Wherein he chargeth Mr. Wotton (besides his former foul aspersions of Heresie and Blasphemy) with Arianism; Mr. Gataker with Socinianism; Dr. Gouge, and Mr. Downham, with a false Attestation; Dr. Baylie, and Mr. Stock, with Self-condem­nation; All the eight Ministers employed in the busines be­tween himself and Mr. Wotton, with Partiality and Unjust judgement.

Upon occasion of a Relation concerning that busines, written by the said Thomas Gataker; and by him now again avowed.

Wherein the said M. Walkers Vindication is in many things shewed to be An Untrue Relation.

LONDON, Printed by E. G. for F. Clifton, in New-fish-street. 1642.

Some few things to be supplied or amended.

PAg. 2. after line 13. ad, for words spoken of a dead man, himself being. p. 5. l. 16. read, hath at any time ex. p. 6. l. 28. pressure. p. 14. l. 27. he then did, p. 16. l. 28. wrote. p. 38. l. 18. crave leave of. p. 42. l. 14. put in the margine against pointing. See Cameron My­rothec. p. 25. p. 53 marg put out, * Ibid. p. 9 [...]. l. 32. read have past. p 98. l. 26 sift q. p 115. l. 28. Post script. p. 119. l. 3. he deemes.

HAd M. Walker either dealt more fairely at first, with his Christian brother and fellow-Minister of Christ, M. A. Wot­ton; or upon second thoughts ( [...]. which are wont to be the wiser) better con­sidered of what before he had unadvisedly attemp­ted; he had therein peradventure in part at least, either saved or salved his owne credit: sure I am, he had eased me of some labour, that I had little lust unto. He traduced M. Wotton in the Pulpit as a vile hereticke, while he lived, what time he knew Master Wottons tongue, through the iniquity of the times, to be so [...] Theophylact. ep. 34. tied up, that he could not in publique plead his owne cause. Long after his decease he reneweth his revilings of him, and brandeth him againe for the like in print; when being hence translated, he cannot now either in publique or in private perso­nally appeare for himselfe. A true relation of the carriage of the maine matter in controversie be­tween them, in a meeting of M. Walkers owne pro­curing, wherein M. Wotton was acquitted, being hereupon published; he proceedeth, after his won­ted guise, in violent and virulent manner, not onely to charge him, as before, with heresie and blasphemy in the doctrine of justification, but (yet further to ex­presse his extream malice and rancor against him) Vindica [...]. p. 34. with the deniall of the eternall Deity of Christ; how [Page 2] soundly, yea or seemingly, for any shew or shadow of reason, let any intelligent Reader judge. And over and besides that, (hoping thereby to help him­selfe, where he sticketh fast in the mire) he sticketh not to [...]. Nicet. in Andron. l. 1. c. 6. cast foule aspersions upon all those that had any hand in that hearing, not sparing them therein whom himselfe had made choise of.

His Vindication (as he tearmeth it) he beginneth with a preamble, consisting of two parts.

In the former whereof, he complaineth grievously of me, and Vindic. p. 1. chargeth me with breach of piety and cha­rity, and defect of humanity and common honesty, in la­bouring to set upon him foul brands of the like nature, being a Minister yet living in Gods Church; and in ad­ding thereby affliction to him, who hath suffered persecu­tion and bonds for the truths sake.

Which passage, when I read, minded me of the Italian professor of the Civill-law at Oxford, who having in some things carried himselfe, neither so religiously, nor so respectively towards divers wor­thy Divines, as had been to be wished; and being therefore by Doctor Rainolds in a private Letter freely told of it, and withall admonished Ut in eis dua­rum rerum ma­jorem babeas ra­tionem, pietatis & modestiae. 10. Rainold. ad Alb. Gentil. ep. 1. to have more regard of piety and modesty in his writings for time to come, then in some formerly he had shewed; in way of answer to his Letter, taketh on and stor­meth not a little against that mirrour as well of mo­desty as of learning, as Quod me mo­destiae laesae facis tu reum,—non vides te cum eo fic agere imperi­osè, qui Papae imperium con­temp [...]it, & exulare patriâ potuit & universo regno papali? Alb. Gentilis al [...]. Rainold. ep. 2. having done him no small wrong, in taking upon him so to checke and controle him, who had left his own countrey for his consci­ence, and was for Religion sake content to live as an exile: tho meane while, it may be, enjoying as [Page 3] plentifull an estate here, as ever he had, or might have attained, had he stayed still where before he was.

But to come more directly to M. Walkers exceptions against me, or prescriptions rather for himselfe, as a sacred person, or a Sanctuary man; and not therefore to be so dealt with, as I have herein dealt with him; and to discusse them briefly apart. I suppose a little selfe-love, and selfe-respect proceeding from it, had [...]. Plut. de amie. & adul. & de util. ex ini­mic. ex Platone de leg. lib. 5. drawn a filme over M. Walkers eyesight, or cast a mist at least before his eyes, when he entered these pleas; that kept him from considering what the party was whom himselfe had so despightfully dealt with.

For first, is M. Walker a Minister of Gods Word? and was not M. Wotton the same? and that peradventure nothing inferiour to M. Walker in ought; however M. Walker may please to esteem or deem of him. Rom. 14. 4. At whose doom yet, well it is that he neither stands nor fals.

Secondly, as concerning survivorship, I have ever held it, and so still shall, having [...]. Moschio. [...]. Dionys. trag. [...]. Archiloch. [...] Euripi [...]. Antigon. [...]. Idem Phaeniss. [...]. Sophocl. Ajac. [...] Gregor. Stasim. in carm. Schol. ad illud Aristoph. Paco. [...]. Et Suidas. [...]. Hinc diverbia illa [...]. Ari­stoph. Avib. [...]. Soph. Ajac. [...]. Laert. Menedēm. [...]. Lucian. de sect. Et vulgare illud, De mor [...]is nil nisi bonum. Quod [...] Solonis lege tractum est, [...]. Plut. Sol. è Demosth. in Leptin. et in Baeot. Et Chilo Sparta. [...], Laert. votes therein with me, I am sure, not a few, untill M. Walker shall be able to convince me of errour in it; that it is a worse [Page 4] matter to traduce the dead, then the living. Since that the one may, the other cannot now make apo­logie for himselfe. Besides that it is generally held an argument of [...]. P ato politic. l. 5 Ae­l [...]aao Sopb [...]stae, qui in lmp [...]rato­rem defu [...]ctum Stylum strinxe▪ rat, Phil [...]stratus, [...]. Hinc Antholog. l. 1, c. 5. [...]. Audet vel lepus exanimi [...]sultare lconi. Hectorique jacenti insultat Danaûm ignavissimus quisque Iliad. [...]. Et Quamlibet ignavi praecipitata premunt. Naso trist. lib. 3. eleg. 11. Nec Plancus illepidè, eum diceretur Asini [...]s Pollio orationes in eum parare, quae post mortem P▪ anci ederentur, ne respondere posset, cum mortuis non nisi larvas luctari: quo apud eruditos nihil impudentius judicatur. Plin. praefat. Hist. nat. Itaque Maro AEn. l. 11. Nullum cum victis certamen & aethere cassis. Deest, esse oportet. Serv. no ingenuous disposition, to insult over, or deale [...] igorously with the deceased. And it may well be questioned whether an injury done to a Saint in Heaven, have not the greater guilt, in regard o [...] his present estate. Sure I am, that against those of the Romish party, See Pet. Moulins of the Eucharist. chap. 13. our Writers use it as an argu­ment, and Hebr. 12. 25. the Apostle may well seeme to adde strength thereunto, that it is a greater wrong to offer any indignity to Christs body now glorified in Hea­ven, then it had been to do the like unto him then, when in the state of humiliation he conversed with men here on earth. Nor see I ought, why it may not hold as well in the other limmes, as in the head; that the greater sinne it is to offer any wrong or contu­mely to them, the more highly they are now honou­red and advanced by God. And what greater wrong or contumely can be done to them, then to blast their reputations, to charge them with inexpiable crimes, to damn them to Hell, that now reigne with God in Heaven? So Terra novissimè complex [...] gremio, tum maximè ut mater operiens, nullo magis Sacramento, quam quod nos quoque sacros facit. Pl [...]. Hist. Nat. l. 2. c. 65. [...]. Pl [...]t. de [...]olon. leg. sacred hath the condition of the de­ceased been deemed, that it hath been accounted a [Page 5] point of Uhi corpus ho­mi [...]is demortui co [...]aas, sacer esto. Numae lex. Se­p [...]chrorum san­ctitas in ipso solo est, quod nul â vi mov [...]ri nequ [...] de­le [...]i potest. C [...]c. Philip 9. Ebustis defurctorum la­pidem movere, terram evertere, cespitem evelle­re [...]proximum Sa­ [...]rilegio majore, nostri semper ha­bu [...]runt. Iulian. Cod. l. 9. tit. 19. leg. 5. [...]nde e­men [...]andus Co­d [...]x. Theodos l 9. tit. 17. l 4. De­functorum ci­neribus violen­tiam inferre, sacrilega prae­sum [...]. Valent. novel, tit. 5. Ne Sepu [...]hra qui­dem dirip [...]r [...] & ca [...]avera [...]poliare illicitum duce­bant [...]a [...]rilegae v [...]pilatorum manus. Eu [...]eb. Hist. Lat. vers. l. 3. c. 4. Sacrilegae bus [...]is abstinuere manus. Senec. epigr. 4. sacriledge, to disturbe their remaines, or to meddle with the monuments wherein their corps lie inclosed. But the godly deceased, [...]. Homer. Il. [...]. Plato Menex. [...]. Isocr [...] Euag. [...]. Polyb▪ l 8. Siquis est sensus in morte. Cic. Phil. 9. Siquis inferis sensus est Sen ad Po [...]yb. 6. 18. Siquis vit [...] digressis est dolor. Ammian. l. 30. had they sense and understanding of what is here done, (as they had wont to speake, and Sic enim & nostri. [...]. Greg. in Iul. 1. Idem in Cae [...]ar. [...]. Idem in Pasc [...]. [...]. we well may) would without all doubt, account it, as well they might, a far greater wrong, to have their names tainted with foule aspersions, of this nature especially, even of the highest and most hainous guilt against the divine Majesty, then to have their Sepulchers defaced, their graves laid open, their bodies digged up, their bones burnt, and their ashes either dispersed into the ayer, or scattered upon the surface of the waters; or what­soever other indignity and insolency the vaine rage and fond outrage, not of humane, but of inhumane spite and malice hath exercised upon their remains. Let not M. Walker therefore deeme his offence in this regard the lesse hainous, because the man is dead, or Abiit, non obiit. Ambr. Theodos. deceased rather, whom he thus dealeth with: wherein peradventure, as [...] reliquias dissipari▪ jussit, acerbiore odio, quam si tam sapiens fuisset, quam v [...]emens fuit. Cio. de leg [...] l. 2. he said sometime of Sylla, he had dealt more wisely, had he been lesse eager. Nor hath he any just cause to complaine, because he sur­viveth; if in the necessary vindication of the decea­sed so wronged, his inconsiderate carriage therein be discovered. If any blemish accrew to himselfe or his ministery thereby, he may blame himselfe rather [Page 6] then any other, who by these violent and outragious courses much impeacheth and impaireth his owne estimation in the minds of all moderate men.

For his third plea, in regard whereof he claimeth an immunity from being thus dealt with, to wit. Pag. 1. His persecution and bonds sustained for the truth.

Of M. Walkers restraint for some time, I have heard. During which also I sometime visited him at his brothers house. And that he suffered for the truth, I hope also is true, though it be more then I know; be­cause I know not for what he suffered. Of his bonds, I never heard till now. If he were ever in bonds, (God be thanked) he is now free. But however, he might do well to remember, that M. VVotton, upon occa­sion of a passage used in his prayer, when the setling of Church-matters with us was in agitation, (which as things now stand, I suppose would not be so hai­nously taken) that His Majesty who then was, might in that weighty businesse, not be swayed with prejudice of long or pretended antiquity, but proceed according to the rule and direction of Gods VVord, had for some good space of time before been deprived of the ex­ercise of his ministery, and of the means thence ari­sing for the maintenance of him and his; his charge then depending upon him being greater, then I sup­pose M. VValkers either then was, when he so suffe­red as he saith, or now is. And that he lay still at that very same time under that heavy presure, (which he was never wholly quit of to his dying day) when M. Walker pursued (I may well say, Galat. 4. 29. with Gen. 21. 90 persecuted him) with those hideous imputations of teaching Letter to M. Wotton Vindic. p. 15. divellish heresie and Ibid. p. 16. blasphemy, and Ibid. p. 10. & Relat. p. 4. 5. the most pestilent opinions that ever Satan sowed among Christians. Now whether [Page 7] this his demeanure toward M. VVotton in such times, were to Psal. 69. 26. adde affliction unto affliction, or no, I leave to any man, not of [...]. Homer. O [...]ys. [...]. & Il. [...]. & [...] Odys▪ [...]. brasse bowels, and iron entrals, to determine. This am I sure of, that if M. VValkers troubles, past and overblown now, may aggravate ought here, the storm still continuing might much more aggravate there. But this is the common guise of humane weaknesse, that men are rather prone to tender [...]. Pindar. N [...]m. 1. Gr [...]gor. Stasim. in Iul. 1. & Greg. Pr [...]b. in vit. Stas. their own griefes, then the grievances of others; and to deny that priviledge of Res est sacr [...], miscr. Sen. c. epigr. 4. sanctuary to their adversaries, under which they require yet to finde shelter for themselves. Howsoever, a fond thing it is for any man to imagine, that his sufferings for the truth, either should seale him a Licence to rave against, and raile upon his Christian brethren at pleasure, whether surviving yet, or deceased; or should protect him against all Apology upon such occasions, made either by themselves or by others for them, in their behalfe.

For as for all that, which in the next place Pag. 2. he subjoyneth, in his declamatory way, concerning M. Wottons assertions; how sincerely they are extra­cted from M. VVottons writings, or how depraved with M. VValkers own glosses and fillings; as also how by M. VVotton himselfe in writing answered, where they might seem to sound somewhat harshly by col­lating place with place, and reducing them to the state of the point there in question; and lastly, what was thereupon concluded, when these things were at large long since debated, in a way that M. VValker himselfe pressed M. VVotton unto; you have fully laid down in the Relation before mentioned: which M. VValker also here referreth himselfe unto; and to [Page 8] transcribe againe therefore, would be but lost la­bour, both to me and to my Reader. That which the rather also I here wave, because I shall be con­strained, treading M. VValkers wild maze; as now I must do, to meet with them againe more then once or twice, where fitter occasion wil be to consider fur­ther of them.

After this complaint commenced of me, M. Walker proceeds Pag. 3. to lay down the occasion, by which he hath provoked me to proclaim so bitterly against him, and to brand him with breach of piety and charity, and defect of humanity and common honesty; and to enquire what the cause of my so doing should be.

Where, first, how I have proclaimed (as he speaks) against him, or what bitternesse I have used, either in my Preface or Postscript, I am well content that others indifferently affected judge. Howbeit I see none for­warder to complaine of bitternesse in others, then [...]. Apud Suidam N. Q. [...]. Sext. Empir. Pyrrhon. l. 1. c. 29. Alex. Aphrod probi. l. 1. q 101. Alarcus lmper. co [...]mert. l. 6. § 57. Greg. Stas. desed▪ constant. those that are most troubled with the overflowing of the gall themselves, and who write ordinarily, as if their pennes were dipped and steeped in no other but that bitter liquor.

Secondly, I demand of M. Walker, where I have thus branded him. True it is, that I do indeed directly and expresly charge him with Relat. P [...]st [...]c [...]. P. 40. unequall dealing; and [...]d. p. 55. want of candor in his carriage toward M. Wotton. And this he returnes never a word unto, nor will be able ever to wash off. With those other defaults here mentioned I doe not my selfe charge him. I affirm only that such carriage as I there describe, Relat p. 1. 3. hath been ever generally held a breach of piety and charity, and may well be deemed to argue no small defect of humanity, not to adde of common honesty. And what I therein say, no [Page 9] man, I suppose, will deny; not M. Walker himselfe. But whether M. Walker in his late dealing with M. Wotton have so carried himselfe, as to contract such guilt, or no, I pronounce not; Relat. p. 3. I say nothing, but leave it to be deemed and determined by others, upon that which afterward is related, under the hands, either of M Walker himselfe, or of those whom he himselfe chose, and by his own choise of them made competent Judges in his cause.

The Proposition therefore there alone is mine; which M. Walker himselfe doth not, nor I assure my selfe, will deny.

The Assumption is, either his own or theirs. Yea in effect all his own, because the verdict of those, whom he referred himselfe unto.

And the conclusion consequently (which Conclusio par­tem sequior [...]m sequitu [...]. follow­eth ever the weaker side) as it toucheth M. Walker, not mine, but theirs; yea, in very truth, his own.

That he charged M. Wotton with heresie and blas­phemy, he denieth not: that he referred himselfe for the truth of his charge to the hearing of eight grave Ministers, his own Letter Relat. p. 5. & Vindic. p. 16. relateth: that he failed in his proofes, Relat. p. 38. they testifie under their own hands, whom he referred himselfe unto: that notwithstan­ding that faile, he hath now so long after that, since M. Wottons decease, in print renued that his charge, his booke evidently sheweth.

The imputation therefore of such guilt, if all that hath been related do not proove M. Walker faulty in such cariage, he remaineth free enough still from, for ought that I say. If it do evince him so to have caried himselfe; it is not I, but his own cariage, and the verdict of his own Judges, that fast [...]eth the im­putation upon him.

[Page 10] For, what he here addeth of Pag. 5. my misrep [...]rts, he hath not hitherto, nor shall ever be able to convince me of misrelation in ought.

But come we to his enquiry. Where first he mo­veth doubt, Pag. 5. whether therefore [...]be so offended, because he calleth the errour, that he chargeth M. Wotton to have been the publisher of, herefie. And if that be the matter he telleth me, that howsoever I and my fellow-subscri­bers (that is the scornfull title that now he giveth us) did not thinke fit (for some causes, of which hereaf­ter) to call any thing in his Exposition of his speeches by the name of heresie and blasphemy: yet some of them cited in the Parallel, are by his own confession manifestly here­ticall and blasphemous. And that he rather assented to Beza, Pareus, and Lubbertus, who condemn some things in M. Wottons expositions for heresie and blasphemy, then to me and my fellows (D. Bayly, M. Balmford, M. Randall, M. Stock, M. Downhum, M. Gouge, and M. Hickes) who were pleased to think otherwise. And he ho­peth that therein he giveth no offence; especially having Gods Woudfor his warrant.

Where first, I wonder how the matter against M. Wotton cometh so much to be aba [...]ed, that from so many pretended hereticall and blasphemous errours, whereof seven horrible heads at least were repre­sented in the Parallel, it should be brought down now to one single errour, to one heresie. M. Walkers heart here, it may be, did misgive him; suspecting that some of them might be generally by all votes acquired of heresie at least, if not of errour. And he thought it therefore the wisest and wariest course to pitch upon some one; and yet not to tell us, which that one [...] [...]eant, was, that so he might be free to [Page 11] fasten where he should thinke fittest, if either his proofes concerning any of the other should faile; or those, whom he calleth in for Advocates in his own behalfe, and for witnesses to give evidence against M. Wotton, as condemning his opinions for hereticall and blasphemous, should be found voting in some of them rather for him then against him.

2. Whereas he telleth us, that there are somethings in M. Wottons Expositions (of which tearme here more anon) which Beza, Pareus and Lubbertus condemn as he­reticall and blasphemous; neither yet doth he shew what those things are, nor where they so stile them. Yea, if to avoyd the former exception, he shall say, that the errour he meant and called heresie is this, that Socsnianisme discovered, p. 1. 4. Faith, and not Christs righteousnesse is imputed for righteousnesse in the Act of justification; because he saith that his new adversary hath so stated the question; (with whom yet, or his stating the question, I have nothing here to do) he must be minded, that in the proposition so conceived there are two positions in­cluded; both which he condemneth as two pestilent and blasphemous heresies, and in Parall. Error. 1. & 3 Relat. p. 11. 14. his Parallel poin­teth at either of them apart.

  • 1. That faith is imputed for righteousnesse.
  • 2. That Christs righteousnesse is not so imputed.

Now for the former, to wit, that Faith is imputed for righteousnesse; besides the Apostle Rom. 4. 3, 5, 9, 22, 23, 24. S. Paul more then once averring it, (whom neither these men nor M. Walker, I hope will so charge) two of them are expresse and peremptory for it. For so Beza, writing on those words of the Apostle, Rom. 4. 3. Abraham beleeved God, and it was imputed to him for righteousnesse. Agitur hîc de eo, quod ipsi d De [...] imputatum est, nempe de lpsius side. Beza in Rom. 4. 3. Here, saith he, is entreated of that which was imputed to him [Page 12] by God, to wit of his faith. And againe, Paulus activam locutionem pas­sivè convertens, praetermittit af­fixum Hebraeum, quod vertere po­tuit [...], ipsam videlicet s [...]m Abrahami. Sed hoc ipsum p [...]stea disertè bis expri­ [...]it. nempe versu 5 & 9. Ibid. Paul relating passively, what Moyses spake actively, omitteth the affix, which he might have rendered, that thing, to wit, Abra­hams faith it selfe: but he afterward twice plainely ex­presseth it in the fifth and ninth verses. And Pareus reconciling the Greeke with the Hebrew: Idem valent, Deus imputavit fidem, & sides a Deo est imputa­ta. Quantum ad sensum duo continet hoc elo­quium; Primò fidem Abrahae; Credidit A. Deo. deinde, fidei fru­ctum, & impu­tata est ei (fides) ad justitiam. Par. in Rom. 4. 3. These two are all one, God imputed faith, and faith by God was imputed. As for the sense, this speech concerning Abraham conteineth two things: first, his faith; Abra­ham beleeved God. Then the fruit of his Faith; And (faith) was imputed to him for righteousnesse. And againe, Et imputata est ei (fides) pro justitiâ. Fru­ctus fidei Abr. significatur, gra­tuita justifica­tio. Ibid. And (faith) was imputed to him for righteousnesse. The fruit of Abrahams Faith is hereby signified, even free justi­fication. [...], non impersonali­ter reddi debere, imputatum est, sed passive, im­putata est, nempe fides, ex Hebrae [...] textu, & Apostoli declaratione. Vers. 5. & 9. manifestum est. quod ad sensum Scripturae recte intelligen­du [...] refert observare. Ibid. That the Verb should be rendered, not imperso­nally, but passively; that, to wit, Faith was imputed; it is manifest, both by the Hebrew Text, and by the Apostles de­claration in the fifth and ninth verses. Which to observe is of much moment for the right understanding of that Scripture.

And for the latter position, that Christs righteousnes is not imputed in the act of justification; if by Christs righteousnesse be understood his habituall holinesse, or his actuall righteousnesse consisting in the perfect observation of the Law morall: here also two of M. Walkers Au­thours must of necessity leave him, unlesse they will condemne themselves for blasphemous heretickes. For both Pareus and Lubbe [...]tus, going Ursines and Pis­cators way, hold justification to consist wholly in re­mission of sinnes. For so Pareus expresly (besides what out of him Relat. Postscript. p. 58. elsewhere) in his Commentaries before mentioned; Apostolus justificationem in solâ remissione peccatorum constituit. P [...]ran Rom. 4. 7. Dub. 5. The Apostle placeth justification in the [Page 13] Remission of sinnes alone. Nor doth Manifestum est, non imputar [...] peccatum, poni pro justificare, Lub. ad Socin. l. 2. c. 2. p. 124. col. 2. Saepe ostendi­mus justificatio­nem contineri gratuitâ pecca­torum remissio­ne. Ibid. l. 4. c. 10. p. 551. col. 2. Lubbertus here­in depart from him. And both therefore also here­in concurre; that they ground our justification, not upon the Righteousnesse of Christ, so understood, as hath been said; but on the merit of, and satisfaction made by his sufferings. That which, as for Pareus, by a whole De justitiâ Christi Activâ, & Passiva Epist. ad Com. Lud. Witgen. Treatise written of purpose by him about that Argument, doth most evidently appeere; so for Lubbertus is also cleere enough, by divers In [...] est ju­stitia duplex, divina & hu­mana. Humana est inhaerens, & acquisita, illam vocant habitua­lem; hanc meri­toriam. de illa loquitur Apus. Heb. 7. 26. & 1 Pet. 3. 18. de hac Rom. 5. 9. per unam satisfactionem. v. 19. Lubb. c [...]ntr. Socin. l. 3. c. 5. Sanguine, srve obedientiâ Christi justificamur forma­lite [...]; fide instrumentaliter. Ibid. c. 2. p. 355. Duo ad justificationem reqiruntur; unum, ut Christus pro peccatis nostris mortuus sit, atque ita pro eis satisfaciat: alterum, ut nos hanc Christi solutionem five satisfactionem vera fide recipiamus. Ibid. l. 4. c. 9 p. 547. Haec justitia, s [...]ve obedientia, iive [...] Christi, sive denique sacrificium, sive sanguis Christi, sive solutio pretii redemptionis nostrae à Christo sacta, absolvit nos [...] reatu, constituit nos justos, justificat nos, &c. Ibid. c. 1. p. 445, 44 [...]. Christi enim obedientia, quam Patri in morte pro nobis praestitit, est vera illa justitia, quâ Patri re­conciliamur. Ibid. c. 4. p 472. passages, even in those works which were written by him pro­fessedly against the errors of Socinus. Yea so far doth Pareus proceed herein, that he sticketh not to avow that, Qui obedientiae activae, aut sanctitati nativae, meritum justitiae ascri­bunt, mortem Christi sine dubio inanem reddunt. Par. de justit. Christi activ. & pass. pofit. 5. p. 181. Those that ascribe the merit of righteousnesse unto Christs active obedience or his native holinesse, M [...]rti Christi justificationem contra Scripturas derogant. Ibid. p 182. do thereby derogate from the death of Christ, and do undoubtedly make it vain, or superfluous. Now I would gladly understand from M. Walker what he thinketh of Pareus, and whe­ther he count not him a blasphemous heretike, as well as M. Wotton. As for me & my fellows, as in scorn now he calleth them, (tho peradventure as good men as M. Walker himselfe) I hold it no disgrace to me, to be yoaked with such; and to have deemed rather as they, then as M. Walker either then did, or now doth. Mean while how little cause M. Walker hath to crake so much of these Authors, by what hath been said, [Page 14] may easily be deemed; and muchlesse to affirm, what so confidently Letter to M. Wotton. p. 15. elsewhere he doth, that he hath all learned Divines agreeing with him in what he holds: and that Pag. 6, 7. the whole stream of learned Orthodox Divines hold the same Doctrine with him concerning justificati­on by Christs righteousnesse imputed to beleevers. Which in such sense and manner as he maintaines it, he can­not but know to be most untru [...]; unlesse he will ex­punge Pareus, Piscator, and I know not how many more, generally so esteemed, on [...] of the List of lear­ned and Orthodox Divines.

3. Yea but M. Wotton▪ [...] M. W [...]lker, is Pag. 3, 4. proved a blasphemous [...] by h [...] [...]onf [...]ssion. I answer in a word. How M. [...] [...]th the deniall of Christs righteousnesse imp [...] to be here [...]icall and blas­phemous; he plainely ex [...]resseth himselfe in his Answer to error 1. Relat. p. 22. de­fence; whence M. Walker produceth it. To which therefore, and M. Bradshawes Preface to his English Treatise of justification, I referre the Reader: yet so, that of the one, and out of the other, somewhat hereafter also shall be said.

4. How farre forth M. Walker hath Gods Word for his warrant, in condemning M. Wotton, not of errour (for that neither was, nor is the question) but of here­sie and blasphemy (for that was the point in controver­sie, when time was) he hath not yet made to appeare, no more then he did. For what here fondly and ridi­culously in that kind he presumeth, by the sentence of his owne delegates, he was not then able to make good.

What else is Pag. 5. here ferced in, concerning the cari­age of the businesse at that meeting, shall in its due place (by Gods assistance) be discussed.

[Page 15] The other doubt he moveth concerning the cause of my proclaiming so bitterly against him, and being so highly offended with him, is, Ibid. Whether it be, because he calleth M. Wotton by the name of Anthony Wotton. And if that be the cause, he telleth me, that Sic scil. beare solet ami [...]os. therein he did him a favour. For that under that obscure t [...]le, his person might have been hid, and not made known to any but those, who are acquainted with all the passages between him and M. Walker. But M. Gataker is the man, that hath exposed his person to much shame, and stained his name and memory with the brand of heresie, &c.

Sure he must be some, not merry, but very sad per­son, not grave and sage onely, that can read this passage without laughing, or smiling at least.

Which to shew, let me entreat M. Walker to make M. Wottons case a while here his owne. M. Walker, as by his Parallell plainly appeares, Relat. Paral. error 2. p. 13. denieth Faith to be a condition on mans part required unto the attaining of justification. Now suppose that some one of his own spirit should thereby take occasion, in a Treatise of his published many yeeres after M. Walkers decease, to traduce him for the same, by the name of George Walker, as the first publisher in this Land of a most pesti­l [...]t heresie; and thereby charge him to have made himselfe See Relat. p 54. guilty of Paganisme, Ind [...]is [...] and Mahume­tanism. Would it not be ridiculous, for the party having so dealt with him, to demand of one that should write in his defence, Why he is so highly offended with him, and whether it be for this cause or no, because he calleth him George Walker? &c. For were it not all o [...], as if some rude fellow, having c [...]st a shovell of du [...]t or two upon a man, as he passeth in the street, should aske the party so misused, contesting with him about [Page 16] it, what he aileth to be so offended with him; and whether it be, because he did not make him a legge, or give him, as we use to say, the time of the day. He might as well have moved question, whether I were not so offended, because he stileth him barely Antho­ny Wotton, and not Mr. A. Wotton: Or whether be­cause he calleth him Anthony and not Antonie, as he usually and rightly wrote his name, save that by the Printers correction, or corruption rather, he found it so also in my relation.

But that that followeth, is yet more ridiculous, that herein he did M. Wotton a singular favour. For under that obscure title he had lien hid and unknown to any, but those alone that had been acquainted with all that had passed be­tween M. Walker and him.

Is the name of Antonie Wotton then so obscure a title? or are there so many of note so named, that this our A Wotton may lie hid in the heap, among the multitude of them, unlesse be be by some speciall notes and marks otherwise deciphered? And yet any man, not utterly crackt-brained, would have thought, that M. Walkers Socinianism discovered and confuted. p. 6. Anthony Wotton, one that some 28. yeeres agoe lived in London, and there in Manuscript Pamphlets and Printed bookes dispersed his opinions concerning ju­stification, and Ibid. Epist. p. 2. by the fame and opinion, which men had of his great learning and no lesse piety, drew many zealous professours into the liking of his errors; and afterward Socin. disc. p. 7. [...]rought a booke De Reconciliati [...]e, in Latine, &c. Any man would thinke, I say, unlesse he wanted his [...]its that thus much were sufficient to discover, who the man were, that M. Walker meant, though they that read him were not privy to all M. Walkers either revilings of him in publique, or baitings of him in [Page 17] private. Suppose M. Walkers adversary before assig­ned him, had onely stiled him, George Walker, one that so many yeeres agoe had in the City of London out of the Pulpit inveighed and declamed oft against M. Wottons writings and M. Bradshaws works, as containing much heretical and blaspemous matter, &c. were it not enough to let men know who the man were that be meant (notwithstanding I suppose there be and have been about the City more Walkers then Wottons) unlesse they had been acquainted with all things, that either at the solemne meeting of Ministers, or in private o­therwise, had passed between him and M. Wotton.

But that, which herein exceedeth all the rest; is, that Pag. 5. M. Gataker by his relation of the businesse that passed between them, and thereby blasoning his Armes, hath exposed him to sh [...]me, and stained his name with the brand of here [...]ie.

I never knew that I had any skill in Heraldry be­fore; nor have heard of staining with brands till now. Two new trades M. Walker hath here put upon me, both which I must needs professe my selfe utterly unskilfull in. But to let these things passe; whether of the two, staine a mans name, and expose him to shame; he that publikely chargeth him with heresie and blas­phemy; or he that publisheth his acquitall from such horrid imputations, by the verdict, and under the hands of those, whom the same party appellant him­selfe had made therein his Judges; I am well con­tent that any, not wholly in Nec saui esse [...]is non [...] ­nus jaret Orestes Pers. sat 3. Orestes his mood, what­soever else he be, determine.

After this Preamble thus premised, M. VValker pro­ceeds to his Narration. Pag. 5 9. The former part whereof is spent in such stories, as M. Walker is pleased to en­tertain [Page 18] his Reader withall, of matters foregoing the Meeting of the Ministers before mentioned, concerning Pag. 5, 6. himselfe and his reading and preaching, Pag. 6. M. Richardson and his approbation of M. Walkers cen­sures passed upon M. Wottons opinion; Pag. 6, 7. M. Wottons dealing, and Pag. 8. the cariage of some of his followers.

All which yet I suppose no man is bound to make any part of his Creed. Such of them especially as are grounded upon other mens reports; as the frivolous and ridiculous tale, that Pag. 8, 9. his Clarke, he saith, told him, concerning some of M. Wottons Disciples and himselfe; and may the rather be questioned, because in the ensuing Discourse are found some very pal­pable untruths; and such as were to be charged upon M. Walker himselfe, were they not salved with a some say. And what he reporteth Pag. 7. of M. VVottons jugling repeated againe Pag. 13. in his Epistle, and Epist. before his discovery p. 5. elsewhere, is by M. VVotton very confidently and peremptorily de­nied, as shall hereafter be related.

As for that he relateth of M. Richardsons censure, both Pag. 6. here, and Pag. 25, 26. hereafter, be it true or no; I say only thus much to it: that if M. Richardson shall condemne all those for blasphemous heretiks, who deny the im­putation of Christs righteousnesse consisting in the perfect observation of the Law Morall unto justification; and hold justification to consist wholly in remission of sinnes: (which I conceive to be M. VVottons principall error, and wherein I dissent both from him and them) he shall together with M. Wotton exclude from life eter­nall Olevian, Piscator, Ursinus, Pareus, Scultetus, Al­tingius, Cameron, and many other Worthies, who were as famons and bright lights in the Church of God here, as ever M. Richardson was, while he lived; [Page 19] and (if the Prophet Dan. 12. 3. Daniel may be believed) doe now shine as Starres in the Kingdome of heaven, and so shall doe for ever and ever; whatsoever doom M. Richardson, or M. Walker shall passe on them. For my part I deem this their censure not unlike that other conceit, that I remember to have heard M. Walker sometime maintain, and is fathered likewise upon the same party, (concerning whom, I forbeare to speake my mind, lest I undergoe the lash of M. Wal­kers tongue) that, The fall of our first parents proceeded not from the mutability of their will: and that all that hold it to have thence proceeded, by so holding, make God the Autour of sinne. By which censure all the Di­vines in the World (for ought I know, M. Walker, and M. Richardson, if he at least so also held, only excep­ted) are condemned of extream impiety; yea of Atheisme, or worse, (if See Vindicat. p. 34. 35. M. Walkers manner of argu­ing by deduction may go for currant) since that Quid interest Deos neges, an infames? Senec. [...]p. 133. [...] Plut. de. supers [...]it. [...]. Por­phyr. de abstin. l. 2. [...]. Epi­phani aneor. §. 9. it is much at one, to hold God to be wicked, and to hold him no God at all.

But this former part of M. Walkers Narration, be it what it will, nothing at all concerneth me, who begin my Relation at M. Walkers Letter, and the meeting that thereupon ensued.

Out of his Letter, wherewith he beginneth the latter part of it, I Relat. p. 4. 5. relate only M. Walkers charge and his challenge. Which that they are there found, a­mong much other lavish and menacing language, in as many words as I relate them; by M. Walkers owne Vindic. p. 9. 18. Transcript of it may evidently appeare.

With the main substance whereof, (being such as sufficiently discovereth by what spirit it was endi­ted) I shall not much meddle; but shall only relate [Page 20] what I find written in the margent of a copie of it (testified to be a true copy by the attestation of M. Stephen Egerton, and M William Gouge thereunto an­nexed) with M. Wottons own hand.

Against those words, Vindic. p. 10. If you had not refused to joyn with me in a Christian Conference, &c.

I never had any such offer made me from you.

Against those words, Pag. 12. You in scorn sent me to one Spencer, &c.

The party will be deposed, that this is altogether false,

Against those words, Pag. 12. This your doing when I com­plained to you of face to face, you excused as done in igno­rance of mine intent and desire.

This is most false.

Against those words, Pag. 13. Did I not then shew both pati­ence, love, and all good affection?

How true the report of this conference is, they that were by can witnesse: and to them I appeale.

Upon Pag. 13. that passage, before Pag. 7. also mentioned, and yet before that at large related and pressed, in his Epistle prefixed before his Socinianisme discovered and confuted, concerning a place of Luther, that M. Wotton should alledge, covering with his fingers some part of it in the same page, that made against him, against those words, Pag. 13. If you deny this, God is my wit­nesse, and mine own conscience.

God is my witnesse against you, that this is most falsely reported by you.

Against those words, Pag. 14. They and you were so far from amendement, that you made me amends with all railing and reviling language.

If you speake of me, it is most untrue: for others I can­not answer.

[Page 21] Against those words, related as M. Wottons, con­cerning the Bishop of London, Pag. 15. You dare not co [...]it your selfe to him, because he is a wicked Iudge, and will respect persons in judgement: my friends are too potent with him.

The Lord let me find no mercy with him, if ever I said so, or thought so of the Bishop of London.

Other notes I let passe, being lesse materiall, or concerning other men rather then M. Wotton him selfe. But for the further and fuller clearing of this last clause, I shall subjoyne out of a letter of M. Eger­tons written to M. Wotton, dated May 23. 1614 under his own hand, the very words that M. Wotton used concerning the Bishop.

M. Eg [...]rtons Letter to M. Wotton. Among some other passages, you had this speech in effect, that you thought that my Lord of London would not willingly do any thing, that might impeach M Wal­ker, because (as you had heard) his brother of Cheswick was very gracious with my Lo [...]d. Thus much in effect, and not a jot more, did I signifie to M. Walker onely by way of demand, &c. How soundly and charitably M. Walker collected hereupon, that you either said or intimated, that you durst not commit your selfe to the Bishop of London, because he is a wicked man, &c. I leave it to others to de­termine. This I professe, that neither when I received it from you, nor when I told it to his eare, I did so much as conceive or imagine, that you had any such conceit of my Lord of London.

Thus that reverend Divine, now with the Lord: by whose testimony may appeare, how prone M. Walker is to tenter out mens words, beyond all, not charitable onely, but even reasonable, construction.

From his Letter, M. Walker proceedeth to the Mee­ting [Page 22] or Conference therein required; which he saith is Vindic. p. 9. the subject of mine invective against him.

In relating whereof yet I use no Invective at all. I report onely what was done and exhibited on both parts: & what resolved by the parties on either side deputed to heare and decide. Neither of which M. Walker either doth or can deny.

But M. Walker must give me leave, to deale here a little more freely with him; and to tell him in plai­ner tearmes, that many things delivered in this part of his Narration, are either utterly untrue, or such as may justly be suspected of untruth.

1. He maketh his very entrance into it with a ma­nifest untruth, tho a matter of no great moment. He saith, that Pag. 19. Upon the receit and reading of that his Let­ter, M. Wotton sent him a Letter of defiance, and therein professed his scorn and disdaine of his threatnings: but the next day he sent him another, wherein he promised to yeeld to his motion. Which, tho not much materiall, whether so or no, yet is not true. For M. Wotton sent him but one Letter with a Postscript of diverse date added thereunto: which must needs therefore come to M. Walkers hands both at once; and not the one this day, and the other the next, as M. Walker here relates it. M. Wotton had indeed begun and gone on a good way in a large Answer to M. Walkers whole Letter; which is yet to be seen; and I could well have been content to afford it room here, save that I found it unfinished, and withall was loath to make this dis­course overlong. But therein it seems he altered his mind, and sent him this shorter. Which, if but to shew the difference of these two mens spirits, I have thought good here to insert.

To Mr. George Walker, peace of conscience, by true zeale with Sobriety and Charity.

SIR, if you have any true d [...]sire of my good, especially testified by prayer to God for me, the Lord requite your love, and uphold me in the continuance of the like duty for you now and ever. But I must plainly professe, that I can hardly be perswaded of the truth of your protestation: be­cause I finde your present Letters, being the first that ever I received from you, so full of bitternesse. Yet could I have been contented to have made some Answer to them, but that I see it would be to small or no purpose. For a great part of your vehement accusation concerns other men, and not me: who am not (in any equity) to be char­ged with their faults, (if any have so faulted) [...]. The things, which touch my selfe, are all, either utterly untrue, or misreported by you. And to what pur­pose were it, for me to deny, and you to affirme; and so as it were out-vy one anothers credit? Concerning the offer you make of putting the points in question, whether first you doe justly charge me with heresie and blasphemy; and whether secondly, my writings do not shew me to be a Soci­nian; I could happily have yeelded thereunto, without ex­cepting against any one whom you name, if you had not so violently sought it, by frighting me (as you imagined) with complaining, to my L. of Canterbury his Grace and the Commission, of me, if I refused. Good M Walker do not think me so childish or foolish, that I can be scared with such terrours and menacings. I am so throughly resolved of the truth I hold, differing immane quantum from Socinus blasphemy, and so well perswaded of my Lords soundnesse in judgement, and the equall hearing I shall have in that Court, that I am not afraid to put the matter [Page 24] there to triall. Wherefore use your discretion, either in this, or in any other course, that shall best please you: I will al­waies be ready to maintaine the truth I know, and to ac­knowledge that, I yet know not, whensoever it shall be dis­covered to me by the Word of God. To whose gracious blessing I commend the pardoning and reforming of this and all other wrongs you have done me, and rest,

Yours as it becomes a Christian to be ANTONY WOTTON.

Since the writing of this Letter, I have been perswaded by them, by whom I am willing to be advi­sed and ruled, to yeeld to your motion, which by this Post­script I now signifie unto you; Conditionally, that all things, wherewith you charge me in your Letter may also be heard, and the Letter it selfe scanned, as they, that shall be and are chosen, shall thinke meet. The manner of this tryall, with the time and pl [...]ce, must (in reason) be left to their wisedomes and liking. Whom I will choose, you shal understand from me, upon signification that you accept of this condition. The expectation of your former Messen­ger, who said he would call for an Answer, hath made me to put off the writing of this till now.

Thus have you M Wottons Letter of defiance, as M. Walker is pleased to stile it, so full of scorn and dis­dain; nothing sutable indeed to M. Walkers Invective, nor savouring at all of his furious spirit. And you have withall in the Postscript the reason of the delay of M. Wottons answer, returned thereunto not with­out the Postscript because detained by him till then. That which also is testified by M. Walkers own Let­ter [Page 25] written in answer hereunto; wherein he profes­seth himselfe to have been at the first sight of M. Wot­tons Letter much troubled, as in some other respects, so in regard of the refusall of his motion, and the defiance (as there also he tearms it) of his threatnings; untill he found at last to his comfort, an acceptance of his mo­tion, upon the advice of his friends.

2. That which next followeth, hath as little truth in it as the former, being a matter of more moment; to wit, that Vindic. p. 19. M. Wotton, After that by Letter to M. Wal­ker he had promised to yeeld to his motion about a confe­rence, did by M. Mason the Bishops Chaplen use meanes to make it known to the Bishop, in hope that he would forbid the meeting. Whereas M. Wotton had not yet written to M. Walker, that he would accept of that his offer, (desirous rather of a publike hearing, then a private conference) untill he had been with the Bishop, See Relat. p. 56. whom he importuned for an open and judiciary tryall; and being pressed by him rather to condescend to the course by M. Walker propounded, had thereupon consented and yeelded thereunto; upon condition that the Bishop would assigne one of his Chaplens to be a party in the hearing; who to satisfie M. Wottons request therein, appointed M. Mason then present, to M. Wotton otherwise a meere stranger, to undertake that imployment. After which therefore M. Wotton added the Postscript above recited, to his Letter, ly­ing yet by him, because not yet called for by M. Wal­kers messenger, according to M. Wottons expectation and his promise.

3. It is not true, that Vindic. p. 19. M. Hicks and my selfe bare our selves at the meeting, towards M. Walker as an Adversary, or as Advocates for M. Wotton: Unlesse to require the [Page 26] forbearance of railing and reviling terms, and en­devouring to have the businesse fairely and calmly caried, without Invectives and Declamations, which M. Walker, if let alone, would never have made an end of, may beare such an interpretation. And yet M. Hicks (a man whom to my knowledge I never saw before or since, nor know I how M. Walker knows to be Ibid. of M. Wottons mind in all points) spake least in the businesse of the most there present, being the yongest among us, and a man of very modest and moderate cariage. But somewhat must be fastned on a man least known; because of the better known it would not be so easily beleeved.

4 It is not true that Ibid. D. Westfield was the onely man there, with whom M. Walker had then any great famili­arity. For M. Stock and he, as they were next neigh­bours in their charges, so were very familiar; tho for his kindnesse he have been but ill rewarded by M. Walker in some Pag. 22, 23. passages here ensuing. For I leave it to M. Walker to reconcile his owne relations; wherein he telleth us, here, that Pag. 19. he was but a stran­ger of two yeeres residence in the City at the time of our meeting Anno 1614. and yet before in the very en­trance, that Pag. 1. the controversie between M. Wotton and himselfe began Anno 1611. He was belike very busie in the City, before he had any residence in the City. But this [...] being in his owne acts, himselfe, I hope, will some way assoll.

5. Nor is it true, that the parties designed, were Pag. 19. all of them M. Wottons old familiar friends. What any of the rest might be, I cannot certainly say; tho of few of them, I suppose, M. Walker is able to make it good. But for my selfe, I was then but lately grown [Page 27] into acquaintance with him by occasion of my re­movall from Lincolns-Inne to Rederith. Besides that there had much strangnesse grown before that time (as See of Pavl and Barnabas, Acts 15. 39. Chryso [...]ome & Ep [...]mus, S [...] ­crates Hist. Eccl. [...]. 6 c. 13. Hierome and Aug [...]stine in then Ep [...]stles to either Hie­rome & Ruffine, in Hieromes Epistles and Invectives. between the best and holiest sometime it falleth out) betweene M. Stock and M. Wotton, a thing too well known to, and much lamented by, many inter­ressed in either.

6. It is not true, that Pag. [...]. I derided him, when he gave in his charge of Socinian heresie & blasphemy against M. Wot­ton. For I never so did. Tho I confesse, I could not for­beare smiling at the reading of Relat p. 13. the second point in his Parallel condemned as a blasphemous Socinian heresie. And I suppose that scarce any sound and judicious Divine will be able to read it sine risu aut stomacho.

7. Nor is it true, that Vindic. p. 19. Dr. Baily came in amongst us, as by M. Walker designed to succeed in the roome of D. Westfield. For D. Westfield was expected that very day, that D. Baylie intruded himselfe into our com­pany, tho very likely indeed; not without M. Walker [...] privity and procurement, to disturb our procee­dings. Yet not pretending to appeare in D. Westfields roome, however afterward he supplied it, to make up the number; but making bold forsooth to associate himselfe with us, See Relat. p 8, 9. because we met in his Church. The most of the rest misliking, and muttering at it among themselves, as desirous rather of his roome then his company. And that, as for some other rea­sons not so fit to be here related; so the rather for that no sooner almost he was set down among us, but he began to quarrel with M. Wotton about his ap parrell, because he went not in a Ministeriall habit.

8. Whereas it is added, that Pag 15. D. Westfield refused after our first meeting, to meet any more, (which yet [Page 28] unto the rest of us he never once intimated) because he perceived a generall inclination in us all to favour M. Wotton, as foreseeing and fearing what followed. As therein M. Walker taxeth not me alone, but the whole company of open partiality: so it may rather justly be surmised, that D. Westfield being of a mild and moderate disposition, forbare further to present himselfe among us, being wearied out with M. Wal­kers furious and intemperate cariage, sufficient to have tired us all: and this I suppose they will the more incline to, that know the mans temper.

9. It is not true, that Pag. 19. 20. M. Walker did at first desire of us, that having in writing paralleld M. Wottons words with Socinus his, we would give our hands to his paral­lel, and subscribe, that he had not charged M. Wotton with any opinions or words but his owne; or consuted under the name of Socinianisme any words of his, wherein he con [...]urred not with Socinus. For See Relat. p. 9. neither was there at first any mention of a Parallel; nor came the mo­tion of it, when it was afterward mentioned, from M. Walker; but was after some wast of time spent to no purpose in clamorous declamations and inve­ctives, by my selfe propounded; that we might there­by the better discerne, how the case stood concer­ning the matters controverted, and bring the busi­nesse to some good issue: nor was any such subscrip­tion ever on M. Walkers part required; who as he now seoffeth us by the name of Subscribers; so could not after due hearing endure to heare of any subscri­bing; well wotting by the verdict of the whole com­pany, what the subscription was like to be.

10. He frameth Pag. 19, 20. his narration, as if his Parallels had been read alone without M. Wottons Answer: and [Page 29] that Pag. 20. upon the reading and examining of them, they ap­peared to some of them so cleere, and his cause so just, that the same day at dinner Dr. Baylie did protest, that M. Walker had discovered M. Wotton to be as damned an hereticke as ever did tread on English ground: and after againe, that Pag. 22. the said Doctor upon the first reading of M. Wottons speeches so paralleld, condemned M. Wotton for an hereticke, and his errors for blasphemy. To wit, at a private table, as before he had related. Now whether D. Baylie spake thus or no, I will not call in question; because M. Walker saith he hath sufficient witnesses of it. But this I say:

1. That his Parallel was not delivered in before or without M. Wottons Answer. For so See Relat. p. 10. it was agreed. Nor were all the Parallels or points paralleld read over at once; but severally related, considered of, and examined, together with M. Wottons answer thereunto, and both withall debated, as they stood in order, and came to hand, some one day, and some an other.

2. For the Doctors speech, (howsoever his judge­ment, I suppose, so rashly given especially, will beare no great weight with those that throughly knew the man and his manner) if it were such as M. Walker saith; and were delivered, as he implieth, upon the very first hearing of M. Walkers charge onely read, before he had heard M. Wottons defence: it may seem, he was of that mind, that Zeno Phocyli­dis dictum illud notabat, [...]. Plut. de Stoic. contradict. §. 4. the Stoike some­time was, who held it a ridiculous thing to heare any defendant or second party: tho most wise men have ever been John 7. 51. Act. 15. 16. Neminem praedamnare incognità causa licet. Lactant l. 5. c. 1. of a contrary judgement; requiring [Page 30] [...]. Plut. Alex. [...], Anton. M [...]. [...]. c. 53. the one eare at least to be reserved for the defen­dant; and condemning those of Qui statuit aliquid. parte i [...]auditâ aliera; AEquum licet fiatu [...]rit, [...]aud aequs fuit. Sence. Med. 1. 2. [...]. Menand. unjust and une­quall dealing, albeit the sentence they passe be agree­able to right, that condemne a man unheard.

But, if the Doctor then said, as M. VValker saith he did; and yet afterward did under his hand acquit M. VVotton of heresie and blasphemy, as it is acknow­ledged that he did; one of the two must of necessity follow, either that he altred his judgement therein upon the hearing of M. Wottons defence, considering better of the businesse then before he had done; or that he gave sentence and subscribed directly con­trary to his owne judgement, and so Iudex damna­tur, cum nocens absolvitur. P. Syrus. in acquitting M. VVotton condemned himselfe. Of either whereof let M. VValker choose which he please, and make the best use of it for his owne advantage.

11. Howbeit to afford the Doctor a plaister, wherewith to salve his credit, herein somewhat im­peached, M. VValker bringeth in the party, at whose house they dined, demanding, Pag. 20. VVhy they did not then without more adoe justifie M. VValker, and censure M. VVotton. M. VValker might much better himselfe rather have askt the Doctor, why he said not so much openly at the meeting; or how it came to passe that he did not there utter any one syllable or title tending thereunto; whenas at the table now (where­by any man may deem of the Doctors discretion, if all that M. VValker tels of him be true) he so freely and fully passed and published his censure. Now to this question of his hoasts M. VValker shapeth this answer, (in whose person uncertaine; for M. VValker is nothing cleere in these his dramaticall discourses) Ibid. They pretended, that they desired to convert, not to con­found [Page 31] M. VVotton; that they perceived him to be afraid of a storm like to fall on him: and that if I would yeeld to let him expound himselfe, he would by a wrested exposition gainsay and contradict his former words and opinions, and run from them: which being gotten from him under his own hand, they would either hold him to it, or shame him for ever, if he did fall back again.

Such a passage, as I know not, nor any man else, I thinke, what to make of.

For first, who be the They, that he speaketh of? was it the Doctor alone, that told all this faire tale, and pretended all this? how cometh he then to say, They? Or if M. Downham be included, who is related to have dined at the same time with them; how doth M. Walker, in his ensuing Discourse make him [...]. Muta persona. a mute Actor in this Scene, one that Pag. 22. by silence only assented to, what the Doctor then said? Again, where, think we, meaneth he, that all this was pretended? was it pretended at the Table? or was it related only there; but pretended before at the meeting among our selves? But I shall leave it to any man of ordi­nary understanding to conceive, how likely it is; either that M. Wottons friends (for such M. Walker saith they were all) should thus conspire to ensnare him; or that such a consultation should be had among us in the presence of M. Wotton himselfe. For we did nothing at our meetings but in the presence of M. Wotton and M. VValker; who were neither of them ever excluded, or required to withdraw themselves upon any occasion, during the whole hearing. But M. Walker it may well seem, was somewhat di­stracted in mind, when he writ this; studying how to bring in handsomely what himselfe had invented, [Page 32] and uncertaine whom to father and fasten it upon. For marke, I pray you, what immediately follows.

12. Pag. 20. This course, saith he, being M. Gatakers device, I refused to yeeld unto: because I had never opposed M. Wotton, but onely in his opinions formerly published, and and not in future Expositions: and because I had fully proved my charge, I desired their verdict and just judge­ment. But after much importunity I yeelded; and so lost my cause, and was drawn into a new businesse; that was, to contend with M. Wotton, not about his former opinions, but about new expositions, which he would make in answer to my Parallel.

In which words are couched many grosse fals­hoods: nor was the former passage so intricate, but this is much more untrue.

1. He affirmed before, that They pretended this and that; and thereupon plotted to get I know not what under M. Wottons hand. Now he telleth his Reader, that This course was M. Gattakers device. Quo teneam vultus mutan­tem Protea nodo? Where at length shall we have him?

2. True it is indeed, I was the first mover, that M. Walker might be requested to make such a paral­lel; as Relat. p. 9. in my relation I acknowledge. But that I ever had any such pretence, as M. Walker here talketh of, or ever made any motion for ought under M. Wottons hand, is most untrue. M. VVotton onely him­self moved, (as I Relat. p. 9, 10. elswhere relate) that he might have the Parallels sent him from M. Walker a day or two before the next hearing, that he might subjoyn his answer and defence thereunto.

3. That M. Walker refused to yeeld thereunto, and was by meere importunity drawn to admit it, is likewise most false. For it was presently deemed most equall on all [Page 33] sides: nor did M. Walker in the least manner make any shew of dislike.

4. It is a like true, that upon the giving in of his parallel, he required our verdict; that course being not as yet condescended unto, which he tearmeth my device. When as the course mentioned, and by M. VVotton himselfe motioned, was agreed upon before his parallel was composed, and much more then, before it was exhibited. So that by M. Walkers relati­on a verdict should have been past by his Judges, while the parallel, containing the evidence, was as yet, if as yet at least, in the Actors brain only.

But to take the businesse, and discusse it a while, as M. Walker here relateth it.

First, I referre it to any indifferent mans judge­ment to determine, whether it were agreeable to equity, for M Walker to require a verdict of his Iudges, (as he termeth them) or for them to give it in his be­halfe, against M. Wotton, upon a bare sight of some positions found as well in M. Wotton, as in Socinus, (supposing it so to be) before M. Wottons defence were either exhibited or heard. And here let me crave leave to shew the unreasonablenesse of such a request, and it be but by one instance. M Walker in his Parallel chargeth this Position upon M. Wotton, as a point of Socinianism, an hereticall and blasphemous assertion, that Prallel. Er [...]or. 2. Relat. p. 13. Faith is a condition appointed by God to be performed on our parts for obtaining of justification. Now, it being granted, that the very same words were by M. Walker exhibited, (which yet precisely they are not) as well out of Socinus his works, as out of M. VVottons writings: had it not been, thinke we, a very discreet part of them whom the businesse was [Page 34] committed unto, to have without more adoe, so censu­red it, as M Walker had charged it, and in so censu­ring it, to have condemned themselves, (who openly to M. Walkers face Relat. p. 36. professed, that they had oft taught it) and not themselves alone, but all orthodox Divines (for ought I know) in the whole world; yea the Apostle S. Paul himselfe to boote too, if some of them may be beleeved; for Socinians and blasphe­mous heretiks? For I would fain know of M Walker, how this differeth that he so chargeth, from what Pareus saith, and avoweth to be S. Pauls, that Fidem inserit, ut d [...]ccat Pidem esse conditi [...]m, sub qua Christus nobis datus est propitiatorium. Pareus in Rom. 3. 25. Faith is the condition, under which Christ is given us for a propitiation. Or, not to looke out abroad, but to keep our selves at home; I should desire to understand from him, what he thinketh of these passages in some writers of our own; and those men of no mean note neither.

First, that of M. Fox, Conditio, qua propriè justifica­mur, ea est, ut in Christum creda­mus. Fox de Christ. grat. justif. p. 244. The condition whereby we are properly justified is this, that we beleeve in Christ. And againe, Promissio E­vangelica nullā exigit conditio­nem aliam, prae­ter fidem dun­taxat, qua credi­mus in filium Dei. Ibid p. 240. The Evangelicall promise requireth no other condition to the attaining of salvation, besides Faith one­ly, whereby we beleeve on the Sonne of God.

Secondly, that of M. Perkins, in his Reformed Ca­tholique; Reform. Cathol. Point. 4. of Justificat. the manner, Differ. 2. Reason 1. In the Covenant of Grace, two things must be considered: the substance thereof, and the condition. The substance of the Covenant is, that Righteousnes and life everlasting is given to Gods Church and people by Christ. The condition is, that we for our parts are by faith to receive the foresaid benefits. And this condition is by grace as well as the substance.

Or if these men be not of that esteem with M. Walker, but that he can be content to let them go for damned heretiks, to beare M. VVotton company in [Page 35] the same condemnation, I should crave to be infor­med, what he deemeth of M. Pemble, M. Wil. Pe [...]bles Uindiciae. Or, Plea for grace, that especially of faith. some of whose works he hath deigned to honour with a Dedicatory Epistle; wherein he commendeth him, as M. G. Walker Epist. to the Christian Reader. a righte­ous and faithfull servant of Christ, excelling in grace and vertue, abounding in all wisdome, and in all know­ledge, lively sense and utterance of heavenly and supernatu­rall mysteries, far above all that could be expected from, or is ordinarily found in one of his age and yeers. Ibid. Nor doubteth therefore, nor is afraid to say of him, that he is ascended up into that supercelestiall glory, towards which he had ever bent all his studies and desires. This M. Pemble then, whom M. Walker thus extolleth, and not altogether undeservedly, in another of his works hath these words: M. W. Pemble, Vindiciae Fidei, or, Of justifica­tion by Faith, Sect. 2. chap. 1. p. 23. There are two covenants that God hath made with man: by one of which salvation is to be obtained. The one is the Covenant of works, thè tenor whereof is, Doe this, and thou shalt live. The other is the Covenant of Grace, the tenor whereof it, Beleeve in the Lord Iesus, and thou shalt be saved. The condition of this Covenant, Ibid. p. 22. (required in them that shall be justified) is faith. The performance whereof differs from the perfor­mance of the condition of that other Covenant. Doe this and live, is a compact of pure justice; wherein wages is given by debt; so that he that doth the work obeying the Law, may in strict justice for the work sake claim the wages, eternall life, upon just desert. Beleeve this and live, is a compact of freest and purest mercy; wherein the re­ward of eternall life is given us in favour for that, which beares not the least proportion of worth with it: so that he that performs the condition, cannot yet demand the wages, as due unto him in severity of justice, but onely by the grace of a free promise, the fulfilling of which he may [Page 36] humbly sue for. And againe, Ibid. p. 24. Altho the act of justifica­tion of a sinner be properly the onely work of God, for the onely merit of Christ: yet is it rightly ascribed unto faith, and it alone; for as much as faith is that main condition of the New Covenant; which, as we must performe, if we will be justified; so by the performance whereof we are said to obtaine justification and life. Thus M. Pemble: in which passages (tho I will not justifie all therein contained) he fully and cleerely expresseth M. Wot­tons meaning not as his owne judgment only, but The Refor­med Churches thus explaine themselves. Ibid. p. 23. as the doctrine of the Reformed Churches by them so explai­ned. Now I demand of M. Walker, whether for this damnable and detestable position, we shall doe well, without further search or triall, (the rather since that the same, he saith, is found in Socinus) to con­demne M. Pemble of heresie, and require, if not his bones to be digged up againe and committed to the fire, yet his books at least containing such blasphe­mous stuffe, to be burnt. Which if he shall deem fit, sure Pauls Epistles, unlesse Pareus be much mistaken, must goe the same way. Or if he shall be of another mind concerning these blessed men, whether it be not extreame partiality, to let that goe for sound doctrine in M. Fox, Perkins, Pareus and Pemble, that in M. Wottons writings without further adoe, upon M. Walkers bare relating of it, must be condemned for blasphemous heresie.

Secondly, I desire to have it considered, whether it were equall to censure a man for an heretike, upon bare positions or sayings extracted out of his wri­tings, without any regard had to, or notice taken of, his own Expositions of them; or his Reasons alledged to prove his dissent in them from the errors of those [Page 37] whom he is charged to concurre with; confirmed by collation of place with place in his writings, and by consideration of the maine scope and drift of the dispute, course and tenor of the discourse, and the different sense and meaning of the words and terms used by either. For example, M. Walker in his pa­rallel alledgeth a saying of Servetus, (and that is all that he hath out of him throughout his whole Pa­rallel) that Parall. Error. 4. For one act of Faith was Abraham righte­ous. And presuming that M. Wotton saith the very same, (though he alledge not any one place at all out of M. Wotton, where these words are found) from hence concludeth, that M. Wotton and Servetus do in the doctrine of justification hold one and the same opinion in all points. Now suppose wee that the very selfesame words were found in M. Wottons wri­rings: and againe, that that saying in Servetus were condemned, yea and that justly, for hereticall: yet were it therefore agreeable to equity, without fur­ther disquisition, to passe sentence thereupon, that M. Wotton & Serv [...]tus do in all things hold the same opi­nion in the point of justification? yea or, that in those very words they speake the same thing? when it may easily be made evidently to appeare, that Servetus speaketh of justification in one sense, and M. Wotton intreateth of justification in another sense: and that neither the Faith, nor the Righteousnesse, nor the man­ner of imputation of Righteousnesse, that they speak of in their writings are the same. That which any may soon see, that shall read Relat. Postsc [...]. p. 46. the summe of Servetus his discourse, related out of Calvin in my postscript. Surely by the same reason might M. Walker prove S. Paul and Servetus to be both of them in all things of [Page 38] one mind concerning the doctrine of justification; because Relat. postscr. p 46. Servetus saith, that Abrahams beleeving was imputed unto him for righteousnes: and S. Paul expres­ly in so many Rom. 4 3. 9. words saith the same. Or that Mus­culus agreeth with Servetus in all things for the mat­ter of justification; because he saith in neerer terms to Servetus, then any M. Walker alledgeth out of M. Wotton; that Ubi promit­tenti Deo f [...]mi­ter credidit, est illi ejusmodi si [...]s loco justitiae im­putata; hoc est, Ob ca [...]a Fidem justu [...] est a Deo reputatus. Mus­cal. in Gen. 16. 6. Abraham for that faith of his was of God reputed just. Yea take away all benefit of Exposition, and who almost may not be condemned of heresie and blasphemy? For example: He that shall men­tion Gods Psal. 8. 3. 6. hands and Psal. 74. 3. feet; as concurring with the Audians, Epiphan. haer. 70. §. 2. Aug. de haeres. c 49. who held that God had the shape, limbs, and lineaments of a man: he that shall affirme, with the Evangelist, or with Christ himselfe rather, that John 14. 28. the Father is greater then he; as consenting to the A­rians; Epiph. haer. 69. §. 17. Aug. de haeres. c. 49. who maintained an inequality among the Persons in the Trinity. And here I shall crave of M. Walker and my Reader to tell a story or two: it is the humour of old men (such as M. Walker and my selfe) to be now and then telling of tales. I remem­ber, that, while I aboad at Lincolns-Inne, the night before Legate the Arian appeared in the Bishops Consistory at Pauls, (of whose being in trouble I then knew nothing) there came to my chamber there, at a very unseasonable houre, a Gentleman­like man; who having knockt at the doore, ask'd to speake with me; and entrance afforded him, reacht me a little scrole, wherein were these words written, Whether was the Godhead of Christ begotten of the God­head of the Father from all eternity? and withall desired me to give mine opinion, whether that were not an error? I required to know first what the meaning of [Page 39] the party was, that held or affirmed it. He answered me, According to that in the Creed, Creed of Con­stantinople, com­monly called the Nicene Creed. God of God, light of light. I told him, that these were not the words there used: and that to speake properly, the Godhead was not said, either to beget, or to be begotten. If the parties mea­ning were, that Christ being God was begotten of the Fa­ther, who is likewise God from all eternity; the sense were sound, but the speech improper. Then belike, as it is there written, quoth he, it is an error. As the words sound, replied I, it is: yet it may be not, in his sense that spake it. He requested me to give him that under my hand. I craved his name. He told me, I must excuse him for that. I told him, he should likewise excuse me for this. And so we parted. But the next day, hearing Legate in the Consistory, as I past thorow Pauls, I began to surmise, that this party might be some friend of his; and that some Divine or other, in conference with him having let some such speech slip from him, this party his friend might beate about to get under some other Divines hands the censure of it as an error. Whence I then gathered, that a man had need to be wary, how he condemne a man of error, of heresie much more, upon a bare relation of words, before he understand what his meaning is. Againe, I remember, that a busie Separatist being committed to Newgate, and there arrogantly challenging to dispute with all commers, and scornfully playing upon and gibing at such as dealt with him; M Brad­shaw (whom we shall find M. Walker anon grinning at) was by some friends brought to him; who per­ceiving the mans spirit, and having had some dis­course with him, the issue whereof he caused to be set down in writing under both their hands, that he [Page 40] might not talke of this and that, after they were par­ted; M. Bradshaw a little to represse his insolency, told him, that for all his prating so much of the Constitu­tion of a Church, (the common subject of such mens disputes) yet his skill peradventure might be but mean in the maine principles of religion. And being by him provoked to make triall, if he pleased; he demanded of him, whether Christs Deity assumed the Person of man or no. To which question the bold bayard without stop or stay returning an affirmative answer, that it did, M. Bradshaw told him, it was grosse heresie. And so left him. And indeed, if the words alone be regarded, so it is; even the heresie of Nestorius, Isidar. Origin. l. 7. c. 5. Socrat. bistor. l. 7. c. 23. Euagr. l. 1. c. 7. who maintained two-persons in Christ, not two natures in one person. And yet neither doe I, nor did M. Bradshaw hold the silly fellow to be an heretik; no more then Onuphr in vita Ius 3. Pp. Dr. Field of the Church, l. 2. c. 9. & l. 3. c. 1. Breerwood of Relig. & Lan­grug c. 25. p. 183. those that beare the name of Nestorians in the Eastern parts, are deemed so to be at this day. And indeed take mens words apa [...]t from their meaning, and how many shall be ranked, though in judgement never so sound and orthodox, among heretiks, as concurring with such, because the same words and sentences are found in either? To cleere this a little, consider we an instance or two, Salvian Bishop of Marseiles, a very pious and learned ancient Writer, saith, that Aio. Christian non solum egere cam caeteru sed multo plus egere quam caeteros. sunt enim qui­bus et si desiat multa, non desunt omnia. Chris [...]us tantummodò solus est, cui nihil est, quod in emni humano g [...]n [...]re non desit. Salvi an. ad Eccl. Ca­thol. l. 4. Our Saviour Christ is the greatest begger in the World. Mea­ning it of the poverty, which he sustaineth Non eget mi­ [...]riâ, sed eget misericorata; noo eget [...]eitate prose, sed eget pietate pro suis. Ibid. not in himselfe, but in his, in the severall members of his body mysticall, or spirituall rather, here upon earth. shall he be hold therefore to concurre in opinion with Pope Nicolas 3. and those other Sext Decretal. de verb. si [...]g [...]. exi [...] t. who main­tained, that our Saviour Christ was a very beggar in­deed, [Page 41] and lived here in the very lowest degree of beg­gary that can be; which Pope Iohn 22. Extr. de ve [...] sign. c. Ad condi &c. Quia quo­rard [...]. condemneth for an heresie? Againe Luther, in his Commentary upon the Epistle to the Galatians, saith, that Christus sum­mus & maxi­mus peccator. Luth. in Gal. 3. 13. p. 459. quo nullus major in mun. do. Ib. p. 453. Christ was the greatest sinner in the World; meaning it, in re­gard of Omnium homi­num peccata omnia in se sus­cep [...]. lbid. p. 458. & 453. P [...]rso­nam [...] [...]ndam ge­rendam [...]pit; [...]que reus fa­ctus est peccate­rum totius mu [...] ­di. [...]. p. 4 [...]6. the sinnes of all the faithfull, which he took upon himselfe, and were reckoned as his. And we read of one Austen of Rome, Archbishop of Nazareth, who maintained some assertions, not unlike that of Luther, to wit, that Christus qua­tid [...] peccat: & ex quo fuit Christus, quoti­d [...] p [...] it. Aug. d. Rom. de sacram. Christ. & Eccles. l. 1. Christ sinneth daily, and ever so did. Understanding what he sp [...]ke, Nod, [...]e capite, sed de membris, que cum Christo capite, sunt unus Christus. Idem. of the body of the faithfull, who being Rom. 8. 1. & 16. 7. in Christ, and 1 Cor. 6. 17. Omnes Sancti & fideles cum homine Christo sunt unus Christus. Aug. de pecc. mer. & rem. l. 1. c. 31. Caput enim & corpus unus est Christus. Idem de Trmit. l. 4. c. 9. & in Ps. 54. & de verb. Dom. 49. & 65. Bed. in Ioan, 17. Bern. [...]p. 190. Christus cum totâ suâ Ecclesia, una persona est. Greg. in Ps. paen 5. one with Christ, have the Name of Christ sometimes given them Gal. 3. 16. 1 Cor. 12. 12. in Scripture. The speeches, I confesse, are both overharsh; and the Archbishop was for his taxed in the Conc. Basil. sess. 22. Councel of Basil. Yet were it no lesse harsh or hard, to condemne either of them, as concurring in judgement with those blasphemous Pharisees, that John 9. 24. said our Saviour Christ was a sinner; tho the words were the same with either. Yea to ad onely one in­stance more: S. Iohn himselfe faith, that 1 Joh. 5. 18. No regene rate man doth sinne; 1 Joh. 3. 9 nor can sinne. And yet who dares be so bold as to say, that S. Iohn therefore concurreth either with the old Epipban. her. 59. § 6. Cathari, or with the late Fami­lists, who dreaming of an absolute perfection in this life, do H. N. Terri Pacis c. 34. & 36. I. R. of Family of Love, D. 5, 6. of their illuminate and regenerate ones say the same?

In regard hereof, a man may precisely relate an [Page 42] other mans words; and yet be a slanderer, a false ac­cuser, a false witnes. For example; that I may refresh my Reader a little with some matter of more ab­struse learning, (yet other mens, not mine own; lest M. Walkers tongue again lash me) and [...] Ex Pla­tone Plut. Sym­p [...]s. l. 7. c. 5. & 8. & de esu carn. l. 2. & Greg. Stas. de Ma [...]tyr. & ad Iul. exact. season therewith somewhat this not very savoury discourse. Suppose we, that those persons, Math. 26. 61. Marke 14. 58. that were deposed against our Saviour, had given in his precise words, as he himself spake them, without addition, detraction or alteration of ought, Dissolve this Temple, and within three daies, I will reedifie it; understanding and affir­ming it (as it seems they did, and as John 2. 10. the Jewes that heard him tooke it) to have been spoken not as he meant and intended it (pointing in likelihood, when he spake, to it) John 2. 21. of the Temple of his body, John 1. 14. Col. 2. 9. where­in John 2. 19. his Deity dwelt; but of the Temple of Lime and Stone, built by Herod, of which they spake when they said, John 2. 20. Forty and six yeeres hath this Temple been building, as the words may well be translated: and Uideantar Ios. Scaliger de Emendat. Temp. l. 6. p. 534, 535. Phil. Lansberg. Chronol. sacr. l. 3. c. 18. Tho. Ly­diat. Emend. Temp. A. M. 3991, & 4037. so long by just computation it is by some deemed, that it had then been in building, and [...], Ioseph. antiq. l. 20 c. 8. Gr. 17. Lat. ad Albinum abitu­ [...]ntem, circiter quadriennium ante excidium. the former. And indeed it may seeme by Math. 24. 1. Marke 13. 1, 2. Ios [...]ph. antiq. l. 15. c. 14. & belli 1. l. 7. c. 26, 27. Gr. Lat. 12. vide Ri­ [...]n. 45. &c. was not yet fully finished: and of which Hieron. in Hagg. 2. Chrysost. in 1 Cor. orat. 34. Fr. Ribera in Hagg. [...]. n. 37-52. some understand, not without some good ground of probability, those words of the Prophet, Hagg. 2. 8, 9. Silver is mine, and Gold is mine; or, Of Silver and Gold I have store enough; The glory of this latter house shall be greater than the glory of the rela­tion of those that saw it, that the [...]. second house, as the Jewes tearme it, (which tho demolished by He­rod, yet still bare that name, because there was no interruption or intermission by occasion thereof of [Page 43] [...] Dan. 8. 11, [...] the daily solemne sacrifice) was by that Ios. ant. l. 15. c. 14. magnifi­cent King built up againe in more stately manner, then by Salomon it was built at first. Now suppose, I say, these men, that were suborned to accuse our Saviour, had in their evidence to a syllable given in his owne words, and had agreed in their testimony, as Marke 14. 59. they did not; had they been ever a whit the lesse false-witnesses therefore? I trow, not. And here I cannot let passe, as notorious, and yet as grosse and palpable a calumny as ever I read or heard of, of that Romish sycophant, that wrote against that acute and nimbleheaded defender of The safe way to salva­tion by Protestants Religion; a worke, which for the main substance of it, as it opposeth Popery, I looke not to see answered by that side in hast, however they nibble at some passages here and there in it, and snarle at the Author. He renders you the Authors words to an heire, not a word, not a syllable, not a letter, not a point, not a title, detracted, added, alte­red, or displaced. No man that reads the Jesuite, ha­ving not M. Chillingsworths booke by him, but would verily beleeve, he had uttered and meant, the thing spoken, of himselfe. For thus they runne in his Re­lation, I. H. Christia­nity maintai­ned chap. 9. § 3. p. 66. This man (to wit, M. G. C.) speakes so irreli­giously sometimes, that it may give just occasion for men to enquire what he beleeves concerning the Divinity of our Saviour Christ; as when he saith, Preface n. 8. that the doctrine of Transubstantiation may bring a great many others, as well as himselfe to Averroes his resolution; Quandoquidem Christiani adorant quod comedunt, sit anima mea cum Philosophis; seeing Christians adore what they eate, my soule be with the Philosophers. Which having recited, he begins to debate the matter with the [Page 44] Authour, as having said thus of himselfe. I H. Ibid. p. 66 Is this matter of eating our Saviour such a pill to your under­standing, that rather then disgest it, you will turne Turke or Infidel? If you beleeved indeed that our Saviour Christ is truely God, you would not be scondalized, that Christi­ans adore him who would and could be eaten, no more then him who stood in need of eating, and whom the Iewes might have eaten, even in a Capharnaiticall and sa­vage manner if it had been his will to permit it: Ibid. p. 67. Perhaps for these reasons, having subjected Faith to reason, you wish with Averroes a prosessed enemy of Christians, My soule be with the Philosophers. Whereas let any man but lightly cast his eye upon the Authors owne discourse; and the knavery will at the very first sight, without fur­ther enquiry, evidently discover it selfe. His words are these, G. C. P [...]eface to the Author of Charity maintained, num. 8. I should desire you to tell me ingenuously, whe­ther it be not too probable, that your portentous doctrine of Transubstantiation, joynd with your forementioned perswasion of, No papists, no Christians, hath brought a great many others as well as himselfe to Averroes his resolution, Quandoquidem Christiani adorant, quod co­medunt, sit anima mea cum Philosophis. You see the Authours own words exactly retained, precisely re­ported; and yet that resolution thence gathered, and therein fathered and fastned upon the Author, then which he nothing lesse there either uttered or intended. Which the rather I recite here, partly to shew the desperate shamelesnes of those of that fa­ction, not regarding what lies and falshoods they report as out of our Writers, tho the books repaired to may presently convince them of grosse untruth; (of which their practise examples not a few might be produced) and partly to manifest how exactly [Page 45] for words men may cary themselves in this kind, and yet not escape the just censure of fals-witnes­bearers, and unjust slanderers of their brethren.

Lastly, to come full home to our selves; as he may be a false-witnes, who yet relateth a mans own words: so Iury and Iudge may both be unjust, tho upon a mans own words, the one cast him, and the other condemn him; excluding his exposition, and either perverting or mistaking his meaning; witnes (to go no further, but content our selves therewith) those Io. Speed in Ed [...]. 4. § 3. that cast and condemned our poore Countreyman, a Citizen and Grocer of London, one of M. Walkers name, in King Edward the fourths time, as guilty of no lesse then high treason (for which also he was ex­ecuted) for saying, he would make his child, if he plied his booke, heire to the Crown: thereby meaning no o­ther then his own dwelling house at the signe of the Crown in Cheapside, commonly known and called by that name. Nor, I suppose, could we justly have escaped that censure; should we, as M. Walker here would have us, upon his bare reading of M. Wottons words to us, without all further examination of them, or hearing of him, have proceeded to con­demn him of heresie and blasphemy; that is, no lesse, as I take it, then high Treason against the highest Majesty.

But thus much may suffice, if not more then suffi­cient, to evince the iniquity and inequality of M. Wal­kers here pretended request. Which yet he was not so unreasonable then as to motion or mention; much lesse to presse upon us, being then somewhat more reasonably minded, then (it seemes) he now is: and which, had he pressed upon us, as now he saith that [Page 46] he did, had been most unequall and unjust for us to have granted.

13. As far from truth as the former, are those things that in M. Walkers narration next follow: to wit, that Vindicat. p. 20, 21. at an other day M. Wotton brought his Expo­sitions; whereas in truth his Answers which he cals his Expositions (the same word for word that by his sonne have since been published) were delivered in at the same time together with M. Walkers Parallels, as at first was appointed, that Pag. 21. he desiring to argue with M. Wotton face to face against them in strict Syllo­gisms, he refused to answer him; and their Iudges refused to heare him, or to suffer him to have a Copy of them, as M. Wotton had of his Parallels. All which is most untrue. For neither did M. VVotton ever refuse to answer M. Walker, offering any orderly dispute: (which how well M. Walker is acquainted with, those that have had dealings with him in this kind, or have read his writings, may soon see) nor did their Iudges (as he calleth them, but very partiall and unjust ones, it seems, all of them; and it is well, that herein we suf­fer all alike from him) refuse to heare him alledging ought, whereby he might make his charge good. Nor was he by them ever denied a Copy of M. VVot­tons answer; which neither we had our selves, no more then his Parallel, nor was at any time by him de­manded of us.

14. Yet what he addeth here, I confesse, is in part true; that when he saw he could not have his owne will, nor deterre us from acknowledging under our hands, that we found neither heresie, nor blasphemy, in ought, that he had evinced M. Wotton to hold; Pag. [...]1. he went away in a rage; yet, not threatning (as here he [Page 47] reporteth) to bring him and us before higher Judges; (he came not as yet to so high tearms with us; and is herein therefore not unlike some debauched per­sons, who to encrease their owne shame, will Fingunt, que vera negarent, Dum credi, quod non contigit esse, volunt. vaunt many times of more evill then ever they did) but not without intimation, that we did more then we could answer in taking upon us to determin heresie; (or to tell, belike, what we thought to be, or not to be such) having forgotten, it seems, his own motion at first, and what himselfe had requested us to meet about: just as if a party appeaching his neighbour of wrong doing, and having pressed him to referre the matter betweene them to Arbitrators joyntly agreed on; should, when he perceived them enclining to acquit his neighbour of the pretended wrong, demand of them, whether they would take upon them to de­cide right and wrong: and yet why might not we do as much as Walker himselfe had done? for how did not he take upon him to determine what was here­sie, when he charged M. Wotton with it? Nor again, is it untrue, that afterward he endeavoured to have us called in question for our meeting, tho by himself procured. Insomuch that the Bishop of London, in regard of his importunate exclaiming against us, did at first pretend to doubt of, yea in a manner deny his giving way to it; untill being minded of the Relat. p. 6. mo­tion made for one of his Chaplens to be a party in the businesse, and his condescending thereunto, he could not but agnize it.

But that which followeth; and, if M. Walker in his Narration observe any due order, should be done after his departure, and so in his absence; to wit; that V [...]. p. 21. M. Wotton should promise to make & publish a large [Page 48] Declaration, wherein he would free himselfe from all So­cinian errors; and in the mean space begged this favour, that they would subscribe to his expositions, that they found no heresie or blasphemy in them; and that upon this promise and entreaty they did subscribe, as followeth, &c. To which is a little after added, that Pag. 24. M. Wotton begged this beggerly subscription; (which sticketh shrewdly in his stomacke; as well it may) and that M. Gataker pro­curedit. All this, I say, hath little or no truth in it. Neither did M. Wotton make any such promise. Nor did he beg our censure to be given under our hands, as a favour; but required it, as a thing just and equall. Nor was it by me procured; unlesse giving my vote among the rest for the grant of it, may be so constru­ed. Nor was it upon any such promise condescen­ded unto, as is here pretended. And M. Walker cer­tainly had very long eares, if being absent at the doing of it, he could heare what was then and there said: or a quicker eare then the rest of the company, if being present, he heard that, that some, I am sure, and the rest, I verily beleeve, never heard, and yet might have heard as well as he, had it been spoken.

Howbeit I must here request the reader to take notice of one point of cunning conveyance, in the relation of the forme subscribed, whether commit­ted by the Doctor, from whom he saith he had it, (tho he might have seen it, and had it from us, if he had pleased to stay our subscribing) or by M Walker himselfe, I know not; and I would be loath to charge him further then I have good ground: He telleth his Reader, that Pag. 21. M. Wotton begged of us to subscribe to his Expositions, and the subscription it selfe he thus layeth down Ibid. Howsoever we whose names are underwritten, doe [Page 49] differ from M. Wotton in some Point of the former De­ctrine of justification conteined in these his Expositions; yet we hold not the difference to be so great and weighty, as they are to he justly condemned of heresie and blasphemy. And againe he subjoyneth, Ibid. The expositions thus sub­scribed. Whereas it is testified See Relat. p. 38. under the hands of two of his own Delegates, that in the subscription given under our hands, it was not Expositions but Po­sitions. Howsoever Positions come now to be turned into Expositions; by what or whose hand I wot not; and this latter be now pressed, to give some sory colour to Vindic. p. 20. M. Walkers late devised shift before men­tioned, and there sufficiently discussed, of dealing with M. Wottons Positions, and not his expositions. Which, albeit it wil litle avail M. Walker, unles he can shew, that his Expositions are such, as either his words wil not beare, or are not consonant to the scope and tenor of his discourse; yet what was then subscribed, the subscribers themselves witnes. And as for the Copy, which Pag. 22. he saith, he hath yet to shew; un­les he can produce the originall, that their own hands are too; I hope, this yet to be seen under the hands of some of them, and those of M. Walkers own party, (the like whereunto also can be produced un­der the hands of some of the other side) wil with any man indifferently affected carry the more credit: especially considering, that M. Walker would make men beleeve that they did very unwillingly, what therein they did; and were afterward ashamed of what they had done: and had reason therefore to mince it all that possibly they might.

15. It is Damna [...]i ubi jam jure sese sense [...]t sontes, iniquos conque­runtur judices. Sons nemo sese jure damn [...]tum volet. the usuall manner of delinquents, (for un­der that head may be comprehended, as wel those [Page 50] that unjustly appeal others, as those that by others are justly appealed) when they fail and are found faulty, to complain of their Iudges, and exclaim against them, for their iniquity and partiality in the cariage of the businesse; by impairing their credit, seeking to salve up their own. The very same course doth M. Walker take throughout this whole, not so much Vindication of himself, as Crimination of those, whom himselfe had referred his cause unto. He vilifies them in tearms of scorn and reproach, Vindic. p. 4. M. Gataker and his fellows, and his fellow subscribers. He accuseth them of iniquity, partiality, unjust and unequal car­riage, against their own judgment, and consequently against their own conscience. Or, if a man would speak in M. Walkers wonted language, as G. W. Letter to A. W. Vind. p. 15. wicked Iud­ges, that have respect of persons in judgement; yea, worse then Luke 18. 2. the unjust Judge in the Gospel, that neither feared God, nor regarded man: for Luke 18. 5. he by the poore widows importunity was drawn to do her right; whereas Pag. 21. they by M. Wottons importunity were indu­ced to do M. Walker wrong, and to acquit him of here­sie & blasphemy, whom M Walker had justly accused of either; and that against their own knowledge, yea their own acknowledgement, when they both knew and acknowledged him to be guilty of either.

Howbeit a little to wipe off these foule aspersions again, he saith, Pag. 4. they did it, out of their great love to M. Wottons person: and Pag. 22. the better part of them, not­withstanding M. VVottons importunity, would never have yeelded thereunto, but upon his promise of reformation. Concerning which I shall not need to repeat what I have formerly related. Tho what reformation M. Wal­ker here speaketh of, I do not well understand. For, [Page 51] as for those points, wherein M. Wotton and they dif­fered, which they pronounce to be neither hereticall nor blasphemous; neither did they require M. Wotton to renounce and revoke his opinion therein; nor did he promise so to doe. And what else it was, that he should promise to reform, I know not. This may wel therefore go among M. Walkers owne fancies; and so let it passe. Onely, for what he saith of Pag. 4. their great love to M. Wotton; I will presume, they did all beare a Christian affection, as well to M. Wotton as to M. Walker, and to M. Walker as well as to him. Nor is that any sufficient ground to induce any man to be­leeve, that they should therefore encline rather to the one then to the other. Howbeit M. Walker must be remembred, that Dr. Baylie at the very first shewed little good will to M. Wotton, by his quarelling with him about his habit, as before was shewed. And much lesse, by his rash and overhasty [...]ensure and sentence passed (if M. Walker may be beleeved) upon him yet unheard. As also that there had been a breach and interruption of friendly correspondence between M. Wotton and M. Stock, as was before inti­mated; which grew upon occasion of some diffe­rence, that rose first between them at a meeting of divers London Ministers and some others about the beginning of King James his Raigne, and as yet con­tinued; nor indeed was ever wel peeced up again: whereas between M. Walker and M. Stock, it was then otherwise. Nor have I heard of any great familiarity, that ever was between M. Wotton and M. Randall. Which then also the rather might be the lesse: for that at the Conference above-mentioned, that occa­sioned the breach between M. Stock and M. Wotton, [Page 52] M. Wotton and M. Randal were likewise divided. And little reason therefore there is to presume, that these men out of great love to M. Wotton should be so par­tiall in his cause: much lesse, that they should there­fore give a sentence in favour of him, directly against their own judgments, and that either privately or publikly professed to the contrary.

16. But this is the salve for those, whom M. Walker would excuse. As for the rest, it is not to be mervel­led, if they were partiall in the busines. For Pag. 24. M. Balm­ford was M. Wottons silenced brother. (a fit squib to fall from the pen of him, that Pag. 1. erewhile complained so of his owne persecution) Pag. 24. M Hicks was one of M. Wot­tons Disciples; one that would jurare in verba magistri; that is in plain English, One that would sweare whatsoe­ver M. Wotton his Master would say. (a most uncharita­ble censure, sure enough, for the latter part; whi­ther true or no, for the former) and Ibid. M. Gataker did more angerly and peevishly speake against him, and snarl at him, then his Adversary M. Wotton himselfe. So that he was forced to challenge him as well as M. Wotton, and to offer to dispute against them both: that which once Pag. 5. be­fore also he vaunted of, calling in some to witnes it: (whom yet because he doubted of, as well he might do, whether they would say with him somewhat more then was true; he thought good by way of caution, to insert that exception, if their memories faile them not; as belike in delivery of the Attestation they did) and withall adding, that we both (daunted it seems, and dasht cleane out of countenance, as con­scious of our owne weaknes and inability to encoun­ter such a Champion, either severally or joyntly) did cowardly refuse it, not without shew of scornful disdain.

[Page 53] It is true indeed, that M Wotton (whom M. Walker is yet content in part to acquit, so be he may thereby the deeper wound me, whom his spite, it seems, is more eagerly bent at for the present) demeaned himselfe very moderately, throughout the whole hearing; with great patience enduring much re­proachful and despiteful language, whereof M. Wal­ker was no whit sparing. And, I suppose, it was fit, that those whom that office was committed unto, should endeavour to represse such clamorous bal­lings and barkings, as neither beseemed him that used them; nor did any way further, but hinder ra­ther the issue of that for which we met. In which kind, not I alone, but the rest also, laboured with M. Walker what they could; tho to smal purpose. But that I snarled at him otherwise, is altogether untrue.

It is likewise true, that M. Walker challenged me once to dispute. (for, as for dispute with M. Wotton, so he would keep to the point, it was never denied him) upon this occasion. Some speech coming in the way, in discussion of the first pretended error, con­cerning the imputation of Christs Righteousnes consist­ing in obedience to the Law; and justification consisting wholly in Remission of sinnes; Ibid. M. Walker in his heat told me, that it was reported (for he buildeth much up­on reports) that I was wholly therein of Piscators mind: and if I would maintain Piscators opinion, he would dis­pute it out with me. Whereunto I then answered, that whether it were so, or no, was nothing to him; nor was it time for him and me then to dispute; being met for an other end. And this is also all the scornful disdain then used, or made shew of. As for the report, I shall make bold now to tell M. Walker, if he heard so, that he [Page 54] heard an untruth; as In Elench [...] disput. Fr. Go­mari: & Dis­ceptatione cum Lud. Lucio. what I have published, may enform him. Against which, if he shall think good to dispute, I hope I shall be as wel able to answer him, as I have done some others already.

Howbeit suppose we, that M. Walker ( [...]. Aristot. Ethic. E [...]dem. l. 7. c. 12. Pausan. Phocic. Plut. Thes. Laert. Cleanth AElian. Hist. var. l. 12. c. 22. Hephaest. nov. Hist. l. 5. apud Phot. cod. 190. Ephipp. Pelt. apud Athen. l. 7. Zenob. adag. 548. Varro. satyr. another Hercules, or one rather more valiaut then he, that durst not deale [...]. Ne Hercules quidem adversus duos. Zenob. adag. 549. Suid. 1116. [...]. Plat. Phaed. & Eu­thyd. [...]. Idem. leg. 11. [...]. Aristid de [...]betor, 2. Eccles. 4. 12. with two at once) could by dint of Argument, wherein (it seems) he supposeth him­selfe to excell; though some deem him, (as one some­time of another, whom M. Walker would seem much to admire) Guil. Tilen. de Si [...]r. Lub. a man more eager then argumentative, have been able to silence both M. Wotton and my selfe; and to have proved against us both, not those Points alone that he charged M. Wotton with, (which yet if he had done, he must have confuted us all, and many more then us all) but all the Positions that ever he had produced, or could produce out of M. Wottons writings, to be erroneous and not agreeable to truth: yet would not all this have been sufficient to make good his charge against M. Wotton, and to prove him a blasphemous hereticke. How many mens writings may more then seven times seven errors be found in, whom it were yet most uncharitable there­fore to censure for such?

17. But that divers of the Subscribers subscribed against their own judgements and consciences; and all of them were ashamed of what they had done; he endeavoureth further to shew: the former, by some relations that may justly be questioned; the latter by avouchment of things altogether untrue.

The former concernes others not me, whereof [Page 55] some are deceased; some yet survive: and is to this effect:

1. That Pag. 22. D. Baylie, the first of the subscribers did upon the very first reading of M. Wottons speeches in M. Wal­kers Parallel, condemn him (not at our meeting, but at a private Table at dinner) for an hereticke, and his errors for blaspemous. Of which sufficient hath been spoken already; and but for M. Walkers repetition of it here, to descredit the subscription, or the subscri­ber himselfe rather, had for me no more been mentioned.

2. That Ibid. M. Downham, who heard this his censure uttered at the Table; did by his silence assent thereunto. Of which somewhat also before.

3. That Ibid. D. Gouge hath publiquely confuted M. Wot­tons opinions; (but which or what of them he talleth us not: Paralel. Point. or Error 2. Relat. p. 13. 36. one of them at least, I am sure, he professed to have taught.) and in the Pulpit condemned them of Socinianism. These two latter survive; and I leave to answer, as they shal see good and thinke fit, for them­selves; the Attestation for the Subscription to the contrary being under their owne hands.

4. That Ibid. M. Randal did argue very hotly against M. Wottons opinions that same day that they subscribed, and told him before us all, that he had protested against them often in private, and had disswaded him from them; and that he for his part abhorred them. All which men may, if they please, beleeve, upon the bare word of him, who hath told his Reader so many untruths here be­fore. For my part I beleeve no one tittle of it to be true, as it is by M. Walker here related; that is, affir­med to have been then and there by M. Randal deli­vered; but a meere fiction of M. Walkers own inven­tion, [Page 56] [...]. Plut. de Isid. & Osir. spun like a spiders web out of the bowels of his own brain. Besides, I desire to have it considered how probable it is, that M. Wotton should make choice of one to be for him in this busines, who had in private formerly professed unto him, not a bare dissent from, or a simple distast, but so deep a dislike of his opiniōs. True it is, that there was that day a dis­pute among us about a nice question mentioned in my Relat. p. 35, 36. Relation, concerning the worke of Redemption performed by Christ, and the worke of our Insition into Christ and our union with him, whether of the twain hath the precedency in the order of nature. Wherein some were with M. Wotton on the one side for the precedency of the work of redemption; some were on the other side (among whom M. Randal) for the precedency of the Insition of the faithful into Christ and their union with him. But neither was the point argued with any heat at all on either side; among our selves at least. Nor did either M. Randal, or any other of the company, no not D. Baylie him­self, (tho forward enough, if M. Walker may be be­lieved, to censure M. Wotton deep enough behind his backe, and over prone, as I have shewed, to pick a quarrell to him otherwise) at any time, that ever I can remember, during our whole meeting, use any such distastful speeches unto M. Wotton, as M. Walker is here pleased to attribute to M. Randal, being now gon, and not able to deny or avow, what he fastneth thus upon him. The figure Fictio personae. Prosopopaeia, it is to be feared, is with M Walker here too frequent.

5. That Pag. 22. M. Stock did ever abhorre M. Wottons opini­ons, as he oft told M. Walker in private.

That he did in divers things dissent from him, I [Page 57] doubt not; that which I also professed in private to him concerning my selfe; shewing wherein I dissen­ted from M. Wotton, as wel to him, as to M. Wotton himselfe, having sometime required it of me in wri­ting; which to M. Stock also I imparted. But such terms of abhorring them, I never heard from him; tho being as intimate, I suppose, as ever M. Walker was, with him. The phrase sure better suteth with M. Walkers own spirit, then either with M. Randals or M. Stocks; both whom he maketh here to speake in the same tone with himselfe.

But Pag. 22, 23. by a pretty stratagem (for so he slileth it) he brought M. Stock before other witnesses to condemn M. Wottons opinions for heresie and blasphemy. For at a sup­per time in a neighbours house, reading as out of some o­ther paper containing new and strange opinions, that as­sertion of M. VVottons, that in this proposition, Faith is counted for Righteousnesse, the word Faith is to be taken properly, not tropically; and demaunding of M Stock what he thought of it, M. Stock acknowledged it to be heresie and blasphemy; and that none but mad men would subscribe that it was neither. Whereupon he shewed him his own hand to the subscription before mentioned.

Now whether M. Stock was thus overtaken or no, to make his tongue and his hand jarre, I know not. If he were, it had been a more friendly part of M. Walker, to have concealed his and my friends over­sight. But Maro AE [...]. l. 1. Tros Tyriusve, friend or foe; Advocate or Adversary; all is one with M. Walker; another Ari­stides, one that hath no respect of persons, as his par­tiall Judges had. how he disgraceth either any way to help himselfe, he little regardeth. as if the discre­diting [Page 58] of them either would suffice, or might well serve to salve his own credit, when it lieth bleeding, and is in danger not to escape without some scar.

Howsoever, 1. I shall desire any indifferent reader to consider, whether ought rather to sway, a cen­sure drawn from one by a wile, and suddenly shot out, before he were well aware, and well advised; or a judiciary sentence (for Pag. 21. Iudges M. Walker him­selfe will have us) considerately signed; and that af­ter serious debate, and advice taken with other Pag. 2. grave Ministers (as he is also pleased yet to stile us) concurring with him therein.

2. I would demand not of M. Stock, (for he is gone; nor is it certain to me, whether he ever passed that censure so directly contrary to his own sub­scription) but of M. Walker, what he thinks of these words, Faith is that alone wherewith we are by it selfe and properly justified: whether they containe heresie and blasphemy or no; and what difference he can find between M. Wottons words, and these. Yet are they M. Bucers own Illo per se ac propriè justifi­camur, quod dum adest nobis, & Deus & homi­nes nos justos pronunciant, dum abest, injustos. Fides illud u­num est, quo si polleamus, Deus & homines n [...]s inter justos nu­merant; sin mi­nus, inter inju­stos. Ergo, &c. Bucer. praefat. Enarrat. Epist. Paul. c. 7. § 1. Syllog. 1. which he ascribeth also to Saint Paul; as a principall part of his main Argument, con­cerning the doctrine of justification. And if those o­ther upon the bare recitall appeare to be manifestly hereticall and blasphemous; then these surely no lesse: and so M. Wotton yet shal have one other at least to goe along with him for an heretick, yea a blasphemous heretick: whom yet none I suppose, other then ranke Papists ever condemned for such.

Howbeit M. Walker should have done wel, to have delivered M. Wottons Exposition (as he tearmeth it) all out. and not to have hackt it off (as he hath done) by the hams. For his words are entire thus, Ans. to Err. 3. Relat. p. 27, I never [Page 59] said, or thought, that Faith doth justifie us by it selfe. (and yet had he so said, he had said no more then Bucer long before him had done) This onely I say, that in this Proposition, Faith is counted for Righteousnes, the word Faith is to be taken properly, not tropically; the question being in such propositions, not of the meritorious or formall cause of justification, but of the condition re­quired on our part in stead of keeping the Law. To which I may well ad out of his Animadversions, which I have by me, on the dispute between Lubbertus and Bertius, these sayings of his to the same essect. Fides, tanquam qualitas, habitu­aliter non justi­ficat; ncque m [...] ­teria est justifi­catīonis nostrae, neque forms: e [...] solâ ratione ad justificationem valet, quod in Christum recum­bat, ad veniam delictorū propter ipsius obedienti­am adipiscendam Ad dissert. 1. § 9. Faith doth not justifie us, as a quality, habitually; neither is it either the matter, or the forme of our Righteousnes; in that regard alone it is to justification available, as it reli­eth upon Christ, to the obtaining of forgivenes of sins for his obedience. And againe, Fides certè non justificat, nisi tantum per & propter Chri­sti obedientiam. Cum dicitur ad justitiam impu­tari, quid nos praestare oporte­at, ut per Chri­stum justifice­mur, significatur. Ibid. Faith surely doth not justifie, but onely by and for the obedience of Christ. When it is said to be imputed unto righteousnes, it is thereby signified what we must perform, that we may be justified. And a little after, Fide justificari dicimur, non tropicâ, sed propriâ l [...]cutione: qu [...] significa­tur, fidem illud esse, quod Deus à nobis flagitat, ad justificationem conseqendam propter Christi [...]bedi­entiam & sacrificium. Ibid. By faith we are said to be justified, not in a tropicall, but in a proper manner of speaking; whereby is signified, that Faith is that, which God requireth of us to the obtaining of justification for the obedience and sa­crifice of Christ. For as for those words that M. Wal­ker putteth into his third Error, that he chargeth up­on M. Wotton, Parall, Error. 3. Rela [...] p. 14: That Faith doth not justifie us, as it ap­prehendeth Christ and his righteousnes; they appeare not in any passage at all by M. Walker out of M. Wottons writings alledged. So that M. Walker maketh M. Wot­ton speak, not what he doth, but what himselfe plea­seth; [Page 60] and then pronounceth him an hereticke, not for what he saith, but for what himselfe would have him say. To make this evident to the meanest un­derstanding. Should a man say, The word hand in this proposition, my hand feeds my body; or in this, This child is fed by hand, is taken properly not tropi­cally; would it by any reasonable consequence thence be inferred, that the party so saying should therefore affirm, that the hand doth not feed by putting meat into the mouth? And what M Calvins judgment is of that trope in the Apostles words of Faith, put for Christ, may appeare by these words of his in confuting of Osiander, the first man (for ought I can find) that broached that Exposition of them, and brought in that strange trope: Neque tamen interea tortuosas bujus Sophis [...] figurat admitto, quum dicit Ei­dem esse Chri­stum. Calvin, Iastitut. l. 3. c. 11. § 7. I admit not this Sophisters wri­thing or wrigling some figures, when he saith, that faith is Christ. Inscitè sidem, que instrumen­tum est duntaxat p [...]rcipiendae ju­stitiae, dic [...] mis­ceri cum Christo; qui materiaris causa, tantique beneficii autor simul est & mi­nister. Ibid. Whereby Faith, which is the instrument onely of obtaining righteousnesse, is confounded with Christ, who is the materiall cause, and both the Autor and mini­ster of so great a benefit. Iam expeditus est nodus quo­modo intelligi debeat vocabu­lum fide i, uhi de justificatione agitur. Ibid. Thus is the knot also unknit, to wit, how the tearm of Faith ought to be taken where the point of justification is handled. Howbeit as it would justly be deemed unequall, to charge all that hold Faith there put for Christ, with Osianders mon­strous opinion, as Calvin well tearmeth it, of I know not what essentiall righteousnes, by which Christian men are justified: so no lesse unequall is it, to con­demn all of Socinian heresie and blasphemy, that hold Faith to be taken for Faith in those Rom. 3. 28. & 5. 1. &. 4. 5, [...]. passages of S Paul. But of this and some other things concer­ning that argument, I may peradventure being by divers importuned thereunto, if God shall please to afford life, liberty, ability and leisure, entreat further [Page 61] more largely hereafter; unlesse I shall find my selfe prevented by some fuller satisfaction given by o­thers, whose labours either are abroad already, or may before that time come abroad. for then my [...]. Ma [...]c. Imp. l. 10. § 13. paines will be superfluous. and whether by my weak helps, or the more able work of others, the truth of God either in this, or in any other point be cleered, to me it shall be all one.

And thus much for the point, concerning which by M Walkers own relation, M. Stock upon the very rea­ding of it, should in direct contradiction to his own subscription, passe such a censure. As for the Vindic. p. 23. speech he frameth in the words following, for M. Stock to excuse himselfe by: and his inference thence, Ibid. p. 23, 24 how dangerous a thing it is, even for godly men to be Judges in a controversie between a familiar friend, as M. Wotton was to these men, and a stranger, as himself was to the most of them. As the latter intimateth M. Stock, & M. Wotton to have been at that time familiar friends, and so D. Baylie and the rest; and on the other side M. Stock (for of him principally here the speech is) with the most of the rest, and M. Walker to have been meere strangers either to other: which is the one of them as true as the other: so it adds little credit to the ex­cuse pretended to be made then by him; which may well be questioned, considering M. Walkers minting and dilating faculty See M. Eger­tons Letter be­fore produced: and his peicing up of M. Wot­tons assertions. before shewed, whether much, if not all, of it, came not out of his own forge.

And this shall suffice for the suggestions concer­ning some of M. Walkers partiall and unjust Judges as he deems them, to prove that they subscribed in favour of M. VVotton against their own consciences and judgements elsewhere, either in publike or in [Page 62] private, delivered directly to the contrary of that they then signed unto. Which I might well have leaft to be answered by those whom they concerne; save that some of them are now deceased: for me they touch not at all, nor my Relation, who report on­ly, what they subscribed to; and that firmed with the Attestation of such of them as survive.

18. But for that, which concerns them all, and my selfe among the rest, to prove, that Vindic. p. 21. they durst not o­penly justifie their Subscription; (which makes me the rather now to beleeve what I have formerly been informed, that M. Walker oft in his Table-talk should not stick to give out, that we were all of us ashamed of what we then did.) he saith that Ibid. the Expositions (for so we will now call them, since that M. VValker will have them so stiled) thus subscribed, were committed to D. Eaylie, with charge that he should keep them close, and not suffer M. VValker or any other man to see or read them, untill M. VVotton had made a larger Exposition, and fully purged himselfe from Socinianism. A strict charge, you see, as M. VValker delivers it, of men wondrous cau­tious, and as may seem, no lesse timorous of displea­sing M. VValker; for what else the matter should be, I, for my part, am not able to conceive. And I mer­veil why he doth not adde, that we conjured one a­nother, to tell no body what we had done. For that was as needfull to prevent our feares, as the keeping of our subscription from sight; and he might as well have said or written the one as the other. For this also in truth is as farre from truth, as M. VValker is from faire dealing in the whole carriage of this busi­nes. And here I would crave leave to demand of M. VValker, whether he were present at the very act of [Page 63] our subscribing or no. If he were present, he might easily heare, what that was, and in what manner it was conceived, that was agreed upon to be subscri­bed unto; yea he might have seen our subscriptions to it. For it was not done in any concealed way, but in the view of all then present. And to what end then should such a charge be given to the Doctor, that M. VValker should by no means be admitted to the sight of it? If he were absent, (as it is likely enough that he was, wanting patience to endure any longer stay, after he perceived once what was resolved upon) I would faine know of him, how or from whence he knowes, that it was with such caution committed to the Doctors custody.

True it is, that it was indeed in some sort commit­ted to his custody; or rather detained by him, having once gotten it into his hands, in favour of M. VValker, for ought else could be discerned. The delivery of it or a Copy of it to M. VVotton, according to his just request, being not at present resolved on, because it grew late; but put off to another day. On which meeting again, (but now without M. VValker, who came no more at us) after long expectation the Do­ctor at length presented himselfe to us; but could not be induced to deliver, either the subscription, or any Copy of it to M. VVotton; upon pretence that he held it not safe so to do; for that having been lately at Lambeth, at the High Commission, some (I know not who) had cast out some words there to him concerning our meeting, and that we might per­adventure be questioned for it, as a Conventicle; e­specially if our subscription should come abroad un­der our own hands, and use made of it as an evi­dence [Page 64] against us. That therefore for the present he durst not part with it: But yet withall promising, that after some time, the noise of the busines being once over-blown, it should be delivered to M. Wotton, whensoever it should be demanded of him by two of the parties, one of either side, nominated in his behalfe. And this I do the more confidently avow, being holpen therein for some particulars, by a me­moriall leaft in writing under M. Balmfords hand and mine own, and made while the businesse was yet fresh in memory; which I find in the same paper, in which the Attestation formerly published is extant, being afterward (but how long after, I know not) underwritten.

But return we to M. Walker, who having thus ra­ther Poetically described, then [...]. Tim [...]us. [...]. Polyh. l. 12. Historically related our meeting and the manner of it, embelished with many meere fictions of his own invention; (all which yet never will be of might or weight enough either to take of, or beare down the truth of my Relation concerning the issue of it, acknowledged in precise tearms by men of his owne choise) he proceeds in the next place to tell us, that Vindic. p. 24. Upon this it was brui­ted abroad in the City by M. Wotton and his Disciples that M. Walker could prove nothing against him; (and like enough; of that he charged him with, to wit, heresie and blasphemy) nor bring any thing out of his bookes or writings to convince him of Socinianism: and that the eight learned Ministers had justified him, and condemned M. Walker for a false Accuser. And might they not justly so report, when in effect the Ministers under their hands had all joyntly so done? For sure it is, that he that acquitteth any man of that wherewith he is [Page 65] charged, (be he faulty otherwise, or no) doth by ne­cessary consequence condemn him as a false accuser, that so charged him.

As for what Ibid. he addes, concerning M. Wottons Essays afterward written, wherein he saith, that M. Wot­ton denies the true, reall, and spirituall union of the faith­full with Christ, and Christs meriting of justification and salvation for them, &c. (which collections of M. Wal­kers from M. Wottons words may well be as sound as some other above recited) and his owne Antithesis Wottonismi & Christianismi; (a worke in likelihood well suiting with the spirit of the Autor) of M. Nids neglecting to make report of it to the Archbishop; (who, it may be, would have past the like censure upon him, that he did upon M. Broad, at the tender of his book) his own neglect of calling upon him: because Ibid. p. 24, 25. the tidings of it comming to M. Wottons eare, strooke such a damp into him, that for feare of afterclaps he silenced both him­self and his Disciples. (and yet to silence a man already silenced was no such great matter) so that now all was husht, & the fire quencht, and no man durst open his mouth to defend M. Wottons opinions, tho he ceased not in the Pulpit stil to confute and condemn them. This all no­thing concerns me, or any relation of mine. But how­farre forth therein he discovereth his own vanity, and his restles disposition, I leave it to the judgement and censure of others.

As little concerns me that, that followeth, Pag. 25. con­cerning M. Wottons booke De Reconciliatione, written in Latine; wherein he saith, that M. Wotton hath vented so much poyson, (for all is such, that M. Walker himself doth not relish) that the Professors at Leiden, would not suffer it to be there printed; (which whence he hath, [Page 66] or how he knows, or is able to prove, I know not) yea that at Amsterdam also it could not get out; (which few will beleeve, that know how free the Presse there is) but was fain to be printed farther off, at the charge of some of his Disciples.

As also what he Ibid. addes of some others, who did privately oppose M. Wotton; as M. Woodcock of Chessam, who in writing consuted him, and admonished him to for­sake his errors. I am not indeed ignorant, that be­tween M. Woodcock M. Wottons ancient Collegue, and M. Wotton, disputes passed in writing, with Objecti­ons and Answers, Replies and Rejoynders, much whereof I have by me, in a faire friendly manner. As also the like did between D. Brooks, then reader of Divinity in Gresham College, (the place that M. Wotton also sometimes held) which I have seen sometime with a friend; and gave occasion of wri­ting the book in Latine above mentioned: between M. Bradsh [...]w and M Wotton; and in part also between M. Wotton and my selfe. But none of these that ever I saw or heard, tho dissenting from him in opinion, did in any of their writings charge him with heresie or blasphemy, or damn him to Hel; as M. Walker from M. Richardson here doth, Nul'us reli [...]tus est [...]edius locus, Nisi sit vita ae­terna, extra r [...]g­num caelorum; qui [...]q [...]i [...] ad reg­num Dei non pertinet, ad dam­nationem sine dubio pertinet. Aug. de verb. Ap. 14. Credite mihi fratres. duo sunt loca; & tertius non est ullus. Idem. de temp. 232. Tertium penitas ignoramus: nec in Scripturis Sanctis invenie­mus. Idem hypo­gnost. l. 5. unlesse there be any medium between Heaven and Hel.

Neither doth that fierce Thunder-bolt, thrown out by M. Richardson, any whit scare me; wherein, as by a Pop like Anathema, o [...] a Rabinical Maranatha, he peremptorily pronounceth, upon his own certain knowledge, that whosoever lives and dies in the beleefe of M. Wottons opinions shall never enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, for so M. Walker, as Pag. 25. from M. Barlows mouth, being M. Richardsons messenger Pag. 26. here reports it. Tho, [Page 67] whether M. Richardson were in his sentence so perem­ptory, or no, may be doubted; the rather becaus [...] M. Walker in his relations of it agrees not all out with himselfe. For whereas here he telleth us, that M. Richardson should in a more rigid manner [...]ffirm, that he KNEW M. Wottons opinions to be so pestilent and dangerous, that whosoever lives and dies in the beleefe of them shall never enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. In his second letter to M. Wotton he relates it a remisser way, that he protested, that he THOVGHT no man li­ving and dying in his opinion should be saved. And you know, what is wont to be said and thought of those that are taken in two tales.

But be M. Richardsons doom never so precise and peremptory, it nowhit affrights me: since that neither I live, as I hope, in any such opinions of his, much­lesse looke to die in them, whatsoever else I may concur [...] with him in, nor do I conceive any whit the lesse hope of M. Wottons being in Heaven for this his horrid and hideous doom. Onely if M. Richardson did then passe such a censure, when he was now at point of death, as On his death­bed, Pag. 25. a dying man. p. 26. M. Walker saith he was, I could have wisht more charity, and lesse presumption con­cerning other mens estates, in a man so neere to the giving up of an account for himselfe. That M. Wot­ton lived and died in some errors I doubt not. Nor do I make account, but that I doe live, and looke to die, in many my selfe. If M. Walker deem, or hope, otherwise of himselfe; he presumeth of, and pro­miseth more to himselfe, then I suppose, ever befell any sonne of Adam, our blessed Saviour alone excep­ted. But that any opinion, which M. Wotton held was so pestilent and pernitious, as to cut him wholy off [Page 68] from Christ, and all interest in Christ, who so shall affirme, had need looke to himselfe, lest he bring thereby a greater guilt upon his own soule, then M. Wotton contracted by any error that he held. Mean­while, well it is, that the Keyes of Heaven are not, either in M. Richardsons hands, or at M. Walkers dispo­sition. were they so, it might well be deemed, that many an one should have been excluded, who I doubt not but have found entrance; many should be shut out, who I hope, yet shall get in, notwith­standing M. Walkers peremptory sentence past upon them for hereticks, and that blasphemous ones too; such as have no right in Christ here, nor shall ever reign with him hereafter.

Howbeit this fiery Thunderbolt did so enflame M. Walker, as he telleth us, that Pag. 26. it encouraged him to go on the more boldly in laying open M. Wottons abomina­tions, without all feare or regard of his factious and furi­ous Disciples, persons belike of the same stamp and temper with himselfe; if by his writings he may be judged of.

From this he passeth to M Godwins railing Libell; which he telleth his Reader, that Ibid. some say, M. Gata­ker counselled him to write against M Walker; which if M. Walker will avovch as a truth, I must tell him, that he telleth a notorious untruth; and such as he could not but know to be most untrue, unlesse I had wit­tingly in my Postscript told a loud lie; where I pro­fessed, Relat. Postsc. p. 50. that till of late I had never to my knowledge heard or seen the man; and then onely but once; which was not onely much later then the birth of M. Godwins worke, but even after M. Walkers own booke was come abroad, at what time hearing him named, [Page 69] whom else I had not known, I told him indeed smi­lingly, that if he were such an one, he was an heretick in print; alluding to M Walkers discovery, which I had not long before lighted on. But whether M. Godwins book be a rayling libell, or no; for my part, I know not, having never read two lines of it, onely seen the Title of it in the Stationers shop. But let this goe a­mong the bundle of untruths, which M Walker hath sluft this his Pamphlet with; that M Gataker counselled one, whom he had never seen to his knowledge, nor changed two words with, to write a rayling libel against M. Walker. whereas any reasonable man would rather imagine, that M Godwin wrote that, whatsoever it be that he wrote, provoked by M Walkers own wri­ting against him and railing upon him; which, it seems, therein he returneth answer unto, and is prin­ted and published by him together with it, and ac­cording to the truth, yea, or likelyhood of this re­port, I am very well content, that credit be given to his other relations; those at least that Pag 8. he builds upon the credit of other mensreports; if not to more then a few, that must rely upon his own.

With M. Godwins Libell he joyneth Pag. 24. M. Gatakers Invective. for so he is pleased to stile my relation, as Pag. 9. before, so here again. which being abroad, I leave to others to judge, whether it deserve that Title, or no; or, if M. Walker so please, whether of the two, that my Relation, or this his Vindication, may lay bet­ter claime to such an Inscription.

But there is another Invective, that he challengeth me for. and it shall not be amisse, by way of antici­pation, hereto take it in, and consider of it, as being a branch of the same generall Enditement, that in this [Page 70] kind M. Walker commenceth against me. He telleth his Reader therefore in his ensuing discours; Pag. 30: that he, the said M. Gattaker hath publiquely extolled and com­mended for Orthodox the like Treatise (to those of M. Wottons; hereticall belike and blasphemous, as his) of M. William Bradshaw: and inveighed against some, meaning me, (saith M. Walker) who had opposed some errors and contradictions, which are in that booke, in his Funerall Sermon preached at M. Bradshaws buriall.

Wherein M. Walker sheweth himselfe no change­ling, but still like himselfe. Nor am I sory, that M. Walker hath thus mentioned M. Bradshaw, and there­by given me occasion to speake somewhat of the man, and somewhat also of his worke: that I may thereby further vindicare him a little from M. Wal­kers obloquies; as I have already in part, from the slanderous calumnies of an other foul mouthed railer, a leader of Separatists at Amsterdam my Rejoyn­der to whom in defence of M. Bradshaw, and his answer to M. Fr. Iohnsons reasons for separation from the Church-Assemblies in England, although it came abroad with­out my consent; having been advertised by some wel-wishing friends, of somethings in M. Bradshawes discourse, that seemed to trench upon the govern­ment then established; and desiring therefore, for better security, to print mine owne apart without it; which might safely have been done here without more adoe: yet being by that railing and reviling Replier required to tell whether it were mine, or not; I returned him by the messenger who delivered me his Letter, this Answer, That I had sometime written a Defence of M. Bradshaw against him. which if it were pub­lished according to my copy, I would not refuse to owne. [Page 71] And indeed published it was; but as without my pri­vity, so exceeding corruptly, whole lines in some passages left out, and the sense in many places per­verted and mar [...]ed; as by a large list of Errata, which I caused to be printed, and annexed to it, so soon as some copies of it came to my hand, may appeare. Since which time I finde the rest of that scurrilous worke (for I dealt onely with the last Chapter, that concerned M Bradshaw,) very solidly and learnedly refuted by one M. John Ball, a reverend and judicious Divine (who had formerly written in defence of set forms of prayer) in Answer to two Treatises of M Io. Can. a Treatise since his decease publi­shed by M. Simon Ash Lecturer here in the City.

But to returne to M. Walker, and his charge here a­gainst me. True it is that I preached at M. Bradshaws buriall. The worth of the man, though not so com­monly known, in regard he lived in a mean and ob­scure estate, through the iniquity of the times, having his chiefe dependance, and main means of mainte­nance from a private family, and being naturally not prone to put himselfe forth; yet highly valewed by those that throughly knew him, and inwardly con­versed with him; and the entire affection and streightest band of friendship, that held inviolably firm unto the very last between us; deservedly chal­lenging for him from me, not that onely, but much more then my weake ability was ever able to reach to. And I did what I then did, with as much griefe and regret of heart and mind, as ever I performed any office in that kind. The losse of so worthy, and so intimate a friend, (besides the common losse of one so qualified and endowed, to Gods Church) in­wardly piercing with me more deeply, then every­one [Page 72] was aware of, or my selfe able easily or suddenly to shake off. But how in my Sermon then made, I inveighed against M. VValker or any other, I shal leave to the equall and indifferent consideration of others, when I shall have precisely related what then I deli­vered, and subjoyned the occasion, whereupon I spake it.

In a short speech, that I had, before I entred upon my Text, concerning the occasion of mine appearance at that time in that place; and of the party decea­sed, to whose remains that office of Christian sepul­ture was then to be performed; having spoken some­what, but very briefly, and over-scantly rather than otherwise, concerning his singular dexterity, as in resol­ving cases of conscience, so in clearing of controversed points in Divinity; (in either of which kinds he did so excell, that I have seldome, if ever, known his match) I added these words concerning the latter; Wherein his labours, tho uncharitably taxed and traduced by some, yet have been, as myselfe can testifie, not onely reverently esteemed by divers of good note in both the U­niversities, professing some of them in my hearing to have profited much by them, and to have been thereby better in­formed in some particulars, which they conceived not so well before; but even by some strangers of eminent place and profession beyond the Seas, very highly extolled, as by some of their Letters to him is yet to be seen. And this, [...] protest, is all that I then said; which M. VValker here, (a man it seems, of a very tender eare, tho of too tart a tongue) terms inveighing against him.

But, if it may not be over-troublesome, I shall re­quest my Readers patience a while, to receive from me some not overlong relation, concerning the oc­casion [Page 73] of that short clause, consisting but of foure words at most, that M. Walker taketh so much offence at; that he may thereby be the better enabled to judge aright whether I spake any more, then M. Wal­ker had given over-just occasion to speake.

M. Bradshaw had published, a succinct indeed, but very accurate, (if sundry men of good parts may be beleeved) Treatise concerning the Justification of a sinner before God. In the Preface whereunto, having given intimation of some difference among our Divines in some particulars concerning this head of Divinity; Whence, saith he, many weake minds have been somewhat perplexed; and some strong ones (at least in their own conceits) exceedingly distempered, as th [...] there were amongst us, which overturned foundations, teaching blasphemous heresies about this matter; whereas all of us with one mouth professe this, That a sinner is ju­stified not by any formall inherent Righteousnesse in him­self, but onely by the free and meere grace and mercy of God, through the meritorious satisfaction of our Saviour Christ, the onely mediator between God and a sinner. Wherein we all give all the glory of our justification and salvation to God in Christ Iesus, and therein hold the main Foundation. We differ onely in certain circumstan­ces; wherein nothing is derogated, either from the mercy of God, or merits of Christ, or arrogated to our owne workes.

Now the former part of this speech M VValker ta­king to himself (as, tho not named, yet conscious to himselfe of his own guilt, he well might) inveighed fiercely and furiously (after his wonted guise) in a Serm [...]n preached in Paul, Church, against the whole [...]ffirming it to be a booke full of centradictions [Page 74] and heresies; of the same nature as he had before a­verred M. Wottons writings to be, Pag. 30. to which also he here likeneth it. And withall, by a Stationer, whose shop I frequented, he sent me a challenge, that such a book be understood to be mine, (as true as that Pag. 26. I set M. Godwin on worke to write a railing libell against him) tho it came out in another mans name, (not unlike that of the Amsterdam railer, that Io. Can of ne­cessity of sepa­ration from non-confor­mists princi­ples. p. 127. of which see Pre­face to Rejoin­der, p. 11. he should father another mans worke written against Iohnson) and that, if I would undertake the defence of it, he would prove it to consist of contradictions and heresies. Unto which I returned him this answer, that M. Bradshaw was able enough to defend his own worke. That, if he had ought with me, he knew where mine aboad was; if I ought with him, I knew (I thought) where he dwelt, but that I had no desire to have dealings with one of that spirit, of which I perceived him to be.

Herewith not content, he wrote a booke against M. Bradshaw so vile and so virulent, that tendring it for allowance at London-house, he could not obtaine passage for it to the presse. Howbeit a Copy of it came to M. Bradshaws hands, who had also answered some good part of it in a modest manner; as among the re­mains of his imperfect writings is yet to be seen. But M. VValkers Pamphlet not comming abroad, it seems, he gave over.

The Title of M. Walkers work was this: A Woolfe in a Sheeps cloathing.

And to give you some small taste of his manner of dealing in it; (for Ex pauculis guttis dignoscitur maris [...] non ebibatur. [...]. l. a. c. 34. a few drops of Sea-water tasted, will sufficiently shew, what relish the whole Ocean hath) he thus begins his onset upon the main body of the Book.

[Page 75] Having before examined the Preface word by word, and discovered plainly and largly the impudent calumnies, open lies, desperate errors, and grosse contradictions therein conteined; I will now proceed to examine and censure the Treatise it selfe: wherein he sheweth himself still one and the same man; to w [...]t, one of a factious spirit, a desperate maintainer and justifier of our new upstart Socinian Here­ticks, the blasphem [...]us disciples of Servetus Socinus & Ar­minius, an horrible and prosane abuser of the Word of God, citing it contrary to all sense; one speaking like the old O­racles of Apollo, sometimes without any sense, sometimes so ambiguously, as that his words may beare divers & contra­ry senses, sometimes affirming boldly strange things, with­out rendring any reason; as if he were a second peremptory Pythagoras, or a new purified Pope, whose words or say­ings must be received against all reason, as if they were Oracles of God; and in a word, as in the Preface, so in the Treatise, he doth by his fruits, and his proofes contrary to his pretended Titles in every Chapter, discover himselfe to be A Woolf in Sheeps cloathing.

And that he may end in no better manner then he began, he thus enters upon the last Chapter:

This Chapter, tho it treat onely of things humane, such as we daily heare and see, and have experience of, yet it hath divers errors: As if the Author had vowed to erre in all things; and to infect Heaven and Earth, and all things sa­cred and profane, with his Treatise.

Now whether such a censure as this might not wel beare out as much, if not much more, then I then spake, I am well content, that any man, not wholy forestalled with extream prejudice, be judge.

Yea but Mr. Bradshaws Treatise, it may be, wel de­served such a censure.

[Page 76] I wil not, for satisfaction herein, send you (tho I wel might) to the worke it selfe. It may not be at hand; or you may suspect, if you have it, and shall be pleased to peruse it, that some ranke poison lieth so closely couched in it, that an ordinary sight is not able easily to descry it. And yet, as M. Bradshaw well answereth him concerning the Preface; If the calum­nies be impudent, the l [...]es open, the errors desperate, the contradictions grosse, they are such as sufficiently discover themselves; and M. Walkers discovery is therefore in vain, being as tho he should say, he hath discovered the Sunne, when it shines out in his brightnesse in every mans face: so that either M. Walker hath discovered no calum­nies, lies, errors and contradictions at all; or they are not open, grasse, desperate and impudent. In like manner may I say of the Treatise it selfe; if the errors in it be so Chap. 2. & Chap. 9. grosse, palpable, abominable, and contrary to all sense, that they doe not onely discover, but even judge and condemne themselves, as M. Walker affirmeth of them; surely any dim sight will suffi [...] to discerne what the worke is. Nor will I offer to obtrude upon you mine own conceit of it. I might peradventure be deemed partiall, both in regard of mine own opinion; albeit I concurre not in all things with him; and in regard of mine entire affection to my friend; [...]. Psal. [...]irac. c [...]ib. [...]. Greg. Naz. ep. 13 & 27. [...]. Ide [...]. apolog. Fallit enim affectus. Pli [...]. l. 4. ep. 44. & amantium caeca sunt judi­cia. Hieron. ad Ioan. Hierosol. which I grant may sometime also somewhat oversway. But I shall enforme you, as before I intimated, how it hath been censured by others, men no way engaged; and that, far otherwise then M. Walker hath been pleased to pronounce of it.

And here I might entertaine you, with the judge­ment of Sir Edward Cook then Lord chief Justice. a great Lawyer and Councellor of State, one in his time reputed a man of some judgement: who [Page 77] in regard of some neere affinitie visiting the Gentle­woman, whom M Bradshaw made aboad with, in the time of his sicknesse, and lighting accidentally upon this short Treatise, after he had runover some good part of it was very much taken with it; and deman­ding who was the Anthor of it, professed, that he had seldom read a thing more pithily and pregnantly written.

But because it may be objected, that this was out of his element; and yet let me tell you, that some See M. Prinnes p [...]eface to his Treatise of the perp [...]tuity of Faith. Lawyers have in Divinity dealt to good purpose; and that the tearm of justification being [...]orense voca­bulum. Calviu. iustitut. l. 3. c. 11. § 3. Chemnit. exam. Conc. Trid. part. 1. de vocab. justif. Pet. Mart. in Rom. 8. 33. Bucer. praefat. in Epist. Paul. c. 8. Par. in Rom. 3. 28. & resp. ad dub. 7. Chamier. Pa [...]strat. tom. 3. l. 21. c 14. § 10. Bellarm. de justif. l. 2. c. 3. except. 1. & 2. a Law tearm, (as our Divines, with good warrant from Deut. 25. 1. Psal. 82. 3. Prov. 17. 15. Esay 5 23. & 43. 26. Gods Word, constantly maintain) a discourse of that subject is to that profession no stranger. I shall leave him, and in roome of him present you with the judgement of a Divine of special note M. Lodowik, or Lewis, Cappel, one of the Professors of Divinity in the University of Salmure in France; a man among the learned wel knowne by his works. This M. Cappel, having recei­ved this Treatise of M. Bradshaws, from M. Aaron Cappel his kinsman, one of the Ministers of the French Church here in London, returned backe to him many thanks for it; requesting him withall to enquire after the Autor, and either to deliver, or convey to him his Letters inclosed: the superscription whereof was this;

Doctissimo atque ornatissimo clarissimoque viro,
Domino Guilielmo Bradshaw.

The Subscription:

Tui, non studiosus modo sed cultor & admirator,
Ludovicus Cappellus.

I translate them not, because the English phrase in such forms, will not so wel fit them.

[Page 78] The contents are word for word in part thus:

Missus est ad me Londino à D. Capello, Ecclesiae Galli­canae quae Londini est Pastore, mole quidem exiguus, sed doctrinâ atque ingenio & acumine grandis, de justifica­tione libellus, Anglicè conscriptus, autore G. Bradshaw. Is quia perplacebat, & mihi cum D. Gomaro exemplar illud erat commune, statim à me in privatum usum Gall [...]cè est redditus. Anglicanum exemplar D. Gomaro reliqi. Dicam ingenuè. Nihil in humanis scr [...]ptis dogmati [...]is hactenus â me lectum est, quod tam vebementer mihi placuerit Ita doctè, acutè, pressè, solidè, nervose, apertè s [...]l & mirâ brevitate totum hoc argumentum plenissimè à te est com­prehensum atque pertractatum. Verba attem quibus illud dignè pro merito suo collaudem atque extollam, mihi non suppe [...]unt. Saepius ille mihi lectus est; nec unqam ejus sa­tias me cepit. quin eo vehementius sui in me excitavit desiderium quo frequentius repetitus atque relectus: tan­tus in eo doctrinae, artis atque ingenii splendor & lumen refulget.


That is in English.

There hath been sent me from London by M. Cappel Pastor of the French Church there, a little book of justifi­cation, small in bulke, but in learning, wit and acute­nesse very great, written in English by William Brad­shaw. This because it much pleased me, and Gomarus and I had but one copy between us; I translated out of hand for mine own use into French, and left the English copy to Gomarus. I will speake ingenuously. I never hi­therto read ought in any humane writing of dogmaticall Divinity, that so exceedingly liked me. So learnedly, a­cutely, closely, solidly, pithily, both plainly, and yet with [...]dmirable brevity, is this whole Argument most fully com­prased, and thoroughly handled by you. I want words, [Page 79] wherewith to commend and extoll it according to its de­sert. I have oft read it over; and yet never had enough of it, but the oftner I repeate it and reade it over againe, the more eagerly is mine appetite stirred up unto it so great splendor and light of learning, of Art and wit shineth forth in it. And so forth. For the rest is a discours con­cerning some particulars, wherein he desired further satisfaction, treading wholy then in Piscators steps.

But thus he, a meere stranger, to a man, whom he had never seen or heard of before; judging of him onely by that vile, abominable, absurd, senselesse booke, that M. Walker (I hope I may now be some­what the bolder to speak it) doth so uncharitably tax and traduce.

Give me leave a little further to trespasse upon thy patience, good Reader. To give M. Cappel further sa­tisfaction, and to save much writing at large to and fro; M. Bradshaw resolved to review the work, and ha­ving a little better cleered some things, to translate it into Latine. That which also he did, and sent a copy of it to M. Cappel. who in a second Letter after the re­ceipt of it, wrote back to him in these words:

Scripsi jam antehaec, vir clarissime, me accepisse libel­lum tuum de justificatione verè aureum, à te auctum Lati­numque factum, eumque à me extemplò, sed raptim, perle­ctum esse: ita vehemens me ejus ceperat desiderium, ex priùs lectâ Anglicanâ ejus editione. Inde à me non semel, sed saepius, & cum otio, perlectus est. quem quo saepiùs re­lego, eo magis mihi arridet probaturque. ita ad unguem à te exactus est. Pacatis & moderatis ingeniis, ab utra­libet sint parte, quique non nimio partium studio aguntur, spero probatum iri istum tui ingenii partum atque faetum: licet non omnia utrisque concedas, quae ipsi vellent. Ita [Page 80] medius inter utramque incedis sententiam, ut neutris dis­plicere debeas, si verè sint pacis & concordiae amantes.


That is in English:

Right worthy sir, I wrote before to you, that I had re­ceived your truely golden little book of justification, en­larged by you, and turned into Latine; and that presently, but hostily, I read it over, so eager an appetite had I to it, by reading the other Edition of it in English before. Since that I have read it over againe, not once but often, and taking leisure thereunto. Which the oftner I reade over againe, the more it pleaseth me, and is approved of by me: so accurately and exactly is it composed by you. I hope this birth and issue of your mind will find approbation with peaceable and moderate dispositions, on whether side so ever they are; albeit you condescend not to them in all things that they require. You pace so in the middest be­tween either opinion, that you ought not to displease either of them, if they truly love peace and concord.

Now how this agreeth with M. Walkers censure of M. Bradshaws book, that thereby he hath shewed him­self to be one of a factious spirit, and a desperate main­tainer and justifier of blasphemous hereticks, he may ea­sily soon see, that either is not blind, or doth not wil­fully winke.

I might adde, that if M. Walkers censure of M Brad­shaws booke be admitted, the like must be past upon the writings of some others, publikely allowed, and generally well esteemed of among us; and by name on M Pembles large Treatise of justification before­mentioned, and M. Torsels briefer discourse of the same subject: both which build mainly on M Brad­ [...] [...]ounds, the latter precisely treadeth in his

[Page 81] Thus much concerning my deservedly deere friend, who neither living, nor deceased, could scape the scourge of M. Walkers tongue; which Pag. 26. without feare or regard (to use his own words of himselfe) he lets flie both at living, and at dead; and concerning that worke of his, by other pious, learned and judi­cious so praised and apprised; which shall (I doubt not) survive with its due and deserved approbation from such; when M. Walkers railing Pamphlet, where­in he so traduceth it, shall either lie buried in per­petuall oblivion; or, if ever it come to see open light, shall stinke in the nostrils both of God and good men.

But M. VValker hath not so done with M. Gataker. For, If it were not vain expence of precious time, Pag. 26, 27. he could first of all produce Socinianism out of his works; and so make him a party. And so I presume he could also out of Bucer, Pareus, Pemble, Piseator, and I know not how many more, as well as out of M. Gataker, if he would set himself to it. For M. Walker hath a very singular dexterity herein; as in part hath already been shewed. But I answer him briefly. That Dolosus vers [...] ­tur in universa­libus. Reg. Iur. generall charges are generally deemed deceitful; and will not hold either in Law or in conscience. And again, that Ecquis inno­cens esse pote [...]j [...] si acousasse suf­ficiet? Iulian. apud Ammian. l. 18. if to accuse be sufficient, no man is sure to goe guiltlesse, be his cause never so good. And yet, what were this, could he prove it by M Gataker, to Dr. Gouges and M. Down­hams Attestation, which directly avoweth, that M. Wal­ker could not prove it by M. Wotton, when time was, and he had undertaken so to doe? unles this be a good argument; Socinianism may be produced now out of M. Gatakers works: and therefore Dr. Gouge and M. Downham with the rest did not so determine, as that [Page 82] they did, under their own hands they doe witnesse.

Besides, Pag. 26. he could prove M Gataker to be Thomas of all sides Sometimes holding that the elect and faithfull are cloathed with the garment of Christs righteousnesse; and again disputing against their communion and imputation of Christs righteousnesse.

Whereunto I answer. 1. For that scurrilous tearm better beseeming some scoffing jester, then a grave and sage Minister of Christ. It thal never trouble me by M. Walker so to by stiled; nor by any other either so to be esteemed, if thereby be intimated, that I am such an one, as refuse not to imbrace all truth that I meet with on any side, be the side what it will: no more then I would forbeare, to take up a Pearle, wheresoever I should find it, whether in the mother of Pearls shell, or with Esops cock, either Sicnt ex Ennii stercore aurum V [...]rgilius. on the dunghil, or in the durt. Or if he intend thereby to note me for such a one, as have in some particulars altered my judgement from what sometime for­merly I held; nor do I refuse in many things so to be deemed. I suppose, that holds not in me alone, but in many others, which Math. M [...]i­nius. a Divine, as well of good, as of great, note, is reported to have said in the Councell of Dort, when it was objected un­to him, that something spoken by him differed from some clause in the Catechism; Multa discimus p [...]eri, de quibus dubitamus senes. We are taught many things when we are yong, that we make doubt of, when we are old. Who is he, that is careful to make diligent enquiry into the truth of things, who doth not oft alter his former opinion? For my part, I freely pro­fesse, with that worthy ancient, that Fat [...]or me ex corum rum [...]ro esse co [...]ari. qui s [...]ribendo pr [...]fi eiunt & pro [...]fi­endo scr [...]t. Aug [...]p. 7. my desire and endeavonr is to be one of those, who write as they profit, and profit as they write. And I may peradven­ture, [Page 83] following Opuscula me [...] retractanda sus­cepi, ut nee me­ipsum in o [...]ibus me secutum de­monstrem. Aug. de persever. c. 21. that pious pattern, if God please to grant me longer life, with strength and leisure, take some time and paines to review those weake works, that I have sormerly sent abroad, to satisfie other men more then my selfe; and to amend what therein I deem my self to have been mistaken in; to explain what I doubt may be mistaken by others. Nor do I account it any Nullus mihi pudor est, ad me­liora transire. Ambr. Ep. 31. Turpe est n [...]tare are sententiam; sed veram & rectā. nam stultam noxia [...]ve & laudabile & sa­lubre est. Aug. ep. 210. Optimi enim est propositi, laudandique consilii, facilè ad veriora traduci. Victor apud Aug. de orig. anim. l. 2. c. 16. shame or staine to me, to alter in ought for the better. I hold it a point rather of Non est levita [...] ab errore jam cognitodiscedere. h [...]ec verò super­bae stultitiae per­severa [...]tia est, Quod semel dixi, fixumratum sit. semel placita semper maneant, nec ulla in libris meis litura fit. Sen. de benef. l. 4. c. 38. & de beat. c. 8. pride and solly (shameful enough either of them; both together much more) for any man, to thinke his works blemished, by dashing out of ought in them, that he finds he was deceived in; when as the standing of it still there is rather a blemish to his bookes. I am, and shal ever be, of that famous, tho Heathen, Emperours mind: [...]. M. Anton. l. 6. If any man, saith he, can in ought better inform me, and discover to me mine error, I shal readily yeeld to him. For I seek nothing but the truth, which never wrongs him that finds it. True it is, that in this point of Justification, I went sometime another way then now I do; the same that Gomarus and some other still do, and before me did; untill upon occa­sion of some Lectures of Dr. Grey, who succeeded M. Wotton at Gresham-Colledge, I fell into conference and disceptation with M. Bradshaw about it; and after many disputes, that passed to and fro in writing be­tween us, wherein I strove stiffely to maintain what then I held; being at length by force of Argument beaten from my hold, I yeelded not so much to my friend, as to the truth; (as I was then, and am stil, cer­tainly [...]. Epictet. Stob. c. 5. n Est virtus summa veritati cedere. [Page 84] perswaded) which to be overborne by, I shall ever account the best valour, [...]. Phi [...]onid. A jure vinci praecluis victoria est. Grot. A veritate vinoi res pulcherrima. A veritate [...]in. [...]i, lau [...] est, baud probrum. to be overcome by the fairest victory.

And yet thar phrase of being cloathed with the robe of Christs righteousnesse, whether I used it before or since, is not materiall. For neither do I now reject it, nor doth it crosse ought, that either I or they, with whom I now concur, hold; being found frequently in their writings, and See Pareus de Ast. & Pass. Chr. Ohed. Pofit. 1. p. 180. acknowledged by them: since that I maintaine still with them, as alwaies I did, See before M. Bradshaws Prefac. no other righteousnes, whereby we are justified, that is, discharged of the guilt of our sins in Gods sight, but what accrueth unto us from Christ, and the satisfaction made by him unto Gods justice for them: according to that of the Apostle, 2 Cor. 5. 21. Him that knew no sin, did God make sin for us; that we might be­come the righteousnesse of God in him.

As for communion and imputation of Christs righte­ousnes, how farre forth I either maintaine or deny either; (for M. Walker runs on still in generalities, and after his blundering manner jumbles things toge­ther, as if communion and imputation were either the same, or of equall extent, and the not acknowledg­ment of the one therefore a deniall of the other) my Elenchus Dis­put. Fr. Gomari: & Disceptatio cum Lud. Lucio. works shew, that are extant: wherein if either M. Walker, or any other, shal in friendly manner con­vince me of any mistake, Debere me multum profi­tebor, amicè decteque potior a suggerenti. Lud. Vr [...]es praefat. in Aug. de Civ. Dei. In aere me ejus futurum profiteor, qui candidè caftigarit. Zinzer­lin. promiss. erit. he shall do me no small pleasure; as conceiving it [...]. De [...]crit. & Isocrat. Stob. c. 13. & Anton. [...]. l. 1. [...]78. a greater benefit to my selfe, to have mine own errors by others discovered to me, then to be an instrument of discovering other [Page 85] mens [...]rrots to them; since that, (as he said sometime of things amisse Vitium [...]xoris aut tollendum, aut f [...]rendum est. qni tollit vitium, uxorem commodioreet praestat. qui fert, sese meliorem facit. Varro. Gel. l. n. c. 17. between man and wise) [...]. Plato Gorg. Method. apud Epithan. haeres. 84. § 43. Gregor. Naz. apud Max. c. 31. by the one I may help to amend my brethren, but by the other I may be amended my self.

Mean while, so far am I from being Thomas of all sides in some sense, that I professe and shall desire rather in some kind, to be Thowas of no side. For I love not siding in Gods Church; among Christs Mini­sters especially. I love not, I am for this man; and I am for that man: I am for this side, and I am for that side. 1 Cor. 1. 12. Rom. 16. 18. The Apostle himselfe liked it not. I love not hol­ding the faith of Christ with respect of persons. Jam. 2. 1. an other Apostle forbids it. I love not, that any be tied to follow any one man, or any number of men whatso­ever, in all things. 1 Cor. 11. 1. The Apostles themselves re­quired it not, in matter of fact; nor may any now living in matter of faith. Hence proceed 1 Cor. 3. 3. & 11. 18, 19. schismes and factions, and uncharitable censures, many times of those as unsound, that are, it may be, more sin­cere, have at least as good a share in Christ, as those that so censure them. And surely, if the words heresie and hereticke were rightly understood, or if they be so taken (as I suppose them to be constantly used in Scripture; nor do I thinke that the contrary can be easily evinced) the one for Act. 5. 17. & 15. 5. & 24. 5, 14. & 26. 5. & 28, 22. 1 Cor. 11. 18; 19. Gal. 5. 20. faction, the other for Tit. 3. 10. a factious person; none, I feare, will be found more truly guilty of heresie, or better to deserve the title of hereticke, then those, who (therein concurring with the Papists, whom yet they professe most to abhorre) are so prone to condemne all as hereticks and tainted with heresie in their sense, that is, as men cut off from Christ, and having no interest in him, who do not in al matters of practise comply, or in all [Page 86] points of doctrine concur with thēselves. Of their side, Lord, let me never be: Gen. 49. 6. let my soul never enter into their secret. Neither is it, nor shall ever be my desire, either so to pin my faith upon the sleeve of any part or party, or to engage my judgment to any meere mans or mens opinion, (the Pen men of holy writ onely excepted) as [...]. Plato Gorg. Nullius addictus jurare in verba ma­gist [...]i. Flac. epist. 1. to admit hand over head whatsoever he or they shall hold and maintaine: nor yet again ro refuse or reject any truth, which by the light that God shal be pleased to lend me, I shal be able to de­scry in the writings of any, tho otherwise never so erroneous or unsound.

In the next passage yet M. Walker is somewhat more charitable. For though he hold me an hereticke, yet he wil pray for me. He prayeth, that Pag. 27: God wil give me a more setled judgment in the truth; and a more charitable heart to my laborious neighbours. And I wil­lingly put mine Amen to his prayer. for m [...]ne hear­ty desire and daily prayer to God is, to have mine heart daily more and more 2 Pet. 1. 12. established in the truth. Nor do I lesse desire, to carry a charitable af­fection towards my Christian brethren, either labo­rious, or other; tho more especially towards those, whom 1 Thes. 5. 13. for their labours sake, I do deservedly the more love. Wherein yet, as in other graces and of­fices, I doubt not but that I may many waies Charitas, quandiu hîc vivitur, augeri p [...]test. quamdiu autem augeri potest, profectò iilud quod minus est quam d [...]bet, ex vitio est. ex quo vitio non est, qui non p [...] ­cet. Aug de per­fect. just. c 15. faile and fall short, during this state of imperfection and humane frailty: and wherein had not M. Walker much fayled toward a brother very laborious, while he had liberty to labour in publike; and no loiterer then, as by See a list of them Relat. Posts [...]. p. 61. his writings appeares, when he was restrained from his ministeriall employments; but then also labouring, tho not in publike, which [Page 87] was not permitted him, yet for the publike, what he might; this expence of pretious time, (which Pag. 26. he would elsewhere seem so dainty of) of necessity now wasted in debating these matters, might very wel have been sp [...]red, and much more profitably been spent otherwise.

Howbeit M. Walkers charity even in his prayer eould not keep it selfe from discovery of some inward rancor mixt with a little tang at least of vain-glory. For Pag. 27. his laborious neighbors, (saith he, meaning him­self; for I know no other that complaine of any de­fect or default in me in this kind towards them) who spend their time in better studies, then writing of Treati­ses for unlawful gaming and carding, and bedaubing margents with many quotations to smal purpose, but onely for ostentation of much reading.

To either of which imputations, I shal severally and respectively return some short answer.

For the former, 1. I doubt much, whether M. Wal­ker spent his time b [...]ter in this and the like railing and reviling Invectives against his laborious brethren, then I did mine in writing of that Treatise See the Pre­face prefixed to the Reader. which yet had I not published, had not the iniquity of some, therein not wholy unlike M. Walker, enforced me thereunto.

2. The Treatise is of the nature and use of lots in ge­neral: and the scope of it, to remove, as wel the su­perstitious practice of them in one kind, as the su­perstitious conceit of them in another.

3. If any game therein defended, as not simply evil in regard of a Lot in it, yea or otherwise, be by M. Walker deemed utterly unlawful, let him by evi­dence of argument evince the same so to be; and he [Page 88] shal therein Legatur An­tidiatribe Ame­ [...]o Voeti [...]que r [...]po [...]ta: & Re­sponsio Balm­fordo reddit [...]. doe more then by any other, that I know, hitherto hath been done. Mean while, let M. Walker give me leave to tell him, that I do not be­lieve him, nor beleeve that he is able to make his word good. tho I am not ignorant, what he hath bragged of his abilities so to do.

For the latter, to wit, my course of quotation: 1. I may wel, I presume, defend my selfe, by the ex­amples of many, of much more worth and esteem, as wel for godlines as for judgement, then either my selfe, or M. Walker; that [...]. âe Dionys. Longino Ennap. in P [...]r­phyr. oui & in AEdes. Socrates. [...]. living Library of all good literature, Dr. Raynolds, among the rest: unlesse M. Walker be able to prove the practise unlawful.

But 2. I say onely, that howsoever for the use and end of it; he be pleased to censure it; I hope, there wil not want others, whose judgements may wel weigh a little more at least with me, that wil ap­prove of it as useful; and make a better and more charitable construction of it, (if not thank me for it) then he doth. And 3. it may be, if some quoted the Authors they alleadge, and pointed to the places they relate to in them, their evil usage of those they deale with, would the more easily be discovered. Howsoever, I shal choose rather to have my Margent so bedaubed, then my Text so stuft as M. Walkers is, as wel in this as in some other his writings.

Lastly, I demand, what either this or the former is to the matter in hand, or the cariage of the busi­nesse between M. Walker and M. Wotton: or what oc­casion M. Walker had to be girding here at either; unlesse it be that his fingers itch to be picking of new quarrels, tho they nothing concerne him or the present occasion. Or that [...]. Arifla. thet. l. 3. c. 14. being conscious to him­self [Page 89] of the badnesse of the cause he here deales in, he is loath to keep close to it, and willing rather to run out into any other thing, tho it have no relation at all thereunto.

Howbeit, notwithstanding M. Walkers laborious employments, he wil yet, it seems, filch a little time from them, to examine M. Gataker upon a few inter­rogatories; Pag. 27. which unles he can answer with credit, he must of necessity for ever hereafter hold his peace, and blush as of [...] as he thinks, how by his defence of M. Wotton, he hath accused and defamed himself.

But here M. Walker much mistakes his marke, and shoots at randome. For my Relation, which he pre­tends to refute, is not M. Gatakers Defence of M. Wot­ton, but M. Wottons Defence of himself: nor did either I, or any of those that were joyned with me in the meeting related, undertake to defend M. Wotton as one free from all error, but delivered onely, what we thought of M. Wottons own Defence of himself in regard of ought that M. Walker had laid to his charge. Nor doe I therefore conceive, either that I stand upon me credit engaged to answer to all M: Walkers Interrogatories; or that M. VValker hath any du power thus to bind me over to silence and shame, upon my refusal so to do.

Yet let us see what they are.

The first is, Pag. 27. Whether it be truth and honesty to say, that Relat. p. 36. all the eight Ministers with unanimous consent generally resolved and pronounced, that there appeared not to them either heresie or blasphemy in ought that M. Wotton was by M. Walker convinced to have delivered or maintained: when their subscription shews that they medled onely with his Expositions, and not with his here­ticall [Page 90] and blasphomous speeches, in which he paralleld him with Socinus the heretike,

To all which I shall easily answer in a word, that if that which he here relateth as mine, be the same in effect with what is Relat. p. 38. testified under the hands of D. Gouge and M. Downham (as it is evident that it is) the untruth and dishonesty must be charged upon them: who, I hope, wil be better able to acquit themselves in this busines of either; then he that so shamelesly chargeth them therewith.

As for that, which he addeth, to disprove it, of Expositions; (which word how it came into the sub­scription, I suppose, no man surviving, unles himself, now knows;) and of speeches heretical and blasphemous, (words of course with M. Walker) wherein he paral­leld M. Wotton and Socinus; enough before hath been spoken to satisfie any reasonable Reader; tho not, it may be, M. Walker.

The second question is, Pag. 27. Whether I think, that M. Wotton renouncing the Law of God and the righteousnes thereof performed by Christ in our steed for our justifi­cation; doth not in so doing deny Christs ransome paid, and satisfaction made to Gods just law, for our redemp­tion and for remission of our sinnes.

To which I answer as briefly, as to the former; that it appeared not to the eight Ministers by ought M. Walker produced, that M. Wotton held ought in this particular, that did necessarily infer, what M. Wal­ker thence concludeth.

And let M. VValker give me leave here, if I may be so bold to minister a crosse interrogatorie to him; to wit, whether Pareus, Piscator, Ursine, Olevian, and the rest of them, who deny Christs righteousnes in ful­filling [Page 91] the Law morall to have been performed by him in our steed, for our justification, do therefore deny all ransome paid and satisfaction made to Gods just Law for our redemption and the [...]emission of our sins, or no. and whether they be therefore all of them blasphemous hereticks. But more especially, what he thinks of that speech of Pareus above mentioned, that De Act. & Pasio. Chr. Obed. possit. 5. p. 181. those that ascribe the merit of our righteousnes thereunto, (that which directly crosseth what M. Walker here avow­eth) do doubtlesly make Christs sufferings of no use or effect. Surely, if M. Wotton speak no more then Pa­reus, (and he hardly speaks so much) Pareus must as wel, if not much rather then M. Wotton, passe with M. Walker for an heretike. And if those that hold as M. Walker doth, make Christs sufferings of no use or effect, they, one would thinke, should rather go for heretikes, then M. Wotton, who, it seems, is of an o­ther mind.

The third question is, Pag. 27, 2 [...] Whether mans perfect fulfil­ling of the Law in his own person, under the covenant of works, was not formall inherent righteousnesse; and would have made man worthy of life. And if so, how he can excuse M. Wotton for making faith the for­mall inherent righteousnes of beleevers, in the cove­nant of grace, by which they are worthy of justification and eternal life. Seeing he saith, that faith under the Gospel serves to all purposes for obtaining eternal life, as mans perfect fulfilling of the Law did in the covenant of works.

Let me give you but M. Wottons own words, out of M. Walkers own Parallel; and there shall need to this no further answer. Error. 4 [...] Relat. p. 15. He that beleeveth, (saith M. Wotton) is accounted by God to all purposes concerning [Page 92] eternal life, to have done according to the covenant of the Gospel, as he should have been accounted to have done according to the covenant of the Law, if he had perfectly fulfilled it. For not to stand upon strict terms con­cerning the word Worthie: what doth M. Wotton say more here, then that which he saith else-where? objected also to him by M. Walker, as an heretical and blasphemous speech; Error. 2. Relat. p. 13. The act of Faith, or belee­ving brings justification and adoption, (which what is it other then what the Apostle saith, Rom. 3. 28. & Gal. 3. 26.) Onely and meerly by the place and office, which the Lord of his mercy hath assigned it, to be the condition required on our parts for the atchieving of these favours and honours. thereby excluding all matter of worth in Faith. which yet, whosoever is possessed of, belee­ving in Christ, that is relying upon him for justify­cation and life eternall, may wel be said to be ac­counted by God to all purposes (to wit on our parts required, and therefore to be necessarily by us per­formed) to have done as much according to the covenant of the Gospel, as he should have been ac­counted to have done according to the covenant of the Law, had he perfectly fulfilled it. But of this also enough before out of our own Writers; and by name out of M. Pemble; whom M. Walker ha­ving so highly commended, as one Epist. prefix­ed to M. Pem­bles Plea for grace. by his writings most useful and powerful to confirm mens minds against the Wolves af this age, the Disciples of blasphemous Ser­vetus and Socinus; wil not now, I hope, condemn him for a Socinian and blasphemous heretike; and ha­ving Ibid. formerly made no doubt, but that he is ascended up into heaven, wil not (I presume) for M. Wottons sake now damn him, and throw him down, to [Page 93] send him packing for company with M. Wetton, to hell.

The fourth question is in effect the same with the two next before going; onely, to make some shew of variety, usherd in with a list of Pag. 28. true and orthodox te [...]ets, wherein he saith M. Wotton professeth his dis­sent from Socinus; and wherein indeed M. Walker manifesteth his extream partiality, and malignant disposition against M. Wotton; thereby shewing too apparently, that his pretended zeale is not so much against Socinus and Socinianism it self, as against M. Wotton, and against the things taught by him, as coming from him. This he hath too too manifestly discovered in this interrogatory; spite and malice so blinding him, that [...]. Democrit. Sto [...]. c: 20. [...] De Cyro Xe­noph. instit. l. 1. Quâ noceat, ira videt; quâ ca­veat, non videt. Sen. de irâ. l. 2. c. 12. he minded not what he did. For those tenets of Socinus, though unsound and contai­ning in them ranke venome, as he meaneth them, and manifesteth himselfe so to doe, wherein M. Wot­ton professeth to dissent from him; these M. Walker, setting a faire glosse on them, contrary to Socinus his own intendement in them, alloweth and avoweth them for orthodox and true.

For example, the first of them is, Pag. 28. that Faith is obedience to Christs commandements; who commandeth us to beleeve and repent. And it is true, that Socinus, as Relat. Poscr. p. 48. elsewhere I cite him, De Christ. Servat l. 4. c. 11. maintaines as M. Walker here saith that he doth. But what saith Lubbertus to him for it? a man whom M. Walker would seem much to admire, and told us at our meeting, that he was by I know not whom stiled Orthodoxorum ocellus. Quod dicit, Fidem esse ea sacere, quae Christus praecepit, falsum est. Lubb. ad l. 4. c. 11 p. 561. col. 2. Whereas he (to wit Socinus) saith (saith Lubbertus) [Page 94] that Faith is to do those things that Christ hath enjoyned, it is false: Dicere, fidem esse ea facere, quae Christus praecepit, est idem quod, iasanire. Ibid. to affirme it to be so, is to be stark mad. So by Lubbertus his censure, not Socinus onely, but M. Walker also should be no better. Again, Docet, Christo ejusque verbis credere idem esse quod Christo o­bedire: negamus. Obedientia enim est effectum sidei. errat igitur, qui contendit fidem & obedientiam idem esse. Ibid. p. 582. col. 2. He teacheth, that to beleeve Christ and his words, is to obey him. We deny it. For obedience is an effect of faith. he erreth there­fore, that holds Faith and Obedience to be all one. And yet again, Firmum est, quod Beza sori­bit, Fidem non posse mandato­rum obedientiam significare. Ib. p. 574. col. 2. Firm stands that, which Beza writes, that Faith cannot signifie Obedience to the Commandements. Thus Lubbertus, one of M Walkers own Oracles. And indeed what did Socinus hereby intend, but to cut off all relying by Faith on Christ, as having paid a price to God for our sinnes, or satisfied for them by his death? yet this is M. Walker pleased to blanch over; as if he conceived his meaning to be nothing else, but that in beleeving and repenting, we obey Christs commandement, who Mark. 1. 15. commandeth us to repent and be­leeve. And so is content to let it passe for currant, as a true and orthodox tenet in Socinus, because M. Wot­ton dissented therein from Socinus; though condem­ned by Lubbertus (yea by whom not?) for a grosse error, and in his intendement very dangerous.

The second point, wherein M. Walker affirmes M. Wotton to depart from Socinus, and which he affirmes to be true and orthodox, is Pag. 28. that Repentance, which comes not but by Faith, is the means to obtain for­givenes of sinnes, which Christ hath brought. But he deales here with Socinus, to help him out, as he is wont to do with M. Wotton, to procure prejudice to him. For he takes part out of one passage, and part out of an other, (as M. Wotton hath Answer to Error. 2. § 4. Relat. p 34. & to Error 4 p. 28. cited him, not expressing how far forth in every particular he con­curs with him, or dissents from him; but onely shew­ing, [Page 95] how in general he speaks not that, that him­self doth) and so pieces up a proposition, which he would have deemed sound; withall paring of, what might serve to discover Socinus his grosse error, wherein M. Wotton intended to imply his departure from him. For, Manifestum est, in salute per Christum partâ, Deum nihil aliud à nobis re­quisivisse quam paenitentiam & vitae correctio­nem. It is manifest, saith he, that God re­quireth nothing of us in the obtaining of salvation pro­cured by Christ, but repentance and amendment of life. And, Poenitentiae addita alicubi est fides, non quia praeter ipsam poenitentiam fides in Christū, tanquam aliquid amplius, quod huc pertineat in nobis efficiens, ad peccatorum remissionem con­sequendam re­quiratur, sed quia non nisi per fidem in Chri­stum ista poeni­tentia contingit. Socin. l. 3. c. 2. p. 321. col. 1. Whereas Faith is sometime added to repentance; it is not because Faith in Christ is required to the obtai­ning of remission of sins, (directly contrary to what the Apostle Rom. 3. 25. professeth) as working somewhat more in us besides Repentance it selfe, that doth hereunto ap­pertain; but because Repentance comes not but by Faith in Christ. Thus he clips Socinus in favour to him; as he doth M. Wotton els-where to a contrary end. And yet further, because Lubbertus, Socinus his Antagonist, in refuting him, beates every where upon this, that Peccatorum veniam conver­sio naturae ordine sequitur, non praecedit. Lubb. ad l. 1. c. 5. p. 156. c. 2. Naturae ordine justificatio est prior. Ib p. 157. c. 1. Conversion & Repentance do not in order of nature go before, but follow remission of sin, and justification; and Resipiscentia justificationis effectum est. Ib. p. 58. c. 2.are not causes, but effects of either; nor the cause of expiation, but a consequent of it: and supposing Soci­nus his meaning to be,Paenitentia non est causa ex­piationis, sed ejus consequens. Ib. ad l. 2. c. 12. p. 213. c. 2. that our Repentance is the cause of the remission of our sins; Reprobamus hanc sententiam, nam, ut jam millies osten sum est, remissio p [...]ccatorum, hoc est justificatio nostri, est naturâ prior poenitentiâ. quam ob­rem hanc ejus causam esse est simpliciter impossibile. Ib. p. 216. c. 1. & l. 3. c. 2. p. 348. c. 2. & p. 349. c. 1, 2. This, saith he, we disallow, for, as hath a thousand times been shewed, Remission of sins, that is justification, is in nature before repentance: and it is impossible therefore to be the cause of it. Non nostra resipiscentia, sed ipsius sacrificium est vera causa remissionis pee [...]aterum. Ib. l. 2. c. 1. p. 274. c. 2. For [Page 96] it is not Repentance, but Christs sacrifice, that is the true cause of the remission of our sins: Deum promit­tere veniam re­sespiscenti non negamus: tantum negamus resipi­scentiam nostram esse causam, qua­re Deus nobis peccatorum ve­niam largiatur. Ib. l. 3. c. 2. p. 338. c. 2. God indeed promiseth pardon to the repentant; but we deny repentance to be the cause for which God doth pardon. Here M. Walker strikes in to help Socinus at a dead lift, and telleth us, contrary to his Text, sure without any warrant at all from it, Pag. 28. that by obtaining forgivenes of sins, Socinus means getting the sense and assurance of forgive­nesse. a glosse wel-beseeming him, that professeth such a detestation of the very least sent or shadow of Socinianism in others.

The third point is, Ibid. that faith is a beleeving of that which Christ taught, and an assurance of obtaining that he promised upon our repentance and obedience. Which whether it be a just definition of justifying Faith; (for of that here the question is) or do fitly expresse the office of it in the worke of justification, I leave to be discussed by others. M. Wotton relateth it, Answer to Error. 2. § 5. Relat. p. 252, 6. to shew how that in laying down the nature and office of justifying faith, he goes an other way then Socinus doth; and further then Socinus either doth, or can, holding his own grounds, follow him. who indeed thus defines Faith, to bring all home to Repentance and obed [...]enee, as in the former point; and to ex­clude Christs merit, and ought done or endured by him, as satisfactory for mans sin: as appeares plainly by the whole context of his discourse in that Chap­ter, out of which these words are alledged. And I would demand of M. Walker, how he can free him­self from Socinianism, when he maintains such points as these for sound and orthodox in Socinus: and what censure himself would hape past upon an other, that should have thus blancht and vernisht over such [Page 97] Assertions of Socinus. As also I would know of him, with what face he, that condemns in M. Wotton as he­reticall and blasphemous positions, these propositions, Parall. Error [...] 5. Relat. p. 17. To beleeve in Christ, is to trust in Christ, and to rest on him; to have his heart setled, and to rely wholy and onely on him; and, This trust is such a faith as makes us rest upon God for the performance of his promise; doth now pronounce Socinus his definition of faith, such as you have heard, to be true, Orthodox and sound. But here­by any party, not extreamly partiall, may easily judge what spirit this man is caried with through­out this whole busines.

For as for his twenty times sodden Coleworts, so oft served in, of Pag. 28. M. Wottons taking the word Faith in the Apostles words in a proper sense; Christs fulfilling the Law for us in our steed; Faith being the condition of the Gospel, &c. taking out M. Walkers fillings and glos­ses set upon them, which concern M. Wotton no more then himselfe; enough before hath been said. and, if M. Walker can prove them to be heretical opini­ons, many illustrious stars, besides M. Wotton, will by a blast of M. VValkers breath, as by Apoc. 12. 4. the Dragons tail in the vision, be thrown out of Heaven, and not struck down to the ground only, but even hurld into Hel.

His first question is, Pag. 2 [...]. Whether M. Wotton deny not the free covenant of Grace, when he holds, that God co­venants not to justifie and give life, but upon a condition performed on our part, equivalent for all purposes to mans fulfilling of the Law in his own person in the covenant of works.

To which briefly. 1. To covenant to give a thing upon some condition may nothing impeach the free­nesse [Page 98] either of the covenant, or of the gift. as to co­venant with one to give him a shilling, that you have let fall, lying on the ground, if he will but stoop and take it up. And here by the way to satisfie some, who cannot endure to heare of any condition in the promises of the Gospel; which yet are Marke 16. 16. John 3. 15, 16, 18. 26. Acts 16. 31. Rom. 10. 9. every where so propounded: let it be considered, that a gift or a promise may be said to be free, or not free divers waies and in divers respects: 1. Free in regard both of condition and of consideration. By consideration under­standing some valuable consideration, as in common speech we use to speak. and so it is absolutely, every way free. as if I promise one to bestow a book upon him and to send it home to him, and so do. Here being neither condition nor consideration interposed. 2. Free in regard neither of condition, nor of confide­ration, as if I promise one to give him such a book of mine, if he will give me another of his in lieu of it. for here is both condition and consideration; which both concurring destroy the freenes of it. 3. Free in regard of consideration, tho not free in regard of con­dition. as if I promise to give one such a book gratis, if he wil but cal to me at mine house for it; suppo­sing that I dwell at next dore, or neer to him. Nor doth it derogate ought from the freenes of a gift, if it have been promised upon such a condition; and the promise made good upon the performance of it. no more then a Princes pardon would be deemed lesse free, were it granted upon condition of taking it out, and that free also for any to do, that wil, of free cost, without fee. or his alms, were they pro­pounded and published to all, that would but re­paire to the Court for them. Nor doth M. Wotton [Page 99] therefore necessarily denie the freenesse of Gods grati­ous covenant, if he hold justification and life eternal not to be promised therein but upon condition. So M. Fox answering those that might object that to him, that M. Walker here to M. Wotton. Si ad certas conditiones re­string [...] Dei promissio, quo­modò gratuitam Dei miseri [...]or­diam cum Paul [...] constituemus, quâ gratis per gratiam justifi­cat impium? De Christ. grat. Iustif. p. 237. If Gods promise be restrained to certain conditions, how shall we main­tain with Paul the freenes of Gods mercy, whereby he free­ly justifyeth a sinner? Imò verò quam maximè gratui­tam Dei mise­ricordiam in Christo & censeo & statuo. cum tamen salus haec per Christi me­ritum, non nisi sub certa qua­dam conditione ad nos derive­tur. Ibid. Yes, saith he, I deem and deter­mine Goas mercy to be most free in Christ. albeit this sal­vation by the merit of Christ be not derived unto us but upon a certaine condition. And M. Perkins before re­cited: Reform. Ca­thol. Point. 4. of means of justif. Differ. 2. Reas. 1. The condition of the covenant is by grace, as wel as the substance. Whereunto ad M. Pembles reason: that therefore Plea for grace Sect. 2. chap. 1. p. 22. this covenant is a compact of freest mer­cy, because therein life eternal is given to that, that beares not the least proportion of worth with it.

2. That this condition is Mark. 16. 16. Acts 16. 31. Faith, the performance whereof is as availeable for our good, as perfect o­bedience at first had been, if it be an heresie; why doth not M. Walker require M. Pembles, if not bones, yet books to be burnt, as containing in them hereti­call and blasphemous doctrine? at least why doth he not arraign and condemn him for an heretick as wel as M. Wotton? for he hath, as hath been shewed, the same.

As for the word Equivalent here, it is not M. Wot­tons, but M. Walkers tearm. whose spite and rancor against M. Wotton is such, that nothing of his can fairely passe through his fingers. To be equivalent, that is, equall in worth, and value, is one thing; (and yet I might tel M. Walker that Videatur in disceptatione cum Lud. Lucio part. 1. sect. 9. Luc. script. n. 2. p. 32, 33. & T. G. Animadv. n. 7. p. 35. Chrysostome sticks not to affirm, yea stiffly maintains, that Faith in Christ is of it self a more excellent thing and of greater [Page 100] worth, then the keeping of Gods Commandements; as I shew, but disallowing, elsewhere; and yet is he not therefore deemed or condemned for an heretick:) to be reckoned or counted by God unto man in the Luke 20. 35. & 21. 36. 2 Thes. 1. 5, 11 which places the papists abuse to build merit and worth of works upon. Bellarm, de ju­stific. l. 5. c. 2. and Remists notes. covenant of grace to all purposes, in regard of ought that God requires on his part to be performed, for attaining of life eternal, as if he had in the other covenant kept the whole law, is another thing. I suppose M. Walker is not to learne a difference, and that a vast one too, between [...] and [...] in Greek.

The sixt question is, Pag. 28, 29. Whether M. Wotton affirming, that, If we be freely pardoned, then our sins were not pu­nished in Christ our head and surety, doth not deny Christs satisfaction for sin.

To this I answer. he must shew first, where M. Wot­ton so saith. For these words out of M. Wotton he never yet produced. Read Relat. p. 19. the Parallel Error 7. & out of M. Wotton what is there alledged; and Ibid. p. 34. M. Wot­tons Answer to what is there alledged by M. Walker out of him: and you shal soon see how M. Walker here deales with M. VVotton.

His seventh question is, Pag. 29. Whether M. VVotton be not guilty of heretical tergiversation and grosse contradiction in some passages.

The man, you see, can not speak of M. VVotton, but he must needs spit Fier and Brimstone. Every thing is either heretical or blasphemous in him. But am I, or is any man else bound to reconcile whatsoever contradictions are, if any be, or may be found in M. VVottons writings? Or is every one that is taken in grosse contradictions, of necessity thereupon to be condemned for an heretick? But in this also M. Wal­ker [Page 101] may as wel be beleeved, as In his Woolf in Sheeps clo­thing. where he pronoun­ces the like of M. Bradshaws book. Were M. VVotton alive, he were best able to reconcile his own seem­ing differences. and indeed, for the most of them, if not all, he then did it himselfe.

For the first, which Pag. 29: he citeth out of my Defence, as he tearms it, though out of his own Parallel, and M. VVottons own defence indeed. he might, if he had but put on his spectacles, have found it Relat. p. 21, 22. in the very same place assoiled; that his dispute being of the formall cause of justification, or that whereby we are made formally righteous, Ib. p. 22. n. 2. he denieth any end or use of Christs righteousnes imputed to that purpose. but Ib. p. 21. n. 1. he de­nieth not the imputation of it, as the meritorious cause thereof.

Whereunto, tho sufficient to take away the see­ming contradiction, I ad yet further what I touch­ed upon out of Preface to Treat. of justif. M. Bradshaw before, and I find in him elswhere; that tho he deny Imputation of Christs righteousnes taken in a stricter sense, as many in this argument would have it; yet taken it in a larger sense, for that which is reckoned to a man for his benefit, so far forth as it may in that kind be useful unto him, so he denies not the Imputation of Christs righ­teousnesse to mans justification. For thus I find in cer­taine Theses of his written in Latine of this subject.

1. Si justificatio­nis efficientem dicat quis justi­tiam Christi per modum meriti, ego planè cum eo sentio. If any man hold Christs Righteousnes to be by way of merit the efficient cause of justification, I am wholly of his mind.

2. Si qui [...] Christi justitiā nostram formalem esse justitiam non contendat, nulla mihi cum illo de imputatione est controversia. If any maintain not Christs Righteousnes to be our formal Righteousnes, I have no controversie with him.

3. Iustitiae Christi ad beneficium imputationem ego agnosco & prae me fero. The imputation of Christs Righteousnes to our be­nefit, I acknowledge and professe.

[Page 102] 4. Non mihi un­quam in mentem ne per somnium quidem, venit neg tre, nos prop­ter Christi justi­tiam justificari. It never came into my mind, not so much as in dream, to deny, that we are justified for the righteousnes of Christ.

As for what M. Walker Pag. 29. addes out of M. VVottons Essaies; they were written after our meeting, as Pag. 24. him­self acknowledgeth; and therefore nothing concern either us or our censure; nor for my part did I ever see them, nor know what is in them. and yet what is it, that M. Walker thence here alledgeth? That in Scripture there is no mention of Christs merit. Which if he speak of the word merit, who wil, or can deny the truth of it? yet it will not thence follow, that M. VVotton therefore denies the thing thereby sig­nified, (the rather since that he useth the tearm of meritorious cause applied unto Christ and his Righte­ousnes so frequently himself) no more then, that Cal­vin denied the Doctrine of the T [...]init [...], because Calvin. Instit. lib. 1. c. 13. § 3. he acknowledgeth that tearm not to be found in Gods VVord

To the next Pag. 29. likewise he might have found the like solution, in the very place Answer to Error. 3. Propos. 2. Relat. p 27. whence he had it; if he had been pleased to deal but half so kindly with M. VVotton, as he dealt with Socinus. For, why may not Faith, tho taken properly, be said to justifie, not per se, or of it self; (tho Bucer, as I have shewed, Prae sat. Com­ment. in Ep st. Paulin. so also say) albeit the word Faith be there properly taken, where it is said to be imputed for Righteousnes? not for it self, as Ad di cept. Lub. cum Bert. M VVotton himself expoundeth him­self, but for Christ, on whom it relies; as hath formerly been at large related.

For, what Pag. 29. is added of Imputation, is coincident to the former: but that M. Walker with his Occ [...] mise­ros crambe [...] epe­ [...] [...]acc. art. cole so o [...]t new dressed and dished in again, tires out h [...]s [Page 103] Readers, and may wel overturn their stoi [...]ck [...].

The Ibid. third consists of the Pag. 27. second and Pag. 18. sixt Que­res; (for M. Walker loves to turn round) wherein no­thing is truely alledged out of M. VVotton, that any way crosseth Christs satisfaction made, or the price by him paid, for us: and shal thither therefore be re­turned again; least by running round in a circle af­ter M. Walker, we grow turn-sick with him.

The Pag. 30. fourth is not so much a contradiction found in M Wottons writings to ought of his own, as to the words of the Apostle, Rom. 5. 19. which yet unles they be understood of formal and inherent Righteous­nes, (however Woolf in sheeps cloa­thing. chap. 1. § 23. M. Walker tax M. Bradshaw for con­founding these terms) M. VVottoh contradicteth not at all. And yet is it not sufficient to prove a man an heretick, because he contradicts somewhat contei­ned in Gods Word. since that every error whatso­ever in any point of Divinity must of necessity so do. and M. Walker therefore, unlesse he dare pro­fesse himself free from all error, must by the same ground withall granted confesse himself to be an heretick.

But from his Contradictions return we to his Que­stions again.

His eighth question, wherein he thinks he hath me now on the hip, is Pag. 3. How M. Gataker with a good con­science can justifie and proclaim M. VVotton free from heresie, when he wilfully and perversely denies the very form, essence, and being of justification, to wit, the Impu­tation of Christs Righteousnes, first simply rejecting it, as being of no use; and afterwards, as the formal cause of justification; (where you have the same colie served you in againe) seeing he, the said M. Gataker hath pub­likely [Page 104] extolled and commended for Orthodox, the like Treatife of M. VV. Bradshaw in his funerall Sermon at his buriall, wherein he makes the imputation of Christs Righ­teousnes the form of justification.

In which words, as [...]ibus [...] [...]. Demo­crates apud Stob. c. 22. s [...]e, ut Plut in m [...]nit. polit. [...]. he sometime said of the people of Athens, M. Walker blowes and blusters much, but does little.

For first, I might demand of him, where I so ex­tolled M. Bradshaws book? What I spake of it in a short Speech before my Sermon at that time, I have for­merly word for word related. But in M. Walkers hy­perbolical language, every mole-hil is a mountain; every rivelet or drilling ril, a flood or a faire river; every but scanty or sleight commemoration or com­mendation, an extolling; every light touch, an Inve­ctive; every error, at least an heresie.

Secondly, whether every one that commends a book in such manner as I there did, must of neces­sity approve it as wholly free from all error. I was by a Sir Maurice Bartlet. worthy Knight sometime demanded mine opinion in a point concerning the seat of conscience, wherein two Divines of special note, run two divers and cros waies, M. Rob. Harris in S. Pauls ex­ercise. the one denying it a place in any natural Facultie of the soul, usually assigned; the other affor­ding it a room in each of them: and professing my self to dissent from either, it was objected to me, M Sam Ward, in Balm from Gilead. that I had by an Epistle prefixed commended the worke of the one, wherein that opinion of his was found. to which I then answered that Gentleman, and so shal now M. VValker, that a book may war­rantably for the main substance of it be cōmended as useful, yea as excellent; albeit the party so com­mending it suppose the Author of it to have been [Page 105] mistaken in some things therein contained. So did M. Cappel with the same M. Bradshaws book; albeit in some things therein he dissented then from him, when so highly yet he indeed did extoll it, as you formerly have heard: and my selfe did somewhat the like sometime with M. Eltons Catechetical work to my cost; though withall In that Pre­face prefixed. professing, that in di­vers things contained in that part of it which I had read, I was my selfe of another judgement.

Thirdly, what if M. Wotton and M. Bradshaw do not herein at all differ, or crosse either other? but may very well be reconciled? may not M. Gataker then at least with a good conscience commend M. Brad­shaws booke, and yet pronounce M. Wotton free from heresie, when he saith herein nothing that contra­dicts that, which M. Bradshaw is here said to affirm? And that it is so indeed, and in M. Bradshaws own judgement was so, may be easily made to appeare. For doth not M. Bradshaw in his Preface plainly shew, that the word of Imputation is overstrictly taken by some Divines, in which sense M. Wotton seems to him to have denied it; whereas the word might wel be understood in another, and a larger sense, profes­sing himself so to use it? So that the bare word re­jected by the one, and admitted by the other, doth not necessarily imply any contradiction between them. no more then S. Pauls words, that Rom. 3. 28. A man is justified by faith without works, doth any way contra­dict what S. James saith, that Iam. 2. 24. A man is justified by works, and not by faith onely.

And here I shall again crave leave of my Reader, to insert a short passage out of some writings enter­changed between these two Christian brethren; [Page 106] both, I hope, now with God, and agreeing in all things; though in some particulars they dissented, while they lived here.

M. Wotton in his Animadversions, which I have by me, on M. Bradshaws book, thus excepts.

The third opinion denying all imputation of Christs righteousnes is said to be somewhat erroneous. Yet the same opinion held onely in that strict sense of imputation, which the Autor himselfe rejecteth, and that upon good ground, as he acknowledgeth, is therefore cleered from all erroneousnes. For how can that be erroneous, that is held on good ground?

To which M. Bradshaw thus answereth:

Tho upon good ground, as to me seems, you deny impu­tation in that sense only; yet your denial of all imputation may notwithstanding that be erroneous; being grounded upon a supposal of that which I think is erroneous, that there is no other kind of imputation but that, which is answerable to that strict sense aforesaid.

By which words it appeares, that the difference herein between them was rather in words, then in points: and that M. Wottons error, as M Bradshaw ap­prehended it, was only concerning the use of a word, not concerning any point of faith.

Fourthly, suppose the difference were not ver­ball, but reall, not in words onely, but in sense and meaning too; yet would it not therefore necessarily follow, that M. Wotton denieth the very form, essence, and being of justification, because he denies that, which M. Bradshaw affirms to be the Formall cause of it; or that M. Gataker must therefore of necessity pro­nounce M. Wotton an heretick; unles first it be pro­ved that that is indeed and truth the formal cause, [Page 107] of justification, which M. Bradshaw hath assigned: (which being found onely in a short Summary an­nexed to his Treatise, Woolf. chap. 2. Error. 8. on chap. 2. n. 11. The form is the pleading of the said righteousnes or innocency, &c. M. Walker himself deems to contradict what is averred in the book; nor is it at all in the Latine edition,) and that M. Gataker also is therein of the same mind with M. Bradshaw, which for ought M. Walker knowes, he may not be.

Fiftly, I should desire to know of M. Walker, whe­ther he hold not the imputation of Christs active obe­dience to be the formall cause of our justification: and if he so do; which, I suppose, he wil not deny; whe­ther he can with a good conscience pronounce Pareus free from heresie; notwithstanding that De activ. & pass▪ Chr. Obed. p. 181. he denies the imputation of it unto justification, as derogatory from the al-sufficiency of Christs suffrings and his sacrifice; and consequently (by M. Walkers inference) takes a­way the very form, essence and being of justification. if he cannot, how comes it to pas, that he reckons him here so oft among his Orthodox Writers, that con­demn M. Wottons opinions as heretical and blasphe­mous? if he can, I see not, why M. Gataker may not do the like by M. Wotton, forought here objected. the argument being as strong (if not stronger) against the one as against the other.

Sixtly, suppose it were an error, and a dangerous one to, that M. Wotton maintains; whence knows M. Walker? or how is he able to prove, that he holds it Pag. 30. wilfully, that is, against his own knowledge, (for that seems to be intimated) and perversly, that is, as I conceive him, obstinately? to make him [...]. Titus 3. 11. a damned heretick. For I suppose, he wil not assume to himself any 1 Cor. 12. 10▪ extraordinary gift in discerning of spirits. and if he will pretend, that he discernes it by his deeds; [Page 108] which is hard to do in a point of meer Theorie; let him take heed, what manner of spirit by his car­riage in this busines, being matter of practise, he gives men ground, to suspect or conclude himself to be led by.

Lastly, suppose M. Walker to be so sharpsighted, and that he can pierce and peere so narrowly into M. Wottons conscience, as to discern that he doth wilfully and perversely maintain what he holds: yet unlesse that M. Gataker be as quicksighted herein as M VValker, and that he be able to descry in M. Wotton that wilfulnes and perversnes that M. Walker doth, he may still with a good Conscience justifie M. Wotton, and pronounce him (for proclamations he makes none) free from heresie; as wel as the rest of his reve­rend brethren have done, notwithstanding all M. Walkers evidence given in against him. since that Rom. 14. 13. 1 Cor. 4. 5. & 13. 5. 7. no man is bound to pronounce or deem of his Chri­stian brother, on the wors part especially, further then himself can see.

His ninth question (to cut it somewhat shorter, that the readers stomack may be the les troubled in taking it) is this, Pag. 30. How the faithful united to Christ, as their head, and made thereby partakers of his righteous­nes and whole obedience to Gods Law, and thereby consti­tuted righteous before God, can without hereticall pra­vity be denied to be formally righteous by that righte­ousnes.

To which I answer: that first he presumes some things here that are to be proved; and are (as he wel knows,) by Divines not a few of the best note not acknowledged; as, that Christs Righteousnes con­sisting in his active obedience is part of that whereby the faithfull are made righteous.

[Page 109] Besides, that many things have the faithful inte­rest in by vertue of their union and communion with Christ; which yet are not imputed unto them for the justifying of them, or for the making of them to stand righteous in Gods sight. The Wife by vertue of her union and conjunction with her Husband, hath a right to, and interest in, all that he hath, yea and in himself to. Yet is it not necessary, that whatsoever she hath joint interest in with him, should therefore go to the payment of her debts formerly contracted: especially, if suffici­ent be found in any part of it. And that without he­reticall-pravity therefore, that which M. VVotton is here charged with, may be held; especially, unles we wil question the sufficiency of Christs death for the discharge of our sins; Pareus Ex de Act. & Pass. Chr. Obed. p. 181. his words (if he be at least of any credite with M. Walker) above-mentio­ned wil intimate; yea the whole discourse, whence they are taken, wil evidently shew.

For his tenth and last question, the contradiction is the very same concerning Imputation, that was Pag. 29. for­merly propounded, the first in the seventh question. For M. Walker doth but roll [...]ingens quod Sisyphus versat Saxum, sudans nitendo, neque p [...]ficit hilum. Ex Epico aliquo [...]ic. Tuscul. l. 1. Sisyphus his stone up and down here, until he tire, if not himself, yet his Reader.

The question it self is, Pag. 31. Whether M. Wotton be not possessed with the spirit of Socinian blindnes and giddi­nes, when he derides Orthodox Divines, for making every beleever justified by imputation of Christs satisfactory obedience, a Redeemer, Saviour and Satisfier for all the Elect and Faithful.

What by Socinian blindnes and giddines M. Walker meanes, I wean not. We use to ask, who are blinder [Page 110] then they that wil not see? and in this kind M. Walker hath bewrayed too much blindnes in this book. As for giddines, I know not, who are more likely to be possessed of it, then such as run round, like an Hors in a Mil.

But how, or where, doth M. VVotton thus deride our Orthodox Divines? This crime thus fastned upon M. Wotton, M. Walker thus makes good. Ibid. For in one of his written papers thus he argues: If Christs Righteousnes and Satisfaction be imputed to every beleever, then must every beleever be accounted a Redeemer, Justifier, and Satisfier for all the Elect. But this is absurd. Ergò, the Antecedent is fals.

Where first, I might demand of M. Walker, whe­ther a man must of necessity be deemed to deride him, whom he disputes with, if he shal affirm some­thing to follow from that he holdeth, which he pro­nounces to be absurd,

2. Whether this speech of M. Wotton were given in to us at our meeting by M. Walker, as part of his E­vidence, to make good his Plea against M. VVotton. which unles it were, as it was not, which may appear by his Paralel; albeit it should contain rank heresie in it; yet concerns it not us, nor our sentence in clee [...]ing M. VVotton. For Iudex proce­dere debet secun­dum allegata & probata. Reg. Iur. what Iudge is bound to sentence any man upon evidence not produced?

3. As for the matter it self, if M. VVotton doe not understand aright, what those Orthodox Divines mean; as Ibid. M. Walker affirms: sure the mistaking of another mans meaning, and thereupon supposing therefore, or pretending, that some absurdity follows from what he saith, doth not in my weak appre­hension make a man guilty of heresie. or if it be pre­ [...]umed [Page 111] that it doth, I doubt much, whether M. Wal­ker himself may not be deemed one of the greatest hereticks under the Sun.

Thus much for M. Walkers questio [...]. whereunto he saith Pag. 31. he could ad divers others. But if they be as little to the purpose as these; (which howsoever, one only excepted, concerning mine extolling of M. Brad­shaws book, do no more concern me to answer, then any other of the eight) he may do wel to keep them where they are: unles he be desirous to acquaint the world further with his restles spirit (which he hath sufficiently done here already) albeit he have neither new matter to enquire of, nor any mat­ter of moment, whereby to take of the truth of that, which under good hands and of oredit suffici­ent; hath been related. And the rather may he be advised to conceal them, unles they be more savou­ry, then what here next ensueth, of Pag. 32. a stinking issue of running cankers in a most foul body, and rotten car­cose, that M. Gataker, like a sepulchres dog, hath scratched and raked out of the grave, in writing and publishing of his Relation: (in which passage also he shews himself turn-sick again:) otherwise his Readers (to return his own words) may wel be forewarned, to stop their noses, ere they offer to read them.

Hence he proceeds to charge me; first, as Pag. 3 [...] profuse and prodigal of my reputation, in subscribing to M. Wot­tons positions, that they contain neither heresie nor blas­phemy. wherein if my reputation [...]ly at the stake, theirs must lie together with mine, that subscribed toge­ther with me.

And secondly, with Ibid. breach of piety and charity, virulency, defect of humanity and common honesty, in [Page 112] falsly fathering that on those dead Saints, M. Randol, and M. Stock, and those living pious men, D. Gouge and M. Downham, a subscription to those errors, that they saw no heresie or blasphemy in them. All which foul impu­tations, which herein he would make me guilty of, light full upon those, whom he pretends to be wron­ged by me, rather then upon me, who relate but their testimony under their own hands. For if ought be falsly fathered upon the deceased, whither of the twain stand guilty of it, they that witnes the thing under their hands, or he that barely relates what they witnes? Besides I would fain know, what viru­lency is, or can be, in a precise relation of an other mans words, if there be no virulent matter or man­ner of speech in them: or if ought be in them of that nature, who ought to beare the burden of it, the Re­later, or the Autor.

As for his old Cuckows song, I [...]g. 33. of his blaming our subscription, protesting against it offer to dispute, and mine interposing so, that he could not be heard, nor obtaine a copy of M. Wottons answers, with such other idle re­petitions; they have been before heard and answe­red: and do here serve onely to raise the bulke of the book; but do no whit help to prove, what M. Walker here intends, that I have falsly fathered ought upon those Saints deceased. Yea they are of much weight to evince the truth of that, which M. Walker here so eagerly opposeth. For what needed M. Wal­ker to have kept all this coil, and have made all this ado if no such thing had then been, or were about to [...]e done?

As little to the same purpose, or to any purpose at all, is it, what he telleth [...]. of a consutation of so much [Page 113] as he could remember of M. VVottons answers, which he shewed to D. Gouge and M. Downham. who I hope, wanted no baiting by him, for what they had done. and that afterward he obtained liberty by a friend to copy them out, labouring for nothing ever more earnestly then to have them published; which they may beleeve him that list: for who or what hindered him from publishing of them, when he had them? and that he desired so much the publishing of them, to free himself from those fals reports, that M. Gataker would now lay & fasten upon him, p. 39. in which whole page there is nothing but a short sum of what was before delive­red; of M. Walkers charge and chalenge, and his evidence given in, all under his own hand; M. Wottons answer, as himself penned it; the verdict and sentence of the persons appealed to, testified under the survivours hands, and M. Walkers renewing of his charge in print, which himself wil not deny; and what fals reports of mine can there be in all this? or if the publishing of M. VVottons answer wil free M. Walker from fals reports, I have therein done M. VValker, it seems, no smal pleasure, and fulfilled, if we may beleeve him, his earnest desire. So far, he saith, he was from pressing D. Bayly to conceal them, as M. Gataker would intimate, p. 37. where I say no such matter, but say onely of the Subscription, that the Doctor refused to deliver it, whether pressed by M. Walker to detaine it or no, I wot not, M. VValker himselfe best knoweth. And indeed what was it to any of us, whether M. Walker had had M. Wottons answers, or no? This is therefore all but [...]. Chrysost. ad Olympiad [...]p. 13. smoak and dust, raised to dim or dasel mens eyes, that they may not see that, that M. Walker would fain have concealed, and kept (were it possible) from their sight.

[Page 114] Which having thus made some way to, as he sup­posed, (therein overflattering himself; as [...] Dem [...]h. Olyath. 3. what men earnestly desire, they are easily induced to be­leeve) he falleth now again more directly upon it; and Pag. 33. tels us upon what occasion, M. VVotton by a fals suggestion, drew D. Gouge and M. Downham some yeers after to give a fals attestation: (for that is it, that he laboureth throughout this whole Pamphlet, wel knowing how neerly it concerns him, to prove) Pag. 34. which M. Stock and D. Bayly abhorred to do, repenting what favour they had shewed M. Wotton at first.

But here stil Dicit ille multa quidem multis locis: sed aqua [...]eret, ut aiunt. Cic. Offic. l. 3. Et ad Q. fratr. l. 2. ep. 7. Quod dictum fuerat actum iri, non vst actum: in hac causd mihi aqua heret. Quod Erasm. adag. 1300. malè cepit & accepit; cum in aqua haerere dictum voluit. quem nec H. Steph. expedivit. Est Graecorum, [...]. Suid Aqua haeret, the water stayes, and doth not run cleerly away. Nor is M. Walker with all his shifts, able to wind himself out. For is the attestation by M. Gataker related, and by M. Sam. Wot­ton published, truly related, or no? If it be truely related, then M. Gataker in relating it, hath delive­red nothing but what is true; to wit, that two such men have under their hands given such an attestation. Again, is the attestation it selfe true, or no? they that gave it, I hope, wil maintain it to be true. and then have I averred nothing concerning the issue of that meeting, but what is avowed by the testimony of two witnesses, beyond all just exception, and whom M. Walker of all other Adversus propri [...] nulla est exceptio. Cha­mier. pa [...]sirat. tom. 3. l. 3. c. 3. § 4. cannot with any reason reject, being men chosen to heare and sentence the cause by himself. Who therefore, if he shall stil persist to affirm it to be fals; I wil say no more, but as that Noble Roman sometime accused by a mean fellow of a very unlikely crime, Varius Sucro [...]e [...]sis AEmylium Scaurum regiâ m [...]rcede cor­ruptum imperium papuli Roma [...]i prodi [...]isse [...]i [...]: AE [...]ylius Scauru [...] huic se affinem esse culpae negat. [...]iri creditis? Val. Max. l. 3. c. 7. ex. 8. Fab. instit. l. 1. c. 11. [...]. in Ci [...]. pro Scaur. Varius affirms it; Scaurus [Page 115] denies it. Whether of the two do you credit? so I here, M. Walker the party interressed saies it; D. Gouge and M. Downham two of his Iudges (for Pag. 21, 24. so himself tearms them) men indifferent and unpartial (how­ever M. Walker is pleased to tax them) deny it: you may choose whether of the two you wil be pleased to beleeve.

Thus at length M. Walker hath dispatched him­self, as concerning our meeting, by himself procured and the issue of it. wherein he hath so laboured to vindicate himself, by many falshoods inserted into his report of it; and, not so much by recharging M. Wotton, as by traducing his Iudges, as men partiall and unconscionable, and such as in favour of M. Wotton did what they were even then ashamed of when they did it, and by all means therefore contended to have it concealed and kept from the light and sight of others after they had done it; and lastly by heaping on me a whole load of opprobrious terms, for ha­ving a hand in the publishing of it; that in seeking thus to salve his credit, he may wel therein be dee­med, to have done no more then to have [...]. Zenob. ad. 648. Diog. 750. [...]. Theocr. idyl. 16. quod Erasm. ad. 1441. nigrum silicem, malè vertit, cum luteum laterem debuisset. Ter. pborm. 1. 4. Pur­gemme? laterem lavem. Hier. ad. Pelag. l. 1. Nu­garis, nec memi­nisti illius Pro­verbii, in eo. lem luto volutaris, imò laterem lavas. crudum scil. qui lavando fit lutulentior. washt over a raw brick but, or to have Quod est plus, quam [...], ut Philostr. Epist. Lutum lut▪ purgare. covered miry durt with reeking dung.

Howbeit, tho he have thus rid his hands of our meeting, yet his spite and malice against M. Wotton and me is not yet at an end.

For, as for my Poscript, it is Pag. 34. so frivolous, that a short answer wil serve: Pag. 35. one short breath is sufficient to blow it away. And yet let M. VValker who thus here vaunteth himself, like an other Qui legiones difftat spiritu, ut ventus fo [...], au [...] panniculam te­ctoriam. Plaut. Milit. 1. 1. Pyr gopolinices, know, that with all his boisterous blusterings he hath not stirred it one jot, much les blown it away, as he brags; [Page 116] having not so much as blown upon a good part of it; because, it seems, he was loath to spend so much breath in vain, that might better be kept for some other use.

My Pag. 34. main charge here against him, he saith, is ini­quity; and indeed so Relat. p. 19. it is, for yoaking M. Wotton with Peter Abeilard, and with Servetus and Socinus, as agree­ing with them in such damnable and detestable dotages, as they held and maintained, and for which they were con­demned as blasphemous hereticks; and that upon such slight grounds, as hath formerly been shewed. But Pag. 34. the iniquity, M. Walker tels me, shal return upon mine own head.

And why so? first, for Abeilard, Ibid. because S. Ber­nard (whose Saintship yet I suppose, need be no part of our Creed; especially, if all be true that our Wal­ter Mapes In Epistolis nondum editis. reports of him) saith he held, that our sins are not punished in Christ, and that it had been injustice in God to punish one for another, and to impute the obe­dience of one to another.

I demand not of M. Walker, where Abeilard saith ought of the imputing of the obedience of one to another, or where Bernard charges him with the deniall of it, as a thing unjust. tho I suppose, he would not ea­sily be able to shew either. But I aske, where M. Wot­ton ever said, what Abeilard is here reported to have held, that our sins are not punished in Christ; or, that it were injustice in God to punish one for another. If he cannot shew this (as hitherto he hath not done) he is (and may be deservedly so censured) a malicious slanderer of his brother. Howbeit, if these words of M. VVotton, which M. Walker could not be igno­rant of, do not speake the direct contrary; let some [Page 117] part yet of this imputatiou be taken of, if you so please. Answer to Error. 7. R [...]lat. p 34. Christ, saith M▪ VVotton, hath been punished for us; we are pardoned for his punishment, Esay 53. 5 What can be spoken more plainly? M Walkers ini­quity therefore herein, is not wiped of, much lesse returned upon me. Besides I find in his Latine Theses before mentioned this Assertion: Iilud [...], & Christi p [...]rp [...] ­siones no [...]is im­p [...]t [...], & not p [...]opt [...]r illas [...] ­nia [...]u peccator [...]m & absolution [...]m [...] reat d Deo [...]sequi. quo uno [...] [...]us, ni [...]il ad Scrip­t [...]r as explican­das accommoda­tius, aut di [...]i, aut c [...]g tariposse conteu. [...] Th [...]s. 5. This I beleeve, that Christs sufferings are imputed to us; and we for them obtain from God, pardon of our fins, and freedom from the guilt of them. Then which I maintain, that nothing can be spoken or conceived more true, or more apt for the unfolding of Scripture. Which how wel it sorts with what M. Walker charges on Abeilard, let any man judge.

But against M. Wotton Furore pestis p [...]ma in [...] ­simo. Prad [...]nt. in Rom. the worst comes last. For M. Walker wil prove him to conspire with Abeilard, Servetus and Socinus in a wors matter than all this; and that is in the denial of Christs deity. For, Pag. 34, 35. if they denied in plain words the eternal deity of Christ; so also M. VVotton did in effect. For he held that Christs obedi­ence did serve only to justifie himself, and to bring him into high favour with God: so that God justifieth us by him as by a favourite, only upon condition of our trusting in him. Now where is the infinite valour of his Deity, if he needed justification and favour for himself.

Did ever man read a charge more malicious, or more slenderly backt?

For not to question again, whether Abeilard, (Pag. 34. which M. Walker expresly by name affirms apart of him) did ever deny, and that in plain tearms too, the eternal deity of Christ; or where Bernard, or any other saith, that he so did. Tho it be a sin (we say) even to bely the devil; any man much more and so far is Peter [Page 118] Abeilard from denying it in plain terms, that in pre­cise and ful words he affirms it; (Credo filium per omni [...] Patri esse coaequalem; scil. aeternitate, potestate, &c. Petr. Abeilard. conses. sid. [...]d Hel. I beleeve, saith he, that the Sonne is in all things coequal with the Father; to wit, in Eternity, Power, or Autority, &c. Nec audis Arium. Ibid. condemning withal and detesting Arius (whom Bernard was pleased to say he had some Sapit Arium. Bern. ep. 192. smach of) as one Perverso inge­nio actus, imò daemoniaco se­ductus spiritu. Abeilard. ubi supr. led by a perverse disposition, and led aside by a devilish spirit, for Gradus facit in Trmitate: Patrem majo­rem, Fi [...]ium d [...]gmatizans min [...]rem. Idem ibid. making degrees in the Trinity, and teaching the Father to be greater than the Son, and the Son lesser than the Father. That, which it is true indeed, that Ponit in Tri­nitate gradus, constituit Deum Patrem esse ple­n [...]m p [...]tiam: I i [...]um, quan­dam p [...]tiam: Sp. sa [...]ctum, n [...]ll [...]m potenti­am. B. [...]. [...]p. 190. Ber­nard chargeth Peter to have done; (and were it true, yet were not in plain tearms to deny the eternal Deity of Christ,) but Peter flatly denies to be found in any writings of his; yea Hec verba per ma [...]tiam [...], [...] tam [...]tica quam di [...]ca, d [...]t [...]stor, [...]: eaque cum autore suo p [...]rit [...]r [...]. [...] in Ap [...]l [...]g. professing to abhor it, not as heretical onely, but as devilish; nor refusing to be pronounced, [...]riat criptis, nen solu [...] hereticum, verum etiam heresiarcham [...]. not an heretick simply, but an Arch­heretick, if it could out of any work of his be produced.

But to let this passe, I say; which little concerns us, howsoever it were with Abeilard; save that Ibid. Iustitiae est, [...] cuiqu [...] trib [...]ere Cicer [...] Iuvent. l. 2 Cornif. ad Heren. l. 3. the rule of Iustice and equity requires to do every one right; and Ma [...]h. [...]. 32. Qu [...]ri non vis, alterine [...]is. Alex. Se [...]r. Hicron. ad Algas. Bern. de [...]. l. 1. that we deale with others as we would be de [...]lt with our selves.

First, suppose that a denial of Christs deity might be necessarily deduced from some Positions by M. Wotton maintained. would it thence follow that M. VVotton denies the Deity of Christ? It is no good consequence. For some thing may follow truly and necessarily from what a man holds; and yet he not [Page 119] hold it, but deny it; yea strongly and stifly not in dispute only, but even in judgement oppose it, be­cause he deems the consequence, wherby it is thence deduced, unsound, For example: That which the Lutherans hold concerning the corporall presence of Christs body in the Sacrament, together with the bread, doth by necessary consequence overthrow the truth of Christs humanity. Do any of our Divines therefore charge them, (tho Legantur Alb. G [...]eri Ab­s [...]r [...]rum absur­dissima, absurda Calvinistica. aliaque ejusmodi istorum scripta. they walk along with M. Walker in the way he here takes, in their writings against us) with the deniall of Christs humane nature? Or wil M. Walker therefore dare to pronounce Luther an here­tick, as denying the truth of Christs humanity? albeit we know that every true, naturall, and humane body is confined to some one certain individuall place or other, and limited with such dimensions as all men we see are; which of Christs cannot be truely said, if that be admitted. Yea to turn the edge of M. Walkers argument the other way. By the same reason, from some consequences of M. Rich­ardsons, (whose authority M. Walker I am sure, wil not waive) a man may prove, that Turks, Iews and Pagans hold a Trinity of Persons in the Deity, and the Evangelical doctrine of Christs Incarnation. For what Turke, Iew, or Pagan, of any but ordinary apprehen­sion in intellectuals, if he acknowledge a God, doth not hold, that that God doth most perfectly understand himself? Now M. Richardson in some Essaies of his; wherein (directly contrary, as I take it, to what 1 Cor. 2. 9. the Apostle averres; and yet do I not therefore account him an hereticke, no more then that other Noble Phil. Mornaeus Dom. de P [...]essis lib. de verit. Re [...]g. Christian. Lord of great note, that hath laboured in the like Argu­ment) he endeavours to prove, that men by the very [Page 120] light of nature and use of reason alone, may attaine to the knowledge of those two main mysteries of Faith and grounds of the Gospel; and that they may thereby be demonstrated to those who never heard of or knew them before; he doth from this Position as generally granted and agreed on, by a continued chain of consequences, as so many links or rundels necessarily depending each on other, thus argu: God understandeth himself most perfectly, ergò he is un­derstood of himself most perfectly: ergò there is a most perfect understander, and a most perfect understood; and both these are one essence. Again, a most perfect under­stander, and a most perfect understood: ergò a most per­fect conceiver, and a most perfect conceived: ergò a most perfect begetter, and a most perfect begotten: ergò a production of that which is of the same kind: ergò of a most perfect Sonne: ergò by a most perfect Father: which are the Father and the Sonne. Again, God understan­deth himself most perfectly: ergò to be the most perfect being: ergò he willeth himself as the most perfect good: ergò from the understander and the understood proceeds a mutuall desire of their essence: ergò a spirit or anheli­tus to the same: which is the holy Ghost proceeding from both. Again, what man is there Turke, Iew, or Pagan, that hath any regard of conscience to God ward, but holds that he hath at some time or other offended God by doing unjustly in some one kind or other? now hence doth the same Autor by a Stoical Sorites, or heap of Ergoes, deduce a necessity of our Saviour Christs Incarnation, for that mans salvation, on this wise. Mans conscience telleth him, that he hath done un­justly: ergò transgressed the rule of justice: ergò the eternall Law: ergò the Law of the eternal God: ergo he [Page 121] is obnoxious to the eternal justice of God: ergò to an infinite punishment: ergò he must be answerable to the same: ergò by suffering eternally, if he answer it in him­self, or by any other finite: ergò, he must perish eternally, unles an infinite person undertake the same; who being infinite can infinitely satisfie with finite sufferings: ergò he must perish eternally, or beleeve an infinite person satis­fying for him, as an infinite person offended by him; and that (in conclusion) is Christ, God and Man. For to avoyd prolixity, I wil cut off the residue of this train. Thus from M. Richardsons grounds, by M. Wal­kers help, there is an incomparablo benefit befaln the whole world, for by this means great part of it, though they never heard of Christ, are sodenly be­come Christians. For they hold the main Principles of the Gospel as certainly, nay more certainly then M. Wotton denies Christs Deity. Since that the one follows, you see, necessarily (unles M. Richardson be much mistaken) from what they hold; whereas the other by M. Walkers good leave, hath not as yet been shewed to follow so from ought by M. Wotton main­tained. and yet, I doubt much, that if trial be taken, we shal scarce find them sound in the Christian faith for all this.

In the next place therfore, let us see, what it is, that M. Walker, here tels us, that M. VVotton maintained, whereby he hath brought upon himself so heavy a guilt as the denial of the eternal deity of the Son of God. He held, saith he, that Christs obedience did serve onely to justifie himself, and to bring him into high favour with God: so that God justifies us by him as by a favourite, onely upon condition of our trusting in him.

Where M. VVotton saith all this, M. Walker tels us [Page 122] not: and he that twits M. Gataker for his frequent quotations, might justly be taxed both here and else­where for a defect, if not default, herein; and that such, as rendreth him, not without good cause, sus­pected of some jugling. For that Christs obedience serves to justifie himself, I suppose, no man can deny. since that John 3. 21. & 8. 46. 38. & 18. 23. our Saviour himself doth thereby usu­ally justifie himself against the false aspersions of his slanderous adversaries. Howbeit to give M. Wal­ker herein the more satisfaction, we wil present him with two testimonies, the one a strangers, the other our own Countreymans. Thus then Gomarus, one of the greatest and eagerest Anti-arminian. Nifi perfecta ad fuisset obedi­entia, ipsemet peccator esset, & pro se puniendus. Fr. Gomar. dis­put [...] elenct. de justif. mat. & form. thes. 12. Christ, had he not performed perfect Obedience, had himself been a sinner, and to be punished for himself. And thus M. Dearing in his Lectures upon part of the Epistle to the Hebrews, M. Edw. Dea­ring on Hebr. Le [...]. 2. p. 26. in 8. Our Saviour Christ, being the eternall Sonne of God, through the work of the holy Ghost, was made man of the Uirgin Mary, and born without original sin; and by the same spirit filled stil his manhood more and more with grace, til the fulnes of all righteousnes was within him, that so his manhood might inherit sal­vation, according to the promise, Do this, and thou shalt live. but hitherto as he is righteous, so he is righte­ous for himself; and only that man is blessed, who was con­ceived by the holy Ghost, and born of the Uirgin Mary. What more pregnant?

Again, that Christ for this his obedience was in grace and favour with God, both the Evangelist witnesseth, and himself professeth. John 10. 17. The Father loves me, saith he, because I lay down my life; as Iohn. 10. 18. & 14. 31. my Father hath willed me to do. and why not also, John 8. 29. because I do alwaies those things, that are pleasing to him? And that Christ [...] [Page 123] a favourite, helps to bring us into grace with God, I hope no true Christian, either doubts or denies. Math. 3. 17. & 17. 5. God himself so oft implying and intimating the same, and the Apostle so expresly telling us, that [...]. Epes. 1. 6. God hath graciously accepted us in his beloved. For as for the condition of trusting in Christ, enough hath formerly been said: and he must needs wilfully wink, that refuseth to take notice of that which so John 1. 12. & 3. 15, 16, 18, 36. & 6. 35, 40, 47. & 7. 38, 39. & 9. 35, 36. & 11. 25, 26. & 12. 36. Acts 10. 43. & 13. 39. & 16. 31. Rom. 4. 5, 24. & 9. 33. & 10. 11, &c. frequent­ly he must needs meet with in the Gospel, if he but superficially turn over the Books of the New Testa­ment. not to ad, that hence Christian Writers, as wel Origen. in Io [...]. hom. 32. Gregor. Naz. [...]rat. 37: Athanas. cont. Arian. orat. 3. Cyril. de Trin­dial. 4. ancient as Vrsin. Catech. explic. quaest. 33. § 3. rat 5. Steg­man. disput. 5. quaest. 13. modern, confirm the Deity of Christ, be­cause we are John 12. 36. & 14. 1. willed, and Rom. 15. 12. 1 Tim. 4. 10. said to beleeve in him, and pronounced Psalm 2. 12. happy for so doing; the very Bellarm. de Christ. l. 1. c. 5. loc 1. Et Cate­chism. Trident. Pii. 5. jussu editus. p. 107. Papists themselves, tho against themselves, applying the same also to this purpose.

But that M. VVotton any where hath affirmed, that Christs obedience serves for this end ONELY to justifie himself, (which comes short of what Socinus himself acknowledgeth) or to bring him into favour with God; (as if he had not been in favour with him before) is more, I beleeve then M. Wotton ever writ or sayd: sure I am, more it is, then M. Walker gave in in Evi­dence against him, when he laid as mach in his charge as he was able to reach to, no les then Heresie and Blasphemy. And I am the rather enduced to beleeve that herein he wrongs M. Wotton, because no such restrictive particle is found in that passage of M. Wot­ton, out of which M. Walker seemeth to have pickt this vile calumny. His words are in a Latine Discourse Parallel. Error. 6. n. 1. Relat. p. 18. cited thence by M. Walker himself, these. All that good will, wherewith God imbraceth us, proceeds from that favour that Christ is in with God. Now in these things [Page 124] is that for the most part contained, that he is by nature the Sonne of God; that he is perfectly holy; that he hath performed obedience every way perfect, both by fulfilling the Law, and by perfect performance of all things belon­ging to the Office of a Mediator. Whence it follows, that those that beleeve are gracious with God also for the Righ­teousnes of Christ. Whereunto I ad, what follows in the same Discourse a little after. Now Faith is, as a mean, a condition, and, if you please, an instrument of partaking this goodwil of God in Christ. So the part (or office) of Faith is no other, then by beleeving in Christ and receiving of him, to perform that which God requires of us to the reconciling, that is, the justifying and adopting of us; that we may be partakers of the Redemption and life eternal procured for us by Christ. And towards the end: Although I grant, that the justification of a sinner, that is, the Remission of his sins, is to be fetcht properly frō Christs Obedience in the suffering of death: yet by his Righteousnes also in fulfilling the Law, I suppose that we obtain fauour with God. Which words of M Wotton, how they sute and agree, with what M. Walker would here fasten upon him, I leave to be deemed by any one, that hath not his eyes, either blood-shot, or gall­shot, as it is to be feared M. Walkers were, when he either read that, or wrote this.

Yea but, how doth M. Walker, from what he either finds in M. Wotton, or fathers on him, extract a denial of Christs Deity? A man had need of a quick fight indeed to discern that, as himself hereafter delive­reth himself of it. Pag. [...]. Now where, saith he, is the infinite valew of Christs Deity, if he have need of justification and favour for himself?

And is not such a question as this, think ye, enough [Page 125] to stop any mans mouth, or to open it rather, and enforce him to condemn M. Wotton without more ado for an Arian? But let us put M. Walkers Argument into form and figure, that we may the better descry and see the force of it. Thus then it must be.

Whosoever saith; that Christ hath need of justification and favour for himself, denies his eternal Deity, for he denies the infinite valew of his Deity.

But M. Wotton holds, that Christ had need of justifica­tion and favour for himself.

Therefore he denies Christs eternal Deity.

The Proposition of this Syllogism may very well be questioned. For doth not the Word of God say ex­presly, that Math. 11. 19. Luke 7. 29, 35. 1▪ Tim. 3. 16. Christ was, and is justified? doth not the same word say, that Math. 3. 17. he was in favour, yea that Luke 2. 52. he grew in favour, both with God and man? or was not ei­ther of these for himself?

Yea but, peradventure he had no need of either for himself.

Surely those things, without which Christ as man, could not be, either accepted with God, or entirely happy; those it cannot be denyed but that be had need of, and need of for himself. But Christ as man, unlesse he had been in a justifiable estate, could not have been accepted with God; nor could he have been entirely happy, had he not been in favour with God. And what wil hence follow, M. Walker may easily conceive, if he be pleased so to do. Which if to acknowledge be a denial of the infinite valew of Christs d [...]ity, I know not how any sound divine, exactly herein treading in the track of Gods Word, can be acquitted of Arianism. Nor could M. Walker do the Arians or Socinians a greater pleasure, then if he [Page 126] were able to prove and make good what herein he affirmeth. True it is indeed, that a man may be said to have need of a thing two waies: first, when a man wants somewhat, that is requisite for him to have, when he should have use of it. and so our Saviour Christ had need of meat when he was, Math 4. 2. hungry; and of drink, when he was John 4. 6, 7. & 19. 28. [...] athirst. but so he never nee­ded any spirituall grace, or favour with God. Se­condly, when a man can not wel be without some­what, the continuance whereof with him is useful and requisite for him. And so Christ, as man, may wel be said to have had need even for himself of such Righteousnes as might justifie him; (else he must have been John 8. 46. guilty of some sin, and Joh. 9. 16, 24. such a sinner, as the Pharisees unjustly charged him to be;) and of such favour with God, as should make him, and whatsoever he should do, acceptable unto God.

But some question here may wel be made, what should move M. Walker thus to shape his Argument, when he comes to conclude it. For in his Proposition here, wherein his Conclusion lies couched, he quali­fieth that, which in his Charge against M. Wotton that should make up his Assumption, with a note of restri­ction there inserted, but here omitted, he had made to sound much more harshly and hainously, then as here he repeats it. For there it was that M. VVotton should hold, that Christs Obedience served ONELY to justifie himself: whereas here the word onely is wholy left out, as no part of his Argument. Was it, think we, because his conscience gave him some after-check, and told him that he had charged more upon M. VVotton then he was able to make good? Or was it because his own heart suggested unto him, [Page 127] that this was too gros and palpable a falshood to fasten upon him, who every where professeth his opinion to the contrary, affirming the merit and benefit of Christs obedience to redound also unto us? so in the very same place, as M. Walker himself also Parall. Error 6. n. 2. Relat. p. 18. cites him, he saith, If question be concerning the for­mal cause of justification, I exclude from it either obedi­ence of Christ. (to wit, both active and passive.) If of the Efficient by way of merit, I maintain it to depend upon both. And his false dealing therefore therein might by his own allegations be easily discovered.

But whatsoever it was that made him thus to stag­ger, is not greatly materiall, onely it may not be un­usefully observed, to disclose in M. Walker that, wherewith Pag. 31. formerly he taxed M. Wotton; to wit, such agiddines, procured by his so oft turning round, that he forgetteth the medium of his Argument, wherein the pith of it should consist, tho laid down but two or three lines before, when he comes to conclude it.

As for the charge it self, to cleare M. Wotton of Arianism (that which the divel himself, I suppose, would never have charged him with; but Pag. 34. tho in words, saith M. Walker he professe the contrary, yet in effect he maintains;) I shal not need to say much: his Sermons extant, on the first of S. Johns Gospel wil su­peraboundantly plead for him, and shew it to be a most shameles slander: unles that M. Walker, by his Chymical faculty, by which he is able to extract every thing out of any thing, can pick Arianism out of those Sermons 1, 2, 3. Discourses, wherein the same is very eager­ly opposed, and as substantially refuted.

From this fresh Charge, which had it been given [Page 128] in, when time was, and that so strongly backt, and cleerly demonstrated, we could not possibly have a­voided it, but must of necessity have found M. Wotton an heretick, Socinian or Arian, no great matter whe­ther if not both: he proceeds to Pag. 35. the poornes of M. G [...] ­takers defence; thinking to excuse M. VVotton, by naming other heresies of Servetus and Socinus, that M. Wotton held not, nor did M. Walker charge him with: and plea­ding, that, because they were condemned for other here­sies, therefore this was no heresie: which yet M. Walker knows to be heresie and blasphemy; and other learned pro­claim it so to be: yea M. Wottons own conscience told him that his opinions were condemned for such; which for fear of shame therefore he sometimes denied; and fre­quently contradicted himself, saying and unsaying, as Socinus his Master often did.

To all which punctually in few words.

1. It would deservedly have been expected, that M. Walker having charged M. Wotton, with Epist. to M. Wotton, Relat. p 4. & Vindic. p. 10. maintai­ning, teaching, and infecting divers, with the most pesti­lent and dangerous errors and opinions of all that ever the devil sowed among Christian people, the heresies of Servetus and Socinus, those most damnable and cursed hereticks, the greatest monsters that ever were born with­in the borders of Christs Church; I say, that having thus charged M. VVotton, he should have proved him to consent with them in those monstrous and most pestile [...]t errors of all, that ever were by them held and taught: otherwise his evidence falleth far short of his Charge. And surely one of these two M. Walker by vertue of that his charge stands bound to main­tain and make good; either that those prodigious [...]tages and detestable blasphemies of Servetus re­lated [Page 129] by Calvin, (to let pas Socinus and his denial of Christs deity) yea not those of him alone, but the like of Of all which Epiphanius and Augustine, with others may be seen. the Ophites, the Cainites, the Nicolaitans, the Basi­lidians, the Valentinians, the Carpocratians, the Marcio­nites, the Manichees, and the whole rable of abomi­nable old hereticks, whose positions and practises were so hideous and horrible, or so unclean and ob­scene, that they are not almost to be related; yet are not so vile and pestilent as are those errors, that either M. Wotton indeed held, or were by M. Walker (truly, or falsly, shal be all one) objected unto him; or els, that, tho these are not so vile and pestilent as those; that those were none of them by the devill sown among Christian people, but these were. Otherwise, if he wil be but judged by his own words, he must acknow­ledge himself a most notorious sycophant; that char­geth so deeply, and so poorly and slenderly makes his charge good. And this, unles he wil eat his own words, how he can avoid, I see not.

2. It is most fals, that I use any such plea, that therefore, what M. VVotton held, concurring (as M Wal­ker pretended) therein with them, was no heresie; be­cause they were condemned for other heresies. For which assertion, I here charge M. Walker with a manifest and palpable untruth: which together with divers others herein avowed by him, until he disclaim and acknowledge, I shal not desire to have further dea­ling with one that regards no more what he saith.

Among other things indeed, which he glides by, I question Relat. Poscr. p. 55. his candor, in charging M. VVotton to concur with Servetus in all points concerning the do­ctrine of justification; when he produceth Paral. Error. 4. n. 3. Relat. p. 15. but one short saying of Servetus concerning Abrahams Faith: [Page 130] wherein yet M. Wotton, neither in expresse tearms, and in sense and meaning much les, (as I have above shewed) concurreth with him. and withal Relat. Posc. p. 56. I shew by an instance M. Walkers iniquity and unequal dealing therein; such as himself would by no means admit, or endure in his own case. That which M. VValker being altogether unable to wipe of, he slily slips away, and Tuus est iste syllogismus, non m [...]us. Fingis enim me diccre, quod non dico: concludere, quod non concludo. Aug ad. Iulian. l. 3. c. 7. insteed thereof shifts in a supposititious absurdity, a brat of his own brain; to delude his rea­der, and to make him beleeve, that M. Gataker so ar­gues as himself too oft doth.

3. Whereas he saith, he knows this (I know not what, of M. Woitons) to be heresie and blasphemy: what need I say more, but (as he sometime) that herein I beleeve him not; no more then M. Richardson, if (as Alteri [...]s ad­versus ipsum convicia resc­renti, Tudicas, me illi non cre­dere. Pag. 26. before he told us) he affirmed on his knowledge, that whosoever lived and died in it should be damned. What he knows, I know not. but what he was able to make proof of, when time was, I know; and men of as good credit every inch (what if I said, of as great knowledg to in matter of divinity?) as M. Walker, do give testimony thereunto.

4. What he jangles, so much, and so Pag. 3, 4, 32. oft, of other Autors, I leave him to try it out with The Socini­an Iohn. Socinianism discovered, p. 8. him, whom he affirms Ibid. Epist. p. 9. Answ. to Pref. p. 8. & Vindic. p. 25. to have renewed M. VVottons opinions, and to have filcht all out of his writings. Onely making bold to tel M. Walker, that, when he hath read over a few of Pareus his works, one of the Autors he so oft mentions, and by name that Epistola ad D. Lodovicum Wit­gensteinium. Oper. Tom. 2. & in Opuscul. Ca­techet. V [...]sini Explic. Cat [...]ch. subjunctis. of his concerning Christs Active and Passive obedience, out of which I have presented him with one or two small snips; I am half of the mind, that he wil pas the like cen­sure on him also for an heretick, that he hath done [Page 131] upon M. VVotton. And it may not without good ground, of probability at least, be conjectured, that therefore he waived medling with the latter part of my Postscript; because I therein Relat. Poser, p. 55, 60. evidently shew, that a man may hold not a few points held by Socinus, and yet not be therefore a Socinian heretick. And I would but request of M. VValker, to tel his mind plainly, what he thinks of those, who stifly hold and main­tain; that justification consists wholly in Remission of sins; that Christs Righteousnes in fulfilling the morall Law is not imputed unto us for justification; and that God without breach of his justice might have pardoned mans sin, requiring no satisfaction at all for the same; whether they be Socinian hereticks, as wel as M. Wot­ton, or no. to which demand if he shal return an affirmative answer, he may be pleased to take notice by Pag. 58, 60. my Postscript, if at least he list so to do, what a large list of new hereticks, never before taken among us for such, must upon his doom now be taken in and ranged in that rank.

5. For his peering so narrowly into M. VVottons conscience, as Pag. 38. before, so here; I shal leave him to render an account unto him, who 1 Sam. 16. 7: Jerem. 17. 10. Apoc. 2. 23. challengeth unto himself that Prerogative, to see into mens souls; and whose 1 Kings 8. 39. Acts 1. 24. & 15. 9. Rom. 1. 12, 13. 1 Cor. 4. 5. power therefore M. Walker therein usurps.

6. For M. VVottons pretended contradictions, e­nough already hath been answered. tho neither is it my part to make them all good; nor doth it either make him an heretick, albeit they be not all made good; or prove him conscious to himself, of what M. Walker would thence infer. Howbeit if M. Wottons feare of shame, as M. Walker here saies, induced him unto them; then had M. Wotton that, which I feare [Page 132] M. Walker too much wants; since that otherwise he would have been afraid to expose himself so to shame, as by his cariage in this very Pam [...]hlet, be­sides what elswhere he hath done. As for Socinus M. Wottons master, as he p [...] here to call him: it is no new thing with [...]. [...] to enlarge Socinus his schoole, and to assigns him schollers, whom he lists, more then a few, who yet abhor Socinus, it may be, as much as M Walker himself doth.

For his close, wherein he tels me, thinking there­by to stop my mouth, that Pag. 35. if I wil break forth into a further defence of M Wotton, he wil be as ready to resist me; taxes M. Wotton, Ibid. for professing himself in some things concerning the point of justification, to dissent from them all, whom he speaks of; wherein he com­pares, him to Peter Abeilard, who in some things pro­fessed to dissent from all the Divines that went before him; and lastly professes, in some generall and am­biguous tearms, Pag. 36. what his faith is. For all this a short answer (as himself Pag. 34. elswhere) wil serve.

1. I never undertook, nor do undertake, any De­fence of M. Wotton, as holding no error: whom in my former Relation Relat. p. 7. I professed in somethings to dissent from, that which himself also wel knew; and mine Animadversions upon his Book De Reconciliatione in some marginal notes (wherewith, after my wonted manner, in reading of Autors, for mine own private use, I have (to use M. Walkers Pag. 27. words) be daubed my margent, and so marred my book) wil easily and evidently shew the same. All that I have said, and do stil say, is this; having witnesses beyond excepti­on to beare me out therein; that M. Walker was not able to convince M. Wotton of heresie and blasphemy, much [Page 133] les (as he had charged him) of the most [...]estilent here sies that ever were sowen by the devil, or had sprung up in Gods Church, in that meeting, which he himself had procured for that purpose. And this, let M. Walker shuffle and shift what he can, Ut [...]e suum [...] is, quos cal­l [...]us [...] au­c. ps, Crus ubi co [...] [...] volu­cris, sensitque t [...]ri, Plangi­tur, tc tr [...]pi [...]la [...]s assring it vincula motu, Externata fagam frustra dum tentai. N [...] fabul. l. [...]1. like a Foul in a snare, or Fish in a net, or a wild Bull in a toil; the more he stirres, and strives and struggles, the more he may mash and entangle himself, but he wil never be able to expedite or wind himself out of. For as for his Golias like menacing to resist me; I shal so Cui [...]jax [...] Nasonem fab. l. 13. Opposui mo­lem clypei, texi [...] Et mox. Post clyp [...]umque late, & mecum con­tende sub illo. quod & de Teu­cro Arist [...]les in Pana [...]hen. [...]. ex Homero, qui. Il. [...]. Et mox. [...]. Ulysses▪ like shelter my self under their sheild, whose atte­station I have delivered, that he must first beare them and their credit down before him, (which I assure my self he wil never do) ere he shal be able either to lay me on my back, or to maintain his own ground, and keep himself standing in this encounter.

2. For M. Wottons professing to dissent from them all; wherein he yoakes him with Abeilard. who those all are, I wot not, for I have none of that writing, out of which M. Walker relates this. nor do I find that of Abeilard, that Bernard in this kind charges him with, in any writing of his now extant. that work of his, wherein he had it, (if at least he had it in any, for some books are by Haec Capitula partim in libro Theologiae magistri Petri partim in libro sententiarum ejusdem reperta sunt. Bern. ep. 190. Bernard cited as his, Nun [...] quā liberaliquis, qui senteniiarum dicatur, à me scriptus reperitur. Petr. Abeil in Apolog. which he professes he never wrote) may be lost. Howso­ever, I suppose it no such hainous matter, in some­thing to depart from all Writers known to us, that have gone before us. Sure I am that Iunius and Tre­mellius, in translating and expounding some passa­ges of Scripture, departed from all known Inter­preters that had gone before them: as in that Mala. 2. 16. place [Page 134] of Malachy; for which those of the weaker sex are beholden to them; that in all, even the best, tran­slations ever before ran; If thou hate her, put her away. tho Ita enim A­braham Esdr [...] silius in hunc vatis locum. some indeed of the Jewish Rabbines directed to that, which those famous and worthy men, never sufficiently commended, admitted, against all that had before them taken pains in that kind. and they might wel therefore have said, as Bernard sayes that Peter Abeilard did; All Interpreters before us thus tran­slated this place: but we cannot therein concur with them. yet is not their interpretation, that I know, there­fore deemed the les sound Yea I suppose, that if all M. Walkers own, either Sermons or Assertions were sifted, the like, Omnes alii sic; Ego verò non sic; would be more then once found in them. He that to prove, the Swedes to be the people designed by Gods word for the destruction of the Romish Babylon, should af­firm that that prophecy, wherein people are willed to Jerem. 50. 26. come from the utmost border, or end (understanding it, of the world; which yet is not necessary) to destroy Babel; was never fulfilled in the destruction of the Chaldean Babylon; should therein, I suppose, cros all Interpreters of holy Writ that are commonly in hands. Which whither M. Walker, as some report, have affirmed or no, is best known to himself. But sure I am, as I have formerly touched, concerning the ground of mans fall, I have heard him profes himself to dissent from all our Divines; laying withal a very foul aspersion upon all that therein dissented from him. Howsoever since that in these latter times, it hath been by Gods Spirit foretold, that Da [...]. 12. 4. knowledge should encrease; yea reason it selfe, besides dayly experience telleth us the self-same: for, notwith­standing [Page 135] the diligentest searches of all foregoing ages. Ve [...]itas ( [...] nondum est occu­pata: multuus ex illa futuris re­lictum est. Sencc ep. 33. truth much of it remaines stil undiscovered, and Crescit indies. & inventuris inventa non ob­stant. Idem. ep. 79 it is an easier matter to ad to former discove­ries, then to discover things at first: they may see most, that come last: and we find it in all other lear­ning and knowledge, that those things have in these latter days been brought to light, which in former ages, for ought that can be discryed, were utrerly unknown; I suppose, under correction, that it ought e Vltimi conditio est optima. Ibid. not to be deemed any just cause of aspersion, if a man shal, with modesty, rendring at least some rea­son f Videatur Guido Pancirola de Novis repertis. of good probability for his so doing, profes himself compelled in some things to depart from all those, that to his knowledge have dealt in some argument before him: especially if he shall withall (as the same Peter in the very entrance to his Intro­duction unto Divinity doth) profes himself Paratus semper ad satisfactionem de malè dictis vel corrigendis vel delendis, cum quis me fidelium vel virtute rati­onis, vel autori­tate Scripturae correxerit. ready to give satisfaction in ought said amisse by him to any man; who either by force of reason, or by authority of Scripture, shal thereof convince him; either by altering, or by ex­pugning it. That so, saith he, tho I be not free Vt si nondum ignorantiae vitio caream, haeresis tamen crimen non incurram. from the evil of ignor [...]ne; yet I may not incur the crime of heresie. Non enim ig­nor antia haereti­cum facit, sed magis superbiae obstinatio. For it is not a mans ignorance, but his proud obstinacy, that makes him an heretick. Nor, may I wel ad, were the bare profession of dissent in some particulars from all other Orthodox Divines presumed in either, sufficient to make, either M. VVotton, or Peter Abeilard an heretick.

Lastly, as concerning M. Walkers profession of Pag. 35, 36. his Faith, that Pag. 26. he purposes to live and die in, tho I know not what authority M. VValker hath to compose a Creed for every one to subscribe to: nor do I deem it necessary unto salvation, that every one should [Page 136] in all things be of his belief. Yet this his form, (like [...], [...]tharunus. [...]. calcea­mentum pedi utrique aptum. tam virisi quam & muliebri sexui usurpatum. Svid. a Yragik buskin, that may be drawn on either leg) is in such generall and ambiguous tearms conceived; (lest he should exclude from it some of those Wri­ters, whom he crakes so much of, as concurring with him in condemning M. Wottons opinions for hereti­cal and blasphemous) that M. VVotton himself, I verily beleeve, were he alive, would not refuse to subscribe to it. And M. Walker wel knows, that, were he put to explaine it, and to declare more distinctly, what he means by Christs righteousnes, and the fulfilling of the n Sib. Lubber [...]us: de quo sup. p. 13. whole Law for him, one at least of those worthies, whom he hath so oft in his mouth, (to say nothing of another of them, whom yet so highly he extols) would not only refuse to subscribe to, but condemn some part of his Faith Hanc distra­ctionem justitiae nostrae coram Deo, quod ea vec sacris literis esset consentanea [...]adcò odit, ut sae­penumerò com­motior diceret, mera haec esse inanium subti­litatum [...], quae purita­tem doctrinae Orthodoxae im­m [...]ne quant [...] msiccrent. Phil. Par [...]us in vità Dav Parei pa­tris sui. as a vain refuse and subtilty, not agreeable to Scripture; but such as taints the purity of Orthodox doctrine, rends in pieces that righteousnes, whereby we stand just hefore God, Morti Chri­s [...]i d [...]rogat. Dav. Pareus de [...]ct. & Pass. [...]hr. [...]. Pr p. 5. derogates from the death of Christ, and [...]. makes his Cros and his satisfaction by death for our sins, wholy needles and superfluous. Which speeches of his (and Pareus his they are) if, to M. Walkers eare they sound not as hereticol and blas­phemous, I wonder how ought should in M. Wottons writings. And so I shal take my leave of him; leaving him to reconcile himself to Pareus, since that M. Wot­ton is now departed, who yet herein jumpeth not wholy with him; and wishing him a little more so­briety and modesty toward his Christian brethren, that have not so ill deserved, either of him, or of Gods Church, as to be thus scandalously taxed, tra­duced, railed upon, and reviled, as by him they are, both here and elswhere.


This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.