Answer to Walkers Vindication — Thomas Gataker

Answer to Walkers Vindication · Thomas Gataker

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) foreign. 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 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,

Towerhill, May 5. 1614. Yours as it becomes a Christian to be ANTONY WOTTON.

Postscript.

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.

May 12.

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 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 pVindic. 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, qSee 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 rVindic. 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 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 sIbid.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 tIbid.D. Westfield was the onelyonly 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 uPag. 22, 23.passages here ensuing. For I leave it to M. Walker to reconcile his owne relations; wherein he telleth us, here, that xPag. 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 yPag. 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 foreign being in his owne acts, himselfe, I hope, will some way assoll.

5. Nor is it true, that the parties designed, were aPag. 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 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 bSee 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 cPag. ….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 dRelat 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 eVindic. 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, fSee 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 gPag 15.D. Westfield refused after our first meeting, to meet any more, (which yet 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 hPag. 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 iSee 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 kPag. 19, 20.his narration, as if his Parallels had been read alone without M. Wottons Answer: and that lPag. 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 mPag. 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 nSee 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 onelyonly read, before he had heard M. Wottons defence: it may seem, he was of that mind, that oZeno Phocylidis dictum illud notabat, foreign. 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 pJohn 7. 51. Act. 15. 16. Neminem praedamnare incognità causa licet. Lactant l. 5. c. 1.of a contrary judgement; requiring qforeign. Plut. Alex. foreign, Anton. M…. …. c. 53.the one eare at least to be reserved for the defendant; and condemning those of rQui statuit aliquid. parte i…auditâ aliera; AEquum licet fiatu…rit, …aud aequs fuit. Sence. Med. 1. 2. foreign. 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 sIudex 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, tPag. 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) uIbid.They pretended, that they desired to convert, not to confound 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 xforeign. Muta persona.a mute Actor in this Scene, one that yPag. 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, and uncertaine whom to father and fasten it upon. For marke, I pray you, what immediately follows.

12. aPag. 20.This course, saith he, being M. Gatakers device, I refused to yeeld unto: because I had never opposed M. Wotton, but onelyonly 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. bQuo 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 cRelat. 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 onelyonly himself moved, (as I dRelat. 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 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 ePrallel. 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 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 fFidem 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, gConditio, 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 onelyonly, whereby we beleeve on the Sonne of God.

Secondly, that of M. Perkins, in his Reformed Catholique; hReform. 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 the same condemnation, I should crave to be informed, what he deemeth of M. Pemble, iM. 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 kM. 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. lIbid.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: mM. 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, nIbid. 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 onelyonly by the grace of a free promise, the fulfilling of which he may humbly sue for. And againe, oIbid. p. 24.Altho the act of justification of a sinner be properly the onelyonly work of God, for the onelyonly 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 pThe 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 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 qParall. 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 rRelat. 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 one mind concerning the doctrine of justification; because sRelat. postscr. p 46.Servetus saith, that Abrahams beleeving was imputed unto him for righteousnes: and S. Paul expresly in so many tRom. 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 uUbi 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 xPsal. 8. 3. 6.hands and yPsal. 74. 3.feet; as concurring with the Audians, zEpiphan. 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 aJohn 14. 28.the Father is greater then he; as consenting to the Arians; bEpiph. 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 the party was, that held or affirmed it. He answered me, According to that in the Creed, cCreed 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 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, dIsidar. 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 eOnuphr 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 fAio. 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 gNon 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 hSext Decretal. de verb. si…g …. exi… t.who maintained, that our Saviour Christ was a very beggar indeed, and lived here in the very lowest degree of beggary that can be; which Pope Iohn 22. iExtr. 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 kChristus 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 lOmnium 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 mChristus 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, nNod, …e capite, sed de membris, que cum Christo capite, sunt unus Christus. Idem.of the body of the faithfull, who being oRom. 8. 1. & 16. 7.in Christ, and p1 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 qGal. 3. 16. 1 Cor. 12. 12.in Scripture. The speeches, I confesse, are both overharsh; and the Archbishop was for his taxed in the rConc. 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 sJohn 9. 24.said our Saviour Christ was a sinner; tho the words were the same with either. Yea to ad onelyonly one instance more: S. Iohn himselfe faith, that t1 Joh. 5. 18.No regene rate man doth sinne; u1 Joh. 3. 9nor can sinne. And yet who dares be so bold as to say, that S. Iohn therefore concurreth either with the old xEpipban. her. 59. § 6.Cathari, or with the late Familists, who dreaming of an absolute perfection in this life, do yH. 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 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 aforeign 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, bMath. 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 dJohn 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) fJohn 2. 21.of the Temple of his body, gJohn 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, hJohn 2. 20.Forty and six yeeres hath this Temple been building, as the words may well be translated: and iUideantar 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 kforeign, 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 nMath. 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 lHieron. 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, mHagg. 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 oforeign.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 pforeign Dan. 8. 11, … ▪the daily solemne sacrifice) was by that qIos. 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 rMarke 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, sI. 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, tPreface 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 Authour, as having said thus of himselfe. uI H. Ibid. p. 66Is 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: xIbid. 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, yG. 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 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 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 aVindicat. 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 bPag. 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; cPag. …1.he went away in a rage; yet, not threatning (as here he 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 dFingunt, 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 eRelat. 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 fV…. p. 21.M. Wotton should promise to make & publish a large 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 gPag. 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 hPag. 21.M. Wotton begged of us to subscribe to his Expositions, and the subscription it selfe he thus layeth down iIbid.Howsoever we whose names are underwritten, doe 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, kIbid.The expositions thus subscribed. Whereas it is testified lSee 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 mVindic. 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 nPag. 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 oDamna…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 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, pVindic. 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 qG. W. Letter to A. W. Vind. p. 15.wicked Iudges, that have respect of persons in judgement; yea, worse then rLuke 18. 2.the unjust Judge in the Gospel, that neither feared God, nor regarded man: for sLuke 18. 5.he by the poore widows importunity was drawn to do her right; whereas tPag. 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, uPag. 4.they did it, out of their great love to M. Wottons person: and xPag. 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, 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. OnelyOnly, for what he saith of yPag. 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, 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 aPag. 24.M. Balmford was M. Wottons silenced brother. (a fit squib to fall from the pen of him, that bPag. 1.erewhile complained so of his owne persecution) cPag. 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 dIbid.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 ePag. 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.

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 heard an untruth; as eIn 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 (fforeign. 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 gforeign. Ne Hercules quidem adversus duos. Zenob. adag. 549. Suid. 1116. foreign. Plat. Phaed. & Euthyd. foreign. Idem. leg. 11. foreign. 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) hGuil. 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 some are deceased; some yet survive: and is to this effect:

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

3. That kIbid.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 lIbid.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, *foreign. 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 mRelat. 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 nFictio personae.Prosopopaeia, it is to be feared, is with M Walker here too frequent.

5. That oPag. 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 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 pPag. 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 qMaro 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 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 rPag. 21.Iudges M. Walker himselfe will have us) considerately signed; and that after serious debate, and advice taken with other sPag. 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 tIllo 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, aAns. to Err. 3. Relat. p. 27,I never 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 onelyonly 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. bFides, 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, cFides 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 onelyonly 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, dFide 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, eParall, 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; 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: fNeque 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. gInscitè 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 onelyonly of obtaining righteousnesse, is confounded with Christ, who is the materiall cause, and both the Autor and minister of so great a benefit. hIam 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 iRom. 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 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 foreign. 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 lVindic. p. 23.speech he frameth in the words following, for M. Stock to excuse himselfe by: and his inference thence, mIbid. p. 23, 24how 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 nSee 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 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 oVindic. 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 pIbid.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 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 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 qforeign. Tim…us. foreign. 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 rVindic. 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 charged, (be he faulty otherwise, or no) doth by necessary consequence condemn him as a false accuser, that so charged him.

As for what sIbid.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 tIbid. 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, uPag. 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, 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 xIbid.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, yNul'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 aPag. 25.from M. Barlows mouth, being M. Richardsons messenger bPag. 26.here reports it. Tho, 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. OnelyOnly if M. Richardson did then passe such a censure, when he was now at point of death, as cOn 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 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 dPag. 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 eIbid.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, fRelat. Postsc. p. 50.that till of late I had never to my knowledge heard or seen the man; and then onelyonly but once; which was not onelyonly 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, 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, onelyonly 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 gPag 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 hPag. 24.M. Gatakers Invective. for so he is pleased to stile my relation, as iPag. 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 kind M. Walker commenceth against me. He telleth his Reader therefore in his ensuing discours; kPag. 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. 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 onelyonly 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 lAnswer 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 onelyonly, 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 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 onelyonly 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 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 onelyonly by the free and meere grace and mercy of God, through the meritorious satisfaction of our Saviour Christ, the onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 and heresies; of the same nature as he had before averred M. Wottons writings to be, mPag. 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 nPag. 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 oIo. 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 pEx 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.

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 onelyonly 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.

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 pChap. 2. & Chap. 9.grosse, palpable, abominable, and contrary to all sense, that they doe not onelyonly 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; qforeign. Psal. …irac. c…ib. foreign. Greg. Naz. ep. 13 & 27. foreign. 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 rSir Edward Cook then Lord chief Justice.a great Lawyer and Councellor of State, one in his time reputed a man of some judgement: who 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 sSee 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 t…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 uDeut. 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.

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, 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 onelyonly 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 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

Thus much concerning my deservedly deere friend, who neither living, nor deceased, could scape the scourge of M. Walkers tongue; which aPag. 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, bPag. 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 cDolosus 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 dEcquis 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 they did, under their own hands they doe witnesse.

Besides, ePag. 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 fSicnt 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 gMath. 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; hMulta 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 iFat…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, 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 kNullus 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 lNon 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: mforeign. 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 nforeign. Epictet. Stob. c. 5. n Est virtus summa veritati cedere.perswaded) which to be overborne by, I shall ever account the best valour, oforeign. 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 pSee Pareus de Ast. & Pass. Chr. Ohed. Pofit. 1. p. 180.acknowledged by them: since that I maintaine still with them, as alwaies I did, qSee 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, r2 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 sElenchus 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, tDebere 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 uforeign. 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 mens …rrots to them; since that, (as he said sometime of things amisse xVitium …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) yforeign. 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. a1 Cor. 1. 12. Rom. 16. 18.The Apostle himselfe liked it not. I love not holding the faith of Christ with respect of persons. bJam. 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. c1 Cor. 11. 1.The Apostles themselves required it not, in matter of fact; nor may any now living in matter of faith. Hence proceed d1 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 eAct. 5. 17. & 15. 5. & 24. 5, 14. & 26. 5. & 28, 22. 1 Cor. 11. 18; 19. Gal. 5. 20.faction, the other for fTit. 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 points of doctrine concur with thēselves. Of their side, Lord, let me never be: gGen. 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 onelyonly excepted) as hforeign. 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 iPag. 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 k2 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 l1 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 mCharitas, 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 nSee 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 was not permitted him, yet for the publike, what he might; this expence of pretious time, (which uPag. 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 pPag. 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 onelyonly 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 qSee 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 shal therein rLegatur 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 sforeign. âe Dionys. Longino Ennap. in P…rphyr. oui & in AEdes. Socrates. foreign.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 onelyonly, 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 tforeign. Arifla. thet. l. 3. c. 14.being conscious to himself 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; aPag. 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 onelyonly, 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, bPag. 27.Whether it be truth and honesty to say, that cRelat. 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 onelyonly with his Expositions, and not with his hereticall 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 dRelat. 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, dPag. 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 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 eDe 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, fPag. 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. gError. 4… Relat. p. 15.He that beleeveth, (saith M. Wotton) is accounted by God to all purposes concerning 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; hError. 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.) OnelyOnly 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 iEpist. 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 kIbid.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 send him packing for company with M. Wetton, to hell.

The fourth question is in effect the same with the two next before going; onelyonly, to make some shew of variety, usherd in with a list of lPag. 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 mforeign. Democrit. Sto…. c: 20. foreign 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, nPag. 28.that Faith is obedience to Christs commandements; who commandeth us to beleeve and repent. And it is true, that Socinus, as oRelat. Poscr. p. 48.elsewhere I cite him, pDe 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. qQuod 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) that Faith is to do those things that Christ hath enjoyned, it is false: rDicere, 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 onelyonly, but M. Walker also should be no better. Again, sDocet, 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, tFirmum 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 uMark. 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 qPag. 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 bAnswer 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 onelyonly shewing, 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, cManifestum 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, dPoenitentiae 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 eRom. 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 fPeccatorum 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 gResipiscentia 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,hPaenitentia 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; iReprobamus 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. kNon nostra resipiscentia, sed ipsius sacrificium est vera causa remissionis pee…aterum. Ib. l. 2. c. 1. p. 274. c. 2.For it is not Repentance, but Christs sacrifice, that is the true cause of the remission of our sins: lDeum 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, mPag. 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, nIbid.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, oAnswer 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 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, pParall. 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 onelyonly 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 qPag. 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 rApoc. 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, sPag. 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 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 tMarke 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 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? uImò 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: wReform. 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 xMark. 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 yVideatur 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 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 foreign and foreign in Greek.

The sixt question is, aPag. 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 bRelat. p. 19.the Parallel Error 7. & out of M. Wotton what is there alledged; and cIbid. 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, dPag. 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 may as wel be beleeved, as eIn 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 fPag. 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 gRelat. 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, hIb. p. 22. n. 2.he denieth any end or use of Christs righteousnes imputed to that purpose. but iIb. 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 kPreface 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. lSi 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. mSi 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. nIustitiae Christi ad beneficium imputationem ego agnosco & prae me fero.The imputation of Christs Righteousnes to our benefit, I acknowledge and professe.

4. oNon 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 pPag. 29.addes out of M. VVottons Essaies; they were written after our meeting, as qPag. 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 rCalvin. Instit. lib. 1. c. 13. § 3.he acknowledgeth that tearm not to be found in Gods VVord

To the next sPag. 29.likewise he might have found the like solution, in the very place tAnswer 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, uPrae 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 xAd 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 yPag. 29.is added of Imputation, is coincident to the former: but that M. Walker with his zOcc… miseros crambe… epe… …acc. art.cole so o…t new dressed and dished in again, tires out h…s Readers, and may wel overturn their stoi…ck….

The aIbid.third consists of the bPag. 27.second and cPag. 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 dPag. 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 eWoolf 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 fPag. 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 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 g…ibus … foreign. Democrates apud Stob. c. 22. s…e, ut Plut in m…nit. polit. foreign.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, hM. 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 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 kIn 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 lRom. 3. 28.A man is justified by faith without works, doth any way contradict what S. James saith, that mIam. 2. 24.A man is justified by works, and not by faith onelyonly.

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; 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly, 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, of justification, which M. Bradshaw hath assigned: (which being found onelyonly in a short Summary annexed to his Treatise, nWoolf. 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 oDe 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 nPag. 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 *foreign. Titus 3. 11.a damned heretick. For I suppose, he wil not assume to himself any o1 Cor. 12. 10▪extraordinary gift in discerning of spirits. and if he will pretend, that he discernes it by his deeds; 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, pPag. 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.

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 qEx 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 rPag. 29.formerly propounded, the first in the seventh question. For M. Walker doth but roll s…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, tPag. 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 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. uIbid.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 xIudex 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 yIbid.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 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 aPag. 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 bPag. 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 cPag. 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 dIbid.breach of piety and charity, virulency, defect of humanity and common honesty, in 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, eI…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 onelyonly 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 f….of a consutation of so much 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 onelyonly 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 gforeign. 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.

Which having thus made some way to, as he supposed, (therein overflattering himself; as hforeign Dem…h. Olyath. 3.what men earnestly desire, they are easily induced to beleeve) he falleth now again more directly upon it; and iPag. 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) kPag. 34.which M. Stock and D. Bayly abhorred to do, repenting what favour they had shewed M. Wotton at first.

But here stil lDicit 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, foreign. SuidAqua 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 mAdversus 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, nVarius 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 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 oforeign. Zenob. ad. 648. Diog. 750. foreign. 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 pQuod est plus, quam foreign, 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 qPag. 34.so frivolous, that a short answer wil serve: rPag. 35.one short breath is sufficient to blow it away. And yet let M. VValker who thus here vaunteth himself, like an other sQui 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; 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 tPag. 34.main charge here against him, he saith, is iniquity; and indeed so uRelat. 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 wPag. 34.the iniquity, M. Walker tels me, shal return upon mine own head.

And why so? first, for Abeilard, xIbid.because S. Bernard (whose Saintship yet I suppose, need be no part of our Creed; especially, if all be true that our Walter Mapes yIn 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 part yet of this imputatiou be taken of, if you so please. aAnswer 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: bIilud …, & 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 cFurore 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, dPag. 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, (ePag. 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 Abeilard from denying it in plain terms, that in precise and ful words he affirms it; (fCredo 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. gNec audis Arium. Ibid.condemning withal and detesting Arius (whom Bernard was pleased to say he had some hSapit Arium. Bern. ep. 192.smach of) as one iPerverso ingenio actus, imò daemoniaco seductus spiritu. Abeilard. ubi supr.led by a perverse disposition, and led aside by a devilish spirit, for kGradus 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 lPonit 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 mHec 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 onelyonly, but as devilish; nor refusing to be pronounced, n…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 oIbid. 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 pMa…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 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 qLegantur 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 r1 Cor. 2. 9.the Apostle averres; and yet do I not therefore account him an hereticke, no more then that other Noble sPhil. 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 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 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 onelyonly to justifie himself, and to bring him into high favour with God: so that God justifies us by him as by a favourite, onelyonly upon condition of our trusting in him.

Where M. VVotton saith all this, M. Walker tels us 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 sJohn 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. tNifi 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, uM. 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 wIohn. 10. 18. & 14. 31.my Father hath willed me to do. and why not also, xJohn 8. 29.because I do alwaies those things, that are pleasing to him? And that Christ … a favourite, helps to bring us into grace with God, I hope no true Christian, either doubts or denies. yMath. 3. 17. & 17. 5.God himself so oft implying and intimating the same, and the Apostle so expresly telling us, that zforeign. 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 aJohn 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 bOrigen. in Io…. hom. 32. Gregor. Naz. …rat. 37: Athanas. cont. Arian. orat. 3. Cyril. de Trindial. 4.ancient as cVrsin. Catech. explic. quaest. 33. § 3. rat 5. Stegman. disput. 5. quaest. 13.modern, confirm the Deity of Christ, because we are dJohn 12. 36. & 14. 1.willed, and eRom. 15. 12. 1 Tim. 4. 10.said to beleeve in him, and pronounced fPsalm 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 ONELYONLY 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 gParallel. 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 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. hPag. ….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 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 iMath. 11. 19. Luke 7. 29, 35. 1▪ Tim. 3. 16.Christ was, and is justified? doth not the same word say, that kMath. 3. 17.he was in favour, yea that lLuke 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 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, mMath 4. 2.hungry; and of drink, when he was nJohn 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 oJohn 8. 46.guilty of some sin, and pJoh. 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 ONELYONLY to justifie himself: whereas here the word onelyonly 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, 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 qParall. 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, onelyonly it may not be unusefully observed, to disclose in M. Walker that, wherewith rPag. 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 sPag. 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 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 tPag. 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 tEpist. 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 by Calvin, (to let pas Socinus and his denial of Christs deity) yea not those of him alone, but the like of uOf 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 xRelat. Poscr. p. 55.his candor, in charging M. VVotton to concur with Servetus in all points concerning the doctrine of justification; when he produceth yParal. Error. 4. n. 3. Relat. p. 15.but one short saying of Servetus concerning Abrahams Faith: 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 zRelat. 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 aTuus 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.cPag. 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 dPag. 3, 4, 32.oft, of other Autors, I leave him to try it out with eThe Socinian Iohn. Socinianism discovered, p. 8.him, whom he affirms fIbid. 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. OnelyOnly 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 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 gRelat. 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 hPag. 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 iPag. 38.before, so here; I shal leave him to render an account unto him, who k1 Sam. 16. 7: Jerem. 17. 10. Apoc. 2. 23.challengeth unto himself that Prerogative, to see into mens souls; and whose l1 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 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 mPag. 35.if I wil break forth into a further defence of M Wotton, he wil be as ready to resist me; taxes M. Wotton, nIbid.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, oPag. 36.what his faith is. For all this a short answer (as himself pPag. 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 qRelat. 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 rPag. 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 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 sCui …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. foreign. ex Homero, qui. Il. foreign. Et mox. foreign.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 tHaec Capitula partim in libro Theologiae magistri Petri partim in libro sententiarum ejusdem reperta sunt. Bern. ep. 190.Bernard cited as his, uNun… 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 xMala. 2. 16.place 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 yIta 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 aJerem. 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 bDa…. 12. 4.knowledge should encrease; yea reason it selfe, besides dayly experience telleth us the self-same: for, notwithstanding the diligentest searches of all foregoing ages. cVe…itas (… nondum est occupata: multuus ex illa futuris relictum est. Sencc ep. 33.truth much of it remaines stil undiscovered, and dCrescit indies. & inventuris inventa non obstant. Idem. ep. 79it 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 gParatus 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 hVt 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. iNon 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 kPag. 35, 36.his Faith, that lPag. 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 in all things be of his belief. Yet this his form, (like mforeign, …tharunus. foreign. 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 oHanc distractionem justitiae nostrae coram Deo, quod ea vec sacris literis esset consentanea …adcò odit, ut saepenumerò commotior diceret, mera haec esse inanium subtilitatum foreign, 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, pMorti Chris…i d…rogat. Dav. Pareus de …ct. & Pass. …hr. …. Pr p. 5.derogates from the death of Christ, and q….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.

FINIS.

End of the text · Thomas Gataker, Answer to Walkers Vindication (1642)

Answer to Walkers Vindication, Treatise · Letter – Summary

p. 23To Mr. George Walker, peace of conscience, by true zeale with Sobriety and Charity.

Postscript.

To all which punctually in few words.

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