Of justification four disputations clearing and amicably defending the truth against the unnecessary oppositions…

10. Lastly, The opinion seems to me so Improbable, without and against reason, and so dangerous [that God doth assign one only Act of the soul to the Office of justifying, especially the act of assent] that I dare not entertain it without proof It is improbable that in a Moral, Political, Theological Matter, the Holy Ghost should speak, as if it were in the strictest discourse of Physics. It is improbable that God should speak to man in such a Moral discourse, so as no men use to speak, and therefore so as men could not, without a further explication understand. Doth he that speaks of receiving a man to be our Husband, King, Master, &c. mean it of one only Act? (though I know Consent is the chief.) Or he that gives any great matter on Condition of such Receiving, Doth he mean that any one single Act is that Condition? Much less Assent.

10. Lastly, The opinion seems to me so Improbable, without and against reason, and so dangerous [that God doth assign one only Act of the soul to the Office of justifying, especially the act of assent] that I dare not entertain it without proof It is improbable that in a Moral, Political, Theological Matter, the Holy Ghost should speak, as if it were in the strictest discourse of Physicks. It is improbable that God should speak to man in such a Moral discourse, so as no men use to speak, and therefore so as men could not, without a further explication understand. Doth he that speaks of receiving a man to be our Husband, King, Master, &c. mean it of one only Act? (though I know Consent is the chief.) Or he that gives any great matter on Condition of such Receiving, Doth he mean that any one single Act is that Condition? Much less Assent.

Or is there any likelihood, that when other Acts do receive the same Object, Christ, in a way of as high honouring him, that yet God should confine Justification to one Act, setting by all the rest? Yea when the rest are acknowledged to be part of the Condition? (and Receiving as Lord, to be the fides quae?) I know God is not bound to give man a Reason of his Laws: but yet he usually doth it: and we must take heed of asserting that to be Gods Law, which appears unreasonable, till we can prove what we say. Yea what a dangerous loss will Christians then be at, who will hardly ever be able to find out this single Act, what it is and when they have it? And he that knows how quick Spirits are in their actings, and withal how little able we are to observe and discern them, perhaps many doubt, whether you can find a name for any single act of a soul, or know when it is one Act, and when many. In the forementioned Instance, A woman is condemned for Treason; the Prince writeth to her, that he hath dearly paid her Ransom & will not only deliver her, but also make her his Queen, if she will Believe this, and Receive him accordingly; If now the Lawyers should dispute the case, what single act it was that she was Delivered and Dignified by, whether an act of the Intellect only, or of the Will only? whether Assent only, or Affiance? Yea whether agendo vel patiendo (as many here do.) would not men think that learning made them dote? And I would entreat you to consider, whether it were Gods