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
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 onely to justifie himself and to bring him into high favour with God so that God justifies us by him as by a favourite onely upon condition of our trusting in him Where M. VVotton saith all this M. Walker tels us 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 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 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 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 The Father loves me saith he because I lay down my life as my Father hath willed me to do and why not also 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 God himself so oft implying and intimating the same and the Apostle so expresly telling us that 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 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 ancient as modern confirm the Deity of Christ because we are willed and said to beleeve in him and pronounced happy for so doing the very Papists themselves tho against themselves applying the same also to this purpose But that M. VVotton any where hath affirmed that Christs obedience serves for this end ONELY to justifie himself which comes short of what Socinus himself acknowledgeth or to bring him into favour with God as if he had not been in favour with him before is more I beleeve then M. Wotton ever writ or sayd sure I am more it is then M. Walker gave in in Evidence against him when he laid as mach in his charge as he was able to reach to no les then Heresie and Blasphemy And I am the rather enduced to beleeve that herein he wrongs M. Wotton because no such restrictive particle is found in that passage of M. Wotton out of which M. Walker seemeth to have pickt this vile calumny His words are in a Latine Discourse 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
yoaked with such and to have deemed rather as they then as M. Walker either then did or now doth Mean while how little cause M. Walker hath to crake so much of these Authors by what hath been said may easily be deemed and muchlesse to affirm what so confidently elsewhere he doth that he hath all learned Divines agreeing with him in what he holds and that the whole stream of learned Orthodox Divines hold the same Doctrine with him concerning justification by Christs righteousnesse imputed to beleevers Which in such sense and manner as he maintaines it he cannot but know to be most untruâ— unlesse he will expunge Pareus Piscator and I know not how many more generally so esteemed onâ— of the List of learned and Orthodox Divines 3. Yea but M. Wotton 〈◊〉 M. Wâ—lker is proved a blasphemous 〈◊〉 by hâ—…â—onfâ—ssion I answer in a word How M. 〈◊〉 â—…th the deniall of Christs righteousnesse impâ—… to be hereâ—icall and blasphemous he plainely exâ—resseth himselfe in his defence whence M. Walker produceth it To which therefore and M. Bradshawes Preface to his English Treatise of justification I referre the Reader yet so that of the one and out of the other somewhat hereafter also shall be said 4. How farre forth M. Walker hath Gods Word for his warrant in condemning M. Wotton not of errour for that neither was nor is the question but of heresie and blasphemy for that was the point in controversie when time was he hath not yet made to appeare no more then he did For what here fondly and ridiculously in that kind he presumeth by the sentence of his owne delegates he was not then able to make good What else is here ferced in concerning the cariage of the businesse at that meeting shall in its due place by Gods assistance be discussed The other doubt he moveth concerning the cause of my proclaiming so bitterly against him and being so highly offended with him is Whether it be because he calleth M. Wotton by the name of Anthony Wotton And if that be the cause he telleth me that therein he did him a favour For that under that obscure tâ—â—le his person might have been hid and not made known to any but those who are acquainted with all the passages between him and M. Walker But M. Gataker is the man that hath exposed his person to much shame and stained his name and memory with the brand of heresie c. Sure he must be some not merry but very sad person not grave and sage onely that can read this passage without laughing or smiling at least Which to shew let me entreat M. Walker to make M. Wottons case a while here his owne M. Walker as by his Parallell plainly appeares denieth Faith to be a condition on mans part required unto the attaining of justification Now suppose that some one of his own spirit should thereby take occasion in a Treatise of his published many yeeres after M. Walkers decease to traduce him for the same by the name of George Walker as the first publisher in this Land of a most pestilâ—â—t heresie and thereby charge him to have made himselfe guilty of Paganisme Indâ—isâ— and Mahumetanism Would it not be ridiculous for the party having so dealt with him to demand of one that should write in his defence Why he is so highly offended with him and whether it be for this cause or no because he calleth him George Walker c. For were it not all oâ—… as if some rude fellow having câ—st a shovell of duâ—t or two upon a man as he passeth in the street should aske the party so misused contesting with him about it what he aileth to be so offended with him and whether it be because he did not make him a legge or give him as we use to say the time of the day He might as well have moved question whether I were not so offended because he stileth him barely Anthony Wotton and not Mr. A. Wotton Or whether because he calleth him Anthony and not Antonie as he usually and rightly wrote his name save that by the Printers correction or corruption rather he found it so also in my relation But that that followeth is yet more ridiculous that herein he did M. Wotton a singular favour For under that obscure title he had lien hid and unknown to any but those alone that had been acquainted with all that had passed between M. Walker and him Is the name of Antonie Wotton then so obscure a title or are there so many of note so named that this our A Wotton may lie hid in the heap among the multitude of them unlesse be be by some speciall notes and marks otherwise deciphered And yet any man not utterly crackt-brained would have thought that Anthony Wotton one that some 28. yeeres agoe lived in London and there in Manuscript Pamphlets and Printed bookes dispersed his opinions concerning justification and by the fame and opinion which men had of his great learning and no lesse piety drew many zealous professours into the liking of his errors and afterward â—rought a booke De Reconciliatiâ—…e in Latine c. Any man would thinke I say unlesse he wanted his â—its that thus much were sufficient to discover who the man were that M. Walker meant though they that read him were not privy to all M. Walkers either revilings of him in publique or baitings of him in private Suppose M. Walkers adversary before assigned him had onely stiled him George Walker one that so many yeeres agoe had in the City of London out of the Pulpit inveighed and declamed oft against M. Wottons writings and M. Bradshaws works as containing much heretical and blaspemous matter c. were it not enough to let men know who the man were that be meant notwithstanding I suppose there be and have been about the City more Walkers then Wottons unlesse they had been acquainted with all things that either at the solemne meeting of Ministers or in private otherwise had passed between him and M. Wotton But that which herein exceedeth all the rest is that M. Gataker by his relation of the businesse that passed between them and thereby blasoning his Armes hath exposed him to shâ—me and stained his name with the brand of hereâ—ie I never knew that I had any skill in Heraldry before nor have heard of staining with brands till now Two new trades M. Walker hath here put upon me both which I must needs professe my selfe utterly unskilfull in But to let these things passe whether of the two staine a mans name and expose him to shame he that publikely chargeth him with heresie and blasphemy or he that publisheth his acquitall from such horrid imputations by the verdict and under the hands of those whom the same party appellant himselfe had made therein his Judges I am well content that any not wholly in Orestes his mood whatsoever else he be
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
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
very truth his own That he charged M. Wotton with heresie and blasphemy he denieth not that he referred himselfe for the truth of his charge to the hearing of eight grave Ministers his own Letter relateth that he failed in his proofes they testifie under their own hands whom he referred himselfe unto that notwithstanding that faile he hath now so long after that since M. Wottons decease in print renued that his charge his booke evidently sheweth The imputation therefore of such guilt if all that hath been related do not proove M. Walker faulty in such cariage he remaineth free enough still from for ought that I say If it do evince him so to have caried himselfe it is not I but his own cariage and the verdict of his own Judges that fastâ—eth the imputation upon him For what he here addeth of my misrepâ—rts he hath not hitherto nor shall ever be able to convince me of misrelation in ought But come we to his enquiry Where first he moveth doubt whether therefore â—be so offended because he calleth the errour that he chargeth M. Wotton to have been the publisher of herefie And if that be the matter he telleth me that howsoever I and my fellow-subscribers that is the scornfull title that now he giveth us did not thinke fit for some causes of which hereafter to call any thing in his Exposition of his speeches by the name of heresie and blasphemy yet some of them cited in the Parallel are by his own confession manifestly hereticall and blasphemous And that he rather assented to Beza Pareus and Lubbertus who condemn some things in M. Wottons expositions for heresie and blasphemy then to me and my fellows D. Bayly M. Balmford M. Randall M. Stock M. Downhum M. Gouge and M. Hickes who were pleased to think otherwise And he hopeth that therein he giveth no offence especially having Gods Woudfor his warrant Where first I wonder how the matter against M. Wotton cometh so much to be abaâ—ed that from so many pretended hereticall and blasphemous errours whereof seven horrible heads at least were represented in the Parallel it should be brought down now to one single errour to one heresie M. Walkers heart here it may be did misgive him suspecting that some of them might be generally by all votes acquired of heresie at least if not of errour And he thought it therefore the wisest and wariest course to pitch upon some one and yet not to tell us which that one 〈◊〉 â—eant was that so he might be free to fasten where he should thinke fittest if either his proofes concerning any of the other should faile or those whom he calleth in for Advocates in his own behalfe and for witnesses to give evidence against M. Wotton as condemning his opinions for hereticall and blasphemous should be found voting in some of them rather for him then against him 2. Whereas he telleth us that there are somethings in M. Wottons Expositions of which tearme here more anon which Beza Pareus and Lubbertus condemn as hereticall and blasphemous neither yet doth he shew what those things are nor where they so stile them Yea if to avoyd the former exception he shall say that the errour he meant and called heresie is this that Faith and not Christs righteousnesse is imputed for righteousnesse in the Act of justification because he saith that his new adversary hath so stated the question with whom yet or his stating the question I have nothing here to do he must be minded that in the proposition so conceived there are two positions included both which he condemneth as two pestilent and blasphemous heresies and in his Parallel pointeth at either of them apart 1. That faith is imputed for righteousnesse 2. That Christs righteousnesse is not so imputed Now for the former to wit that Faith is imputed for righteousnesse besides the Apostle S. Paul more then once averring it whom neither these men nor M. Walker I hope will so charge two of them are expresse and peremptory for it For so Beza writing on those words of the Apostle Abraham beleeved God and it was imputed to him for righteousnesse Here saith he is entreated of that which was imputed to him by God to wit of his faith And againe Paul relating passively what Moyses spake actively omitteth the affix which he might have rendered that thing to wit Abrahams faith it selfe but he afterward twice plainely expresseth it in the fifth and ninth verses And Pareus reconciling the Greeke with the Hebrew These two are all one God imputed faith and faith by God was imputed As for the sense this speech concerning Abraham conteineth two things first his faith Abraham beleeved God Then the fruit of his Faith And faith was imputed to him for righteousnesse And againe And faith was imputed to him for righteousnesse The fruit of Abrahams Faith is hereby signified even free justification That the Verb should be rendered not impersonally but passively that to wit Faith was imputed it is manifest both by the Hebrew Text and by the Apostles declaration in the fifth and ninth verses Which to observe is of much moment for the right understanding of that Scripture And for the latter position that Christs righteousnes is not imputed in the act of justification if by Christs righteousnesse be understood his habituall holinesse or his actuall righteousnesse consisting in the perfect observation of the Law morall here also two of M. Walkers Authours must of necessity leave him unlesse they will condemne themselves for blasphemous heretickes For both Pareus and Lubbeâ—tus going Ursines and Piscators way hold justification to consist wholly in remission of sinnes For so Pareus expresly besides what out of him elsewhere in his Commentaries before mentioned The Apostle placeth justification in the Remission of sinnes alone Nor doth Lubbertus herein depart from him And both therefore also herein concurre that they ground our justification not upon the Righteousnesse of Christ so understood as hath been said but on the merit of and satisfaction made by his sufferings That which as for Pareus by a whole Treatise written of purpose by him about that Argument doth most evidently appeere so for Lubbertus is also cleere enough by divers passages even in those works which were written by him professedly against the errors of Socinus Yea so far doth Pareus proceed herein that he sticketh not to avow that Those that ascribe the merit of righteousnesse unto Christs active obedience or his native holinesse do thereby derogate from the death of Christ and do undoubtedly make it vain or superfluous Now I would gladly understand from M. Walker what he thinketh of Pareus and whether he count not him a blasphemous heretike as well as M. Wotton As for me my fellows as in scorn now he calleth them tho peradventure as good men as M. Walker himselfe I hold it no disgrace to me to be