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 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 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 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 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 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 A man is justified by faith without works doth any way contradict what S. James saith that A man is justified by works and not by faith onely And here I shall again crave leave of my Reader to insert a short passage out of some writings enterchanged between these two Christian brethren both I hope now with God and agreeing in all things though in some particulars they dissented while they lived here M. Wotton in his Animadversions which I have by me on M. Bradshaws book thus excepts The third opinion denying all imputation of Christs righteousnes is said to be somewhat erroneous Yet the same opinion held onely in that strict sense of imputation which the Autor himselfe rejecteth and that upon good ground as he acknowledgeth is therefore cleered from all erroneousnes For how can that be erroneous that is held on good ground To which M. Bradshaw thus answereth Tho upon good ground as to me seems you deny imputation in that sense only yet your denial of all imputation may notwithstanding that be erroneous being grounded upon a supposal of that which I think is erroneous that there is no other kind of imputation but that which is answerable to that strict sense aforesaid By which words it appeares that the difference herein between them was rather in words then in points and that M. Wottons error as M Bradshaw apprehended it was only concerning the use of a word not concerning any point of faith Fourthly suppose the difference were not verball but reall not in words onely but in sense and meaning too yet would it not therefore necessarily follow that M. Wotton denieth the very form essence and being of justification because he denies that which M. Bradshaw affirms to be the Formall cause of it or that M. Gataker must therefore of necessity pronounce M. Wotton an heretick unles first it be proved that that is indeed and truth the formal cause of justification which M. Bradshaw hath assigned which being found onely in a short Summary annexed to his Treatise 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 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 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 a damned heretick For I suppose he wil not assume to himself any extraordinary gift in discerning of spirits and if he will pretend that he discernes it by his
and advice taken with other 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 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 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 onely I say that in this Proposition Faith is counted for Righteousnes the word Faith is to be taken properly not tropically the question being in such propositions not of the meritorious or formall cause of justification but of the condition required on our part in stead of keeping the Law To which I may well ad out of his Animadversions which I have by me on the dispute between Lubbertus and Bertius these sayings of his to the same essect 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 Faith surely doth not justifie but onely by and for the obedience of Christ. When it is said to be imputed unto righteousnes it is thereby signified what we must perform that we may be justified And a little after 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 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 I admit not this Sophisters writhing or wrigling some figures when he saith that faith is Christ. Whereby Faith which is the instrument onely of obtaining righteousnesse is confounded with Christ who is the materiall cause and both the Autor and minister of so great a benefit 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 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 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 speech he frameth in the words following for M. Stock to excuse himselfe by and his inference thence how dangerous a thing it is even for godly men to be Judges in a controversie between a familiar friend as M. Wotton was to these men and a stranger as himself was to the most of them As the latter intimateth M. Stock M. Wotton to have been at that time familiar friends and so D. Baylie and the rest and on the other side M. Stock for of him principally here the speech is with the most of the rest and M. Walker to have been meere strangers either to other which is the one of them as true as the other so it adds little credit to the excuse pretended to be made then by him which may well be questioned considering M. Walkers minting and dilating faculty 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
his meaning to be that our Repentance is the cause of the remission of our sins 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 For it is not Repentance but Christs sacrifice that is the true cause of the remission of our sins 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 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 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 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 obedâ—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 To beleeve in Christ is to trust in Christ and to rest on him to have his heart setled and to rely wholy and onely on him and This trust is such a faith as makes us rest upon God for the performance of his promise doth now pronounce Socinus his definition of faith such as you have heard to be true Orthodox and sound But hereby any party not extreamly partiall may easily judge what spirit this man is caried with throughout this whole busines For as for his twenty times sodden Coleworts so oft served in of 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 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 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 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 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 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 The condition of the covenant is by grace as wel as the substance Whereunto ad M. Pembles reason that therefore 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 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 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 covenant of grace to all purposes in regard of ought that God requires on his part to be performed for attaining of life eternal as if he had in the other covenant kept the whole law is another thing I suppose M. Walker is not to learne a difference and that a vast one too between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek The sixt question is 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 the Parallel Error 7. out of M. Wotton what is there alledged and 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 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 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 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 in the very same place assoiled that his dispute being of the formall cause of justification or that whereby we are made formally righteous he denieth any end or use of Christs righteousnes imputed to that purpose but 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 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. If any man hold Christs Righteousnes to be by way of merit the efficient cause of justification I am wholly of his mind 2. If any maintain not Christs Righteousnes to be our formal Righteousnes I have no controversie with him 3. The imputation of Christs Righteousnes to our benefit I acknowledge and professe 4. 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 addes out of M. VVottons Essaies they were written after our meeting as 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 Tâ—initâ— because he acknowledgeth that tearm not to be found in Gods VVord To the next likewise he might have found the like solution in the very place 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 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 M VVotton himself expoundeth himself but for Christ on whom it relies as hath formerly been at large related For what is added of Imputation is coincident to the former but that M. Walker with his cole so oâ—t new dressed and dished in again tires out hâ—s Readers and may wel overturn their stoiâ—ckâ— The third consists of the second and 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 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 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 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
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 froÌ„ 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 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 Christ was and is justified doth not the same word say that he was in favour yea that 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 dâ—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 hungry and of drink when he was 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 guilty of some sin and such a sinner as the Pharisees unjustly charged him to be and of such favour with God as should make him and whatsoever he should do acceptable unto God But some question here may wel be made what should move M. Walker thus to shape his Argument when he comes to conclude it For in his Proposition here wherein his Conclusion lies couched he qualifieth that which in his Charge against M. Wotton that should make up his Assumption with a note of restriction there inserted but here omitted he had made to sound much more harshly and hainously then as here he repeats it For there it was that M. VVotton should hold that Christs Obedience served ONELY to justifie himself whereas here the word onely is wholy left out as no part of his Argument Was it think we because his conscience gave him some after-check and told him that he had charged more upon M. VVotton then he was able to make good Or was it because his own heart suggested unto him 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 cites him he saith If question be concerning the formal cause of justification I exclude from it either obedience of Christ. to wit both active and passive If of the Efficient by way of merit I maintain it to depend upon both And his false dealing therefore therein might by his own allegations be easily discovered But whatsoever it was that made him thus to stagger is not greatly materiall onely it may not be unusefully observed to disclose in M. Walker that wherewith 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 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 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 the poornes of M. Gâ—takers defence thinking to excuse M. VVotton by naming other heresies of Servetus and Socinus that M. Wotton held not nor did M. Walker
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 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 The act of Faith or beleeving brings justification and adoption which what is it other then what the Apostle saith Rom. 3. 28. Gal. 3. 26. Onely and meerly by the place and office which the Lord of his mercy hath assigned it to be the condition required on our parts for the atchieving of these favours and honours thereby excluding all matter of worth in Faith which yet whosoever is possessed of beleeving in Christ that is relying upon him for justifycation and life eternall may wel be said to be accounted by God to all purposes to wit on our parts required and therefore to be necessarily by us performed to have done as much according to the covenant of the Gospel as he should have been accounted to have done according to the covenant of the Law had he perfectly fulfilled it But of this also enough before out of our own Writers and by name out of M. Pemble whom M. Walker having so highly commended as one 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 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 onely to make some shew of variety usherd in with a list of true and orthodox teâ—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 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 that Faith is obedience to Christs commandements who commandeth us to beleeve and repent And it is true that Socinus as elsewhere I cite him 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 Whereas he to wit Socinus saith saith Lubbertus that Faith is to do those things that Christ hath enjoyned it is false to affirme it to be so is to be stark mad So by Lubbertus his censure not Socinus onely but M. Walker also should be no better Again 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 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 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 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 cited him not expressing how far forth in every particular he concurs with him or dissents from him but onely 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 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 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 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 Conversion Repentance do not in order of nature go before but follow remission of sin and justification and are not causes but effects of either nor the cause of expiation but a consequent of it and supposing Socinus