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

Though we are too wise to understand this now, I warrant you the foolishest slave would soon understand it: and know that to receive or take the Prince for his Redeemer, is to believe him, and consent, and thankfully accept of him as he requires, and of deliverance by him: And he that should ask him, Whether it were the bare act of affiance, or whether gratitude or love were included in the term? would seem but simple to him. If a Prince will deliver a condemned woman from death, and offer with all to marry her, and give her himself, and all he hath, on condition she will receive or take him for her husband, (and accordingly be a faithful wife to him till death) He that should here step in, and raise profound Scruples, and enter difficult disputes, whether this receiving were an act of the Understanding or Will? Whether Affiance, Recumbency, Assurance, &c. or whether a Passion? would be well judged ridiculous; when every man knows at the first word what it is for the woman to receive or take a man for her Husband, even gladly and lovingly to consent and accept the offer, and with all her heart deliver up her self to him accordingly. So if a King of another Nation, that hath right also to this, but not possession, should send to us, to charge us to receive him for our King; what a hard word is this to understand? ⟨p. 224⟩or doth it signify any one act? or the act of any one single faculty that the people of the land must perform? Oh how too learned Divines (or too unlearned) have puzzled and amazed poor souls, and muddied the clear streams of the Doctrine of Christ, in this so weighty and plain a point of justification? In a word, Sir, I know there is never a one of my Hearers can understand your Doctrine of instrumentality Active or Passive, nor have they the Logic necessary thereto, and therefore I will not speak to them in such a language. Even while I untie your knots, I am thought a Barba•i•n, and not understood; how much more if I spoke what I understand not my self nor am able, though I set my wits on the tenter? 2. And then let us see which is the truer and certa•ner, your Doctrine or mine. And 1. I have said somewhat already to weaken the credit of yours. 2. And more from what is last said it is unlikely to me to be true because of the obscurity;

Though we are too wise to understand this now, I warrant you the foolishest slave would soon understand it: and know that to receive or take the Prince for his Redeemer, is to believe him, and consent, and thankfully accept of him as he requires, and of deliverance by him: And he that should ask him, Whether it were the bare act of affiance, or whether gratitude or love were included in the term? would seem but simple to him. If a Prince will deliver a condemned woman from death, and offer with all to marry her, and give her himself, and all he hath, on condition she will receive or take him for her husband, (and accordingly be a faithfull wife to him till death) He that should here step in, and raise profound Scruples, and enter difficult disputes, whether this receiving were an act of the Understanding or Will? Whether Affiance, Recombency, Assurance, &c. or whether a Passion? would be well judged ridculous; when every man knows at the first word what it is for the woman to receive or take a man for her Husband, even gladly and lovingly to consent and accept the offer, and with all her heart deliver up her self to him accordingly. So if a King of another Nation, that hath right also to this, but not possession, should send to us, to charge us to receive him for our King; what a hard word is this to understand?