God. And what doth it? It is united unto him; and the heart inflamed gathereth great certainty that it shall obtain his desires. Where by the way observe that certainty is concluded out of Faith, and therefore can no more be Faith then the Conclusion can be one of the Premises. 
Serm. de Sancto Andr.  So Barnard, To believe in God is to set all our hope in him. And our Divines in the Conference of Altemburg define it by Affiance in the Heart and Will. In a word all those who seat it only or principally in the will, 
Colloq. Altemb.  accord with me. For although defining it popularly they put usually into their Descriptions, Assent unto supernatural verities which is an act of the mind: yet making not that, but Affiance only the proper act that justifies, they do in effect fully accord and agree with me. So that you see I am not driven to so near an exigent, but unto your one I can oppose more than you are ware of. And yet had I fare more, I would not upon presumption, either of their number or authority, say unto you, 
Ep. 11. inter. ep. Aug.  as Hierome sometime wrote unto Augustin, Suffer me I pray thee to err with such men: and sith you see I have so many companions in error with me, you ought to bring forth one at least that joins with you. For who is he that would willingly err with whomsoever or how many soever? 
2 Pet. 1.19.  But having as S. Peter speaketh a more sure word of the Prophets for my warrant, I rather conclude with that free and ingenuous answer of Augustin to Hierom, More testimonies I think might I easily have found if I had read much: 
Epist. 19  but the Apostle Paul shall be unto me instead of them all, yea, above them all.  N. B. 
Let us therefore see what you affirm and we agree to be our justifying Faith, and how you impugn it. 
Fides iustificans in adultis quae sit. justifying Faith agreed upon us both as holden by the Church.  We agree both in this that justifying Faith (as we hold it and you deny it) is A certain knowledge infused into the hearts of the elect by the Holy Ghost by which they constantly agree to all things revealed in the Word of God, and also a firm Assurance whereby every one of the Elect relieth upon the Promises of Christ, fully resolving that Christ with all his merits are given to him for justification and eternal life. Now as you deny this to be justifying Faith, so again let us see what you count justifying Faith to be. 
M. Downes justifying Faith.  justifying Faith is a rest of man's will upon Christ and his merits of justification and Salvation. The validity of your definition we will view anon by God's help: in the mean season let us see with what engines of rare wit and solid Syllogisms you endeavour to overthrew the former definition of ours, consisting upon the general Word, the causes, the effects, the proper Subject and Adjuncts or essential Properties.  I. D. 
Your second cogitations I see are wiser than the first, and now you shoot with far better aim than erewhile, missing not much of the right state of the Question. For the Definition here attributed unto me is I confess that which I defend, and the other assumed unto yourself is that also which I impugn; I mean so fare forth as it makes Knowledge the General Word, and Particular Assurance the Act, or as you term it the adjunct or essential Property. For otherwise that causally it is from the Holy Ghost, subiectively in the elect, and effectual unto justification is not questioned by me, but equally acknowledged of us both.  
Now the validity of my definition you say you will view anon, and anon by God's help will I farther maintain it against you. In the mean season let us see how skilfully you can use your buckler hand, and ward of those arguments I object against you. And that the reader may more easily concern the course of our disputation, and how pertinently things are applied: as hitherto before my Reply I have set down the words of your Answer, so henceforward before your Answer will I set down the words also of the Treatise I sent you:  Treatise. 
I will not play the Philologer in showing the divers use and acceptation of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Fides, or quote Cicero's Fiat quod dictum est, or Augustins Fac quod dicis for the Notation of it: nor play the Philosopher in discoursing of Physical or Moral or Civil Faith, nor lastly will I speak of Theological Miraculous Faith.  N. B. 
No doubt but than we are like to hear good stuff seeing at the first entrance into the lists you refuse to be tried by those that best knew the meaning of the things which they would express, 
Nomen quod rem notat quasi notamé nec aliter enunciari res possit nisi aliquo nomine. Aug. de Gen. ad lit. c. 7. lib. imperfecto. Apoc. adu. Gent. c. 46. Ib. ca 3.  and therefore found out names fit to note their natures. But Tertullian could have told you (whose words you cite in your preface though falsely) Sinominis, inquit, odium est, quis nominum reatus, quae nominum accusatio? Nisi si aut barbarum sonat vox aliqua nominis, aut infaustum, aut maledicum, aut impudicum. If you find fault with the Word wherein doth the Word offend, what can you say against it? except the Word be barbarous, or ominous, or slanderous, or unchaste.  I. D. 
Stumbling at the threshold they say bodes no good, and little hope do you give of honest and plain dealing in the sequel, that make your beginning with so fond and shameless a cavil. For neither do I refuse to be tried by those who found out the names of things, neither do my words import any disliking of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Fides: only I omit to discourse of such things as are vulgarly known and not greatly material to my purpose. 
Apolog. c. 2. & 3.  Tertullian indeed tells me that the Gentiles sometimes hated the very name of Christian, persecuting it with as much rigour in them that bore it as they did notorious wickedness in others, albeit the Name neither were barbarous, nor ominous, nor slanderous, nor unchaste. But what is this to the purpose? unless you say I am grown into as deep a detestation of the word Faith, as Pagans were of the name of Christian: which none but an infidel can do, and no other than a Satanical and devilish spirit would object unto me. For as the thing signified by the Word is that most noble grace of the Spirit of God which giveth the form and being to a Christian man: so the Word also I confess hath from the beginning both been sanctified by the Holy Ghost, and religiously retained in the Church to signify the same; neither can it now without sacrilege and impiety either be violated or disused. It is not I therefore that find fault or am offended with the Word: it is you rather that offer open violence unto the plainest sentence, giving withal strong suspicion, that having once passed the bounds of modesty, wilfully perverting the state of the question, you will hereafter steel your forehead and wax reckless of saying any thing.  
But I have cited, you say, the words of Tertullian falsely. Not so falsely as you have cited him idly. For whereas that Father saith, 
Apol. c. 46.  Philosophers player-like affect truth, and affecting corrupt it as being ambitious of glory: but Christians necessarily desire it, and entirely practise it as being careful of their salvation: I report it somewhat more briefly thus, Although Philosophers player-like affect the truth as being ambitious of glory: yet Christians studiously follow it as being careful of their Salvation. So that omission of a word or twain without any alteration of the sense, in a matter neither hindering nor furthering the cause in hand, or some such toy, as Hierome speaketh, 
Epist. 101. ad Pammach.  is the crime you charge me withal. For the true meaning of the sentence I am sure I have kept: as for the words, because I indicted out of my memory being then in Bristol, and use not to carry my Library about with me when I travel abroad, it was easy to mistake or forget some part of them.  N. B. 
But you knowing the very meaning of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 coming 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 persuasus sum vel fui, 
I have been or am persuaded.  whereof cometh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 persuadere, to persuade, would have stayed you from condemning us that say Faith is a full persuasion: Besides the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 coming of that which a man simply is persuaded of, 
Truth.  and the Greek coming of the Passive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be persuaded, if you would might have stayed you from incurring this infamy, and me from this labour. It had therefore as I think been much better for you to have been Philologos then Antipistos. But let us see how you proceed.  I. D. 
Kemnitius a grave and learned Divine saith that so great a matter as is the Definition of justifying Faith is not to be committed only unto Grammatical disputations: 
Loco de justif.  and yet so great store do you make of one poor and naked Etymology, as if there need no more but the knowledge thereof to decide the controversy. For this, you say, if I would might have stayed me from condemning you, and eased you from this labour. Let us therefore (seeing you are so confident upon it) try the strength of this Achilles.  
Faith, you say, in the Greek and Hebrew comes from a word signifying to be persuaded, Ergo Faith is a Persuasion. Sir I deny your Consequence. For first, every word bears not always the signification of the primitive from which it is derived, 
Arist. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ca 1.  partly because the number of words being certain and definite, but infinite of things, one word of necessity must have more than one meaning: partly by use (which is the rule and warrant of speech) they oftentimes degenerate from their native and first signification into a strange and fare different meaning. So that if your kind of reasoning may pass for currant, great danger and error must needs ensue upon it. For example, Hypostasis if we regard the first original thereof signifieth Substance, and so saith Hierome, all schools of humane learning understand it: 
Epist. 57 ad Damas.  yet were it horrible blasphemy thereupon to conclude, Ergo in the matter of the Trinity it must signify so too; for what mouth, saith the same Father, is so sacrilegious as to say there are three Substances in the Trinity? It is not therefore so much to be marked whence a word is derived, as what it is used to signify; and if it signify many things (as Faith doth) then must we inquire in what sense it is to be taken in the present question, that so we may build our doctrines not in the aery sound of words, but in the virtue of the things signified, as Basil speaketh. 
Contra Eunom. lib. 2.   
Again, words (as Logicians teach us) have their originations sundry ways, and among the rest from the Effects. Not to seek far for an instance; The third argument in a Syllogism whereby the Conclusion is proved, is by the Grecians called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is Faith, a word as you say derived from a verb signifying to be persuaded: and yet I think yourself will acknowledge that here it hath the name from the Effect, not because it is Persuasion, but for that it doth beget Persuasion. Whereupon it followeth likewise that Faith in our Question flowing from the same fountain is not necessarily to signify Assurance, but may well be called so because by it every true believer may gather and conclude unto himself Assurance.  
Lastly, although the Greek and Hebrew words whence Faith cometh signify to be persuaded, yet they do not only signify so. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Rabbi Kimhi saith implies Affiance, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the middle voice imports as much, whence cometh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Confidence: and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (a word growing upon the same root that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth) construed with the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth to trust, rest, rely on. Wherefore the original words in either language being indifferently affected unto both, what reason can be rendered why faith in those languages should not as well bear the signification of Affiance as Assurance?  
These reasons considered, you see at length the weakness of your Achillean argument, and how insufficient it is to persuade that Faith is a Persuasion. Withal you may perceive that if I would I might have been Philologos without any hazard unto the definition of Faith which I maintain: and that there is no cause why either you should upbraid me with the odious name of Antipistos, or I fear incurring infamy for any thing hitherto I have said or written. Howsoever, sure I am my Theology agreeth better with true philology, than these virulent speeches with the rule of Charity, or (to show by the way what a skilful Pedant you are) your preposterous deduction of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Primitive from the Derivative, with the precepts of Grammar.  Treatise. 
Be not offended if I handle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and give new terms to old matters.  N. B. 

Aristoph. in Ran. & Lucian. in Pseudosophistâ.  You are no Constable, neither have you put on the Lion's skin to subdue us to your command. I tell you Master Down we are offended that you give new terms to old Positions, and handle them not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which in this point you cannot be permitted to do) but also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is utterly intolerable. I will therefore say unto you. With S. Hierom, 
Ep. ad Pammach. & Ocean.  Curio post quadringintos annos docere nos niteris quod ante nescivimus? How comes it to pass that thou after 400. years space goest about to teach us that before we knew not? And so to you how dare you deal after a new manner in so weighty a thing as is Faith, opposing your judgement to the judgement of all the Church for these 1600. years? 
In Prescript.  Alas saith Tertullian, qui estis vos, unde, quando? who are you, whence are you, and of what continuance? 
In Gen. hom. 3. lib. 3. ad Licent.  But suo ipsius iudicio perijt sorex, By showing yourself you perish, as saith Origen and Augustin of others. Now perceive we that the judgement of the whole Church cannot content you, but still you must have one inkhorn term or other of your own to show your itching ears. Would not or could not all the learned men of the world define justifying Faith, and contenting themselves with the Genus and Difference satisfy you, but that you would not only dispute pro formâ against them (which might be in a Scholar for trial of wit tolerable) but also publicly preach against their judgements, and proclaim them erroneous, only allowing your own for true.  I. D. 
Indeed, M. Baxter, it is true, I am no Constable: if I were I think I should find it a very troublesome office to have such a turbulent spirit within my jurisdiction as you are. And as for the Lion's skin, as you say I have not put it on: it is you that have jetted up and down along time in it, to the great scarring and affrighting of simple people. 
Aesop.  But because your untimely braying and the unlucky appearance of your ears now bewray that it grows not to your back, you must be content to be stripped of it, and to walk hereafter as you are in your own hide.  
You are offended, you say, that I give new terms to old positions, and handle them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after a new manner. An offence not given, but taken, and therefore little to be regarded. For the Philosopher, 
Categ. c. 7. §. 16.  though he would have the common use of speech to be retained in familiar conversation: yet Artists, saith he, have liberty to invent new terms, so as they be proper, determined, and adequated to the thing signified. 
Simplic. super Praedicam. qual. Academic. Quaest. lib. 1.  In regard whereof himself doubted not first to use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for that which formerly in the Concrete was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: neither was Cicero afraid with out former example to call that Qualitas which the Grecians termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In a word, how many terms are there now frequently used in schools, which unto the ancients were uncouth and never heard of? It cannot therefore be a sufficient exception to say the term is new, unless with all you show it is not proper enough to express the thing signified, which here you cannot do, as by and by will appear.  
This I think you saw, and thereupon very restrictively you say that in this point I cannot be permitted so to do. And why I pray you not in this point as well as in others? For it hath always been the custom of the Church of God even in the highest points of Religion, partly for the clearing of those parts that are obscure and dark in them, partly for the preservation of them against the innovations of heretics, to device new terms, and as Athanasius speaketh, 
In disp. cum Ario coram Probo Gentili iudice.  things unchangeably remaining to change the names of things. Hence the ancient Fathers invented the word Trinity to signify the plurality of persons in one substance, Homousios' to express the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, Theotokos to maintain the personal union of both natures in Christ, and six hundred such like words utterly unknown unto former ages: 
Ibid.  old matters, as the same Athanasius saith, 
Cap. 18.  receiving new names & those new names couching under them no new meaning. According whereunto Vincentius Lirinensis, though he would not have his Timothy to broach new things, yet giveth him leave to teach the same things he hath learned after a new manner. Being therefore warranted both by the precept & practice of the Primitive Church I see no cause but that even in this point also I may be permitted to use new terms.  
Perhaps you will say that not only the term wherewith it is invested, but the matter hereof is also new: for so much your questions out of Hierome and Tertullian, and the flood of words following with not a drop of reason in them seem to import. Whereunto though I have already sufficiently answered, yet now I add by way of surplus, that many Truths lie a long time hidden in their principles, and unheeded of the wisest, which being at length disclosed and brought to light, are not therefore new in themselves, but only unto us, coming newly unto our knowledge: even as the country of America is called the new world, not because it is of a latter creation than Europe, Asia, or Africa, but only because it is of a later discovery. These Conclusions until their dependency and coherence with the principles do manifestly appear unto us, it sufficeth to believe them implicitly and in the preparation of the Mind: but when they shall be unfolded out of their principles, and clearly demonstrated unto us by necessary deduction from them, we are bound to yield distinct and express assent unto them. And then, as it would have been great folly in the Spaniard to have refused the gold and treasures of the new world, because it was found out not by the old Argonauts, but by Christopher Columbus a late sailer: so would it be great sin in us to disclaim and renounce the benefit of a truth, because it is made known unto us, not by an ancient Father, but by a man of yesterday or to day. 
jam. 2.1.  For this were to have the faith of God in respect of persons, as S. james saith, and to restrain the gift of the Spirit of Wisdom and revelation unto the times of our predecessors, as if they only had eyes given them to spy out truths, and it were impossible for us to see what they saw, not, although we carried the Sun in our hands, as Lactantius speaketh. Now then (to apply this unto the matter in hand) if the point you quarrel at be not only new unto the present custom; 
De Civit. Dei lib. 22. c. 7.  as S. Augustin speaketh, but also contrary unto reason and the grounds of Faith, I confess it is erroneous; and justly may you come upon me with your demands out of Hierome and Tertullian, 
Ep. 23. ad Paulin. De veland. virg. cap. 1.  who are you, whence, when, that after 400. years you should go about to teach us what we knew not before? But if it be new only unto us, and not in itself: then do I answer your Hierome with Hierome, Weigh not truth by time, and Tertullian with Tertullian, Nor space of times, nor patronage of persons, nor privilege of places may prescribe against truth. For that which is no otherwise new is true, and as the truth of God is with all reverence and submission to be embraced. Howbeit this I say not as if I would be thought to be the first discoverer hereof, or that it had lain hid as it were in the pit of Democritus until this time. For that there is a Faith (whose object is the Person of the Mediator) was never yet unknown in the Church, but hath ever been manifest even from the beginning. Search the Scriptures and you shall find therein nothing more clear than this. For (as in the treatise sent you I have showed) the whole tenor of them runs thus, He that believeth in me shall not perish, 
joh. 3.16. joh. 14.1. joh. 1.12.  ye believe in God believe also in me: As many as received him to them he gave power to be the Sons of God, that is to them that believe in him etc. 
Rom. 3.22.26. Gal. 2.16.3.22. Phil. 3.9. jam. 2.1. Reu. 2.13.14.12.  Whereunto I add that in sundry places it is expressly called the Faith of jesus Christ, not because it inhereth in Christ as in a Subject, but for that it hath relation and respect unto Christ as unto the right Object.  
And that at length it appeareth, both that the matter is every way old though the term be new, and that new terms may be given to old matters even of this kind, so as they be proper determined and adequated thereunto. It remaineth only to show that such is the term which here I use. For proof whereof I say no more but this, that if our best Divines have conveniently distinguished other Faiths according to their objects, calling one Faith of story because Scripture story, another Faith of Promise because the Evangelicall promise, a third Faith of Miracles because miracles are the proper object of them: I see no reason why I may not as freely and as fitly call that Faith of Person which hath for its Object the Person of jesus Christ. Neither can I conceive if this be an inkhorn term as it pleaseth your elegancy to term it, why Faith of Story, Faith of Promise, Faith of Miracles should not be inkhorne-tearmes also. But you are a very nice and dainty man, you can taste no wine how old or generous soever, unless the cup out of which you drink it be graved by Myron or Polycletus.  N. B. 
But this hath been the course of all fanatical spirits in all ages, moved with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Phil: 1.14.  self-love, contention, hypocrisy, and covetousness, 
De Haeresibus ad Quodvult Deum.  to condemn all others to set up and establish their own fantasies. Read Augustine, yea see the Ecclesiastical histories, Eusebius, Sozomen, Euagrius, Dorotheus, Vincentius etc. there shall you see whereupon these Schisms in the Church began. Let me therefore entreat you if you will needs deal in these grave causes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, yet that you will deal also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, well, as becometh a wise man. For otherwise you shall bewray your mind desirous of novelties, hazard your credit, offend the Church, yea as he saith take upon you to glue an egg, 
Diogenianus.  losing your labour, and making yourself ridiculous to the best.  I. D. 
What hath been the course of fanatical spirits in all ages, and whereupon they have been moved to begin their Schisms in the Church; I am not now to learn of you: neither needed you in this point so to flourish with your Greek, or to make such a rumble with the names of Eusebius, Sozomen, Euagrius, Dorotheus, Vincentius and the rest. But what my inward motives have been, and with what affection I have proceeded in this business, God and my own conscience are a sufficient theatre: for your tongue is not the fan of this floor. And seeing my earnest protestation in my preface cannot persuade your uncharitable heart to entertain a better opinion of my sincere and upright meaning in this cause, but that you will notwithstanding reckon me in the number of fanatical spirits, possessed with self-love, contention, hypocrisy, and covetousness, condemning all other to set up and establish their own fantasies; I appeal unto him who alone knoweth the heart and trieth the raines, 
Ep. 69. ad Florent. Pupian.  and say unto you in the words of S. Cyprian, These things have I written out of a pure mind and conscience, and with steadfast trust upon my Lord and God. You have my letters, I have yours; in the day of judgement both shall be rehearsed before the tribunal of Christ.  
Whereas you entreat me to deal in this grave cause well, and as becometh a wise man, surely hitherto I have endeavoured so to do: how well I have performed it I leave unto the censure of the Church, and specially of those unto whom the Spirits of the Prophets are subject. In the mean season pardon me if I fear none of those dangers you threaten unto me. How yourself will avoid them I cannot tell, for never was there man wrote with less reason and more folly.  Treatise. 
Three Faiths there seem to be which lay claim and title to the privilege of justification; Faith of History, Faith of promise, and Faith of Person. The first is an assent of the mind unto the truth of God's Word, and specially the Gospel. And this whether it be Acquisite or Infused hath no interest in the matter of justification. For besides that is absurd general knowledge should justify—  N. B. 
That you dare be so bold to make such a distribution of Faith I impute it to your desire of novelties, 
Eph. 4.  as you say in the words last between us debated. I tell you there is but one Faith, and that a true and lively working Faith, 
Knowledge the beginning, Application or Apprehension the Progress, Rest the end of Faith.  and this only is justifying Faith, and comprehendeth your three nice distinctions, and is compounded of them all conjoined together, the first the beginning, the second the progress, the third being the end.  I. D. 
It is not desire of novelty in me, but love of confusion in you, that dare not have those things distinguished which in their natures are divided. For distinction of that which is ambiguous, 
Top. 1. c. vlt.  saith Aristotle, is the prime and most necessary principle both of defining and disputing well: the neglect whereof instead of profitable reasoning about matters of substance, induceth fruitless contention and jangling about words. Now that Faith is equivocal and needeth distinction appears first by reason, for that it comprehendeth under it sometime more and sometime fewer things, is both affirmed and denied of the same persons, is a word of accident attributed to diverse Subjects not contained under one next Genus, as to the Elect, to Reprobates, to Devils. Secondly by authority, 
Ser. de temp. 181.  It is one thing to believe a God, another to yield belief unto God, another to believe on God, saith Augustine. There is a kind of gift equivocally called Faith, saith Oecumenius. 
In 1. Cor. 13. In 1. Cor. 12.  Not Faith of doctrines, but Faith of miracles, saith Theophilact. There is one Faith of Precepts, another of Signs, another of Promises, saith Bernard. The same among the latter writers confesseth Melancthon, Martyr, Kemnitius, Hiperius, Caluin, Vrsin, Fox, Perkins, and who not? Nay behold Saul himself also among the Prophets: for besides that anon you acknowledge Faith sometime to be spoken abusively and by an equivocation, you do expressly both in your margin and text affirm that there are three kinds of Faith, and approve the same distribution which here you condemn in me.  
For all this I tell you, say you, there is but one Faith, and that is justifying Faith. Shall I now say unto you as elsewhere you do unto me, that you speak pure Bellarmine? 
De justif. l. 2. cap. 4.  For indeed you use the very language of that jesuit. Sectaries (saith he, understanding Protestants) are wont to distinguish three faiths, of history, of miracles, of promises: but Catholics teach that they are one and the same Faith, and that justifying Faith. But doth not the Apostle (in the place here quoted by you) avouch that there is but one Faith? yes verily: but thereby in the judgement of the best Divines he meaneth, not that Faith whereby we do believe, but that which we do believe: that is not the Habit but the Object of Faith, as if he should more plainly say, there is but one Christian Religion. And although in regard of the variety and multitude of material objects, there may seem to be not one but many Faiths: yet because the formal reason wherefore we do believe them is but one, namely divine testimony, and they are in such sort linked and wooven together that one Article cannot be denied without the dissolution of the whole Creed, all being according to the old rule one copulative, it is therefore rightly and justly called one Faith.  
Finally where you say Faith comprehendeth my three nice distinctions, and is compounded of them all, I answer that such composition is altogether impossible: for Faith of Story, and Faith of Promise are in the Understanding, but Faith of Person is in the Will, and it cannot be that one and the same Habit should be subiectively in two several faculties of so different natures. For the Habit that is for example in Peter is one in number and that which is one in number is indivisible, and that which is indivisible cannot be at once in two Subjects, because as Philosophy teacheth Numeration is from the plurality of Subjects. This M. Perkins saw, 
On the Creed.  and therefore saith, Some do place Faith partly in the Mind, partly in the Will, because it hath two parts, Knowledge & Affiance: but it seems not greatly to stand with reason that one particular and single Grace should be seated in diverse parts or Faculties of the Soul. And this also you cannot be ignorant was answered in my treatise unto the same objection: which objection I marvel how you can with modesty and credit mention, unless withal you were provided to satisfy my answer. But seeing (as Cicero saith of Hortensius) when you have aught to say you have not the power to hold your peace, 
Verrin. 3.  it is an evident and strong presumption now that you say nothing, that you have nothing to say.  N. B. 
Blear not the eyes of God's Saints with your niceties and falsities any longer, for thus you reason. No historical Faith hath any interest in the matter of justification: But firmly to believe the truth of God's Word, and specially the Gospel is historical Faith, Therefore firmly to believe the truth of God's Word and specially the Gospel hath no interest in the matter of justification. Good Sir I deny your Mayor, which you thus endeavour to prove ab absurdo & enumeratione partium, No general knowledge shall have any stroke in the matter of justification, All historical Faith is a general knowledge, Therefore no historical Faith hath any interest in the matter of justification. Prove your Minor, which I deny, telling you moreover that firmly to consent to the truth of God's Word in genere, and the Gospel in Specie is not a General knowledge, but a Special knowledge, and therefore I argue. Such a special knowledge of the Gospel is the beginning of Faith justifying. 
Mat. 13.11. joh. 17.3. Mat. 16.17.  But firmly to consent to the truth of God's Word and the Gospel is such a special knowledge: ex confesso. Therefore firmly to consent to the truth of God's Word and especially the Gospel is the beginning of justifying Faith.  I. D. 
If you were as fare from hood-winking your own eyes, as I am from blearing the eyes of others, you might easily perceive that now I deal against our common adversaries the Papists, and overthrew the justification of their Historical Faith, by the chiefest arguments which Protestants use. But you after the manner of those Gladiators called Andabatae, nor see nor care whom or what you strike: and so mildly affected are you towards me that so you may make some probable show of endamaging or disaduantaging me, you reck not though through my sides you reach and wound the best Divines of our Church, yea and the common truth which we all maintain.  
Neither do I use such circumguagues, nor wiredraw my arguments into such a length as you bear us in hand: but having nakedly and plainly defined what Historical Faith is, I prove by two reasons that Faith so defined doth not justify, the first whereof is this, because it is absurd that so general a Knowledge should justify. So that your Ferio Syllogism deserves a Ferula, and utterly to be cashed, as being no creature of mine, but an idle figment of your own: and the next in Celarent (for so you form it, although indeed it be also in Ferio, the Minor proposition and Conclusion notwithstanding your general notes being but particular enuntiations) is the only Syllogism intended by me, and including my first argument. The Mayor whereof it seems you grant saying nothing unto it: and the Minor only you deny, which I cannot but wonder at, seeing both the Minor and Conclusion are universally vouched by all the Divines of our side. The Conclusion is that Historical Faith justifies not: So saith Hyperius, 
De fide Hom. iustificandi.  There is a certain Historical Faith whereby those things which are propounded in holy writ are simply believed: but yet is not applied unto Christ and the matter of our Salvation. 
Loco de Fide.  The Minor is that Historical Faith is a general Knowledge: So saith Kemnitius, There is a certain general Faith which usually is termed Historical: and again, Historical Faith is a general assent holding in general that the promise of the Gospel is true. And M. Perkins, 
Ser. cause. c. 36.  A general Faith whereby they give assent unto the Gospel. Neither do I know any one of our Divines that either in the Conclusion or the Minor doth gainsay them. So that by the judgement of these men, both consenting to God's Word in general, and to the Gospel in special, is not a Special but General Knowledge: and if the Speciality of the Gospel being but a part of the whole Scripture did specify Faith, it would follow thereupon that there are as many Special Faiths as there are several Articles of the Creed, which were unreasonable to imagine. For that Faith which assenteth unto the Gospel is no other than that which assenteth unto the rest of holy Scripture: and although it may principally respect that part of divine truth, yet doth it not only respect it, nor is limited thereunto as unto the proper adequate object thereof, but universally extendeth itself unto all supernatural revealed verities whatsoever. As for that Faith which our Divines call Special, is to be understood of Faith of Promises whereby the Saints apply and appropriate them unto themselves, particularly and individually assuring themselves of their present justification and future salvation. And the ignorance hereof as I ween is the cause why you turn general into special and write of this matter so wildly and confusedly.  
This notwithstanding very peremptorily you pronounce that historical Faith is a special Knowledge, and thereupon Syllogistically infer that it is the Beginning of justifying Faith: to what end I wots not well, unless it be to prove that it doth justify because as you conclude it is the beginning of that Faith. But whatsoever your intent be, your argument I answer by distinguishing of the word Beginning. For if you understand thereby a Pre-requisite or Preparative unto justifying Faith, you do but fight with a shadow, for in that sense I grant the Conclusion, neither doth such a beginning of justifying Faith justify. If you mean thereby that it is justifying Faith inchoat and in a remisser degree, than I deny your Mayor, and say that such a knowledge (call it as you please general or special) is not the beginning of justifying Faith; If it were, than Devils and Reprobates having it should have justifying Faith which Gods Word attributes unto the Elect only. 
Tit. 1.1.  And if it be true that Faith of person is the consummation of justifying Faith as in the former section you say, it cannot be that such a knowledge should be the Beginning thereof: unless you will say that Accidents may pass from one Subject to another, which is against all Philosophy. For Historical Faith is in the Understanding, and Faith of Person is in the Will: and therefore Faith of Story beginning in the Mind can have no subsistence elsewhere, and justifying Faith being perfected in the Will cannot be begun in any other Subject. The passages quoted in the margin though you should rack them till they rend asunder, yet will they not confess what you allege them for. For how I pray you hang these things together? To you it is given to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of heaven; This is life everlasting to know thee; Flesh and Blood hath not revealed this unto thee but my Father, Ergo Such a knowledge is justifying Faith begun. This is too violent astraining of Scripture, and as Volusian speaketh, is not a sucking of milk, but drawing of blood from the dugs of the Church. 
Ep. 1. ad Nic. 1.  As for the Minor I have already sufficiently demonstrated the falsehood thereof: only it seemeth strange why you should take it as confessed. For sure I am in express terms I have affirmed the contrary: neither can I guess of what words you gather it, unless perhaps of that I say and specially the Gospel, which were too ridiculous. For that indeed confesseth the Gospel to be a special part of God's truth, but (not determining Faith only thereunto) it doth in no sort specify it, as is above fully proved.  N. B. 

Historical Faith not divided from the other two kinds, but joined with than, is cause of justification.  Again I would pray you to speak more learnedly, and argue sound: For if you had said formerly, No Historical Faith only justifieth &c. We had been agreed. For Historica Fides est causa iustificationis non solitaria sed socia; non divisa sed coniuncta. But speaking thus absolutely you speak unlearnedly. Well, thus you proceed leaving your Minor naked and exposed to the mercy of the World.  I. D 
Agreed, quoth you? Nay he can hardly agree with me that is at war with himself: and had I spoken never so learnedly, and argued never so sound, yet I verily believe you would have quarrelled at it, because I see you make contradiction of me the only rule of your speeches. That there is but one Faith you say it is novelty not to grant, and that, Faith only justifies I think you dare not deny: how is it then that in the margin forgetting yourself you talk of three kinds of Faith, which except my Arithmetic fail me are more than one? and join fellows with that in justification in the body of your text, which yet you confess doth only justify? But what is it that comes not within the sphere of your omnipotent Philosophy? The power of your Logic hath already contracted Universal into Special: and why then may not the subtlety of your Metaphysicke find a plurality also in an Unity?  
But to be plain with you, I say that Historical Faith is so far from being a joint cause that at all properly understood of justification, but only as I have said a Pre-requisite or Preparative thereunto. True it is that Faith of Person is never Solitary, but is ever conjoined with sundry other graces, and among the rest with Historical Faith: yet are not their operations to be confounded, because in the same person they are conjoined. Many seeds lie in my hand together, yet every one hath his several and distinct virtue: Faith of Person is never without Faith of Story, yet it is Faith of Person which only justifies. And as in the generation of man, the Sensitive soul goes before, and prepares a fit organ for the infusion of the Reasonable, and yet not the Sensitive but the Reasonable only doth inform: so in the reparation of man, Faith of Story proceeds, and makes way for the inducement of Faith of Person, and yet not Faith of Story but Faith of Person only doth justify.  
Now whether in speaking thus absolutely I have spoken unlearnedly as you say or no, it skilleth not much, seeing I am sure I have spoken truly. 
1 Cor. 15.9.  What ever I am, by the grace of God I am, and desire so to be unto his glory. My want and inability I thank God I know: yet know I no cause why in this mediocrity of knowledge and speech I should in comparison with you any whit disable myself. But sith as the Apostle saith, knowledge puffeth up, 
1 Cor. 8.1.  God grant us both the spirit of humility, that denying ourselves and all our learning, we may be content to be wholly captivated unto the obedience of the Faith of Christ.  
The Minor which you say I left naked and exposed to the mercy of the world was this, that Historical Faith is a general knowledge, which indeed in my Treatise I did forbear to confirm, not for want of sufficient proofs, but presuming that so evident a truth would never have been denied. But now I hope it appears by what I have above said to be so well guarded with strength of reason and approbation of the learned, that henceforward it need not fear the rigour of your opposition.  Treatise. 
Acquisite Faith the Devils have according to that of Saint james, The Devils believe and tremble: Infused Faith the Reprobates may have, as Balaam, judas, Magus. Now justifying Faith is proper to the Elect, and therefore historical Faith cannot justify.  N. B. 
O ye noble Scholars mark this Syllogism: I have made your arguments hitherto for you Master Down, and in this creeping and encroaching argument tell you that you beg the matter in question. For I deny that your definition of Historical Faith is a general knowledge, but special and peculiar unto the Elect in the beginning of their justifying Faith, conjoined with the Application, and Resting upon Christ and his merits. And to be plain with you I tell you it is ridiculous yea blasphemous to say that Devils have Faith, or that ever Balaam, judas, or Magus had Faith. And so telleth you M. Caluin, 
In jac. 2.19.  Ridiculum erit si quis Diabolos habere fidem dicat, it is ridiculous for any man to say that Devils have Faith: For there is but one Faith, Eph. 4. and the other is spoken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, abusively and by an equivocation, and is but a vulgar knowledge, or rather peculiar show by miracles etc. as the same M. Caluin showeth right learnedly, 
1 Cor. 13.2. Calu. ibid.  and also telleth you, Abundé constat totam hanc disputationem de fide non haberi, it is plain that this whole disputation jam. 2. is not about Faith. Let this therefore serve for an answer I pray you to your first distinction of Historical Faith, which you confound with a vulgar knowledge as appeareth before: knowing this, No man that finally contemneth this Special knowledge of God's Word and specially the Gospel can be saved. For he can never have the other two kinds of Faith spoken of before, except he begin with this kind of Faith.  I. D. 
Surely I am very deeply beholding unto your Mastership, having so small skill in Logic, that you will be pleased to form my arguments, and to shape them in so excellent fashion for me. But I beseech you spare your pains where you are like to reap little thanks for your labour. Such officiousness in an adversary is not without suspicion: and if you may have the hammering of my arguments, your weakest answers I doubt not will be proof enough against them. Leave me therefore I pray you to the meaning of my own weapons, and look you well unto your own defence; for I fear me you will hardly be able to avoid the danger of them. For thus I reason, That Faith which Devils and Reprobates have, justifies not: Historical Faith Devils and Reprobates have, Ergo Historical Faith justifies not. Here you see nor creeping, nor encroaching, but fair and plain dealing and such as I am well content all noble Scholars mark it. But let us see what you rejoin hereunto.  
First, you say I beg the matter in Question. What matter? that Historical Faith is a general knowledge; but neither is that the matter now in Question, neither do I any way beg it. For in this Syllogism the Question is, whether Historical Faith do justify, of your Question there appears nor palm nor footstep: which yet in the former section against your negative I have proved to be most true. That which you add if it be not senseless is contrary both to yourself and unto reason. For saying that Historical Faith is proper and special unto the Elect in the beginning of their justifying Faith, you plainly distinguish it from justifying Faith, which is contrary to what you have elsewhere said. If you still confound them and make Historical Faith the beginning of justifying Faith, it is as if you should say the beginning of justifying Faith, is special and peculiar unto the Elect in the beginning of their justifying Faith, which is altogether witless and senseless. Lastly, to say that Historical Faith which before was General and common as soon as it is conjoined with application and Resting on Christ becomes special and peculiar, is utterly void of reason. For as Grace superadded unto Nature in the Elect makes not Nature special and peculiar unto them, but that still it remains common unto all men: so also Historical Faith by accession of justifying Faith or Affiance changeth not its nature and becomes Special, but as it was evermore continues General. General I say, both Obiectively as stretching itself unto all supernatural revealed verities: and Subiectively not being appropriated unto the Elect only, but commonly incident unto others also.  
Secondly you deny the Minor, telling me plainly that it is ridiculous yea blasphemous to say that Devils have Faith, or that ever Balaam, judas, or Magus had Faith. If I should now temper my ink with some sharper ingredient, and in the zeal of my affection say unto you as the Angel sometime said unto Satan, 
jude 9  The Lord rebuke thee, it were no more than here you justly deserve. For it is not holy and learned men alone (which yet were too impudent) but even the spirit of Wisdom and truth himself whom (I tremble to speak it) you charge with ridiculousness and blasphemy. For doth not the Holy Ghost by Saint james in express terms say, The Devils believe and tremble? and by Saint Luke, Then Simon himself also believed? 
jam. 2.19. Act. 8.13.  and did not Balaam prophesying of Christ, and judas preaching Christ assent unto those truths wherewith they were illuminated? And what Orthodox Divine is there ancient or modern who falling upon this question doth not acknowledge that Devils and Reprobates do Historically believe? 
De unico Bapt. count. Petil. c. 10.  Saint Augustine is bold and compareth the Faith of Devil's confessing Christ, We know thee who thou art, even the Son of God, with that memorable confession of Peter, Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God. This confession, saith he, was fruitful unto Peter, but pernicious unto the Devils, yet in both not false but true, not to be denied but acknowledged, not to be detested but approved. And a little after having vouched that of Saint james, the Devils believe and tremble, and compared therewith the Faith of those who believe the truth of God but live wickedly, Behold, saith he, We have found out of the Church not only certain men, but Devils also confessing the same Faith of one God, yet both confirmed by the Apostles rather than denied. Of the same judgement are our latter writers, That Faith is attributed to Simon Magus, 
Inst. lib. 3. ca 2. §. 10.  saith Caluin, We understand not with some that he feigned in words a Faith which was not in his heart, but think rather that being overcome by the Majesty of the Gospel, he did in a sort believe and acknowledge Christ to be the Author of Life and Salvation. Simon, saith Beza, 
In Act. 8.13. On the Creed. Ans. to Rhem. T. in jam. 2.6.  believed with Historical Faith. Historical Faith, saith Perkins, is in the Devil and his Angels. Such a Faith, saith Fulke, as is in Devils, namely an acknowledging that there is one God, and so likewise of all the rest of the Articles of Faith to be true, without trust or confidence in God. Finally, the whole Church of Auspurg, Whereas Saint james saith, 
Harm. Confess.  the Devils believe and tremble, he speaketh of an Historical Faith: Now this Faith doth not justify; for the Devils and the wicked are cunning in the History. Which last words I would wish you to note and observe. For if Historical Faith be no other than an assent of the Mind unto the truth of God's Word, than Devils and Reprobates so assenting, yea being cunning in the Story, must needs have Historical Faith. Add hereunto, that if they do not so much as Historically believe, than the sins which they commit against the Gospel are only sins of ignorance and not against knowledge, neither can they offend of malice, or fall into that unpardonable sin which is against the Holy Ghost. 
Mat. 12.32.  Neither lastly can any be said to have made shipwreck of Faith, which yet the Scripture saith some have done, 
1 Tim. 1.19.  unless perhaps you will say a man may make shipwreck of that which he never had. So that now if I have spoken ridiculously and blasphemously as you say, you see what Schoolmasters have deceived me, and upon what reasons I have been drawn into this folly and impiety: or rather the world sees what folly it is in you thus against all reason to impute blasphemy and ridiculousness unto the truth of God, and the most glorious preachers and defenders thereof.  
Yet Caluin, you say, telleth me it is ridiculous to say that Devils have Faith, and, it is plain that this whole disputation jam. 2. is not about Faith. But is it possible that Caluin should strive against the torrent of so main authority? or like the Philosopher of whom Aristotle speaketh forget, his own voice, and unsay that which he had formerly said? Certainly if you will give him leave to be the interpreter of his own meaning you shall find he doth not. For when he denieth that Devils have Faith, and that Saint james there disputeth of Faith, he understandeth not Faith indefinitely, but particularly justifying Faith. This is evident by his annotation on the twentieth verse, 
In jam. 2.20.  Here, saith he, is no disputation of the cause of justification, whereby what other can he mean then justifying Faith: And when he saith the dispute is not about Faith, he addeth forthwith, but of a vulgar knowledge which conjoineth a man to God no more than the sight of the Sun lifts him to Heaven. Now what is that Faith which unites us unto God, but only justifying Faith? and what is this vulgar knowledge other then Historical Faith, by which the eye of the mind sees divine truth as that of the body sees the Sun? Of that therefore by Caluins' judgement Saint james speaketh not, 
Beza in eundem locum.  of this he doth. And Beza who upon this place treadeth in Caluins' steps and well knew his meaning affirmeth that Saint james understandeth not the same Faith whereby Saint Paul saith we are justified, but only that whereby we do believe there is a God, and that Christ is the Son of God, and that all things prescribed in both the testaments are true, which is in effect the very definition of Historical Faith. But for all your praising of Caluin, you cannot be contented with his exposition, but you must needs have a trick beyond him. For whereas he by Saint james his Faith understand a vulgar knowledge, you will rather have it to be a peculiar show by miracles, which is the most senseless device that ever was imagined. For who ever dreamt that the Question which there the Apostle disputeth should be this, Whether a peculiar show by miracles without works do justify? And when he saith Thou believest there is one God, thou dost well; the Devils believe also and tremble, what brute of Cuma or Arcadia would expound it thus, Thou hast a peculiar show by miracle, it is well, the Devils have a peculiar show by miracles also and tremble? Learn therefore and know that the Faith which Devils have, cannot be Faith of miracles: for miracles the Devils can work none, being limited within the compass of their nature which cannot produce supernatural effects, and never being ordained to be the confirmers of Faith, to which end miracles were appointed. Now then to end this point, whereas you pray this may serve for an answer unto my first distinction of Historical Faith, I must tell you plainly that what you cannot win by force, you are not like to get by begging; neither can I at any hand be entreated to accept of frivolous and desperate speeches, for sound and substantial answers. Whereas again you make the ground of my error as you pretend to be confounding of Historical Faith with a vulgar knowledge, You shall by your patience give me leave still to err that error, until by some newfound nicety you can distinguish them, whereof I pray you let us hear by the next. Lastly, where you wish me to know that whosoever finally contemneth Historical Faith cannot have the other two kinds of Faith, nor be saved, I do you to weet that I know it right well, but what you intent or would infer thereon nor I nor I think yourself know. Some thing was to be said to make a show and to fill up paper: but what and how pertinent it is, Hippoclides cares not.  Treatise. 
The second is Faith of Promise and is a Persuasion or Assurance that the Promises of God made in Christ, to wit justification, remission of sins, adoption, regeneration, finally Election itself and eternal salvation do particularly pertain unto me and are mine; Yet this justifies not.  N. B. 
And I confidently hold that a firm and final persuasion, application and assurance that the promises of God made in Christ to wit justification, Remission of Sins, Adoption, Regeneration, and Election itself, and eternal Salvation do particularly belong unto me and are mine, is that which justifies a man before God. You deny it, and thus you oppose.  I. D. 
Unto my assertion you oppose only your simple contradiction, preparing yourself immediately to answer my arguments. But because in my Treatise certain words are promised before my reasons, whereat you cavil after your confused manner in a very importune and unfit place: I will by your leave rectify what you have disturbed, and maintain them there where my own method first ordered them.  Treatise. 
This Faith of Promise although I deny not but in Scripture it is called Faith, and that every Saint of God both may and aught to have particular persuasion and Assurance: Yet I confidently deny that this Persuasion and Assurance is that which justifies a Man before God.  N. B. 
A man may be saved by this Faith, yet this Faith is not a justifying Faith, therefore a man may be saved without a justifying Faith. Whosoever may be saved by this Faith, and by your third kind of Faith may be saved by two kind of Faiths, the one justifying, the other not justifying, which is absurd. Yet by your confession M. Down, a Christian ought to have this Faith as of necessity. Then if he ought to have it he cannot be without it, and yet may ordinarily be saved without it as you say, and so saved without that which he ought of necessity to have to salvation: and also aught to have that to salvation which will do him no good to salvation because he may be saved without it. What absurdities and contrarieties be these?  I. D. 
Now alas were I as cunning as Theseus himself, how could I wind myself out of these perplexities and labyrinths wherein you have entangled me? or were I as strong as Samson how could I break in sunder these cords of absurdities and contrarieties wherewith you have so fast bound me? And yet when I look more nearly unto the matter, me thinks the knots are not so intricate that there needs some God from the engine, (as it is in the Proverb), to untie them. For as Augustin saith, Do but restore my words, and your calumniation will presently vanish. All I say is no more but this that every Saint of God both may and aught to have particular assurance and persuasion: you report me to say: A man may be saved by this assurance, and that he ought to have it as of necessity to salvation. Betwixt which sayings there are as the Poet speaketh many high hills and deep seas: and therefore what jars or discords soever you have here found, is in the song of your own setting and not of my devising. For what mad Syllogisms are these if instead of your imaginary proposition you restore my true assertion, and then add unto it your Assumption and Conclusions, thus; A man may and aught to be assured, But Assurance is not justifying Faith, Ergo, a man may be saved without a justifying Faith, Ergo, a man may be saved by two kinds of Faith, Ergo, he may be saved, without that which he ought of necessity to have to salvation, Ergo, he ought to have that to salvation which will do him no good to salvation: Do you not see that against the canons of Logic, first, you have one term in the conclusion, namely may be saved, which is not found in either of the premises? Again, that neither term of the Conclusion is in the Mayor proposition? And lastly, that the Conclusion is affirmative notwithstanding that the Assumption is negative? Fie, fie that a Logicke-wright should so much overshoot himself, and so shamefully transgress his own precepts. This infamy (to retort upon you your own words) had you not incurred, if you could have abstained from perverting my speeches, and adding unto them such impudent glossems of your own.  
But yet when I say a man ought to have Assurance, do I not therein confess it to be so necessary unto Salvation that a man cannot be saved without it? Nothing less, and God forbidden that every ignorance or doubting of what we ought to know, should presently exclude and bar us from Salvation; for than no flesh possibly could be saved. Although therefore when I say a man may be assured I confess a possibility, and when I say he ought to be assured I acknowledge a duty: yet doth it not follow thereupon that such assurance is of absolute necessity. Necessary it may be unto the well-being of the Son of God, but not unto his Being, as if he could not be a new creature without it: necessary to cheer and solace him in the way to the end, but not unto the end itself, as if without it he could not aspire unto salvation. Such absolute necessity of assurance upon pain of damnation I know none, save only of those truths which we call fundamental, among which I suppose your and my justification and salvation are not to be reckoned. And yet had I said (which I deny) that Assurance is necessary unto Salvation, what inconvenience is it to say that nevertheless it is not necessary unto justification? For Salvation is the End, justification a mean or way unto the End, and more things are subordinate unto the end, then unto the way: as unto Salvation both Faith and works are necessary, but unto justification Faith alone is required. And therefore also it is no absurdity to say that two Faiths are requisite unto Salvation, as indeed Faith of Story and Faith of Person are, although but one Faith justify which is Faith of Person. And thus much for your plainsong: now let us hear your descant and division upon it.  N. B. 

Marshal. Emerepes apud. Apophth. Chrysippus.  Dij mentem tibi dent tuam Philaeni, God send you your right wits to see these errors and to amend them. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ne vities Musicam said one, Corrupt not music, speak not contraries nor novelties. You cannot always sail in the night but at last will be taken, if you were as crafty as a Cuckoo, 
Athanas. in Symb.  as spoke Pliny and Aristotle. We hold in Divinity but one Faith and not diverse in specie, and that every Christian man is bound to have it having means given him from God upon pain of damnation, and that no man can ordinarily be saved without it. And therefore do cast out your cobwebs, as following his counsel that said Vasis eijcias quas nectit aranea telas, knowing that your speeches endeavour to mingle water and fire together, which is impossible to do. Neither are your forces any thing able to deceive God's Elect, so long time trained up in his blessed school. Well may you consume yourself as one said Comedo meipsum more Polypi, 
Alcaeus apud Athen. l. 7. Catull. Mat. 11. 1 Tim. 3.15. Act. 9  I eat up myself like Polypus, but the Church can you not deceive, for your sack is full of Spiders as Catullus telleth one, Nam tui Catulli Plenus sacculus est aranearum. The Church is no reed but the pillar of truth, and therefore it is hard for you to spurn against it.  I. D. 
Unto this rhapsody of sentences and proverbs drawn in like Hercules oxen, and tied together like Samsons foxes so preposterously by the tails, were I a Grammar-schoole-boy again, I would quickly patch you up an answer in the same kind. But now I affect not an opinion of learning that way, desiring as becomes a Divine rather to be real then verbal. If children either in age or understanding be pleased with such Pedanterie, and delight to see so many babies in your writing, I envy it not, so long as the graver and learneder sort rest contented and satisfied with the substance of my reasons. Only unto that charitable prayer which you make for me out of that devout Poet Marshal, that God would send me my wits again, 
Lib. 2. Sat. 3.  I know not what kinder wish to oppose then that of Horace the devouter Poet of the two, that you which are frantic and bedlem-mad would something bear with those who are but a little discrazed and distempered. For indeed you are right twin unto the Lunatic gentleman in Horace, and as he every day visited the theatre and there ●ate clapping his hands and keeping a stirreas if he saw some notable Tragedieacted before him, whereas the stage all the while was empty: so you here make much ado, and tell me of I know not what absurdities, contrarieties, and novelties, and yet the ground you lay for them is in my words no where to be found. Wherefore as Soph●cles being accused of dotage read before the judges his Ordipus Coloneus which he had very lately composed, 
Cic. de Senect.  and then demanded of them whether it seemed the poem of a dotard or no: so because you charge me as ber●● of my right wits and fraught with nothing else but errors and contradictions, I appeal unto the Christian reader, praying him to peruse and ponder my treatise, and if he please this Disputation also, and then to judge indifferently betwixt us whether I be as this Festus accuseth me mad and beside myself, or else with Saint Paul, 
Act. 26.24.25.  have spoken the words of truth and soberness.  Treatise. 
1. Arg. If this were justifying Faith, than whosoever life's and dies without this particular Assurance cannot be saved: sine Fide etc. without Faith it is impossible to please God. But a man may be saved without it. Ergo.  N. E. 
I hope you mean de adultis, of men that have means given them from God to get this Assurance: for otherwise I easily agree that God may extraordinarily save whom it pleaseth him. But doubting not of your meaning, and denying your Minor, you take upon you to prove it, first by an instance, and next by six reasons: All which let us see.  I. D. 

Epist. 57  Taking me to mean de adultis, you do no whit mistake me: for as Augustin saith, that Infants know the things of God who know not so much as the things of men; if we should go about by words to demonstrate, I fear me we should be injurious even to our very senses, endeavouring to persuade that by speech, the evidence of whose truth surpasseth all faculty and office of speech. Nevertheless because it is written without Faith no man can please God, and, the just shall live by his own faith, many learned men have hereupon conclude that Infants have a Faith even of their own: 
Adacta Colloq. Mompelg. Resp. de Bapt.  in so much that Beza though of a different judgement confesseth this to be a very solid and firm foundation, and soon after addeth, that of this matter very learned Divines, yea and the ancient Fathers also differ in opinion; for this Question, saith he, is among the number of those wherein because we all know many things but in part we may vary in judgement, and yet the foundation of orthodoxal Faith stand safe. But you take it I mean de adultis, and as I have said you do not mistake me, and therefore you deny my Minor: which when you say I prove by an instance and six reasons, it seems you passed over my reasons perfunctorily and without attention, or cared not to let drop of your pen at adventure whatsoever came next to head. For I prove the Minor by one instance only, and the arguments following are no more but five, and conclude not the Minor but the main Question, to wit, that Assurance doth not justify: The instance is this.  Treatise. 
I instance in those our Brethren of Germany who hold that Faith may totally and finally fall away, and consequently that there can be no certainty of Salvation, whom yet the Church of God calleth and counteth Brethren, and it were uncharitable to censure of them otherwise. Therefore (or at leastwise probable) Faith is not an Assurance.  N. B. 
Whatsoever our Brethren of Germany hold is true, but they hold that a man may be saved without this Faith, Therefore this position is true. O hominis acumen & argumentum lepidum! What mood and figure I pray you was this Syllogism borne in? But prove your Mayor; for we have learned Christ otherwise then to tie our Faith unto the opinions of any one particular Church. Yea this argument savoureth mightily of Popery, which I thought you had been as far from as I know you are in this point from Christ's verity and Christian unity. For why I pray you might I reason thus as you do to prove that works do justify a man before God, and merit eternal life. The Church of Rome holdeth so, Ergo, the Position is true? Ob. But you will say they are no Brethren: A. I answer they be the Church of God if we believe M. Caluin and M. Bunny citing this place Antichrist sitteth in the temple of God: 
Ep. Tract. of Pacif.  But he sitteth at Rome, Therefore Rome is the temple of God. But I pray you let us not be bound to defend the errors of our Brethren, neither too hasty to discover them. And that this opinion is an error let the whole course of the Scripture declare. 
Darij Darij  Whosoever liveth byabove4 Faithabove5 livethabove3 forabove1 everabove2, But the Saints of God live for ever, Therefore they live by Faith for ever. All the gifts of God be without repentance, Faith is the gift of God, Therefore without repentance. That which continueth unto the end and is made perfect cannot finally fall always, 
Perficiet usque ad finem bonum Phil. 2. Fides est opus Dei. joh. 6. Ambr. 2. Cor. 6. Aug. in joh. Tract. 106. col. 513.  But Faith continueth unto the end and is made perfect, Therefore it cannot finally fall away. See what the Fathers say, Neque fides vera est si non sit perpetua, sed possit deficere, Neither is Faith true Faith except it be perpetual and cannot fall away. Credere verè est credere inconcussè, firmè, stabiliter, & fortiter: To believe truly is to believe without wavering, firmly, steadfastly, and strongly.  I. D. 
There is a little triobolar pamphlet commonly called Baxters Logic, the Author whereof I think you esteem as skilful in that Art as ever was Zeno or Aristotle himself. Though I could never find in my heart to lose an hour or twain in perusing it, yet I persuade myself no man can better resolve you in what mood and figure this Syllogism was borne. But if not satisfied herewith you will needs know my opinion also, thus I think without all figure it was borne in a peevish mood. For it is fare from my thought and purpose to maintain that Whatsoever our Brethren of Germany hold is true, or that Faith once infused can either finally or totally fall away: and if you were not either desperately impudent, or brutishly ignorant, you would not so have forced my words, and obtruded such unreasonable reasons upon me. For thus I argue, Our Brethren of Germany may be saved, yet they have not this Assurance, Ergo, some that have not this Assurance may be saved. The Mayor is grounded upon the judgement of Charity, and the censure of God's Church calling and counting them Brethren. Such is the judgement of Beza, Sadeel, jewel, 
Epist. 2. ad Dudith. Posnan. Assert. conf. in notà unitatis. In Apol. and Defence of Apol. De Eccles. q. 5. c. 8. In thesi 5. On the Creed.  Whitaker, Reinolds, Perkins, and whosoever is borne within the temperate zone of Christian love, and not under the burning region of intemperate zeal, or frozen climate of uncharitableness. The Minor is thus proved, because they hold that Faith may finally and totally fall away. For whether this Position be true or false is not material in this place: only if they hold so, as questionless they do, then can they not be assured, which is my Assumption. For to be certain of Salvation, and in possibility of damnation are incompatible and cannot stand together.  
These things being so, to what end take you so much pains to show that it is not always true which some one Church holdeth, troubling the Reader with your needless Obs and Sols? and why do you allege so many Scriptures to prove that Faith cannot fail, a truth I never doubted of? For herein you do but blow the Seashore, and let fly at Sempronius when it was Titius that strake you. Neither is it a matter of any hardness or difficulty to refel the most of your arguments if I would spend time and oil about it: for like a bungling workman you have marred a good cause with ill handling. For example (to give you a little taste of your weakness this way) that we are not to tie our Faith unto the opinions of any particular Church you prove, because the contrary savoureth mightily of Popery. And yet Popery teacheth not that a particular Church cannot err, nay doth not define that the particular Church of Rome cannot err, but only alloweth that privilege unto the Catholic or Universal Church. Again, to prove that Faith cannot finally or totally fall away thus you reason, Whosoever liveth for ever liveth by Faith, But the Saints of God live for ever, Therefore they live by Faith for ever. May I not now in requital of your scoffing exclamation cry out O hominem obtusum & argumentum stupidum? For first you conclude that the Saints live by Faith, which is not the point in question. Secondly you have one term in the Conclusion not found in the premises, namely live by Faith for ever, and so your Syllogism is a mere Paralogism. Lastly, if to perfect up the Syllogism you understand the Mayor Proposition thus, Whosoever liveth for ever liveth by Faith for ever, then do I flatly deny it: for they that live for ever live only in this life by Faith, in the life to come Faith ceaseth, and then they live by vision, not by Faith. But I forbear farther to examine either these or the rest of your arguments, partly because we agree both in the general Conclusions, 
Demonax apud Plut. Apop●h.  and partly lest I prove as wise as he, who while his fellow was milking a ram-goat, held a siue under to receive the milk.  N. B. 
But you say the Germane Church holdeth it: I deny it, neither can you be able to show it, and therefore it is a great sin thus to traduce the fame of so honourable Personages. Three and those no small lights in the Church of God I will show which hold the contrary, and so leave you to the Spirit of God who work in you conversion. 
In Postill. maior in Sex-ages. in Euang. Luc. 8. de Semine.  Luther in the place before, saith, Veri auditores sunt qui Verbum Dei perpetuò retinent & fructum adferunt: They be true believers which hold fast always the Word of God (which none can do without Faith) and bring forth fruit. Brentius speaking of timeservers saith that they did never truly believe, 
In idem. Euang. In ad Eph. c. 1.  Bucer calleth that Faith which may be lost imaginem fidei & simulatam credulitotem, an image of faith and counterfeit credulity. Now you have heard these great Fathers of Germany against you, with what face can you accuse so indefinitely the Brethren of Germany of so notable an error? But I will stay your leisure to produce those German-brethrens.  I. D. 
My leisure shall you not long stay for. That many do not persevere but fall from grace, both Scripture and experience teacheth, saith Kemnitius. 
Exam. part 1. de justil  They that are most elected may become Reprobates and therefore utterly fall away, saith D. Andreas. 
Colloq. Mompelg. quaest. de Bapt. De gratiâ universali p. 26. Ib. p. 30.  David was elected, faith Heming●●s, yet indeed lost the spirit, and was made guilty of eternal wrath until he again repent. And again, As often as a sinner, saith he, although never so enormous repenteth, of a vessel of dishonour and wrath, he is made a vessel of honour and mercy: as on the contrary side whosoever is a vessel of honour and mercy, when willingly and wittingly he falls into sin, he wastes his conscience, and losing Faith becomes a vessel of wrath and dishonour. The Century-writers, 
Cent. 1. l. 2. ca 4. p. 275. & l. 1. c. 4. p. 120.  That Faith once conceived may be lost and shaken out, it is plain by sundry examples and by the sayings of Christ: and, that Faith may be lost the Apostles both by their sayings, and examples do demonstrate. Finally, the whole Church of Saxony, 
Harm. conf. incon. Sax. art. 10.  It is manifest that some that are regenerate do grieve and shake off the Holy Ghost, and are again rejected of God, and made subject to the wrath of God, and eternal punishment. Read Zanchie in his Miscellanies, and there shall you find how much trouble that that worthy man sustained in Germany among other things for gainsaying this point. For indeed this is one special Article wherein we and the Lutherans (for them I understand by Brethren of Germany) do disagree, and the ignorance thereof argues that you are little or nothing at all acquainted with the controversies that are betwixt us and them.  
But you have great Fathers of Germany against me, and can show three no small lights in God's Church which hold the contrary, even Luther, Brentius, and Bucer. First Luther was no Lutheran, and not holding all those errors which those who are called of his name defend, is not to be reckoned among them: yet thus saith he, 
In artic. small. called.  It is necessary to teach and know that when the Saints fall into manifest sins, as David did, than Faith and the Holy Ghost are lost. Brentius indeed was a rigid Lutheran, and therefore it is likely he held as the rest of his fellows do, for certainty I have none having not his writings by me. Neither doth the passage you allege out of him evince the contrary; for as Excutifidians (give me leave so to call them) distinguish, they that have true Faith in the trueness of essence or existence, may yet as they say want true Faith in the trueness of permanence or perseverance. As for Bucer he falls not within the compass of those whom I mean by the Brethren of Germany, for he was none of those whom they call Lutherans. 
In Miscell.  And yet as he is alleged by Zanchie and others for the Perpetuity of Faith, so is he vouched also by the contrary side for falling away from grace, as where he saith: They who sin against conscience by no means have a true and lively Faith. 
In Colloq. Ratisb. pag. 247.  But suppose these three were such Brethren as we speak of, yet what are they to Kemnitius, D. Andreas, Hemingius, Illyricus, Wigandus, Mathaeus judex, Basilius Faber, the whole Church of Saxony, and generally all Lutherans, who all hold as I have affirmed? And therefore I do not as you say traduce their fame, nor accuse them wrongfully of error: they themselves have diwlged and published it to the whole world in their books. And so my Assumption, that they have not Assurance remaineth hitherto in his full strength and virtue.  N. B. 
You conclude upon the premises thus, Therefore or at leastwise probably this is not justifying Faith. Dispute you positively, and conclude probably? Alas Master Down, do you preach after this manner at Cambridge to deliver definitions by Sophistry, when you should speak verè truly? It seemeth when you said so you were not persuaded that your doctrine was true, but determined contingently and probably with fine words to ensnare poor silly hearers. For when you say, Therefore or at leastwise probably, you doubted of the Truth thereof. Surely this is not to go recto pectore with an upright conscience in God's cause. 
Ammian. Marc. l. 17. Plutar. in collect.  But I hope we shall take heed of you when you preach next, seeing you mean to tell us the truth but only a probable tale. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, A wise man will eschew your snares. 
Ep. ad Bosphor.  Bis enim ad eundem lapidem impingere stulto convenit, saith Gregorius Theologus, It is the property of fools to stumble twice at one stone.  I. D. 
Why Sir is it unlawful to conclude otherwise then Apodictically? or is it Sophistry to use dialectical Syllogisms in matters of Divinity? Certainly then much to blame are all those Logicians who handle Topical Syllogisms whose matter is contingent other where then among the Elenches: and foully overseen are all writers both sacred and profane, ancient and modern, who oftentimes dispute probably, knowing that although Demonstration only do force and constrain, yet Probability doth very much bend and incline the mind. Saint Augustin did not so lightly esteem of Probable reasons: for Other writers, saith he, I so read, that how much soever they excel in holiness and learning, 
Ep. 19 ad Hieron.  I do not therefore think any thing to be true because they judge so, but because they persuade me either by those Canonical Authors, or by probable reason not abhorring from truth. Bellarmine upbraiding Illyricus for his Conjectures is thus answered by learned junius, 
Contrà Bell. de transl. impl. 1. c. 11.  Be not so hot I pray you against humane conjectures: In a word whether we would modestly show our own opinion, or refel another's, we deal humanely saying it is a conjecture, but to upbraid humane conjectures is mere inhumanity. 
Dan. Cham. de oecum. Pont.  Nay Daniel Chamier a very learned late writer in his book de oecumenico Pontifice doth professedly distinguish his arguments into Scripture, Conjecture, and Testimony: and will you therefore say of him as you do unto me, that he doubted of the truth of his cause, determined to ensnare poor silly Readers, and walked not recto pectore with an upright conscience? 
Rejoinder to Brist. reply.  But so it is (I use the very words of D. Fulk being almost in the same terms cavilled withal by blundering Bristol) When you can say nothing against my assertion yourself, you would make me uncertain of it, and say that it is but a light suspicion of mine, because in one place before I come to the sound proof of it I say it is a probable conjecture. And doth it follow therefore that I doubt of it because I offer a probable conjecture unto other men's understanding before by order of discourse I am brought to the manifest probation of it?  
Well yet if Probable like you not, those that follow are Necessary, and I fear me you will be able to say little to them that leave this without answer, and the weaker the argument the more disgrace to be gravelled by it. But my purpose in using both, was for the more strength and persuasion: for as Pindar saith, It is the surest and safest way in a tempestuous night to cast out of the ship two anchors. 
Olymp. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 6.   Treatise. 
2. Arg. That which is in time after justifying Faith cannot be that Faith; This is undeniable. But this Particular knowledge is in time after that Faith. This I prove out of 1 joh. 5.13. These things have I written unto you that believe in the name of the Son of God, that ye may know that ye have Eternal life. Behold Believing goes before and Knowledge comes after. As for that which followeth in the same verse, and that ye may believe, I interpret it of Perseverance and growth in Faith. Howsoever Believing and Knowing are here distinguished, and therefore are not all one.  N. B. 
I deny your Minor: neither doth that place of S. john help you ought as we shall see anon. I tell you that justifying Faith is a Particular Knowledge, though in other terms by us used, and by the Scripture set down. So that where you say, a man first believeth and then knoweth, we say he believeth, that is, he particularly knoweth, apprehendeth, and applieth Christ to himself perpetually and lively to his salvation. So that Believing and particular knowing himself to be elected are one: and that it is this knowledge thus I argue.  I. D. 
Before you come to bestow a word or two upon the Minor which you deny, you think it good like a cunning and subtle disputer flatly to deny the Conclusion, and peremptorily to avouch the Contradictory unto it, & then very prodigally to waste a multitude of words in the proof thereof. A marvellous policy I promise you utterly disabling me from farther replying: for as much as Logic itself gives no precept how a man may reply upon him who denies the Conclusion, and taking the Contradictory thereof as granted goes about thereby to disprove the Premises. For so do you when you say Faith is a knowledge, and therefore goes not afore knowledge: my reason being contrarily framed thus, Faith goes before knowledge, therefore is not knowledge. Doubtless had you not had the heart of Zenodotus, 
Martial.  and the liver of Crates, as the Poet saith, you could never have stumbled upon so politic a devise. But let us hear your reasons.  N. B. 
What soever justifieth a man is Faith: 
Darij Esa. 53.11.  But particular knowledge justifieth a man, Therefore particular knowledge is Faith. I prove the Minor out of the Scripture, By the knowledge of himself, saith the Lord, shall my righteous servant justify many. Lo M. Down here the knowledge of Christ justifieth a man, and is the same in effect and working that Faith is, and therefore are they both one, which you make to be twain by distinction and original. Your speech helpeth Bellarmine that saith Faith may be rather in ignorantiá implicitâ in an ignorance couched, then in explicitâ cognition a discovered knowledge. 
Tom. 3. de iustif. l. 5. c. 7.   I. D. 

jud. 14.18.  Seeing here you blow with my heifer (as Samson sometime said unto the Philistines) how is it that you read not my riddle also? I mean having borrowed this Objection from my Treatise, why take you not from thence the answer also? Surely that you urge the one so eagerly, and so diligently suppress the other, I know no cause but this you knew not how to reply unto it: and therefore I will by your favour repeat the same again, until you find out some forcible reason to drive me from it. The verbs of under standing and sense in the Hebrew tongue signify not only the acts of them, but of the will and affections also. So Psal. 1.6. the Lord knoweth the way of the righteous: And, Depart, I know you not: And I will not hear, see, etc. that is, God will not so know, hear, see, as to love, and approve. And so may I interpret that of the Prophet, Christ being so known as to be embraced and rested on by the will shall justify many. Add now, that it is neither necessary nor likely your Particular knowledge should be here meant: for the Object of the Prophet's knowledge is no other than Christ, but the Object of your knowledge is your own self, or, your present state in grace and future Salvation. And what a senseless speech do you put into the mouth of the Prophet? for by your gloss it is as if he should say My righteous servant by making many to know that they are already justified shall bring many unto that which already they have namely justification. But Esay had in him both the Spirit of Wisdom and the Tongue of Eloquence, and therefore pardon me if I cannot think he used to speak nonsense like you.  
Where you say my speech helpeth Bellarmine who saith Faith may be rather in ignorantiâ implicitâ, in an ignorance couched, then in explicitâ cognition, a discovered knowledge; First, Bellarmine hath no such words, neither I think did he ever dream of an implicit or couched ignorance. Of an implicit Faith we have often heard, and of a rude and confused apprehension the jesuit in the place by you quoted speaketh: but an implicit ignorance was never yet heard of, and what meaning it may have for my part I cannot see. 
De iustif. lib. 1. ca 7.  Bellarmine's right words are these, Faith is better defined by ignorance then knowledge: which saying of his how my speech helpeth I would you had taken a little more pains to make it manifest. For, whence and how you should collect it I cannot tell, except perhaps it be thus, I say that Faith is not a knowledge; Ergo, I say also it is an ignorance. I answer therefore secondly, that Bellarmine and I, speak not of the same Faith, for he speaketh of Faith of Story, and I of Faith of Person: so that when I say Faith of Person is not a knowledge I cannot help him who saith Faith of Story is not a knowledge. For, as for Faith of Story you cannot be ignorant that contrary unto Bellarmine in my Treatise, I have called it a General knowledge, so fare am I from defining it by ignorance with him. And yet I would have you to know also, that when I say Faith of Story is a knowledge, I mean not thereby Science of Conclusions acquired and gotten by demonstrative proof out of such principles as are of themselves known and evident. For how can a man by the light of natural reason aspire to the knowledge of that which is supernatural and above reason? But I understand an explicit and distinct apprehension of the necessary Articles of Faith, opposite unto that brutish ignorance which Papists call implicit Faith and Blind obedience: which distinct apprehension Bellarmine in the place before alleged denieth necessarily to be required unto Faith. Farthermore I would fain know how this follows, Faith is not knowledge, Ergo, it is Ignorance: for by the same reason you may conclude, Faith is not Hope, Ergo, it is Despair; or thus, Earth is not fire, Ergo, it is water, and so by your creation all things in the world shall be one of two, fire or water. 
Metaph. 12.  But you should remember that simple negation is positive of nothing, and that Privations are reduced unto that subject whereunto their Habits do belong: whence it followeth that denying Faith to be in the Understanding and so to be knowledge, I deny it also to be Ignorance.  N. B. 
Again, whatsoever bringeth life eternal bringeth justification and is Faith: But true knowledge of jesus Christ bringeth life eternal, Therefore true knowledge of jesus Christ bringeth justification and is Faith. The Minor I prove out of the Words of Christ in S. john, 
joh. 17.3. Mel. & Pez. Arg. Theol. p. 3. notitia Es. 53. significat. non solum agnitionem personae & beneficiorum Christised etiam fiduciam quiescentem in Christo sicuti & joh. 17.  This is life eternal to know thee to be the only true Lord, and him to be jesus Christ whom thou hast sent into the world. The Mayor is plain, whatsoever apprehendeth that last which is life Eternal, apprehendeth the former, as election and justification etc. But the knowledge of Christ apprehendeth eternal life, Therefore it apprehendeth justification. But hence it followeth, whatsoever apprehendeth justification is Faith, True knowledge of Jesus Christ apprehendeth justification, Therefore true knowledge of Christ is Faith, and so consequently and conversively Faith is knowledge, and this knowledge is Faith. 
joh. 19.25. Eph. 3.14.15.16.17.18. 1 Cor. 13.  And by this means Particular knowledge cometh not in time after faith, but is Faith, and is knowledge in the beginning, & in proceeding is knowledge, and in the end is knowledge.  I. D. 
The Mayor of your first Syllogism that whatsoever bringeth life eternal bringeth justification I deny. You say it is plain because whatsoever apprehendeth the last such as is eternal life, apprehendeth the former also which is justification. But first, what rule of Logic allows you thus to shift terms, and to turn bringing of life and justification into apprehending life and justification? For, howsoever you seem to use them indifferently, yet are they words of different significations: and therefore confounding them thus you make not so much the truth of the Mayor plain, as obscure the meaning thereof. Again, choose whether of these terms you please, yet is it palpably false that Whatsoever bringeth or apprehendeth the last, bringeth and apprehendeth also the former. Rhetoric brings a man to speak eloquently which is the latter: yet it is Grammar not Rhetoric that brings a man to speak congruè which is the former. Physic brings a man to the faculty of curing diseases which is the latter: yet brings not to the knowledge of the nature of things; for that belongs unto the natural Philosopher, and according to the old saying, where the Physiologer ends, there the Physician gins. So also in divine matters, Hope apprehends eternal life which is the latter, for it is the proper object about which it is occupied: it apprehendeth not justification which is the former, for then by your rule it should be Faith itself, that being faith as you say which apprehends justification. As therefore when divers needles are by the Loadstone trained one after another, the virtue of the stone moveth the first, the first the second, and so of the rest, but the third or second is no way the cause of the dependency of the first: so in the concatenation of the causes of our salvation reckoned up by the Apostle, to wit Election, 
Rom. 8.30.  Vocation, justification, Glorification, the former are movers as it were unto the latter, but not the latter unto the former. The reason of all in a word is this, because as I have already showed, more is required unto the main end, then unto the subordinate means: and therefore seeing salvation is the end, justification the means, not whatsoever is requisite unto that is presently necessary unto this.  
The Minor that true knowledge of jesus Christ bringeth eternal life, I also deny. For Particular assurance (which is the knowledge you must here understand, or else you conclude not to the purpose) bringeth not eternal life, in as much as a man may be saved without it, as we have already sufficiently proved. Neither do the words of Christ in S. john verify your Minor: 
joh. 17.3.  for by knowledge there he meaneth not your particular assurance and persuasion by which a man knows he is justified & shall be saved: but such a knowledge of Christ and his Gospel as is mingled with faith, and worketh our wills to accept of jesus Christ for our only mediator. And this knowledge is said to be eternal life, not because every one that barely and nakedly knows lives eternally (for as we have showed Reprobates and Devils have Historical Faith) but partly, because no man can live without it, partly because by it the Spirit of God worketh in the Elect that Faith by which they are justified and so come to eternal life.  
But what say I unto the Minor delivered in other terms, thus, Knowledge of Christ apprehendeth eternal life? I say first, it is not the same Proposition, because the terms are changed, neither are they equipollent. Secondly, I grant it to be true, whether you mean by knowledge Dogmatic Faith or Particular assurance: for by the one do we apprehend that there is an eternal life, by the other that we have special interest in it. Well then, if it apprehendeth eternal life doth it not follow that therefore also it apprehendeth justification? No, by no means: for as we have above demonstrated, it is not necessary that that which apprehendeth the latter should apprehend the former also. And yet though I disallow the consequence, the consequent I readily yield you, that Particular knowledge apprehendeth justification: for so have we defined Faith of promise to be a persuasion or assurance that the promise of God made in Christ, to wit justification, remission of sins, adoption, regeneration, finally, election itself and eternal salvation do particularly pertain unto me and are mine. What gather you now of this? Ergo, say you, it is justifying Faith. How so? Because whatsoever apprehendeth justification is justifying Faith. Nay contrarily whatsoever apprehendeth justification it not justifying Faith: for apprehension followeth justification, no man apprehending himself to be justified until he be justified, but justifying Faith is in nature before justification, that being the cause and this the effect. And therefore unless you will say that that which followeth is that which goeth before, you cannot say that that which apprehendeth justification is that which justifieth.  
To conclude therefore neither is Faith knowledge nor knowledge Faith, but particular knowledge for aught you have yet said or can say cometh in time after Faith. But whereas finally you infer that Faith is knowledge in the beginning, knowledge in proceeding, knowledge in the end, besides that the foundation upon which it is grounded is untrue it is clean contrary also to that which erewhile you affirmed, that Faith is but one, compounded of my three nice distinctions, the first being the beginning, the second the progress, the third the end. For the third is Faith of Person, and in the Will, and is by your confession there the end of Faith, yet here you say faith is knowledge in the end: which things how they can stand together I see not, unless you will say that knowledge is in the Will and so confound the faculties and operations of the soul.  N. B. 

In joh. 1. Ep. c. 5. to. 13.  The place of Saint john by you cited to prove your Minor in your argument maketh nothing for you: because the Apostle speaketh of their increase of knowledge, and not of the original begetting of knowledge, and so saith M. Caluin.  I. D. 
The text in the clearest terms that may be distinguisheth between Believing and knowing, and unto that giveth the priority before this: but your gloss confoundeth their natures, and saith that the Apostle here speaketh only of increase of knowledge. woe to the gloss that corrupteth the text: for if this be S. john's meaning, it is as if he should say, I writ unto you that know that ye are justified & have eternal life, that ye may increase in knowing that ye have eternal life, and that ye may know ye are justified and have eternal life, which how unworthy it is the pen of an Apostle every one easily seethe. But Caluin you say interpreteth the place as you do. Be it so: yet is it not the name of Caluin how venerable soever that may sway this matter. For seeing I profess to differ from him in the definition of justifying Faith, he defining it by knowledge, I by Affiance: you may not think it unreasonable, if in this point, and the explication of such scriptures as may seem to concern it, I desire rather to be pressed with his reasons, then borne down with his authority. But what saith Caluin? Because there ought to be daily proceed in Faith, therefore he writes to them that believe already, that they may more firmly, and certainly believe. Whereunto I willingly assent, if you apply it as Beza in his annotations doth unto the last clause of the verse, and that ye may believe: for then the meaning without forcing or constraining the words will be as if he should say, I writ unto you that believe that believing ye may know ye have eternal life, & knowing the same may constantly persevere and proceed on in Believing. For as the clouds pour down rain to moisten the earth, and the earth moistened sendeth up vapours again to make clouds: so likewise Faith begets Assurance, and Assurance being gotten doth again confirm and strengthen faith. And thus do the Century-writers expound this place, 
Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 4. p. 276.  gathering from it that Cetainty of Salvation is an Effect of Faith and so evidently distinguishing knowledge from Faith.  Treatise. 
3. Arg. That which in nature comes after justification cannot be justifying Faith. This appears because Faith is the Efficient Instrumental cause of justification: and every Efficient by the rule of Logic is in nature before the Effect. But this knowledge or assurance is in nature after justification, Ergo, it is not Faith.  N. B. 
Your Minor is very false, and so proved by my former arguments. For particular knowledge and assurance of our salvation is not in nature after Faith, but is Faith and wholly infused by the Spirit of God, and begotten by hearing of the Word preached, and cometh to act by degrees according to the measure of grace given of God. For it is in Habitu sometime & not in actu, 
Faith habitual in power, actual in the deed of believing.  as when one sleepeth his belief is not in actu, and yet he liveth unto God by his faith which liveth powerfully in him though not actually.  I. D. 
The Mayor of my Syllogism is undeniable, because as I have said Faith is the cause of justification. For as D. Fulke saith unto Bristol excluding it from Efficient causes, 
Rejoinder to Bristol. p. 172.  Seeing Scripture often affirmeth that God worketh in us by Faith, faith must needs be an instrumental efficient when you have said all that you can, except you will teach us new Grammar and Logic. The Minor therefore you say is very false, and so proved by your former arguments. But those arguments are already answered, and thus I prove the Minor. For as for the rest of your idle and wild talk touching the infusion, begetting, degrees, habit, act of Faith, I willingly pass over, lest pursuing you in this course I seem to run riot and play the wanton with you.  Treatise. 
The truth of a Proposition is always in nature before the knowledge of the truth: for Propositions are not therefore true, because they are known so, but they are first true and known so. Therefore this Proposition, I know I am justified, spoken by one that is justified, must needs presuppose the party before to be justified.  N. B. 
O. O. O. O. O.  I. D. 
What mum Master Baxtar? Hath Sigalion now instantly sealed up your lips that you cannot, or are you suddenly become a professed Pythagorean that you may not speak? For me thinks you that have been so vocal and wasteful of your breath in so many impertinent and frivolous excursions, should not now be so sparing and niggardly of a word or twain upon so necessary a point. But the truth is the argument is unanswerable and invincible, and therefore you held it better to say nothing, and slily to pass it over, then to mar all by saying nothing to the purpose. Which course if you had also used in the rest of this disputation, you should have saved this scribbling labour, and I had received virgin paper from you. And so, as Galba in the judgement of all might have been thought worthy of the empire if he had not been Emperor: 
Tacit. 1. Hist.  you also in the opinion of some might have been counted able to write if you had not written. But now that after so much loudness and clamourousnesse you are become so dumb and silent, it argues that though ability fail, yet will should not have been wanting, unless the evidence of truth had perforce made up your mouth. And so construeing your silence to be in this point no less than plain yielding, I pass on to the next argument.  Treatise. 
4. Arg. In conditional Promises there can be no Assurance of the thing promised before the performance of the condition. v. g. This is a conditional Promise in the covenant of works, Do this and thou shalt live, Life is promised but on condition of Doing: and therefore until we have performed the condition, we may not look that God should be reciprocal and give us Life. Now in the Covenant of Grace, justification is promised, but upon condition of Faith: so saith the Scripture, Believe and thy sins shall be forgiven thee. Therefore the condition of Believing must first be performed before we can assure ourselves our sins are forgiven. If so, then Faith going before, and Assurance following after, Assurance cannot be justifying Faith.  N. B. 
I deny your Minor and say, there may be an Assurance of Salvation in some measure, before there can be the performance of Faith actual in the highest measure: Therefore your Minor is utterly false. For Faith in his true defined state is a firm Assurance and Persuasion, and a firm Assurance and Persuasion is, Faith, and both the Greek and Hebrew words signifieth Faith (before cited) do declare. Yea this Assurance is given unto us together with the hearing of the Word of God Habitualiter, and will show itself Actualiter in due time, and therefore sometime is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and sometime is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the first in the beginning, the next in the Lords due time, and this can never be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but secundùm magis or minùs shall externas vel internas exerere vires, show forth his forces either within man or without.  I. D. 
To make all plain, my argument reduced into the right form standeth thus, That which goeth before justification is not that which follows after justification: But Faith goeth before justification and Assurance follows after, Ergo, Faith is not Assurance. The Minor of this Syllogism is that which you deny affirming it to be utterly false, and you confirm it to be so by this reason, There may be Assurance of Salvation in some measure before there can be Performance of Faith Actual in the highest measure, Ergo, Faith goeth not before Assurance, nor doth Assurance follow after Faith. The Antecedent of which Enthymeme I grant, for as much as there may be Assurance in this life, but not the performance of Faith actual in the highest measure, we here Believing only in part, as the Apostle saith. But if hereupon it follow, Therefore Faith goeth not before Assurance, it will also follow, Faith goeth not before Charity or good works, because Charity and good works may be in some measure, before Faith actual be in the highest measure: or thus, The elder Son is not borne before the younger, because the younger may wax as tall as a Pygmy before the elder be grown to the stature of a Giant. Which Consequences if they be absurd and ridiculous, as absurd and ridiculous is it to infer that Faith cannot be before Assurance, because Assurance may be in some measure before Faith be in the highest measure. Nay fare better doth it follow from hence against yourself that Faith is not Assurance, nor Assurance Faith. For if as you expressly say Assurance may be in a lower measure when Faith is in a higher, how can they possibly differing so in degrees but be differing things? For although it be true that more and less do not diversify the kind, yet is it as true that the same individual quality cannot at the same time be both intended and remitted, no more than the same string in a Lute can at once be strained up, and let down, and yield at the same time both a base and triple sound.  
In the residue of this Section, you show yourself to be one of those idle Orators of whom Quintilian speaketh, 
Inst. Orat. l. 11.  who never regard where the point or issue of the Question lieth, so they may besides the cause, either from the persons or out of some common place find occasion of declaiming. 
Lib. 6. Epig. 19  Such as was Postumus the Advocate in Marshal, who being entertained to plead the cause of one who had three Goats stolen from him by his neighbour left the proof of this, and fell a discoursing of the battle of Cannae, of the Mithridatike and Carthaginian wars, and other such impertinent matters. But never was there any offended more notoriously in this kind than you, all those speeches are nothing else but extravagances and by-matters. For I pray you, how doth it concern my argument to talk of the origination of Faith in Greek and Hebrew, how Assurance is given, how it shows itself, of Oligopistie, plerophory, and Apostasy, of the intention and remission of it, and finally of the inward and outward forces thereof? Surely, 
De arte Poet.  as much as a Cypres-tree concerns a table of shipwreck as Horace speaketh. And therefore give me leave to pluck you by the ear, and to say unto you as did the poor Client unto his Lawyer above named, Now I pray thee, Postume, say some thing at length touching my three Goats.  N. B. 
Where it pleaseth you to make remission of sins a Promise upon a Condition, I tell you with all the Church of God in all ages it is rather an encouragement to believe assuredly in Christ, as if he should say, Thy sins be forgiven thee, therefore be of good comfort, that both the former and latter, to wit forgiveness of sins and Belief might be ascribed to the mercy of God.  I. D. 
The Minor which in the former section you denied, namely that Faith goes before justification and Assurance follows after, in my Treatise I thus proved, because justification is promised upon condition of Believing: and seeing in Conditional promises there can be no Assurance of the thing promised before the performance of the Condition, therefore in this promise we must Believe before we can be justified, and be justified before we can be assured we are justified. Now to this you say it is rather an encouragement, than a Promise upon condition: as if it were impossible that Promise upon condition might be an encouragement. Whereas me thinks a General doth greatly encourage his Soldiers when he promiseth unto them preferment and reward upon condition of some piece of service well performed. 
1 Cron. 11.6.  And joab peradventure would not have been so forward and venturous in the battle unless David had promised the office of chief Captain upon condition of smiting the jebusites.  
But you have reasons for your saying more than a good many: for here like another Tertullian every word almost you speak is a Demonstration. First all the Church of God in all ages affirmeth with you: and yet as shall plentifully appear in the next Section, the Church of God never understood but that Remission of sins was promised upon condition of Faith. But as Anaxagoras when he was driven to his shifts and could not find out the reason of some things, was wont to say it was the doing of Nous: even so when you have boldly affirmed that which you can by no means prove, it is your manner desperately to avouch that it is the saying of the Church. Secondly, you say this speech, Believe and thy sins shall be forgiven thee is all one with this, Thy sins be forgiven thee, therefore be of good comfort. Which happily we may think not to be altogether so witless, if also you can persuade us that a Physician saying unto his Patient, Use carefully the course of Physic I shall prescribe unto you, and you shall surely recover of your sickness, meaneth thereby no other than as if he should say, Be of good cheer, for thou art already recovered of thy sickness. Lastly, by this means, you say both the former and the latter, to wit Forgiveness of sins and Belief may be ascribed to the mercy of God. As if Promise of Remission of sins upon condition of Faith were any way derogatory unto the Mercy of God, but that both the one and the other may this notwithstanding be ascribed thereunto. For if when God out of his sovereign authority commandeth to Believe, it be nevertheless of his grace that we can and do Believe, according to that of S. Augustin, Give what thou commandest, and command what thou wilt: why when out of his mercy he promiseth Forgiveness if we do Believe, should it not be ascribed unto the same his mercy that we do perform the condition and Believe? But who knows the salt that is in you? 
Eupolis.  You are the only Pericles of this age, Suada sits upon your lips, and you alone leave a sting behind you. For had it not been for this threefold cord of yours, I could never so easily have been drawn from this truth.  N. B. 
Farthermore where you bring for the confirmation of your Minor (to prove justification to be conditional with the Papists) this place of Math. cap. 9 v. 2. 
M. Downes falsehood, in citing, construing and adding, to the Scripture.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Confide fili, remissa sunt tibi peccata tua, Be of good comfort Son thy sins be forgiven thee: you wrist it first to tell us that Christ said to him, Thy sins be forgiven thee if thou wilt be of good comfort, which is false, and no part of Christ's meaning, but rather the contrary, bidding the man sick of the Palsy be of good comfort, because his sins (being the cause of his disease) were forgiven him. 
Tom. 9 in Mat. In Mat. c. 9  This could Saint Hierome have told you, yea chrysostom and Master Caluin, Erasmus, and the Greek Scholiast. But what may we expect will be the sequel of this, if you be not hindered in your course? Well you have a mind to do mischief, but you want power as spoke Plutarch to one, 
Harm. in Mat. 9 Archidamus Zeuxidis filius in Plut. M. Down falsely translating the Greek text.  and so I Hope shall. The second point which I challenge you in is false translating of the Greek text, contrary to the words themselves, and all the world for 1600. years. You translate Mat. 9 v. 2. Crede fili & remittentur tibi peccata tua, Son believe, and then thy sins shall be forgiven thee, when you should have said with Saint Hierome, Ambrose, Beda, Caluin, Beza, Erasm. and the Church of England, Son be of good comfort, thy sins be already forgiven thee. The Greek word can by no means signify to Believe, but rather to be confident or Bold, to trust to, and not to Believe in, as Opibus confidere, Cicero, to trust to his riches, not to believe in his riches, to assure myself that they shall benefit me, not to believe in them as my God to save me. Beside the Greek word to Believe, is fare off another name and nature. Again by what authority do you translate, Thy sins shall be forgiven thee, when you should say, thy sins are forgiven thee? Have you any commission in contemptum omnium Grammaticorum, to change tenses also, as you take upon you under pretence of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to coin Distinctions? But I may easily spy your drift: you would needs parget your rotten cause and miserable Minor with this untempered mortar. Well, all the Scholars in our country will think the worse of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as long as they live for this trick. 
M. Down addeth to the Scripture.  But what intolerable impudence is this and beyond all the rest to add the word or conjunction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, &, and, to the Scripture, saying (by your commission 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) Believe Son and then thy sins shall be forgiven thee. Quite contrary is this to your knowledge, and conscience. 
Apoc. 22.  Bethink you therefore what a fearful judgement you incur, and crave mercy at the hand of God while you have time, confess your error and cancel your commission, so shall you have the Church your Mother, and her Children your Brethren and friends.  I. D. 
That which in the former section you spoke but lispingly, here you deliver more plainly and articularly: for there you say it is rather an encouragement, but now you affirm peremptorily they are none but Papists that hold justification to be conditional, to such extremities & straits am I driven that I am fain to borrow aid and assistance of the common adversary. But if I be mistaken herein I hope I shall the more easily find pardon, because they of whom I learned it seemed unto me to be no Papists, and were commonly taken for very good Protestants. Christ, saith Beza, 
Conf. c. 4. 9 4.  is offered unto us to be possessed of us with this condition if we do believe in him. On that condition, saith Vrsinus, 
In Catechismoq de Euang.  is Christ's righteousness made ours, if we receive it: Now that receiving is the work and act of Faith alone. The condition of Faith, saith Hemingius, 
Syntag. de Euang. Art. 30. Cent. 1. l. 1. c. 4. p. 93.  is required that the benefit may be applied, that is remission of sins. The law, say the Century-writers, hath the Promise with condition of Doing and fulfilling it: the Gospel hath the free Promise with condition of Believing and receiving it by Faith. That saith Master Fox, 
De Christo gratis iustif. p. 237. 244.  which properly we inquire is for what cause or reason Salvation and Pardon of sins is promised, whether upon some condition or none at all: And that the Promise is made upon no condition no man I think will say, wherefore it remains of necessity we acknowledge some condition, and that is Faith. 
In Camp. 8. Rat.  In the Law, saith Whitaker, the condition was hard which no man could satisfy, but Christ propounds unto us a more easy condition, Believe and thou shalt be saved. 
Against Sanders cavil on the Lord's supper. p. 424. De iustif. l. 1. c. 12. Ter. Eun. Act. 2. Sc. 11.  God's promises, saith Fulke, require the condition of Faith in them that shall obtain them. Finally Cardinal Bellarmine who hitherto hath ever been esteemed no mean Papist reports this to be the confession of all his adversaries, and that they cannot deny it, That remission of sins is promised upon condition of Faith. But Lord what odds and difference there is between simple folk and intelligent persons! For unless you had told it me I had never known that Beauties' adversaries were Papists, nor that these men whom I have named had been wolves in sheepskins. Neither did I until now understand what you meant when you charged me with Popery, and speaking pure Papist: your meaning I see was, that I spoke right as Beza, Vrsinus, Hemingius, the Century-Writers, Fox, Whitaker, Fulke, and all the rest of that rank use to do.  
For confirmation of my Minor, and to prove justification to be conditional, I bring, as you say, that place of Math. Be of good comfort Son thy sins be forgiven thee. In handling whereof you tell me farther, first that I wrist the text and falsify the meaning thereof, then that I translate the Greek falsely and contrary to the words themselves and all the world for 1600 years, lastly that most impudently and quite contrary to knowledge and conscience, I add unto the Scripture. Telling me moreover that I have a mind to do mischief, but want power, that I contemn all Grammar, and parget a rotten cause with untempered mortar, and therefore must needs incur fearful judgement, if in time I crave not mercy at the hand of God. Thus, Master Baxter, like Saint George a horse back you fight with a painted dragon, and feigning monsters to yourself set upon them with such Herculean impetuousness and fury, as if you would amaze simple people with your great puissance & powers: and then as if you had flaild to powder your true adversary as well as your imaginary and strawen enemy, you give forth most terrible menaces and threats, that folk henceforward may not dare to meddle with your mother's son more. For where I pray you do you find this passage of S. Matthew quoted by me? and unless you had resolved by falsehood and forgery to maintain this quarrel against me, with what face could you father the allegation of it upon me? No Sir, I did not so much as dream of that place: only I say in general that the Scriptures make this to be the tenor of the Evangelicall promise Believe and thy sins shall be forgiven thee, 
joh. 3.10.  little thinking that you who would be counted a Master in Israel had been ignorant of a doctrine so evident and fundamental. For that so it is let these few texts be carefully considered, Believe in the Lord jesus and thou shalt be saved and thine household; 
Act. 16.31. Act. 10.23.  That through his Name all that believe in him shall receive remission of sins: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have eternal life: 
joh. 3.15.16. Rom. 10.9. Gal. 3.22.  If thou believe thou shalt be saved: That the promise of jesus Christ should be given to them that believe. To these few I might easily add six hundred more, all which although not in precise form of words, yet in virtue and meaning are all one with this Believe and thy sins shall be forgiven thee: and from them do all Divines gather that the Promise of the Gospel is not absolute but conditional, if we Believe as is above plentifully declared. Which being so, you show yourself in this Thrasonical and swaggering section to be too-too base and recreant, utterly void both of forehead and conscience: otherwise you would not first so palpably and desperately have belied me, and then so impudently and uncivilly revel upon me. Though you deserve it, yet will I not cast back the dirt you here throw at me again into your own face, I shall but defile my hands in so doing: rather will I as Saint Bernard counselleth; Break the arrows of contumely upon the shield of Patience, 
Ser. 40. de modo benè vivendi.  and hold forth the buckler of a good conscience against the sword of your malicious tongue.  
But albeit I intended not, nor aimed at this place of Matthew, as being every way unsufficient to prove that justification is promised upon condition of Faith: yet is it not so abhorring from my purpose, but that it may afford at least a probable proof for my main conclusion. For. Beza in his annotations on Mark. 2.5. doth us to wit that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be translated imperatively, thus, Be thy sins pardoned; as if it were in the third person plural of the Coniunctive mood (which Diomedes called the Mandative mood) for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith Eustathius, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used by Homer for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The reason why it may thus be turned is, because the Scribes understood Christ, as if he himself had actually forgiven the Palsie-man his sins, as appeareth in the sixth and seventh verses, which they could not so have conceived if he had only told him that his sins were forgiven him. Now if this be the right translation, what say you to this argument. The Palsie-man first believed (for so it is said) When jesus saw their Faith, meaning as well the Faith of the sick man as of them that brought him) and then after Christ forgave his sins, Ergo, Faith goes before Remission: But Assurance, as we have showed, follows after Remission, Ergo, it is not Faith. But you will follow the ordinary translation. I give you good leave, for I take it to be the truest: yet from thence also thus I argue, The Palsy man believed, yet was not assured his sins were forgiven him till Christ told him so much, for otherwise what needed Christ to tell him what he knew already, Ergo, Assurance is not Faith.  Treatise. 
That from whence follows a blasphemous absurdity cannot be a truth, for from truth nought but truth can be concluded: But from this, that Faith is Assurance such an absurdity doth follow. What is that? That God commands to Believe an untruth, and to be assured of that which never shall be. For God being truth cannot command falsehood to be taken for truth. Neither tell me here of who art thou that disputest with God? For this is a ruled case in Divinity, God cannot do things which imply contradiction, and therefore not make untruth to be truth, or knowledge error. Now that this absurdity follows from thence thus I demonstrate. God commands the Reprobate to believe: for, for unbelief the world shall be condemned. But no condemnation but for breach of a commandment, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and therefore they are commanded to Believe. I ask you then what it is to believe? You will say, to know to be assured. Therefore God commands the Reprobates to know and to be assured. But this is a blasphemous absurdity, therefore is your opinion absurd which infers it.  N. B. 
Two things in this argument are between us to be discussed: First, whether it be a blasphemous absurdity, to hold that God commandeth a reprobate, to believe that he shall be saved. You affirm it, I deny it. Secondly, whether in this point God commandeth a Reprobate to believe an untruth, when he commandeth a reprobate to believe and he shall be saved. You affirm it, I deny it.  I. D. 
That it is a blasphemous absurdity to say that God commands Reprobates to know and to be assured, that they are already justified and shall be saved, I have indeed affirmed, and I think have also sufficiently confirmed. But that God should command a Reprobate to believe an untruth if he command him to believe and he shall be saved, I never yet affirmed. What then? This that, He should command him to believe an untruth, if he command him, to believe that he is justified and shall be saved. A small difference will you say between And, and That. So was there betwixt Shibboleth and Sibboleth, 
jude. 12.6.  yet enough to discern an enemy from a friend. For this proposition, Believe and thou shalt be saved is hypothetical and Conditional, as if it were said in other terms, If thou believe thou shalt be saved: But this, Believe and assure thyself that thou shalt be saved is categorical and Absolute excluding all Condition. Now that God, commands all both Elect and Reprobate to Believe in the Lord jesus, and promises unto them justification and Salvation conditionally if they Believe, I grant: but that he commands the Reprobate absolutely to know and assure himself, that he is already justified, and shall hereafter be saved and glorified, I constantly deny. Which yet your opinion that Faith is an Assurance necessarily infers, and therefore cannot be true. This matter being thus cleared, let us now bring your answers to the balance and weigh them.  N. B. 
First, therefore I answer, 
Mat. 16.15.16.  God cammandeth all men to Believe the Gospel to be saved, and therefore the Reprobates. If you demand why he commandeth them to believe that which never shall be, I answer, So it pleased him: So answereth jesus Christ the Son of God, Math. 11. v. 26. Now go, Master Downe and dispute with jesus Christ, and tell him, that his Father delivereth a blsphemous absurdity. Search not too fare into the counsels of God, lest you be overwhelmed of his Majesty: reverence his doctrine, if you cannot understand it, for who is able to search out the reason of his ways and counsels, Rom. 11. seeing they be like a great deep?  I. D. 
No, Master Baxter, it is not for dust and ashes to contend with the Creator of all things: nor for base clay to enter disputation with so glorious a Majesty. Whatsoever that eternal truth speaketh, I reverence and adore, and dare not presume to search a higher reason of his actions then his will, knowing full well that his will is the prime rule and cause of justice, and therefore that it is both folly to seek a former than the first, and impiety to subject Gods will unto some extrinsecall director. But yet with you who (as I take it) are made of no better moulds than myself, and are not exempted from those humane infirmities, whereunto the rest of your brethren are subject, I hope I may be bold to enter argument and to hold disputation, as in other matters, so touching this present question also. To you therefore this I say that, God doth indeed command the reprobate to believe unto salvation, and yet never shall he believe nor be saved. The cause hereof I know to be God's will, and am content with all lowliness and humility to say with Christ, 
Mat. 11.26.  Even so O Father because thy good pleasure was such. But what is this to our purpose? For it is one thing to command a Reprobate to believe the Gospel, another thing to command him to know and assure himself that he is already justified and shall be saved: for to Believe the Gospel is to assent unto an infallible truth, but to be persuaded of the other is to yield to that which neither is nor ever shall be true. You should therefore evidently demonstrate out of the Scriptures that God commands a Reprobate so to be assured and persuaded: and then if I rested not satisfied with Gods revealed will, you might justly bid me go and dispute with Christ, and forbidden to search into the counsels of God lest I be overwhelmed with his Majesty. But if in God's book you cannot show it, I hold it a humane fancy rather than a divine truth: and therefore though I may not curiously pry into the secrets of God, yet may I freely try and examine the ground of men's opinions.  N. B. 
Again it is an untruth that God commandeth, when he biddeth a Reprobate to believe and he shall be saved. For, if he could believe, he should then be saved without doubt, joh. 11. That he cannot believe, the reason is, Christ hath not washed him Io. 13.8. neither hath opened his heart to believe. So that if he could have believed, he should have this doctrine effectual unto him to salvation. That he therefore could not believe is not to be imputed to the falsity of the doctrine, but to the hardness of his own heart.  I. D. 
The commandment of God is absolute, Believe: the promise of Salvation is conditional, if we Believe, That the Promise is conditional you denied in your answer to the former argument: now also you deny that Believing is commanded. Whereby you bewray, how inexpert you are in the Word of righteousness, as the Apostle speaketh: and that whereas by office you are, 
Heb. 5.12 13.  and concerning the time ought to be a teacher, yet have you need yourself to be taught the very elements of the Christian Religion. That therefore the Promise is conditional I have in the due place demonstrated: now that Believing is commanded remaineth to be poved, or rather it is already proved, thus, No condemnation but for breach of a Commandment, Condemnation for unbelief: for, for unbelief the world shall be condemned, Ergo, Belief commanded. But this reason according to your wont you cunningly suppress, and having found out a new Art of disputation, think it enough to scorn the premises, and with a bold face to deny the Conclusion. Yet for your further confusion unto necessary consequence, I add the express words of Scripture, This, saith john, is his commandment that we believe in the Name of his Son jesus Christ. 
1 joh. 3.23.  And unto divine authority I add the humble consent of holy men of God. Beza expoundeth that place of Saint john's Gospel, 
joh. 6.29.  This is the work of God that ye believe in me, 
De gra. univer. De Praedest. & gratia.  on this wise, This is that which God requireth of you that ye believe in me. The Lord commandeth, saith Hemingius, that we believe. Together with the Promise, saith Master Perkins, is conjoined the Exhortation or Commandment to Believe, which is more general than the Promise, because the promise belongs only to Believers, but the Commandment both to Believers & unbelievers. 
Harm. Conf. Sax. of remission of sins & iustif.  Finally, the whole Church of Saxony thus confesseth, It is the eternal & immutable commandment of God, that we should believe in the Son of God, according to this saying (which is my very ground) the Spirit shall convince the world of sin, because they Believe not in me. Nay, see the luck of it, that which here you affirm to be an untruth, not many lines before you have avowed to be a truth saying, God commandeth all to Believe, and therefore the Reprobates. Yea do you not in this place unsay that which you say, saying, it is untrue that God commandeth when he biddeth a Reprobate to Believe? For he that Biddeth in my understanding commandeth: unless you that complain of nice and subtle Distinctions in others, have learned of late by some newfound nicety to distinguish there where the letters and syllables only differing, there is otherwise an identie of nature and definition. A man would wonder how you could so soon forget yourself, but that it is commonly seen a liar hath seldom or never a good memory.  
But to prove that God commands not a Reprobate to believe you come upon me with a most mighty and insoluble Enthymem. What is that I beseech you? Marry this. A Reprobate if he could believe, he should then without doubt be saved: Ergo, God doth not command him to Believe. A desperate Demonstration I promise you: for by the same reason you may conclude, that God commands him not to obey the Precepts of the Moral law neither, Because if he could keep them he should be saved. What you conceive may be the knot and sowlder as it were of this Consequence I cannot well imagine, unless it be one of two, either this, God promiseth the Reprobate he shall be saved if he Believe, Ergo, he commandeth him not to Believe: or this, The Reprobate cannot believe, Ergo, God commandeth him not to Believe, for your words seem to be indifferent either way. If you intent the former, first, you contradict your own self, for in your answer to the former argument you deny justification and Salvation to be promised upon condition of Faith. Secondly, every Catechumenus and Novice in Divinity knows that God unto Commandment usually annexeth Promise to draw on Obedience: as in the Covenant of works, first he Commandeth, Do this and then Promiseth, if thou do it thou shalt live; and in the Covenant of Grace also, first he Commandeth, Believe, and then addeth the Promise, if thou believe thou shalt be saved. So that Promise and Commandment exclude not one the other, neither doth it follow, Faith is the condition of a Promise, Ergo, it is not commanded. If you understand the latter, then know that as Augustin, and Barnard, and all Divines not infected with Pelagianisme say, God commandeth some things which man cannot do, to the end that knowing his own insufficiency, he may crave of him the help of grace that he may do them. And if God do command any supernatural action unto the Reprobate as without doubt he doth, then doth he also command some thing above his power: for being merely natural he cannot produce any supernatural operation. Whereupon it followeth evidently that although a Reprobate cannot believe, yet nevertheless he may be commanded to Believe.  
Well, yet you will prove that a Reprobate cannot Believe. To what end? for it is not denied, and you should rather strengthen your Consequence, and prove that therefore Faith is not commanded. Notwithstanding let us hear your reason, for it seemeth to be very remarkable. That he cannot Believe, say you, the reason is, Christ hath not washed him. If you had said as followeth, Christ hath not opened his heart to Believe, or, it is to be imputed to the hardness of his own heart, and had stopped there, I should easily have yielded unto you: but now that you say the reason is because Christ hath not washed him, I must needs tell you it is unreasonable reason, for it implies that we are first washed and then Believe, whereas both Scripture and the analogy of Faith teach us that we first believe and then afterward are washed. Search the book of God, 
Rom. 3.28. Act. 15.9. Rom. 3.25.  and there shall you read, that we are justified by Faith, that the heart is purified by Faith, that God hath set forth jesus Christ to be a reconciliation through Faith in his Blood. Which Blood although it have in it sufficient virtue and force to cleanse us from the leprosy of all our sins, yet doth it not actually wash or purge any unless it be particularly applied and accepted by Faith. Otherwise, as Ambrose excellently speaketh, if thou believe not, Christ descended not for thee, Christ suffered not for thee. 
De fide ad Gratian.  Whereby it manifestly appeareth that Remission of sins is an effect or consequence of Faith, and that therefore the reason of the Reprobates unbelief, is not because Christ hath not washed him, but rather the reason why Christ hath not washed him is, because he doth not believe, nor hath by Faith applied the blood of Christ to himself for the remission of his sins. Where you add negatively, that the Reprobates unbelief, is not to be imputed to the falsity of the Doctrine, whether you mean thereby either this Doctrine that God commands him to believe, or this that it is absurd he should command him to be assured, I confess indeed, that neither is the cause why the Reprobate cannot believe: but that either of them is false, you shall never be able to show, and I have sufficiently proved the contrary.  N. B. 

Ex. 14.4. Rom. 9  If you ask, who hath hardened him? I answer, God; who hath power over the vessels of his own making, to show his justice or mercy upon them as pleaseth his divine Majesty. If you will demand the cause, why God would not give him a fleshly heart to believe? 
joh. 12.39.40.  I answer I know not: Est enim aliqua docta ignorantia, there is a certain learned ignorance, as well teacheth Master Caluin; neither can our shallow wits search out the cause of his doings. But this I know that it is so, and the cause thereof principally to be his good pleasure. To conclude therefore this point, this Doctrine bringeth no blasphemous absurdity, as you impurely and impiously affirm, neither is the Doctrine false or implieth contradictories, though our blind natures cannot understand the things that be of God. Of this matter and argument, let these places be well weighed, and by you either answered or reverenced. Rom. 11.23. Gal. 3.22. Act. 13.48. 2 Thess. 3.2. Mat. 13.11. Prou. 16.4. Rom. 9. 1●, 19, 20. and from henceforth leave off to grieve the Spirit of God, wherewith the elect are sealed unto the day of Redemption.  I. D. 
This is right that Sophysticall place which Aristotle in his Topics calleth Apagogen, 
Lib. 2. c. 5. See Muret. var. lect, l. 7. c. 10.  that is Abduction. For whereas I go about to prove, that God commandeth not a Reprobate to be assured, because so doing he should command him to believe a manifest falsehood, which implieth contradiction, and affirmeth error to be truth: you not knowing what answer to make unto the argument, derive the attention of the Reader another way, and run out into the common place of God's secret counsels, and the cause of Induration, and the Reprobates inability to believe, discoursing too and fro of these things at pleasure, having no other reason for so doing but only, because in my argument you read the word Reprobate, and that I told you, in this point you had no just cause to say unto me (as in our private conference you did) who art thou that disputeth with God? And yet as if all the while you had been in the very bowels of the cause, and had not wandered so much as a hair's breadth from it, you conclude very soberly and sadly, Therefore this Doctrine bringeth no absurdity, neither is false, nor implieth contradiction. But fain would I know what the Premises are whereupon you infer this Therefore: or whether by the rules of your Logic you may conclude without them: Unless this be the sequel I know not what to make of it, Our shallow wits cannot search out the cause of God's works, Ergo, we may not think it absurd that God shoul● command a Reprobate to believe and assure himself of that which neither is nor never shall be true. Vain man, prove once that God commandeth so, and I will presently grant, it is not absurd to think so. Why dispute you so earnestly of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 why it is, when I flatly deny the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it is? And why do you thus always grate upon the Conclusions, and make so little reckoning to answer the proofs I bring for it?  
Well, not to wrestle with words any longer, nor so fruitlessly to beat the air, because you think like the Cuttlefish to escape the net, by casting about you a filthy ink of foul speeches, telling me I speak impurely & impiously, and charging me with Presumption and Curiosity, for enquiring into the Counsels of God: give me leave by distinguishing matters to clear the water which you wittingly and purposely have pudled, and withal to let the Reader see how basely and cowardly you seek out starting holes to shift yourself aside from my arguments, rather than Schollerly to answer them by some convenient solutions. Consider therefore I pray you these few Positions.  
1. The secret Counsels of God are those matters which he hath treasured up in the closet of his own knowledge, and doth not disclose unto mankind: but what truth soever it hath pleased him in wisdom to reveal unto us, and hath registered in his Word, is not to be esteemed nor taken for a secret.  
2. As to search into the hidden and secret Counsels of God is damnable Presumption, so not to search and inquire into his revealed will is damnable Negligence. For as Moses saith, The secret things belong unto the Lord our God, 
Deut. 29.29.  but the things revealed unto us and our children for ever. 
De vocat. Gent. l. 1. c. 7.  Whereupon Prosper, The things which God would have hidden must not be searched, and the things which he hath made manifest must not be neglected, lest in them we be found unlawfully curious, and in these damnably ungrateful.  
3. They therefore that painfully and diligently travel to find out such truths as are either expressed or enfolded in the written word, are not to be termed Curious but Studious. So distinguisheth Saint Augustin, Although both, 
De v●il. credendi ca 9  saith he, be carried with a great desire of knowing, yet the curious man inquireth those things which nothing concern him, and the Studious man contrarily inquireth those things which do pertain unto him.  
4. This is a revealed truth that, There is no contradiction in God, and that He cannot do those things which imply contradiction, 
2 Cor. 1.17.18.19.20. Heb. 6.18.  or are repugnant unto the nature and definition of a thing. For in God, as saith S. Paul, there is not yea and nay, but yea and Amen; neither is it possible that he should lie, or deny himself, and it is rather impotency than Power so to be able to do, whereas contrarily, 
De Trin. l. 15. c. 14.  as elegantly Saint Augustin saith Powerfully hath he not power to do this, neither is it infirmity but firmity, because that truth cannot be false.  
5. These two Propositions are contradictory, The Reprobate is justified, The Reprobate is not justified: and, The Reprobate shall be saved, The Reprobate shall not be saved. God therefore cannot make that they should be true at once. For as Saint Augustin saith, 
Contrà Faustum Man. l. 26. c. 5.  Whosoever saith, if God be omnipotent, let him make that those things which have been have not been, sees not that he faith, if God be omnipotent, let him make that those things which are true in that they are true be false.  
6. One part of the Contradiction is necessarily false namely this, The Reprobate is justified, 
Rom. 8.30.  The Reprobate shall be saved: for they only who are Predestinated unto life, are as Saint Paul saith, effectually called, and they only who are effectually called are justified and shall be glorified. And if it were possible that they should be saved, then were there change in the unchangeable decree of God which hath finally rejected them, which is impossible.  
7. He that commands a Reprobate that is not justified and shall never be saved, to believe that he is justified and shall be saved, implieth a Contradiction therein, and makes Falsehood to be Truth, and Faith error. For according to that infallible maxim, Falsehood is not under Faith: and therefore if the Object be Falsehood it is not Faith which apprehendeth it for true, if it be Faith Falshood is not the Object thereof. So that he which commands that false Proposition to be believed, makes that to be Faith which cannot bear the definition of Faith, and that to be the Object which is not the Object thereof, that is as I said makes Faith to be error, and Falshood Truth, which are contradictories.  
8. God therefore neither doth nor can so command: neither is it impure or impious to affirm so much, being in the Word of God so manifestly revealed. Impious rather and blasphemous is it to say the contrary: for it imputes impotency and weakness unto God, making him to say, Yea and Nay, and to avouch that for truth which is evidently false.  
9 But this opinion, that Faith is an Assurance, infers this blasphemous absurdity. For as I have showed, God command's all men, even Reprobates to believe now to believe as you say is to be assured of justification and Salvation, Ergo, God commands the Reprobate to be assured of his justification and Salvation, which is absurd.  
10. Absurd therefore is that opinion that Faith is Assurance which infers it. For from truth no absurdity or blasphemy but only truth can follow. These few Positions I pray thee, Gentle Reader, consider diligently, and compare Master baxter's reply with them, and then be judge whether he paint not gourds as it is in the Proverb, and talk clean beside the purpose.  
Those places of Scripture which you desire may be well weighed, and then by me either answered or reverenced, I have according to your desire duly examined, and do from my heart adore them as being the words of the Eternal Verity: and this answer do I give unto them, that not one of them touches the question in debate betwixt us. 
Rom. 11.23  The first telleth us that the jews if they persist not in infidelity, shall again by the power of God be engrafted; 
Gal. 3.22.  the second that the Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by the Faith of jesus Christ might be given to them that Believe; both which argue against yourself that Faith is the condition of the Promise; the third saith that as many as were ordained unto eternal life believed; 
Act. 13.48. 2. Thess. 3.2. Mat. 13.11.  the fourth that every man hath not Faith; the fift that to know the mysteries of the kingdom of Heaven is given to some and denied to other some, by which three it is clear, that Reprobates do not believe, 
Prou. 16.4 Rom. 9.18.19.20.  but the Elect only: the sixth affirmeth that God made the wicked for the evil day; the last that God showeth mercy upon whom he will, and hardeneth also whom he will, and that in this point there is no disputing with God, intimating therein that there is both an Election and Reprobation, and that both depend upon the good pleasure of God. But not one of them proveth that God commandeth a Reprobate to assure himself of his present justification and future Salvation which is the matter in question: and therefore I hope I may notwithstanding them all freely conclude that as God cannot command to do that which is unjust, because he is justice itself, so he cannot command to believe that which is untrue because he is truth itself. Neither do I (I trust) so concluding, grieve the Spirit of God, although perhaps therein I grieve your stubborn spirit, which hath (I fear me) throughout this reply too much rebelled against the light: and therefore take heed lest you yourself grieve the Spirit of God, 
Eph. 4.30.  wherewith the elect are sealed unto the day of Redemption.  Treatise. 
Arg. 6. That which the wicked may have, cannot be justifying Faith, for it is The Faith of the Elect: But the wicked may have this Persuasion, yea and many have been most confidently persuaded that they are in the favour of God. You will say it is true Persuasion: But I say if form make truth, they are as formally, and therefore as truly persuaded of it as the godly. If the Godly than are therefore and for this cause justified, because they are strongly persuaded they are justified, then why should not the wicked likewise be justified by his strong Persuasion. But in truth these kind of speeches are unreasonable, and senseless, and so that opinion cannot be reasonable.  N. B. 
Many die and are saved that have not a full Persuasion and assurance of their Salvation, yet are saved by Faith. I will answer you when you show me the man that so did die and was saved, and How you know that he had at his death no full Assurance of his Salvation in Christ jesus, and yet had Faith, and when you prove that there is at the hour of death (when the elect are made without spot or wrinkle) in the Saints of God a doubtful Faith.  I. D. 
That many Reprobates and wicked men are strongly persuaded they are in the grace and favour of God, nothing is more clear and manifest. 
Prou. 30.12.  There is a generation, saith Solomon, that are clean in their own eyes, and yet are not washed from their filthiness. 
Reu. 3.17.  And the Angel of the Church of Laodicea saith of himself that he is rich, and grown to great wealth, and had need of nothing: 
Vers. 14. Vers. 17.  and yet in the judgement of him that is Amen, the faithful and true witness, was wretched, and miserable, 
Inst. l. 3. c. 2. §. 11.  and poor, and blind, and naked. Yea, Experience itself, saith Caluin, showeth, that Reprobates sometime are affected with the like feeling almost that the elect are, that in their own judgement they differ nothing at all from the Elect. Such is the deceitfulness of man's heart, and the blindness of his self-love, that it makes him easily overween himself, and to promise peace unto his soul when he is in the ready way unto destruction. You will say that the Persuasion of the Reprobate and wicked, is built upon a false and erroneous ground, and therefore is Presumption rather than true Assurance. For answer hereunto consider, that the Elect of God before his justification is but a wicked man, whence Divines use to call it, The justification of the wicked, warranted therein by that of Saint Paul, 
Rom. 4.5.  To him that worketh not, but believeth in him that justifieth the wicked, his faith is imputed unto righteousness. 
Rom. 3.28.  Consider moreover that Faith as a cause goeth before justification, for we are justified by Faith: and therefore if the Elect be wicked before his justification, he must needs much more be wicked before the first act of his Believing. In regard whereof Saint Augustin saith, 
Enar. in Ps. 311  Know thou that Faith when it was given thee found thee a sinner. These things being so, as without controversy they are, I then demand of you, if Faith be Assurance, what ground hath the Elect for his Assurance in the first Act of his Faith, more than the Reprobates and wicked have? Certainly unless you will fly with the Anabaptists unto I know not what Enthusiasms and sudden revelations, grounded upon no arguments, formerly by the Holy Ghost imprinted in the soul, you cannot possibly show any: seeing before Faith they lie together in the same mass of corruption, and are alike liable unto eternal damnation. Now unto this argument thus enlarged and explained, let us see what answer you return.  
When I can show the man that died without Assurance and was saved, and how I know at his death he had no full Persuasion, and can prove that there is at the hour of death in the Saints a Doubtful Faith, than (you say) you will answer me. What M. Baxter, and not till then? Suppose I cannot satisfy your demands (as indeed who knoweth what is in the heart of man at the hour of his death?) shall my argument therefore for ever stand unanswered? 
Declar. of Spir. Desert.  And yet M. Perkins telleth you that, When a Professor of the Gospel shall despair at his end, men are to leave secret judgements unto God, and charitably judge the best of him▪ and he instanceth in one M. Chambers, who in his sickness grievously despaired, and cried out that he was damned, yet, saith he, it is not for any to note him with the black mark of a Reprobate. The like censure elsewhere giveth he of Francis Spiera: Yea further, saith he, When a Professor of the Gospel shall make away himself, though it be a fearful case, yet still the same opinion must be carried. So that it seems by this learned man's judgement (who for aught I know is not singular herein but followeth the common opinion of other Divines) that it is possible for a man to die in Faith and so to be saved, and yet to die in Despair and so without Assurance: whence it followeth necessarily that Faith is not Assurance.  
But this answer of yours, 
Antholog. l. 2, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  brings me in mind of a pretty Epigram of Nicarchus, which you may read in the Greek anthology. A deaf man commences suit against another deaf man, before a deaf judge: the plaintiff pleads, that the defendant owes him five months rend for his house, the defendant answers for himself that he had been grinding at mill all night, the judge looking upon them, why contend ye thus good fellows, quoth he? is she not mother to you both? then keep her both hardly. Semblable hereunto is your answer, for as if you were as blind as they were deaf, and had not eyes in your head to read my writing, when I speak of onions, as it is in the Proverb, you answer of garlic, and rove the whole heaven wide from the mark you should shoot at. I say that the wicked may be strongly persuaded, and therefore Faith is not a Persuasion, you like the deaf defendant reply that you have been grinding at mill all night, telling me I shall then receive answer when I show the man that died without Persuasion and yet was saved by Faith, and other such stuff of the same stamp. Verily, I am persuaded if old Sibyl or Oedipus or any other that hath anciently been esteemed for reading riddles should revive again, yet would they not be able with all their cunning, to device how to accommodate and fit this answer to any part of my argument. For mine own part I can make of it, nor fish, nor flesh nor good red herring, and therefore not troubling myself with your follies here I leave it as I found it, unkith unkist as they say.  N. B. 
And in the mean time I will hasten to your Definition of Faith, which you call the third kind of Faith and only justifying Faith.  I. D. 
Soft and fair, no haste but good: you post away so fast unto the Definition, that you leave something behind you unanswered which desires and deserves your further consideration. For first I prove unto you that Faith cannot be a full Persuasion & certain Assurance, partly because it is not so much as Assurance, partly because such Fullness agrees not to little Faith, and so makes the definition narrower and of less latitude than the definite, and partly because it is a most uncomfortable doctrine to weak Christians, who finding this strength of Assurance wanting in themselves, may doubt whether they have any Faith at all, if Faith be no other than a full Assurance and firm resolution. Again, I answer certain objections the chiefest you can have against me, and that with such general solutions as will cut off almost any reason you can oppose unto me. These things being of such importance and consequence should not thus have been balked and hushed up in silence: for while they stand unstirred and untouched you cannot reasonably be thought either fully to have satisfied my arguments, or sufficiently to have maintained your own cause. Out of doubt therefore it would have been much better for your credit to have made less haste, and more good speed: for tripping away so fast, and leaving matters of such weight utterly unanswered, all the Scholars in our Country (to blow back your own scoff into your own face) will think the worse of your haste so long as they live for this trick.  
To conclude this point, whereas there are two many faults as Simplicius saith, too usually committed in the disputation and determination of Questions▪ it appeareth by what I have now said that you have hitherto grossly faulted in the former. For you do but reject and deny my Conclusions, without refuting the confirmations I bring for them: and so if not altogether alienate from you, yet leave in suspense and doubt the mind even of those who otherwise might be of the same opinion with you. Now if you offend likewise in the second, and do not in the remainder of your Reply, utterly raze and overthrew the foundations of my Doctrine, but suffer them to stand unshaken and unmoved: you shall both leave the thirst of your reader's expectation unquenched and unsatisfied, and prove yourself but a bragging and boasting Pyrgopolinices, threatening much and performing nothing. Let us therefore take a view hereof, and see what you have to say against the definition which I give to justifying Faith.  Treatise. 
The third Faith is Faith of Person or Personal Merit; and of this Faith, I make the Object to be Christ the Mediator meriting, the Fiducia a Rest or Devolution, the Subject of it, the faculty of the Will not the Understanding, the next end of it justification, the remore end eternal salvation, and I thus define it, A rest of the will upon Christ and his merits for justification and consequently salvation.  I. D. 
Because you complain anon that the word Rest which I have made to be the justifying act of Faith is ambiguous, and thereupon it pleaseth you in your Answers following to take advantage and make you merry with the Equivocation thereof: you shall give me leave before I step a foot further in a few words, and a little more plainly to open my meaning touching that Act. And to this end, seeing to prove that Faith is an Affiance or Rest, I reported me▪ in my Treatise unto the words used in the original of the old Testament, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the form of words used in the new, as to believe in, to hope in, or as in some translations it is read to believe on, to hope on: I will first show that these terms applied unto Christ the right Object of Faith, import that very Act whereby we stand justified before God, and secondly I will diligently inquire and search out what may be the true, proper, and natural meaning of these terms, both which being clearly demonstrated, it will manifestly appear both what that Rest is which I make to be the justifying Act of Faith, and how fond and vainly you cavil and dally with the ambiguity thereof.  
That Believing in or upon importeth that Act is in itself so apparent, that I think no sober man will deny it: but because to you a man must prove that the Sun shines thus I demonstrate it. That which is imputed for righteousness, and by which we are justified, is the true Act of justifying Faith. This you cannot deny, unless you will turn Papist: for our Religion will not permit you to join any other companion with Faith in the matter of justification. But such believing is imputed for righteousness, and is that by which we are justified: so saith the Apostle, 
Rom. 4.5.  To him that believeth in him that justifieth the wicked his Faith is counted for righteousness, and again, We have believed in jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the Faith of Christ. Add hereunto that whereas the same Apostle saith With the heart man believeth unto righteousness, 
Rom. 10.10.  forthwith in the next verse he interpreteth that Believing by Believing in, For, saith he, the Scripture saith, 
V 11.  whosoever believeth in him shall not be ashamed. Wherefore I conclude that so to Believe is the justifying Act of Faith. So also is Hoping in or upon, being in effect the same with Believing in. For although Hope and Faith be in nature two distinct Gra●es, and so reckoned by Saint Paul: yet seeing by reason of the near affinity between them, Hope is sometime put for Faith, it may not seem strange that to hope in, is also used for to believe in. Now that Hope is sometime put for Faith appeareth by that of Saint Peter, 
1 Pet. 3.15.  Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the Hope that is in you; where Hope, as Caluin saith, 
In eum. loc.  is by a Synecdoche taken for Faith. And as manifest is it by Saint Paul that to Hope in, is no other than to Believe in: for having said, That we should be unto the praise of his glory who first hoped in Christ, 
Eph. 1.12.13.  In whom also ye hoped having heard the Word of Truth, the Gospel of your Salvation, by and by he adds by way of interpretation, In whom also Believing yeee were sealed with the holy Spirit of Promise. In a word, the Act of Hope properly taken is expectation or looking out for the performance or coming of a thing: but Hoping in imports Affiance or trusting on something for the performance thereof. As touching the words of the old Testament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, first I find 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 confounded with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as words of the same signification, they being after the manner of Scripture joined together in the same verse as equipollent the one to explain and expound the other: for example, 
Psal. 118.8. Psal. 37.5.  It is better, saith David, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to trust in the Lord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then to put confidence in man, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Roll thy way upon the Lord, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and trust upon him. But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 itself is in the same manner confounded with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which construed with the Proposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth to Believe in, and is by your own confession the very Act of justifying Faith: for example, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they believed not in God, 
Psal. 78.22. Mic. 7.5.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and trusted not in his salvation, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Believe not in a friend, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 trust not in a Prince. Again that which in the old Testament is uttered by one of these words, the same in the new is expressed by Believing in: for example, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We trust in the Name of his Holiness saith the old Testament, 
Psal. 33.21. joh. 1.12. 1 joh. 3.23.5.13. Prou. 3.5. Act. 8.37. Psal. 25.2. Psal. 31.1. Rom. 10.11.  He that believeth in his Name saith the new; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 trust in the Lord with thy whole heart saith the old, If thou Believe with thy whole heart saith the new: finally, In thee O Lord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have I trusted let me not be confounded saith the old, He that Believeth in him shall not be ashamed saith the new. If you except against this last parallel, that the Apostle hath reference unto that of Esay 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He that Believeth maketh not haste, rather unto those passages of the Psalms above quoted: I answer with Beza that it is not likely, 
In ad Ro. 10.11.  partly because the universal particle, and the word in him is not to be found in the Prophet, partly because the Apostle saith not as the Phophet Esay doth, maketh not haste, but precisely accordeth with the words of the Prophet David, saying, shall not be confounded nor ashamed. Howsoever, seeing in all these places the same thing is intended and meant, it is clear that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and Believing in, are Synonyma, differing in name, but not in definition: and so I conclude what above I undertook to demonstrate, that all these terms properly import the justifying act of Faith.  
In the next place are we to inquire the right acception and signification of these words, that we may more perfectly conceive, what that Fiducia or Rest is, which we have made to be that Act. And first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as R. Kimchi observeth, properly and primitively signifieth to retire into some safe place for shelter or harbour: 
judg. 9.15.  so is it used in sundry places, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Come, saith the bramble in the book of judges, shelter or cover you under my shadow; and the Prophet David in the Psalms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I will retire me under the shadow of thy wings. And hence is it, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Noun, 
Psal. 57.1.  derived from this root, signifieth a place of refuge or protection, as where David saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the rocks are refuge for the coneys, and Esay, 
Psal. 104.18.  Thou hast been a fortress to the poor, a fortress to the needy in his trouble, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a refuge from the storm or inundation. 
Esa. 4.6.  So that this word referred unto Christ betokeneth that Act whereby we betake ourselves unto him as unto the only Sanctuary, where we may be preserved safe from the tempest of God's displeasure, which cannot be but by justification from our sins, according to that of the Psalmist, 
Psal. 2.12.  If his wrath burn yea but a little, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 blessed are all they that retire themselves to him. Upon which place learned junius notes, that that retiring unto God (which is there affirmed to be the cause of our blessedness) is no other than sincere Faith. The next word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth to Roll: whence cometh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Circle or Ring, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Sphere or Wheel; because as the cube easily settleth and stayeth upon one side, so the Spherical and round figure is ever subject to rolling & turning. Being joined with the Preposition, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it signifies to Devolue or Roll upon a thing, either to oppress i● and bear it down, as where josephs' brethren say, We are brought hither 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to roll and cast himself upon us, 
Gen. 43.18. job. 30.14.  and job 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they roll themselves upon me: or to be supported and borne up by it, as in the place of Psalms above cited, 
Prou. 16.3.  and that of the Proverbs, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Roll thy works upon the Lord and thy thoughts shall be established. Agreeable whereunto is that of the Psalmist though using another word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cast thy burden upon the Lord and he shall sustain thee, 
Psal. 55.23.  he will not suffer the righteous to be moved for ever. This then applied unto Christ intimates unto us our fleeting & unsettled estate, and the restlessness of our souls until we come unto him, according to that of Saint Augustin, Thou hast made us for thyself, and our hearts are unquiet till they rest in thee: and so imports that Act whereby being heavy laden with our sins, and seeking to be eased of them, at length we discharge our load and rest ourselves upon him. The third word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifieth to put confidence, trust, Affiance in or upon a thing, and as Mercer saith firmiter inniti, 
In the sa●o Pagn.  firmly to lean or rest upon a thing. Hereupon you shall oftentimes find it joined with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifying to lean on, whence also cometh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a staff because men use to lean on it and to support themselves by it: as for example, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ye trust in fraud and stubborness, saith Esay, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and lean upon it, and again, 
Esa. 30.12. Esa. 50.10.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Let him trust on the Name of the Lord, and lean upon his God. And to this word had I special regard, when I defined Faith by Fiducia or Rest, as appeareth by that in my Treatise I make the Act of Fiducia, to be Inniti, to lean upon, which yet I therefore rendered rest, because in our English translations it is usually so turned; as for example, that of the Prophet Hanani unto King Asa, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
2 Chron. 16.7. Vers. 8.  is thus englished, Because thou hast rested upon the King of Aram, and not rested in the Lord thy God, and again in the next verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Because thou didst rest upon the Lord. So then this word in the matter of justification designeth that Act whereby finding that we are weak and feeble, unable to support ourselves, we make jesus Christ our staff, staying and resting ourselves upon him, 
Psal. 18.19.  according to that of David 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Lord was as a staff unto me. The last word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Believe in, or upon: for as for that other of Hoping in, because it may seem to be rather the Act of Hope then of Faith, or but Catachrestically used when it is put for Believing in, I utterly omit it. What is it then to believe in, or on? Let the Holy Ghost (whose phrase it is) declare his own meaning. Behold, saith the Apostle Peter out of the Prophet Esay, I lay in Zion a chief cornerstone, 
1 Pet. 2.6. Esa. 28.16.  chosen, and precious; and he that believeth thereon, shall not be ashamed. To Believe on a stone seemeth an insolent and unusual speech: but it is no other than (as the Apostle expresseth himself) to come as living stones unto the cornerstone, 
1 Pet. 2.4.5.  and to lay and build ourselves upon it, that we may be made a spiritual house, which in effect is the same with that Retiring and Resting we have above spoken of; as will yet farther appear if we compare this place with the like of the Prophet David; for whereas here it is said, He that believeth thereon shall not be ashamed, there the Psalmist delivereth it thus, 
Psal. 33.5.  They that look unto him, and run unto him their faces shall not be ashamed. But if you would yet more fully and plainly understand what it is to Believe in, or upon a thing, then read and consider that most sweet and comfortable speech of Saint john in his Gospel; As many, saith he, as received him, to them he gave power to be the Sons of God, 
joh. 1.12.  that is to them that Believe in his Name. Lo, to Believe in Christ, saith the holy Apostle, is to receive Christ: and therefore if we may know what it is to receive Christ, we shall also know what it is to believe in him. Receiving is a word of Relation and answereth unto Offering: for what is not offered is rather taken then received. To offer Christ unto any is the Act of God only: to receive Christ, is the Act only of the Elect of God. God offereth Christ unto us, when either outwardly by the public preaching of the Word, or inwardly by the secret knocking of his spirit, he counselleth and adviseth us to acknowledge that jesus is the Mediator, and to admit of him for our Mediator. And we again receive Christ so offered unto us when as being convinced and persuaded by the Word and Spirit, we acknowledge him in general to be the Mediator, and admit him in particular to be our Mediator: So that there is a double Receiving of Christ, the one is by the Understanding, the other is by the Will: Christ is received by the Understanding when we Believe historically, yielding and assenting unto the truth of the Gospel, the sum whereof is that jesus is the Christ; For when the Apostle saith, 
1 Tim. 1.15.  This is a true saying and by all means worthy to be received, that Christ jesus came into the world to save sinners, what can he mean by receiving other then assenting that it is true? and when our Saviour saith unto the Apostle, 
Act. 22.18.  They will not receive thy witness concerning me, what else can he understand then this, that they would not give credit unto his testimony, concerning Redemption and Salvation by Christ? This Receiving though it be of such absolute necessity unto life, that no man can possibly be saved without it: yet is it not of such power and efficacy, that whosoever so receiveth shall infallibly be saved. For as we have showed, The Devils so believe and tremble: and many who are enlightened, 
jam. 2.19. Heb. 6.4. & 10.26.  and have received the knowledge of the truth, perish, notwithstanding eternally in their sins. Besides therefore this Receiving of Christ by the Understanding, there is a Receiving of him also by the Will, which is done by particular application, when in the sincerity of our hearts we accept and make choice of him alone to be our Mediator, that is to say, to be unto us a Prophet, a Priest, and a King. We accept him to be our Prophet, when we admit him to be our teacher, and absolutely submit ourselves unto his teaching. We accept him to be our Priest, when we rest and repose ourselves upon his Sacrifice and intercession for the washing away of our sins. Finally, we accept him to be our King, when we put ourselves wholly and only under his government, and subject our wills unto his will, desiring that in all things it alone may be done by us. And this accepting of Christ by the Will, is that very Receiving of him which Saint john here meaneth. 
joh. 1.12.  For first, whosoever thus accepteth of him hath without question withal bestowed on him the same power and prerogative, which he affirmeth to be given to as many as receive him, namely to be made the Sons of God. Again, that Receiving is understood which is opposed unto the jews nor Receiving: 
joh. 1.11.  for having said, He came unto his own, that is unto the jews, and his own received him not, immediately it is added, But as many as received him, etc. How then did the jews not receive him? only in not assenting unto this that he was the Messiah? Indeed this was the ground why sundry of them received him not: but their not-receiving of him was no other than that Act of their Will, whereby they refused to submit themselves unto him as unto the Messiah. This doth our Saviour intimate, 
joh. 5.43.  when he saith unto them, I am come in my Father's Name and you receive me not: if another come in his own Name, him Will you receive, that is, him will you admit and accept for your Messiah. But plainly doth he express it when in the Parable he bringeth them in, resolutely and directly saying, We will not have this man reign over us: as also when he saith unto them, 
Luc. 19.14. Mat. 23.37.  How often would I have gathered thy children together as the hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not. Besides, divers there were of them, even of the Scribes, and Pharisees, and Priests who knew right well, that he was the Christ; 
Mat. 21.38. Mat. 22.30.31.  for so much do the Husbandmen themselves confess in the Parable, when they say, This is the Heir: and how could our Saviour justly charge them with that irremissible sin against the Holy Ghost, unless they had known him to be so? These then knowing him to be the Messiah, and yet not receiving him, what can this not-receiving be other than their will full rejecting and refusing of him against their knowledge and against their conscience. Upon all which it followeth that this being not-receiving, receiving opposed thereunto must needs be that Act of the Will whereby we accept of Christ to be our Mediator, that is to say, our Prophet to instruct us, our Priest to make atonement for us, our King to rule and govern us. And because Believing and Receiving are (as we have showed) all one, it followeth also necessarily that to Believe in Christ is nothing else then so to accept him.  
To grow therefore at length unto an issue, you see that according to promise I have demonstrated unto you, first, that those terms both of the old and new Testament mentioned in my Treatise import that Act of Faith whereby we stand justified before God: secondly, what is the true, proper, and natural meaning and signification of these terms: and that therefore thirdly by the word Rest, in my Definition I understand no other thing then that which these words import and signify. Wherefore I must entreat you in the residue of your Reply to speak unto this meaning: otherwise you shall but spend your breath in vain, and wrestle not with me, but with your own shadow. Nevertheless if any shall think it fit instead of the word Rest, to substitute any other of these terms, I forbidden him not: for so doing he shall differ from me in word only, and not in sense. And to speak ingenuously and freely, seeing to express the Act of Faith special choice is made in the New Testament of Believing in, or upon, and this again is expounded by such Receiujng as is before described: happily it were not amiss above all the rest to prefer this, and to define Faith by that Act of the Will whereby we accept Christ to be our Mediator for justification and consequently Salvation. The rather because it seems more fully and plainly to set forth the nature of that Act by which we are justified, and more apt and fit to resolve many doubts which may be moved touching justification. For as Vrsinus, a right worthy Divine, observeth, 
Admonit. de lib. Concord.  Faith justifieth no otherwise then as it is an acceptation and application of the merit of Christ, which is the proper Act of Faith alone, and so very Faith itself. These things thus premised: let us now in the Name of God proceed to the examination of what you have replied and opposed against my definition.  N. B. 
I answer, a man may rest his will upon Christ and his merits, and yet be damned for want of Sanctification, and so consequently may be damned having justifying Faith, which is absurd, therefore is your Definition absurd.  I. D. 
Here, Master Baxter, and in the rest of your answers ensuing, you wave & float up and down like a boat in a storm without a Pilot, answering tumultuarily what ever comes next to head, and scorning like another Cassius Severus to keep either in method your matter, 
Tacit. vel potiùs Quintil. de causs. corrupt. eloq.  or modesty in your words. But as you lead the dance, so must I needs follow. Thus therefore you argue. No man can be damned having justifying Faith, A man may be damned resting his will upon Christ & his merits, Ergo, Resting of the will upon Christ and his merits is not justifying Faith: The Mayor I grant, the Minor thus you confirm, He that wanteth sanctification may be damned, A man resting his will upon Christ and his merits may want sanctification, Ergo, a man resting his will upon Christ and his merits may be damned. The Mayor again I grant, if you understand it either thus, He that finally wanteth sanctification shall be damned, or thus, He that wanteth present sanctification is for the present in the state of damnation: for otherwise the Elect until their effectual vocation want sanctification, and yet shall never actually be damned. The Minor you barely affirm but confirm not: thinking it as it seems proof enough if you say it and subscribe thereunto Witness ourself: unto this argument therefore I answer two things.  
First, that you are a very unkind and ungrateful man that having now the third or fourth time borrowed arguments of me to serve your need, have not the good manners to say me God a mercy for it, or to acknowledge to whom you have been beholding. For in my Treatise thus I objected against myself, If Faith be Affiance then the wicked may have it: for Balaam desired to die the death of the Righteous, and some receive the Word with joy believing for a time. And unto this objection in the same Treatise I gave a sufficient and full solution, distinguishing between that Affiance which is sleight and superficial, and that which is settled and grounded, as there you may read more at large, for thither I refer you. But because, 
Hecub. act. 2.  as Euripides saith, the same speech spoken by divers persons is not alike entertained: peradventure this answer would be better accepted if you might have it from the mouth of greater authority. Read then M. Perkins exposition of the Creed, whereupon the first word I Believe he entreats of the nature of Faith, and you shall find in effect the same objection in like manner answered, and distinction made between the fleeting motions & desires of them who live still in their sins & after the course of the world & the Desire of reconciliation that comes from a bruised heart, & brings with it always reformation & amendment of life. This solution howsoever now you have cunningly dissembled, yet I must pray you the next time not to overslip it: for otherwise you shall be counted but a miching disputer, and no whit at all disadvantage your adversary, fight against him with no better weapon than a rusty sword both edge and point rebated.  
Secondly, I answer unto your Minor negatively, denying that such Resting of the will upon Christ and his merits, as we have described, and in the definition understand, can at any time be separated from Sanctification. For besides that it is contrary unto your own Positions, as anon in the due place shall be observed: it is also flatly repugnant unto the rules of holy Scripture. For doth not the Scripture pronounce them all, Blessed, that retire themselves unto the Lord? 
Psal. 2.12. Psal. 25.2. Psal. 125.1.  that they shall not be ashamed that put their trust in him? that they shall be like unto mount Zion which can never be removed, but standeth fast for evermore? 
2 Chron. 16▪ 8.9.  that to rest upon the Lord is to be of a perfect heart? Finally, doth it not affirm that whosoever receiveth Christ and believeth in him, 
joh. 1.12. Rom. 4.5. joh. 3.36. 1 joh. 5.1. Rom. 8.1.14.  is the Son of God, is justified before God, hath everlasting life, is borne of God, is led by the Spirit of God, and walketh not after the flesh, but after the Spirit? unless therefore utterly stripping yourself of all modesty you will put on the forehead of an harlot, and say that all these things may be affirmed of the Unsanctified man: how can you possibly avouch that a man resting his will upon Christ, retiring unto him, trusting on him, believing in him, and accepting of him to be his Mediator, can be without sanctification, and for want thereof be damned eternally? Nay, whosoever accepteth jesus Christ for his Mediator, submitteth himself as we have shown not only unto his Prophecy and Priesthood, but also unto his Kingdom: and if he submit himself unto his Kingdom, that is unto his rule and government, how can he be Unsanctified? for the Unsanctified man subiecteth himself unto the Flesh, and not unto the Spirit of Christ: 
Act. 15.9.  where by the way you may observe, defining Faith in this sort, how and after what manner it purifieth the heart, and begetteth in us sanctity and newness of life: whereas defining it by Assurance as you do, it doth not readily appear how such Assurance can be the principle and reason of our Sanctification. True it is that Assurance may be unto us a strong motive to proceed on in Sanctification and holiness of life: but it is so fare from causing it, that it is rather caused by it. For by our holy life and conversation as by the fruits, do we necessarily gather that Faith which is the cause thereof is in us, and so grow to an Assurance of our justification and present state in grace. In regard whereof Saint Peter, as it is in the vulgar translation and some Greek copies, commandeth by good works to make our calling and election sure. 
2 Pet. 1.10.  And although in sundry copies and translations By good works is omitted: yet the addition thereof misliketh not Beza, 
In loc. praed. Ibid.  and Fulke confesseth that the circumstance of the place doth of necessity require, that good works be understood though they be not expressed in the text. On the other side if you define Faith with me to be that Act whereby we accept and make choice of Christ to be our Mediator, that is to say, our Prophet, Priest, and King: who seethe not that this Faith working in us a free and voluntary subjection unto the Kingdom of Christ, is the very purifier of our hearts, and the cause of all our holy studies and endeavours? whence also it appeareth what the reason is why our Saviour unto believing in the Son opposeth Disobedience unto him when he saith, 
joh. 3.36.  He that believeth in the Son hath everlasting life: and he that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him: namely because as Acceptation of him to be our King is the root of all Obedience, so the rejection and refusal of him to be our King is the very source of all Rebellion and Disobedience.  N. B. 
Your Genus is, that Faith justifying is a Rest, which is false; when you speak more learnedly I will deign you farther answer.  I. D. 
That Rest is not the Genus of justifying Faith I easily grant you: for as appears manifestly in my Treatise, I make Affiance, or which is all one Rest, to be the Act or Form of Faith, and not the Genus thereof. If I had thought it fitting to have troubled the Definition therewith, I was not so ignorant but I could have called it either an infused grace, or a gracious habit, or a Theological virtue: but because the Philosopher taught me that Habits are sufficiently defined by their Acts in reference unto their proper Objects, I held it needless to express it.  
But suppose I had made it to be the right Genus, how do you disprove it? Forsooth it is sufficient for such a Pythagoras as you are to say it is false: & an inexpiable wrong would it be to demand a reason of your sayings. Only you add, 
Plut. in vitâ Alex.  that when I shall speak more learnedly you will deign me farther answer. Bravely again spoken, and Alexander-like: for neither would he being a King contend with any but Kings, neither may you being so transcendent for your learning, and surmounting the most of men as fare as the Sun doth the lesser lights, without impeachment of honour vouchsafe disputation with any but your Peers, much less with such a one as is scarce to be found in any Predicament. Yet seeing the Sun so surpassing in glory is no way envious of his light, but imparteth bountifully of his beams to the enlightening of the rest of the stars: it may please you also (with whom wisdom must live and dye) 
joh. 12.2.  out of your benignity to send forth some influence of your learning upon me, that I may more clearly discern at least in this question between truth and that which is only seeming so.  N. B. 
Show me for your warrant one place of Scripture that so termeth it, any one Father of the Church, old or new, for these 1600. years, Greeks or Latins, that will avouch it, and I will yield to your Genus. The Hebrew word for Faith, and the Greek word (whereof you have heard before) do utterly condemn you, they both signifying a persuasion and an Assurance, and never a Rest. I marvel you will teach the Holy Ghost to speak, and the Church now to understand what Faith is, and that by such a wooden Definition which may rather move to choler then consent.  I. D. 
If by denying unto me the warrant of Scriptures, of Father's old and new, Greek and Latin, for 1600. years and of the Greek and Hebrew words for Faith, you intent to prove that Affiance or Rest is not the Genus of Faith, it shall without more ado be yielded unto you: for as appears in the former section I make it to be not the Genus but the Act or Form thereof. But if you would thereby persuade that Rest or Affiance is not the Act of Faith, I must tell you that these reasons are clean out of date, and that you do too much abuse your Readers patience setting again before him these Coleworts now more than twice sodden. For both in the beginning of this disputation, and in the last section save two before this I have throughly scanned & cleared this business; showing that I am so fare from teaching the Holy Ghost to speak, and the Church to understand what Faith is, as you unchristianly lay unto my charge, that I use no other term, but that which the Spirit of God hath in Scripture sanctified to this purpose, and the Holy Church hath ever spoken and used. But because I am loath to pester my paper with so many Tautologies and needles repetitions as you use to do, thither must I entreat the courteous Reader to repair for satisfaction.  
In the mean season, seeing both by express testimony of Scripture, and clear evidence of reason I have warranted every part of my definition, and yet you without disproving the weakest of my proofs tauntingly call it a wooden Definition: you must pardon me if I tell you plainly that this wood-kinde of answering deserves to be reform with a little wooden correction. But where you say my Definition may rather move to choler then consent, a man would think reading this your answer, that either your principles were so incurably hurt, or your brain damned and rammed up with such a deal of dull and tough phlegm, that it were as easy almost to remove a mountain as to move you either to the one or the other. And yet indeed I find you of a clean contrary complexion, even the most pettish and waspish gentleman that ever I met withal, every small & petty occasion stirs your choler, and works you presently out of temper. But because I see it is your impotency & disease I bear with you the more, praying you notwithstanding to have as much patience as you may, if at times for the purging of this humour I play the Physician and minister some small quantity of rheubarb unto you.  N. B. 
For alas, Master Down, what Rest can a man have upon Christ without Assurance to be saved by his death and Passion and knowledge of his Lord and Saviour. A full assurance therefore as a cause, worketh Rest upon Christ as an effect, and is therefore the General word in the Definition of justifying Faith.  I. D. 
Your argument if I mistake not standeth thus, That which is an Effect of Assurance cannot be the Act of Faith, But Resting upon Christ is an Effect of Assurance, Ergo, it cannot be the Act of Faith. I distinguish of Assurance, for it is either of the general proposition, or of the Special and individual; of the General when we are assured that, Whosoever Believeth on Christ shall be justified and saved, of the Special when we are certainly persuaded that We are justified and shall be saved. If you mean the former, than I deny the Mayor: for such Historical Assurance is a necessary pre-requisite unto justifying Faith, and is the cause without which we cannot believe on Christ, and therefore that which is such an effect of Assurance may be the Act of Faith. If you understand the latter, then do I grant the Mayor: for if such Assurance be (as I have demonstratively proved) itself the Effect of Faith, it is more than manifest that, That which is an effect of such Assurance cannot be the Act of Faith. But then I deny the Minor, that Resting upon Christ, is an effect of such assurance: affirming that contrarily Resting upon Christ is the cause of such Assurance, and Assurance is the Effect of that Resting.  
But, what rest, say you, can a man have upon Christ, without Assurance to be saved by his Death & Passion? Surely unless we know his Death and Passion to be the only means of salvation, we cannot rest upon him for it: but to say, that a man cannot rest upon him for salvation, unless he know that he is already translated from death to life, is a most unreasonable and senseless speech, as if a man might not trust unto his friend to do something for him, until he were sure, it is already done. If you be so sandblind in this present case that you cannot see how Rest may go before Assurance, yet I hope your sight is not so much decayed but you may perceive it through a pair of spectacles. Put case then that a skilful and welknowne Physician should offer freely to cure the diseases of such as are sick upon condition they receive Physic of no other, but put themselves wholly & absolutely into his hands: do you think it absurd to become his patient, or that you cannot repose yourself upon his skill to be cured by him, unless you be first assured that the cure is already done? Nay rather if you know well, that your health is perfectly recovered, you cannot rely upon him, for that whereof you are fully possessed. jesus Christ the Arch-physician of our souls, as he is known to be all-sufficient, and every way able to heal our maladies, so doth he lovingly invite all those that are heavy laden to come unto him, promising to refresh them all upon condition, that renouncing themselves and all others they set their whole Affiance on him for the remission of their sins. And dare you now make question how a man may betake himself into the hands of Christ, until he know that his sins be already pardoned? Nay rather when we know the debt is paid, and that according to the old rule sins once remitted never return again, we remain thankful for that which is past, and continue our Affiance on him for discharge of that which is to come. For (to observe this by the way) we may not think that in the first act of our conversion and justification we receive actual pardon of all our sins past, present, and to come, as some, and those of no mean mark have rashly and unadvisedly taught: for sins passed only are then actually forgiven, and sins to come only in the destination and purpose of God. But neither doth God actually pardon the justified man, nor the justified man actually receive pardon for his sins, until he have actually committed them, and renewed his Faith and Repentance for them. Neither let any man think that I speak this out of mine own head, and without ground: for I am strongly backed herein by the warrant of Scripture, the evidence of reason, and the testimony of worthy men. By the warrant of Scripture: for that teacheth only remission of sins past; so saith Saint Paul in express terms, 
Rom. 3.25.  God hath set forth jesus Christ to be a reconciliation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness by the forgiveness of the sins that are passed: By the evidence of reason, for if future sins as well as sins passed be actually remitted in our conversion and first acceptation into grace, what need of Repentance, what need of Prayer that God would forgive us our trespasses? To repent and crave p●●●on of that whereof we are not guilty, and which we never committed, is palpable folly: and as great folly is it by Repentance and prayer to demand that of God which we say we are sure he hath long ago bestowed upon us: Finally, by the testimony of worthy men; for Pardon, saith Origen, is of sins passed not future: Repentance, 
In ad Rom. 3. De acerbè judicantib. Miscell. lib. 3. pa. 97.  saith Gregory Nyssen, is the dissolution and destruction of sins past. It is confessed by all truly godly and learned, saith Hierome, Zanchie, that the Saints to obtain new remission for a new sin have need of a new act of Faith and Repentance, according to that saying so rise in Scripture, that by Faith men are justified and have their sins remitted: which when it is spoken of them that are come to years of discretion, is always to be understood of Actual Faith, that is of the Act of Faith. 
De praedest. & great.  Lastly Master Perkins, when a Faithful man grievously sinneth, the sin is indeed remitted in the destination of God: yet no remission is actually either given by God, or received by man until he repent. Nay if he should never repent (which yet is impossible) he should (as guilty of eternal death even for this one sin) be damned: for there is no new remission of any new sin without a new act of Faith and Repentance. But enough of this point in this place though it be of great importance, because it is but by the way: only hence I gather that seeing Faith goeth before and Assurance necessarily cometh after remission, that Faith is not Assurance.  N. B. 
I had rather say Faith were a labour then a Rest: for it seeketh continually by sanctification and holy love to bring both body and soul unto eternal rest, and then Faith ceaseth when eternal pacification and rest is wrought in man.  I. D. 
Thus you reason, Faith is a labour, Rest is not a labour, Ergo, Faith is not a Rest. The Mayor you prove thus, That which worketh rest is a labour, But Faith worketh rest and ceaseth when rest is wrought, Ergo, Faith is a labour. The Minor you leave naked and without proof, supposing I think that no man unless bereft of his five wits would deny it, and hold that Rest is a labour. Let us therefore briefly examine them both. The Mayor of your second Syllogism precisely and literally understood is not true: for that which worketh is the Agent or Labourer, and the Labourer cannot be the Action or Labour. Whereupon it followeth, If that which worketh be not a labour, And Faith as you assume work, that therefore Faith is not a labour which is contradictory unto the Mayor of your first syllogism. And yet as I grant not unto you that Faith is a labour, so neither dare I peremptorily deny it: only I blame you for speaking so confusedly where it was necessary to use distinction. Know therefore that Faith as all other qualities whether acquired or infused may be considered two ways, either in the first act, (as Schools use to speak) or in the second. The first act is the very habit of Faith inhering and sticking in the soul: the second is the immediate and proper operation and action thereof. If then you understand Faith in the first Act, and as it is an Habit, it is not a labour, but is imprinted in us by the Holy Ghost, to the end that when opportunity is offered, and duty requireth, we may by virtue thereof more sweetly, readily, and easily work, and labour. And so far is it from being a labour itself, that oftentimes it lieth as it were idle & asleep doing nothing at all until it please the Spirit of God to stir up our wills, and to quicken the spark he hath put in us, enabling us thereby to cooperate with him. But if you understand Faith in the second Act, and as it is in operation and action, then may you justly call it a labour: for as our Saviour saith, 
joh. 6.29.  to believe in him whom the Father hath sent is a Work which God requireth us to do, in regard whereof the Apostle Paul calleth it the Work of Faith. 
1 Thess. 1.3.  And because Faith justifieth, not as it is in the first, but in the second act, that is not as it is an Habit, but as it is in action, accepting and applying unto us Christ and his merits, hence is it, saith Bucer, that Protestants usually define it by a motion. 
De iustific.  Let the Mayor therefore in this sense be granted unto you.  
The Minor which you think to be so cocksure I flatly deny, confidently affirming that Rest is a labour: provided, you understand no other Rest then that which in my Treatise I have expressed and declared. For if by Rest you mean Quiet, such Rest without all question is not Labour: for it is the end of labour, and a cessation from it, and therefore well did you say that, when eternal rest is wrought, than the labour of Faith ceaseth. But you cannot be ignorant, that by Rest I understand not Quiet, but Affiance, in as much as I render the Latin word Fiducia by it, and make the Act thereof to be Inniti, which (as I have showed in some of our English translations) is oftentimes turned by Resting and Staying upon. And this Rest, that is, this Relying, this Reposing, this Trusting or Believing on Christ, is not a Quiet, but a motion or operation, and therefore a labour. True it is that whosoever cometh unto Christ, and setteth his whole Affiance upon him, shall thereby find refreshment and Quiet unto his soul: yet nevertheless it is apparent that Affiance itself, is an act or motion of the Will, and not a Quiet, even as the inclination of a man's self upon his staff, or the laying of him down upon his bed is an action of the body. In a word remember what a little before I have delivered to clear this term from all ambiguity, and take it in the same sense which there I give unto it, and unless you will say▪ that light is darkness you cannot but confess that such rest is a labour, and so that notwithstanding this argument, Faith may be a Rest.  
But now give me leave to take up the weapon which you are forced to lay down, and to try whether a blow therewith from my arm will pierce any deeper: for thus I retort your own reason against you. Faith is rather a labour then a rest, Assurance is not so, but rather a rest then a labour, Ergo, Faith is not Assurance. The Mayor is your own, and you may not deny it. The Minor I prove thus, Intellection or knowledge, saith Aristotle, is more like unto rest and quiet then unto motion: for although the mind while it is enquiring & seeking for knowledge is ever in motion and so laboureth, yet when the Habit of knowledge is once acquired and gotten, then is there no farther motion of the understanding thereunto, but a sweet rest and Quiet therein. Whereupon saith the same Philosopher, By the quieting & settling of the soul, doth a man become intelligent and wise, meaning by Quiet, as julius Scaliger expoundeth him, 
Exerc. in Card. 307. 13.  nothing else but the assent of the mind. I assume, But Assurance is such intellection or knowledge, for it is an habitual assent unto this truth, that we are in the present state of grace and shall infallibly be saved. Wherefore I conclude that Assurance is rather a rest or quiet then a labour: whence also it farther followeth that Faith, being as you confess rather a labour, than a rest, cannot be Assurance.  
Again, Faith, you say, ceaseth when eternal pacification and rest is wrought. I grant: for the Object of Faith, as the Apostle saith, are things which are not seen, whereupon Saint Augustin elegantly, 
Heb. 11.1.  Si vides non est Fides, Beholding is not Believing. As therefore while we live here in these earthly tabernacles, and are absent from the Lord, we walk not by Sight, but by Faith: so when we shall be clothed upon, 
2. Cor. 5.4.7. Vers. 4.  and mortality shall be swallowed up of life, then shall we walk not by Faith, but by Sight. Neither is the ceasing of Faith any loss or disadvantage, but an exchange for the better, namely vision: for Seeing unto Believing is, as the full brightness of the Sun is to the glimmering light of a candle. I assume then, But Assurance ceaseth not when eternal pacification and rest is wrought: for then the certainty of our Election, of our adoption, of our acceptation into grace, and finally of our Salvation is so fare from ceasing, that it is by so much the more confirmed unto us, as intuitive apprehension and the sight of the eye is more infallible than hearsay or seeing by reflection. I conclude therefore out of your own principles, that Faith ceasing, and Assurance not ceasing, Faith is not Assurance. But as touching Affiance or Resting upon the mediation of Christ for justification and Salvation, it is evident that that ceaseth when we shall have obtained eternal rest and pacification. For being perfectly quitted of our sins, and in full possession of Salvation, how can we farther set out Affiance upon him for it? Especially seeing he shall then cease to be unto us a Mediator of Redemption and Reconciliation, in regard whereof only he is the Object of Affiance or justifying Faith, and shall be unto us no otherwise then he is unto the Elect Angels, a Mediator of Conservation to confirm & preserve us eternally in the most blessed state of glory. For neither shall he Prophecy any more unto us by the ministry of the Gospel, nor propitiate for us by the sacrifice of his death and Passion, nor govern us by the sceptre of his word as here he doth: 
1 Cor. 15.24.  but in this respect shall he deliver up the Kingdom unto his Father, and the Godhead in the holy Trinity shall without all means be immediately unto us all in all.  N. B. 
Rest therefore in Christ is the Effect of Faith, and Faith is the cause of Rest: and so consequently Faith is not Rest, nor Rest is not Faith.  I. D. 
If, say you, Faith be the cause of Rest, and Rest be the Effect of Faith, then is not Faith Rest nor Rest Faith. This I yield you. But Faith is the cause of Rest and Rest is the effect of Faith. How prove you this? It seemeth by the illative particle: Therefore that you refer us for this unto some former premises. What then have you formerly said? That a full assurance as a cause worketh rest upon Christ as an effect. But neither is Assurance Faith, and I have sufficiently proved that Assurance is not the cause of Rest, nor Rest an effect of Assurance. Again, you say that Faith worketh eternal rest and peace. But how doth this follow, Faith is the cause of eternal quiet and resting from our labours in the Kingdom of Heaven, Ergo, it is the cause of Affiance and Resting upon Christ here in this life? for it is not necessary that that which causeth the one, should also cause the other. But if in your Conclusion when you say Faith is not a Rest, you mean it is not that eternal rest, what is that to me who define not Faith by such a Rest? So then your therefore either concluding beside the Question, or being inferred upon no Premises, deserveth of me no answer at all. Yet to take away all scruple, let us see what may be said for it.  
Bellarmine to prove that Affiance is an Effect of Faith, 
De iustif. lib. 1. cap. 6.  and consequently not Faith, allegeth and urgeth three passages of Scripture: but withal I must tell you, that if he dispute to the purpose, he must mean by Affiance, no other then confident Persuasion or Assurance. For his adversaries, as himself there saith, defining Faith by Affiance, understand thereby that Special Faith, whereby every one applying to himself the divine Promise, believeth or rather confidently trusteth that all his sins are forgiven him by Christ. So that if (as he ought) he argue unto the meaning of his adversaries, he concludeth not against my Affiance, but only against your Persuasion or Assurance. Nevertheless let us examine those places severally and particularly. The first is that of the Apostle to the Ephesians, 
Eph. 3.12.  In whom we have boldness and entrance with confidence by the Faith of him: whence it followeth, saith he, if confidence or Affiance be by Faith, that Faith is not Affiance but the cause thereof: for otherwise the sense would be, we have entrance with confidence by confidence, which is absurd. To this I answer, first that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Confidence oftentimes signifieth Persuasion or Assurance, being derived of a verb that signifieth firmly to be Persuaded, as where the Apostle saith, 
Rom. 2.19.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, thou strongly persuadest thyself that thou art a guide of the blind; 
Phil. 1.25.  and again, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, this am I well assured of: and therefore it is not necessary here to understand it of my Affiance. Secondly, grant that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this Affiance is meant, yet doth it not follow that it is an effect of justifying Faith, seeing by faith not justifying but Historical Faith may be understood, which is the means by which we grow unto Affiance. Lastly, let it be farther yielded, that both, by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Affiance, and by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 justifying Faith are meant; yet may Affiance this notwithstanding be that Faith, neither will any such absurdity ensue thereon. For as when you say, we are assured by Faith you would think yourself wronged if I should infer thereupon that Faith is not Assurance but the cause thereof, or that otherwise the sense would be we are assured by assurance: so when the Apostle saith in Affiance by Faith, why should he not also count himself as much abused if you gather from hence that Faith is not Affiance but the cause thereof, or that else the speech would be absurd, as if he should say in Affiance by Affiance. The reason of all in a word is, because this form of words may import that Affiance is the next and immediate Act of justifying Faith. The second place is that saying of our Saviour unto the woman diseased with an issue of blood, 
Mat. 9.22.  Be confident daughter, thy Faith hath saved thee: where saith he, Faith is again in like sort distinguished from Affiance; for the woman is moved to conceive and entertain Affiance who was already healed by Faith. To this I answer, that the word which our Saviour useth to the woman is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth to be bold or courageous, whence cometh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Boldness, courage, 
Exerc. 317.4.  which as julius Scaliger saith, is the motion of Fortitude unto some work, and is opposed unto Timorousness or Fearfulness. Neither was it without special reason that our Saviour chose that word rather than any other: for finding that virtue proceeded from him, and demanding who had touched him, 
Luc. 8.47.  the woman seeing that she could conceal it came unto him trembling, and fell at his feet, and declared what she had done, whereupon he said unto her, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tremble not Daughter, nor be dismayed, but cheer up and be of good courage, for I assure thee thy Faith hath saved thee, go thy way in Peace. Now this Boldness or courage I confess is an effect of Faith, nay oftentimes an effect of the effect of Faith, namely Hope: for as Despair of victory causeth Fearfulness and dejection of Spirit, so contrariwise Hope of victory maketh a man to be bold and confident. But unless you can prove that this Boldness is the same with my Affiance (which with all your skill you can never do, they being of so different natures) you can never conclude from hence that Affiance is an effect of Faith. The third and last place is that of the same Apostle unto Timothy, They which minister well shall get unto themselves a good degree and much affiance in the Faith which is in Christ: where, saith he, 
1 Tim. 3.13.  Affiance is said to be acquired and gotten by Faith, because Faith may be without such Affiance. Whereunto I answer that the word used in the original is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which no way signifieth Affiance, but liberty and freedom of speech, whether we utter our mind unto God by prayer, as where the Apostle saith, 
Heb. 4.16.  Let us come 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with boldness and freedom of Speech unto the Throne of grace, or make profession of our Faith before men, as where the same Apostle saith, Cast not away 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your free profession, 
Heb. 10.35.  as Beza translateth it: And because this liberty and freedom proceedeth from the testimony of a good conscience, and assurance of the love and favour of God: 
Heb. 3.6.  therefore is it sometimes used for Assurance, as where the Apostle saith, Whose house we are if we hold fast 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that confidence and rejoicing of Hope unto the end, meaning by Confidence saith Beza that most worthy effect of Faith whereby we cry Abba Father: 
Prou. 28.1.  and sometimes for that Lion-like boldness which Solomon saith, always attendeth a good conscience, and so doth the same Beza in this present place of Timothy understand it. 
Heb. 3.6. vide annot. Tremel. ad Heb. 4.16.  And hence it is that the Syriac oftentimes rendereth this word by Retection or Revelation of the face, because a good conscience lifteth up the head, and boldly showeth the face: whereas a guilty mind hangeth down the head, and (as one confounded and ashamed) dares not look either God or man in the face. So then seeing this is the right sense and meaning of this word in this place, and it is in no place found to signify my Affiance you cannot with any probability hence conclude that such Affiance is the Effect of Faith, and not Faith. Unto these three passages thus vouched by Bellarmine, 
Heb. 11.1. Col. 2.2. & Ro. 4.21. Rom. 5.1. Ro. 14.17.5.2.  you may if you please add sundry others of the like nature, as namely those which attribute unto Faith, Subsistence of things hoped for, evidence of things not seen, plerophory or fullness of Assurance, Peace with God, joy in the Holy Ghost, Spiritual glorying and boasting, obsignation by the Spirit, 
Eph. 1.13. Mat. 11.29.  and finally, Tranquillity and quietness of the soul: all which I cannot but acknowledge to be the fruits and effects of ●ustifying Faith. But yet I deny that either they all, or any of them have the same definition with that Affiance which I have made to be the proper Act of that Faith. And therefore to end this discourse, whereunto not the force of your Conclusion (which being barely affirmed might as easily have been rejected) but only the sincere desire I have to leave nothing unsatisfied, drew me: I still pronounce that for any thing hitherto hath been said, justifying Faith is an Affiance.  
Yet before I proceed any farther, I must be so bold as to pluck you by the ear, and to call to your remembrance what erewhile you said, namely that a man may rest his will upon Christ and his merits and yet be damned. Which how it may agree with that which here you say that Rest on Christ is an effect of justifying Faith, I cannot (such is my blindness) see. For it seemeth that where the effects of justifying Faith are, there justifying Faith also is: whereupon it followeth that either this Resting on Christ cannot be in those that are to be damned, because they want justifying Faith to work this effect in them, or that a man may be damned having justifying Faith together with the effects thereof in him which by your own confession is absurd, or lastly that this Resting upon Christ is not a fruit or effect of justifying Faith which is diametrally opposite unto your Conclusion. I beseech you Sir, let us at your leisure hear from you how either these strange Paradoxes may be verified, or these seeming contradictions reconciled.  N. B. 
Besides this word Rest is ambiguous, and may be taken in ill part, and may be in many negligent and careless Christians which every day and for every sin bring Christ to the Cross, and say we will rest upon Christ, and in the mean time work nothing worthy of the Name of a Christian, but rather wallow in all kind of filthiness. And in this sense only do I say a man may be damned with such a Rest upon Christ. I speak this to prevent your captious cavils. It is fit for you therefore that take upon you to see more than ever any learned man saw before your time to beware of all equivocations and words doubtful.  I. D. 
That the word Rest is ambiguous I saw well enough, and therefore in my Treatise carefully distinguished the equivocation thereof, where if you marked it not, you must blame your own oversight and not my Vnwarinesse. For two kinds of Resting upon Christ, I said there were, the one Sleight and Superficial, the other Settled and well grounded, and this Settled and grounded Affiance I made to be the Act of justifying Faith, as there you may read more at large. Now you, to prevent captious cavils, tell me, that when you say, a man may be damned notwithstanding his Resting upon Christ, you understand it of that which may be in many negligent and careless Christians, that is to say of Sleight and superficial Affiance only. Wherein you show yourself too too both ridiculous and idle: ridiculous in saying, you speak this to prevent my captious cavils, whereas indeed this very captious cavil of yours was in my Treatise as appeareth so manifestly prevented by me: Idle, in arguing from sleight and superficial Affiance unto that which is Settled and Grounded on this manner (for so in effect you confess,) Slight Affiance may be in the Damned, Ergo, settled Affiance is not justifying Faith, as if you should say, An ass may have a shadow, Ergo, the Body of a man is not a solid substance. And thus, to requite you with your own Proverb, you perish like the rat by bewraying yourself: for having urged this argument now twice against me and that with such confidence as if it alone were sufficient to batter down the bulwark of my Definition, at length you tell us very gravely and sadly that it is but paper shot which hitherto you have discharged, and that all the breaches you have made may easily be repaired by distinguishing an equivocation.  
Where you say I take upon me to see more than ever any learned man saw before my time, it hath been already sufficiently answered both in my Treatise & in this Defence thereof. Nevertheless because you harp so often upon this string, this I add, that (unless you can demonstrate that it is impossible for a man of mean parts, and gifts to see and observe that which men of greater learning and deeper understanding have not observed) I know no reason why a man may not without taxation of modesty take upon him in some things to see that which others have not seen before him. It is true that a Giant by reason of his tallness must needs see farther than a dwarf or one that is but of a mean stature: yet if you place a dwarf aloft upon the shoulders of a giant, he shall then be able to see farther than the Giant himself can. I am I confess, not unto your seeming only, but in very deed a dwarf as it were in Divinity, even the least and meanest often thousand; and those our Predecessors having been so eminently and incomparably qualified with all kind of graces and endowments, are as it were Giants in comparison of us. And therefore it would be intolerable both pride to think and impudence to say that of myself I could see as fare into the mysteries of Religion as they could. But now being advanced as it were upon their shoulders, and having the benefit of all those volumes which they wrote, and in them of all whatsoever they knew: why should it seem strange that something comes within the compass of my ken which they though eagle-sighted perceived not? And yet by your favour, Sir, I take no such matter upon me, or if I seem to do so, I hope I do it with all modesty, and it can be no more than this that out of such Premises as they have taught me, I gather a Conclusion which they attended not.  N. B. 
For I tell you this, if Master Perkins whom you say you blanked with your rare cunning dispute were desirous to sift this Genus or word Rest, you shall hardly persuade me that he will take it for any other than the effect of true justifying Faith.  I. D. 
Neither is it your vain surmising what Master Perkins would say; Neither his express and direct saying, that may be the decider of this controversy. How well that worthy man deserved of the Church of God, wherein he was like another Baptist both a shining and a burning torch, 
joh. 5.35.  I cannot be ignorant who knew him so well: and very ungrateful were I if I should not acknowledge to have received a good part of that little skill I have in my profession from his mouth having been for sundry years his ordinary auditor. Yet because he was not a Peter, or a Paul, nor so preserved from error by the Spirit of truth, that he could mistake in nothing: I hope I may, without arrogance, and with reservation of due reverence & honour unto his worth in some points descent from him. And if you may seat Faith both in the understanding and the will, notwithstanding that M. Perkins place it only in the understanding, 
On the Creed.  affirming that it scarce standeth with reason that one single grace should inhere in two distinct faculties: why may not I take the same liberty unto myself, and define justifying Faith by Affiance, although M. Perkins would take it for no other than the Effect of justifying Faith? for so indeed he doth, and I deny not, but freely confess, that upon the reasons above rendered, I do in this point altogether differ from him. Neither yet did I say, that I blanked him with my rare and cunning disputes, for this is but the renewing of your old slander, the vanity of which I have already detected. Only it seems that your best wine is wel-nie spent, seeing now you serve your guests with these dregs: and that you are driven to a very narrow strait, when you are fain to arm against me such base calumniations and fictions of your own brain.  N. B. 
When you send me to Master Fox in his Book de Christo gratis justificante, without citing the place where, or the words what, of me your speech deserveth none answer: but this I dare undertake, you abuse the writings of so reverend a man.  I. D. 
The authority of Master Fox was not vouched by me, to justify my Definition, that Faith is Affiance, but to overthrew yours, who affirm that Faith is Assurance: and therefore was placed as was fitting, after those arguments which I urged against you. Nevertheless here it pleaseth you after your desultory and disorderly manner of disputing in a very undue place to give answer unto it. And the reason why with such violence you hale it hither as I guess, is this, that not appearing where it should it may seem to give no evidence at all against your Assurance, and being ordered where it should not it may seem to be but idly alleged as being of no force to maintain my Affiance. But yet let us see what exceptions you take to elevate this authority.  
Because I cite not the place where, nor the words what, my speech, you say, deserves no answer. I wiss, M. Baxter, that book is not of such bulk but that perusing the titles of each Chapter you might soon have found out the places by me intended: and you know that the schedule I sent you, being indicted at Bristol, where I was fare from my books, I could not possibly refer you unto the very page and line, as otherwise I would have done. But now because I have the book at hand, I will set you down his direct words, and quote you the page where you may read them, and then leave you to be judge yourself, whether as you charge me I abuse the writings of that reverend man, or he agree with me in this, that Faith is not Assurance. 
Fox.  Master Fox therefore in his book de Christo gratis iustificante, pag. 246. saith thus, My judgement and opinion is that this confidence of mercy, and certainty of Salvation promised is a thing which ought to be very nearly conjoined with Faith, and which every one ought necessarily to apply unto himself: yet being most applied is not that which only by itself properly and absolutely dischargeth us of our sins, and justifies before God, but that there is some other thing propounded in the Gospel, which in nature goeth before this certainty, and justifieth before God. For Faith upon the Person of the Son of God, whereby we are first reconciled unto God necessarily goes before. Again pag. 253. Although, saith he, certainty and assurance of divine grace (which itself is sometime commended under the name of Faith) be very nearly joined with Faith, yet this assurance doth not properly import the cause of justifying, but receiveth it being brought, neither worketh justification, but is rather wrought by it, and maketh them certain, who by the Faith of Christ are justified, but itself justifieth not. And yet again pag. 255. If the question be of the cause which properly justifieth from sin, I answer it is that Faith not whereby we believe, that we are justified, but whereby we believe in Christ the Son of God. Thus M. Fox, and thus by M. Fox, it appeareth as I affirmed, that in this point I am not singular and alone.  
Yet to prevent captious cavils, you may be pleased to understand that the Latin word used by Master Fox, to wit Fiducia, I have in my translation englished Confidence and Assurance; not that I was afraid lest rendering it Affiance, he might seem to exclude my affiance also from the Definition of Faith, for had he done so, it were nothing to me, having showed that he denies Faith to be Assurance, which was all I there affirmed of him: but because, if you mark his words attentively, you shall find that by Fiducia, he understands not Affiance, but confident Persuasion or Assurance, for he doth ever confound it with Certainty, and expressly defines it to be that whereby we are assured of our justification by Christ. So doth Melancthon also, and Kemnitius, and many others, understanding by Fiducia, a firm Persuasion that our sins are certainly remitted by the propitiation of Christ, and all the benefits of the promise of grace given, communicated, and applied unto us. So that unless I would have depraved my author's meaning, I could not translate otherwise then I have done.  N. B. 
Now think not that I hold, that a man ordinarily saved may be saved without relying upon Christ jesus: for I hold the clean contrary, viz. that true justifying Faith assuring a man in spiritual knowledge of his own salvation in jesus Christ, worketh and causeth a sweet rest and reposing of the whole soul upon Christ and his Merits. But I deny that this Rest is Faith, or this Faith Rest, no more than the tree can be the fruit, or the fruit the tree.  I. D. 
That no man can ordinarily be saved without Relying upon Christ I grant, for according to my definition, this Relying upon Christ, is justifying Faith: but that this Resting upon Christ, is unto Faith, as the fruit is to the tree, prove it sufficiently, and in God's Name take the victory. But you must not think, that affirming is proving, or facing arguing: and very meanly do you conceive of your Readers judgement, if you think, that your weak asseverations can more prevail with them then the strength of my reasons. For if by Rest you understand, as you should, not Quiet and peace of Conscience which I confess is not complete without Assurance, but that Affiance by which we stay ourselves upon Christ, accepting him to be our Mediator in such sort as is above described: I have both plainly and sound demonstrated, that Faith is such a Rest, and such a Rest Faith, and not the fruit of Faith.  N. B. 
And to be plain with you, when you say justifying Faith is not a Knowledge or an Assurance, 
Tom. 3. de justif. ca 7.  you speak pure Bellarmine, as appeareth in his Book de iustificatione. I pray you therefore though you mislike M. Perkins, turn not pure Papist.  I. D. 
And to be plain with you also, if your kind of reasoning may pass for currant, when you say, justifying Faith is not a Rest or Affiance, you speak pure Bellarmine: 
Cap. 5.6.9.  for in the same Book by you quoted, as he denieth Faith to be Assurance, so he denieth it also to be Affiance. I pray you therefore though you mislike my Definition yet turn not pure Papist. But, Master Baxter, you mistake the matter very much if you think all is Popish or erroneous whatsoever either a member of the Church of Rome, or the whole Church of Rome holdeth: for by this rule we should with the Arrians of Poleland, renounce the very Faith of the Trinity as a branch of Antichrists Religion, of whom it is reported, that therefore and for this reason, specially they hold the Pope to be the mystical beast spoken of in the Revelation, and his triple Crown a visible mark thereof, because he maintaineth the doctrine of the Trinity. As therefore erewhile you said unto me, Let us not be bound to defend the errors of our Brethren, so say I now unto you, Let us not be bound to reject the truths of our adversaries. For truth is Gods wheresoever it be found, though it were in the mouth of him who is the father of lies: and if Ticonius the Donatist speak with better reason than Cyprian an orthodox father, 
Retract. lib. 2. ca 18.  S. Augustin will not stick therein, to prefer the Heretic before him that is Catholic. But notwithstanding all this, I would have you to know, that all the agreement between me and Bellarmine is only in this what Faith is not: for in question what it is we differ the whole heaven one from another, he defining it by Assent unto divine truths, I by Affiance on the person of Christ.  N. B. 
Now, Master Down, to make an end, and return to my other affairs from whence you have unkindly drawn me, I pray you read a few Positions to the which oppose what you can.  I. D. 
What your affairs are I am not well acquainted withal: but what they should be I wots full well. Among the rest maintenance of God's truth, and convincing of contrary errors are both by the rule of Christianity in general, and the office of the Ministry which you have taken upon you in particular required of you. Wherein if you be sure, that all this while you have been employed, you discredit your action exceedingly when you say you are unkindly drawn from your other affairs unto it. 
Plut. Apophth.  Remember you not what the woman replied unto Philip of Macedon denying to hear her suit, because he was not at leisure? Hast thou not, quoth she, leisure to be a King? So say I unto you, either do the work if you will be a Minister of Christ's Gospel, or else be no Minister if you be unwilling to do the work.  
To what end you should offer unto me these Positions following, requiring me to oppose what I can against them, I cannot well conjecture: for what stuff have you here brought us besides that which either is already sufficiently answered, or whereof there is no question at all betwixt us? And therefore I see no cause why I should vouchsafe to bestow any time or labour about them. Nevertheless to satisfy your request a word or two touching them.  N. B. 

True justifying Faith defined.  1. justifying Faith, is an assured knowledge, or knowing assurance, by the which every one of the elected relieth upon the Promises of the mercy of God in Christ jesus, firmly holding that Christ and eternal life together with all the merits of Christ, are given to him to righteousness and eternal salvation.  

Fides unica & individua specie. Haec Fides differt numero & gradu.  2. There is but one only special justifying Faith.  
3. This Faith differeth in number and degree.  
4. It is manifest there be so many several Faiths in number, as there be several persons elected.  
5. One man is not saved by another man's Faith.  

Mat. 26.74.75. & 17.17. Mat. 9.24.  6. This Faith differeth in degrees, small in one man, and mighty in another, Mat. 13.23. & 14.31. Act. 2.8. ca 4. Mat. 15.28.  

Fides imperfecta; Ad resistendum tamen diabolo sufficiens & quare.  7. The greatest Faith in this life is imperfect. 1 Cor. 13.9. & 12.  
8. Though it be small and infirm, yet it is sufficient to resist the Devil, by reason of the prayers and promises of Christ.  

2 Cor. 5.1. Esa. 53.11. Causa efficiens material.  9 This Knowledge or Faith (for they be convertible joh. 17.3.) passeth all understanding Eph. 3.14. etc.  
10. The Efficient cause of this Faith, is the Spirit of God.  
11. The instrumental ordinary cause, is the preaching sincerely of the Word of God.  
12. God may work extraordinarily Faith in the Elect without preaching by his Spirit. 
Obiectum Fidei in genere & specie.   
13. The object of Faith in generality is the whole Word of God, in speciality the promises of God in Christ and his Merits.  
14. The formal cause is a confident relation to all the Word of God, and certainty of salvation. 
Formalis.   
15. The final cause subordinate, 
Finis subordinatus, summus.  is the salvation of the Elect, the chiefest end is the celebration of the mercy and justice of God.  
16. The effects are concerning God, ourselves, 
Effecta.  our neighbour: God, in truly serving him; ourselves, in wholly resting upon him; our neighbour, in truly loving him.  
17. The subject where Faith resteth is the heart, 
Subiectum in quo residet Fides. Adiuncta duo.  the understanding, and the will of man.  
18. The properties are two, first, that Faith be alive and not dead; secondly, that it be perpetual.  I. D. 
The first, the thirteenth, and the foureteenth, I wholly and absolutely deny, having fully proved, against the first, that Faith is not a Knowledge or Assurance; against the thirteenth, that the only proper Object of Faith is the Person of the Mediator, and against the foureteenth, that the Form thereof is Affiance and not any such Relation or Certainty. The ninth, sixteenth, and seventeenth in part I deny: the ninth, where you make Faith and Knowledge to be convertible which I have proved to have different natures and Definitions; the sixteenth where you affirm Resting upon Christ to be an effect of Faith, which I have demonstrated to be the Form and proper Act of Faith; the seventeenth, where you say that the subject of Faith is both the Understanding and the Will, against which I have showed, that it is impossible for one and the same Habit to be subiectively in two several faculties of the Soul. The rest of your Positions (saving the inconvenience of some terms, and setting a favourable construction upon them) I acknowledge to be true; and because, as the Apostle speaketh, I can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth, therefore I oppose them not, but readily and willingly yield and subscribe unto them.  
But, Master Baxter, in all this long discourse of Faith, having spoken so carefully of the Definition of Faith, of the unity of it in kind, and difference of it in number and degree, of the imperfection, sufficiency, efficient, principal and instrumental, of the object both in general and special, of the form, and end both Subordinate and Highest, finally of the Effects, Subjects, and adjuncts thereof: in all this long discourse, I say, how is it that we hear not so much as a word of justification, which notwithstanding is the immediate and proper Effect of Faith? Immediate, because it is the first fruit and benefit that springeth of it, and cometh before Adoption and Sanctification: proper, because it is the Act of Faith only, and not of any other Grace which justifies a man before God. Whether it were of negligence, or of policy, that you have omitted so material and necessary a point, I cannot say. If of negligence, it deserves a severe chastisement: if of policy, it was I think you foresaw what a dangerous consequence would follow thereupon. For if you had placed justification (as needs you must have done if you had mentioned it) among the Effects of Faith, the Reader possibly might have reasoned thus, If justification be an Effect of Faith and so follow after Faith, then cannot Assurance of justification be Faith, because it is an effect of justification and follows after: for it is necessary that a man be justified, before he can be assured that he is justified. And thus you had cast away your whole pot of broth, 
2 King. 4.39.  if you had not warily kept this Coloquintida out of it. But upon what ground soever you have forborn to speak of this point, I will by your leave supply this defect, and in a word or two show you in what sense I affirm that Affiance justifies, and deny it of Assurance: for in some sort Assurance also may be said to justify.  
justification is a law-tearme, and is opposed unto Condemnation. As therefore Condemnation is the sentence of a judge pronouncing a man to be guilty, and delivering him over to be punished: so is justification also the sentence of a judge, but absolving and acquitting a man both from crime and punishment. Now there are three bars at which all men are arraigned, and three judges, who at their several bars either justify us, or condemn us, that is to say, the bar of God, the bar of Conscience, and the bar of Men. If we be condemned at all these bars, and by all these judges, we are of all creatures the most miserable: if we be absolved at them all, and by them all, of all men we be the most blessed. Again, if Men acquit us, what booteth it, if our own Conscience condemn us? and if our Conscience acquit us, what availeth it, if God condemn us? for who can deliver the prey out of the paws of that Lion? On the contrary side, if men condemn us, it mattereth not, so as our Conscience do absolve us: and if our Conscience also do condemn us, yet happy are we, if God absolve us, for God is greater than our Conscience. What that is, 
1 joh. 3.20.  for which sentence of Condemnation passeth upon us at any of these bars there is no question, for it is well known to be sin: sin I say which is so indeed, or at least is so in appearance. For although nothing appear unto God otherwise than it is, so that there can be no error in his judgement: yet our own consciences and other men may easily be deceived and mistaken, and so without cause oftentimes pronounce sentence of Condemnation. What then is that by which we are justified and absolved from our sins, and the punishment of death due unto them? Surely, that which is contrary unto sin, even Righteousness. What Righteousness? 
Phil. 3.9.  for, as the Apostle distinguisheth, there is a Righteousness which is of the law, and there is a righteousness which is of Faith: by the former, shall no flesh living be justified, by the latter every one that Believeth is justified. God justifieth us at his bar when he seethe our Faith, that by firm Affiance we rest and rely ourselves upon Christ to be our Mediator, accepting him to be our Prophet, Priest, and King: for then according unto promise doth he accept the Passive obedience of Christ to satisfy for our sins past, and imputeth unto us his Active obedience to supply the want of that perfect legal righteousness which should be in us. Our Conscience justifies us at his bar, when it is persuaded that God hath already justified us: for as long as it is persuaded that God condemneth, it cannot acquit us. If the persuasion of the Conscience be built upon a sandy and deceitful foundation, it is rather vain presumption then true assurance, and the judgement that it giveth is erroneous: but if it be grounded upon infallible evidence, even the testimony of the Spirit of God, 
Rom. 8.16.  witnessing with our spirits that we are the sons of God, then is the Assurance sound and certain, and the sentence pronounced thereupon just and rightful, 
Phil. 4.7.  whence presently ariseth in our souls such unconceivable peace as passeth all understanding, and such durable joy as nothing can take from us. Finally, Men justify us at their bar also, 
joh. 16.22. Mat. 5.16.  when our light so shineth before them, that they see our good works, which are the fruits of Faith and a good Conscience, and thereby are moved to glorify our Heavenly Father: as being persuaded in the judgement of Charity that they are indeed as they seem to be, even justified before God, and borne again of water and the Holy Ghost. This judgement because it is built upon probability only, and not upon certainty (for who knows whether the outward appearance come from the inward holiness or hollowness of the heart, but only the heart itself, and God which made it?) May therefore be erroneous, and though proceeding from Charity, yet in the mean season swerving from verity. If then when Men justify us, our own Consciences tell us, that they pronounce a wrong sentence, and absolve the guilty: the comfort that grows unto us thereby is no better than a cup of cold water is unto a man sick of a burning fever, or then the Sardonian laughter which makes the face seem to grin, while the deadly poison is searching through every vein, and seizing upon the very heart. But if we be well assured that the sentence is just and true, and that they are not deceived therein, although it be not the end we aimed at, nor the Crown we looked for, yet is it a sweet and amiable companion of holy life, publicly testifying unto our great comfort that God hath been glorified by us, our profession honoured, and others invited if not gained unto Christ. And thus much have I thought good in regard of your silence to speak I hope not impertinently, at least wise not unprofitably of justification: the sum whereof is that Affiance justifies before God, Assurance before Conscience, works before Men. So that I do not simply deny either that Assurance is Faith (for in my Treatise I acknowledge that the Scripture sometime calleth it Faith) or that it justifieth (for I confess it justifieth at the bar of Conscience) only I deny it to be that Faith which justifies before God, affirming that Faith to be no other than Affiance.  N. B. 
Thus, Master Down, you have, what you have so much, so earnestly, so bitterly, and contumeliously wrested from me in writing, sith that you have refused to defend your Doctrine preached here by Disputation.  I. D. 
Indeed, Master Baxter, when I understood by the advertisements of sundry my good friends in Bristol, that you had not only drawn up an Answer against me full of reproachful and disgraceful speeches, but had also dispersed it abroad into the hands of diverse Burgesses of that City, thereby to discredit both me, and the Doctrine which I preached among them, without vouchsafing after a whole twelve months' space to send me a copy thereof according unto promise: true it is that as soon as the next opportunity was afforded me, I could not forbear to challenge you for this  and unschollerly dealing, and to let you know the just indignation and disdain I conceived thereat. Besides that once, did I never either by word or writing solicit you in this matter: and then earnest perhaps and vehement I might be in expostulating with you, but Bitter and Contumelious I am sure I was not, and for proof thereof I refer me unto the testimony of those who were then present with us. But whether earnest and vehement, or Bitter and Contumelious, Answer from you by no means could I wrest any. And that now I have obtained a Copy thereof, thanks unto those my good friends who never left following upon the scent of the Fox until they surprised him for me, and not unto you who desired and laboured nothing more than to keep it from me. Of all men you liked not it should light into my hands, and yet of all men me it most concerned, and unto me was only promised. And so after the Parthian manner you fight flying, and as Caesar said of the Scythians make it more difficult to find you then to foil you.  
Well yet I refused, you say, to defend the Doctrine I preached by disputation. First, the course which formerly we had agreed and resolved upon was Writing: and therefore I saw no reason why I should yield to have the cause removed from a higher unto an inferior Court, from Writing unto Disputation. For as a late learned writer saith, Writings are more solid, peaceable, 
Dan. Chamier Ep. ad Egnat. Armand.  and certain, then is present speech: for more solid must those things needs be which are meditated then which are suddenly; spoken, more peaceable than those things which are done in the tumult, and while the minds of the Disputants are with present vehemence inflamed; more certain, for writings remain, and words are winged and fly away, and writings easily convince the impudence of them that would corrupt them, which speaking cannot so well do. And although in quick writing there be without question more advisedness then in present speaking, yet doth Saint Hierome excuse his hasty commentary upon Saint Mathews Gospel, 
Proaem. comment. in Math.  promising a more absolute work, that you may know, saith he, What odds there is between the boldness of sudden enditing, and the diligence of well-studied writing. Secondly, as the Apostle Saint Paul answered the Sergeants that were sent unto him from the governors of Philippi, 
Act. 16.37.  After that they have beaten us openly uncondemned which are Romen, they have cast us into Prison, and now would they put us out privily? Nay verily, but let them come and bring us out: so say I unto you, after you have in a more public manner traduced and wronged me, scattering through the whole City a most slanderous invective and libel against me, do you think now by a private and chamber-disputation to content me? Nay verily, this plaster is too narrow for the wound, and open wrong requires open satisfaction. Lastly, howsoever you pretend that you set not pen to paper until I had refused your challenge of disputation, the Reader may be pleased to understand that it is clean contrary. And therefore as I cannot but impute your denial to impart unto me what in writing you had opposed against me, to the distrust you had either in your cause, or in your own sufficiency: so now, having scribbled away so much precious time, and sacrificed so much paper to Cloacina, that suddenly you apprehend a disputation, I assure myself it was but a sleight devised upon the present to shift me off, and to rid yourself from me, whose residence you knew to be elsewhere, and who at that time was to take up a night's lodging with you. Or if you meant sincerely and unfeignedly, doubtless it was confidence you had either in the boldness of your forehead uncapable of the purple tincture of modesty, or in the unskilfulness of those who were like to be our Auditors & Moderators, who as I take it have more skill in Merchandise and trafficking, then in Demonstration or dialectical Syllogisms. For otherwise we had been upon equal ground in either of the Universities, I suppose you would have been better advised ere you had made that challenge unto me.  N. B. 
I pray God it may work in you a willing mind to embrace Peace and Brotherly love, without the which we can never see God. Bristol. july 27. 1602.  I. D. 
It is impossible that unto a man of understanding any benefit or profit should accrue by reprehension, unless it may appear unto him by some evident remonstrance that that which is reproved in him be faulty and erroneous, and that also he be guilty thereof. For they that think themselves to be in health, will hardly be drawn to take Physic: 
In Pastore.  and then shall we better correct them that are wayward, saith Gregory, when those things which they believe to be well done, we demonstrate to be evil. Whereas therefore it pleaseth you here in the conclusion and closing up of your Answer, to charge me with a most Vnpeaceable and Uncharitable disposition, praying God it may work in me a willing mind to embrace peace and brotherly love: you may not think that this can any way affect or move me, unless first you show that I am guilty of this crime, and bear a mind so averse and abhorring from Peace and Charity, as you pretend, which I am sure hitherto you neither have done nor can do. For though you have carefully searched every corner of my Treatise, and ransacked every letter and syllable thereof with as much greediness as ever Laban did jacobs' stuff to find his Idols therein; 
Gen. 31.33.  yet have you not found any thing savouring other then of Peace and Love, or if you have, why do you not, as jacob said unto his Uncle, put it here before your brethren & my brethren, 
Vers. 37.  that they may judge between us both? You will say perhaps that in broaching this erroneous doctrine touching the Definition of Faith, I plainly bewrayed a seditious spirit, and that I intended the interruption of Peace and dissolution of love. But neither is it necessary that whosoever delivereth an error should presently have such a seditious intention, for than what writer almost either ancient or late but is guilty of that impiety? Neither is the doctrine errronious, but sound and good, and now plentifully proved so to be by this Defence thereof against your Answer. So that this accusation of yours, is altogether unjust, and grounded upon no truth at all. Suppose nevertheless it were just, and that you had found your Idols, I mean both Falsehood and Faction in my writing: is it possible think you that such an Answer as this is, either of itself, or sanctified by your Prayer, may be effectual to reclaim me from mine error, or to work me unto a more peaceable mind? Certainly it is impossible. For what is it of itself other than a fardel of vanities? And what promise have you in God's word that upon your prayer you shall be able to open the eyes of the blind by daubing them over with clay, or to still the raging of the sea by sending forth more storms and tempests upon it? And that such is your Answer, and such the course you have taken therein, although this Defence have already made it as clear as the noonday: yet must I entreat your patience before I dismiss you in a word or two, to traverse it over again, and in a brief Synopsis as it were to set before you the very spirit and quintessence thereof, that if it be possible you may see your nakedness, 
Gen. 3.10.  and be ashamed.  
First, it is your manner like the Scholars of Theodorus to receive with the left hand that which I offer with the right, that is to wrest and pervert my plainest words, 
Plutarch. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and to make them speak not that which I intent, but what you conceive is fittest for you to descant upon. For example where I say, I will not speak of the notation, or divers acceptions of the word Faith: you turn it another way saying I refuse, and accuse, and find fault with them. Again where I argue thus, It is very probable, that many are saved without Assurance, because our brethren of Germany hold a man cannot be assured of Salvation: you make me reason thus, Whatsoever our brethren of Germany hold is true. And again where I affirm that the Saint of God both may be assured and ought to be assured: you report me to say that he ought to have it as of necessity to salvation. And yet again where I say God should command a reprobate to believe an untruth if he command him to believe that he shall be saved: you relate it as if I had said, God should command a reprobate to believe an untruth if he command him to believe, and he shall be saved. These and sundry other sentences in like sort do you misconstrue and wilfully deprave: unless perhaps your ignorance be so gross and palpable that you could not pick the right sense out of the plainest terms that possibly could be used. But nothing is well spoken, 
Terent. Pigh. Hierar. lib. 3. cap. 3.  saith the Poet, which by ill relating a Sycophant may not pervert: and if some be grown to that height of impiety as to make holy writ itself a nose of wax, and to vary the sense thereof, according to the alteration and change of time, I may not think it much, if the speeches of so mean a one as I am be as hardly used, and feel the rack of sinister interpretation also. Only as Diogenes being informed that some derided him, 
Plutarch. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  they deride not me, quoth he: so say I, while you oppose yourself; not unto the meaning naturally bred in my words, but unto a foreign sense by you brought unto them, you strike not me but your own fancies, and like a distracted Aiax fall a murdering of poor cattles instead of Ulysses and his companions.  
Secondly, it is your guise upon every small occasion, and sometime none at all to shake hands and bid farewell unto the matter in question, and to run out into many idle and impertinent discourses before you return to it again. 
In art Poet.  Not much unlike the foolish Poet in Horace, who professing to sing the fortune of Priamus and the famous war of Troy, by and by spends all his art and skill in describing the grove and altar of Diana, or of some Crystal river hastening about the pleasant and delightful meadows. Of this sort is that purple patch in answer to my first argument, where you spend a whole side of paper to prove that which I never denied, That Faith can neither finally nor totally fall away: and tedious collation you make upon that of Matthew, Son be of good comfort thy sins be forgiven thee, a place which I never alleged so much as in my dream: and finally, that unnecessary excursion into the common place of Election, and Reprobation, and Gods absolute will, which makes no more to the answering of my fift argument, than an axe to the opening of a lock, or a key to the cleaving of wood, as it is in the Proverb. These extravagances and outtopes seem to me very strong presumptions that though you could say but little to the purpose, 
Epist.  yet your itching tongue had rather talk idly then say nothing. But a wise man, as Hierome saith, before he speaketh considereth many things, not only what but also when, and where, and will be sure that it be both true in regard of substance, and pertinent in regard of circumstance. For as a word opportunely spoken is, 
Prou. 25.11.  as Solomon saith, Like an apple of gold with pictures of silver; so a word uttered unseasonably and out of due place are like jewels and goldring sticking in the noses and lips of the barbarous Indians, and rather deforming then becoming them.  
Thirdly, it is another trick of yours, in matters unnecessary and of no moment to be as loud as Stentor, but in things that very much press you and call for satisfaction, to be as mute as one possessed with a dumb spirit. For example, in answer to my threefold distinction of Faith, I tell you, say you, justifying Faith comprehends your three nice distinctions: but whereas I prove the contrary, because it is impossible for one and the same habit to be subiectively in several faculties, to this you say not so much as gry. Again, whereas in my third argument I assume, that assurance in nature comes after justification, you deny it: but the proof I bring for it, because the truth of a Proposition is in nature before the knowledge of it, and that therefore justification goes before assurance, you pass over very slily, and say not one word unto it. Furthermore, whereas I frame this objection against myself, By the knowledge of himself shall my righteous servant justify many, Ergo, Faith is a knowledge, and this Affiance may be in the wicked, Ergo, Faith is not Affiance: you can be well content to borrow them from me, and to dart back as it were my own arguments against me, but close up your eyes not daring to behold the answers wherewith I assoiled them, 
Gen. 29.17.  as if you had been a tender-eyed Leah, and had met with an Object over-bright for you. It may be you learned this policy of Antony, 
Cicl. l. 2. de orat.  who held it the safest and surest course for an Orator, when he meeteth with a knotty piece and is unprovided of a fit wedge for it, to pass it over with silence, and say nothing. But if, as Cato defineth, and Quintilian largely maintaineth, an Orator be a good man skilful to speak in causes: 
Instit. Orator. l. 12. c. 1.  I assure you he will much disdain such base and dishonest shifting, as no way fitting with his own goodness, or becoming the defence of a good cause. And howsoever in a continued Oration, because the mind can hardly so divide itself, as at once to reflect upon what is already spoken, and to attend what is presently said, and be imminent and instant upon what followeth to be said, many things may soon be forgotten and scape unobserved by the Anditors: yet may not the like be hoped for in a written tract, specially when it shall fall into the hand of an adversary, for having leisure and time enough to peruse it over again and again, he will be sure to sift and examine every sentence and syllable with such curiosity, that such palpable omissions as these cannot possibly pass unheeded by him. But your trust was that this writing of yours, being entrusted unto a few of your friends only, should never come to be so severely scanned by me. Otherwise had you had but the least dram of wit or shame, either you would never have set pen to paper, knowing how unable you were to answer, or you would not thus have played the Abce-boy, and when you met with a hard word which you could not read, think it enough to skip it over.  
Fourthly, as if the old Comedy, or Cartrailing were again revived and allowed, you load me every foot with most bitter reproaches and contumelious terms. 
Xenoph. Sympos.  And as cunning Cockmasters (distrusting the weakness of their Cocks) feed them with garlic that yet they may annoy their adversaries with the rankness of their breath: so you seeing by pure strength of reason you were very unlikely to prevail against me, you thought yet with the stinking breath of slanderous and opprobrious speeches to molest and trouble me. For I pray you, are not these the principal flowers of your Rhetoric? Quirks, Elenches, Sophisms, Crafty lies, silly Sermon, Monsters, Antipistos, you are no Constable, Incke-horne-tearmes, Itching-eares, Fanatical spirits, Self-love, Contention, Hypocrisy, Desire of novelties, Niceties, Falsities, Unlearned, Ridiculous, Blasphemous, Hominis acumen, your arguments savour mightily of Popery, your sack is full of spiders, you have a mind to do mischief, Intolerable impudence, you incur fearful judgement, you grieve God's Spirit, captious cavils, Pure Bellarmine, Pure Papist, and six hundred other like phrases wherewith every page yea line almost is farced and stuffed, so that a man may sooner rid Augias' stable than your Answer of them. Certainly, the fountain cannot be sweet whose streams are so unsavoury, and the stomach must needs be full of many rotten and corrupt humours that sendeth forth such a pestilent and noisome breath. But it seems by the date of your writing it was towards dog-days when you indicted it, and you hoped to prevent a burning fever or some such dangerous sickness by discharging your stomach of so much filthy choler. It had been no hard matter to have come even with you in the same kind, and to vex you with requiting like for like: save only that I considered, not so much what you deserve, as what best becomes him who pleads the cause of truth. For truth should be maintained with the spirit of truth and soberness. 
Herodot. Polyhimn.  It is the nature indeed of reproachful speeches, as Syagrius the Spartan said, to stir, provoke a man unto wrath: yet ought it not so to prevail upon a wise man as to move him inordinately or undecently to reply. Envy may have taught you to speak evil, and a good conscience hath taught me to contemn evil speeches: you will needs be lord of your tongue, and I will be as much lord of my ears. And yet if sometimes I sprinkle a little salt upon you, or to fret away some of your rank flesh apply smarting corrosives unto you, 
Publ. Mim.  you must remember, it is the intemperance of the Patient that makes the Physician cruel, and according to the old saying, they that rashly speak what they should not, must sometime for punishment hear what they would not.  
Fiftly and lastly, it is your fashion not so much to care what you say, as how loudly you cry: hoping I think that as C. Marius sometime said, 
Valer. Max. l. 5. c. 2.  that Laws could not be heard in time of war because of the clattering of armour, so neither should the voice of truth be heard in this dispute by reason of your vociferation and clamorousness. For thus you come upon me, How dare you deal thus, That you dare be so bold, with what face can you accuse, I tell you there is but one faith, I tell you it is ridiculous and blasphemous, I tell you Faith is a knowledge, I tell you the promise is not conditional, O hominis acumen & argumentum lepidum, O ye noble Scholars, Woe unto you, You cannot escape God's hand, Quite contrary is this to your knowledge and conscience, Go dispute with jesus Christ and tell him his Father delivereth a blasphemous absurdity, All Fathers, all Writers, old and new, Greek and Latin for 1600. years, besides many other such peremptory and confident speeches. 
Instit. Orator. l 6. c. 5.  Quintilian thought it scarce worthy to be remembered in his Institutions, that his Orator be not turbulent and tumultuous as are they who are unlettered and therefore I marvel how you who would be counted as wise as Thales, could forget yourself so much as to imitate base barristers and pettifoggers. Save only, 
Declam. 18.  as the same Quintilian saith, it was necessary to avouch with as much contention of voice as might be, that which otherwise you could not prove: that what affirmation it could not have from truth, it might receive from your manner of speaking. But Vanity, saith Saint Augustin, 
De civet. Dei l. 5. c. 27.  is wonderful talkative, yet is not therefore so powerful as verity, for if she list she can also be louder than verity. For the shallower the brook the more the murmur, and the emptier the cask the greater the sound. And therefore I would wish the Reader not to be terrified with Torrents, 
Enar. in Ps. 57  as Saint Augustin speaketh, whose waters make a noise for a time, but presently will cease and cannot long continue. For doubtless if they of the hot and dry countries of Tema and Sabaea repair hither in hope to satisfy and quench their thirst, 
job. 6.19.20.  they shall, as job saith, return confounded and ashamed, because their brother hath deceived them as a brook, and as the rising of rivers which suddenly are dried up and fail out of their places.  

judg. 16.17.  These, Master Baxter, are the Topical places whence all your arguments are deduced, and if I may so say, the five locks wherein your chiefest strength lieth. What impressions they may have made in the minds of simple people I cannot tell. 
Plaut. Paen. & Hor. l. 1. Ep. 7.  Perhaps they that cannot discern between conical and true gold, will be content to receive Lupins instead of currant money, and sounding words for sound proofs. And indeed it is the manner of the unskilful vulgar, though rejected and refused as most incompetent, yet to bear themselves as judges in every cause how weighty soever, and without taking any knowledge at all of the right issue, to pronounce him overcome that holds his peace, and him to have answered that hath not held his peace, the controversy to be doubtful or undecidable if both parties have said alike much; whither side speaks with more reason neither do they attend, and if they do yet can they not understand. And because Vanity, 
De civet. Dei l. 5. c. 27.  as we have observed out of Saint Augustin, is evermore talkative than verity, and he seemeth unto them to have spoken best who hath said most; therefore do they for the most part give sentence against the truth for vain talking. But howsoever simple and ignorant people may judge, sure I am they that are wise and learned, will esteem the course you have taken rather prejudicial than any way available unto your cause. For should a man, as job saith, 
job. 13.7.  talk deceitfully for God's cause? or is the strength of truth so impaired that she can no longer stand but by such wry and sinister means? Nay verily but she is still of so noble and haughty a nature that she scorneth to have her conquests impeached by so base and dishonourable succours. Depraving of the adversary's words and meaning, impertinent digressions, dissembling of his reasons, and answers,  revelling and reproaching, and tumultuous hoobubs and outcries, are the usual weapons of those who resolve to fight in unrighteous quarrels. But truth being pure and simple will not, and standing firm upon her own base needs not, and because falsehood hath no subsistence but only by her, cannot be assisted and supported by such unjust and fraudulent policies. Although therefore as I have said these means may be forcible enough to seduce and beguile simple people, yet they that are wise and judicious know that naked truth never comes disguised, either in a Wolves or Fox's case: but prudently discerning and separating betwixt passionate speeches and found reasons, Rhetorical flourishes and Logical demonstrations, unnecessary circumstances and substantial matter, judge always of controversies not by what is confidently said and affirmed, but by what is reasonable alleged and proved. And whosoever thou be Christian Reader, that art in this sort affected and qualified, 
Deut. 33.8. Exod. 28.30. Mal. 2.7.  especially if thou be the man of God's mercies, upon whose heart the Lords Vrim and Thummim are set, whose lips preserve knowledge, and at whose mouth the Law is to be sought, because thou art the Angel of the Lord of Hosts: to thee, and to thy upright and unpartial censure do I most humbly submit myself, and my whole proceed in this cause. If thou approve, 
Ps. 141.5.  it shall the more confirm and settle me in the truth: if thou reprove, it shall not break my head, but be unto me a most sovereign and precious ointment. judge therefore between us both indifferently and freely, and the Lord give thee a right judgement in all things.  

2 Tim. 2.7.  And thus, Master Baxter, have you at length my whole and entire Apology, not importunately and violently wrested from me, as you say your Answer was from you, but voluntarily of mine own accord indicted for the information and satisfaction of those who earnestly expect the issue of this combat. Whereby the prudent and discreet Reader, and I hope yourself also may perceive how small cause you had so unseasonably to sing your Paean in your Prologue, and to trumpet out victory before you were entered in the lists. If for all this as yet you rest unsatisfied, the fault is your own and not mine: 
Eurip.  for I cannot, as Euripides saith, fill him that is not staunch, pouring wise sayings into a man that is not wise. And yet it may be your Conscience and inward man are fully satisfied although ambition and vain glory cause you to dissemble it. If without all paraphrase and circumlocution I call a spade a spade, and give the right name unto every thing, I beseech you, bear a little with the ingenuity of my nature, 
Plut. Apophth.  we Macedonians are somewhat rude. And yet I would have you know that it is not so much your ignorance as your insolency which I inveigh against. For, 
You Viliomar. in Rob. Tit.  as a late learned Humanist writeth, There is no mortal man but is in some degree, tainted with ignorance, and this contagion have we drawn from mortality itself: for man when he erreth, erreth because he is a man, and to upbraid error in man is to reproach even mortality in self. Which if you had seriously and duly considered, either you would not with such petulancy have been carried against the errors you imagine to be in me, or at least you would have remembered yourself also to be a man. But seeing you count yourself the only wiseman, and others, as the Poet speaketh, 
Homer.  to fly about like shadows: you may not think it hard, if being both ignorant and insolent, you be admonished of the one, and chastised for the other.   

OF THE FAITH OF INFANTS, AND HOW THEY ARE justified and Saved.  
By the late Reverend and Learned Divine Master john Down, Bachelor of Divinity, and sometimes Fellow of Emanuel College in Cambridge.  
OXFORD, Prinred by JOHN LICHFIELD, for EDWARD FOREST, Anno Domini M.DC.XXXV.   

OF THE FAITH OF INFANTS, AND HOW THEY ARE justified and Saved.  
THat Christian Infants have a particular Faith of their own, is generally affirmed both by Papists and Lutherans: yet with some difference, 
De Bapt. l. 1. c. 10.  as Bellarmine writeth. For Papists hold that they have only Habitual Faith, and that it (together with Hope and Charity) is infused into them in the Sacrament of Baptism: but the Lutherans, saith he, attribute unto them Actual Faith, or something like thereunto. Wherein it may be the Cardinal doth them some wrong. 
Field Append. part. 2. §. 1.  For it is observed by some Divines, that they constantly deny Children to have any actual apprehension of God's mercies, or that they feel in themselves any such motions of Faith. Whereupon it must needs follow; that their meaning is not to attribute unto them Actual Faith, but a kind of Habitual Faith only, or that seed, root and Habit, whence Actual motions in due time do flow. But be their opinion herein whatsoever it will be, sure I am that both Lutheran and Papist agree in this, that Infants have a particular Faith of their own.  
The principal reasons that they allege for proof hereof are these. 
Heb. 11.6.  Infants please God: but without Faith, it is impossible to please him. 
Mat. 19.14.  The Kingdom of God belongs unto them: Which yet the Scriptures say cannot be attained without Faith. The Word of God every where maketh particular Faith a necessary means unto justification and Salvation, as where the Prophet saith, The just man shall live by his Faith: 
Hab. 2.4.  but Infants are justified before God, and being justified cannot but be saved. 
Matt 18.6. Mar. 9.36. Luc. 1.41.  Nay Christ himself expressly saith that they do believe. And john the Baptist in the very womb of his Mother was filled with the Holy Ghost, and sprang at the salutation of the Blessed Virgin. Other arguments they use, but they are all of the like nature, and notwithstanding them all, I cannot be persuaded that Infants while they are such, have any Faith of their own either Actual or Habitual. And these among sundry others are my chiefest reasons.  

Deut. 1.39.  First, the Scripture in plain terms affirmeth, that they have no knowledge at all, either of good or evil: and that they cannot so much as discern between the right and the left hand. If so, 
jon. 4.11.  how can they who conceive not of things natural, understand those things that are heavenly and above the pitch of nature? To this effect Saint Augustin, 
Epist. 57  Scire divina paruulos qui nec humana adhuc norint, si verbis velimus ostendere, vereorne ipsis sensibus nostris facere videamur iniuriàm, quando i●●loquendo fuadere studemus, ubi omnes vires officiumque sermonis superet evidentia veritatis: that is, If we should go about to demonstrate with words that Children know the things of God, who as yet know not the things of men, I fear we should offer wrong even to our very senses endeavouring to persuade by speech that, the evidence of the truth whereof far exceeds all power and office of speech.  
Secondly, when Infants are presented at the holy Font, and either sprinkled with the water of Baptism, or dipped therein: how chanceth it that they so much dislike thereof, testifying their dislike by their crying and other motion of the body? Certainly, had they actual Faith, they would endure all with much patience and cheerfulness, and never bewray so much adversenesse and discontent. But if in doing so they go against their knowledge, the Sacrament must needs be so f●rre from availing them to the washing away of Original guilt, that by their reluctation they rather contract a further guilt of Actual sin, which I suppose none except he be too too uncharitable will imagine of them.  
Thirdly, if they have Faith, why are they not after their initiation by Baptism, forthwith admitted unto holy Communion? In the time of Saint Augustin, and Innocent the first, it was the practice of the Church so to do: and it continued, as some writ, for the space of six hundred years, down unto the times of Ludovicus Pius, and Lotharius. But why is that custom now grown out of use, and why are Children barred from the Eucharist, if they believe as well as elder people? Nay why are they not rather admitted then those of riper years? For Infants have not so much as evil thoughts in them: but these by reason of their longer life have made themselves guilty of many evil deeds beside.  
Fourthly, Faith, as Saint Paul witnesseth, cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God preached. But Infants hear not, neither by the ear, nor by any other way proportionable thereunto: or if they do, yet they understand not what they hear. For did they understand, I presume they would hearken more attentively unto what is said, than we see they do. Wherefore not hearing, neither do they believe. If you say, they believe by an inward Hearing: then is that Faith wrought either by Ordinary or Extraordinary means. Not by Extraordinary means, for it is done every day and hour. By Ordinary therefore. If so, then have we a double manner of working Faith, and both of them Ordinary: the one by Inward Hearing in Infants only, the other by Inward and Outward also in those that are Adulti, which is a mere novelty in the Church of God.  
Fiftly, how cometh it to pass, if Children have Faith, that among so many millions of them as have been in the world, not so much as one of them when they come to riper years, giveth any testimony of his Faith until he be farther taught and informed? If a child borne of Christian parents, and entered into the visible Church by Baptism, shall afterwards while he is yet in his tender years fall into the hands of Infidels or Turks, (as the more the pity many thousands of them have done, and the whole band of janisars), they say, consists of no other: doth he not readily receive that religion, which is first instilled into him, without once dreaming of the Christian Faith? Which yet how it should be, having from his first infancy been seasoned and sanctified with the Christian Faith, cannot easily be conceived or imagined.  
Sixtly, tell me, do all that have received Faith in their infancy lose it again when they come to be of more years? It seemeth so, if then they received it: for otherwise, why are they put to their Catechism, and taught the elements of Faith again? But this were a very strange course: For how should they lose it? unless perhaps God secretly steal that from them which erst he gave them: which to say, is very derogatory to the bounty of God, who never withdraweth grace once given, until man by abusing it have deserved to lose it. Not losing it therefore, and yet learning it when they come to years of capacity, It is a plain argument they never received it in their Infancy.  
Seventhly and lastly, there is not the least Habit, either acquired by custom, or infused from above but maketh a man more apt and prone unto their proper actions. For example, whosoever is possessed of the virtues of justice, Temperance, Liberality, Fortitude, will readily do justly, temperately, liberally, valiantly: it being the nature of Habits to facilitate Actions. Tell me then, are the Children of Christians when they come first to be instructed more capable of Christian Religion, or more inclinable to holy actions, than the Children of Infidels? Experience tells us they are not, but are as wax indifferently flexible any way. It is absurd therefore and void of reason to place in Infants the Habit of Faith, which yet inclines them no more to the Acts of Faith, than those that are without it.  
Now having thus briefly demonstrated that Infants have neither Actual nor Habitual Faith: it followeth in the next place to answer the contrary arguments above set down. And first where it is said, that Faith is a necessary means unto justification and Salvation, in as much as none can please God or live without it: I answer in a word, it is to be understood not of Infants; But de Adultis of those that are of riper years, unto whom alone Faith is necessary. These cannot please God, nor live, nor be justified and saved without a particular Faith of their own: but Infants by reason of their incapacity through the indulgence of God may. Add hereunto, that according to the Tenent of our Divines, it is not the Habit but the Act of Faith that doth justify: in regard whereof they define it by a Motion of the Will grounded upon an assent of the Mind unto the truth of the Gospel. Unless therefore, you grant unto Infants such a motion both of the Mind and Will, which Papists expressly deny, and Lutherans seem to stagger at, neither can they be justified by Actual Faith, having none. And seeing without it the Habit avails nothing at all, as being an idle Faith: I see not to what end the Habit should be infused. And if it be to no end, neither is it infused. For if Nature do not, much less doth God any thing in vain.  
To that of our Saviour where he seemeth expressly to affirm that Little-ones believe: I answer first, that those Little-ones are not Infants properly, but such men as resemble little Children in holy Innocence & Simplicity: in regard whereof they are elsewhere called by Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is Infants. Secondly, 
Mat. 11.25.  grant it that Children be also meant, yet not such Children as are infants, but grown to some stature and capacity. For although the Child whom Christ took in his arms, be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a little Child: yet was he both a follower and hearer of Christ, and such a one as in some measure could understand, such as were those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 little Children to whom Saint john thought it not unfit to write. 
1 joh. 2.14.  For as the text saith, he was one that came of himself being called: and farther, he was capable of scandal and offence which questionless is not incident unto Infants.  
Lastly, to the example of john the Baptist, 
Ep. 57  I answer with Saint Augustin, Nec quod factum est in johanne contemno, nec inde regulam quid sentiendun sit de paruulis figo: immò id in illo mirabiliter praedico, quia in alijs non invenio: Neither do I contemn, saith he, that which was done in john, neither do I from thence frame a rule what we are to think of little-ones: yea I acknowledge it to be marvelous in him, because I find it not in others. Moreover, it is not said of him Credidit in utero, he believed in the womb, but only exultavit, he sprang in the womb: & this exultation or Springing, divinitùs facta est in Infante, non humanitùs ab Infante, was done by the power of God in the Infant, and not by any humane power of the Infant Or if use of reason and will, were so hastened unto him as he did believe, in miraculis habendum est divinae potentiae, non ad humanae trahendum est exemplar naturae: it is to be reckoned among the miracles of God's power, and not to be drawn into an example of human nature. And thus much of reasons both for and against the Faith of Infants.  
Now I know it will here farther be demanded, if Infants have neither Actual nor Habitual Faith of their own, how then and by what means are they justified and Saved? For it is merciless, and against all Divinity to exclude them from either. Whereunto I answer in the words of Bernard, 
Epist. 77.  Saluantur & ipsi per fidem, non tamen suam, sed alienam: they are also saved by Faith, yet not their own Faith but another's. Another's? Will you say: this seemeth very strange. Hear then what the same Bernard yet further addeth, Dignum est & ad Dei spectat dignitatem, ut quibus fidem aetas denegat propriam, gratia concedat prodesse alienam: It is fit and belongs unto the dignity of God, that to whom age denies a proper Faith of their own, grace should yield them the benefit of another's Faith. And again, Nec enim omnipotent is iustitia propriam ab his putat exigendam fidem, quos novit propriam nullam habere culpam: for neither doth the justice of God Almighty think that a proper Faith is to be required of those, whom he knows to have no proper fault of their own. In which words of Bernard, two excellent reasons are rendered, why the Faith of another through the grace and indulgence of God should be available unto them: the first because their Jnfancy denies unto them a proper Faith of their own, the second because beside that Original Corruption traduced into them from their parents without their knowledge or consent, they have no other sin of their own. Can they not then by reason of their tender years have a Faith of their own? It befits the goodness of God that they be helped by the Faith of another. Have they no proper and particular sin of their own▪ Neither doth God think it agreeable with his justice to exact of them a proper and particular Faith of their own.  
Infants than are helped by another's Faith. Whose Faith will you say? The Faith of the Parents, as also of the Church, who is the common mother of us all, and in whose womb as it were they are conceived & borne. This of old was Saint Augustins' sentence, and this all sound Divines have agreeably with the Scripture ever held. Only it may be demanded how and in what sort the Parent's Faith availeth them. Whereunto I answer, not by particular applying of Christ's merits and obedience unto them (for this is done only by a man's own Faith unto himself) but by bringing them within the compass of the Covenant of Grace. Thus; The Covenant was made not with Abraham only, 
Gen. 17.19. Act. 2.39.  but with his seed also: and the Promise, saith Saint Peter, was given both to the Parents and to the Children. The Parents therefore by Faith apprehending this Promise and Covenant, by their Faith interest their Children also thereunto. For as it is in civil negotiations, the bargain that the Father maketh for himself & his Children is firm and good, although the Children be not present at the bargaine-making, nor understand what is done: even so in this spiritual Covenant and contract with God, the Parent's Act is sufficient force to confederate their Children also, and to give them a right unto all the benefits of the Covenant. And as I conceive, this is imputed unto them in lieu of all those Acts and Habits which otherwise are required in those that are Adulti. How farther the Holy Ghost worketh in them is a deep and inscrutable secret, Et de occultis non iudicat Ecclesia, the Church is no judge of things that are hidden. Only I affirm that by the Faith of the Parents the Children are made a holy seed, and members of Christ's body.  
But what if one of the Parents be an Infidel? What if either of them, or both be notorious hypocrites or openly sinful, having not in them true justifying Faith? are the Children therefore, without the compass of the Covenant, and uniustified before God? I answer, No: For first, if but one of the Parents believe, yet are the Children holy. 
1. Cor. 7.14.  So saith Saint Paul, The unbelieved husband is sanctified by the believing wife, and the unbelieved wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your Children unclean, but now are they holy. Again, though neither of the Parents believe with justifying Faith, yet being in the Church by the profession of Christian Religion, their Children are within the Covenant. For first, the Soul that sinneth it shall die: 
Ezech. 18.20.  the son shall not bear the iniquity of the Father, neither shall the Father bear the iniquity of the Son. So that the impiety of the Parents preiudiceth not the Child that is borne in the Church. Secondly, by Parents are to be understood not those alone of whom Children are immediately begotten and borne: but their Progenitors and Ancestors also who feared God and lived in the Church, though many generations before. For God made not his Covenant with Abraham and his immediate seed only, but with all his seed after them in their generations: 
Gen. 17.7. Ex. 20.  and promiseth to show mercy to the thousandth generation of them that love him and keep his Commandments. Whence it followeth, that these are as it were a root unto all their posterity borne in the Church: and therefore, 
Rom. 11.16.  if the root be holy, so are the branches also, saith Saint Paul. Lastly, be the next Parents whatsoever they will be, yet their Children being borne in the Church, the Church is their Mother, and the Faith and piety of the Church interesteth all such as are borne in her unto the Covenant. And thus you see how Children are justified and Saved by another's Faith.  
If Children, may not those that are Adulti so be justified and saved also? No verily. For as the Prophet saith, The just man shall live suâ fide, not by another's, 
Hab. 2.4.  but by his own Faith. And hence is it, that in the Lord's prayer we are taught to say Our Father, but in the Creed, I believe: because Prayer is an Act of Charity extending itself unto the good of others also, but Believing is an Act of Faith, only benefiting a man's self. Can the  that another wears, warm me? or the meat another eats, nourish me? or the potion another receives, cure me? or the soul that is in another man quicken me? Nor more can the Faith of another man justify or save me. As one man shall not bear another's fault, sed anima quae peccat ipsa morietur, the soul that sinneth it shall die: so shall not one man be acquitted for another's Faith, sed anima quae credit ipsa saluabitur, the soul that believeth it shall be saved. Salvation every where in Scripture is promised to him who himself believeth; and damnation is every where threatened to him that believeth not so. And he believeth not so, who hath not a Faith of his own.  
Yea but if Adam's sin be imputed unto us for Condemnation, and the Obedience of Christ for justification: why may not another's Faith also be imputed for Salvation? The case is not alike, for they were public persons and stood in our steed: but so do not others. In the Covenant of works Adam was our Head: and therefore his sin is counted the common act of all those that were in his loins. In the Covenant of Grace, Christ is our Head: and therefore his Obedience is esteemed the common Obedience of all those who are united unto him by Faith. Others are not our Heads, nor represent our persons: in regard whereof neither can their Act be accounted ours. It will further be objected that Christ forgave the palsie-sicke man his sins for the Faith of them that brought him: 
Luc. 5.20.  and so, as Thomas saith both Ambrose and one john a Bishop understand it. 
Caten. in cum loc.  But Saint chrysostom otherwise, and that more rightly, understanding it both of the sick man's Faith and theirs who brought him. For our Saviour intending to bestow a double benefit upon him namely the cure both of body and soul: this could not be effected but by the intervention of his own Faith, but the other might by the Faith of those that presented him. So we read that the Centurion's servant, 
Mat. 8.13. & 15.28.  and the woman of Canaan's daughter were healed, the one for his Masters, the other for her Mothers Faith. And who knows not that unbelievers oftentimes temporally far the better for the sake of the Faithful. Saint Ambrose therefore imputing the remission of sins unto the Faith of others, must be understood with a grain of Salt, as they say, that one man's Faith may obtain Faith unto another, and so consequently by the intervention thereof justification also: as did the Faith of S. Steven (as some suppose) unto S. Paul, and the tears of Monica unto her Son Augustin. Thus those that are Adulti must have a Faith of their own.  
And why I pray you more than Infants? The reason is evident. For first those that are Adulti are capable of Faith, so are not Infants: and therefore reason would that they should have a Faith of their own, though these be helped by the Faith of another. Again, they that are grown to riper years have in them more deadly diseases than Infants: and so need more remedies than these. Infant's indeed are borne in Original corruption propagated unto them from Adam: but of Actual sins they are not guilty, neither are they defiled with the fruits of that bitter root. And therefore unto them sufficeth thorough the gracious Covenant of God the Parents Faith. But to those that are Adulti, who are stained not only with Original s●●ne, but also with many Actual transgressions by themselves committed in thought, word and deed, it is requisite that by a particular Faith of their own they apprehend the merits and obedience of Christ for their justification and Salvation. In a word, another's Faith, as is above said, may by divine dispensation and indulgence suffice to him who hath only sinned in another: but to him who himself hath sinned, not another's but his own particular Faith is necessary.  
Now, to conclude all with a little application, seeing all these things are so, first, we have here the great privilege and prerogative of Christian Children above others. For by virtue of the Covenant they are a holy seed, have right to the promises, and the Kingdom of Heaven belongeth unto them. Hence is it that anciently under the law they were Circumcised, and now under the Gospel are admitted unto Baptism, the seal of the Covenant of grace. In so much, that whosoever of them departed this life in their infancy and tender years, undoubtedly they are all and every one of them saved. What should let? Can they that are holy perish? Will God fail of his Word to those that have right to the promises? Shall they to whom the Kingdom of Heaven belongeth be excluded from it? Original sin is pardoned them in the Covenant, and washed away in the laver of regeneration; other sin they have none to hinder them, and therefore without doubt so soon as they die their innocent souls are by the holy Angels of God transported into Abraham's bosom. Neither let any man think that herein I stand single, and by myself, for thus a reverend Bishop also of this Church; I pray what did antiquity teach? that young Children Baptised are delivered from Original sin? 
Carleton. ag. Montag.  We teach the same, and doubt not but if they die before they come to the practice of actual sin, they shall be saved. And our Divines in the Council of Dort, 
Synod. Dord.  Infants ante usum rationis morientes electi: Infants dying before the use of reason are elected. 
Tom. 1. Hom. 2. p. 1.  And the book of Homilies, Infants being baptised and dying in their infancy, are by this Sacrifice washed from sin, brought into God's favour, made his children and inheritors of the Kingdom of Heaven. More I could name, but these may suffice to let you know how unlikely it is that should be Arminianism (for so hath this opinion rashly been censured of some) which the Church of England, and the professed enemies of Arminians hold.  
But what? are none saved but only the Children of Christians? Or do you condemn all the rest universally unto the pit of Hell? 
jun. de nat. & great. 28.  I will tell you what as grave and learned a Divine as any this age hath yielded holdeth. He doubteth not but that many of the Children of Infidels are saved, partly by virtue of the Covenant, and partly by God's election. By virtue of the Covenant, in as much as they are descended of such Ancestors as have apprehended the Covenant, although their succession have afterwards suffered some interruption. By Election, because God hath not barred himself from power and right to communicate grace even to those whose Ancestors pertained not to the Covenant. For if he call those Adulti into the Covenant who before were not of it: why may he not in like manner if he please choose Infants also? Finally, as he believeth all that are in the Covenant, and that are elected, to be saved: so in Charity he presumeth all that die in their Infancy rather to be saved then shut out of the Kingdom of Heaven. For my part, I will answer no otherwise then in the words of Saint Paul, 
1 Cor. 5.12.13.  What have I to do to judge them that are without? Do ye not judge them that are within? But God judgeth them that are without. And so to his righteous judgement I leave them.  
Again, here have we double comfort for all Christian Parents. And first, in the birth of their Children: seeing they are holy and belong unto the Covenant of Grace. True it is the Scripture saith, 
Psal. 51.7. Eph. 2.3.  they are conceived and borne in sin, and so the Children of Wrath: but you are to know that they represent a double person, one of a Son of Adam, the other of one engrafted into Christ. As they are the Sons of Adam they are bone sinful; as engrafted into Christ, freed from sin. Secondly, in their death: for they may be assured by Faith that they are translated into those joys, which eye hath not seen, nor ear ever heard, nor hath ever entered into the heart of man. Of elder people they can but hope it in Charity: of these they have infallible certainty. If they live unto more years, who knoweth but wickedness may alter their understanding, 
Sap. 4.11.  or deceit beguile their mind, as the wise man saith? But now being prevented by death, they are quickly passed this vale of misery, and have soon ended their painful pilgrimage, and are possessed of the place of eternal rest and happiness. If any thing will dry up the tears, or stint the sighs and cries and lamentations of Parents for the loss of their tender Infants, this is it: especially if they consider withal, that themselves under God have been the means of bringing them within the Covenant, and procuring unto them their everlasting Salvation.  
Thirdly, Parents may hence learn that a necessity is laid upon them to present their Children unto the holy Font, so soon as conveniently they may. For seeing by their birth they are interested unto the Covenant, the seal of the Covenant must not in any case be slighted or neglected. What though Baptism be not absolutely necessary unto them? yet is it necessary for Parents to give it them conditionally, if it may be had. If it cannot be had, the Vow and Desire of the Parents is sufficient: neither doth the bare want of Baptism without any of his or their default, exclude the Child from Salvation. For if a just and honest man would, much more will God perform his Word and Covenant, although the seal be not set thereunto. But if it may be had, there is Necessitas praecepti, a necessity laid by God's commandment upon all those that are Filij praecepti the Sons of the commandment. Those Sons all men are when they are grown to be Adulti; and therefore if then they neglect to be baptised, they deserve for their contempt to be cut off and to be eternally condemned. But Infants while such are none of these Sons, as being both uncapable of the precept, and unable to offer themselves unto the Sacrament: whence followeth that the commandment taketh hold only of the Parents, and those that have the care of them. So that although the Child dying unbaptized may be free from danger: yet those that neglect to present him unto Baptism shall be damned for breach of God's commandment. Le● Parents therefore by all means be careful to perform this duty: and if by reason of weakness or some other impediment it cannot be done publicly, rather than left undone, let it be done privately. Wise men, and amongst the rest M. Caluin would have it so: yea the Church of England requireth it, prescribing a form of Private Baptism, in case of necessity, and commanding that what is privately done be by the Minister publicly made known in the Congregation. An order heretofore too much neglected, God grant henceforward it may be better observed.  
Finally and last, seeing every one that is Adultus must of necessity have a Faith of his own, first it is the duty of Parents by all means to work Faith in their Children when they are capable thereof: that as they have been instruments to traduce Original sin unto them to their perdition, so they may again repair in them the image of God to their eternal salvation. Secondly, let every one look to himself, and see that he have Faith, for it is in vain to trust to the Faith of another. The righteousness of Christ indeed is a cloak large enough to cover the sins of all men: but the Faith of another man is little enough for himself, I cannot cover my nakedness with it. They were but foolish virgins that said, Give us of your oil, for our lamps are out: and fitly were they answered by the wise virgins, We fear there will not be enough for us and you, but go ye rather to them that sell and buy for yourselves. Let Papists blaspheme and say, they can supererogate and more than satisfy for their sins, and that one man may for a price buy out of the Pope's treasury the Surplus of another man's merits: yet am I sure the oil of another man's lamp will not serve my turn, nor procure me favour to enter with the bridegroom. God grant me therefore wisdom even while it is called to day, to get me oil in my own lamp.   

NOT CONSENT OF FATHERS BUT SCRIPTURE THE GROUND OF FAITH.  
Written by the occasion of a conference had with Mr. Bayly, by the late Reverend and Learned Divine, Master john Down, Bachelor of Divinity, and sometimes Fellow of Emanuel College in Cambridge.  
OXFORD, Printed by JOHN LICHFIELD, for EDWARD FOREST, Anno Domini M.DC.XXXV.   

NOT CONSENT OF FATHERS BUT SCRIPTURE THE GROUND OF FAITH.  
LOVING and Reverend M. Bayly, I acknowledge myself much indebted unto you, both for my kind entertainment, and the peaceable Conference I had with you. Would you but vouchsafe to visit my poor Cottage, I should readily endeavour to satisfy some part of the debt, if not with like entertainment, yet with equal welcome. The residue I know not how better to discharge, then by pursuing my first intention; that is, by labouring to reduce you back into the bosom of that Church, out of which with such danger to your soul, scandal to the brethren, and unkindness to her you have withdrawn yourself. And to this end might I have obtained from you in writing, as at our parting I entreated, what those special Motives were which had wrought in you this sudden change: I would have strained myself by writing also to have given them the best satisfaction. But seeing for reasons best known to yourself, and into which I list not further to inquire, you held it not fit as then to yield so fare unto me: I have thought good for the present to reflect upon some passages of our Conference, specially that ground whereon you then stood so much, and upon which you plainly professed that you would adventure your Faith.  
It may please you therefore to remember that being demanded a reason of your departure, you pretended that in reading the ancient Fathers you had met with sundry Bugbears, which so scared and affrighted you, that unless you would resist the light of Conscience, and hazard your eternal salvation, you could not choose but be swayed by them. Whereunto it being replied, that happily those Bugbears were but Scarecrows, and that you should have taken a safer and surer course, if you had resolved your Faith into Scriptures, nothing being sufficient to bear up so weighty a piece but only divine testimony: your answer was that upon Scripture you relied, howbeit, because it is obscure and subject to manifold constructions, upon Scripture understood according to the interpretation and doctrine of the Fathers, nothing doubting but that as long as you held the Faith of them whom we verily believe to be saved, yourself could never perish through misbelief. In which answer, howsoever in word you seem to attribute some force and virtue to the Scriptures, yet in truth you do but cancel them and make them of none effect. For if the Scriptures lie rather in the Sense then in the Letter, and the Sense by reason of the darkness and ambiguity of them, be not to be found in themselves, but elsewhere out of them, in the writings of the Fathers: it followeth clearly that in your account Paul and Peter and james and john and the other Penmen of holy writ are no better than Ciphers, unless Cyrill and Ambrose and Hierome and Augustin and the rest of that rank as digit numbers vouchsafe to add some value and signification unto them. So that now by your favour this must be my task briefly and plainly to demonstrate, that having removed your Faith from the authority of Scripture upon the exposition of the Fathers, you have built quite beside the rock, and laid your foundation upon the sand.  
But take this protestation first, that we neither disesteem nor despise the Fathers, as by Priests and jesuites we are ordinarily slandered: but contrariwise, with all duty we rise up to their grey hairs, and reverence their venerable antiquity. Withal we acknowledge that they were in their times excellent ornaments and lights of the Church, endued not only with singular knowledge in the mystery of Faith, but also with admirable sanctity and uprightness of life. Whereby, in all their combats and bickerins with Heretics, they maintained the truth of God so wisely and courageously, that they ever remained more than conquerors. And now as they have left behind them a precious name among the Saints so we doubt not but their souls are bound up in the bundle of life, and enjoy the blessed: making vision of God for evermore. Such books of theirs as are come to our hands we esteem as rich treasures, and value them above gold. Them do we search and peruse with all diligence: be it spoken without offence, no Papists more. Yet can we not throughout them meet with those terrible Bugbears you so much complain of: rather we wonder how you could miss all those good Angels so frequently appearing in them to comfirme and settle you in your first Faith. For I will be bold to say, notwithstanding all the brags and cracks of that side, that the Fathers are ours not yours: or if they be yours in any thing, it is in the pettiest and smallest matters, for in the main and great questions controverted between us, they are expressly for us and against you, as hereafter God willing shall in part appear. Upon confidence whereof, whensoever we were summoned and called unto the Fathers by you, we never refused their trial, but ever have been ready to adventure all upon their verdict. The challenge of that famous Prelate, 
Ser. at Paul's Cross.  Doctor jewel Bishop of Salisbury, is yet fresh in memory, that if any learned man of our adversaries, or if all the learned men that be alive, be able to bring any one sufficient sentence out of any old Catholic Doctor or Father, or out of any old general Council, or out of the holy Scriptures of God, or any one example of the Primitive Church, whereby it may clearly and plainly be proved, that there was any private Mass in the whole world at that time for the space of six hundred years after Christ, and so forth in seven and twenty several articles, he would be content to yield and to subscribe. 
Reply to Hardings Ans.  This challenge as that renowned Bishop in his life-time made good himself against his adversary Master Harding: so was it never yet retracted by any of us, but hath stoutly been maintained by sundry succeeding champions. Hear one for all. That, saith worthy Whitaker, 
Con. Camp. that. 5.  which jewel most truly and constantly uttered that day when he appealed to the antiquity of six hundred years, and offered unto you that if you could bring forth but one sentence clear and evident, out of any Father or Council, he would not refuse to yield the victory unto you: the same do we all profess, we all promise the same, we will not shrink from our word. Thus you see how we reject not the Fathers, as you would bear the world in hand, but triumph rather in the testimony they give us, and in our Apologies and Defences allege them plentifully against you.  
Howbeit neither do we nor dare we make Gods of them, or equal them with the holy Apostles, as if they were infallible and could not err. Cloven tongues never sat upon them, as they did upon these: neither did the Spirit of God so guide and direct their pens, but that sometimes they might fail, and write amiss. Had they had infallibility of judgement, safely might we build our Faith upon them: but this they utterly disclaim, acknowledging it to be the peculiar privilege of the Apostles. And so far are they from making themselves Masters of our Faith, that they require us to judge and censure of their writings by the Scripture which is the rule of Faith. Neither would they have us to tie ourselves unto their authority more than they tied themselves unto the authority of others but freely to accept or refuse as we see just cause. 
Hom. 13. in 2. Cor.  I pray and beseech you all, saith chrysostom, that leaving this and that man's opinion, you will search all these things out of the Scripture. 
In Euseb. hist. l. 7. c. 24.  Let it be commended, saith Dionysius of Alexandria, and without envy assented unto which is rightly spoken: but if any thing be unsoundly written, let that be looked into and corrected. 
Epist. 62.  I know I myself, saith Hierome, esteem of the Apostles in one sort, and of other Writers in another: that the first always speak truth, and the latter as men do in some things err. 
De Trinit. l. 3. c. 1.  In all my writings, saith Saint Augustin, I desire not only a godly Reader, but also a free corrector: yet as I would have the Reader addicted unto me, so neither would I have a corrector addicted to himself. 
De lib. arb. l. 2. c. 32.  And again, I am not bound to the authority of this man, meaning Cyprian, but I examine his saying by the authority of Scripture, and what agreeth therewith I receive with his commendation: what agreeth not, by his leave I refuse. And yet again, 
Epist. 111. ad Fortunat.  Neither are we to esteem the disputations of any men although Catholic and praise worthy as the Canonical Scriptures, that we may not saving the honour which is due to those men dislike and reject something in their writings, if happily we find them to have thought otherwise then the truth either by others or ourselves through Gods help understood. Such am I in the writings of others, and such would I have the understanders of mine to be. 
Epist. 19 ad Hieron.  Finally, I, saith the same Saint Augustin, confess unto your charity, that I have learned to yield unto those books of Scripture alone, which now are called Canonical, this reverence and honour, that I most firmly believe no Author of them to have erred any thing in writing: And if I find any thing in their writings which seemeth contrary to truth, I will not stick to say, that either, the copy is faulty, or the translator apprehended not what is spoken, or I understand it not. But others I so read, that how much soever they excel in holiness and learning, I think it not therefore true because they thought so, but because either by those Canonical Authors, or by probable reason not abhorring from truth they were able to persuade me. Thus the Fathers: whose steps if we tread in, and whose counsel if we follow, and not taking up every thing upon trust, but examining them by the touchstone of truth, I hope we are rather to be commended then blamed.  
And reason: for neither were the Father's more than men, neither are we of this age less than men. And I wonder, why we may not judge of the sayings of those, who are but men as well as ourselves. What? have we not reasonable souls as well as they? are we not endued with the same faculty of understanding and discoursing? have we not still the same helps both of nature and art which they had? Or when they died, did the Holy Ghost also give up the ghost with them? or doth he deny to assist these latter times with his enlightening grace as he did the former? 
joh. 16.13.  Certainly the Spirit that leadeth into all truth is yet, and ever shall be amongst us unto the end of the world. And as before the writings of the Fathers were, he directed his Church unto the true sense of Scripture: so now I doubt not but if all whatsoever they have written were utterly lost, he would still guide us therein as he did them. And verily unless we will be too unthankful we cannot but confess, that as age through God's bounty hath had more means than those heretofore: so through his blessing it hath made further proceed also in the knowledge of Scripture. For besides that we have whatsoever helps they had, we have over and above the benefit of all their works, together with much skilfulness in the Original of the old Testament, which most of them wanted, and of the new also, wherewith some were but little acquainted. In regard whereof whosoever shall duly compare the ancient Commentaries with those of latter times, must needs be either weak in judgement, or obstinate in prejudice if he prefer not these. Your own men ingenuously acknowledge so much. 
Art. 18. cont. Luther.  It cannot be unknown to any, saith Fisher B. of Rochester, that there are many things as well in other Scriptures as the Gospels now more clearly discussed and throughly understood then in ancient times: namely because the Ancients had not the ice broken unto them, or because their age sufficed not exactly to sound the whole sea of Scripture. 
In Rom. 5. disp. 51.  And Salmeron, God hath not given to all men all, that every age might enjoy some truths which the former knew not. Every age hath ever ascribed much to antiquity: yet this we avouch, the younger the Doctors the clearer sighted. And Dominicus Bannes, It is not necessary that the more remote the Church is from the Apostles times, the less perfect knowledge of the mystery of Faith should be therein: because after the Apostles time there were not the most learned in the Church which had dexterity in understanding the matters of Faith. We are not therefore enwrapped in the more darkness, for that in respect of time we are more distant from Christ: but rather the Doctors of these latter times being godly, and treading in the steps of the ancient Fathers have attained more express understanding in some things than they had. For they are like children standing on the shoulders of Giants, who being lifted by the tallness of Giants, no marvel if they see further than they themselves. 
In Luc. 10.  This similitude Stella also useth to the same purpose, God forbidden, saith he that I should condemn what such and so many wise men have with one accord affirmed yet we know well that Pigmies set on the shoulders of Giants, see further than the Giants themselves do. Thus they. Whereby you see the Fathers have no prerogative above us, because they were before us: but we rather have the advantage because we come after them. In a word, be they whatsoever you will, their servants we are not, but their fellow servants: sent from God with the same commission, to the same end, and with the same promises that they were. Neither doth their authority more bind us in that they are our predecessors, than our authority shall bind them who many ages hereafter may be our successors. But draw we a little closer.  
The ancient Fathers say you, are the ground of your Faith. What? severally and single by themselves? 
〈◊〉 12.  I suppose no: for there is not one of them, as your own side confesseth, but hath his error, and I presume you would be loath to follow them therein. The Fathers therefore, either all jointly, or the more part of them agreeing in one. So Canus, 
Loc. lib. 7. c. 3.  What the greater part of the Fathers judgeth, that we profess to be of the Catholic Faith. So Salmeron also, 
In 1. joh. 3. disp. 25.  When all or almost all Fathers agree in one, it is an inevitable argument. And Gregory of Valentia, It is infallibly true which they deliver with one consent, 
Anal. l. 8. c. 8.  ●ea an infallible rule judging. And Onuphrius, 
Prim. Pap. p. 1. c. 6.  It is rash and foolish and terrible rashness to go against a sense given by the Fathers for the understanding of the Scriptures. And finally the Council of Trent, which peremptorily chargeth, that no man dare to interpret the Scriptures against the unanimous consent of the Fathers. This then undoubtedly being your assertion, as every way according with the Tenet of the Church of Rome, let us in God's name try the strength thereof, and see with what security and safety a man may adventure his Faith, and consequently his eternal salvation upon this ground.  
And first, whosoever will steadfastly repose his Faith upon consent of Fathers, had need be right well assured which are the authentical writings of the Fathers. For if these be doubtful and uncertain, the whole frame raised upon them must of necessity shake and totter. Now, that there are books more than a good many which in their forefronts are inscribed and entitled unto the Fathers, yet in truth are merely suppositious and apocryphal, I know you cannot be ignorant. Nor Origen, nor Athanasius, nor Basil, nor chrysostom, nor Cyril, nor Tertullian, nor Cyprian, nor Ambrose, nor Hier●me, nor Augustin, nor any one almost of all the Fathers, but hath suffered notorious wrong in this kind, having base brats and misbegotten bastards fathered upon him. Which also is so clear and manifest, that Possevin, and Salmeron, and Maldonat, and Baronius, and Bellarmine, and all the rest of that side, though too frequently they make use of such refuse stuff, yet every where in their writings are constrained to acknowledge so much. 
Biblioth. l. 4.  But amongst the rest Sixtus Senensis especially, who purposely recording the works of all the Fathers, taketh upon him to demonstrate as much in every one of them, as in his Catalogue he passeth from one Father to another. So that indeed it would be but an idle wasting both of oil and time if I should spend many words in proof of that which is denied of none: and therefore I forbear further to trouble you with particularity. Only, because in our Conference you so confidently affirmed that Dionysius the Areopagite, even he who was Saint Paul's convert and Scholar, was the right Author of all those books that are now extant under his name: I must entreat you to have a little patience, while I maintain against you the negative which I then held, and for which I stand still engaged unto you.  
That this Device is but a counterfeit, but Divines prove by sundry unanswerable arguments: I will not urge them all, but cull out the choicest. Omitting therefore the Style savouring more of three hundred years after, than those Apostolical times, and his curious speculations in the secrets of heaven, as if he had been surveyor thereof, or had taken a muster of all the heavenly host of the blessed. Spirits therein, whereas Saint Paul himself though he had been ravished up into the third heaven, even into the Paradise of God, 
2 Cor. 12.3.4.  yet returning back neither durst nor did utter any such thing, and lastly that he talken so familiarly of Churches and Chancels and Monks and diverse other orders and ceremonies which are well known to be of a much latter date: omitting I say these and the like objections, although perhaps not so easy to be answered, consider with me I beseech you these few reasons following. First, if these were the books of that Den● which was Saint Paul's Scholar; how cometh it to pass that neither Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical history, nor Jerome, nor Gennad●ui purposely writing Catalogues of all the famous Writers before them, nor Origen, nor Chrysostom nor any ancient Father, so fare as I can learn, maketh any mention of them, until Gregory the Great, who lived about 600. 
Hom. 34. de 10. dragm.  years after Christ, and speaketh very doubtfully of them too? For as for Athanasius whom you affirmed to quote him, I suppose you meant him in his Questions out of the old and new Testament, wherein he cities his Mystica Theologia. But neither was this book of Denis known in the time of Athanasius, nor did Athanasius himself write that, 
Biblioth. l. 4.  as your Sixtus Senensis thinketh. For had he written it, would he, think you, have vouched his own authority, and that with such arrogance under the name of Great Athanasius? or could he have mentioned Gregory Nazianzen, who flourished so long after his decease? I trow no: yet he doth both. 
Quest. 23. 117. 129. Act. 17. 34. Ib. 16.3. etc.  Secondly, it is well known that S. Paul was the man that converted Denis, and that before his coming to Athens, Timothy had been entertained by him, and in his company had traveled over many countries, and grew so intimate and dear unto him that he both counted and called him his Son. 
1 Tim. 1.2. & 2. c. 1.2.  Which being so, it cannot reasonably be imagined that the true Denis would prove either so ungrateful or so presumptuous as this counterfeit showeth himself to be ungrateful, in that forgetting Saint Paul, he ever speaks of one Hierotheus, in obscure man in comparison as of his Master: presumptuous, for that as if he were a Father to Timothy as well as Saint Paul he calleth him his Son, notwithstanding he were fare more fit to be his disciple. Thirdly, 
Divin. nom. c. 5. Strom. l. 8.  this Denis citeth Clemens the Philosopher, not Clemens of Rome as some would have it, but of Alexandria: for in him the very passage quoted by Denis is to be found. 
Devin. nom. c. 4.  And yet this Clemens lived two hundred years after Christ. He citeth also these words out of Ignatius, My love is crucified, as if he had been present at his Martyrdom: 
Memod.  and yet the true Dionysius suffered under Domitian, whereas Ignatius both wrote his Epistle, and was martyred some good while after him under Trajan. He further citeth the Gospel and Revelation of Saint john, as if they had a long time been parcels of holy Scripture: howbeit if we may believe history, both those books were written but a little before Saint john's death, and fourteen years after the death of Dionysius. And yet again, in an Epistle to Polycarpus he speaketh unto him as unto a reverend Bishop and Doctor. Nevertheless Dionysius himself suffered in France in the year of our Lord ninety six, as Writers testify, but Polycarpus in the year one hundred sixty six, and of his age eighty six so that at the death of Dionysius, Polycarpus could be but a stripling, and about sixteen years old. Fourthly, according to the Proverb, the Rat perisheth by bewraying himself: for speaking of Infants, and why they are baptised, thus he saith, 
Hier. Eccl. c. 7.  Hereof we say those things which our divine Masters being instructed by the old tradition have brought unto us. In which words ere he was ware he hath discovered that nor Paul nor any other of the Apostles could be his Masters: for it is both untrue and absurd to say, that the holy Apostles were instructed in the point of Christian Baptism by the old tradition. Lastly, this Denis writeth that himself together with Timothy and Hierotheus were present at the departure and funeral of the Blessed Virgin Mother. 
Ep. ad Tim.  Now story saith that she lived threescore and three years, being fifteen years of age when she bore Christ; whereunto if ye add thirty three years of Christ's life, and fifteen more to make up her full age, it will appear that she died eight and forty years after her Son's birth, and fifteen after his Ascension. But on the other side it plainly appeareth, that Denis Arcopagite was not converted unto the Christian Faith till the eighteenth year after the ascension, one and fifty years after Christ's birth. Our Divines gather it thus. The Scripture witnesseth that Saint Paul was not called till Christ was ascended. 
Reinold in Conc. 8. d. 2. Act. 9.5. Gal. 1.18. Act. 9.26. Gal. 1.21. Act. 13.4. Gal. 2.1. Act. 15.4. Act. 16.1.  Being called, he stayed three years in Damascus and Arabia before he came to jerusalem. Thence he went into the coasts of Syria and Cilicia and the Countries thereabout. And fourteen years after he came to jerusalem again with Barnabas to the Council. From the Council he went to Derbe and Lystra, Where he received Timothy. And having traveled through Phrygia, Galatia, Mysia, Macedonia, he came at last to Athens, 
Act. 17.34.  where he converted Denys. So that it must needs be about eighteen, or at the least seventeen years after Christ's Ascension before Saint Denys know Christ. All which duly considered, it is evident that the Blessed Virgin died if not three full years, yet more than two before the conversion of Denys: and consequently that he could not be one of those Brethren who were present at her death and funeral. Whence also it followeth inevitably, that the Author of that book cannot possibly be this Denys. This argument being pressed by that renowned Reinolds upon john Hart, 
Confer. c. 8. d. 2.  he confessed ingenuously that he knew not how to accord it. And these or the like reasons have so prevailed with sundry of your own side, that they have been forced some to doubt of him, others utterly to disclaim him from being the true Denys. 
Praef. in Probl. Alex. Aphrod.  Theodorus Caza affirmeth those books of the Hierarchy to be none of Denys the Athenians. 
In Act. 17. Ibid.  Erasmus also professeth himself to be of the same mind. And Laurentius Valla saith, that the learnedest men of his time entitled one Apollinarius unto them. Cardinal Cajetan not only saith it, 
In Act. 17.  but also showeth how unlikely it is that he who wrote of the Names of God, and of the Heavenly and Ecclesiastical Hierarchy should be this Denys. 
In Act. 17.  Erasmus further reporteth that one William Gro●in, an incomparable man both in Divinity, and all other humane learning beginning his Lectures in Paul's Church in London, upon the books of the Heavenly Hierarchy, maintained with great vehemence that it was the work of Denys the Ar●opagite, wondering at the impudence of them that denied it. But before he had passed half way into the work, he grew to be of another opinion, and freely confessed that it seemed to be none of this Denysses. Finally, 
Biblioth. l. 2. L. 6. a. 22.9.  Sixtus Senensis, although he profess himself to think otherwise, yet he acknowledgeth that not only Cajetan, but diverse others also doubt much whether those books be his whose name they bear. And thus h●ue I at length fully disengaged myself as touching this Dionysius, having with many unanswerable arguments maintained the Negative I undertook against you: which if reason may prevail with you, are I am sure sufficient to convince you; if not, yet sufficient to make you stagger. But let us return into the lists again, and resume the argument which we began to urge.  
Many Counterfeits there are passing up and down, and masking themselves under the names of ancient Fathers. This is confessed of all hands. I demand then, what infallible rule you have whereby to discern, and that without mistaking, which of them are spurious, and which legitimate. Neither blame me for demanding so much, seeing yourselves are not afraid to ask us, how we discern the Gospel of S. Matthew to be Canonical rather than that of Nicodemus. Whereunto if I should answer with you, that the Church hath resolved upon the Canon of Scripture: can you return the like answer unto my demand that the Church hath agreed upon a Canon for the Fathers also? If you cannot, as I know you neither can nor will, what further security I pray have you? Is it your own judgement? But I have already shown you, both in Dionysius Areopagita, and Athanasius, how much that hath deceived you. And not to flatter you, I suppose you have not so throughly attended and studied this point, but that many other of these Counterfeits by bearing the name of the Fathers, may be entertained by you as the very Fathers themselves. Is it then the judgement of other learned men? Alas they are distracted among themselves, and one admitteth him whom another rejecteth. For example, the Constitutions of Clemens, 
De author. Le. l. 2. c. 11. Hist. tom. 2. p. 15. Enchir. tract. de Euch. De Euchar. l. 2. c. 9 In 1. Tim. 3. De Euchar. l. 2. c. 14. Of Purg. l. 9 L. 4. in. Hier.  saith Stapleton, is a book full of of Apostolical spirit: yet saith Baronius, it is reckoned among these that are Apocryphal. Again, Echius voucheth Cypri●●ide Caena Dom●ni for Transubstantiation: but Bellarmine denieth that book to be Cyprians. The jesuites of Rhein's also cite the Commentaries of Ambrose upon the Epistles for the Pope's supremacy: yet Bellarmine holdeth it was neither written by Ambrose, nor any Catholic Cardinal Allen allegeth Hierome on the Proverbs for Purgatory: but Sixtus Senensis denies those Commentaries to be Hieromes. 
Tom. 4. d. 45. S. 1. n. 30.  Finally, for I will only give you a taste, Snares quoteth Augustin ad fratres in erome for Suffrages: but the Censors of Lovan tell him plainly that it is a counterfeit book. Besides this, if you will needs trust the judgement of others herein, perhaps when you think you hear a Father speak you may be pitifully deceived. For whether it be out of ignorance, or retchlessness, or set purpose to beguile, I cannot tell: but sure I am it is most usual and ordinary in all Popish writers to quote for Fathers those that are not Fathers and of ancient credit, but I know not what Foundlings and Changelings borne in Fairy land, and yesterday or three days ago brought amongst us. What ado keepeth Master Harding with his Amphilochius, Abdias, Leontius, Martialis, Hippolytus, Simeon Metaphrastes, and other such knights of the post? What a rumble do others make with the Epistles of Clemens, Euaristus, Telesphorus, Hyginus, Anicetus, Soter, Calixtus, Vrbanus, Pontianus, Anterus, Fabianus and the like, the barbarousness of whose style betrays, that they were written rather by some illiterate clerk then learned Bishop. But above all I cannot sufficiently wonder at Doctor Bristol, and the whole College of Rheims, 
Def. of Allen. Purg. In Pref. & in joh. 10.29. & Heb. 10.26.  who knowing that of the twelve books which Cyril of Alexandria wrote upon john, four are perished, namely the fift, sixth, seventh, and vl, and that one jodocus Clichtoveus a mushroom of yesternight supplied them out of his own brain: yet cite these books of Clichtoveus again and again, and that under the name of Saint Cyril himself. And this you may please to be advertised of by way of Caveat also, because, as it seemed in our Conference, you often read Saint Cyril and peruse him. To urge this point no further I conclude, seeing you are not any way infallibly certain which are the writings of the Fathers, which not, and the ground of Faith must be that which is infallibly certain, you cannot safely build upon consent of Fathers, unless you will build upon uncertainty.  
But suppose there were no doubt at all of their writings, which they be: yet you cannot with any security rest upon them, unless you are in like manner certain, that after so many ages they still retain their native purity, and are come to your hands without any corruption. But such certainty you can have none: for all the world knows how shamefully the Fathers have been abused, and how intolerably corrupted, and that both of old and of late also. 
Cap. 23. De Christo l. 1. c. 10. L. 4. tit. Orig.  Vincentius Lirinensis saith, that diverse of the ancients thought, the works of Origen had been miserably depraved, Bellarmine saith, it is very credible many blasphemies were inserted into them by Heretics. And Sixtus Senensis, that they had defiled all his works with innumerable Heresies. 
Id. ib. tit. Leo.  Pope Leo much grieved that his Epistles had been polluted with the unwashen hands of Heretics. And the Recognitions of Clemens were by them also corrupted, 
Id. tit. Clem. Id. ibid. l. 2.  saith Ruffian. It is manifest also, saith Sixtus Senensis, that the Canons of the Apostles were contaminated by the Nicolaitans. 
Tit. johan. Chrysost.  And, the imperfect work of chrysostom upon Matthew, abounds with sundry strange monsters of Heretics. The same Sixtus further saith, 
Praefat. in l. 5.  that Pamphilus Martyr, Eusebius caesarians, Didymus, and Ruffinus much complained, that very many writings not only of Clemens, Dionysius, Origen, and Athanasius, but of other noble Doctors also were pitifully handled by Heretics. 
Pref in Basil. de Sp. S.  Erasmus not only complains that many things were foisted in by others into the middle of treatises, as namely of Athanasius, chrysostom, Hierome, Basil, others: but expressly affirmeth that the Friars are they who have corrupted the Fathers. Not so expressly Ludovicus vines, 
In Civit. Dei l. 22. c. 8.  yet covertly he insinuates as much, In this chapter of Augustin, saith he, many things are added by those who with their polluted hands have defiled the writings of great Authors. Even of late Pamelius, although eight other written copies failed him, yet bashed not upon the sole authority of one blind Cambron copy, to insert into Cyprian, de unitate Ecclesiae, these words, He that forsaketh the chair of Peter on which the Church is founded, doth he hope himself to be in the Church? Which glosseme notwithstanding it be not to be found nor in Alopecius his print, nor in that of Heruagius, or Langlier, or Crinitus, or Gryphius, or Manutius, or any other, 
Part. 1. p. 89.  no not in any other written copy, as our learned Bilson showeth: yet because it seemeth to make much for the authority of the See of Rome, it must of necessity be clapped into the text. Whereas contrarily, if all the Copies of the Imperfect work upon Matthew have in them these words, In which not the true Body of Christ, but the Sacrament of his Body is contained; because it maketh strongly against Transubstantiation, it must needs be enforced (for so it pleaseth. Beauties' grace) by some Scholar of Berengarius. 
De Euchar. l. 2. c. 22.  And as the Fathers have been not a little wronged by way of addition, so I fear me they have received much injury also by way of Subtraction. 
Ep. dedic.  Ye have taken order, saith Sixtus Senensis unto Pope Pius the fift, that all the works of Catholic writers, and specially the ancient Fathers should be purged and corrected. In Cyprians works printed at Rome by Manutius, the letter of Firmilianus B. of Caesaria is left out. Why? but because he is in somewhat quick against Steven B. of Rome. In regard whereof saith Pamelius, it had been more wisdom if it never had been set out. The works of Ambrose also set forth by Frelonius at Lions were before the printing of them razed by two Friars. This Fr. junius saw with his eyes, and the Corrector of the press complained of it, professing he would buy any other print rather than that. You must needs be very deaf, for all the world rings of it, if you have not heard of the late order taken amongst you for the purging of books at the next reprinting of them: namely that whatsoever is to be found whether in the Epistle Dedicatory, or Preface, or Margin, or Tables, or Annotations, or in the Text of the work itself, any way seeming to make either against them, or for us, be wholly cut off, and left our in the next edition. Then which I think there was never a more base and beggarly shift used. Neither doth it argue other than the badness of your cause, and the distrust you have of it: for truth and a good cause would much disdain to be supported by so unjust, and dishonest means. Yet is this policy now a principal pillar of your Religion, and hath of late years been carefully executed. Witness those, expurgatory Indices which give direction to the Overseers of this business, what is to be altered, which to be added, and what to be defalked and spunged out: of which five are published to the world, one printed in Flanders, a second in Spain, a third in Portugal, a fourth in Naples, a fift in Rome. What others there be lurking in secret and not yet come to light I know not. Witness also the writings of Cardinal Cajetan, Polydore Virgil, Andreas Masius, Feras, Ludovicus Vines, Erasmus, Beatus Rhenanus, and innumerable others which have already passed this Purgatory, and are not set forth pitifully mangled and dismembered. But to leave this, suppose the Fathers have not been so shamefully entreated, as I have showed: yet would I pray you to answer me these two questions, the first, whether you be assured of this consent by your own reading, or else believe it upon the report of others: the second, if you have read them all your own self, whether you have read them in a translation, or in their own original language. To the first of these two questions, I presume you neither can nor will answer that you have read them all yourself: for I know you neither have them all, nor have you had sufficient either time or strength to peruse them all, unless happily your body be made of iron, and you have reached unto the years of Methuselah. What then? will you trust the allegations of other men? Take heed what you do, for so you may soon be deceived. For example, 
Doct. Princ. l. 6. c. 14.  Stapleton to prove that Paul was the Apostle of the Gentiles, but Peter both of jews and Gentiles, 
In Gal.  allegeth these words of Ambrose, He nameth Peter alone and compareth him to himself, because he had received the Primacy to build the Church, that himself likewise is chosen to have the Primacy of building the Churches of the Gentiles: yet so that Peter preached unto the Gentiles also. Here your Doctor stops, and john Hart taking it up upon trust, urgeth it against Reynolds as a strong testimony: whereas Ambrose, if ye curtail not his words, saith clean otherwise, thus, yet so that Peter also preached to the Gentiles if it were needful, and Paul to the jews. Many more such falsifications might I easily produce out of your writers: but let us rather hear how themselves censure one another. Antony Augustin Archbishop of Tarracon desiring in a book written to that purpose that Gratian might be purged, 
De emend. Grat. l. 1. dial. 1.  saith, His faults are so many that they cannot be reckoned in one day. For he allegeth false Authors ascribing words to Gregory, Ambrose, Augustin no where to be found in them: and produceth true Authors, but so as oft times he bringeth in contrary sentences. Cumel saith that the testimony of Hierome is by Molina, 
Disp. Var. to. 3. p. 126. Pag. 124.  Suares, and others fraudulently cited: and that Suares alleging chrysostom, cuts off that which immediately goes before and follows after, 
Defence. p. 324.  because he saw chrysostom favoured not his opinion at all. It is no rare thing, saith johannes Marsilius, for his illustrious Lordship, meaning Bellarmine, to cite Authors for an opinion, whereas they affirm the plain contrary. 
Pag. 289.  And again, It grieveth me to see things imputed unto holy Fathers, the contrary whereof they affirm. 
Ib. p. 357.  Finally saith the foresaid Marsilius touching Cardinal Baronius, I have heard that as he hath taken a liberty to mend the Fathers, Canons, and Historians, so he will correct the Counsels after his manner, and for 〈◊〉 ●●ne purpose, and to assume unto himself a licence 〈◊〉, which God forbidden. And thus you see even by your own men how dangerous it is to trust them in their allegations. As fo● 〈◊〉 second question, I think you will confess (pardon ●ee if I think amiss) that you have not skill enough with understanding to read the Greek Fathers in their Original, but are fain to trust unto Translations. But I beseech you do not Translators many times what through ignorance, or neglicence, or wilfulness mistake and pervert the meaning of their Author? 
L. 2. c. 1.  Ruffinus translated the Ecclesiastical history of Eusebius, and in it this passage of Clemens, that Peter, james, and john, although Christ preferred them almost before all, yet they took not the honour of Primacy to themselves, but ordained james who was surnamed Just Bishop of the Apostles. A shrewd testimony for the Primacy of james against that of Peter: but the error is in the translation, the Greek Eusebius having not Bishop of the Apostles, but Bishop of Jerusalem. Yet Marianus Scotus citeth the same out of Methodius just according to Ruffian's translation, from whence perhaps it was taken. 
Hist. l. 2. c. 23.  Eusebius himself in express terms affirmeth the Epistle of S. james to be Spurious: but your Chrystopherson renders it so as if he had meant that not himself but some others in the Church had so esteemed it in former times. And lastly, not to stand longer upon this point, that very translation of Cyrillus Alexandrinus which you have, made by Trapezuntius, you have little reason much to trust unto. For as Bonaventura Vulcanius showeth, 
Praef. & Ann.  it is a very disorderly one, wherein many things are omitted, much is added of his own, and much perversely translated. To conclude therefore, seeing the writings of the Fathers have so many ways and so notoriously been abused, by addition, by subtraction, by alteration, by misquotation, by mistranslation: it followeth that infallible certainty from them you can have none, and so consequently that you cannot safely build your Faith upon them.  
To proceed, the Scriptures you say are obscure and ambiguous, and therefore you may not rest upon them save only as they are expounded of the Fathers. If so, then if the Fathers also be obscure and ambiguous, neither may you rest your Faith upon them. Now certainly the Fathers are as dark and doubtful as the Scripture. If you think otherwise, do but read the works of Tertullian and Arnobius, and let me afterward know your mind. For my part I see no reason why the Scripture should be more subject to diversity of interpretations according to the difference of times, as Cardinal Cusan impiously affirmeth, 
Ep. 2. & 7. Cont. Whit. l. 2. p. 45.  and Duraeus the jesuit impudently defendeth; then the writings of the Fathers. What? do we not vouch the Fathers on both sides? are we not as confident upon them as you? whence cometh this, I beseech you, if they be so clear that no doubt can be made of them? And why do you profess in your Flemish expurgatory Index, that in ancient Catholic Writers, ye tolerate many errors, ye extenuate and excuse them, and often deny them by devising some shift, and feigning a sense unto them when they are opposed against you? What need I say, all these tricks and fetches if there be no obscurity in them? If literal and Grammatical construction may carry it, the Fathers are directly ours: and we suppose they meant as they wrote, neither can you make any show of answer, unless you fall to expound the meaning of them. And so as you remove your Faith from the letter of the Scripture unto the exposition of the Fathers: so must you of force remove the same again from the letter of the Fathers unto some other tribunal to determine the sense and meaning thereof. Give me leave to declare this by some few examples. That Faith only justifies, Origen, Cyprian, Eusebius Caesariensis, Hilary, Basil, chrysostom, Ambrose, Augustin, Cyril, Primasius, Hesychius, Gennadius, Oecumenius, in express terms affirm, agreeing therein with us: whose words I will not fail to produce whensoever you shall require. Against having of Images in Churches, and the Adoration of them, we have the precise words not only of Lactantius and Epiphanius and other Fathers severally, 
Epist. ad joh. Hicrosol.  but nineteen Bishops together in the Council of Eliberis, and of the whole Council of Frankford under Charles the Great. Against the Bishop of Rome's supremacy we have the plain resolution of Pope Gregory, 
Lib. 6. ep. 30.  that he is the forerunner of Antichrist whosoever desires to be called Universal Bishop. And of the General Council of Chalcedon, 
Act. 16.  giving to the Bishop of Constantinople equal privileges with the Bishop of Rome. And of two hundred & seventeen Bishops in the sixth Council of Carthage, among whom were Saint Augustin, Prosper, Gresians, and many other worthy Fathers, all decreeing that the Pope of Rome thenceforward should have no authority over the African Churches. Finally, against Transubstantiation thus writeth Gelasius, himself a Bishop of Rome, 
De d●ab. nat. con. Eu●ych.  The Sacraments of the Body and Blood of CHRIST which we receive is a divine thing, wherefore by them we are made partakers of the divine nature, and yet the substance of bread and wine ceaseth not to be. Thus also Theodoret, 
Dial. 1.  He who hath called meat and drink that which naturally is his body, and after calls himself a Vine, he himself hath honoured the visible signs with the name of his Body and Blood, having not changed their nature, but having added grace unto nature. And again, 
Dial. 10.  The signs mystical change not their nature after consecration, for they remain in their first substance, figure and form. 
Hom. 11.  Chysostom likewise, if he be the Author of the imperfect work on Math. In the sacred vessels there is not the true Body of CHRIST, but the mystery of his Body. And Saint Augustin, The Lord doubted not to say; This is my Body, 
Con. Adimant. c. 12.  when he gave the sign of his Body. Thus the Fathers in these few points neither is it hard to show the like consent in the rest. What? Will you now subscribe unto their words? yea being taken in the right sense. But who shall judge of the 〈◊〉 on understand them one way, we another. Shall 〈◊〉 learned Rabbis of your side? Fie, that were too partial: and they so enterfere in their answers that they cut and hue one the other miserably. Reverend Bishop Morton hath demonstrated this at large. 
Preamble●ng. Mitigator.  Take one of his examples. The Council of B●●beris forbiddeth the having of Images in Churches, 
Do Imagine. l. 2. c. 9  and Adoration of them. Of Images representing God's nature, faith Andrad●●s. No, saith Bellarmine, for such were not then in use. For fear test Gentiles should think Christians warshipped them idolatrously, saith Sanders. But the reason of the Canon agreeth not much with this exposition, saith Bellarmine. Because Christians seemed to worship those Images as Gods, 
Ibid.  saith allen Cope. But this exposition is not agreeable to the Canon, saith B●ll●rmine. Lest in time of persecution they should be made a scorn and contempt unto infidels, saith Sanders, Allen, Turrian, 
De adorat. l. 2. d. 5. c. 2. n. 131.  and Bellarmine. But this exposition agreeth not with the intention of the Canon, saith Vasques. Lest by the decay of the walls they might lose their lustre, saith the same Vasques. 
Ib. n. 132.  The Council was but provincial, and never confirmed by the Pope, 
Ib. n. 121. Bell. Imag. l. 2. c. 36. Bin. de Conc. in hunc Can. Biblioth. l. 5. ann. 247.  say divers of late, being oppressed with the objection. But Baronius and Binius affirm that it was a lawful Council and free from error. And whatsoever the occasion of the prohibition was, this is sure, The Council of Eliberis did absolutely forbid the worship of images, saith Sixtus Senensis. What say you now to this language of Babel? Can you gather any certainty for your Faith out of such confusion? Certainly you cannot. And if many Father's laying their heads together in a general Council, may even in then decrees of Faith use inconvenient speech either by superfluity of terms, or disorderly placing them, and the like; so that no●●● much the words, as the s●●●e is to be regarded; 
De Concil. l. 2. c. 12.  as your Bellarmine affirmeth 〈◊〉 you re●de● any reason why some few of them writing funderly, one from another, may not also fail in their terms, and thereby leave the Readers mind in suspense and doth what their true meaning should be? The very Sy●●● of Trent hath not spoken so plainly, but that it hath left scruples in the mind of some. And yet, Good God, faith Campian, what variety of Nations, 
Rat. 4.  what choice of Bishops out of the whole world, what Majesty of King and States, what marrow of Divines, what holiness, what tears, what fasting, what flowers of Universities, what tongues, what subtlety, what industry, what infinite reading, what richesse of virtues and studies replenished that more than humane Sanctuary. All which notwithstanding Bellarmine and Sixtus Senensis accord not in the meaning of the third Session touching the number of the Canonical books. 
De verb. Dei l. 1. c. 7.  For Bellarmine thinks that the seven last chapters of Hester following after the tenth are by the Council admitted into the Canon, 
Biblioth. l. 1. & 8.  but Sixtus thinketh no. Neither yet are Bellarmine and Ambrose Catharin agreed about the eleventh Canon of the seventh Session concerning the necessity of the Priest's intention to make a Sacrament, the one affirming it; 
De Sacram. in gen. l. 1. c. 27. Opusc. de intent. minist. Ib. de laps. & pecc. or. c. 6.  the other denying it. Nor last, are they resolved of the Counsels mind touching Original sin, Catharin, who had been in the Council a great stickler, 
Bell. de amis. great. l. 5. c. 1●▪  defining it only by the Imputation of Adam's sin, others affirming it to be more than so, and that upon the words of the Council too. I could easily instance in sundry other points: but these are enough to let you see, that the Oracles of Loxia● went 〈◊〉 more perplex, than the Decrees of this Tridented conventicle. Whether they were framed so of purpose, or no, I cannot tell; many shrewdly suspect it. Sure I am, it hath been so fare from stinting of quarrels, that in many things it hath been and still is the matter and fuel of contention. Howsoever, seeing the Fathers oftentimes write so darkly and ambiguously, that there is great doubt made not only between you and us, but amongst your chiefest Doctors also, what their right meaning should be: I conclude, and that according to your own rule, that Consent of Father's cannot be a sufficient ground to build upon.  
But what if the more part of Father's consent in error, even in those points which the Church of Rome herself condemneth? Will you not then freely confess that such Consent is not so firm and sure a ground as you took it to be? Doubtless you will, unless you be too too wilful and obstinate in your opinion. Let us therefore a little examine this point. That Christ after the first Resurrection shall live with his elect hereupon earth for a thousand years in all peace and happiness until the second Resurrection, is the error of the Millenaries, and justly condemned by the Church of Rome. Yet Papias Saint john the Apostles auditor, 
Sixt. Senens. l. 5. ann. 233. & 6. ann. 347.  Apollinarius, Irenaus, Tertullianus, Victorinus Pitabionensis, Lactantius, Severus Sulpitius, justin Martyr, and a great multitude of other Catholic men were of the ●●me opinion, all being deceived by misunderstanding that in the Revelation, And they shall reign with him a thousand years. S. Augustin speaketh very tenderly of it, 
De civet. Dei l. 20. c. 7. In jer. l. 4.  calling it neither error not heresy, himself having sometimes held it. And Hierome durst not condemn it, because so many Churchmen and Martyrs had said it. That the souls of just men after their dissolution see not the face of God until the day of judgement, is an error and condemned by the Church of Rome. Yet the Liturgy fathered upon Saint james, Irenaeus, justin, Tertullian, Clemens Romanus, Origen, Lactantius, Victorinus Martyr, Prudentius, Ambrose, chrysostom, the Author of the Unperfect work on Matthew, Augustin, Theodoret, Arethas, Oecumenius, Theophylact, E●thymius, Pope john the two and twentieth, and Bernard, held the same, whose particular words Sixtus Senensis recordeth in his Library. 
Lib. 6. annot. 345. Stapl. de auth. Sc. l. 1. c. ●.  I am not ignorant how Sixtus there laboureth to excuse them but others of his pewfellows find their words so pregnant that they can by no means salve them. That the thrice blessed Virgin Mary was conceived in Original Sin, the Church of Rome holdeth to be an error: 
3. d. 117. n. 148.  for not only the unskilful vulgar, but the Doctors and Divines, and all Catholics with one consent fight for the Immaculate Conception, saith Vasques. And why hath your Church by her authority commanded the feast of ●●r Conception to be celebrated, unless she were conceived without sin? 
De consecr. d. 4. Firmissime n. 11.  Yet Cardinal Turr●cremata affirms, that all the Doctors in a manner maintain the contrary, and that he had gathered together the testimonies of three hundred to that effect, noting the very places and words wherein they affirm it, 
Part. 1. q. 1. d. 5.  And Dominicus Bannes saith, that it is the general consent of the holy Doctors, that she was conceived in sin: and yet the contrary is held in the Church, to be not only probable, but very godly. That Angels and the Souls of men are bodily, 
Actione. 5.  visible, and circumscriptible, is an error, and condemned by the Church of Rome. Yet three hundred Fathers, such as they were, and fifty upon the head of them, in the second Council of Nice, avouch it, and allege the authority of Basil surnamed the Great, Blessed Athanasius, Methodius, and their followers for it. If any shall say, it was the opinion only of john B. of Thessalonica, and not of the whole Council: I answer, that what john said, Tharasius Patriarch of Constantinople, forthwith confirmed, and the whole Synod immediately answered, So it is my Lord. And this is so clear, that Bartholomew Carranza notes it as an error in them, 
Epit. Conc. ad cum loc. Ep. 215. De Eccl. dog. c. 11. & 12.  and contrary unto the Lateran Council: yet adds withal that Saint Augustin was of the same mind. But leaving other their errors, I come without further delay to discharge that obligation, wherein I stand bound to prove, that the Fathers for a time generally held it necessary for all, even young Infants, to be partakers of the Eucharist, 
Conc. Trid. Sess. 5. can. 4.  or they could not be saved: which you know the Church of Rome alloweth not, but condemneth as an error.  

Eccl. hier. c. 2. p. 3.  First your Denys, he that goeth under the name of Areopagita, after he hath recited other ceremonies in the administration of Baptism, at length, saith he, the Priest calls the party Baptised to the most holy Eucharist, and gives the Communion unto him. And lest you should understand this of them that are baptised being Adulti, 
Id. 7. c. 3.  elsewhere he speaketh more plainly thus, That children who cannot yet understand divine things should be made partakers of holy Baptism, and of the mystical signs of the most holy Communion, may perhaps seem ridiculous to profane men, 
De lapsis.  if the Auditors when Bishops teach such Heavenly things be not fit. Saint Cyprian reports a story of a certain Infant maid, who had not yet age enough to tell what wrong another had done her, how when the Deacon had offered the holy chalice unto her, and she refused, he poured it into her mouth. 
Ibid.  And a little after, Will not those Infants, saith he, when the day of judgement shall come, say, we have done nothing, neither forsaking the meat and cup of the Lord have we of our own accord hastened to these profane contagions: the perfidiousness of others hath overthrown us, our Parents are our murderers. Innocent the first B. of Rome, 
Ep. ad Patr. conc. Milou.  That which your Brotherhood, saith he, affirmeth them to preach, namely that little ones may obtain the reward of eternal life without the grace of Baptism is very foolish: for unless they eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, they cannot have life in them. 
Con. jul. Pel. l. 1. c. 2.  Of this Innocentius S. Augustin saith, how he defined, that little ones unless they did eat the flesh of the Son of man, they could by no means have life in them. Now I beseech you durst any man at that time hold otherwise then the head of the Church (for so you count the Pope to be) had defined? But let us hear Saint Augustin himself. Verily, 
Con. duas Ep. Pel. l. 1. c. 22.  saith he, Christ is the Saviour of little ones also, and unless they be redeemed by him, they must perish: because without his flesh and blood they cannot have life. And again, Wherefore they also, as I have said, 
Ad vital. Ep. 107.  if they die in that tender age, shall certainly be judged, according to the things they have done by the Body, namely during that time while they lived in the body, when by the heart and mouth of them that bore them they believed or not believed, when they were baptised or not baptised, when they ate the flesh of Christ, or not ate it, when also they drank his blood or not drank it according to these things I say which they have done by the body, not those which they would have done had they lived longer here shall they be judged. And yet again, 
De pec. mer. & remiss. l. 1. c. 20.  Away therefore now with doubting, Let us hear the Lord and not the suspicions and conjectures of men, let us I say hear the Lord speaking this not of the Sacrament of Baptism, but of the Sacrament of his holy Table, to which none lawfully approacheth but he that is Baptised, Unless you eat my Flesh and drink my Blood you shall have no life in you. What seek we further? What will they be able to answer hereunto, unless obstinacy do stretch their striving sinews against the constancy of evident truth? Will any dare to say this also, that this saying belongs not unto little ones, or that they may have life in them without the participation of this Body and Blood, because he saith not, he that eateth not, as of Baptism, he that is not borne again, but thus, If ye eat not, as speaking to them who were able to hear and understand which certainly little ones cannot? But he that saith so, marketh not that unless this saying hold all, that they cannot have life without the Body and Blood of the Son of Man, even the elder age also will make little reckoning of it. And yet once more again, 
Ib. c. 24.  The Carthaginian Christians excellently call Baptism no other than Salvation, and the Sacrament of the Body of Christ no other than Life. Whence but from an ancient and as I think Apostolical tradition, by which the Churches of Christ hold as ingrafied into them that without Baptism and the participation of the Lords Table no man can come not only to the Kingdom of God, but neither to salvation nor life eternal. And this being thus proved, by and by he concludes, If therefore as so many and so pregnant divine testimonies witness with joint consent, no man may hope either for salvation or eternal life without Baptism and the Body and Blood of the Lord, in vain do they promise it to little ones without them. Thus Augustin: where by the way observe how he affirmeth this his opinion to be the Tenet of all the Churches of Christ. To whom I add lastly the eleventh Council of Toledo, 
Can. 11.  If any faithful man being constrained by any inevitable infirmity shall cast up the Eucharist which he hath received, let him in no case be subject to Ecclesiastical condemnation. Likewise let not the censure of any condemn them, who either in the time of their infancy shall do the same, or in the alienation of their mind, seeming to be ignorant of what they do. 
In joh. 6.53. In Tertull. de cor. mill.  This error touching the necessity of the Eucharist to Infants continued in the Church a long time, even about six hundred years, as your Maldonat saith. And Beatus Rhenanus observeth out of the Ritual books called Agendae, that the custom of ministering the Communion to Infants was still in use unto the times of Ludovicus Pius and Lotharius, that is, towards nine hundred years after Christ. Against all this I know not what can be said, unless perhaps, that it might be a general custom, but not a general opinion. and so indeed some of your men turn it off, and the Council of Trent saith, that as those holy Fathers had probable cause of their doing according to the reason of the time, so without controversy must we believe that they did it not upon necessity of salvation. But first, this is a question not of Faith but of Fact, namely what those Fathers did believe in this point: and in a matter of Fact yourselves confess a Council may be deceived. Secondly, the sayings above related are so plain and express as none can be more: so that it must needs be extreme madness to yield unto this consequent, the Council of Trent, that is, a few men of yesterday say so, and therefore though Pope Innocent, and Augustin, and other of the ancient Fathers say the contrary of themselves, yet must we not believe them. Thirdly, the very Text of Scripture which they alleged to prove, their opinion, understanding it of the Eucharist as they did, manifestly argues they held a necessity of it to Infants, Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood ye shall not have life in you. Lastly, you are to know that the Fathers brought in this of the Eucharist against the Pelagians to prove the necessity of Baptism, thus, None can be saved without partaking of the holy Communion: None may partake of the holy Commumunion except he be Baptised, Ergo, none can be saved except he be Baptised. The Assumption they took for granted: the Mayor they warranted by the aforesaid text. So that the Conclusion must of necessity fall to the ground, and Baptism cannot be necessary unless the Eucharist also be necessary. And thus have I discharged this obligation also, and have made good my promise unto you as touching this point. From which together with the other particulars above mentioned, I conclude, that the Fathers have generally erred, and consequently that Consent of Father's cannot be a ground of Faith, unless you will consent with them in error.  
Which will yet further appear, if you will please to take notice that your own men orderly reject them notwithstanding their Consent. For why should they do thus after so many vaunts and brags, if they thought the more part of them could not err? Yet that so they do, 
Loc. l. 7. c. 1. n. 1. Rom. 5.  learn by these few examples. Canus saith that from that place of the Apostle, In whom have all sinned, all the holy Fathers with one mouth affirm the Blessed Virgin to have been conceived in Original sin, as namely chrysostom, Eusebius, Remigius, Ambrose, Augustin, Bernard, Bede, Anselme, Erardus Martyr, S. Antony, Bonaventure, Aquinas, Vincentius, Damascenus, Hugo de sancto Victore. Yet, saith he, though there were no Author to stand against them the argument drawn from consent of all the Fathers is but weak, and the contrary opinion is more probably and piously defended. Salmeron also being hardly beset with the same army of Fathers in the same point, quits himself like a man thus, 
In Rom. 5. d. 51.  To this multitude of Doctors we oppose another multitude, to drive out one nail with another: his meaning is, the learned men of these latter times against the Ancient Fathers. Michael Medina confesseth that Hierome, Ambrose, 
De Sacr. hom. orig. l. 1. c. 5.  Augustin, Sedulius, Primasius, chrysostom, Theodoret, Occumenius, and Theophylact, to whom he might have added diverse others, that I say they held there was no difference between a Presbyter and a Bishop: yet he rejecteth it as the opinion of the Heretic Aërius. That Christ is the true Shepherd mentioned in the tenth of john, Augustin, chrysostom, Hierome, Caesarius, Cyril, Theodoret, Aponius, Gregorius Rom. Anastasius Sinaita, Prosper, Theophylact, Euthymius, Rupertus, Cyprian, Leontius, Eucherius Lugd. Bede, Bernard, Anselme Cantear. Liranus, and many others affirm: yet, 
Antid. Huang. in joh. 10.  saith Stapleton, the Pope is understood thereby. All the Ancient Fathers in a manner, as Gregory Nazianzen, Origen, Athanasius, the Author of the imperfect work on Matthew, Saint Ambrose, 
Antiq. jud. l. 3. c. 4. De Decal. & de leg. spec.  Saint Hierome, and generally all the ancient Hebrews, as both josephus and Philo testify, divided the Decalogue as we do, making the first table to consist of four Commandments concerning God's worship, and that against Images to be the second: your Church notwithstanding to cover her spiritual fornications, and the sacrilegious razing of that Commandment out of your Prayer-books and Catechisms, goes against all antiquity, dividing the first table only into three Commandments, 
Quaest. 71. in Exod.  and cutting the tenth into two, having no other colour for it but only one Augustins single authority. To be brief, In the exposition of this verse, 
In Psal. 31.  saith Tolet, nor the Greeks, nor the Latins, nor they who follow the Hebrews, seem to me to speak perfectly. So almost all expound, 
In Mat. 19.11. In Mat. 16.18.  saith Maldonat, with whom I cannot agree. And again, The meaning of these words of Christ seems not to be that which all bring, whom I remember to have read, except Hilary. And yet again, The opinions of the Father's touching this sentence are divers, but to speak freely I rest in none of them. 
In Mat. 11.11. & 13. In joh. 6.62.  And, All the Fathers almost so expound, but their interpretation seemeth not to me fit enough. And lastly, Thus I expound it, and although I have no Author for this exposition, yet I approve it rather than that of Augustin and the rest, albeit most probable because if more crosseth the meaning of the Caluinists. Which last clause I would pray you well to consider: for by it, not Consent of Fathers, but crossing of Caluinists is the rule of truth. O impudence! O perfidiousness! to boast and brag so much of Fathers, and yet in truth to make so little reckoning of them. But to let you see how the world is cheated by these Impostors, hear a little further.  
If at any time, saith Cardinal Cajetan, 
Proaem. in lib. Moysis.  ye meet with a sense agreeing with the text, although swarning from the stream of the Doctors, let the Reader show himself an indifferent Censor, neither let any detest it for this cause, because it disagreeth from the ancient Doctors. For God hath not tied the exposition of the Scripture unto the senses of the ancient Doctors: otherwise all hope would be taken from us of expounding the Scripture. This saying of Cajetan is I confess reproved by some of your men: yet is he defended by Andradius, who also saith, 
Defence. fid. Trid. l. ●.  We may forsake all the senses of the Fathers, and bring a new unlike unto theirs, and, the Fathers spoke not oracles when they expounded the Scripture. Maldonat is very peremptory, Whatsoever many ancient Fathers have thought, 
Sum. q. 12. 2. 4.  whether it be true Matrimony after a vow, the contrary is now true. And Duraeus, 
Con. Whitel●. p. 140.  The Fathers are not counted Fathers when they either write or teach of their own, and what they have not received from the Church. 
p. 1. pa. 75.  And Dominicus Bannes, The more part of Doctors if some few bee against them make no infallible argument in matters of Faith. 
De iurisd. p. 4.  Dr Marta also, The common opinion of Doctors is not to be regarded, when another contrary opinion favoureth the power of the keys and the jurisdiction of the Church. 
De vorb. Dei l. 3. c. 10.  Likewise Bellarmine, The Fathers expound the Scriptures not as judges but as Doctors: now not to this but that authority is required. And, 
De conc.  In expounding the Scripture the Catholic Church doth not always and in all things follow the Fathers. The writings of the Fathers are no rules and have no authority to bind us. 
In Rom. 14.  Finally Tom teltroth Cornelius Must, To speak freely I would yield more credence to one chief Bishop in those things which concern the mysteries of Faith, than a thousand Augustins, Hieromes, or Gregory's. And thus as a right learned writer saith, 
Reinol. Conf. c. 2. d. 2.  you use the Fathers as Merchants are wont to use their counters. Sometime they stand with you for pence, sometime for pounds, as they be next and readiest at hand to make up your accounts. So that I cannot but marvel, how you dare to make that the ground of your Faith, which the learnedst of your side so ordinarily reject as an unsure foundation to build upon.  
Shall I tell you, M. Bayly? you have been foully gulled and beguiled by your new Masters. For notwithstanding all this fair pretence of Fathers: yet in the end, not Consent of Fathers, but the authority of the present Church must be your surest anchorhold. So saith Gregory de Valentia, a man well seen in the Romish mysteries, 
Tom. in Thom. 3. d. 1. q. 1. p. 7. §. 3. De Sacram. l. 2. c. 25.  Neither the holy Scripture, nor yet tradition alone, if ye separate from it the present authority in the Church, is that infallible authority, and mistress of Faith. So Bellarmine also, The firmity of all ancient Counsels and Doctrines depends upon the authority of the present Church. And this reason they render, because without the authority of the present Church ye can never have infallible certainty, either of Scripture, or Counsels, or Traditions, which they be, or what is the true meaning of them. So that now you must of force remove your Faith from the ancient Fathers, and rest it upon the present Church. But what? are you now more safe than you were before? Never a whit, unless you may further be resolved, what is the present Church. For it is taken three several ways by you: and is either the Church essential consisting of all Catholics whatsoever, 
Prior. in Luth. tom. 1. fund. ●.  or Representative of Bishops in a Council, or Virtual the Pope who is head of the Church. Now which of these three must you pitch upon? The first. So say some. But the most part of this Church is the Vulgar who are not comprehensive of those matters which are controverted: neither is it possible for you to gather the voices of such a divided and dispersed body. Others therefore direct you to the second: But what? to a Council with the Pope or without the Pope? For here is such confusion of tongues, and part taking of each side, that I fear you will hardly find any rest for the sole of your foot this way. Howbeit, if the most voices of the new cut now adays may sway it, not a Council without the Pope, but the Pope, whether with a Council or without it, it mattereth not much, 
Tom. 3. p. 24.  must be the judge and ground of Faith. In this question, saith Gregory de Valentia, by the Church we meant the Roman Bishops: in whom resides the full authority of the Church when he pleases to determine matters of Faith, whether he do it with a Council or without. And Greiser, 
Def. Bellarm. 10. 1. p. 1450. b.  when we affirm the Church to be judge of all controversies of Faith, by the Church we understand the B. of Rome, who for the time being governs the ship of the militant Church. And Albertin, I say that besides the first verity, there is an infallible rule, living and endued with reason, such as is the Church: and this rule living and endued with reason is the chief B. of Rome. So that, 
Tom. 1. dis. 44. Sect. 1.  the Pope's determination is the truth, saith Suares, and were it contrary to the sayings of all the Saints, yet were it to be preferred afore them: nay if an Angel from Heaven were opposed against him, the Pope's determination were to be preferred. By all which you see, that as you have once already removed your Faith from the ancient Fathers to your Mother the present Church: so must you be fain now again to remove it from your mother the present Church, unto your holy Father the present Pope. But besides that it is altogether unprobable that the Spirit of Truth should be chained unto the chair of those men, who many of them have been monsters rather than men, and not only Heretics, but very Atheists and Infidels: I would willingly learn why the Pope is so seldom in the humour to decide controversies. Why have we not from him an exact Commentary on the Bible that we need no longer stand in doubt of the meaning thereof? And why doth he not stint the deadly fo-hood that now is on foot between the jesuites and Dominicans? But suppose he be both able and ready to resolve: what? must I travel from England so fare as Rome for resolution? and when I am arrived before him, hath he cloven tongues sitting upon him to speak unto me in the language I understand? Or if I understand him, how am I assured that speaking to me he intendeth to teach the whole Church? for otherwise he may err, as Bellarmine shows Innocent the eighth did, 
De Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 14.  permitting the Norwegians to celebrate the sacrifice of the Mass without wine. Shall I tell you a mystery? Whatsoever your Priests and jesuits prate either of Fathers, or Church, or Pope, yet to an ordinary man who cannot of himself be resolved by them, the authority of his Diocesan is sufficient, yea and he merits by believing it although what he teach be false. This perhaps may seem strange to you, 
L. 3. d. 25. q. v. art. 1.  yet thus saith Gabriel Biel, If a simple and unlearned man hear his Prelate preach any thing contrary to the Faith, thinking that what his Prelate hath so preached is believed by the Church, 
Instr. Sacer. l. 4. c. 3.  such a one not only not sinneth, but by believing that which is false meriteth. And Tolet, Again if a Countryman believe his Bishop propounding some heretical Doctrine about the Articles, he meriteth by believing although it be an error: because he is bound to believe until it manifestly appear that it is against the Church. O immortal God, if this be true, how easy a thing is it for a Papist to be saved? Only believe what your Prelate or Curate telleth you, and you shall not need to trouble yourself further: for whether it be true or false, sound doctrine or heresy, you are out of danger, nay it is meritorious to believe it. Alas, alas that poor simple people should be so miserably cheated and seduced. God I hope will ere long open their eyes to see these impostures, and by the light of his word guide their feet in a surer way. In the mean season give me leave to sum up all what I have hitherto said, and thereupon to infer the Conclusion first intended. Seeing therefore, as we have now fully demonstrated, the Fathers were but men as we are, neither having the Promise, nor assuming unto themselves the Privilege of Infallibility above us: seeing secondly, many Counterfeits are set forth under the names of the Fathers, which the best of your side cannot so readily discern, and which they ordinarily allege in every controversy betwixt us for authentical Fathers: seeing thirdly, the writings of the Fathers are pitifully corrupted and adulterated by Heretics and others, and that sundry ways, by Addition, Substraction, Alteration, Misquotation, and False translation: seeing fourthly, the sayings of the Fathers are so ambiguous and obscure, that not only we and you one against another, but your own side also among themselves are distracted and divided touching the sense and meaning of them: seeing fifthly, the more part of the Fathers sometime consent in error, yea and such errors as the present Church of Rome condemneth with Anathema: seeing sixthly, the most learned of your side make no scruple to reject the Fathers whensoever they consent against them, and warrant their so doing with divers reasons: seeing lastly, they make not Consent of Fathers, but the authority of the present Church, that is to say, the Pope for the time being, to be the only Infallible judge of Controversies: seeing I say all these things are undoubtedly so, I will not be afraid to conclude, that the pretended Consent of Fathers is too weak and deceitful a ground for a man with security to build his Faith upon.  
For whereas you say that believing as the Fathers did, if they be saved (as doubtless they are) you cannot miscarry: take heed lest this prove but a broken reed, and deceive you in the end. For first, if for the reasons above set down, you cannot be infallibly certain which are the true Fathers, and what is their right meaning: how can you be infallibly certain that you believe as they did? Again, do you think it safe to hold all their errors also? and because they are not condemned for them, that you shall escape condemnation in like manner believing them? 
Cont. Haer. c. 10.  Hear then what Vincentius Lirinensis saith, O wonderful change of things, saith he! the Authors of the same opinion are judged Catholics, and the followers Heretics: the Masters are absolved, and the Scholars condemned: the Writers of the books shall be the Sons of the Kingdom, and Hell shall keep those that maintain them. For who doubts but blessed Cyprian the light of Bishops and holy Martyrs, together with the rest of his Colleagues shall reign for ever with Christ? Contrarily who is so impious as to deny, that the Donatists and the rest of that pestilent crew, who under the authority of that Council presume to rebaptize, shall burn for evermore with the Devil? Thus he: whereby you see how dangerous it is to believe even as the best have done before us, unless we have better warrant than so for our doing. Lastly, suppose the Father's consenting erred not, yet are you never the safer. For the strength of Faith exceeds not the strength of the testimony, nor the strength of the testimony the Veracity of the Witness. Now the Veracity of the Fathers is but the Veracity of men, and the Veracity of men is imperfect and inconstant, ever leaving room for that word of truth All men are liars. Whence it followeth that your Faith being grounded only on the Veracity of men, is no better than an Acquisite and Humane Faith. Whereby though you believe all that the Fathers did, yet not believing as they did, they may be saved and you perish. For they building upon divine testimony believed with a Divine Faith, and therefore, Saving: but you relying on humane authority believe only with an Acquisite and Humane Faith which saveth not, no not although the things you believe thereby are true. For an Acquisite Faith the devils themselves may have and yet are damned.  
Wherefore it being as you see so dangerous and unsafe to trust in man, and as the Prophet speaketh, to make flesh your arm: let me entreat you even in the bowels of jesus Christ, to take unto you Christian severity, and with all speed to return your Faith back again upon the rock, from which so rashly and unadvisedly you removed it. Remember I beseech you how S. Augustin, in a controversy betwixt him and Hierome touching S. Peter's dissimulation, having elevated the authority of four of those seven Fathers which were urged against him, and not being able to oppose three to the other three remaining, 
Epist. 19  quitteth himself thus, When saith he, I seek a third, that I also may oppose three to three, verily I suppose I might easily find him, if I had read much: howbeit to me the Apostle Paul shall be instead of all, yea and above them all. To him I fly, to him I appeal, of him I ask and demand, etc. In like manner do you also, and in God's name let your final appeal be made unto the holy Scriptures, as unto the supreme judge in all questions of Faith. 
Catech. 4. Theod. l. 1. c. 7.  For as Cyril B. of jerusalem, saith, The security of our Faith ariseth from the demonstration of the holy Scripture: and, the resolution of those things we seek for, must be taken out of the divine inspired Scripture, saith Constantin in his oration to the Bishops of the Nicen Council. 
Con. Herm. De bon. vid. c. 1. Orat. de ijs q. adeunt. Hierosol. Hom. 13. in 2. Cor. Epist. 112. ad Paulin.  And reason; for the Scriptures are the rule of Faith, as Tertullian and Augustin say. A strait and inflexible rule, as Gregory Nyssen saith. A most exquisite rule and exact square and balance to try all things by, saith chrysostom. In regard whereof saith Saint Augustin, If a matter be grounded on the evident authority of holy Scripture, such I say as the Church calleth Canonical, it is without all doubt to be believed: but as touching other witnesses and testimonies, upon whose credit a thing is urged upon us to be believed, thou majest lawfully either credit or not credit them, as thou perceivest them to deserve or not to deserve credit. 
Con. Parmen. l. 5.  And Optatus B. of Milenis, you affirm, we deny: between your yea and our nay, the souls of the people waver and stagger. Let no man believe either you or us: We are all contentious men. We must seek out judges. If Christians, both sides cannot yield them, and part taking would hinder truth. We must seek for a judge without. If a Pagan, he knows not the mysteries of Christianity: if a jew, he is an enemy to Christian Baptism. Therefore upon earth no judgement touching this matter can be found. We must seek a judge from heaven. But why knock we at heaven seeing herein the Gospel we have his will and testament. With these Fathers your own men accord. The holy doctrine, saith Thomas of Aquin, 
Sum. p. 1. q. 1. a. 8. ad. 2.  useth such authorities (of profane writers) as foreign and probable arguments: but the authorities of Canonical Scripture it useth arguing properly and necessarily, and the authorities of the Doctors of the Church, as disputing indeed properly, yet only probably. For our Faith relieth on that revelation which was made to the Apostles and Prophets who wrote the Canonical books: 
De verb. Dei. l. 1. c. 2.  but not on revelation made to other Doctors, if any such have been. And Bellarmin, The sacred Scripture is the rule of Faith most safe and certain: and God hath taught us by corporal letters which we may see and read what he would have us believe concerning him. And Stapleton, 
Del. con. Whit. l. 2. De rat. Con. l. 2. c. 19  The divine Scriptures alone yield infallible testimony and such as is merely divine. And Persius also, The authority of no Saint is of infallible truth: for S. Augustin gives that honour only to the sacred Scripture. But why vouch I human authority having divine? God himself by the Prophet summons us unto the law and to the testimony, 
Esa. 8.20.  affirming that if any speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. 
joh. 5.39.  Our Saviour Christ commandeth to search the Scriptures as which testify of him, and wherein eternal life is to be had. 
Luc. 16. 3●  Abraham referred the rich gluttons brethren to Moses and the Prophets assuring himself that if they refused to hear them, neither would they be persuaded though one rose from the dead. The holy Apostle Paul chargeth us not to presume above that which is written: 
1. Cor. 4.6.  in as much as the Scriptures are able to make us wise unto salvation through the Faith that is in Christ jesus, 
2. Tim. 3.15.16.17.  and are profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, 
Luc. 1.3.4.  throughly furnished unto all good works. To what end did Saint Luke writ his Gospel? was it not that we might know the certainty of those things wherein we are instructed. 
Phil. 3.1.  This saith Saint Paul, is a very safe course. And hence was it that the Bereans searched the Scripture so carefully, 
Act. 17.11.  that they might be fully assured of those things which were taught them. We have a more sure word of Prophecy, 
2. Pet. 1.19.  saith Saint Peter, whereunto ye do well that ye take heed as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts. But S. Paul is yet more peremptory, Though we, saith he, 
Gal. 1.8.  or an Angel from heaven preach any other Gospel unto you then that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 
Contra Haer. c. 12.  What is it, saith Vincentius Lirinensis, that he saith, though we? Why not rather, though I? His meaning is, though Peter, though Andrew, though john, yea though the whole College of Apostles preach unto you otherwise then we have preached, let him be anathema. A fearful strain, for the maintenance of the first Faith neither to spare himself, nor his fellow Apostles. It is but a little. Although, saith he, an Angel from heaven preach otherwise then we have preached unto you, let him be Anathema. It sufficed not for the preservation of the Faith once delivered to mention the nature of humane condition, unless he comprehended Angelical excellency also. Though, saith he wee or an Angel from heaven. Thus you see that the Faith which was first delivered, and is now contained in the Scripture, is the sovereign rule and judge of all the doctrines both of men and Angels. For whatsoever the Apostles preached, the same is written, as Irenaeus testifieth. 
Lib. 3. c. 2.  Whereupon Saint Augustin, As touching Christ, or his Church, 
Cont. Petil. l. 3. c. 6.  or any other thing pertaining to our Faith or life, I will not say, if we, who are no way to be compared with him that said, Though we, but as it is added, if an Angel from heaven preach unto you otherWise than what ye have received in the Legal and Evangelicall Scriptures, let him be accursed.  
Happily you will say, the Scripture is indeed the rule of Faith, and the law of the Church, but not the judge; or if judge, yet but a mute and dumb judge: and if there be not some external, visible, audible, infallible, unerring judge to interpret Scriptures, and to stint all controversies, there will never be an end of quarrels, neither will there ever be peace and unity in the Church. Indeed, the name of unity and peace is a goodly thing, and a final end of all controversies, might it be had, were much to be wished for. But I fear the Church will not be so happy, so long as it dwelleth in tabernacles, and is militant here on earth. 
2. Cor. 11.18.19.  Otherwise the holy Apostle would never have written thus to the Corinthians, I hear that there be divisions among you, and I partly believe it: For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. And the general experience of former ages confirmeth the same, wherein God continually hath exercised his Church, either with the fire of persecutions, that it might appear who they are that love him more than the present world: or with the tempests of contrary doctrines, that it might be known who are chaff, and who wheat, who sound in the Faith, and who not. Besides this, me thinks the facilnesse and easiness of the way which your new Masters prescribe unto you, should make you much to suspect the goodness of it. For whereas it is the good pleasure of God that all men should carefully & diligently study the holy Scriptures, 
Psal. 1.2. & 119.  reading them, and meditating in them night and day, to the end they may grow rich in all knowledge and understanding: you by your rule may spare all this pains, and though you sit still, take your ease, and fold your hands, yet if you believe whatsoever your external human judge shall dictate unto you, you are safe and cannot miscarry. Now among simple and unlettered Papists who is this judge, but some Priest or jesuite? for other judge I am sure they meet with none. A plausible course I confess to many, specially those that are idle and loath to take pains, or weak and dare not trust their own judgement, or superstitious and think they merit much by their blind obedience unto their teachers. But how plausible soever it may seem to flesh and blood, sure I am it is too broad to be the narrow way that leadeth unto life: and the Kingdom of Heaven will never be attained, unless it suffer more violence than so. I add further, it is too presumptuous to tie Divine Providence unto humane policy, and for man first to device what in his wisdom seemeth fittest, and then to resolve that therefore God hath ordered it so. Yet this is the course your side ordinarily holdeth: you love rather to give laws unto God, then to take laws from him, and in this particular, to prescribe what means God should appoint to settle us in the knowledge of his truth, rather than to use the means which he himself hath to that end appointed. If you think this too hard a censure, be it known unto you that Bellarmine the Prince of jesuits reasoneth so. God, saith he, 
De verb. Dei. l. 3. c. 9  was not ignorant that many difficulties concerning the Faith would rise up in the Church: he ought therefore to provide some judge for the Church. What judge? Such a one doubtless as by his sole authority and sentence must be able to resolve all difficulties. Which for as much as neither Scripture, no● any secular Prince can do: therefore it must needs be the Prince of Ecclesiastical, that is, the Pope. See I beseech you how perversely and preposterously they deal with you: first they take upon them to direct God wh●● what he should do, or else forsooth he shall not be provident and discreet enough, and then thrust their own fancy upon you as a point of Faith, that God hath done it.  
But to answer this yet a little more fully, I affirm three things. First, that holy Scripture knows not, secondly, that the ancient Fathers acknowledge not, thirdly, that as long as we have the Scripture there needs not any such standing humane judge in the Church, as you dream of. As touching the first, if you know any passage of Scripture wherein God hath authorized such a judge as you dream of, I require you to show it, for my part I know none. Express Scripture I am sure you cannot show: deductions and consequences by your own rule I have no reason to admit. For example, if for proof hereof you urge that of our Saviour to S. Peter, I have prayed for thee that thy Faith fail not: 
Luc. 22.32.  I would demand who shall be judge of the meaning of these words? for I hear that Christ hath prayed for Saint Peter, but I hear not that he hath prayed for the Pope, that his Faith fail not: and I know Saint Peter was firm and constant in the faith unto his life's end, but it seems by Ecclesiastical History that sundry Popes have made shipwreck of the Faith, and become Heretics. If there be no judge to determine this doubt, why do you thrust such a judge upon us? If there be, who is he? you will say, the Pope. Then thus you reason, Christ prayed for S. Peter that his Faith might not fail, by S. Peter the Pope also is understood, and this appears because the Pope saith so: therefore neither can the Pope's Faith fail and consequently he is the ordinary infallible judge of the Church More briefly thus, the Pope is that judge, because the Pope will have it so. Nominate what other judge soever you list, and what other Text besides you please, and the argument is still the same, too weak to persuade what you intent, unless by some new privilege out of any premises you may conclude what you will. In a word, search the Scriptures throughout, and you shall find the Ministry and service of men established to bring us to the Faith: but an infallible humane magistery and Lordship to command Faith, it knows none. That prerogative Royal it reserves only unto Christ himself.  
Neither do the ancient Fathers acknowledge any such judge, which is the second point. If they do, point I pray to the place, for hitherto it hath been unknown. Many and sharp bicker had those ancients with diverse and sundry Heretics, as Arius, Macedonius, Eutyches, Nestorius, and the like: yet never did they either object unto them that they wanted an infallible judge, as you do unto us, or convent them before the tribunal of such a judge, which doubtless had been a readier way than disputation to stop their mouths, had there been such a sovereign Officer in the Church. Sundry and manifold are the writings of the ancient Fathers touching the Christian Faith, of which some also were purposely written to instruct us in all the doctrines of our religion: and is it not strange that such men, in such books, remembering carefully all other points, should forget so main and principal a point as this is? Nay more than this, Tertullian long ago wrote a book of Prescriptions or Fore-pleading against Heretics: Saint Augustin also wrote four books of Christian Doctrine, wherein his direct intent is to prescribe rules how to understand and interpret Scripture: And Vincentius Litinensis also hath written a short Commonitory for the Antiquity and Verity of the Catholic Faith against the profane novelties of all Heresies. If these Fathers had acknowledged this your imaginary judge, how cometh it to pass that they no where mention him in these books? For certainly here was the proper place, and they could not without extreme supinity and negligence omit him, had they known such a one: such a one I say, as upon whom the security of Faith, and unity of the Church dependeth. But this deep silence of theirs, and that in so due a place, and of matter so important, evidently argues that they never were acquainted therewith, and that it is but an Idol of these latter times.  
Now if neither Scripture nor Fathers know such a judge, I hope I may be bold to infer that the Church needs him not, which is the third point. For I trow this is both a safer and sounder kind of reasoning then that of yours, Such a judge we conceive to be necessary, Therefore such a one hath God ordained. But to clear this point also, I affirm that the Scriptures by themselves, through God's blessing upon our endeavour, is a sufficient outward means to bring us to salvation: and therefore there is no necessity of your external judge. The Consequence is plain and evident: the Antecedent thus I prove, because all whatsoever is necessary to salvation is so clearly and manifestly delivered in them, even to the capacity of vulgar and ordinary men, that if they will either read or hear it read unto them, they cannot but know and understand it. This I could easily show in every particular and fundamental point, but that I should hold you too long. 
Ps. 19.8.9. Ps. 119.105.130.  Only if it be not so, tell me, why doth the Holy Ghost say, that they give wisdom to the simple, and light to the eyes? that they are a lantern to our feet and a light unto our paths? that the entrance into them showeth light, and giveth understanding to the simple? 
2. Pet. 1.19.  And why doth the holy Apostle S. Peter term them a light shining in a dark place? Neither is it to be neglected, that all this is meant of the Scriptures of the old Testament: 
joh. 20.31.  which if they be so lightsome, how bright and clear are they of the new? These things are written, saith Saint john, to the end ye might believe that jesus is the Christ the Son of God, 
Rom. 15.4.  and that believing ye might have life through his Name. And Saint Paul, The things that are written, are written for our instruction. Now if the Scriptures in things necessary be so obscure and hard to understand, either it is because the Holy Ghost could not write more plainly, or because he would not. That he could not, no man will say: that he would not, crosseth the end of his writing, which was, as is above said, to instruct in the Faith, and to bring us unto life. But that God by writing obscurely, and yet commanding us to search, should either intent to mock us, or fail of his own end, cannot be imagined without notable impiety. Hear what the Fathers say. 
Dial. cum. Tryph.  justin Martyr, Hearken to the things which I shall report from the holy Scriptures, which Scriptures need not to be expounded, but only heard. Clemens of Alexandria, 
Exhort. ad. Ethnic.  Hear ye that are fare off, hear ye that are nigh: the Word is hidden from none, it is a common light, it shineth unto all men, there is no Cimmerian darkness in it, let us hasten to salvation, to regeneration. chrysostom, 
In. 2. Thess. hom. 3.  All things necessary are clear and plain in the Scriptures, so that were it not through our own negligence we should not need Homilies and Sermons. Augustin, 
Doct. Christ. l. 2. c. 9  In those things which are plainly set down in the Scripture, are found all those things which contain Faith and Manners of life, to wit, Hope and Charity. And Bernard, 
Ser. in illud. Sap. justum deduxit.  The ways of the Lord are strait, fair, full, and plain ways. Strait without error, because they lead unto life: fair without filth because they teach cleanness: full for multitude, because all the world is within Christ's net: plain without difficulty, because they yield sweetness. 
Biblioth. l. 6. ann. 152.  Hereunto your own men agree. Sixtus Senensis divideth the Scripture into two parts, granting that the one is clear and evident, containing the first and highest principles of things that are to be believed, and the chief precepts of good life, and examples easy to be known, such as are some moral sentences, and certain holy Histories, 
Anal. ●i●. p. 100  profitable for the ordering of manners. And Gregory of Valentia, Such verities concerning our Faith as are absolutely and necessarily to be known and believed of all men, are in a manner plainly taught in the Scriptures themselves. Thus all things necessary to salvation are so plainly set down in Scripture, that at least wise for the determination of them your external Humane judge needeth not.  
Yea but neither are all satisfied with these plain places, neither are all places of Scripture plain. True. Yet have you no reason to doubt of that which is plain, because some through frowardness will not understand: no more than you have of the snow whether it be white, because Anaxagoras thought that it was black. If nothing can be certain but that which is unquestioned, we must all turn Sceptics, and never believe any thing. For as in Philosophy, so in Divinity, there is nothing almost so absurd, but one or other hath held: and what dispute there is even about this judge of yours, and the last resolution of Faith, you cannot be ignorant. As for those darker places, if you understand them not, yet assenting unto the plainer you are without danger, seeing in those plainer, as we have showed, all things necessary are comprehended. Neither is their darkness so great, but that without your torchbearer they may be enlightened. 
In Esa. 19  For as Hierome saith, It is the order of the Scripture after hard things to set down things that are plain, and what is first spoken in Parables, afterward to deliver in clear terms. 
Doct. Christ. l. 2. c. 6.  And Augustin, There is nothing almost among those obscurities, but in other places one may find it most plainly delivered. 
In. 2. Cor. hom. 9  And chrysostom, The Scripture every where when it speaketh any thing obscurely, interpreteth itself again in another place. So the rest. And hence they gather, that Scripture is to be interpreted by Scripture, and the doubtful places by those that are more certain, as appeareth in their writings: but specially by Saint Augustin in his books of Christian Doctrine, purposely by him written to demonstrate as much. According to this precept was their continual practice, and what interpretation they found agreeing with plain Scripture and the particular circumstances of the text, that they admitted as true: but what they judged to swerve from it, that they rejected as contrary to the Analogy of Faith, and the Principles of our Religion. Which course if we also take (and this course we ought to take, unless we think that God is not the best interpreter of his own words) we cannot, at leastwise dangerously err in our interpretations: and we may boldly refuse those as false which we find contrary unto this Analogy of Faith. For example, These words of Christ, This is my Body, we understand thus, This Bread is Sacramentally my Body: you thus, This Bread is turned or transubstantiated into my Body. The question now is, whether is the truer interpretation yours or ours. Let us try it by this rule. Your own Scotus and Cameracensis think that opinion which holdeth the substance of bread and wine to remain, 
4 d. l. 11. q. 3. lit. F. Quaest. in. 4. q. 6. a. 2. Lit. ●  to be the more probable and reasonable opinion, yea and in all appearance more agreeable with the words of institution. 
De Euchar. l. 3. c. 23.  In regard whereof saith Bellarmine, It may justly be doubted whether the text be clear enough to enforce it (transubstantiation) seeing most learned and witty men, such as Scotus was, have thought the contrary. So that in these men's judgement the likelihood is on our side, and you have great reason to doubt of your exposition. Besides this, the Analogy of Faith teacheth us, that Christ's Body is a true Body like unto ours: but that Body which you fancy to be in the Eucharist is not like unto our bodies. For in this Body there is no distance of one part from another, as of eye from eye, and head from feet, neither hath it any dimensive quantity, and is all both in Heaven and here on earth in the Sacrament at once, yet not in the middle region between, nor separated from himself: but nothing of this can be affirmed of our bodies, or of any other organical body. And if you say that you conceive of Christ's Body in the Sacrament as of a glorified Body, the plain Scripture is against you, that when Christ spoke these words, This is my Body, his Body was yet uncrucified and unglorified. Your exposition therefore crossing the Analogy cannot possibly be good. As for ours thus we show it. The text plainly saith, that our blessed Saviour in his last supper took Bread, blessed it, broke it, and gave it unto his disciples saying, This is my Body. What? This bread. But this Proposition, This Bread is my Body, literally and properly is not true: therefore is it figuratively to be understood. How so? Thus. I look into plain Scripture, and there I find that as the Evangelists call it Bread before Consecration, so Saint Paul calls it Bread after Consecration. 
1. Cor. 11.26. Ib. v. 27. Ib. v. 28.  As often, saith he, as ye shall eat this Bread, and, Whosoever shall eat this Bread unworthily, and, Let a man examine himself, and so eat of this Bread. Whence I conclude that the Bread is not changed, but remaineth still Bread. Then I consider further that our Saviour now institutes a Sacrament, and that in Sacramental actions Sacramental phrases are usual, and the outward sign is called by the name of the thing signified: as in the old Testament, 
Gen. 7.10.  Circumcision is called the Covenant, and the Lamb the Passeover, and in the new, 
Ex. 12.11.  the Cup is called the new Testament or covenant. Whereupon I infer, there being no reason to the contrary, 
Luc. 22.20.  that these words in like manner are to be interpreted, This is my Body, that is, This Bread is Sacramentally my Body, or the Sacramental sign of my Body. And thus you see by clearing this one passage, how other darker places also may receive light from those that are plainer. You will say, this is to build upon Consequences, wherein it is possible to be deceived. Whereunto I answer three things, first, that whatsoever may be deduced out of the Word of God by evident Consequence is certain, even by the certainty of Faith; 
Bell. de Iust. l. 3. c. 8.  and this your own greatest clarks do grant. Secondly, to banish Consequences from Divinity, is to banish the use of right reason and discourse also: and that religion must needs be driven to narrow shifts, which cannot subsist unless men turn fools or beasts. Thirdly, the necessity of a Consequence doth not any way depend upon the person of him that inferreth it, but only upon the mutual relation and straight conjunction between the premises and it: so that by him who desires to be satisfied in the truth, not the person of him that deduceth it, but the Consequence itself is to be looked too, whether it be rightly deduced or no. But who shall judge that will you say? Indeed if you stand resolved utterly to renounce all the helps and directions both of reason and art, nor will yield to any Consequence of Scripture how clear and evident soever, but will only rely on the mouth and sentence of your humane external judge: I confess I am at Dulkarnon, to use Chaucer's phrase, and you are past my skill infallibly to persuade you. But if, as we have showed, nor Scripture nor Fathers acknowledge such a judge, if all whatsoever is necessary to salvation be so plainly laid down in Scripture as a man of mean capacity may understand it, if what is more obscurely delivered in one place is more plainly expressed in another, if God have appointed that out of the plainer places we should with study and industry pick the meaning of those that are harder, if he have promised that those that ask shall have, those that seek shall find, and to those that knock it shall be opened, if finally though we miss the true meaning of those harder places, yet firmly adhering unto the plainer, we are safe and out of danger: then certainly the readiest and surest way to to interpret Scripture is by Scripture, and there is no other way to determine controversies and to satisfy the conscience but only this. If any notwithstanding this list still to be contentious, 
1. Cor. 11.  We, saith S. Paul have no such custom, nor the Churches of God. The rule itself is infallible and all-sufficient: if we either through ignorance cannot, or through negligence do not use it as we ought, the fault is not in God, but in ourselves, neither doth he fail in his providence, but we in our duty. Perform we our duty obediently, and he will perform his promise faithfully. In necessaries he will never fail: if in other things all be not of one mind, yet let us still proceed by the same rule, and instruct one another in the spirit of meekness, and God will reveal that also in due time.  
And now, M. Bayly, you have what I intended for the present: it remains that you peruse it attentively. The sum is. The Fathers may be Ministers by whom you believe, but their Consent is no ground of Faith. Your external humane judge is but a Chimaera of man's brain, and not an Officer of Gods making. The only all-sufficient infallible outward rule of Faith is Scripture in the plainer places, which places also must interpret the difficulter. Besides this albeit there may be a jurisdiction in the Church to order and control the outer man yet to satisfy the Conscience and inner man there is no authority but this. Which things being so, let me entreat you, and that in the bowels of jesus Christ, to remember from whence you are fallen and to cast about yet again, and by this rule to examine your new Faith. It is not necessary for a man to be an Euclid or some cunning Mathematician to try by a strait rule whether a line be strait or no. But you are a Scholar and a Minister, and should be able skilfully to apply the rule yourself. To trust another's application of it for you, and that in the point of salvation, is not Christian modesty, but mere childishness, and foolish credulity. Remember what Lactantius saith, It behoveth a man, 
Diu. Instit. l. 2. c. 8.  specially in that thing wherein the state of our life consisteth, to trust himself, and to rely upon his own judgement and understanding for finding out & examining the truth, rather than believing another's errors to be deceived, as if himself were void of reason. God hath given to all men some portion of wisdom, whereby they may both find out what they have not heard, and examine what they have heard. This gift of God, this Wisdom I mean, and illumination of God's Spirit, use I beseech you to the glory of the donour, and the building of yourself up in your most holy Faith. This you shall do, if shaking off this blind belief of the dictates and decrees of men, you simply and absolutely yield all credence to God alone & his word, and to men no otherwise then under God, and for God. For as the same Lactantius saith, with whose words I conclude, Wisdom and Religion are so nearly joined together, 
Ib. l. 4. c. 4. & 1. c. 1.  that they may not be severed one from the other: in so much as neither any religion is to be embraced without wisdom, nor any wisdom to be approved without religion. The Lord give you a clean heart, and renew within you a right Spirit: so prayeth for you from the bottom of his heart,  
Your unfeigned friend and loving brother JOHN DOWN.   

OF SITTING AND KNEELING AT THE COMMUNION.  
UNTO the schedule you sent me, containing your best reasons for Sitting against Kneeling, I here return you this short answer. Your end doubtless was by strength of argument to withdraw me from conformity in Kneeling: my intent is, by discovering the weakness of your arguments, to work you from singularity in Sitting. The issue I leave unto God: yet I trust that as my persuasion and example this last Easter, as you know, reduced diverse, so my Reply through the blessing of God may also reclaim you. God grant that being brethren, and children of one common mother: we may with one accord observe her orders, and honour her authority.  
Your writing first maintains sitting, then opposes kneeling. Of sitting you affirm thus, We ought to sit at the receiving of the Elements of the Lords Supper. In which Proposition I doubt of one term, and suspect another. The term I doubt of is this, We ought to sit, namely what you mean thereby. For if either the nature of the Phrase, or the Conclusion of your third Syllogism may determine it, then is it equivalent unto this, We must sit, & imports a necessity of sitting, or that sitting is the only lawful I gesture. But if we judge thereof by the probable intention of the two first Syllogisms, than the meaning thereof seems to be no more than this, We may sit, or sitting is a lawful gesture. In which sense now understand you this Proposition? In the first? Then I deny it, and say Sitting is not the only lawful gesture. In the second? Then I answer two things. First you have ill expressed yourself, using words that bear not your meaning: for We ought, imports a necessary duty, and We may, free choice and liberty. Secondly I distinguish. For if you understand it Absolutely and Simply in itself, than I grant We may sit, for sitting is indifferent and so there shall be no controversy betwixt us. But if you understand it respectively and with regard unto the Canons and constitutions of the Church, than I say we may not sit: for the Church, unto whom we own obedience, hath ordained otherwise.  
Again, I suspect those words, at the receiving of the Elements of the Lords Supper: for why do you not say rather, at the receiving of the Body and Blood of our Lord and Saviour jesus Christ? especially seeing this is the nobler part of the Sacrament, and the Elements are but shadows of this substance. Was it, lest sitting might seem too perfunctory, and kneeling never a whit too reverend for so sacred an action? If so, then are you guilty of no small fault, thus to slight the holy Sacrament for so poor an advantage. But perhaps it was done out of simplicity, rather than cunning. Howbeit taking upon you to play the Logician and to dispute Syllogistically, you ought to have been more wary of your terms. And so I pass unto your arguments, the first whereof is thus framed.  
1 A comely gesture ought to be used. 1 Cor. 14.40.  
Sitting is a comely gesture; (for the affection of joy must then be stirred up, with which it agrees. Mar. 14.22, 23, 24, 25, 26. Ergo, sitting aught to be used.  
This is rather a Paralogism then Syllogism: for the Propositions are indefinite, and of no quantity, and out of such Propositions nothing can Logically be concluded. But I will help to rectify your Syllogism, if first I may know what you would conclude. The Conclusion must needs be one of two, either this, We may sit, or this, We must sit. Would you conclude, We may sit, in the sense above denied? (for so you ought), Then must it thus be form, Any comely gesture may be used notwithstanding the Church's ordinance: sitting is a comely gesture: Ergo, sitting may be used notwithstanding the Church's ordinance. But so the Mayor is untrue. For Magistrates have authority to order things indifferent, as they find it expedient, to avoid confusion, and to settle an uniformity: and we are bound not only for fear, but also for Conscience to obey. 
Rom. 13.5.  Neither doth the passage you quote for proof of your Mayor, evince the contrary. For Saint Paul commanding that all things be done decently, permitteth not every one to use his liberty as he listeth, 
In. 1. Cor. 14.40.  but setteth bounds unto us rather, as Caluin saith & establisheth the lawful orders of the Church: seeing it cannot be decent to affront authority, and do as we please.  
But it may be you would conclude that we must sit, or that sitting is the only lawful gesture. Then must your argument be thus framed, A comely gesture only is to be used: sitting only is comely: Ergo, sitting only is to be used. The Mayor whereof I grant, and acknowledge to be sufficiently proved; but I deny the Minor. For if sitting be the only comely gesture, then is not only the Church of England to be condemned for kneeling, but sundry other reformed Churches also for standing, yea our Saviour himself with all his Apostles, who (as in due place shall be demonstrated) sat not: to say nothing, that it is your singular opinion, and that the man cannot be named who held the same before you, or holds it besides you.  
For as for your reason, that sitting agrees with the affection of joy, which then must be stirred up, it is a very strange and unreasonable one. For first, be it that joy must then be stirred up: so must humility, reverence, thankfulness also. And therefore if sitting beecomely because it agreeth with the one: Kneeling also is comely, because it agreeth with the other. Again, suppose that sitting agree with joy: so doth leaping, dancing, exultation also. Why then if Sitting by virtue of this agreement be comely, are not the rest in like manner comely? Lastly, that Sitting is the emblem of Rest and that such posture of the body is fit for study, counsel, meditation, I have often heard: and so much is meant by those old sayings, The Romans conquer by sitting, and By sitting men become wise. But how it agreeth with the affection of joy, neither do you show it, neither can you: and therefore I leave it as a fancy, unkith unkist, as they say, and pass to your second argument, which you conceive in this form.  
2 Gesture according to order must be used. 1 Cor. 14.40. Sitting is an orderly gesture: for Christ and his Apostles sat, so did the jews also eating the Passeover.  
Ergo Sitting must be used.  
This argument is every way twin unto the former, and in a manner needs no other answer than is already given. Nevertheless, for fuller satisfaction let us examine both the Propositions. The Mayor being rightly understood I grant: for no gesture may be used but that which is orderly, it being the Apostles express commandment in the place by you alleged, that all things be done decently and according unto order. I say, being rightly understood: for there is a double Order, the one Intrinsical & in the things themselues, the other Externall & unto us. The former is that habitude, disposition, or correspondence which one thing naturally hath unto another: in regard whereof it may also be called a Physical order or an order of Nature. The latter is that which is made so unto us, being prescribed by lawful authority: in respect whereof it may further be termed, a moral order, or an order of Prudence. Now if you understand your Mayor thus, No gesture must be used but that which is at least one of these two ways orderly, you understand it aright: for so is S. Paul's meaning, and in that sense it is granted unto you. But if you understand it thus, that any gesture which is in itself orderly may indifferently be used by any, albeit the Church have for order's sake among many such chosen out, and authorised one only: then do you misunderstand it, and it is denied you: for S. Paul both here and elsewhere plainly declares himself to be a great enemy unto all such anarchical disorder and confusion.  
Your Minor is, that Sitting is an orderly gesture. Whereunto I answer, that it is so indeed in itself, there being a natural aptness and fitness in it to be used at the receiving of the Sacrament yet is it not in this sense the only orderly gesture: for Standing and Kneeling are so also, and may put in for a place as well as Sitting. Neither is it unto us orderly, because public authority hath commanded Kneeling only, which to disobey, is, as S. Paul saith, to resist the ordinance of God. Nor doth the example and practice of Christ and his Apostles, and the jews prove the contrary. For the gesture they used, as it was orderly in itself, so was it generally received and approved by the Church at that time: but among us not Sitting but Kneeling is the gesture that is allowed and enjoined.  
But if, this notwithstanding, you will needs have that gesture orderly unto us now which Christ and his Apostles, used, because it was at that time orderly, unto them: then know their gesture was not Sitting, and you bewray yourself to be but a bad Antiquary in affirming it. For as all story testifieth, it was the manner of those times and long before, at meals to lie on their beds, leaning on their elbows, and supporting themselves with pillows. And hereunto agree the words which the Evangelists use to express their gesture: for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Matthew and Mark, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Luke and john, import no other than lying at the table. Neither can you otherwise understand that which is said of him whom Christ loved, that at supper he lay or leaned on jesus breast, unless it be by this gesture. Wherefore you must of force either quit● Sitting, and urge upon us a necessity of lying: or acknowledge that Sitting may not be orderly unto us, though anciently unto Christ and his Apostles it were so. Your third and last argument is.  
3. If sitting be the only warranted gesture by God's word, than it ought only to be used.  
But it is the only warranted gesture: for it only was used by the jews at the Passeover, and by Christ & his Apostles at his Supper.  
Ergo sitting only is to be used.  
That the word written (for so you mean) is the only warrant of all actions, is more than you will ever be able to prove. For the law of nature written in the hart, and the light of reason are sufficient warrants for many things. Otherwise, how could the Gentiles which had not the law written, be as S. Paul saith a law unto themselves? and how could their consciences either accuse them for breaking the law, or excuse them for doing thereafter? Neither do I herein derogate aught from Scripture: only I yield unto Reason that which is her due. They are both from God, and both are to be our directors: the one in those things that fall within the compass of nature, the other in those things that are above nature. In things supernatural Scripture is the only warrant, Reason being therein starkblind: In things Moral it is the safest warrant, Reason therein being but dim-sighted. But to make Scripture the only warrant in all things without exception, is to put out the sight of Reason, and to make it stark blind in every thing. Scripture I confess is perfect, but as a creature perfect in its kind. Whatsoever is necessary unto that end whereto it was ordained, 
2. Tim. 3.15.  namely to make the man of God wise unto Salvation, it containeth abundantly, and with Tertullian, 
Contra. Hermog. c. 22.  I adore the fullness thereof. Other things if it warrant not, it no way impeacheth the perfection thereof, because they are impertinent and make not unto the end thereof. The sequel therefore of your Mayor is not good, and it is absurd and idle, in things not necessary to salvation to argue, from authority of Scripture negatively, it saith not so Ergo it is not so.  
But supposing the Consequence of your Mayor to be good, how prove you the Minor, that Sitting is only warranted by God's word? Forsooth, because it only was used by the jews at the Passeover, and by Christ and his Apostles at his Supper. First I have sufficiently demonstrated above, that they sat not: and therefore Sitting is so fare from being only warranted, that by your rule it is not warranted at all. Secondly, grant they sat, yet it follows not thereupon that Sitting only is warranted. For as for the jews, 
Ex. 124 11.  neither do their Ceremonies concern us, and at the first it seems they stood. For they were commanded to eat the Passeover, with their loins girt, their shoes on their feet, & their staffs in their hands, 
v. 25.  and in haste: and, as they were commanded, so they did. As touching Christ and his Apostles, 
(Supposing they sat.)  their act indeed sufficiently proves that Sitting is in itself, and was unto them lawful, seeing the wisdom of Christ otherwise, would not have used it: but that it is the only lawful gesture it cannot possibly prove. If it could, by the same reason it would follow that the Eucharist is only to be administered at evening and after supper, because Christ then administered it. For they are both circumstances, and not essential: & idem jus Titio quod Sejo, there is the same reason of both.  
You will yet happily demand, why we make not Christ's gesture a precedent for ours? are we wiser than Christ? And I again demand of you, why you lie not on your beds as Christ did: know you what is convenient better than he? your answer I suppose will be, that Christ's gesture, was that which ordinarily they then used at meals: and Sitting is that which ordinarily they now use. And I answer, because we receive not the Sacrament with our meals, as Christ and his Apostles first did, therefore do we not use the gesture of meals. The cause of the gesture being taken away, the gesture itself may be changed also. The jews at the first are the Passeover standing, as we have showed, to signify their hasty departure out of Egypt: but being now safely escaped thence, they altar that gesture, 
Cap. ●8. Cap. 74.  and our Saviour by his practice approves their so doing. The Counsels of Laodicea, and of Trullo forbidding Agapas, that is, the love feasts, with which they were wont to receive the Communion, forbade also accubitus sternere to lie any more in the Churches upon their beds. So that in the wisdom of the Churches of both Testaments, such circumstances may justly be varied as the causes or reasons of them do vary.  
And thus of your arguments for sitting: now let us take a view also of your reasons against Kneeling. They are in number four, all as you think demonstrative, and out of necessary premises concluding, that we may at no hand Kneel. The first is this: 1 If Kneeling ought to be used, than it is convenient. But it is not convenient. 2 Chron. 6.13. Dan. 6.11. Ergo, it is not to be used.  
The Mayor of this Syllogism is hypothetical or Conditional, the Consequence whereof is grounded upon this categorical, or simple Proposition, Nothing ought to be used but that which is convenient. 
Rom. 3.8.  Whereunto I answer, first, as we may not do evil that good may come of it: so neither may we forbear that good which is commanded us for any evil or inconvenience that may follow thereof. Secondly, in things indifferent which are neither good nor evil, if they be not ordered by authority, but are still arbitrary and left unto our choice, then as we may use them because they are lawful, so may we not use them when they prove inexpedient. The rule of charity must overrule us in this case. But if once they be ordered by public authority, than necessity is laid upon us, and we must conform ourselves unto order notwithstanding any pretended inconvenience. The rule of loyalty must sway with us in this case. Be it then that Kneeling is inconvenient; it was the fault of our superiors to command i●. Now it is commanded, and it is our duty to obey them. If it be inconvenient to Kneel: it is more inconvenient to disobey, and for not Kneeling to be barred from the Sacrament. The sequel therefore of your Mayor is not good, and I require you to prove it.  
The Assumption is, Kneeling is not convenient. I deny it. You prove it by two places of Scripture, which testify that Solomon & Daniel kneeled when they prayed. The weakness of which proof that you may the more readily perceive, I reduce it into form, thus. That gesture which is used in prayer, is not convenient at the Sacrament. But Kneeling is a gesture used in Prayer. Ergo, it is inconvenient at the Sacrament. The Minor whereof I grant: but I deny the Mayor as being too palpably absurd. For first, never man yet dreamt that Kneeling is proper quarto modo unto it, and may not be used in any other action. Secondly, then may we neither sit nor stand at the Sacrament, 
1 King. 19.4.  because Elias prayed sitting and the Publican standing: 
Luc. 18.13.  yea happily no gesture is left for the Sacrament, seeing Prayer hath engrossed them all before hand. Lastly, for as much as at the time of receiving our affections are to be advanced and lifted up unto God in prayer and thanksgiving: it must needs be by your own rule, that Kneeling is a gesture every way convenient for it. Your second argument is, 
2 No will-worship may be used. Mat. 15.9. Kneeling is will-worship: for Pope Honorius first devised it. Acts & Mon. pag. 1390.  
Ergo, Kneeling may not be used.   
To yield unto God that Worship which he himself hath revealed and prescribed, is an Act of true Religion: but to obtrude and thrust upon him a Worship forged and devised of ourselves, is mere superstition. The one he rigorously exacteth of us, the other he expressly forbiddeth. 
Ex. 15.38.39.  In the law, God commandeth the jews to make them fringes in the borders of their garments, and to put a blue ribbon upon it throughout their generations, that ye may look upon it, saith he, and remember all the Commandments of the Lord to do them: and that ye seek not after your own heart, and your own eyes after which ye use to go a whoaring. In the Prophets, he oftentimes upbraideth them with their own inventions, and disdainfully saith unto them, Who hath required these things at your hands? And in the new Testament, our Saviour in the place by you quoted, 
Mat. 15.9. Col. 2.23.  severely taxeth the Pharisees, for teaching their own fantasies, and placing the worship of God in the observation of men's precepts: and Saint Paul to the Colossians in plain terms condemneth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Will-worship, notwithstanding whatsoever show of Wisdom or humility it carry with it. All which considered, I yield you your Mayor as true, No Will-worship may be used.  
Your Assumption that Kneeling is Will-worship I deny: telling you further that you do intolerable wrong unto the Church of England, charging her with so gross a Superstition. For the world knoweth, and you must needs be a great stranger in Israel if you be ignorant, that the Governors of our Church press not their ceremonies upon the consciences of men, as if they were in themselves necessary and not indifferent: neither place any part of Religion or divine worship in them. This they leave unto that Man of sin, who challengeth power unto himself, as to create new articles of faith, so to prescribe new forms of Worship also. That their intent is not Will-worship, but order & uniformity, they have oftentimes published, if I may so say, with sound of trumpet: which if you have not heard, it is extreme deafness: if you have heard, and yet will not be satisfied, to say no more, it proceeds of mere wilfulness and frowardness.  
Howbeit to prove your Minor you affirm that Pope Honorius first devised it. 
Cap. Sanc, de celeb●● Miss.  It is true indeed that Honorius the third decreed, that Priests should often teach their people, reverently to bow themselues at the Elevation of the Host when Mass is said, and when the Priest carries it to one that is sick, and I deny not but thereby he intended the Adoration of the Host. But you should know that it is one thing to receive the Communion Kneeling, another thing to Kneel at the Elevation when there is no Receiving. This Honorius decreed, not that, for aught I can learn. Nay further, what that gesture was which succeeded accubitus, lying on beds, whether it were kneeling, or standing, or sitting, I suppose he who is well acquainted with Ecclesiastical Story can hardly determine, much less you whose reading therein passeth not beyond the book of Martyrs. Let every one herein abound in his own sense: I for my part think it was Kneeling rather then any other, because it is a gesture of most reverence. 
Lib. 4. c. 8.  Hospinian a learned man who wrote the story of this Sacrament, hath these words, This Sacrament ought to be handled with great Religion and reverence, according to the custom of every Church, with decent apparel, temperate behaviour, soberly, religiously, the head bare, the knees bend, and other such like free ceremonies. And this reverence or honour I doubt not but some of the Fathers above cited understood by the word Adoration. For to Adore sometime signifieth, as all know, external reverence and veneration exhibited by bodily gestures and speech unto a thing, as when the knees are bend, the body is bowed, the head uncovered, the hands lifted up, etc. Thus far Hospinian, by whose judgement Kneeling in all likelihood was used long before Honorius lived, or the Real Presence was dreamt of. Howsoever, it is mere foppery to imagine that a thing in itself lawful once abused to a bad end, can never recover its right again and be lawfully used: and then taking this for granted, to prejudice our reverend receiving by Romish practice and superstition. I conclude therefore this point with that excellent saying of Origen, 
Hom. 5. in Euang.  when thou receivest that holy meat and incorruptible banquet, when thou enjoyest that Bread and Cup of life, and eatest and drinkest the Body and Blood of the Lord, than the Lord entereth under thy roof. Thou therefore humbling thyself, imitate the Centurion and say, Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldst come under my roof. The third argument.  3 All show of evil must be eschewed. 1. Thess. 5.22. Kneeling is a show of evil, as of Bread worship. Ergo, Kneeling must be eschewed. 
First I interpret the Mayor. Saint Paul's words in the place by you quoted are these, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: which may be rendered thus, Abstain from all kind of evil. For the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth kind: and in this sense the Syriac translation understandeth it. And interpreting it thus, the Mayor is universally and without exception true: for no evil whatsoever, being intrinsically and formally so, may in any case be done. Besides this exposition there is another more generally approved, Abstain from all show of evil or evil show. For as evil itself must be refrained that God be not offended nor our Consciences disquieted: so must show of evil also be avoided, that we scandal not our brother, nor discredit our profession. But in this sense the Mayor is not universally and without exception true. For first, it holds not in necessary duties commanded by God, nor in things indifferent ordered by man. For the substance must not be neglected because of a shadow: nor we fall into the real evils of Disobedience and Disloyalty, to avoid the show of evil. Again it holds not in Imaginary shows, such as are without ground fancied in the sick brains of humorous and malcontented people: but such only as indeed carry with them a shrewd presumption of that evil whereof it is a show. And thus the Mayor is granted unto you, in the former sense absolutely and simply, in the latter respectively with these restrictions and limitations.  
Now to the Minor I answer, first Kneeling is not formally evil, but of an indifferent and middle nature, neither good nor evil: and therefore is not forbidden by the former interpretation, Abstain from all kind of evil. Secondly, I deny it to be a show of evil. For whereof? Of Bread worship you say. How so, seeing we are neither Transubstantiators nor Consubstantiators, and have long since openly before all men disclaimed both Elevation & Ad●●●tion? And to whom? To Papist or Protestant? Certainly neither: for the one condemns us for not adoring, and the other suspects us not for adoring. So that the Show of Breadworship lieth not in our Kneeling, but in your Imagination. Which if it be a sufficient reason to bar us from Kneeling, I must entreat you for the same reason to abstain from Sitting: 
See Tertull. de orat. c. 12.  for I can easily imagine in it a show of evil, namely of Slighting and Contemning the Sacrament. Nay I must pray you to sit still and do nothing: for what is it wherein a man may not fancy some evil show or other? Lastly, suppose Kneeling have the show you speak of, yet is it not to be forborn, because it is in the number of those things that are excepted from the general rule. For it is commanded by authority, and to receive the Communion is a necessary duty which among us without Kneeling cannot be done. Now as I have said, to avoid seeming evil we may not be evil, and for fear of a shadow lose the substance, I mean the benefit and comfort of the Sacrament. And thus your argument drawn from the show of evil proves as you see but the show of an argument. I come to the last reason.  
4 If we may kneel to Bread and wine, much more may We kneel to Angels.  
But we may not kneel to Angels. Rev. 19.10.  
Ergo we may not kneel to bread and wine.  
This is that Fallacy which Logicians call Ignorance of the Elench, when that is concluded which is not in question. For our Question is, Whether we may kneel at the receiving of the Sacrament: but your Conclusion is we may not kneel to Bread and Wine. Neither shall there be any quarrel between us about this point: for we readily grant it you, acknowledging further that your argument from the greater to the less sufficiently evinceth it. For if we may not fall down to adore an Angel, much less may we do so to bread and wine. And as we may not, so we do not. Our Kneeling is not intended unto bread and wine, but unto God who in the Sacrament offereth unto us the blessed body and blood of his son, who is God also, and to be worshipped of us for evermore. You might therefore well have forborn this argument which neither preiudiceth us, nor advantageth yourself any whit at all: or if you have any other meaning, you should have better expressed it. For my part I cannot guess what it should be, nor will I trouble my brain in seeking it. Happily yourself know not what you would.  
And thus have I though briefly, yet fully answered all your reasons. It now remaineth, that either you produce sounder arguments than yet you have given us, or add more vigour and strength unto these: or (because I fear you can do neither) that considering the weakness of those reeds whereon you have hitherto leaned, hence forward you trust them no more. It can be no disgrace unto you to be overcome of Truth: neither is it levity or inconstancy upon sight of your error to change both your opinion and practice. Take therefore unto you Christian severity, and ingenuously revoke what you have held or done amiss: so shall you give glory unto God, and God shall honour you in the sight of all his Saints. But if, notwithstanding all that hath been said, you mean still to persist in your error, and will not be persuaded although you be persuaded: I fear lest after straining at these gnats, you fall to swallowing down of Camels, and proceed from dislike of a few indifferent ceremonies, unto flat schism and separation. which God forbidden for his mercy's sake. Amen. 
See T de ora    

HOW S. PAUL AND S. JAMES ARE TO BEE reconciled in the matter of JUSTIFICATION.  
YOU demand how Saint Paul teaching justification by Faith only without the Works of the Law, 
Ro. 5.20.28. Gal. 2.16. jam. 2.24.  and Saint james affirming that of Works a man is justified and not of Faith only, may be reconciled. I will endeavour to give you the best satisfaction I can in a few Propositions.  
1 Scripture being the Word of God who is truth and whose promises are not yea and nay, 
2. Cor. 1.17.18.19.20.  but yea and Amen, although sometime there may seem contrariety in it, yet real difference and repugnancy there can be none, truth ever agreeing and never contradicting itself.  
2 Paul therefore and james being inspired by the same spirit must needs conspire in the same truth: although the one exclude Works from Faith in the matter of justification, the other include Works together with Faith.  
3 The readiest way to reconcile this seeming contradiction is to observe carefully the Occasions whereupon they were moved to deliver these doctrines, and to distinguish the Equivocation and diverse use of these two words justification and Faith. For if there be the same meaning in both, and no ambiguity in either of these terms, it cannot be avoided but they must of necessity cross one the other.  
4 Saint Paul's occasion was this. He saw with what eagerness & contention certain jews maintained, 
Act. 15.1.  that unless the law of Moses were kept and observed together with the Gospel, there could be no justification: and that thereby man's Works were either substituted in the room of, or yoked together with Faith, to the great prejudice of God's free Grace. 
Ro. 2.24.  And therefore against these he proves by the testimony of the Law & the Prophets, that we are justified by Faith in Christ freely without the works of the Law.  
5 Hereupon some there were, who like spider's sucking venom out of the wholsomest flowers, so interpreted this comfortable doctrine, as if it skilled not whether they practised good works, and led a godly & virtuous life, so as they did believe. And against this sort of men the Apostle Saint james thought it necessary to oppose himself.  
6 So that Saint james doth not dispute against Saint Paul, but for the right meaning of S. Paul against those that depraved and wrested his doctrine to a wrong sense. Paul so defending justification by Faith without Works, as he denies not the necessary practice of them, but only denies the power of justification unto them: james so establishing good Works, not as giving them force to make a man acceptable and just in the sight of God's justice, but only disabling that Faith from having any power to justify us, which is not accompanied with them.  
7 And thus Saint Augustin understandeth it. When, 
De fide & oper. l. 1. c. 14.  saith he, the Apostle saith, that a man is justified by Faith without the Works of the Law, he meaneth not that Faith being received and professed; the works of justice should be contemned: but that every one should know that he may be justified by Faith, although the works of the law go not before. For they follow him that is justified, but go not before him that is to be justified. And again, 
83. quaest. q. 16.  When as Paul speaks of the good works of Abraham which accompanied his Faith, it is manifest that by the example of Abraham he doth not so teach that a man is justified by Faith without works, that if he do believe it concerns him not to work well: but to to this end rather, that no man should think that by the merit of his former good Works he hath attained the gift of justification which is by Faith.  
8 As the consideration of the different occasions which moved these two Apostles to speak so differently doth in part clear this question: so will it yet be more evident if we know the several acceptions and uses of these words justification and Faith, and in what sense either Apostle understands them.  
9 justification usually in the Scripture phrase signifieth, not to make just by infusing the quality of justice into the soul, 
2. King. 15.4. Deut. 25.1. Psal. 81.3. Prov. 17.15. Mat. 12.37. Ro. 8.33.34.  but to pronounce and declare to be just: being indeed a Law-terme, and drawn from civil Courts of judicature, and is opposed to Condemnation. And this is so clear, that Tolet a jesuite confesseth it most frequently so to signify in Scripture: Pineda, Vega, and Salmeron three great Papists acknowledge it in this sense to be used by S. Paul in his Epistle to the Romans, where he disputeth purposely of justification.  
10 Now there is a double tribunal where we are to be judged, one is Gods, the other Man's: and therefore God is said to justify, and Man also. God when he acquits a sinner from his sins for the merit of his Son Christ: Man when seeing our good works (which are the fruits and testimonies of our grace with God) out of the judgement of Charity he accounts us the Sons of God. Of the former Saint Paul speaks, of the latter S. james. S. Paul enquireth how we are made lust before God, namely by Faith: S. James how it may appear unto men that we are Just, namely by Works. Faith is the principle of Existence by which we are Just: Works of Knowledge by which we are known to be Just.  

jac. 2.10. In id cap.  11 That Saint james understandeth such a Declarative justification is plain by that he saith. Show me thy Faith by thy Works? And Thomas of Aquin affirmeth, that Works following Faith are not said to justify, as justification is an infusion of justice but as it is an exercise or declaration or perfection of Faith.  
12 Concerning the word Faith, sometimes it signifieth that sanctifying grace of God's spirit whereby we believe in or on God, that is, put all our affiance upon God in Christ for justification and Salvation: sometimes a naked assent or agreeing to all the truths contained in the Scripture, specially such as are Evangelicall. That is only of the Elect: this the Devils have. That either hath works following it, as in Abraham: or is great in child of works, ready to travel and bring forth if God give time, as in the thief on the cross. This many times is without works, and therefore dead and spiritles. Of that S. Paul speaketh: of this S. james. That sole but not solitary justifies: this being solitary justifies not.  
13 In a word, S. Paul speaks of the cause of justification: S. james of the Effect. S. Paul descends from the Cause to the Effect: S. james ascends from the Effects to the Cause. S. Paul resolves how we may be justified: S. james how we may be known to be justified. S. Paul excludes works as being no Cause of justification: S. james requires works as fruits of justification. S. Paul denies works to go before them that are to be justified: S. james affirmeth that they follow him that is justified.  
14 Others distinguish, and reconcile them thus. justification is sometime understood without implying Sanctification, sometime as it implieth also Sanctification with it. In the former sense S. Paul taketh it, when he proveth that a man is justified by Faith without works: S. james in the latter, when he concludeth that a man is justified by works and not by Faith only. And this I suppose to be a very sound interpretation.  
15 Howsoever, that Faith alone without the works of the Law in the sense above delivered doth justify, these ancient Fathers avouch together with us, Origen, Cyprian, Eusebius Caesariensis, Hilary, Basil, chrysostom, Ambrose, Augustin, Cyril, Primasius, Hesychius, Gennadius, Oecumenius, whose direct and express words I can at any time produce. Nay these late Papists also (lest it should be thought that none but Protestants hold it) the Canons of colein, the authors of the book offered by Caesar unto the Protestant Collocutors in the assembly of Ratisbon, Pighius, Cassander, Stapulensis, Peraldus, Ferus, and others who count themselves as good Catholics as they that hold otherwise.  
16 And this only Faith is so sure an anchor of our souls, and such● fountain of true comfort both, in life and death, that Charles the fift, Steven Gardiner, Sir Christopher Blunt, and sundry others durst not at their death trust unto their works, but unto Faith in Christ only. And Cardinal Bellarmin after a long disputation touching the merit of works is fain to conclude, that because of the uncertenty of our own justice, and the danger of vainglory, the Safest course is to repose all our affiance in the only mercy and goodness of God. So that in his judgement we Protestants have chosen the Safest course: & I for my part will never trust my soul unto them who leaving so safe a course, mean to hazard it through a more dangerous way.   

OF THE AUTHORS AND AUTHORITY OF THE CREED, AND WHY IT IS CALLED a Symbol.  
THE inscription of the Creed seems to father it on the holy Apostles, calling it the Symbol of the Apostles. So do almost all the Fathers of the fourth age after Christ and downward, affirming that the Apostles having received the Holy Ghost at jerusalem, and being now ready to disperse themselves into all parts of the world to preach the Gospel, thought it good before their parting to compile this Symbol, that it might serve as a pledge of their unity in the Faith, and a canon for their doctrine and teaching. Yea some of them proceed so fare as particularly to set down what article was made by what Apostle: whereof see Augustin in his hundred and fifteenth Sermon de tempore. Now although it be very hard for me to sway against the stream of so main authority: yet can I not but doubt thereof, 
Paraphr. in Mat. Praef.  and confess with Erasmus I know not who made the Creed, especially having so great probabilities (for demonstrations I dare not call them) that it should not be done by the twelve Apostles.  
For first, were it compiled by them, is it likely that Saint Luke writing the history of their Acts, would have omitted so principal a matter? Sundry other things of fare less consequence he hath carefully recorded: but of this so important and weighty a business he makes not so much as one word mention, which certainly he would never have failed to do, had they done so. Add hereunto that not one of the ancient Fathers who lived within the three first Centuries of Christ speak of any such thing in any of their writings: and yet they should best know it whose times were nearest unto the Apostles. This deep silence both of Saint Luke and all those ancient Doctors, make it unto me more than probable that the Apostles never composed it.  
Secondly, as the silence of these worthies, so the very language of the Creed convinceth it to be younger than the Apostles. For the word Catholic used in the Creed was not known in their time. Can any man think that the Church should then be called Catholic when it was not Catholic? For when they say this Creed was compiled, the Church was scarce begun among the jews, and the Apostles had no where as yet preached the Gospel among the Gentiles. But hear the express words of Pacianus Bishop of Barcilona, Sed sub Apostolis, 
Ad Sympronian Epist. 1.  inquies, nemo Catholicus vocabatur. Esto, sic fuerit. Vel illud indulge, cum post Apostolos haereses extitissent, diversisque nominibus columbam Dei atque Reginam lacerare per parts & scindere niterentur: nun cognomen suum plebs Apostolica postulabat, quo incorrupti populi distingueret unitatem, neintemeratam Dei virginem error aliquorum per membra laceraret? In the Apostles times, you will say, no man was called Catholic. Be it so. Yet by your leave when after the Apostles heresies were risen up, and by diversity of names they laboured to rend and tear in pieces the done and queen of God: was it not requisite that those which were Apostolic should have a surname of their own, whereby the unity of those that are uncorrupt might be distinguished, and the error of none might rend in pieces the immaculate virgin of God? Thus he. Against which if it be objected, that the Epistles of james, Peter, john, and jude are called Catholic: I answer, the Inscriptions and Subscriptions of the Epistles are not Apostolical, but added to them by some other, and sometime untruly. Neither is there any reason they should be so styled above the rest. For neither is the doctrine contained in them more Catholic then of all the other Epistles, neither were they written to all the jews, more than the Epistle to the Hebrews, neither were they all written to all Catholics, for the second and third of john were sent unto private persons only, and all the rest as universally concern all Catholics as these few termed Catholic do. I conclude therefore, the word Catholic being latter than the Apostles, so must the Creed be also which uses it.  
Thirdly, the different relation of the story betrays the uncertainty of it: for they give not all the same article unto the same Apostle. Some marshal them just as S. Luke doth in the first of the Acts: others thus, Peter, Andrew, john, james the elder, Thomas, james the younger, Bartholomew, Matthew, Simon, jude, Mathias. Again, some of them attribute unto Peter part only of the first article, I believe in God the Father almighty, and unto john the other part Maker of Heaven and Earth. But others attribute the whole article unto Peter, and give another unto john. The like may be observed in other articles. If then they be certain of the tradition, why do they differ thus in their reports? If they differ thus one from another, who can be certain of the tradition.  
Fourthly, if the Creed both for matter & form were from the Apostles, and they delivered it precisely in those words in which we now have it, why is it not placed in the Canon of Scripture? Certainly in the Church although it ever have been much esteemed, yet was it never counted Canonical. Neither hath it been preserved so safe from addition, detraction, mutation, as the rest of the Scriptures always have been. For even in the ancientest times we find great variety in it. Ruffin writing a just comment on it, omits that clause Maker of Heaven and Earth. And who knows not how many there are who relating this Creed leave out the article of Christ descending into hell? 
De Christi anima. c. 6  Even Bellarmin himself, confesseth that it was not found anciently in all Creeds: and he voucheth for it Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, and Augustin though five times he expound it, and finally the Creed of the Roman Church also as Ruffian witnesseth unto whom if he had been so pleased, he might have added a whole army of others, whom for brevity's sake I omit. Finally the ancient Doctors were so fare from equalling it with Scripture, that they appealed from it thereunto as to an higher authority. 
Catech. 4.  Cyril plainly affirmeth that we may not believe the Creed without Scripture. 
Biblioth. sanc. Patr. tom. 9  And Paschasius against Macedonius shrouding himself under some words of the Creed, appealeth unto the Canonical Scripture, for that of it, saith he, the text of the Creed dependeth. Which had they thought it had been from the Apostles in such form and as now we have it, without question they never would have done.  
Fiftly, the reason which they assign why they composed this Creed, discovers the vanity thereof. What was that? That it might be forsooth unto the Apostles a canon & rule, according to which they should square and conform their preaching. What unto the Apostles to whom Christ promised his blessed Spirit that should lead them into all truth? And that himself would put into their mouths a ready answer upon all occasions, so that they should not need to bethink themselves what to say? Can they possibly doubt lest any difference or discord should grow among them in matter of Faith, who were so guided by the Spirit of truth and unity that they could not in any point either err themselves, or lead any other into error? Surely, so to think, derogateth much from the truth of Christ, and imputeth much weakness unto the Spirit of God, and detracteth from the certainty of our Faith which dependeth on their preaching. So that for this cause it is unlikely they made this Creed, at leastwise to this end.  

De Symb. ad Cat. l. 1. c. 1.  Lastly, Saint Augustin saith thus (not that false Augustin upon whom those Sermons de tempore are fathered, and whose authority is usually alleged to warrant this legend, but the true S. Augustin saith) Illa verba (Symboli) qua audivistis per Scripturas sparsa sunt, & inde collecta, & ad unum redacta: those words of the Creed which you have heard, are dispersed through the Scriptures, and being gathered from thence, are reduced into one. With him agreeth Paschasius, 
De Spirit. Sanct. c. 1.  De sacris omninò voluminibus quae sunt credenda sumamus, de quorum fonte symboli ipsius series derivata consistit: Let us take out of the sacred volumes what things we are to believe, out of which fountain the order of the Creed is derived. 
Centur. 1. l. 2. c. 4.  And Marcellus a Bishop in a letter to julius' Bishop of Rome professeth having rehearsed the words of the Creed, Se hanc fidem ex Scripturis accepisse, & a maioribus secundum Deum accepisse, & candem in Ecclesiâ Dei praedicare: that he received this Faith out of the Scriptures, and next after God from his ancestors, and that he preached it in the Church of God. If then, as these Fathers affirm, the Creed be gathered out of the Scriptures, how can the Apostles be authors thereof? For out of the old Testament they could not gather that Christ was borne of the Virgin Mary, or that he suffered under Pontius Pilate. And as for the new, many of the Apostles were dead before all was written, and james before any was written: besides that no part of it was written when the Creed was compiled, if it be true which the legend saith. And these are the reasons for which it seemeth unto me more than probable that the Apostles were never Authors of this Creed.  
If it be so will some say, why doth it then bear the Apostles name? I answer, because, as out of S. Augustin and others we have showed, the matter therein contained is perfectly agreeable with the Apostles writings and was collected out of them. Moreover, Apostolical is a term extended by writers unto the first three hundred years after Christ. Haet sola fides, saith Damasus, 
Ep. 5.  quae Nicaeae Apostolorum authoritate fundata est, perpetua est firmitate seruanda: this only Faith which was established at Nice by the authority of the Apostles, is firmly and perpetually to be held. So Scythianus and Terebinthus are said to have lived temporibus Apostolorum in the time of the Apostles, 
Epiph. Haer. 66.  who yet lived in Aurelians time, towards three hundred years after Christ. And Isidor distinguishing between Apostles and the First Apostles, saith that Apostles continued down until Pope Sylvester, and that the times before the great Council of Nice were Apostolical. Although therefore the first Apostles were not the founders of this Creed: yet those succeeding Apostles were, of whom it may be called the Apostles Creed.  
These things being so, let it be observed thereupon, first how frivolously Papists cavil and quarrel with us, affirming that we hold not the Faith of the Creed because we question it whether the Apostles were authors of it or no. As if to doubt of the author were to doubt of the truth of the matter: or as if all those Ancients rejected the epistle to the Hebrews for Apocryphal, which were not resolved who wrote it, whether Paul, or Barnabas, or Luke, or Clemens. Secondly, how weakly Popish traditions are supported by the tradition of this Creed. For not being the Apostles, how can it be a tradition of the Apostles? or if it be a tradition of theirs, yet is it such a tradition as is written & contained in Scripture: and such we willingly receive. Let them prove the rest of their pretended traditions to be such, and we will readily embrace them also. But return we to our purpose.  
This Creed by whomsoever it was made is entitled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Symbol: the reason whereof we are now to inquire. To let pass those barbarous and jocular notations which ignorant Monks have given of it, lest relating them I should both spend time, & defile my paper: some derive it from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying as they say a shoot or reckoning, 
Ruff. Symb. Aug. ser. de tem. 115.  for that the Apostles meeting together to compile it, did each confer his article as it were his symbol for defraying of this heavenly banquet. But first the Apostles, as we have declared, never compiled this Creed. Secondly, if they compiled it, yet, as Antonius Nebrisensis saith, 
Quinquag. c. 40.  it is neither credible nor likely that each of them conferred his particle: seeing in those things that are constituted and decreed by many, it is not the manner for every one severally to put his word or saying into it, but for all jointly to agree upon the whole. Add hereunto, that if it were so, men would never have divided the Creed as they have done, some into seven articles, because of the seven gifts of the holy ghost, very many others into fourteen: but only into twelve, according to the number of the Apostles, who dictated each of them his article. Lastly, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth a shoot, as the learned know, neither can it be showed to be otherwise in any Greek writer. Indeed in Latin writers ye shall sometimes find Symbolum so used: yet that it is found so in any skilful Critics impute it to the ignorance of Notaries, and by the warrant of the best Manuscripts restore the Feminine Symbola into the room thereof.  
Others fetch it from Symbolum signifying a Pledge or token and first such a pledge whereby persons espoused bind themselves to be faithful and true one unto another: because likewise in our spiritual espousals with Christ, as he gives unto us his blessed spirit as an earnest of his constant love to us, so we return back again the profession of our faith as a firm pledge of our loyalty and subjection to him. This reason caries good likelihood and proportion with it. So doth also the next, when it signifieth tesseram hospitalem, such a token as Cities were wont to give unto their friends, that showing it they might find friendly entertainment in confederate towns: or such as one friend was wont to give unto an other to the like end. Which how it fits the amity and friendship between Christ & us, who sees not?  
Nevertheless I rather think it is so called from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it signifieth a watchword. For the Primitive Church seemeth much to have been delighted with militare terms: I suppose because in Scripture Christians are so often compared unto soldiers. And hence it is that the Church is distinguished into Militant and Triumphant, that Heathen are called Pagans in opposition unto soldiers, that the two mysteries of the Church are termed Sacraments, a word importing that oath of obedience which soldiers take unto their Generals. In like manner may the Creed be called a Symbol, because it is as a watchword by which true Orthodox Christians many discern one from the other. Painims, jews, Turks, and Heretics. Heerwith agreeth Maximus Taurinensis, Symbolum tessera est & signaculum quo inter fideles perfidosque secernitur: 
Hom. de trad. Symb.  the Symbol is a watchword or mark by which Faithful and Faithless men are discerned. And Ambrose, 
De voland. Virg. l. 3.  Symbolum cordis signaculum est, & nostrae militiae sacramentum: the Symbol is the seal of the heart, and the sacrament of our warfare. 
In Symb.  And Ruffian, Nequa doli surreptio fiat, symbola discreta unusquisque dux suis militibus tradit, quae Latine vel signa vel indicia nominantur, ut si forte occurrerit quis de quo dubitetur, interrogatus symbolum prodat si sit hostis an socius: lest there should be any surreption or deceit, every captain delivereth unto his Soldiers a distinct watchword, that if they meet with any of whom they doubt, by demanding the watchword they may discover whether he be a friend or an enemy. And this he accommodateth unto the present purpose. Now seeing the Gentiles were wont to give for their watchword the names of some of their Gods, 
Xenoph paed. l. 3. & 7. Pausan. l. 10. Suet. Calig. c. 18.  as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Minerva, jupiter, and the like: what fit Symbol could Christians have, than their Faith in the holy & individual Trinity? And thus much of the title of the Creed: proceed we yet further.  
Besides this Creed there are diverse others very ancient, both General of the whole Church, such as are those four famous ones of Nice, of Ephesus, of Constantinople, of Chalcedon: and Particular, either of several Churches, or of private men, among which that of Athanasius is most renowned. All which though in form of words they vary, yet for substance are all one, there being, 
Eph. 4.5.  as S. Paul saith, but una fides, one faith. Neither yet was this number of Creeds needles or endless. For when heresies began to increase and prevail, the Church thought it necessary to set forth some short Confessions, by which the people as by a touchstone might discern the gold of Orthodox truth from the copper of errors and heresies. Saith S. Hilary, Nihil mirum videri debet, fratres charissimi, quod tam frequenter exponi fides caeptae sint: necessitatem hanc furor haereticus imponit: you ought not to marvel much, beloved brethren, that nowadays Creeds are so frequently set forth: the fury of heretics hath laid this necessity upon us. Thus against Arius denying the divinity of Christ was the Nicene Creed framed: against Macedonius and Eudoxius denying the Deity of the holy Ghost, and his proceeding from the Father and the Son; the Constantinopolitan: against Nestorius' denying the union of both natures of Christ in one person, the Ephesine: against Eutyches confounding both natures, and swallowing up the humane, in the divine, that of Chalcedon. Thus of late the reformed Churches to quit themselves of the unjust imputations of heresy and apostasy wherewith they were charged, have been forced sundry times to set forth several Confessions of their Faith, all which, or most of which are recorded in the harmony of Confessions. Scurrilous therefore is that taunt of Papists, who for this cause term us Confessionists. For what have we done herein, whereunto their slanderous criminations have not compelled us? what, whereof we have, not example from the Primive Church? Nay, what whereof we have not Gods express commandment, 
1 Pet. 3.16.  charging us to be ready on every occasion to render an account of the Hope that is in us?  
But yet among all the ancient Creeds, this of the Apostles, hath ever been counted of greatest authority, and aught still so to be counted. Among the ancient Creeds I say: for the Scripture is peerless, and equal authority with it neither may it challenge unto itself, neither did any of the ancient Fathers give it, as above we have touched. For although the substance and matter of the Creed be divine and perfectly according with the Scripture, yet for form and order of words it is humane: whereas the Scripture both for substance and circumstance, matter and form and all is no way humane, but wholly and entirely divine. The greater the blasphemy of Rhemish jesuites avouching this Creed to be the Rule whereby all the writings of the new Testament are to be tried, 
In Ro. 12.6.  and approved: whereas contrarily the Scripture out of which the Creed is collected, is the only Rule by which both it and all other Creeds are to be examined. Howbeit the second place, as it is its due, so we willingly yield unto it. First in regard of the antiquity thereof, because of all other it is the eldest. Secondly, for the perfection and fullness thereof, there being no one article of absolute necessity unto Salvation, which is not either in express terms or impliedly and in its principles contained therein. Thirdly and lastly, because it hath had the universal approbation of all Churches, in all times, both ancient and modern. The ancient Fathers give unto it most honourable and magnificent titles. They call it, the key of Faith, the rule of Faith, the foundation of Faith, the sum of Faith, the form of Faith, the body of Faith, the rule of truth, the sacrament of humane salvation, the mystery of religion, the character of the Church, and the like. On it they commented rather then on any other Creed: unto it all others were conformed, so as they seem to be but expositions of it. Finally, it was their manner never to admit any that was adultus either to the Sacrament of Baptism, or to the holy Eucharist without making confession of his Faith by rehearsing this Creed. In like manner, all the reformed Churches with all reverence and duty receive it: they use it in their public Liturgies, and expound it in their Catechisms. The more malicious is the slander of Gregory Martin and others, 
Disc. of Eng. trans. c. 12.  who shame not to say that we hold not the Christian Faith of the articles of the Creed. Yea, saith another of us, they have no faith nor religion, 
Tho. Wright. Att.  they are infidels, they believe not the holy Catholic Church, the communion of Saints, the remission of sins, that Christ is the son of God, or that he descended into Hell. And as if these had not yet said enough, 
Credo Caluiniscq.  another opening his mouth as wide as Hell affirmeth our Creed to be this, I believe in the Devil the tormentor helmighty corrupter of heaven & earth. And in not-Iesus-not-Christ the only stepsonne degenerate, who was spoiled of his glory by the holy Ghost, and borne of Marry no Virgin etc. To all which I answer Increpet te Dominus, the Lord rebuke thee Satan. If they have called our master Belzebub, it can be no disgrace to us to suffer the same reproach. The more incredible things they charge us withal, the less are themselves believed, and the more credit do we gain unto our profession. All what is contained in holy writ, in this Creed of the Apostles, in that of Nice and Athanasius we firmly and entirely believe. Let Hell and Antichrist and all the brood of Papists burst with malice and envy: yet this and no other Faith do we hold and teach.   

A SHORT CATECHISM.  
QVaest. Who placed you here in this World?  
Ans. God the maker and Governor of all things.  
Q. Wherefore did he place you here?  
A. To serve and glorify him.  
Q. How will he be served?  
A. By doing his holy Will and Commandments.  
Q. What Commandments hath he given you?  
A. The ten Commandments of the Moral law.  
Q. Repeat them unto me.  
A. Hear Israel, I am the Lord thy God, which etc.  
Q. What duties doth God require of you in this law?  
A. Two: to love God above all, and my neighbour as myself.  
Q. Have you done this perfectly?  
A. No, neither yet can I, nor any man else.  
Q. Why can you not?  
A. Because all are conceived and borne in sin.  
Q. How cometh that to pass?  
A. By the fall of our first parents.  
Q. Had you obeyed the law what had been the reward?  
A. Life everlasting.  
Q. What is the punishment of Disobedience?  
A. Everlasting death.  
Q. Your case then it seems is very miserable.  
A. Very miserable unless God be merciful in jesus Christ.  
Q. What is jesus Christ?  
A. The Eternal Son of GOD made Man.  
Q. Wherefore was he made Man?  
A. To die for man's sin and to reconcile him unto GOD.  
Q. Are all men reconciled by him?  
A. No, but true believers only.  
Q. Who are true Believers?  
A. They who by faith accept him for their only Mediator and Saviour.  
Q. How is this Faith wrought?  
A. By the preaching of the Gospel.  
Q. What is the sum of the Gospel?  
A. It is contained in the Apostles Creed.  
Q. Repeat the same unto me.  
A. I Believe in God the Father Almighty, maker etc.  
Q. How may we know that we have true Faith?  
A. By the fruits thereof.  
Q. What are the fruits of Faith?  
A. New Obedience and Repentance.  
Q. What is new Obedience?  
A. A sincere practice of holiness and righteousness all the days of my life.  
Q. Can you do this perfectly?  
A. No: but if I strive unto perfection God in grace accepteth it.  
Q. But what if you fall into sin again?  
A. I am to rise again by speedy repentance:  
Q. What call you repentance?  
A. A hearty sorrow for sin with the amendment thereof.  
Q. You say it must be speedy: tell me wherefore?  
A. Because if I be prevented by death I perish eternally.  
Q. What is the benefit of Repentance?  
A. Forgiveness of sins, with recovery of God's favour.  
Q. You have told me how Faith is wrought, and how it may be discerned: tell me now how it must be nourished and preserved.  
A. By the use of the Sacraments and Prayer.  
Q. What is a Sacrament?  
A. A seal of the Covenant of grace.  
Q. What things are required in a Sacrament?  
A. Two things, a sign and a thing signified.  
Q. How many Sacraments are there?  
A. Two, Baptism and the Lords Supper.  
Q. What is Baptism?  
A. The Sacrament whereby we are admitted into the Church of Christ.  
Q. What is the outward Sign of Baptism?  
A. The sprinkling of Water upon the Body.  
Q. What is the thing signified?  
A. The washing away of sin by the Blood of Christ.  
Q. What is the Lords Supper?  
A The Sacrament of our spiritual nourishment and preservation unto eternal life.  
Q. What is the outward sign in the Lord's Supper?  
A. Bread and Wine.  
Q. What is the thing signified?  
A. The Body of Christ broken, and his Blood shed for our Redemption.  
Q. What is Prayer?  
A. An humble entreating of God for all the good things we stand in need of.  
Q. After what manner must we pray?  
A. As we are taught in the Lord's prayer.  
Q. Repeat the same unto me?  
A. Our Father which art in Heaven, hallowed etc.  
Q. What is the effect of Prayer?  
A. The obtaining of our requests.  
Q. Doth every one obtain that prayeth?  
A. No, but he only that asketh in faith, and in the Name of Christ.  
Q. What remaineth to be done when we have obtained our suits?  
A. We are to return unto God the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving.  

Instructions for preparation unto the holy COMMUNION.  
Q. I see you are desirous with the rest of God's people to be admitted to the holy Communion: tell me for what cause are you so desirous thereof?  
A. I am desirous thereof for two causes. First, that I may discharge my duty to God, who commandeth me to receive so often as conveniently I may: secondly that I may reap the benefit & comfort which God hath promised unto me thereby.  
Q. What benefit or comfort hath God promised unto you thereby?  
A. That as by Baptism my first incorporation into the mystical Body of Christ is already sealed up unto me: so by this holy Sacrament my continual nourishment and preservation in the same Body shall likewise be sealed up unto me.  
Q. But do all reap this benefit that receive this Sacrament?  
A. No, but the worthy receiver only: for they that receive unworthily, eat and drink to themselves their own damnation.  
Q. What things are necessarily required unto worthy Receiving?  
A. Two things: sufficient knowledge in the understanding, and sanctifying grace in the heart.  
Q. What knowledge count you sufficient?  
A. A knowledge of the law sentencing unto death for sin: secondly, a knowledge of the Gospel promising everlasting life upon condition of Faith and true repentance: thirdly a knowledge of the Sacraments, and principally of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper.  
Q. What knowledge is required touching the Lords Supper?  
A. That the sensible signs used therein have spiritual significations: and therefore as the Minister having blessed the bread and wine, breaketh the one and poureth out the other, and I receiving them into my hands convey them into my Body for the nourishment thereof: so God the Father having predestinated his Son to be our Mediator and Redeemer hath given his Body to be broken and his Blood to be shed for us, that we receiving the same by Faith may thereby be nourished both bodies and souls unto everlasting life.  
Q. But what sanctifying graces are required in the heart?  
A. First true and unfeigned repentance for sin: secondly a lively Faith upon the merits of Christ for remission of sin: thirdly sincere love and charity with our brethren: fourthly, renewed Faith and repentance for our new sins, and renewed love in regard of our new breaches with our brethren.  
Q. Well then I see you know with what knowledge and grace you ought to be furnished before you can worthily receive: tell me now how must you behave yourself during the time of administering this Sacrament?  
A. With fear and reverence as in the presence of God who seethe the very secret of my heart: and therefore banishing out of my mind all earthly and impertinent thoughts, I am only and wholly to attend this heavenly action.  
Q. And when you have received, what duty remaineth to be performed?  
A. First, I am humbly to thank Almighty God who hath vouchsafed to receive me as a guest at his holy Table: secondly, I am to pray unto God that pardoning my want of due preparation and all other my infirmities he would bless this holy Sacrament to the nourishment of my soul: thirdly, I am carefully to use all other means ordained by God whereby I may still grow forward in grace till I come to be a perfect man in Christ.  
If ye know these things, blessed are ye if ye do them.   
FINIS.   

Peccatum formaliter & propriè non esse infinitum, exercitatio adversus N.  

Probatur.  
1 FInitae Essentiae finita est Potentia: finitae Potentiae finita est Operatio. At Peccatum Operatio est finitae Essentiae, Creatura nimirum rationalis, Ergo, & finitae Potentiae. Quarè & ipsum finitum est.  
2. Gratia Dei non est potentior Infinito: Infinito enim nihil infinitius. Sed potentior est Peccato: tollit enim ipsum & abolet. Ergo Peccatum non est infinitum.  
3. Vnum infinitum non est alio mains: quod enim minus est ideò quia minus est non est Infinitum. At Peccatum unum alio maius est & gravius: Imparitatem enim Peccatorum negare Stoicismus est. Ergò omne Peccatum non est Infinitum.  
4. Omnes ad unum Orthodoxi Theologi tenent, Nullum esse Summum malum: Sequeretur enim alioqui duo esse prima rerum Principia, Bonum & Malum, quae Manichaeorum haeresis est. Ergò omne Peccatum non est Infinitum.  
5. Peccatum consideratur aut ut. obliquitas, aut cum Actione. At neutro modo Infinitum est. Non ut Actio: prosecta namque â finito ut dictum est, finita sit necesse est. Non ut Obliquitas, sic enim nihil est: Non Entis autem non est accidens, nec igitur accidit ei esse Infinito. Adde quòd non omnia aequè, sed unum alio a Scopo propiùs aberret: quare nec omnia infinito interuallo.   

Obiicitur.  
1. Theologos omnes asserere Peccatum esse Infinitum: utrumque enim & Legislatorem Deum & Legem Dei, quae utraque Infinita sunt, Peccato violari. Respondeo.  
1. Eos qui sic loquuntur affirmare, Peccatum Obiectiuè, id est Materialiter infinitum esse, non formaliter.  
2. Quamuis peccatum infinitam laedat Maiestatem, non tamen infinito modo: alioqui quovis peccato Deus aequè offenderetur, quod absurdum est.  
3. Non ut Deus sic lex Dei infinita: Si esset, utique & Deus esset, qui solus est infinitus. Filius quidem Dei verbum increatum est: at Lex creatum: non ergò ut illud infinitum. Replicatur. Lex infinita est,  
1. Quia à Deo infinito condita est.  
2. Quia perfecta est. Psal. 19 Respondeo.  
1. Primum illud non sequi: Non enim quod ab Infinito est, id continuò est Infinitum. A finito nil nisi finitum procedit: ab infinito utrumque & finitum & infinitum. Alioqui mundus hic, immò puluisculus quilibet aut atomus, cum à Deo sit, infinitus esset.  
2. Neque Secundum si vox illa Persecta univocè intelligatur. Distinguo ergò, Perfectum vel absolutè dici, vel in suo genere. Absolutè, cui nihil deest quod in aliquo genere perfectum est: & sic solus Deus Perfectus est, in quo uno omnes omnium perfectiones eminentissimo modo aggregantor, proptereaque etiam solus simpliciter & proprie Infinitus est. In suo genere, cui nihil deest quod ad suum genus pertinet: & sic quidem Lex Perfecta est, nec quicquam in eâ desideratur quod ad Legis naturam & ingenium spectat. At interim quod sic Perfectum est non simpliciter & propriè infinitum est.  
2. Poena Peccati est Infinita: Ergò & Peccatum ipsum. Nisi enim Poena Peccato analoga sit, Deus iniustus est, quod horrendum dictu. Respondeo.  
1. Si Poena Peccati sit infinita, perperàm docent Theologi Deum, ut ultrà Condignum remuneratur, ita punire citrà condignum.  
2. Paena non est infinita, tum quia Creatura, divinaeque irae extrinsecum effectum: tum quia non omnes pares, ideoque nec omnes infinitae. Replicatur. Aeterna est, Ergò & Infinitae. Respondeo.  
1. Non disputari de infinitate Durationis sed gravitatis: quare nihil hoc ad Andromacham.  
2. Nego propriè aeternam esse, sed aeviternam: incepisse enim quamuis desitura non sit, ideoque nec propriè infinitam.  
3. Peccatum in Electis ne paenas quidem aeviternas lucre: quare saltem in illis peccata non esse infinita. In reprobis iustum est ut nunquam careant supplicio, quia nunquam voluerunt carere peccato.  
3 Passio Christi utroque modo infinita est & mole & duratione: Ergò & peccatum cuius paenas Christus pro nobis luit. Respondeo.  
1. Non sequi: maioris enim illa meriti propter dignitatem personae, quàm mille peccatorum myriades demeriti.  
2. Passio Christi mole finita fuit: creatura enim, creatura etiam natura quâ patiebatur.  
3. Nego duratione aeviternam, nedum aeternam fuisse. Quî pote? Nisi fortè triginta quatuor plàs minùs anni, in quibus solis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fuit, pro totâ aeternitate censeri possint. Replicatur. At propter dignitatem Personae aeternae, Paena fuit etiam aeterna. Respondetur.  
1. Verba perplexa, & nequid graviùs dicam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quorum si haec mens & sententia sit, Passionem Christi temporalem propter dignitatem personae aeternae, passioni nostrae aeternae etiam ad assem aquivalere, tria dico.  
1. Aliter dictum oportuisse: nec enim hunc sensum verba praese ferre.  
2. Hinc sequi Paenant Christi temporalem duntaxat, non aeternam fuisse.  
3. Ideo Christum paenas aeternas non passum, quia peccata Electorum pro quibus passus est non futura erant aeterna: quippe, per gratiam divinam interpellanda & interrumpenda.  
2. Siquid aliud haec verba sibi volunt, quaeratur Sibyllae aut somniorum coniector aliquis: Mihi divinari nec libet nec vacat.  
4. At quid frequentius in sacris concionibus scriptisque Theologicis, quàm Peccatum infinitum, Panam infinitam etc. Respondeo.  
1. Non omnia ab omnibus propriè dici, praesertim in demegorijs & homilijs ad populum: sed pleraque tropicè & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, adrei magnitudinem indicandam.  
2. Intelligendi sunt de Peccato non formaliter, sed materialiter & obiectiuè loqui, ut suprà dictum est: quia Peccato Maiestas infinita violatur.  
3. Distinguo, Rem omnem considerari vel ut quiddam Ens, vel secundum propriam suam rationem.  Ens, finita est res omnis creata. Secundum rationem suam propriam infinita dici potest, si quicquid ad se pertinere ullo modo potest non limitata, nec secundùm mensuram habeat. Sic lucem Solis infinitam dicimus, non quidem secundùm suum Esse, sed secundùm rationem lucis: quia habet quicquid ad communem rationem lucis pertinere potest. Pari ratione, Peccatum, Poena, Passio, priori modo proculdubiò finita sunt: infinita secundo, si ullo modo infinita sunt, hoc est, secundùm quid, non propriè & simpliciter, quod in thesi affirmatur. Quod etiam non de omni Peccato aut Paenâ intelligendum est, sed fortasse de Peccato in Spiritum Sanctum, aut saltem illo Diaboli: deque paenâ Gehennae intensissimâ.    

OF CHOICE OF MEATS AND ABSTINENCE.  
I Will endeavour to satisfy your demand the best I can, and to resolve you in the question of choice of Meats and Abstinence: but briefly and in few words. It may please you therefore to remember.  
1. That all Meats in regard of their nature and creation are good. For of every thing that was created God himself singularly and severally avoucheth that it was good, 
Gen. 1.4.10.12.18.21.25.31. 2. Tim. 4.3.4.  and of all jointly and collectively that they were exceeding good. In particular of Meats, S. Paul affirmeth that they are good, and created to be received with thanksgiving.  
2. 
2. Tim. 4.1.  They that say the contrary are charged by Saint Paul to hold a doctrine of Devils. And justly were the Manichaeans, Tatiani and Encratitae, for maintaining that some Meats are of a polluted and unclean nature, ever accounted and condemned as Heretics in the Church of God.  
3. God who is the Creator of Meats, and sovereign Lord of all things, hath full and absolute power over the Meats, and may restrain the use of any kind of them at his pleasure. Which when it appeareth he hath done, the Conscience is ●ou● 〈◊〉 ●●●ute obedience and abstinence from meats so 〈◊〉  

Levit. 11.  4 While therefore the Congenial part of the law remained in force, wherein 〈◊〉 ●●nds of Meats were interdicted unto the jews, partly to distinguish them thereby from other nations, partly to figure out the Church's election and separation from the rest of the world: it had been a breach of Religion and a great sin to put no difference between meat and meat, but to have used them all indifferently.  
5 By the coming of Christ the shadows of the law are vanished, and the distinction of meats is utterly abolished and taken away: as appeareth by the vision of the Sheet shown unto Peter, and the voice that said unto him. 
Act. 10.11.15.  The things that God hath purified pollute thou not. And the free use or non-use of them is a part of that Christian liberty which Christ by his blood hath purchased unto us, 
Rom. 14.14.20. Tit. 1.15. Gal. 5.1.  who unto the clean, as the Apostle saith,) hath made all things clean.  
6 In this Liberty so dearly bought we are commanded to stand fast, and not to suffer ourselves again to be entangled with the yoke of bondage. We entangle our selves if now we place any holiness or religion in abstinence from some kind of meats, or if we abstain to the end we may satisfy for our sins, or thereby merit unto ourselves everlasting life. 
1. Cor. 8.8.  For Meat, as S. Paul saith, maketh us not acceptable unto God: and again, The Kingdom of God is not meat or drink but righteousness and peace and joy in the holy Ghost. 
Rom. 14.17.  
Heb. 13.9.  And yet again, It is a good thing that the hart be established with grace and not with meats which have not profited them that have been occupied therein.  
7. The Church of Rome therefore commanding abstinence from some kinds of meats to the same ends, and as a part of divine worship, is guilty of horrible sacrilege and cruel tyranny. For she robbeth the Church of her Liberty: and imposeth upon her that heavy yoke, which Christ himself had taken off her neck. To what end hath Christ freed our consciences, if Rome may again enthrall them? and how easy a matter is it to avoid punishment and to win heaven if abstinence from flesh and eggs will work it?  
8. As we must stand fast in this liberty, so must we take heed that we abuse not our Liberty, making it, as S. Peter speaketh a cloak for our naughtiness, or, 
2. Pet. 2.16. Gal. 5.13. 1. Cor. 10.23.  as S. Paul saith, using it as an occasion to the flesh. For though all things, that is, all indifferent things, be lawful, yet are they not always expedient: and therefore are not always indifferently to be used or not used, but as they are convenient, and we find them tend either to edification or destruction.  
9 They are convenient and destroy not when they are regulated and guided by Charity, Temperance, Piety, and Loyalty. First by Charity. 
1. Cor. 8.9. Rom. 14.15. V 20.21.  For we may not by eating give occasion of falling to them that are weak. So doing, we should not walk charitably, but destroy with our meats him for whom Christ died. Though all things be pure, yet is it evil to eat with offence. When we so sin against the Brethren and wound their weak conscience, we sin against Christ. 
1. Cor. 8.13.14.  Wherefore S. Paul resolved rather than by eating he would offend his brother he would not eat flesh while the world standeth.  
10. Secondly, by Temperance and Sobriety. For repletion and fullness nourish in us our inordinate lusts, and make us like pampered horses grow headstrong and unruly. 
Rom. 13.13.  We may not therefore abuse our liberty unto surfeiting and drunkenness: yea if we find that some meats or drinks, though not excessively taken, do inflame our lusts, we must abstain. And this was the cause, 
2. Cor. 6.6.  as I suppose, why the Apostle Saint Paul knits these two together, in Fasting, in Chastity. For according to the old saying, Sine Cerere & Baccho friget Venus, without bread and wine venery and lust waxeth cold.  
11. And here I cannot but wonder at the vanity and perverseness of Romanists, who for the subduing and taming of the flesh, at times forbidden the eating of flesh, but in the mean season give leave to feed on all sorts of fishes, marmelades, and conserves, and to drink the strongest and choicest wines, which without question provoke and stir up lust as well as flesh. As if to eat a bit of course flesh upon a prohibited day were gluttony: but to cram ourselves with all other delicates were abstinence and fasting. O blindness! O stupidity!  
12 Thirdly by Piety and Religion. For although Abstinence as Hierome saith, be not in itself a virtue, nor any part of Divine worship, yet is it an instrument, help, and furtherance thereunto. And therefore if we would humble ourselves by repentance, or pray unto God with fervency for the averting of dangers imminent, or calamities incumbent upon us: we are then by fasting to testify our humiliation, and to quicken our devotion, as we read the faithful both under the Law and Gospel were ever wont to do.  
13. Lastly by Loyalty and Dutiful subjection. For if the Magistrate, either for a public civil good shall at times forbidden the use of some meats, as of flesh on fridays, saturdays, emberweeks, lent, and the like, or for the pacifying of God's wrath in the common calamity of the state, shall command a general Fast: we are accordingly to abstain, 
Rom. 13.6.  and to yield obedience unto the Magistrate, not only for fear, but also for Conscience sake.  
14. Thus than first you have Liberty by Christ to eat of all kind of meats: secondly, you are bound to stand fast in your Liberty and not to put yourself under bondage again: thirdly, you may not wantonly abuse you liberty by doing such things as are inconvenient, and hurt rather than edify: lastly, our use thereof must be moderated and directed by Charity, Temperance, Piety and Loyalty. This if you know, and thus if you do, you cannot err nor do amiss.  
15. Which that you may both know and do you are to pray him that is the donor and giver of all good things, to make you both wise and prudent. Wise in the knowledge and practice of whatsoever is of absolute nenessity unto salvation: prudent in the discretion and right use of things indifferent. This God grant you for his Christ's sake. Amen.   

AN ANSWER UNTO CERTAIN REASONS FOR SEPARATION.  
I Can have wished withal my hart that in this particular I might have proved a false prophet: and that my fears concerning you, though they were not without cause, yet might have been without effect. But now I plainly perceive that my words were no less than oracle, and what I feared is accordingly come to pass. For, as I foretold you, from straining at gnats, you are fallen to swallowing of Camels: that is, from scrupulousness and niceness in Kneeling at the Communion, and other such like indifferent ceremonies, you have head-longly cast yourself into the gulf of Schism and Separation. In regard whereof, having heretofore in the matter of Kneeling bestowed my labour in vain upon you, I fear, now that you are thus fare proceeded, and settled as it were on your lees, I shall much less prevail with you. Nevertheless, because it pleased you to send me in writing the reasons of your Separation, promising to return with all speed if they were sufficiently answered: I may not, unless I will betray the truth, and fail in the duties of Charity, refuse to take a little further pains with you. Here therefore I send you this short, and, as I conceive, full answer: the perusal whereof I leave unto you, the censure unto God's Church, and the issue unto God himself. Whom I humbly beseech of his goodness eftsoons to reduce you.  
Two grounds you say there are whereon you have built your Separation: the first whereof you lay down in these terms, That the Hierarchy and Ministry of Archbishops, Lord Bishops, etc. and Priests may not be set over the Church of Christ, nor retained therein. From whence, as I understand it, you would argue and conclude thus.  

Where are such Church Officers as may not be set over nor retained in the Church, there is no true visible Church, and consequently Separation must be made from it.  
But here in England are such Church Officers, as Archbishops, Bishops etc. and Priests.  
Ergo, here in England is no true visible Church, and consequently Separation must be made from it.  
To this argument thus form I answer, first by denying the Mayor Proposition: which in that you go not about to prove, you commit that fault in reasoning which Logicians call Petitionem Principij, taking that for granted which is most questioned. For suppose that Archbishops, Bishops, and Priests were superfluous officers, yet it is not every superfluity in a Church that takes away the nature and essence thereof: and even they who mislike the present Church government, do not all of them, as you Separatists do, infer thereupon a nullity, but only a corruption or aberration in the Church. It would have been much more to the purpose, if you could have demonstrated that the Church of England is defective in such officers as are essential, and without which a Church cannot be. Here therefore I must entreat you either to acknowledge your rashness, or else to bestow a little more pains in the proof of that which without evidence of reason will never be yielded you.  
Again I deny the Minor Proposition, affirming contrarily that Archbishops, Bishops, and Priests are lawful Church-Officers, and may be both set over and retained in the Church. For I hope you understand these terms not cavillingly and equivocally, but according to the meaning and definition of the Church of England. Otherwise you shall but jangle about words, and bewray that you have more desire to pick quarrels, than ability to justify your Separation. But you endeavour to fortify your Minor by twelve reasons supplying in the tale if ought be wanting in the weight. Let us examine them severally. The first is this.  

1 No Antichristian ministry may be set over the Church of Christ, nor retained therein. 
2. Thes. 2.3.4.11.12. Ro. 14.9 10. with Ex. 4.5. Deut. 7.26. Ps. 119.21.128.   
But the Ministry of Archbishops, Lord-Bishops & Priests is Antichristian, because the Churches of Antichrist cannot be complete, if they have not this Prelacy, as appeareth by the Pope's Canons and Pontifical, and by their Church-Constitution.  
Therefore they are not to be set over the Church of Christ, nor retained therein.  
What mean you by the word Antichristian? For although I know well what properly it signifies, yet I doubt much what you understand thereby: it being your manner either through negligence or ignorance too often to speak improperly. If you understand it properly, and as you ought, for that which is against Christ and his ordinance, or, as your men sometimes express themselves, which is a special part of Antichrists apostasy, than I yield you your Mayor, and confess that no such Ministry may be set over the Church nor retained therein. But if you mean thereby either that which was first instituted and devized by Antichrist, or that which being formerly instituted is used and approved in the Church of Antichrist, than I deny the Mayor. For first, every thing (by Antichrist ordained) is not presently unlawful and Antichristian, no more than every act of a tyrant is unjust and tyrannous. How many good and wholesome laws were enacted under the reign of Richard the third, who yet was a most bloody and cruel tyrant? Neither were they afterward repealed by succeeding Kings, but stand still in force notwithstanding his tyranny: for they proceeded from him non quà tyrannus, not as he was a tyrant, but as he was a wise and politic governor. In like manner, not every thing ordained by Antichrist is forthwith to be rejected, but only that which he doth quà Antichristus, as he is Antichrist, and is merely Antichristian. It is a great folly to refuse good counsel because it is given by an evil man. Wise men will consider non quis sed quid, not so much who doth a thing, as what is done. For as truth is Gods in whose mouth soever it be found: so is good also whosoever be the Author thereof. Again, if those things whereof Antichrist is the first founder be not therefore by and by unlawful, much less are those things so, which being of a former institution are only used and observed by him. Were it otherwise, how many ordinances of God himself, and wholesome constitutions of the primitive Church would prove unlawful being still retained in Popery?  
This Mayor you endeavour to fortify with sundry passages of Scripture. But as Cassius of old was wont to say, Cui bono? to what end? For if you would prove it in the sense granted you, they are alleged needlessly: if in the sense denied, frivolously; and to speak the truth every way vainly and impertinently, as the very reading of them will manifest to any one that will but take the pains to peruse them. But this is the manner of your men to paint your margins with multitude of quotations nothing to the purpose: whereas one allegation directly concluding is more than a hundred demonstrations, as being the words of the first and infallible verity. What you intent hereby I wots not, whether to amuse the Reader and overwhelm him with your numbers, or to win you credit and estimation with the vulgar, as if you were the only skilful Text-men. But sure I am that such slighting of Scripture is no less than the taking of God's Name in vain: which whosoever doth, the Lord professeth he will not hold him guiltless. Scripture is not made nor appointed for pomp and show, but for conquest and victory.  
To the Minor Proposition I answer negatively, The ministry of Archbishops, Lord-Bishops, and Priests is not Antichristian, whether you understand it as first invented by Antichrist, or against Christ. That it is not of Antichrists invention is as clear as the Sun. For first Priests are of divine institution, being no other than those Presbyters or Pastors, to whom the administration of the Word and Sacraments is committed, and who are ordained by Christ for the building up of his Church unto the end of the world. The Priests of the Church of Rome indeed are of Antichrists founding, whose office is to sacrifice and offer up Christ himself in the Mass unto his Father both for the quick and the dead. But our Priests have nothing common with them save the name only: their idolatry we detest and abhor, although we retain the name. Theirs are Masspriests, ours are Preaching or Ministering Priests. Neither let the name offend you: for notwithstanding Papists have abused it to signify a Sacrificer, yet properly it doth not so, being originally derived from Presbyter, neither among us is it now so understood. To say nothing that the ancient Fathers (who I presume were not Antichristian) usually call the Ministers of the Gospel Sacerdotes, Priests. As therefore you cannot without great absurdity reason from the name to the thing, thus, your Ministers are called Priests, Ergo, your Ministry is Antichristian: so neither can you without greater absurdity separate yourself from the thing because of the name, and because our Ministers are called Priests withdraw yourself from our Ministry.  
Secondly, Archbishops and Bishops if they be not of divine institution, yet were they some Centuries of years before ever Antichrist appeared in the world, as all antiquity and Ecclesiastical Story testifieth. That most famous first general Council of Nice assembled by Constantin the Great about the year of our Lord 327 not only approveth them, but also affirmeth that the Church anciently and long before that time had been governed by them. Epiphanius & Augustin both reckon Aerius among the number of Heretics, for denying the then-received and allowed distinction between a Bishop and a Presbyter. But to speak my mind plainly, I am for my part persuaded, that the superiority of Bishops over the Ministers was of Apostolical institution. Those Angels to whom Saint john in the second and third of the Revelation is commanded to write, what other were they then the Bishops of those Churches of Asia? In Ephesus, one of those seven Churches, it is reported by S. Luke that there were many Presbyters, and I doubt not but it was so in other of the Churches also: howbeit the Apostle writeth unto one only whom he calleth the Angel, as being singular and eminent above the rest. And the ancient story of the Church recordeth the particular Bishops of every one of those Churches together with their successors for a long time. So that Bishops being in the Apostles time, and successively continued in the Primitive Church, without any contradiction either of the Apostles themselves or any other, yea rather with their approbation and allowance, as appeareth by those seven Epistles unto the seven Angels, and all the writings of the ancient Fathers: how can it be imagined but that Bishops and their superiority over others was of Apostolical institution?  
Now if Priests or Pastors (for as we have said, in substance they be all one) were ordained by God himself, and Bishops derive their pedigree also from the holy Apostles of God: it followeth by necessary consequence, that as our Ministry is not from Antichrist, so neither is it against Christ. Were it against Christ, it would be either because he hath forbidden it, or for that it destroyeth rather than edifieth the Church. But it is no where forbidden. If it be, show the place, and we yield. Neither doth it hinder the edification of the Church. For first it is the office both of Bishops & Priests to preach the Gospel of Christ, and to administer his holy Sacraments. Secondly, the advancement of one Presbyter above the rest, was for the prevention of Schism. For when Factions began to arise in the Church, some saying I am of Paul, others I am of Apollo's, I am of Cephas: then, saith Hierom, was it decreed through the whole world, that one being chosen from among the Presbyters should be set over the rest. Who being so preferred, his duty is to oversee the rest of his brethren, that they carefully discharge the office imposed upon them, and frame their lives according to the worthiness of their calling: All which I am sure furthereth the building of the Church, so fare is it from destroying: so that nor Priests nor Bishops, whether ye regard their offices, or the end of their ordination, can be said to be against Christ.  
Peradventure (for I would willingly let nothing pass unanswered) there lies a mystery in the word Lord-Bishops, and you intent that they are the more Antichristian for that they are so called. Surely if they should ambitiously affect the title of Lord, 
Mat. 23.  as the Pharisees sometimes did the title of Rabbi, it were great pride and vanity in them: and if they should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Lord it, and as it were domineer over the flock of Christ as if the inheritance were theirs, it would be intolerable presumption & tyranny. But, that a title of honour may be given unto Bishops in regard of their honourable place and calling, as there is no reason to the contrary, so it must needs proceed from much envy or frowardness to deny. 
Gen. 31.35. 1 King. 18.7.13.  Let it not be displeasing in the eyes of my Lord, saith Rahel to her Father. Art not thou my Lord Elias? And again, Was it not told my Lord what I did when jezebel flew the Prophets of the Lord, said good Obadiah unto the Prophet? If Laban because he was a natural Father unto Rahel, and Eliah, because he was a Prophet might justly be so styled: why may not Bishops also, who are the spiritual Fathers, and Prophets, yea and Angels of the Church? 
Luc. 22.25.26.  you will say, our Saviour expressly forbiddeth them to be called Gracious Lords. I deny it. For although it pleased the translator so to render the original word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because anciently it was a title of honour given unto Princes: yet doth it not properly signify so, but Benefactors, or Weldoers. Nevertheless suppose it so signified, yet is it not simply the title, but the ambitious affectation of the title which Christ disliketh. 
Act. 10.38.  If a man imitating jesus Christ should go about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doing good, were it a sin trow you to give him his deserved name and to call him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a wel-doer? Had it been simply unlawful for a Minister to be called Lord, would Paul and Silas have admitted it, and not rather have reprehended the keeper of the prison saying unto them, My Lords, 
Act. 16.30.  what ought I to do that I may be saved? Our Saviour Christ saith unto his disciples, Be not ye called Masters, Be not ye called Doctors: 
Mat. 23.8.10.  and yet among you some Ministers are called Doctors, and all Masters. So that it appeareth by your own practice, that the name of Lord maketh not Bishops Antichristian, but as we have said, it is the affecting of the name which is forbidden. And thus you see your Minor is no way true.  
Notwithstanding you endeavour to prove it thus, Because the Churches of Antichrist cannot be complete without this Prelacy, as appeareth, you say, by the Pope's Canons, and Pontifical, and by their Church-constitutions. A silly and sorry argument. For first, the Ministry of the Church of England is so fare from being a compliment of the Churches of Antichrist, that the Church of Rome doth Anathematise and accurse it, esteeming us (right as you do) to be no Church at all because we want their Ministry. Again, may not I with as good reason as you argue thus? The state and Kingdom of Antichrist cannot be complete without the authority of Civil Magistrates: Ergo, Civil Magistrates are Antichristian. If this kind of reasoning be not good, neither is yours; for they are both of one mould. Lastly Antichristianity being a Mystery, and not an Heathenish or Turkish opposition unto Christ, it cannot be complete except it retain many of Christ's ordinances, which therefore I trust you will not say to be Antichristian. A lie cannot subsist but upon truth, nor evil but in good: nor Antichrists hypocrisy but upon the Religion and discipline of Christ. And thus have I fully answered your first argument: whereon I have been the longer because it is the Basis and ground as it were of all the rest, and the answer thereunto will in a manner serve them all, or the most part of them. Your second argument is this.   

2 Because it cannot be approved by the testament of Christ, as the Ministry had in his Church may and aught to be. 
* Eph. 4.11.12. 1. Cor. 12.4.5.6.28.29. Ro. 12.7.8. 1. Tim. 3. & 5.3.9.17. & 6.13.14.  And if such (as could not prove by their genealogy that they were of Aaron) were deposed from their Ministry under Moses Law 
* Ezr. 2.62.63. Heb. 3.2.3. & 2.1.2.3. & 12.25. , much more should such be now deposed, as have not their offices warranted by Christ's Testament.  
If we reduce your argument into form it is this, That Ministry which cannot be approved by the Testament of Christ is not to be allowed in the Church. But the Ministry of the Church of England cannot be approved by the Testament of Christ. Ergo, it is not to be allowed in the Church. The Minor which you might be sure we would deny, you have left naked to the wide world without proof: the Mayor which you saw we could not well deny, you endeavour to fortify with a double reason. Let it be supposed then that it is denied how prove you it? First, The Ministry had in the Church may and aught to be so approved. How doth this appear? By the places quoted in the margin? Nothing less: They approve indeed certain officers in the Church: but affirm not that every officer ought to be so approved. Secondly, if, say you, such as could not derive their genealogy from Aaron were deposed, much more are they to be deposed who cannot warrant their offices by Christ's Testament. A poor argument God wots. For in the law there was an express commandment that none might execute the Priest's office but he that was of the lineage of Aaron: but that no office might be admitted nor retained in the Church unless it were so commanded, I find no where in Scripture. Wherefore to argue thus, Nothing that is against God's Word may be allowed, Ergo, nor any thing that is not commanded, is a plain Non sequitur, and it follows not. Thus you see, if a man were so disposed, how easy it is to quarrel with your Mayor, which yet simply I deny not.  
Briefly therefore to clear all, I distinguish of these terms, Approved and Warranted by the Word. A thing may be said to be warranted or approved by the Word two ways, both when it is commanded, and when it is not forbidden: for things neither commanded nor forbidden, are indifferent, and subject unto the Church's power. Hereupon thus I answer, if you mean it in the former sense only, then prove your Mayor that what is not by commandment approved is unlawful: if in the latter than I grant you the Mayor, that whatsoever is forbidden is unlawful. But withal I deny the Minor, that Archbishops, Bishops, Priests are forbidden, requiring you to prove it, which I know you can never do. For as touching so much of their duty as is common to them all, to wit, the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the Sacraments, they are all Pastors and Teachers, and so warranted in the Texts by you quoted: but in regard of preeminence and superiority one above another Bishops are no other than were the Angels of the seven Churches, as we have above demonstrated. Howsoever, if Bishops be not commanded, yet are they not forbidden: and their office making not against edification, but for it rather, it cannot being ordained by the Church but be lawful. Your third argument.   

3 Because the Church is the Spouse, Kingdom and Body of Christ, and therefore may not have Antichrists Hierarchy and ministry set over it, or retained in it. For what concord hath Christ with belial?  
Antichrists Hierarchy and Ministry may not beset over the Church nor retained in it. Archbishops, Bishops, Priests, are Antichrists Hierarchy and Ministry. Ergo, Archbishops, Bishops, Priests, may not be set over the Church nor retained in it. The Mayor of this Syllogism you are very careful to maintain, because the Church is the Spouse, the Kingdom, the Body of Christ: as also because there can be no concord betwixt Christ and Belial. But to what end all this? and with such a stir to prove that which no man gainsays? for we confess Christ's Kingdom may not be governed by Antichrists policy. You should rather have laboured to strengthen the Minor, that Archbishops, Bishops, and Priests are Antichrists Hierarchy and Ministry: for you might be well assured we would never yield you that unless by strength of reason you constrained us. Here therefore against the rule of Logic again you beg the principal matter in question, taking for granted that those offices are merely Antichristian. But you must prove it, and not look that whatsoever you fancy to be true, others upon your bare word must presently believe and take to be true. See the answer to the first argument. I proceed to the fourth.   

4 If when a King substituteth judges, justices etc. no subjects may either refuse to be governed by these, or set over themselves officers of other Kingdoms, as the Roman tribunes etc. how can it be lawful for any Christians? etc.  
It is an old saying that Symbolical divinity is no argument of proof: and that Similitudes serve rather to illustrate and clear a man's meaning, then to prove and convince the understanding. In regard whereof if I had so pleased, I might well have slighted this fourth reason, and not have vouchsafed it any answer at all. For what is it other than a bare and naked Similitude? nevertheless for further satisfaction let us try the strength thereof. Two things you avouch, first that Christians may not refuse to be governed by those officers which Christ hath set over them: secondly, that Christians may not set over themselves officers of Antichrists kingdom. The former I confess is true, but nothing to the purpose. For we reject not the officers ordained by Christ, nor refuse to be governed by them. If we do, so have all Churches also done, down from S. john's time unto this present age. within which compass you cannot name any one Church at any time moulded after your platform: and I am sure all orthodoxal Churches have ever been governed by the same officers that ours is. Whence it followeth that if for want of such a Polity and such Officers as you dream of we have in England no true Church: neither hath there been for certain hundred of years above a thousand any true Church through the whole world. Which how it can agree with the word of God affirming that of his kingdom there shall be none end, I cannot conceive. For by your reckoning the kingdom of Christ ceased soon after the departure of the Apostles, and suffered an interruption of about fourteen hundred years until Browne and Barrow began to play the schismatics.  
The second Proposition I acknowledge also to be true but withal deny that we have set over ourselves any Antichristian or foreign Officers. For as we have above both said and showed, Archbishops, Bishops, Priests are of divine institution: and now I further add that they were first bred in the kingdom of Christ, and not taken from any other kingdom. your assertion to the contrary without due proof argues that you build to yourself castles in the air, and have no ground for your presumption. Your fift argument followeth.   

5. Because the Church being Christ's spouse, kingdom, and body must have his Ministry set and kept in it, and no other. And if no man can make a finger or the least member of a natural humane body, or add any other limb thereto without deformity than God hath created, and can much less give life to any such counterfeit member of his own making: how is it possible that he can set up another Ministry?  

1. Cor. 12.12.20 27.28.  The argument is thus to be form, The Ministry of Christ and no other is to be set over and kept in the Church. The Ministry of Archbishops, Bishops, and Priests is not Christ's. Ergo, it is not to be set over nor kept in the Church. The Mayor I grant confessing that no office may be allowed in the Church but that which is from Christ, either immediately, or mediately, that is, from those unto whose wisdom and discretion he hath delegated some part of his authority to order many things in the Church. For as the Church may not alter that Ministry which Christ hath settled to continue for ever: so may she by virtue of her delegate authority ordain such offices as are not forbidden, and tend to edification. And being so ordained they are though not immediately, yet mediately from Christ. Neither yet doth the Church so doing presume to make (as you say) either a finger, or any other member or limb that is essential unto the body, much less to give life thereunto: but only to provide a glove as it were for the finger, or a suit of apparel for the body the better to preserve it in life.  
The Minor that the Ministry of Archbishops, Bishops, and Priests is not of Christ, I deny, affirming the clean contrary, that they are those Pastors and Angels authorized and allowed by Christ in his word. It is the greatest vanity and idleness that can be in disputing, only with boldness to affirm that which is denied, and never to endeavour the proof thereof: which yet is your solemn fault almost in every argument. Your sixth reason.   

6 Because Christians are the Temples of the Holy Ghost, 
1. Cor. 3.16.17. 2. Cor. 6.16. 2. Thes. 2.4. Col. 2.18. Act. 20.17.28.  and their consciences wrought upon by Ministry in the Church: and therefore may not be defiled by the Hierarchy of Archbishops etc. whom the Holy Ghost never made Overseers.  
The argument in form stands thus, Those offices that defile the Temples of the Holy Ghost and consciences of men may not be set over nor retained in the Church. But the Hierarchy of Archbishops, Bishops, and Priests defiles the Temples of the Holy Ghost and consciences of men. Ergo, the Hierarchy of Archbishops, Bishops, and Priests may not be set over nor retained in the Church. The Mayor we readily yield you: but how prove you the Minor, that these Officers defile the Conscience? Forsooth because the Holy Ghost hath not made them Overseers. And how prove you this again? Because the Pastors of Ephesus were made such Overseers. An Herculean argument I promise you. For what letteth but that he that made the Pastors of Ephesus Overseers, hath made the Pastors of England Overseers also? Alas, alas that upon such frivolous and toying reasons so dangerous and offensive Schisms should be made. And take heed how you quench or grieve the Spirit of God, who if you have in you any measure of knowledge or spark of grace, hath wrought it in you by our Ministry. For preaching which is the ordinary means to beget faith, I suppose you have not had elsewhere: and it is no less than blasphemy to call the working of God's Spirit by his Holy Word upon the souls of men, the defiling of the Conscience. The seventh argument.   

7 Because Christ alone is the Head of the Church in whom all fullness of power dwelleth, 
Eph. 1.22.23.4.11.16. Col. 1.18.19.2.8.9.10.18.19.1. Cor. 12.4.5.6.12.27.28. 1. Tim. 3. & 5.8.6.13.14. Rev. 11.13.18.8.14.8.17. &. 18. & 19  and from whom alone the Church receiveth her life and power, so as none may be subject to any power or head in Religion, save only to him. And therefore no Ministers or Officers in the Church are to be set up or retained who derive not their power and functions from Christ, which the former do not: and therefore they are not &c. but to be abandoned as enemies of Christ's sovereign authority, and making their hearers and submitters to them guilty of high treason against our Lord Christ jesus.  
It is true, there is but one Head of the Church from whom she receiveth life and Power: yet are there also under Christ governors in the Church, who by virtue of that power which they have received from him may ordain many things touching the well government thereof, and to submit ourselves thereunto is not to be subject to another power or head, but to the ordinance of Christ himself. But it is false that Bishops derive not their power and function from Christ, as we have already manifestly proved. If you have any thing to the contrary, I hope we shall hear of it another time: for hitherto you have only said, but shown nothing. As for those words, that Bishops are to be abandoned as enemies of Christ's sovereign authority etc. they savour more of passion than reason, and deserve rather to be pitied then answered. The vl argument.   


1. Cor. 18.27.28. Eph. 4.11.12.13.  8 Because God only must have this preeminence to dispose the members every one of them in the body of the Church at his own pleasure: so as either it must be showed that God hath placed the Hierarchy of Archbishops, Bishops, Priests, or they are not to be set up or retained or approved.  
We have satisfied you in this already, if happily you will be satisfied. For we have showed, first that the Ministry of Archbishops, Bishops and Priests is of divine and Apostolical institution: and secondly, if the superiority of Bishops be not immediately from God, yet being not forbidden, and tending to edification, the Church under God hath power to ordain them. Hereunto we expect your answer. The ninth argument.   


Mat. 22.25.26. Ep. 4.8.11.12. Ps. 68.18. Ro. 14.23. Heb. 11.16.  9 Because none can of Faith join unto the Hierarchy aforesaid, because they are not warranted by the Word, being not from Heaven but from the earth.  
The Ministry aforesaid is warranted by God's Word, as we have oftentimes said, and so is from Heaven not from earth: and therefore you may of Faith join unto it. Had it not been a plant of Gods own setting, doubtless it would have been rooted out of the Church long since, and not have continued fifteen hundred years together. The tenth argument.   

10 Because none can submit unto or have spiritual communion with the Hierarchy and Ministry aforesaid, 
Rev. 14.9.10.11.  but he shall worship the Beast and his image, spoken of in the Revelation, and receive his mark in his forehead or hand: and so make himself subject to the wrath of God.  
This argument though differing in words, yet in sense and meaning is all one with the first. For how can it be conceived that they who submit themselves unto our Ministry worship, as you say, the Beast and his Image, unless it be for that it is Antichristian? For avoiding of Tautology therefore, I refer you unto the answer of that argument, where I plainly demonstrate that it is Christian not Antichristian: so that in communicating with it, there can be no danger either of worshipping the Beasts-image, or receiving his mark, or incurring the wrath of God. But whereas you talk of worshipping the Beast, you much mistake the matter. For by the Beast is understood not Antichrist but the Roman Empire whereof the State of Antichrist is the image. Neither can you show, 
Rev. 18.4.5.6 2. Cor. 16.17.18. joh. 10.5. Num. 16.1.26.40.18.4.5. Ezeh 44.7.18.4.5. Mat. 15.13. Es. 11.4. &. 13. &. 14. jer. 15. &. 50. &. 51.2. Thes. 2.3.4.8. Rev. 14.6.7.8. &. 17. &. 18. &. 19  if our Ministry were Antichristian, how by retaining it we should worship the Roman Empire. The eleventh argument.   

11 Because all are straight bound and charged by the Lord to departed from and witness against the aforesaid Prelacy and Priesthood being a strange Ministry, and such as is opposed against and exalted above the holy ordinance and Ministry of Christ, and shall be abolished by him appearing in the light and power of the Gospel.  
Our Ministry neither is a strange Ministry, nor opposed or exalted above Christ's Ministry, but Christ's own Ministry, as now once again I tell you: and therefore no man is charged either to departed from it, or to witness against it. But you are a strange disputer, who so peremptorily affirm that which hath ever been denied, and never go about to prove it. As for that you say our Ministry shall be abolished by Christ appearing in the light and power of the Gospel, it betrays what you desire should be, but is no certain Oracle of what indeed shall be. Sure I am our Ministry hath subsisted this fifteen hundred years, and the light and power of the Gospel hitherto hath not abolished it, but it hath still published and propagated the Gospel. Happily when the Church shall cease to be militant, and Christ shall deliver up the Kingdom to his Father, that God may be all in all, this ministry shall have an end. But till then, Credat judaeus Apella, Non ego, let Brownists and Barowists believe it, not I Your obstinate begging of the principal matter in question convinceth you to be but a bad disputant, and this rash and unadvised prediction now dubbeth you for a false Prophet also. The last argument.   


2. King. 23.5. Ps. 101. Pro. 16.10.11.12.25.2. 5 Rev. 17.16. Deu. 17.18.19.20. Ro. 12.7.8. Eph. 4.11.12.13. 1. Tim. 3. &. 5.9.17.6.13.14  12 Because it is the duty and in the power of Princes to suppress and root out of their dominions all false Ministries: and therefore these as well ●s Abbots, Friars, Nuns, Cardinals, etc. Whereas it is not in their power, or of any under Heaven to abolish the offices given by Christ to his Church.  
Here again you take for granted that our Ministry is but a false Ministry, and that Archbishops, Bishops, and Priests are no less Antichristian then Abbots, Friars, Nuns, Cardinals, which is ever denied but never confirmed by you. Vain man, prove our Ministry to be false, and we will grant it is to be rooted out: otherwise outfacing and desperate asseveration will not serve the turn.  
And thus have I briefly examined all your twelve reasons whereby you go about to prove the Minor of your principal Syllogism, namely that our Church-officers Archbishops, Bishops and Priests are not to be set over nor retained in the Church. Whereupon I infer, seeing your Mayor is barely affirmed being untrue, and your Minor so weakly and insufficiently proved: you have not as yet sound concluded the lawfulness and necessity of your separation. Let us proceed to the second ground which you conceive in these words, A true visible Church is a company of people called and separated from the world by the Word of God, 
Act. 2.39.19.9. Ro. 1.6.7.10.14.15.16. job. 17.14.20. Ezek. 36.38. Phil. 1.5. Act. 2.41: 42.47.11.21.24.13.4.34 Ro. 12.5. 2. Cor. 9.13. Ps. 110.13. Es. 14.1.44.5.60.8. Zach. 4.6.8.21.22.23.  and joined together by voluntary profession of the Faith of Christ in the Fellowship of the Gospel. Out of which if I mistake not you would conclude the justness of your separation thus.    

Where there is not a company of people called and separated from the world and joined together as above, there is not a true visible Church, and consequently Separation ought to be made from it.  
But in England there is not a company of people so called and separated from the world, and so joined together.  
Ergo, in England there is not a true visible Church, and consequently separation ought to be made from it.  
I distinguish of the middle term Called: for there is a double calling, the one is Gratiae oblatae, where by God only invites men unto Christ, and offers them Grace, the other Gratiae inditae & infusae, whereby he not only offers but infuseth grace also into them. The former Calling maketh not a man of the Church: for he that is no otherwise called, answereth not by Faith, nor cometh unto Christ, but remaineth still in infidelity, and so is utterly excluded out of the Church. Of the latter Calling I distinguish again, for it is either that whereby he bestoweth upon man Faith of Doctrine, or that whereby over and above he gives them justification together with true Sanctification. Faith of Doctrine is either a Partial or an Entire Faith: a Partial Faith whereby part only of the Christian verity is held, or an Entire Faith by which the whole saving truth is believed and professed: And this again either in Unity or in Schism, in Unity with other Churches of God, or in Schism with Separation from them. Now all these and everyone of them are of the Christian Church: for they are neither Gentiles, nor jews, nor Turks, being by the calling of grace brought to the profession of the Christian Religion. But yet among them there is exceeding great difference: for they that hold the entire truth of Christ are of that Christian Church, which is called Oxthodoxall: they that hold it in part only, are of that Christian Church which is Heretical. They that entirely hold the truth in Unity with other Churches of God, are of that Christian Orthodoxal Church which is Catholic: they that hold the same whole truth in Separation from them are of that Christian Orthodoxal Church which is Schismatical. And such is the Church of Brownists to which you have adjoined your self. But they who hold the whole truth of Christ not only in Unity but also in Sincerity, being truly justified by Faith and Sanctified in the lavour of Regeneration, they I say are of that Christian Orthodoxal Catholic Church which is Invisible and known only unto God. For although both the persons and profession of those that are thus called, be visible, and may by outward sense be discerned, whereby in the eye of Charity they are to be counted Gods elect people: yet the inward truth and sincerity of the heart is to us invisible, and seen of none but only him who trieth the heart and raines, and so alone knoweth who are his.  
These distinctions thus promised I come at length to answer your Syllogism, and demand of you which of these Callings it is that you mean. If the last, whereby we have received entirely to believe the whole truth of Christ, and that not only in Unity, but also in Sincerity and with a sanctified heart: then I deny the Mayor, for it is not the Visible but the Invisible Church alone that consists of such members. Neither can such a Visible Church be found upon the face of the earth: for here corn and cockle, chaff and wheat, Saints and hypochrits are mingled together, neither can you affirm other of that Church whereunto now you associate yourself. If you mean any other of the Callings above mentioned, or all of them besides this last, than I deny your Minor. For here in England we are a company of people to whom not only grace hath been offered, but who also have received grace to believe the truth of Christ, and therefore are not Infidels but of the Church of Christ. Again we have received to believe the whole truth, and therefore are an Oxthodoxall not an Heretical Church. Lastly, we hold the whole truth of God in Unity with other Churches, and amongst us there are thousands also who profess the same with sincere and sanctified hearts, and therefore we are not a Schismatical as you are, but a true Catholic Church. This Minor thus denied you go not about to strengthen with so much as one argument, and yet hither should you have bend all your forces. About the Mayor you bestow a little more pains, endeavouring to fortify it with six reasons: which although they be to little purpose, yet to give you the more satisfaction, let us briefly examine them. And first that which is in order first.  


1. Cor. 12.27. Exod. 19.5.6. 1. Cor. 14.33. 1. Tim. 3.15. Mat. 13.24.31. Psal. 46.4.5.80.1. 1. Pet. 2.5.9. Rev. 1.11.12.13.20.  1. Because a true visible Church is the body of Christ, a Kingdom of Priests, a Church of Saints, the household of God, the Kingdom of heaven, the City of God, the sheep of the Lord, a chosen generation, a golden Candlestick etc.  
These titles properly belong unto the invisible Church consisting of those who are effectually called by saving grace. And when they are said & affirmed of any visible Church, you must understand that the denomination is in regard of the better part thereof, namely those Saints who have received the spirit of adoption, the earnest penny of their everlasting inheritance, not that no evil men are mixed with them. In Corinth and Galatia as there were many holy and faithful servants of God, so were there many lewd and  men also: for it is well known that they were much pestered both with error in doctrine, and corruption in manners. And yet the Apostle S. Paul never sticketh at it to acknowledge them visible Churches: which I am sure he would not have done, had he thought that the mixture of bad and good in the same society did nullify a Church. Nay rather if he had been of your humour he would have advized a separation.   

1. How should it else have Christ for the Prophet, Priest, 
Heb. 3.1.2.3. & 5, 6.9. &. 12.28. Mat. 28.18.19.20. Ps. 110.1.4.1. Pet. 2.4.5.25. Act. 2.41.47. Eph. 1.22.23.2.19.22.  & King thereof? or how should men know where to join and become members of the body of Christ, with assurance to have him their head? etc.  
It is the Invisible Church, the Church of the first borne, as S. Paul calleth it, whose names are enroled in heaven, 
Heb. 12.23.  unto which Christ properly and univocally is a Prophet, Priest, and King. For he is a Head in such manner unto those only who are knit together with him in the same mystical body by the unity of the same spirit, and to whom he communicateth from himself the sweet influence of life, sense, motion, even grace for grace, 
joh. 1.16.  as S. john speaketh. Is he not then a Head also of the visible Church? yes, as it is a Church: it is a Church equivocally, and so is Christ the Head thereof. For hypocrites and wicked men mingled with the good are not members of Christ, as Ambrose saith, but of the devil, and therefore Christ properly is not their Head, Head, and Body being Correlatives. Who are Elected and by true justifying Faith are engrafted into Christ's body you may charitably judge, but cannot certainly know: for God only knoweth who are his. Nevertheless where you see a Society of men professing entirely and in unity the truth of Christ, join yourself unto them, knowing that they are a Christian orthodoxal Catholic Church. And assure yourself that there are among them sundry who are the dear Saints of God and profess the truth in sincerity and uprightness of heart also: which if you shall do together with them, you need not doubt but you shall have Christ to be your head.   


Mat. 28.18.19.20. 2. Cor. 6.17.18. Leu. 26.11.12. Ps. 46.4.5. Es. 59.20.21. Ez. 37.27.28. & 48.35.  3. How should it else have assurance of the promises & seals of God's Covenant, presence, and blessing to belong and appertain unto them?  
The promises of Christ are proclaimed in such mixed companies unto all on condition of faith & repentance, though actually performed unto those only who actually have performed the condition by repenting and believing. And to these the Seals of the Covenant of grace, the presence of God, & his blessings do appertain also. If then you would be assured that both the promises & seals belong unto you, join yourself to such companies, and perform the condition with them, and the Spirit of adoption will certify and assure you thereof. If you will not, you must seek out of the world, or hang ever in doubt: for in the world there are none but such companies.   


Act. 2.41.42.47.11.21.24.18.27. Mat. 18.17.20. 1. Cor. 5.4.5.12.13. Ps. 149.9.  4. How else should it have or use the power of Christ to receive in members joining unto them, or to cast out such as are obstinate offenders?  
It is true there is a power given by Christ unto the Church ●o receive into their Society such as profess the entire Faith of Christ in Unity: but whether they profess the same in sincerity also, that the Church cannot tell, and yet receives them. Again she hath power to censure and cast out obstinate offenders: but yet hereby it appears that the Church visible is a mingled company, and that offenders are to be accounted members thereof until by a legal proceeding they be cut off. Suppose that the Church grow remiss in denouncing offenders, and tolerate them too much: this argues that corruption is crept into the Church, not that is no Church.   

5. Because that every Church as they have Communion with Christ, and are one body with him: 
1. Cor. 10.16.17. Hag. 2.12.14. 1. Cor. 5.6. Num. 19.13.20.22. & 5.2.3. Heb. 12.15.  so have they Communion also one with another, and are all one body: and by communion with open wicked retained among them are all defiled.  
The members of every Church have (I grant) both Union and Communion one with another: the Christian Church in the Christian Faith, the Orthodoxal Church in the entire Christian Faith, the Catholic Church in the entire Christian Faith with Unity, the Invisible Church in the entire Christian Faith with Unity and Sanctity. This last Union and Communion is only among the Saints: the former may be both between good and bad. That if you speak of, you speak not of a Visible Church; and so nothing to the purpose: this if you speak of, you speak untruly, as we have showed.  
Moreover, to say that the toleration or presence of open wicked sinners in the Church defiles either the godly or the holy things of the godly, is to make the sin of the wicked more powerful to hinder the descent of heavenly blessings, than Christ's love and union with us is available to convey them unto us. And then was Christ much to blame, who suffered the Sacrament even at the first institution to be polluted with judas presence. But you should consider that private conversation is one thing, and public Church-meetings another; which you ignorantly confounding beguile yourself. Privately you may refuse at pleasure to converse with the wicked: in public assemblies you cannot avoid them. That is in your own power, but to remove them thence is in the Magistrates only.   


Ps. 84.10. Cant. 16.7. Os. 2.2.19.20. 2. Cor. 6.15. Reu. 1.11.12.20.17.1.5.  6 How else should a true and visible Church be truly and rightly distinguished from all false Churches?  
Here at length have you discovered unto us the very ground of your error, in that you cannot see how a true visible Church can be distinguished from a false, if notorious offenders be suffered to have any communion therein. Learn then that true and false Churches are differenced by having or wanting the form and essence of a Church. The Christian Church is discerned from Heathenish, jewish, Turkish congregations by the Christian Faith; an Orthodox Church from an Heretical by an entire Faith: a Catholic from a Schismatical by an entire Faith held in Unity: and the Invisible Church from all other by the Sanctity of every member: but this is known to God only, the rest may be discerned by man also. You ought therefore to put a difference between a Corrupt Church and a false Church. A false Church wanteth the essence and therefore is no Church: a corrupt Church wanteth only the purity it should have, yet having the essence it is a Church. Which if you had well considered you would not have condemned our Church (if yet so corrupt as you ween) for no Church, unless you would also say a sick man were no man: much less would you have rend yourself from it.  
And thus you see your second ground fails you also, and that you have not demonstrated that sound members are to separate themselves from the communion of the whole body because of a few rotten members. Now therefore except you have stronger arguments than here you have sent me, or can add more strength and virtue to these: I must entreat you to remember your promise that if it could appear by evident remonstrance that your grounds were sandy & deceitful, you would retire yourself into the bosom of that Church out of which you have so scandalously withdrawn yourself. Which if you shall sincerely do, you shall both quit yourself of the fearful sin of Schism into which you are fallen, and reunite yourself unto as glorious a Church, as I verily believe hath been since the Apostolical and Primitive times.  
Remember from whence thou art fallen and repent.  Reuel. 2.5.    

OF VOWS AND SPECIALLY THAT OF VIRGINITY.  
YOUR desire to be resolved touching the vow of Virginity or Single life, both how lawful it is, & how fare it binds. I will endeavour to satisfy you as briefly and plainly as I can: first showing you what is the nature and definition of a vow in general, and then applying it unto your particular question for the more easy and fuller determination thereof.  
1. A vow rightly defined is a promise made unto God of things lawful, by such as have power so to do, thereby to testify their affection and duty towards him. This short definition containing the whole and entire nature of a lawful Vow, I will for your better understanding unfold in the several parts thereof.  
2. I call it a Promise not a Purpose: for a Purpose being only an inclination of the mind to do something, binds not unto performance, and is alterable without sin: But a Promise comprehendeth both a Purpose and Obligation also, binding the Conscience unto performance: absolutely, if the form of the Promise be absolute, conditionally if conditional.  
3. And this promise whether it be internally conceived in the heart or externally uttered by the mouth, it is all one unto God, who understandeth as well the language of the one as of the other. Yet as in Praying so in Vowing speech is not unprofitable, the solemnity thereof both more inwardly affecting ourselves, and by example more edifying others.  
4. The Party to whom Vows are to be directed is God only: for it is a part of divine worship, and enjoined in the third commandment. A part of divine worship I say simply if it be of things commanded, if of things indifferent accidentally only, inasmuch as it is referred to the worship of God, and therefore cannot without sacrilege be given to any creature.  
5. 
Theol. Pract. comp. tract. 2. c. 8. art. 33.  How then can the Popish Church vowing unto Saints quit herself of notorious Idolatry? specially seeing by the confession of Molanus a principal champion of hers, a Vow is an act of latria, that is of such worship as is due unto God. Neither can she cloak her Superstition, with any show of Scripture: 
De cult. Sanct. c. 9  for Bellarmin himself freely acknowledgeth, that when the holy Scriptures were written, the custom of vowing unto Saints was not yet begun.  
6. The matter of a vow is things lawful, whether they be necessary as being commanded, or arbitrary as being neither forbidden nor commanded. For that duties commanded may be vowed appeareth even by the vow in Baptism. 
In Psal. 46.  And although virtues, as Chrysostom saith, be due unto God albeit they be not promised: yet what letteth but what God bindeth us unto by precept, we by vow as by a new knot may also bind ourselves unto.  

De Monach. c. 19  7. Bellarmin indeed is bold and affirmeth that it is the common opinion of Divines, that the Promise in Baptism is not properly a vow: 
Instit. Mor. l. 11. c. 14.  but Azorius his fellow. jesuite can tell him otherwise, that the ancient Divines together with the Master of the Sentences seem to think that Baptism is a vow properly and truly so called.  
8. That things of an indifferent and middle nature may also be Vowed is granted of all hands, God having permitted unto the Church and members thereof judgement and dispensation of them. Yet this must be understood with caution: for seeing as Saint Paul saith, those things that are lawful are not always expedient, and things otherwise lawful may in regard of circumstance become unlawful, those indifferent things that are invested with such circumstances cease during the while to be the matter of a Vow.  
9 justly therefore are excluded from being the matter of a Vow, first all such actions as are in their own nature evil, next such as hinder a greater good, than those that cross the general Vow made in Baptism, farther such as are impossible and out of our power, moreover such as are frivolous and unprofitable, finally those things that are naturally necessary, and if there be any other beside of the like quality.  
10. I add farther by such as have power so to do: for none may Vow but they who by their vocation have liberty thereunto. Now this vocation in regard of things commanded extendeth universally unto all, and therefore it is free for every man to vow them. But in respect of things indifferent it stretcheth not so fare: For first they who by reason of age or distemper have not the use of reason or judgement, secondly they who are under the authority, and jurisdiction of others, having not power of themselves because of their calling may not nor cannot lawfully vow without the consent and good liking of their superiors. 
Num. 30.   
11. This condemns the impious practice of Popish Friars, who inveigle young youths from the obedience of their parents, and without their consents entangle them in the vow of Monastical life, treading directly in the steps of their Great-grand-father Eustathius, against whose wicked doctrine the Council of Gangra thus decreed, 
Can. 16.  If any children shall forsake their Parents especially being faithful upon occasion of Religion thinking it just so to do, and shall not rather perform due honour unto them, reverencing even this in them that they are faithful let them be accursed.  
12. Finally the End of a Vow is partly to testify our affection to God, as namely our thankfulness for benefits received: and partly our duty in carefulness to prevent sin, and to preserve and increase God's graces in us. In a word it serves as an instrument or helping means to further our obedience to God's Laws. And because the End itself is of greater importance than the means conducing unto the End, surely Obedience must needs be better than Sacrifice, that is, than the Vow which fitteth only unto it.  
13. The Romish Church therefore teaching that vows are of greater perfection in this life, and deserve an higher degree of glory in the next, than the very works of the Moral law, cannot be excused of manifest blasphemy. 
Comment. in Mat. 19  Which it seems Cardinal Cajetan also saw when he said, that Christ prescribeth no vow to him that will obtain perfection of life: because the obtaining of perfection consisteth not in the bonds of vows but in the works themselves.  
14. This being the true nature and definition of a vow, I conclude as touching the Obligation or bond thereof, that every vow thus made unto God, in such Form, of such Matter, by such Persons, to such End, as we have said, bindeth the Conscience unto performance: in so much as the breach thereof is no less than mortal sin, and very dishonourable unto God. For if lawful promises are to be held with men, much more with God. 
Psal. 15.  And if we be slack to pay them he will surely require them of us, and so should it be sin unto us.  

Deut. 23.21.  15. But what if a man have rashly vowed that which is unlawful? Surely in such a case it is better to retract the vow, then by keeping it to add sin unto sin. For a vow, saith the Canon, may not be the bond of iniquity: and excellently to this purpose counselleth Philo the jew, 
De leg. spec.  Let such a one therefore abstain, saith he, and humbly entreat God of his Clemency to pardon the unadvised rashness whereby he was so headlongly carried to swear: for to double the offence when thou mayst discharge thyself of the one half, is extreme madness, and scarcely ever curable.  
16. Now let us apply what hath been said unto the particular vow of virginity, or single life. And first whereas nothing may be the Matter of a vow but that which is lawful, and things lawful are of two sorts, either simply and morally good, or arbitrary and indifferent: surely Virginity cannot be ranked in the first order. For to use no other than Gersons reasons, 
P. 3. de Consil. Euang. & stat. perfect.  Moral virtues are commanded, and are not destroyed but by vice, and being lost may be recovered by repentance. But Virginity is no where commanded, and is destroyed by Matrimony which is no sin (although Pope Syricius heretically call it uncleanness and pollution of the flesh) and being lost cannot possibly be recovered. And therefore howsoever it may give a kind of lustre and grace unto virtue, yet virtue it can be none.  
17. Hereupon it followeth that Virginity and Marriage are not in themselves acceptable unto God one more than another, but that it is the mind which rightly useth both the one and the other which is pleasing unto him: and that they are rather diverse sorts of life, than differences or degrees of living better or worse. Specially, seeing as Gregory Nazianzen saith, 
In laud Basil.  A man may in marriage attain as great glory of virtue as in Virginity or single life. In a word it is only a matter of indifferency.  
10. And being indifferent, although in itself to be lawful and free, yet (according to the nature of indifferent things) circumstance may alter the lawfulness and freedom of it unto particular persons. As namely to those who want either the Calling, or the Gift: the Gift by which they know themselves able to contain, the Calling by which they are in their own power, and to dispose of themselves for their state of life.  
19 That every one hath not the Calling because it is evident; I will spare labour to prove it. That every one hath not the gift, our Saviour Christ himself witnesseth saying, 
Mat. 19 ●1. 12.  All men cannot receive this saying but they to whom it is given, and again, He that is able to receive this let him receive it: 
1. Cor. 7.7.9.  and Saint Paul, Every man hath his proper gift of God, and if he cannot contain. Whereupon Saint Hierome, 
Contr. jovin. l. 1.  If all could be Virgins our Lord Christ would never have said, He that can receive it, let him receive it: 
Contr. julian. l. 5. c. 10.  otherwise as Saint Augustin saith, He might have said, All receive not this saying but they that will, if it be true which they say.  
20. Now they that want the Calling and yet Vow so, transgress the fift Commandment withdrawing their obedience from their superiors in those things wherein they own obedience. 
Ep. 199.  In regard whereof S. Augustin sharply reproveth Editia for Vowing continency without her husband's consent. And they that want the Gift so doing intolerably abuse, and in most presumptuous manner tempt the Divine Majesty, promising unto him impossibilities, or which they are not assured they can perform. So that unto those which either want liberty by reason of the Calling, or ability in respect of the Gift, such a Vow is utterly unlawful.  
21. But perhaps you will say, the Gift may be obtained by Fasting and Prayer, Christ himself having thus promised, Ask and you shall have. First grant it be so, yet is it very preposterous first to vow, and then to seek for the Gift: 
Pro. 20.25.  for as Solomon saith, It is a snare for a man after the vow to make inquiry. Otherwise I deny not but a man may vow Continence if he be already assured of the Gift, and that he can contain.  
22. Neither doth it follow that every one which by Prayer seeketh the Gift shall obtain it. For the promise is to be understood of those necessary gifts without which there is no salvation, and not of those extraordinary & peculiar gifts, the want of which no way hindereth salvation. Those if we ask in Faith we shall surely obtain: these if we ask we have no assurance to obtain, 
In carm. de rebus suis & decalam animae suae. Ad Eustoch. de custod. virg.  because we may be saved without them. Surely Gregory Nazianzen much complaineth of the inordinate boiling of his lusts in his old age, which he had happily repressed in his youth. And Hierome also confesseth that notwithstanding he had been the companion of scorpions and wild beasts in the wilderness, notwithstanding his face was pale with fasting, his body cold, and his flesh dead, yet the fires & heats of lust still were burning in him.  
23. But saith Doctor Bishop, Continency is necessary to salvation unto all those that have Vowed it: for the breach of the Vow is dishonour unto God, and damnation unto themselves, and therefore being necessary, we shall using the means assuredly obtain it. This is right to subject the providence of God in the dispensation of these peculiar gifts unto our temerity and rashness. I beseech you, if a man have vowed to prophesy, or to speak with strange tongues, or to work miracles, must God needs bestow those gifts upon him upon his importunate suit, lest otherwise he should break his vow, and hazard his salvation?  
24. Nay rather let such a one humbly repent and beg pardon for his rashness, that he hath so unadvisedly entangled himself in such a desperate snare: and let him in the Name of God use the remedy which God hath appointed; that is as Saint Paul saith, to marry, For saith he, If they cannot contain, let them marry: 
1. Cor. 7.9.  for it is better to marry then to burn.  
25. This indeed, they say, is good and wholesome counsel for others: but as for Votaries, it is a greater sin, 
Sleid. come. l. 4.  saith Cardinal Campegius, for them to marry then to keep many whores at home. A Priest marrying, saith Coster, sinneth more grievously than if he keep a Concubine. 
Euch. c. 15.  Both are evil to marry and to burn, saith Bellarmine, but the worse of the two is to marry. Thus you see, having once past the bounds of modesty, how egregiously impudent and shameless they are grown.  

l. 1. ep. 11.  26. But of a fare different opinion was Cyprian, If they who have dedicated themselves to Christ cannot or will not persevere, it is better for them to marry, then through wantonness to fall into the fire. 
Haer. 61. Apostoli●i.  And Epiphanius, Better is it for a man that is fallen from his course of virginity or single life, publicly according to the law to take a wife unto him, and a long time to repent him of falling from virginity, and so to be restored into the Church again, and not daily to be wounded with secret darts, by the wickedness which the Devil bringeth upon him. Thus the Church useth to teach and with these medicines she healeth. The same is the counsel both of Hierome and Augustin.  
27. And what madness is it for a man having inconsiderately vowed that which he cannot perform, not to remedy himself by marriage which is the ordinance of God, but by fornication, whoredom, and unnatural Sodomitry, which are the works of the Devil? Is not this with the old Giants furiously to war against God himself? And what barbarous cruelty is it so to tyrannize over the Consciences of men in regard of their unavoidable infirmities, that either they must inwardly burn in the scorching flames of filthy lust, or quenching them with the sins of fornication or adultery or that which is worse thrust themselves headlong into the unquenchable fire of Hell? But were it not for this doctrine of Devils we should want one principal argument to prove that Church to be Antichristian.  
28. Which Antichrist, together with his Devilish doctrines, as thou hast already begun to consume with the blast of thy mouth: so Come Lord jesus come quickly, that thou mayst finally also abolish them with the brightness of thy coming. In the mean season of thy goodness either grant us the Gift, or sanctify the means unto us, that keeping ourselves clean both in body and soul, we may be presented unto thee as pure and unspotted Virgins in the last day. Amen.   

A LETTER.  
Instead of a few words which I promised to write you, I have here sent this little treatise, which if you diligently read and peruse, it will more fully inform and resolve you then I should have done. Nevertheless, that I may in some sort discharge my promise, and not altogether fail your expectation, in few words thus. I would wish you diligently to remember that to be grieved and troubled for sin is a necessary duty, and that it ought to be so. For as in the pool of Bethesda there could be no cure wrought until the Angel had troubled the water: so neither is there any remission of sins and healing of the soul, until by the work of God's Spirit the heart be bruised and broken. When such an Angel as Peter was, shall by his powerful preaching have pricked the Conscience, and made men both to see their sin, and to feel the misery thereof: then and not before do they cry out, Men and Brethren what shall we do? Sorrow for sin is a blessed sorrow. A broken and contrite spirit God never yet despised. Those, and those alone who feel the heavy load and burden of their sins doth Christ invite unto him, and unto them doth he promise refreshment. He that oftentimes watered his couch with his tears, and as oftentasted the sweet consolations of God's blessed Spirit, hath out of his experience seriously affirmed that whosoever soweth in tears shall surely reap in joy, and a day of rejoicing shall ever succeed the night of mourning. And to speak the truth, sorrow was made for nothing but for sin. A potion is made only for that disease which it is able to cure: and sorrow for that only which it is able to remedy. Loss of friends, health, wealth and the like were never yet recovered with weeping: but the tears of true repentance have ever cleansed the soul from sin, and purchased both pardon and favour from God. Sorrow therefore was made only for sin. Mourn then in God's name for your sins: but yet take heed you mourn not as those that are without hope. You cannot do a greater wrong unto the infinite mercy of God, and the invaluable merits of Christ your Saviour, then to think them less than your sins or demerits. If Satan suggest any such thing unto you, spare him not, but tell him he lies: for God's goodness cannot be outreached by man's wickedness, and where sin doth abound, grace doth much more abound. If your sins were as red as scarlet, yet upon your true repentance God both can and will make you as white as snow: And of your repentance you cannot well make doubt, there being in you, as you have confessed unto me, both hearty sorrow for sins past, and unfeigned resolution of amendment for the time to come, which are the two essential parts of true repentance. Yea but you have committed that sin which is unto death and can never be forgiven nor in this nor in the next world. If so, to what end do you seek unto me for comfort? And why do I wast paper in writing unto you? But upon what ground have you entertained this conceit? Forsooth you have often sworn and forsworn against your knowledge. I will not extenuate your sin: it is I confess grievous and fearful, neither would I willingly hinder you from a long penance in sackcloth and ashes for the same. Howbeit I would advice you to steer right between these two dangerous gulfs: for as you must not make molehills of mountains, nor frailties of furies, so neither must you of every sin, though otherwise heinous and enormous make that unpardonable sin against the Holy Ghost. It is not often swearing or cursing, no nor forswearing or perjury and the like, which God neither can nor will forgive. For then what should become of that worthy Apostle Saint Peter, who forswore his Lord and Saviour, even against his Conscience, and that not once but thrice, with most horrible execration and cursing? you have not sinned in so high a nature as Peter did, nevertheless now that Christ looketh back upon you as he did on him, touching your heart with consideration of what you have done, I give you good leave to go forth with him and to weep as bitterly as you can. But despair not of pardon, nor count it the sin against the Holy Ghost, for so did not he. That sin is no less than a wilful, malicious, and obstinate denying of the foundation, namely that jesus is the Mediator and Redeemer of the world. It is a total apostasy from the Faith, when the whole man revolteth from the whole Christian Religion wholly, with an obstinate resolution never to return to it any more. This sin I know you are fare from, and you dare not say you have committed it. Neither is it possible for him that is guilty thereof to do as you now a long time have done, that is to mourn and lament for his sins. His stubborn and reprobate heart is not so tender, but being past all sorrow and feeling rather rejoiceth in his desperate and malicious obstinacy. More I might write, but let this little book I send you be instead thereof. It remaineth that henceforward you play the valiant soldier of Christ, and suffer not yourself any longer to be led by passion, but only by the rules and directions of God's blessed Word. For my part I will not cease to pray unto the Father of our Lord jesus Christ for you, that this prick may be eftsoons taken from you: or if for you further exercise and trial he delay you a little longer, that yet your Faith may settle and rest upon that answer which God gave unto Paul being in the like case, My grace is sufficient for thee. Farewell.   

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY IS TRULY Deipara, the Mother of GOD.  
THIS Proposition either in express or equivalent terms hath ever been held by all Orthodox writers both ancient and modern: specially those who have lived since Nestorius broached the contrary heresy. This Nestorius about four hundred years after Christ was Patriarch of Constantinople, who when his Chaplain Anastasius had publicly taught, that the blessed Virgin Mary ought not to be called the Mother of God, was so fare, saith Socrates, from checking in him these blasphemies against Christ, 
L. 7. c. 32.  that he maintained him in it, and rejected himself the word Deipara, 
Euagr. l. 1. c. 7.  or Mother of God. Wherefore he was banished into the I'll Oasis: where he died miserably, having his accursed tongue eaten out with worms. But as I say the Church of God hath ever held and defended the contrary, which I prove by unanswerable reasons. And.  

Can. 1.  First by general Counsels. In the Council of Ephesus it was thus decreed. Whosoever confesseth not the holy Virgin to be Genitricem Dei, the Mother of God, let him be anathema. The Council of Chalcedon confirmed the same, 
Act. 5.  ratifying the Acts of the Ephesine Council. And the fift Council of Constantinople thus defines, If any say the glorious Virgin Mary is not truly but abusively Genitrix Dei, that is, the Mother of God, let him be Anathema or accursed.  
Secondly, by ancient Fathers both before and since Nestorius, 
In ad Rom.  who all style her Deiparam, the Mother of God. Origen largely discourses, and renders many reasons why she should be so called. Eusebius Pamphili saith, that the Empress Helena honoured Deiparae partum, 
In vita Constantini.  the birth of the Mother of God. Cyrill of Alexandria precedent in the foresaid Council of Ephesus in his Anathematisms sent to Nestorius saith that Marie genuit, 
In Conc. Eph.  carnally begat him that was made flesh, even the Word of God: and anathematizeth them that deny her to be Genitricem Dei, 
Epist. 1. ad. Chelid.  the Mother of God. Gregory Nazianzen, If any believe not the Virgin Mary to be Genitricem Dei, the Mother of God, 
Ep. 97. ad Leon. Aug.  let him be separated from God. Leo, Accursed be Nestorius, who believed not the Blessed Virgin to be Dei Genitricem, the Mother of God. john Cassian, It is not lawful to say Christ and not God is borne of Mary. 
L. 2. de. Incar.  Prosper of Aquitani, The Virgin Mary bare Christ who is God of Heaven. Hesychius, 
L. 1. come. in. Leu. 2.  Therefore to note the Nativity of Christ; the Sacrifice is said to be baked in an oven, to wit in the Womb Genitricis Dei, of the Mother of God. Augustin, Mary therefore begat, 
Cont. Faelic. c. 12.  and begat not the Son of God. She begat him when Christ was borne of her according to the flesh: She begat him not when the Son without beginning issued from the Father. Vincentius Lirinensis, Anathema to Nestorius denying God to be borne of the Virgin. Many more Fathers I could easily allege, 
Ca 21.  but I presume one Decade of such witnesses is evidence sufficient.  
Thirdly, by latter writers of the reformed Churches, 
Inst. l. 2. c. 14. §. 4.  who maintain the same Faith of the Fathers. Caluin, We are to abhor the Heresy of Nestorius, that was, that Mary is not the Mother of God. Again, He that is the Son of God, the same is the Son of Mary. Beza, 
Refer. Scr.  The Church hath rightly defined against Nestorius, 
In Luc. 1.35.  that Mary should be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Mother of God. Peter Martyr, We confess that the Son of God is borne of the Blessed Virgin, neither doubt we to call Marry 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Dial. de Corp. Christ. loc.  the Mother of God. Sadeel, justly was Nestorius condemned, denying the holy Virgin to be Deiparam, the Mother of God, seeing our ancestors have constantly defended that Mary is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Mother of God, 
De ver. hum. nat. Christ.  though not the Mother of the Divinity. Danaeus, 
In Aug. de haer. c. 91. Part. l. 1.  It is manifest that Mary may and aught to be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Mother of God. Polanus, It is rightly said of Christ that he is God borne of the Virgin. 
Loco de Christ.  Bucanus placeth among doctrines repugnant to divine truth this of Nestorius, that Mary is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Mother of God. Tilenus, The Blessed Virgin is truly called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Mother of God. 
Synt. de Nat. Christ. n. 19 Ser. c. 18. On Creed.  Perkins, Hence Mary is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Mother of God though she be not the Mother of the Deity. And, She must be held to be the Mother of the whole Christ God and Man: and therefore the ancient Church hath called her the Mother of God, yet not the Mother of the Godhead. 
Praemonit.  Finally the great defender of the ancient Catholic and Apostolic Faith King JAMES, I acknowledge her to be the Mother of God, seeing in jesus Christ the humane nature cannot be separated from the Deity.  
Fourthly, by the Creed of the Apostles so universally received of all Churches: wherein all true Christians profess, that they believe in jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of the Father, and that he was conceived of the Holy Ghost, and borne of the Virgin Mary. If the eternal son of God were borne of the blessed Virgin, then must she needs be the Mother of God. The Creed therefore of the Council of Chalcedon thus expoundeth and openeth it, Borne of the Blessed Virgin and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mother of God.  
Neither may we think that the holy Church of Christ hath unadvisedly or rashly believed this doctrine: but upon firm and unmoveable grounds both of Scripture and the analogy of Faith. For first Scripture evidently teacheth it. That holy thing which shall be borne of thee, shall be called the Son of God, saith the Angel Gabriel: and Elizabeth, whence cometh thus that the Mother of my Lord should come to me? By which place saith Beza, it is expressly manifest against Nestorius that Mary is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Mother of God. Again, if Mary be the Mother of jesus Christ, and Christ be God, it followeth of necessity that she must be the Mother of God. Nay doth not the Prophet directly say that the child borne unto us is the mighty God? In a word, 
Esa. 9.6.  it will not I trust be denied, but that Mary is the Mother of him that was Crucified, that died, that shed his blood, that was seen with the eye, and felt with the hand. 
1. Cor. 2.8. Phil. 2.8. Act. 20. 1. joh. 1.2.  But it was the Lord of glory that was Crucified, that was obedient to the death, that shed his blood: it was the Lord of life that was both seen and felt. And therefore is Mary also the Mother of the Lord of glory, the Mother of the Lord of life, the Mother of him that is equal with God, and consequently God, seeing none is equal unto God but God.  
As Scripture, so the Analogy of Faith also confirmeth it. For no reason can be rendered why Mary should not be the Mother of God, but either because Christ is not God, or because the humanity was the subject of Conception and Birth before it was assumpted by the Word, or lastly because the Humanity was never assumpted into the Unity of the same Person, but remained a distinct person by itself: all which were the damnable blasphemies and heresies of Arius, Photinus, and Nestorius, the first of Arius, the second of Photinus, the third of Nestorius. Therefore contrariwise I argue thus, If Christ be God, and the Humanity were at the first creation thereof prevented from subsisting in itself, and never had subsistence but in the Word, so as both Natures constitute one only Hypostasis or Person: certainly there cannot be two Sons, one of God, and another of Mary, but the Son of God must needs be the Son of Mary, and so Mary be the Mother of the Son of God. And as by reason of this Hypostatical union Christ himself doubted not to say, The Son of Man came down from heaven: so the same analogy and proportion of Faith requires us to say, The Son of God is borne of the Virgin Mary, which as Vincentius Lirinensis saith, is most catholickly believed, and most impiously denied.  
Much more might be added hereunto: but to them that judge of persons by the Faith this is too much, and enough even to them that judge of Faith by Persons. Only from hence I infer first that Titius confounding Papists in open pulpit for calling the blessed Virgin Deiparam, the Mother of God, either knew not what he said, and so proved himself but a novice in Divinity: or if he spoke advisedly and out of judgement, it was no less than professed heresy. Secondly that I disapproving Titius therein, cannot justly be taxed of tricks or niceties or spirit of contradiction, unless together with me, Counsels, Fathers, Protestants, the Apostolical and Chalcedonian Creed, Scripture and the Analogy of Faith, undergo the same censure. Lastly, that as Seneca (otherwise an excellent Moralist) spoke very irregularly when he said Drunkenness would sooner be commended in Cato, than Cato condemned for his Drunkenness: so you (though else I persuade myself a sound and Orthodox Christian) much swerved from the rule of Piety and Faith, when you chose rather to excuse Nestorianisme in Titius, then with me to condemn him for it. And all least some who have over prodigally bestowed transcendent and immoderate praises upon him, should seem either too weak in judgement, or too strong in passion.   

M. ANTONIUS MURETUS his Institution for Children translated.  

MY Son while you are young  
These precepts learn of me:  
Bear them in mind not on your tongue,  
And let them practised be.   

First see you serve and fear  
The God of heaven above:  
Then Parents dear, and such as bear  
The room of Parent's love.   

To lie count it great shame:  
What thereby can you gain?  
If you have erred confess the same,  
So grace you may obtain.   

Seek learning greedily:  
Then learning what more sweet?  
By it you may most readily  
With wealth and honour meet.   

If any shall you chide  
When you have faulty been,  
Thank him therefore and then take heed  
He chide you not again.   

The man that speaks you fair  
Count him not strait your friend:  
He hates the child that doth him spare  
When as he doth offend.   

Who once hath you deceived  
With flattering words and fain:  
He when occasion is perceived  
Will you deceive again.   

If you be wise nor none,  
Nor every one believe:  
You lose your credit by the one,  
Th'other will you deceive.   

If sin you should commit,  
Or in your mind should plot:  
God who sees all things seethe it,  
Though man perceive it not.   

To none but friends well tried,  
Your secrecies reveal:  
And what you would have others hide,  
First you yourself conceal.   

Fix not your eye on things,  
Uncomely to be done:  
By wanton sights young tenderlings  
Soon take infection.   

Refrain and turn your ear  
From filthy ribaldry:  
Such as delight therein forbear  
To keep them company.   

Unpleasant if the root  
Of study seem to you:  
Yet doubtless sweet & wholesome fruit  
In time from thence will grow.   

If you in play delight,  
That pleasure soon decays:  
If in your book, the benefit  
Thereof remains always.   

If rest be moderate,  
Health it and strength doth breed:  
But dulls the spirits and doth rebate  
Wits edge if it exceed.   

Whiles others good you seek,  
Good to yourself you gain:  
Unless you loving be and meek,  
Love can you not obtain.   

Wonder not when you see,  
How wicked men do thrive:  
God will at length revenged be,  
Though he a while reprieve.   

If rest you seek and ease,  
Spare you no pains in youth:  
For after labour quietness  
With dignity ensueth.   

Look often in your glass,  
And beauty if you find,  
Beware you do it not deface  
With vices of the mind.   

But if therein you see,  
Yourself deformed and foul:  
Let that defect supplied be  
With virtues of the soul.   

Do not what you would dread  
To do if men did see:  
And let yourself to you instead  
Of many a witness be.   

To show you much should hear,  
And few should be your words:  
Nature to you a double ear,  
And but one tongue affords.   

Have care you oft behold,  
What you would safe should be:  
Thiefs seldom are with those things bold  
Which oft the eye doth see.   

Sloth fawns at first and fleeres,  
But ever ends in shame,  
Industry rigorous first appears,  
But breeds immortal fame.   

Or taste no wine, or it  
With store of water drench:  
For youth in wine to take delight  
Is fire with fire to quench.   

Let your looks modest be,  
Your speech courteous and kind:  
So doing shall you easily  
Much love and friendship find.   

In your desires let not  
Wealth more than virtue sway:  
Virtue by wealth cannot be got,  
But wealth by virtue may.   

What so you learn that strive  
To hold fast in your mind:  
Else draw you water in a siue  
And vainly beat the wind.   

Undiscreet anger flee:  
Then wrath what fouler vice?  
What moves thereto great praise will be  
To you if you despise.   

Elms high on mountains placed  
With storms are often beat:  
Whose fury shrubs do seldom taste  
That low in vales are set.   

So at the great man's gate  
Great dangers do attend:  
But ever to the mean estate,  
The heavens more safety send.   

A few words seasonably  
If children speak is fit:  
The one doth argue modesty,  
The other argues wit.   

The way to honest fame,  
Would you feign learn of me?  
'Tis this, be you in truth the same  
You would be thought to be.   

Who fears his Masters charge  
The rod he needs not fear:  
Who that contemns and runs at large  
The smart of this must bear.   

Thrice happy child that grows  
In virtue more than years:  
Deserved praise each one bestows  
On him above his peers.   

On him they look, to him  
They wish all happiness:  
But none vouchsafeth speech to them  
That rust in idleness.   

Them all men do despise,  
The vulgar them de●ide:  
Their parents scarce with patiented eyes  
Their presence can abide.   

Sin hurts not then alone  
When we the same commit:  
For use of sin makes us more prone  
And apt again to it.   

What so is good pursue,  
If hard at first it seem,  
Yet after use and practise due,  
You easy will it deem.   

The good turn you receive  
Extol you and confess:  
What you have done give others leave  
To praise, make you it less.   

When with utility  
Honesty cannot stand:  
You may not doubt but honesty  
Must have the upperhand.   

And thus to you my child  
These few rules I commend:  
Which well observed strange fruit will yield  
Unto you in the end.   

Mean while that God above  
Whose mighty word and will  
What ever is doth rule and move  
Bless your endeavours still.   

Whom early in the morn  
When you your bed forsake,  
And late at night when you return  
Sweet sleep again to take.   

Meekly upon your knee  
With humble vows attend:  
So pregnancy of wit will he  
And health of body send.   

Yea better things than these  
Will he unto you spare:  
Only refer all to his praise  
Both what you have and are.   

To my Daughter E. D. Written on her Bible.  

Sith you my child the child of wrath were borne,  
From sinful flesh deriving sinful stain:  
Into God's favour can you not return,  
If of the spirit you be not borne again.   

None are new borne but of immortal seed:  
That seed immortal is this word of truth.  
By it next under God I trust to breed,  
Your second birth who bred your former ruth.   

This will in you subdue each sinful lust,  
Your mind enlighten, and your hart create  
Pious to God, towards your neighbour just  
And to yourself sober and temperate.   

This season will your greener years with grace:  
And crown your head when you have run your race.    

A Prayer.  

MY sins o Lord have me unworthy made  
To lick the crumbs that from thy table fall;  
My guilty soul dares not for comfort call,  
That Now through famishment my strength doth fade:  
But thou dear Lord that veiled in mortal flesh  
For man's offence on bitter cross didst bleed:  
With bread of life my starved soul refresh.   

My soul doth thirst like to the parched ground,  
And humours moist are turned to summer's drought:  
Thy burning wrath this inward heat hath wrought,  
And fear of Hell my conscience doth confound.  
But lord thou art an everlasting well,  
Whence purest streams of living waters flow:  
O quench the flames wherein my hart doth glow,  
And on thy banks let me for ever dwell.   

Through stranger countries harborles I stray,  
From Paradise exiled, my native land:  
And angry Cherubin with burning brand  
Of my return doth intercept the way.  
Thou art the way sweet jesus thou the door,  
Yet harborles waist in a manger borne:  
O let my soul faint, weary, and forlorn,  
By thee reenter, then retire no more,   

Ah who is me, for opened are mine eyes,  
And now with shame my naked shame I see:  
My soul abashed fain would thy presence flee  
And sorry figleaves to her shame applies.  
But Lord thy wardrobes store can ne'er be spent,  
And whitest raiment thou dost sell for nought:  
O let the robe of justice forth be brought,  
Therewith t'invest this thriftless penitent.   

My soul, o Lord, is filled with strange disease,  
And cruel thiefs have wounded me so sore,  
That nought but wound I am and bloody gore,  
And on my life eternal death doth seize.  
But Lord thou art that good Samaritan,  
The skilfulst leech to salve a wounded hart:  
O let thy precious balms soon ease my smart,  
And dying soul preserve from endless bane.   

In deepest dungeon comfortless I lie,  
Ne of my debt can pay the lightest grain:  
My jailor Satan is, my sin the Chain,  
And bound with sin who can the bonds untie.  
But thou dear Lord hast broke the gates of Hell,  
And with thy dearest blood our debts dost pay:  
O cancel thou my bonds my debts defray,  
And from my hart all servile fear expel.  
Pined, thirsty, exiled, naked, sick, in jail,  
Feed, quench, return, cover, recover, bail.    

A Hymn unto Christ.  

LVte awake,  
Why sleepest thou so long?  
Come let us music make,  
And chant some holy song.  
My heart and voice shall with thy strings accord,  
To sing the praise of Christ my King and Lord.   

Brightest beam,  
Of brightest glory bred:  
The everlasting stream,  
From purest fountain shed.  
The light, the life, true God, chief good thou art.  
And of thy good to each wight dost impart.   

Then thou wast  
When time was not begun,  
Without thee nothing past,  
By thee all things were done.  
The earth, the sea, the air, the heavens above,  
By thee doth stand, doth flow, doth breath, do move.   

God thou art,  
Yet didst our nature take,  
Enduring bitter smart,  
A peace for us to make.  
Thy Cross, thy Wounds, thy Blood, thy Death, thy grave,  
Our sinful souls from endless death do save.   

Glorified  
Thou now in heaven dost reign,  
And for thy Saints provide  
A place there to remain,  
Where King is three in one, and one in three,  
Law perfect love, and term eternity.    

Lachrymae.  

IF by sighs, or tears, or cries,  
I could discharge the weight of grief,  
Which on my soul so heavy lies,  
Soon would I find relief.   

My sad heart would vapour sighs,  
Mine eyes would stream forth floods of tears,  
My voice with shrieks and doleful cries  
Would vent mine inward fears.   

But my soul too deep is wounded,  
Nor can my troubled spirit  
By sighs, or tears, or cries be lightened  
Of those sorrows me affright.   

Shallow are those fords that murmur,  
Slight sorrows soon complain:  
My heart, mine eyes, my voice astonished are  
With extreme disease and pain.   

Thus my woes emprizned in my breast.  
Still on me tyrannize:  
Happy, happy whose cares are blessed  
With sighs, with tears, with cries.   

Once dear Lord unworthy me  
With gracious eyes thou didst respect:  
Thou show'dst me joys that none can see  
But Saints in Christ elect.   

Now alas why dost thou frown?  
Why dost thou gnash thy teeth at me?  
From highest bliss why am I thrown  
To lowest misery.   

Shall thy wrath exceed thy mercy?  
Can pity cruel prove?  
Shall death and hell, and flames that never die  
Seize whom thou sometime didst love?   

Ah sweet jesus be my jesus,  
Though sin my soul have slain,  
Thy wine, thy oil, thy balm may life renew,  
And close up my wounds again.   

Why then am I with despair possessed  
Sith hope and grace I see?  
Kill me, kill me yet will I rest  
My steadfast faith on thee.    

The Spouse of Christ longing for, and rejoicing in her marriage with him.  

COme return, hast away,  
O thou whom my soul doth love:  
Lo thy spouse night and day  
Longs to rest with thee above,  
While thou tarriest all too long,  
Cruel tyrants me oppress,  
And triumph in my sad distress:  
Come therefore avenge my wrong,  
Ease my hart brimful of grief,  
O hast thee Lord and bring relief.   

Welcome joy, farewell woe  
Hither lo he speeds a main,  
Swift as hart, swift as roe,  
Skipping high on Bethers plain.  
Nightly shades are fled and gone,  
And now dawns that blessed day,  
That weds me to my love for aye.  
Now my foes lament and moan,  
justly doomed to darkest Hell,  
But I with Christ in heaven shall dwell.    

An Evening Prayer.  

O Holy and eternal light  
Defend us now this darksome night:  
Grant inward peace to troubled heart,  
To wearied sense sweet sleep impart.  
Whilst heavy eyes sleeps comfort take,  
O let our souls still on thee wake.   

Let thy right hand keep and protect  
From sleep of sin thy Saints elect.  
When sleep of death shall close our eyes,  
O let our souls ascend the skies.  
Mean while frail flesh shall rest from strife,  
Till death be swallowed up of life.    

A Soul distracted between Hope and Fear.  

HAte I deserve and yet for love I sue,  
I beg for life and yet death is my due  
Worthy I am that thou shouldst me reject,  
And yet I claim the crown of thine elect.   

Alas how may so bold a suit be heard?  
And sinful wretch obtain a Saints reward?  
Nay shall I not thy kindled wrath inflame  
Craving all good deserving nought but shame?   

Sin bids me fear yet still I hope for grace;  
Grace bids me hope, yet still I fear disgrace:  
While fear doth hope and hope doth fear restrain  
'Twixt fear and hope my heart is rend in twain.   

Wilt thou sweet jesus plead my cause for me?  
Alas my bare estate affords no fee:  
Yet if in form of poor to thee I fly,  
Thy word is past thou canst me not deny.   

Thee than mine advocate I entertain,  
By thee an easy suit I shall obtain:  
So double comfort shall my heart enjoy  
Of present grace and hope of future joy.    

Hope of Pardon.  

SHould I O Lord excuse or cloak my sin?  
Are thine eyes so dim that thou canst not see  
Can guilty soul thy gracious favour win?  
Or by righteous doom just reputed be?   

Thy crystal eyes my secret thoughts behold,  
Yea thou know'st them long ere they be conceived:  
Thou art not man to be corrupt with gold,  
Not by vain excuse canst thou be deceived.   

Yet will I not despair to gain  
Pardon for my great offences,  
Though justice doom eternal pain,  
With justice mercy still dispenses.   

When shall I then to those high joys aspire  
Which in heaven above thou reserust for me?  
Mount up my soul with wings of high desire,  
Till thou heaven enjoy what joy can there be.   

On barren earth sin is the seed we sow,  
And the crop we reap is but sorrow's gain:  
And if sometime from sin short pleasures grow,  
Sinful pleasures end in the eternal pain.   

Then sith on earth we reap no grain  
But short joys long sorrows bringing:  
O let me live where Angels reign,  
Then endless Alleluiah singing.    

The Epicure and Christian.  

Time doth haste,  
Life as a shadow flies:  
Breath as a vapour soon doth waste,  
And none returns that dies,   

Come let us banish woes,  
And live while life doth last:  
Crown we our heads with budding rose  
And of each pleasure taste.   

What though precise fools do us blame  
Shall we forgo content?  
Pleasure is substance, virtue name,  
And life will soon be spent.   

Time shall cease,  
Archangels tromp shall sing:  
Death shall his prisoners all release,  
And them to judgement bring.   

Then shall these sinful joys  
To endless wailing turn:  
And they that scorned virtue's choice  
In brimstone flames shall burn.   

Then they that erst fond Stoics  
Shall wisdom's children prove:  
When they among the Saints esteemed  
Shall reign with Christ above.    

A Sinners appeal from justice to Mercy.  

AY me from me my wont joys are fled,  
And saddest grief on my poor hart hath seized:  
Thy mortal sting o sin this woe hath bred,  
And dreadful wrath of my dear Lord displeased.  
I see his sword upreard me to confound,  
And guilty soul attends her deadly wound.   

Oh than my soul where canst thou rest secure?  
Where wilt thou fly from his revenging ire?  
If up heaven, there enters nought impure,  
If down to hell, there flames eternal fire.  
Nor deepest sea, nor shade of darkest night  
Can secret thee from his all-seeing spirit.   

Yet from thyself thy self a refuge art  
When from thy justice to thy grace we fly:  
O gracious Lord to thee my pensive heart  
With tears of true remorse for grace doth cry.  
Thy mercy Lord my soul from death may save:  
O rid my dying soul from lowest grave.    

A Caroll for the Nativity.  

A Wonder strange this day was wrought,  
Exceeding man's and Angels thought:  
Though dumb have spoke, and blind have seen,  
And they revived who dead have been,  
Yet never virtue like to this  
Whereby was wrought man's endless bliss.   

Behold then and amazed stand,  
This is the finger of God's hand:  
A virgin pure without man's aid,  
Hath borne a child yet still a maid:  
Which babe this day began to be,  
Yet was from all eternity.   

A King of Kings, and yet a thrall,  
Possessing nought, yet Lord of all:  
Creator, yet a creature,  
Light of the world, and yet obscure:  
Most beauteous, and yet without form,  
Adored of Angels, yet a worm.   

Omnipotent, yet frail and weak,  
Th' eternal Word, yet could not speak:  
Most quiet calm, yet without rest,  
The food of Saints, yet sucked the breast,  
Embracing all, yet but a span,  
Immortal life, yet mortal man.   

Man, yet in God subsisting aye,  
God, yet confined to case of clay:  
Both God and man 'twixt both to treat,  
And firmest league 'twixt them to set.  
That mercy might with justice meet,  
And peace and truth each other greet.   

O blessed dame whose lips might kiss,  
whose paps did nurse this babe of bliss!  
O blessed babe whose joyful birth,  
Hath changed our sighs to tunes of mirth!  
Who now thy sweets may taste and prove,  
By faith on earth, in heaven by love.    

Christ comforting a distressed soul.  

SIgh no more soul, oh sigh no more,  
Despair not thou thus ever,  
Thy God hath grace for thee in store,  
His mercy faileth never.  
Then sigh not so,  
Let sorrows go,  
Sing in the highest Hosanna,  
And change thy doleful sounds of woe  
Into Halleluiah.   

Manifold are thy sins I know,  
And deep in crimson died,  
Yet whiter shalt thou be then snow,  
In my blood purified.  
Then sigh not so, etc.   

Heaven against thee shut by sin  
Have I for thee unlocked,  
Since thou so kindly lettest me in,  
When at thy heart I knocked,  
Then sigh not so, etc.   

Come to me, lo thy Saviour cries,  
Thou canst not be refused,  
For never did I yet despise  
A broken heart and bruised.  
Then sigh not so, etc.   

There in peace shalt thou live and reign,  
And never more be sorry,  
Above the measure of thy pain  
Shall be thy weight of glory.  
Then sigh not so,  
Let sorrows go,  
Sing in the highest Hosanna,  
And change thy doleful sounds of woe  
Into Halleluiah.     


THE FIRST PSALM.  

BLessed yea thrice blessed are they  
That lewd counsels have not traced:  
Nor have stood in sinner's way,  
Nor in scorners chair are placed.  
But in God's laws they delight,  
Them they study day and night.   

These like trees stand evermore  
By the rivers freshly springing:  
Pleasant fruit in plenteous store  
Duly in their season bringing.  
Never shall their leaf decay,  
What they do shall prosper aye.   

But the wicked are like dust  
To and fro with tempest driven:  
Neither shall they with the just  
Stand when judgement shall be given.  
For God knows the just man's way,  
And them stroyes that from him stray.    

Psalm. 12.  

Sigh on earth all friends do fail,  
Proving faithless and unkind,  
Sith now every where prevail  
Flattering lips and double mind,  
Lord send help from heaven above,  
Who alone art perfect love.   

But these false dissembling tongues  
God eftsoons will root them out;  
Those that triumph in their wrongs,  
Uttering proud words and stout,  
Who shall curb our tongues say they,  
Ours they are and they shall sways.   

For when once the poor doth cry,  
And to God his vows address:  
Now, saith God, arise will I,  
Him to save, them to repress.  
God whose word is silver tried,  
And in seven fires puri fide.   

Lord perform as thou hast said,  
Save and keep thine heritage:  
Help the poor so much dismayed  
From this lewd and sinful age,  
Which base men doth highest raise,  
And to vice gives virtue's praise.    

Psalm. 13.  

LOrd how long wilt thou delay?  
Shall I never comfort find?  
Can thine endless grace decay?  
Or thy kindness prove unkind?   

Why then hidest thou thy face,  
Careless of my care and grief?  
Why withholdest thou thy grace,  
And deniest me due relief?  
Shall my fruitless counsels still   

Thus torment my troubled spirit?  
Shall my foes triumph at will,  
While thy terroes me affright?   

Hear O Lord behold my plight,  
Speedy help of thee I crave:  
Light my dim decayed sight,  
That I sleep not in the grave.   

Lest my foes with proud disdain  
Boast as if they did prevail:  
joying in my saddest pain,  
When my feeble steps do fail.   

But I joy and hope always  
On thy grace and saving health,  
And my heart shall sing thee praise,  
Th' only worker of my wealth.    

Psalm. 23.  

HOw can I lack what may content,  
My boundless greedy heart?  
Sith thou O all-sufficient   

My careful shepherd art.  
When I on tender grass have fed  
Thou foldst me safe and sure:  
And when I thirst thou dost me lead  
To streams Crystalline pure.   

Thou dost my wand'ring soul reclaim  
When from thee I do stray:  
And thou my steps even for thy name  
Dost guide in righteous way.  
Were I to pass through shade of death  
No danger would I fear:  
Thy rod thy crook me comforteth.  
Thy help is always near.   

Thou hast a plenteous table spread  
For me before my foe:  
With precious balm thou dew'st my head,  
My bowl doth over flow.  
And while I live thy bounteous grace  
Shall never me forsake:  
But ever in thy dwelling place  
Will I my dwelling make.    

Psalm. 119. Beth.  

HOw shall a young man prone to ill  
Cleanse his unruly and unbridled way▪  
If that he learn to know thy will,  
And from thy sacred laws go not astray.   

Thee have I sought with perfect heart  
In whom doth rest my full content:  
O let me never from thee part,  
Nor err from thy commandment.  
Thy words deep in my heart are bid,   

That from thy precepts I may never swerve:  
O gracious Lord as thou hast bid  
Teach me thy Precepts ever to observe.   

Thy righteous judgements and thy ways  
which of thy grace to me thou dost bewray.  
My lips created for thy praise  
Shall never cease to publish night nor day.   

My heart's desire and whole delight  
Upon thy statutes fixed are:  
No worldly treasure in my sight  
May with thy precepts once compare.   

As on the lodestar of my life  
So on thy laws my steadfast eyes are set:  
And in my thoughts they are so rise  
That I thy precepts never can forget.    

Psalm. 125.  

THey whose hopes are mounted high,  
Raised with wings of faith and love,  
Stormy tempest, thundering sky,  
Trembling earth can never move.  
They though hell against them band,  
Steadfast like Mount Zion stand.   

As about jerusalem  
Mighty hills advanced are:  
So doth God environ them  
That on him rely their care.  
He from danger doth protect  
And secure his Saints elect.   

Though a while fierce tyrant's prey  
On Christ's flock with furious rage,  
Their proud sceptre shall not sway  
Always on his heritage:  
Lest forlorn and in contempt,  
Sinful counsels they attempt.   

Lord let them thy bounty taste  
That are pure and poor in spirit  
Whose wry steps writ paths have traced.  
Range them with the hypocrite:  
That the chaff purged from the grain  
Israel may in peace remain.    

Psalm. 130.  

Out of the deep O Lord, to thee I cry,  
Give ear and hear the voice of my complaint:  
If thou severely mark iniquity,  
Who can be clear and free from sinful taint?  
But mercy Lord with thee remains in store,  
That men may fear thee and thy name adore.   

On thee I wait and on thy righteous word,  
More than the morning watch for dawning day.  
Let Israel likewise trust in the Lord,  
With him redemption and much grace doth sway.  
And though his sins in number pass the sand:  
He shall redeem him with his mighty hand.    

Psalm. 131.  

LOrd thou knowst who haste me tried,  
That my heart swells not with pride:  
I look not high, nor do I stretch  
My thoughts too far beyond my reach.   

Have I not like weaned child  
Evermore been meek and mild?  
Yea sure I have myself demeaned  
Like infant from his mother weaned.   

Israel do thou likewise,  
Learn in meek and humble guise  
Like babe new weaned from the breast  
Still on thy God thy hopes to rest.    

Psalm. 133.  

O Come behold what thing it is,  
How good, how sweet, how full of bliss,  
When discords and dissensions cease,  
And brethren love and live in peace.   

Much like the precious oil that's shed  
Upon the high Priests sacred head:  
Which dews his beard and thence doth reign  
Down on his holy vestments train.   

Much like the pleasant morning dews  
Which Hermons fertile top renews:  
Or that which falls on Zions hill,  
And doth her horn with plenty fill.   

O blessed they that can agree  
To dwell in peace and unity?  
For there the Lord gives evermore  
Both happy life and plenteous store.    
FINIS.