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
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 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 The condition whereby we are properly justified is this that we beleeve in Christ. And againe The Evangelicall promise requireth no other condition to the attaining of salvation besides Faith onely whereby we beleeve on the Sonne of God Secondly that of M. Perkins in his Reformed Catholique 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 some of whose works he hath deigned to honour with a Dedicatory Epistle wherein he commendeth him as 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 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 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 required in them that shall be justified is faith The performance whereof differs from the performance of the condition of that other Covenant Doe this and live is a compact of pure justice wherein wages is given by debt so that he that doth the work obeying the Law may in strict justice for the work sake claim the wages eternall life upon just desert Beleeve this and live is a compact of freest and purest mercy wherein the reward of eternall life is given us in favour for that which beares not the least proportion of worth with it so that he that performs the condition cannot yet demand the wages as due unto him in severity of justice but onely by the grace of a free promise the fulfilling of which he may humbly sue for And againe Altho the act of justification of a sinner be properly the onely work of God for the onely merit of Christ yet is it rightly ascribed unto faith and it alone for as much as faith is that main condition of the New Covenant which as we must performe if we will be justified so by the performance whereof we are said to obtaine justification and life Thus M. Pemble in which passages tho I will not justifie all therein contained he fully and cleerely expresseth M. Wottons meaning not as his owne judgment only but 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 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 Servâ—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 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 Servetus saith that Abrahams beleeving was imputed unto him for righteousnes and S.
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 marâ—ed as by a large list of Errata which I caused to be printed and annexed to it so soon as some copies of it came to my hand may appeare Since which time I finde the rest of that scurrilous worke for I dealt onely with the last Chapter that concerned M Bradshaw very solidly and learnedly refuted by one M. John Ball a reverend and judicious Divine who had formerly written in defence of set forms of prayer in a Treatise since his decease published by M. Simon Ash Lecturer here in the City But to returne to M. Walker and his charge here against me True it is that I preached at M. Bradshaws buriall The worth of the man though not so commonly known in regard he lived in a mean and obscure estate through the iniquity of the times having his chiefe dependance and main means of maintenance from a private family and being naturally not prone to put himselfe forth yet highly valewed by those that throughly knew him and inwardly conversed with him and the entire affection and streightest band of friendship that held inviolably firm unto the very last between us deservedly challenging for him from me not that onely but much more then my weake ability was ever able to reach to And I did what I then did with as much griefe and regret of heart and mind as ever I performed any office in that kind The losse of so worthy and so intimate a friend besides the common losse of one so qualified and endowed to Gods Church inwardly piercing with me more deeply then everyone was aware of or my selfe able easily or suddenly to shake off But how in my Sermon then made I inveighed against M. VValker or any other I shal leave to the equall and indifferent consideration of others when I shall have precisely related what then I delivered and subjoyned the occasion whereupon I spake it In a short speech that I had before I entred upon my Text concerning the occasion of mine appearance at that time in that place and of the party deceased to whose remains that office of Christian sepulture was then to be performed having spoken somewhat but very briefly and over-scantly rather than otherwise concerning his singular dexterity as in resolving cases of conscience so in clearing of controversed points in Divinity in either of which kinds he did so excell that I have seldome if ever known his match I added these words concerning the latter Wherein his labours tho uncharitably taxed and traduced by some yet have been as myselfe can testifie not onely reverently esteemed by divers of good note in both the Universities professing some of them in my hearing to have profited much by them and to have been thereby better informed in some particulars which they conceived not so well before but even by some strangers of eminent place and profession beyond the Seas very highly extolled as by some of their Letters to him is yet to be seen And this 〈◊〉 protest is all that I then said which M. VValker here a man it seems of a very tender eare tho of too tart a tongue terms inveighing against him But if it may not be over-troublesome I shall request my Readers patience a while to receive from me some not overlong relation concerning the occasion 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 thâ— there were amongst us which overturned foundations teaching blasphemous heresies about this matter whereas all of us with one mouth professe this That a sinner is justified not by any formall inherent Righteousnesse in himself but onely by the free and meere grace and mercy of God through the meritorious satisfaction of our Saviour Christ the onely mediator between God and a sinner Wherein we all give all the glory of our justification and salvation to God in Christ Iesus and therein hold the main Foundation We differ onely in certain circumstances wherein nothing is derogated either from the mercy of God or merits of Christ or arrogated to our owne workes Now the former part of this speech M VValker taking to himself as tho not named yet conscious to himselfe of his own guilt he well might inveighed fiercely and furiously after his wonted guise in a Sermâ—n preached in Paul Church against the whole â—…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 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 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 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 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 wâ—t one of a factious spirit a desperate maintainer and justifier of our new upstart Socinian Hereticks the blasphemâ—us disciples of Servetus Socinus Arminius an horrible and prosane abuser of the Word of God citing it contrary to all sense one speaking like the old Oracles of Apollo sometimes without any sense sometimes so ambiguously as that his words may beare divers contrary senses sometimes affirming boldly strange things without rendring any reason as if he were a second peremptory Pythagoras or a new purified Pope whose words or sayings must be received against all reason as if they were Oracles of God and in a word as in the Preface so in the Treatise he doth by his fruits and his proofes contrary to his pretended Titles in every Chapter discover himselfe to be A Woolf in Sheeps cloathing And that he may end in no better manner then he began he thus enters upon the last Chapter This Chapter tho it treat onely of things humane such as we daily heare and see and have experience of yet it hath divers errors As if the Author had vowed to erre in all things and to infect Heaven and Earth and all things sacred and profane with his Treatise Now whether such a censure as this might not wel beare out as much if not much more then I then spake I am well content that any man not wholy forestalled with extream prejudice be judge Yea but Mr. Bradshaws Treatise it may be wel deserved such a censure 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 lâ—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 grosse palpable abominable and contrary to all sense that they doe not onely discover but even judge and condemne themselves as M. Walker affirmeth of them surely any dim sight will suffiâ—â— 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 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 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 Lawyers have in Divinity dealt to good purpose and that the tearm of justification being a Law tearm as our Divines with good warrant from 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 Gallâ—cè est redditus Anglicanum exemplar D. Gomaro reliqi Dicam ingenuè Nihil in humanis scrâ—ptis dogmatiâ—is hactenus â me lectum est quod tam vebementer mihi placuerit Ita doctè acutè pressè solidè nervose apertè sâ—…l
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
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 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 pestileâ—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 â—â—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 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 his candor in charging M. VVotton to concur with Servetus in all points concerning the doctrine of justification when he produceth 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 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 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 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 oft of other Autors I leave him to try it out with him whom he affirms to have renewed M. VVottons opinions and to have filcht all out of his writings Onely making bold to tel M. Walker that when he hath read over a few of Pareus his works one of the Autors he so oft mentions and by name that 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 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 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 before so here I shal leave him to render an account unto him who challengeth unto himself that Prerogative to see into mens souls and whose 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 Pamâ—hlet besides what elswhere he hath done As for Socinus M. Wottons master as he pâ—… 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