Impedit ira animum, OR ANIMADVERSIONS VPON SOME OF THE loser AND FOVLER PASSAGES IN A WRITTEN PAMPHLET INTITVLED, A DEFENCE OF THE TRUE sense AND meaning of the words of the holy Apostle.  
Romans 4. ver. 3. 5. &c.  
First dispersed in several copies without the Authors Name, but since acknowledged and triumphed in, by Mr. George Walker.  
By John GOODWIN.  But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, So worship I the God of my Fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and the Prophets, Act. 24. 14. He that is first in his own cause, seemeth just, but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him. Prov. 18. 17. Make no friendship with an angry man, neither go with the furious man, lest thou learn his ways, and get a snare to thy soul, Prov. 22. 24, 25. 
Moliturque Genus poenae miserabile, si non  
Ille suis esset nulli miserabilis acts,  Ovid. Met. 
Printed in the year 1641.   

SOME choice followers OF MASTER WALKERS rhetoric FOR THE READER TO SMELL ON BY THE WAY.  

THe Confutation of the false exposition made by Socinus, and other heretics his Disciples, as Wotton, Goodwin, and their companions. pag. 18.  
His Socinian Discourse. pag. 26.  
He shows himself as bold in affirming untruths, as ignorant both of rhetoric and logic, pag. 28.  
A more odious example of impuden●ie and folly cannot bee imagined, then he here makes himself, by making his folly and absurdity to strive for mastership with his impudence. pag. 4●.  
Thus he shamefully trifles to show his impudency and perverseness. pag. 40.  
This his confession is not out of humility and modesty, but out of satanical subtlety, to vent his poisonful lies under the person of another, as the devil did vent his by the Serpent. pag. 40.  
I easily gather from his impudent boldness. ibidem. And a little after his impudent boasting.  
He shows himself a bold lying Sophister. pag 29.  
Here we have a heap of lies mixed with contradictions. pag. 31.  
Here like a mad or drunken man, he contradicts himself. ibid.  
His words are most wicked and blasphemous. pag. 32.  
This opinion being built upon such heretical and blasphemous grounds, and maintained by such blasphemous arguments, must needs be most impious, heretical, and blasphemous. pag. 26.  
I will not have such a forger and false suborner of witnesses to go away without the brand of forgery, and notorious impudency, pag. 43.  
The very Father of liars, the devil himself, should if not blushy and be ashamed, yet in policy be afraid to call Calvin for a witness, lest all that hear him, should hate and hiss him for his open lying. p. 50.  
Let zealous Christians consider, whether it bee not their duty, both to take heed to themselves, and admonish others, that they have no fellowship with so openly professed Socinian Sectaries, as this man and his followers are: you see the Doctrine they maintain is wicked and blasphemous heresy: And presently after, they still persist in their pestilent heresy, and are more mad to maintain and disperse it,— they flee for help to the Father of lye: and in forging lies they sin, being condemned of themselves against their knowledge& conscience; as the Apostle fore  told concerning heretics. And again immediately after: How wilfully against the known truth, and his own conscience, this desperate man hath proclaimed Luther, &c. again: As for his rude, impudent, and unmannerly followers, their own lying and slanderous tongues proclaim their pedigree from the Father of liars. pag. 55. From such lying spirits, &c. pag. ult.  
Thus you see how he hath bent his tongue and pen like a bow for lies, and shoots them forth thick and threefold like poisoned arrows, as if his quiver were the armoury of the Father of liars, the Prince of darkness. pag. 35.    

THE PREFACE.  
SOme weekes since there was sent unto me, from a worthy Gentleman( a friend of mine) a Tract in writing, of somewhat a distracted subject, method, and expression, without any Authors name unto it. Though I could not then be so confident, that Master Walker was the author, as I then was,( and still am) that the opinion( whatsoever it be) that seeks maintenance in it, but finds none, is a supine& fond error( I forbear to call it heresy, blasphemy, or the like, lest my Antagonist knowing so well my ignorance in rhetoric, should boast, that I was beholding to him for his) yet had I a very reasonable and strong persuasion, that he was the man, and no other. And this I was induced to believe, the rather( besides divers other grounds of this apprehension) because I find the image and character of the man, so fairly and significantly stamped upon it, viz. words, and passion. Nec lac lacti, nec ovo ovum similius: vnum qui nôrit, ambos noverit.  

Not milk to milk, nor egg to egg more like,  
Then book to man, and man again to book.   
Some months before, upon the clamorous, uncessant, and insulting importunity of some, who were confident( it seems) of finding shelter under Mr. w s. wing for some opinions they held and loved dearly( though they little deserved it) and would not trust so bad a cause in the hand of any other Champion( their own word and style they gave him) I was requested and much pressed from time to time by some of my acquaintance, that if I could at any time spare a day, I would go over to Mr. W. to consider and reason some points, depending( as it seemed) in sharp dispute among themselves. Why Mr. W. amongst all the Divines in city or country, should be so importunely pitched upon by those men, I leave to those that know him, to consider: onely thus far( as I was informed) they discovered themselves, that they little thought or expected, I either would or durst look such a champion as he in the face. In which conceit of my unwillingness& fearfulness to appear before him, Mr. W. himself was partaker with them, and lost a wager of fiveshillings( as himself consessed) upon it. Whereby it appears, that these men had such an opinion or hope of him, that there was some known property in him, which should make sober men and of few words afraid to come near him in a way of disputation; which whether it bee the depth of his learning, the sharpness of his wit, activeness in disputing, or some other thing, I will not divine, but had rather others should conjecture, then I determine. At last( not without much gainsaying from my other occasions and employments) I sacrificed a day upon the service of Mr w s. reputation, and went to him▪ to confer with him about the points in question between his friends and mine, and to receive further information from him therein, if he had had any of this commodity in his hand. But my going to him was upon the same terms, and with like success that Christ went to the figtree, Mat. 21. who found no fruit thereon, but leaves onely. The conference between us being managed in a tumultuous and issuelesse manner, the one of us still carrying aside the state of the Question, and hiding it in a great thicket and wilderness of words, and no ways willing to hear or understand, what the opinion was, wherein satisfaction was desired: I was desired at last, both by Mr. w s. own brother,( the Minister of the place, in whose house wee were) and by divers others unknown to me then present( well-willers, as I conceived, both to peace and truth) to leave something in writing, whereby the state of the question or controversy between us, might be the more steadily and distinctly known and judged of. The day being far spent, and opportunity otherwise wanting for setting down then in writing, what I judged convenient and necessary for such a purpose, and having casually about me a paper of some collections I had formerly made concerning the interpretation of such passages in the fourth chapter to the Romans, as concerned the business between us, this I left behind me, with a faire and ingenuous promise and protestation, that if either Mr. W. or any other, could give me a distinct and clear account, how those passages might with any tolerable congruity of reason and consistence with other Scriptures of like argument, bee carried in their interpretation, to comply with the opinion held by some against me; I would willingly aclowledge any such satisfaction, and let my present judgement and opinion fall. Therefore whereas Mr. W. complains page. 27. of his discourse( as of some injury done to him, or affront put upon him) that he should bee challenged to answer those reasons I left with him, I dare not absolutely deny, himself affirming it, but that he might bee challenged( least ignorance, impudence, lying, heresy, blasphemy and such furies, Mr. w s. familiars, should presently be about my ears for it) but this I confidently affirm( yet without any impudence at all) that if Mr. W. were so challenged, it was by him, who long fince appeared to Saul in Samuells likeness, and of late( it seems) hath appeared to Mr. W. and given him this challenge. Those few notes I left with him, have proved very fruitful and generative: they are returned into my bosom with an abundant increase. Yet unhappy they have been in their propagation: they have not begotten in their image or likeness. I do not remember that any one line amongst them was possessed with any such tragical, truculent or Gorgonean spirit, as breaths fire& fury in a great part of that long discourse occasioned by them. Why Mr. W. should writ so much upon so small an occasion, I impute to the abundance of his time and leisure above mine, who may( I conceive) drop weekes and moneths against my houres, in the fullness of an estate temperance( we know) is more then an ordinary virtue. Why he should writ so much to so little purpose, I am loathe to impute to any infirmity or defect in him, whereby he should be disabled from discerning, when either himself or others, speak shells, or kernells: I will rather impute it to some such politic and profound reach in him as this; knowing my leisure to be little to attend such eccentrical& by-businesse as this is, his device might be to oppress and overcharge my time with reading, that so I might be straightened, if not wholly cut off from answering. And the truth is, that the bulkinesse or body of the discourse, is the life and soul of it, it being more troublesone to read, then to answer. But what should so transcendently sublimate the choler of the man, to rail right down such millstones of obloquys, reproaches, calumnies, curses upon my head, I cannot imagine; except it were the fairness of my writing, and fewness of my words when I was with him: both which having an energetical and pregnant antipathy to an angry temper, and talking disposition, might( I confess) by way of an antiperistasis, provoke and inflame their contrary natures in him. Other cause( besides these) on my part, I verily know none, except( happily) that also might be a spark falling into his gunpowder, that I desired him once and again, when we were together, that he would clearly and distinctly lay down, what his opinion was, in opposition to what was maintained by me. himself indeed, in the presence of some both of his friends and mine,( who were partly requested, and partly offered themselves to go over to him, to mediate with him for a peace, or at lest for terms of a fairer war, after he had begun the fight in this furious manner) drew the pedigree and royal descent of his quarrel against me, from an ancient meeting between us in Cheap-side, some three or four yeares since( to my remembrance, I know not how long before any thing was thought of concerning the dispute now depending) at which meeting( as the party aggrieved in effect complaineth) I did not do my homage to his discourse with that reverence and gravity which became me, but either smiled or laughed at it; I am not conscious to myself of any such prodigious oversight, but since I was challenged for it▪ I have inquired after my error by as many as I have met with, of those that were then present with us, and can hear no tidings of it at any hand. If I had made any breach upon Mr. w●. reputation, either in that kind or in any other, upon conviction, I should have been ready( and still am) to have repaired it with the best of mine own. But I fear, Mr. W. had rather take revenge, then satisfaction: and by his own confession of the roote and original of his quarrel against me, it may easily be perceived, how good and faithful a treasurer he is of the black Princes coin; these three or four yeares together he hath sat brooding a Cockatrice egg, and now at last the fiery flying Serpent is come forth. But this by the way. At my late being with him about the point in Question, in stead of cleared his opinion, when he was desired and pressed thereunto, he still interposed a dark cloud of words, and quiter butted his mind under his tongue. And when wee should have met about our business in the East, and were upon the point of grappling and closing, he immediately hoyseth up sail, and tacks about again to the West, as if he had been affrighted with his own opinion or shadow, and had resolved never to come near it. And to this day, what his opinion clearly is in opposition to me in this controversy, I am at perfect peace in my thoughts, that himself yet understandeth not. I have this ground( among others) for what I say, because a man may as well find a needle in a bottle of hay, as find any such opinion, either cleared, or constantly maintained, in this his discourse, which yet was penned by him purposely in confutation of my( erroneously so called) error. Surely his opinion,( what ever it be) is very melancholic, and( according to the character of that humour) {αβγδ}, either a God, or a beast. And he deals by it accordingly: for he onely shows the backside of it to the world, and is either ashamed to have the feature, shape, and face of it seen, as if it were some Monster: or else he judgeth the world, either unworthy or unable, to behold the glory of it, and so meant tacitly to insinuate some Numen or deity in it. 
— {αβγδ}  
{αβγδ}:  That is; 
Too high a grace it were, for mortals e're to see  
A God immortal, in such perfect view.   
I will first tell you, what I call the backside of his opinion: and then what I mean by the fore-side, or face. The backside of his opinion, I call those general, lax, and wide expressions, wherein( and wherein onely) he expresseth himself in his discourse, as, viz. That believers have communion with Christ; That Faith is not our righteousness; that the righteousness and satisfaction of Christ are imputed to us; that we are justified by Christs righteousness, and such like. In which positions, if his meaning be no worse then his words,( though some of them be incommodious,& of no affinity with Scripture expressions in this point) I neither ever was, nor yet am, nor( I hope) ever shall be an adversary to him. I call these the backside of his opinion, because they do onely in a general, confused, and indistinct manner represent his judgement in this controversy, and upon such terms, that a man may easily carry away his words, and yet leave his opinion behind him, as it is an easy matter to mistake one man for another, when their backs onely are toward us. But 2o, if Master Walker had any mind to show us the face of his opinion, he should tell us distinctly, roundly, and plainly, what righteousness of Christ he means should be imputed to us for righteousness, and how, and after what manner, and upon what terms it is imputed, as viz. Whether by virtue of such imputation, a man be made legally righteous, so that he may claim Heaven in right of the first Covenant, do this and live: or whither, by Christs righteousness imputed to us, he means nothing else, but our being justified by the virtue or merit of those things, which Christ hath done and suffered for us? He that doth not in this controversy, punctually, and precisely explain himself, in these particulars, rather conceals and covers, then discovers his opinion. If Mr W. at any time seems to make some slender explication of himself in some of these particulars, he soon misfigures again his own expression with words of manifest inconsistency therewith: so that the settled judgement of the Author in the Question controverted, must be some where else enquired after, then in his discourse: This I can say of mine own knowledge, that when I was with him, pressing him to know, whither by the righteousness of Christ ( in his opinion) he meant the righteousness of his nature, consisting of inward habits or dispositions of grace and holinesse; or the righteousness of his life, consisting of those righteous acts, which he performed in obedience to the Law of God, or whither he included them both, he absolutely denied, that he meant either the one or the other, or both together. The same denial, I heard, he had formerly made to another( who put the same, or like question to him) with some ill language uttered against me, that I should go about to persuade my followers, that either he or any other of his judgement in this question, should so conceive. Being further pressed to declare himself, whither his meaning then was, that any such righteousness of Christ were imputed to us, which Christ himself never had( no other righteousness of Christ, either as man, or Mediator, being imaginable but onely the two former) here he broke off with some such shuffling expression as this, that he held, it was a human righteousness that was imputed from Christ unto us, and would hear no more on that ear. If any man out of all this, and ten times more in his discourse to help him, can make out the riddle of Mr w s. opinion, I do not envy him the mystery of his knowledge: but for my part( whither it be my ignorance in logic, or in rhetoric, I cannot tell) my soul cannot find the way to enter into his secret. The best that I can make of his opinion, from his words and writings together, is this; that that righteousness of Christ, which was none of Christs righteousness, is imputed to us for our righteousness, in our justification. Which conclusion if he can fetch off roundly, and like a man, from the Scriptures, I presently yield him the Bucklers, and will be no longer his corrival— said Phillida solus habebit: that is, He shall faire Phillis have alone.  
I deny not, but some may possibly be convinced and satisfied by his discourse: but certainly, they must be such as stand in a precipitate and headlong disposition to his opinion before hand. I profess, I scarce ever met with any man, that being so weak and contemptible in his premises, fell so sore and heavy in his conclusions. I aclowledge that going about to reply, I transgeresse a grave precept which I learned long since out of Cato— Contra verbosos noli contendere verbis; Which may be well enough translated in our English Proverb, It is no gaping against an Oven. Notwithstanding, because such a truth of God, as occasioned that loud discourse is above the s●here of Cato's wisdom or precepts, I have rather chosen to endanger myself the second time, for the honour and preservation thereof, then to provide for mine own peace or repute, by betraying such a piece of Heaven into the hand of an enemy. I confess, I never yet made trial of my strength, in shooting in M● w s. bow,( I mean in railing and reviling) neither am I so in love with the exercise, that I should intend ever to do it: yet, me thinks, if I would set to it, I could draw an arrow as near the head in it, as Mr. W. himself hath done: or if my own strength and ability in this should fail me, I make no question, but I might have ready assistance from him, who( I dare say) hath not stood at my adversaries right hand to resist him in that service he hath done against God and his truth, in this expedition. But the truth, neither desireth nor needeth any goods so ill gotten. What depths of learning, wit or judgement, men of more raised understandings and sublimated apprehensions may find, in that boisterous, unchristian, and inhuman Dialect, metre for the disputes of Jjm and Oijm, then for theirs that call themselves the Ministers of Jesus Christ, wherein his discourse is written, I know not: neither do I desire to damnify or prejudice Mr. W. in any part of his reputation with such men. But for myself, I look and look as narrowly, as unpartially as I can, and yet can find no depths in such learning, but onely the depths of Machiavell. Indeed his beloved maxim, in case of opposition was; Calumniare audacter, aliquid haerebit, that is, Calumniate thy adversary stoutly; something will stick by him in despite of him, let him do what he can to wipe it off. But otherwise▪ for matter of learning, who knows not, that the weakest brain in both Universities, is as able as Mr. W. himself, to cry out against any man, Socinian, Arminian, ignorant, impudent, liar, lying Sophister, heretic, Blasphemer, a man of a satanical spirit, &c. The Scribes and Pharisees had no fellowes, in traducing Christ himself, for a seducer, a deceiver, a Blasphemer, a Bellzebub. A man needs not have a great study full of books nor look pale and wan with much reading or studying, to furnish himself with foul language; birds of this feather will come flying fast enough without a s●rapp.  
When I left my papers with Mr. W. I was in hope, that I had put myself into the hand of a Minister of Jesus Christ, which though I dare not yet deny him to be, yet in the favourablest construction that can bee made of his proceedings, he is one of the strangest Ministers of Christ that a man shall lightly hear of. That a Minister of Satan should transform himself into an angel of light( as Paul speaketh) holds a rational proportion and consistence, both with the shane and reproach of sin, and with the glory of righteousness: neither is it much to bee marveled at, that men should seek to hid deformity under an appearance of loveliness and beauty. But that a Minister of Christ should transform himself into the likeness of an Angel of darkness, and besmeare the brightness of his face with the grease and soot of hell, is the most unnatural metamorphosis that ever was heard of.  
When Michael the archangel disputed with the devil about the body of Moses, he durst not bring against him a railing accusation. judas verse 9. Therefore( doubtless) Mr. W. must either make himself greater then the Archangel, or me worse then the devil, or both; or else he hath foully miscarried in a great and weighty duty of Christianity. It may be he can deliver himself roundly without any scruple of conscience, out of these straights: it is but thrusting me down a degree beneath Lucifer, and then his mouth is wiped clean, he hath done nothing. God forbid that I should upbraid any man with his sufferings: God and Mr. W. and some other good enemie-friends, have put me( of late) into the livery of the company of sufferers; but I see that it was not the cross that Dysmas( if that was his name) hung on, that brought him to repentance, but he that was crucified with him. And Cyprian reports of some that had suffered, who grew worse and more insolent afterwards.  
If Mr. W. had an intent or desire to have gained ground upon me, or lead me away in triumph, he was quiter mistaken in the method of his war. Five sober words well balanced with reason and understanding, would have gone further with me, and wounded me deeper then a thousand crackers, or the raging, reasonless, roarings of ten thousand Belzeebubs. I regard no more the rage or rubbish of any mans tongue,( though in many degrees of outward greatness and power, Mr. Ws. superior) then I do the dung that passeth from him. But if any man speaks reason( though he bee as many degrees his inferior) I am ready to tremble, and to do him reverence. Therefore Mr. W. might have kept his earth-quakes and whirlwinds and fires, and sold them for bugbeares to scar children: his still voice would soon have laid me at his feet. I dare not( indeed) deal with him, or answer him at his own weapon( I mean railing) how ever provoked: the yoke that Christ hath put about my neck to keep me in compass this way, I dare not break nor cast from me. Neither do I know any example in all the history of Heaven, that would bear me out in such a practise And therefore I hear promise him( and will keep promise too, for his learning) that throughout all my Reply, I will neither call him Socinian, nor Arminian, nor heretic, nor Blasphemer, nor liar, nor lying Sophister, nor Impudent fellow, or the like. It may be I may now and then( but very rarely) administer the infusion of some of these simples, but will never give the gross substance I shall deal with him in a more ingenuous way. I hope, that having taken a liberty in folio to speak evil of me undeservedly, he will not be a man of so hard a conscience, as not to give me leave in decimo sexto to make merry with him. If he gives me gull and vinegar to drink, and I requited him with pleasant wine, I trust he shall have no cause( in the judgement of any reasonable man to complain.) Though I cannot meet with any faithful servant of God in all that long road that lieth between Genesis the first, and the first▪ and Revelations the last, and the last, in a railing or reviling posture, but onely Shimei's, Rabsecah's, and such like sons of belial: Yet I find that holy strict and severe Prophet himself( Elijah I mean) in present discourse with the sleepy God Baal, and his zealous and slashing Priests, 1 Kings 18. 17. And David( wee know) had many troubles, trials, difficulties, dangers, pressures, Doegs, Achitophels, tongues as sharp as razors, and that cut like swords upon him, from time to time: yet he contrived all into matter of music and song▪ and played them off upon his harp. There was a special necessity lying upon me, to carry this business recreation-wise( as near as I could) because I had little other time for the dispatch of it, then what my health repuired of me in some way of respiration& refreshing from my constant and standing labour.— Quanquam ridentem dicere verum,— Quid vetat? that is;  

A man in mirth the truth may say,  
As well as in a sadder way.   
My first thoughts were upon the first sight and appearance of my adversaries black Genius, onely to have reproved and chide satan( for the work he had made) and to have let Mr. W. alone, onely presenting him with those words from the mouth of an archangel, {αβγδ}. The Lord rebuk the. But considering that some of his readers( for the city I heard ran quick betimes with the dispersed copies of his most vincible Answer) before my turn came to see it) might( haply) bee so far mistaken in him, as to think him jupiter, because of the terrible appearance of his thunder and lightning, and not Salmonerus the juggler. Qui tonitru jovis,& flammas imitatur Olympi, that is; 
Who counterfeits the cracks of thundering jove,  
And flashing flames of the th' Heavens from above:   
I thought it the safer way, and wherein the truth might suffer less, to be somewhat larger, and to give the world a taste of his deep non-sight in the Question under dispute, and of his truth and faithfulness in these proceedings. The law agreed upon for this dispute between us( as I think Mr. w●. his brother remembreth, who either was himself the first propounder and mover for it, or else some other Minister then in presence with us) was that passages should be private between ourselves, and not communicated ad extrà: yet divers weekes, before mine eyes could see, mine ears heard, that Mr. w●. pictures( I mean the copy of his pamphlet) were up and down the city in several hands, his picture in gold, and mine in led at his feet. Yet in this I can partly excuse him: for being naturally a sub-angry man, it is like that his promise and he fell out by the way, and were at odds, and so could not walk together to their journeys end.  
For my method in transacting this business with him, I shall not strike, as oft as I find him naked: I should then overcharge my Reader, with ink and paper,( whatsoever I have done now) which is a pressure I have suffered myself under him. I may cover a multitude of infirmities, and yet have sufficient to work upon besides. I shall onely here and there, where the occasion is the ranker, apply some animadversions: yet so, that the Reader shall find, every thing that deserves an answer( yea, and many things, which indeed deserved it not) fully sifted and examined. In these my animadversions, I still make reference( in the margin) to the several passages of that copy of his Answer, which was sent unto me, for the finding out those passages, to which I do more particularly frame my reply. And were it not for labour or charge of writing, I could wish that he that shall please to peruse these notes and observations upon his Answer, might have a copy of the Answer itself by him, to red( occasionally) the entire passages of things there, which I was loathe to transcribe at large in my reply. Notwithstanding to save my Reader that labour and charge, without any material loss or damage of the matters between us, I have transcribed many things verbatim out of the answer, from place to place; which makes my Reply so much the more bulkie▪ and overladen with words.  
Vpon the receipt of his Answer, before I proceeded in this Reply, I wrote a letter to him by some of my friends, partly to know the certainty concerning the Answer, whether he would own it, or no: partly to give him a friendly opportunity and intimation of making clean where he had fouled therein( I mean of retracting his foul and unseemly language) before my pen came to tread in it, and so to make it stink to his shane and infamy in the world. The copy of which letter I have here transcribed immediately after this preface. But as David complained of his enemies, that they rewarded him evil for good, to the spoiling of his soul, psalm 35. so my severe and implacable adversary, Mesechlike, when I was for peace, he was for war: and in stead of the least relenting of his discrologie, or any ways comporting with my motion that way, he entertained the Messenger● that were sent unto him, with such magnificant presents of further railing, reviling,& horrid imputations against me, as if he had been newly returned from the slaughter of Rabsecah, or had the same day divided the spoils of hell. My desire and intent is, rather to make merry with my Antagonist, then to comply with him in his passion, or to be angry, because he is angry: yet I know not, whether it may not bee the greater rack and torture to him, to bee put to it to be angry alone.  
The great God of Heaven and earth, by whom I must bee judged( and that I know not how soon or suddenly) as well concerning my carriage in this business, as the other acts of my life, knoweth that I stand clear and free in my heart and spirit to the man( notwithstanding his seven fold provocation) wishing him no more evil, then I do to myself, or my own soul, and am ready at an hour, upon the acknowledgement of his oversight, to give him the right hand of fellowship at any time. Onely having wronged the truth( as he hath done) it cannot be but such injuries will be chargeable to him: howsoever, Repentance will bring him into his own again, with advantage.   

The copy of my Letter sent to Mr. Walker, upon the Receipt of his Answer, seeking either peace from him, or a faire war.  
SIR, a few dayes since there was sent unto me, from a Gentleman( a Friend and Neighbour of mine) a Manuscript of about 21 leaves in quarto, which though I have not yet had time( by reason of full employments otherwise) fully to peruse, yet casting my eye here and there, by some passages I conjecture the piece to be yours. Wherein also I am somewhat the further confirmed, by the common rumour abroad in the city, and which came to my ears several weeks, before I Received the Writing, that your Answer to my Reasons, were in the hands of many. Yet two things there are, that make me at some stand in my thoughts, whither the discourse be yours, or no; at least, whither it be come to me, as it came from you; or whither rather it be not some libel, wherein both you and myself may be abused together. The one is, because there is no name at all of any Author put to it▪ which( you know) is Libell-like. The other is, the many veins of unsavoury and foul language, which run here and there through the body of the Discourse. If the piece be yours, I cannot but suspect, that your Scribe, to whom you committed the transcribing of it, hath some ways wronged you, by mingling your milk with blood, and defacing your intellectuals, with his patheticalls. It will not readily enter into me, that so uneven and course a thrid should be of Mr Walkers spinning. Wherefore my request in love to you is, that you will please to signify, either by writing or otherwise; whither the discourse be yours, or no, whole and entire, good and bad together, as it came to my hands: or whither onely that which is somewhat rational and Christian in it, be yours: but for the rough turkey dialect, as, Socinian, Arminian, liar, lying Sophister, impudent fellow, heretic, Blasphemer, a man of a satanical spirit, cum id genus monstris, you are willing to disavow. Because, that if there be a necessity, that for the truths sake, I must have warres with you, I desire they may be Christian and fair, such as may tend to establish and settle the truth in peace, with as little blood-shed of the names and reputations of the Combatants, as may be. Thus desiring you to sand me back the Paper I left in your hands, with the tender of my respects and love unto you, I recommend you to the grace and love of God in his Christ.  
Your loving Brother in the work of Jesus Christ; J. G.   

ANIMADVERSIONS Vpon some of the loser and fowler passages in Mr. WALKERS Discourse entitled, A DEFENCE of the true sense and meaning of the words of the holy Apostle, Rom. 4. 3. 5. 9. &c.  
A DEFENCE of the true sense, &c. The man 
M. W. p. 1. 2.  hath well said in promising a defence of the true sense of any Scripture. Oh that there were a heart and understanding in him to perform it accordingly: I would strive to outrun all MR. Walkers Disciples in my respects, and honour to him. But they that made and worshipped the Golden calf, honoured it and styled it with the Name of a God, These are thy Gods, O Israel &c. So is it not much to be wondered at, if MR. Walker, having made and taken unto himself the figure of a false interpretation, doth the best be can to honour and grace it before the world▪ with the rich Style of The true sense and meaning &c. There was never any man that went about to adulterate the Kings coin, and to put off copper for Gold, but carefully provided for that, that Carolus Rex Dei gratia &c. should be stamped in as faire a Character upon it, as is to be found upon any piece coming out of the Kings Mint.  
But the mans heart presently begins to fall under the greatness of his enterprise: in the very first clause of his Discourse, he abates much of his confidence in the title. For that which was there, the true sense and meaning of the Apostle( simply) is here only The true sense with limitation, viz. according to the Common judgement of the most godly, learned, and judicious Divines, of the best Reformed Churches, &c. Now wee know that sometimes there is( and oftener may bee then we are ware of) as great a difference between the true sense and meaning of a Scripture, and the judgement of the most godly, and learned Divines, as is between Heaven and Earth, yea the judgement of the most godly, learned, and judicious Divines, hath sometimes stood at that distance from the true sense and meaning of some Scriptures, that they have rejected the Scriptures themselves, upon a conceit that they contained things in them contrary to their judgements, and apprehensions. This heavy censure, that notable and rare piece of Divine inspiration, the book of the Revelation suffered, even from the most godly, and learned Divines the Church of God had in it about the second or third Century after Christ, being generally disclaimed as apocryphal and irreptitious▪ It were easy to city instances in abundance of great variance, and dissension between the judgments of Divines, of Master Walkers qualification, and the true sense and meaning of many Scriptures: and yet he that saith and knoweth all this, may reverence the uniform judgements of such Divines, touching the sense of Scriptures, as much( or more) then Master Walker himself doth.  
Well: but yet he bewrayeth some consciousness, or timorousnes in his undertaking, though thus qualified and explained. He doth not loosely say, that the sense of these Scriptures, which he undertakes to defend, is the sense given by most Godly Divines, but with caution upon caution, thus: according to the common iudgement of the most godly, and of the best Reformed Churches. Whether by the most godly, learned, and judicious Divines, he means the greater part, or number of Divines that are godly, learned, &c. or whether onely those that are most eminent amongst and above their Fellowes, for godliness, learning, &c. he wisely leaves unexplained: that in case the one sense should oppress him, he might make the other his friend to relieve him. If he desires to be understood in the former sense( which is the more honest, obvious, and direct of the two) then I fear he will be as hardly put to it for voices amongst Reformed Divines, as the Pope was in the council of Trent, and must take some such course to make Authors, as he did Bishops. As for Luther, Calvin, Musculus, Bullinger &c. They will not come over to him with his whistling: except( haply) he hath a secret pack of Authors, of the same Names, but of different judgements, with those that are commonly known by their Names, in the World. And it should seem( indeed) he hath some such unknown advantage, for page. 50. he citeth words out of Calvins Institutions, which in my exemplar are not to be found in the place cited. And p 41. he tells a tale out of St. Bernard's 190. Epistle concerning one Peter Abilaird( as his Scribe nameth him) which I believe is not to be found in that Epistle, except it be in his own Book. If the latter sense should be intended by him( which yields the best shadow for him to shelter himself under) it will be hard( I confess) to evict him in this; because it must then first be decided( which will never be but by a general council, and yet I think as soon without it, as with it) which, or who in all that great retinue and equipage of Reformed Divines, have the pre-eminence above all their fellowes, in all those three incomparable qualifications, godliness, learning, Judgement. For as Seneca saith well. Non est admirationi una arbour, ubi totum Nemus in eandem altitudinem surrexit. And except there be some one or more amongst them, who is more excellent then all his Neighbours, in all the three rare endowments specified( which is most unlikely: for excellencies commonly walk single, and not by troops, or companies, in the World) then hath Master Walker undertaken nothing at all, concerning the judgement of Reformed Divines according with him, in the sense he gives of these Scriptures. But howsoever, he himself begins betimes to stumble at that ston,( which afterwards he chides me very sharply for stumbling at, though it be onely in his apprehension, and I make question whether even there also) viz. Ambiguities in disputation: and I would be loathe to trouble myself with taking him up every time, he falls on this hand, in his discourse. Sure I am( whether it be my example, or his own, he follows so close, I know not) that he speaks little better then ambiguously in the greatest part of this tract: except it be where either he speaks manifest untruths, or good common sense, instead of reason. As immediately after, when he speaks of the most Godly, Learned, and indicious Divines of the best Reformed Churches, what heifer should a man plough with to find out his riddle in those words, the best Reformed Churches? who knows in what order and Method the Reformed Churches are mustered and ranged in Mr. wall. book of valuations of Churches? Quas quibus anteferat. Suppose we may probably conceive that he takes the Reformed Church of England, for one of the best of these Churches, may we not as well cast lots, as conceive otherwise, to which of the other Churches, he will give the Honour of sitting at the right hand of the English? whether to the German, French, or Dutch Churches, or some other?  
Besides, if he should particularly declare himself, what and how many Reformed Churches he means, by the best: yet wee are little the nearer, knowing his mind concerning the Divines, whose judgements he undertakes to associate with his own, in the sense and meaning of these Scriptures. The best Reformed Churches have not necessary the most godly, learned, and judicious Divines in them. The sweetest showers may sometimes fall upon the rocks: and God is at liberty to bless weaker and lower instruments, above the increase of those, that are more excellent and glorious. Therefore all this while no man can comprehend by what he hath said, what Divines should bee of his judgement in the interpretation of these passages: neither have wee any such cause to complain, that wee are kept in suspense herein, because( as the saying is) nihil dat quod non habet, that is, nothing gives, but what it haves: it is good manners for us to be served after himself. I believe he hath no great assurance himself of any in this kind. When his confidence this way comes to him, I doubt not but we shall have it good cheap.  
But what is the sense and meaning of these places, for the defence whereof he hath taken such hold of shield and buckler? I confess he lays down discourse enough to open seven mens mindes at once, in as much as the sense and meaning of these Scriptures comes to. But( whether it be my dulness or ignorance in his rhetoric and logic, whereof I am taxed sharply enough, and it may be, deservedly enough too, page. 28. and page. 37. of his answer) I have no skill of his Vlyssean Eloquence, when he poureth out words {αβγδ}, as thick as flakes of snow in Winter time; they make me as blind, as the Snow itself doth, when I travel in it. I cannot find out his Mole-hill of meaning for his Mountains of words. If all that he delivers in that multilineary Hyperbaton, be that sense and meaning which he hath taken into his protection, surely I neither was, nor am his adversary, in far the greatest part of it. So that for the true sense and meaning of the place, as he hath promised the defence thereof, so( I confess) in some sense, he hath well and sufficiently performed. As Venus protected and defended her son Aeneas, when she put him into a cloud, where none could see him: so hath Mr. W. abundantly provided for the safety and defence of the true sense of these Scriptures, that no man shall be able to find it, or come at it to do it any harm, by spreading such a thick and dark cloud of words round about it on every side, Surely he hath found the line and Plummet which the builders of Babel used in laying the corner ston of their Tower, and hath stretched it upon the foundation of this his fabric. Onely whereas( towards the end of this 2. page.) he acknowledgeth and granteth, that upon Abrahams belief of the promise, God counted this unto him for righteousness; that is, accepted and accounted him for a righteous man: if he would not afterwards misuse his own good words, with a bad meaning, for my part I should never say that black was his eye, in this Question. But this is frequently observed in men that are engaged against the truth, that the truth sometimes will be too hard for them, and break Prison before their keepers are ware of it. I pass by other things in this page., that well deserve virgulam Censoriam, my discourse will live and maintain itself sufficiently, upon the tithes of Mr. Ws. errors, if they were but truly paid.  
The corrupt exposition of the words by the 
Mr. W. p. 2.  heretic Socinus, the Arminians &c. Surely my Adversary hath heard of the most inhuman and unnatural cruelty of the Tyrant Mezentius: and hath taken his practise in one piece of unmercifulness towards me from him, whose practise was this( as Virgil relateth it,)  
Mortua Corporibus jungebat Corpora vivis,  
Corponeris manibusque manus, atque oribus ora:  
He used to join and couple living and dead men together, with face to face, hands to hands, &c. and so to keep them, or drag them about together, till the living found an end of his misery, by joining hands with his Companion in death. So Mr. Ws. intent in his necromanticall bringing up the dead Corpes of Socinus, and Arminius so often upon his Stage, is to bind me hard, first to the one, and then to the other: and in this posture to drag me up and down at his pleasure, that so by this unnatural, and artificial torment and shane, I might go down with sorrow into my grave. But the best is, he can find onely green withs to bind me withall, which will snap in sunder like a thread of tow, when it toucheth the fire: I have a sharp knife about me, called truth, that will presently deliver me out of these bands by cutting in sunder those cords of vanity, wherewith my enemy hath bound me. And if I took any pleasure in troubling myself that way, wherein my adversary( it seems) takes singular delight and contentment, I could stretch his opinions in this controversy, upon Socinian and Arminian tenter-hookes, better cheap, and with less streyning by far, then he either doth or can do mine. Yea I shall anon present you Arminius himself, with his mouth as full of Mr. W. opinion in the point of Imputation, as it can hold, without spilling. Yea( that which is yet more) if I sought any such bloody revenge upon the man, I make no Question, but I could with the full leave and consent of his opinion, make him hold up his hand at the bar, and answer for those crimes of heresy and blasphemy, where& for which he hath so oft arraigned me, with the highest and clearest reluctancy of my opinions. But if Mr. W. will be content to be the erratique, I shall be content to abate him the heretic, in the bargain, though I might very lawfully demand it.  
But first let me ask Mr. W.( for I confess I am to seek and altogether ignorant in this point, if all that he seems to imply, be gospel) what if it should bee granted, that both Arminius and Socinuss, were of the same judgement with me, in the interpretation of the Scriptures in Question? Is it either heresy or blasphemy, yea or a simplo error, to profess or hold any thing that heretics or blasphemers have professed before? Then certainly it is both Arch-heresie and blasphemy to hold that Iesus Christ is the son of God, because the Arch-blasphemer the devil once professed it▪ and yet( it is like) believeth it, Mar. 1. 24. And if Mr. W. were but set upon this horse back himself, and made to ride as far as he would carry him, he would be the monster of all heretics before he return'd back again. He wo●ld be Socinian, Arminian, Servetian, Swenkfeldian, Osiandrian, Antitrinitarian, Arrian, Eutychian, Nestorian, Valentinian, Novatian, Pelagian, Donatist, Maniche, and what not? Because it is certain that he holds some opinion in Religion, which all and every one of these held, as the unity of the Godhead, and many others. But it may be Mr. W. knows how to distinguish here, as acutely between himself and his adversary, as some of our S●raphicall Doctors of Rome do, when they tell us that the Scriptures, as they are alleged and cited by them, are the word of God: but as they are cited by us, they are the word of the devil: so that the rule or ground of reason, which applied to Mr. G. will make him a heretic and blasphemer, being applied to Mr. W. upon the same terms, is presently charmed, and looseth all its virtue and operation, and leaves him as Orthodox, as Saint John himself.  
Secondly, let me say this likewise, that it is but a knack of Papish Mountebankerie, to seek to oppress an opinion that any way crosseth them, and to derive envy and reproach upon the head of it, by putting it into evil company, and numbering it amongst the tenets and opinions of such men, as are otherwise obnoxious, and branded with the shane and infamy of some broad error. Thus Prateolus( a Popish Author) makes account he strikes a great stroke against those, that hold it lawful to eat any meats upon any day without making a difference, by finding this opinion held by Jovinian an heretic. So the same Author thinks he doth the Romish cause Knights service against that opinion, which teacheth justification by faith alone, by saying that this opinion was taught by Simon Magus. So to administer the Sacrament in both kinds, he proves to be damnable, because Nestorius the heretic did so. So again he makes it one of the heresies of the Armeni, that they denied Purgatory. This is a known trick of legerdemain amongst them. Whatsoever my Adversary is in his opinion against me, Protestant, or Popish: certain I am, that he is purely, putely, and putidly Popish in the method of his proceedings against me: and goes about to make the world believe, that my opinion must needs be an error, yea and more then an error, a damnable heresy, because forsooth( if men be so wise as to believe him) he brings news from a far, and tells a tale, that he hath seen it amongst Socinian, and Arminian Heresies. A man that had looked into the lions den, whilst Daniel was there, might by as strong an Argument, have proved the Prophet to have been a Beast: Mr. Wa. himself, if this tackling will hold, may prove Solomons lily, Cant. 1. 2. to be a thorn. Yea by the out-stretched arm of this logic▪ the Iewes may justify their crucifying of the Lord Christ, because he was numbered amongst the transgressors, and two Malefactours crucified with him: which rare piece of profound policy, Mr. wall.( it seems) hath copied out in his answer, in crucifying the truth between those two Malefactors, Socinus and Arminius. If Mr. W. had first proved the opinion maintained by me to be erroneous,( but that is a worse Crow to pull, then any he hath plucked yet) and then have justly charged those sore aggravations of arminianism and socinianism upon it, it had been somewhat reasonable and methodical: but to scourge it uncondemned( at least upon any lawful trial and conviction) with the Scorpions of those odious imputations, shows rather the canker in his pen, then love either of truth, or men in his affections.  
But thirdly,( and lastly) if either man or woman, be troubled in mind, upon this point, whether Mr. W. makes conscience or no, of what he writeth, let him but diligently weigh and compare a few pages following, with the greatest part of his discourse,( wherein he speaks so much of Arminius and Socinus, and he shall receive satisfaction to his hearts desire. Arminius in resp. ad 4. Artic. impositum, saith, justitiam Christi nobis imputari,& fieri nostram gratiosâ aestimatione Dei,& arbitrari se, id ipsum contineri verbis Apostoli, 2 Cor. 5. Christum fecit Deus pro nobis peccatum, ut nos essemus justitia Dei in illo, that is, that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us, and is made ours by the gracious esteem or account of God, and this he conceives to be contained, in those words of the Apostle, 2 Cor. 5. God made Christ sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.  Fortis ubi est Ajax? ubi sunt ingentia magni— Verba viri? 
Where is brave Ajax? where the blustering brags of the stern Champion? what Mr. Walker, tute Lepus es,& pulpamentum quaeris? Are you a Hare yourself, and call for hare to eat? Is Mr. Walker himself an Arminian, and will cry out of arminianism.  Quis tulerit gracchoes de seditione querentes? 
Who can endure to hear without disdain,  
The Gracchi of sedition to complain?  
Or if he will disclaim Arminius judgement in the Testimony cited, touching the Imputation of Christs righteousness, let him disclaim his own also. For sure no two judgements ever jumped better together, then the judgement of Arminius the heretic, and of Mr. W. the Orthodox in the point of Imputation. Therefore there is a necessity lying upon him, either to take me into Communion, and fellowship with himself in his opinion about imputation, or else to deliver me from the imputation of arminianism, in what I hold.  
I deny not, but Arminius himself( and some of his followers much more) express themselves( sometimes) on the other hand, and do affirm, the imputation of Faith for righteousness, and not the righteousness of Christ,( in this uncertainty of expressing themselves,) resembling both Mr. W. himself, yea and men of far greater note in the Church of Christ, whose names for the honour due unto them, upon this occasion I forbear. But yet Mr. W. undertaking the office of an Interpreter of their mindes, and meanings this way,( though otherwise, I easily believe, no great friend of theirs) to make his charge against me, and my opinion the more heavy, and sore( as he hopes) hath in many things much eased and lightened their burdens, in the erroneous grossness of their opinion, by his Interpretation. Before I demonstrate this, I would first know, by what prerogative Law, Mr. W. should bee exempted or excused from being an Arminian, holding and maintaining directly, what Arminius himself in one place affirmeth: but I at no hand must be excused, holding what the same person affirmeth in another. I know not who hath given Mr. W. any power to umpire between himself and me upon terms of such inequality. And further I desire to be Mr. Ws. Remembrancer of another thing by the way: That those are called false witnesses by the Holy Ghost, that gave Testimony against Christ, though they testify little( in words) against him, but what himself indeed spake( Mat. 26. 60. 61) Their drawing and wresting his words besides his meaning, was enough to brand them, with that black brand. So though Mr. W. could( haply) pick out here and there, some phrases or expressions out of Arminius and his followers: that may in the letter and sound of words, come near some expressions used by me, in setting down my opinion: yet if upon this, he will stand up, and bear witness against me, or my opinion, that we are Arminian: this will not save him harmless, against the just imputation of false witnesse-bearing. And as Anti-Arminian as himself is, or desires to appear, it were an easy matter to reconcile him, if Similitude or sympathy in speaking, now and then, would do it. The saying of Bellarmine in this case, is sound and good: Non in verbis, said in sensu, fides est, nec idem Symbolum habemus si in explicatione dissidemus. The greatest heretics of old, agreed with the Orthodox Fathers, in receiving the same Creed: yet were they of a far different Faith, and judgement from them, in those Articles of Religion contained in the Creed. Now concerning my Antagonist, the truth is, that as he hath banished my mind and meaning out of my words( in many places) and put his own sour, and distorted apprehensions in their stead, and would fain make me father the bastard-brood of his distempered imagination: So on the other hand, in laying down the Arminian opinion touching those Scripture passages in Question, and the point of imputation, though he substitutes also, and rather gives them an opinion, then relates any from them, yet he plays the part of a good fairy with them, and leaves them a changeling better favoured then their own child. But he had no other way or method to bring both ends of his project together, to make the Arminian tenet and mine meet, but onely by taking their crooked opinion in his right hand, and my strait opinion in his left; and so bow the one, and unbow the other, till they should run parallel together.  
To make good( in few words) what I say, concerning his favourable( but false) interpretation of the Arminian notion( in the things in question,) I desire that these two clauses following, wherein he represents( as he pretends) the opinion of Arminians, touching the imputation of faith, may be diligently compared, with the interpretations and explications made of the same opinion, by other learned, godly, judicious and Orthodox Divines▪ that doubtless have as deep an insight into those mysteries, and know what Spirit of error it is that ruleth in the kingdom of Remonstrancy, as well as Mr. wall. doth: And more particularly, to those that desire fully to know, with how little dexterity or integrity, Mr W. hath here deciphered the Arminian Doctrine( touching matters in Question) I desire to recommend the diligent perusal, of the tenth Chapter, of a book set forth by the four famous professors of Divinity( who lived amongst the ablest men of judgement, and where arminianism had it's Throne: and in this respect, were more likely to know their depths, then other men that are more strangers to them, about the year 1626, entitled, Censura in confessionem seu declarationem sententiae eorum, qui in foederato Belgio Remonstrantes vocantur &c.  
The two passages in Mr W. are these. First, that faith and believing, is the onely thing which God of his grace is pleased to ordain, for all the righteousness, which a man shall have for his justification &c. Secondly, by Faith and believing they understand no more but a confidence in God, that he will perform his promises made in Christ, and an assent unto his word, that it is true. Now he that shall compare these expressions( with others more in Mr Ws. woody explication) which pretend to show what the Arminians mean by their faith, which they say is imputed for righteousness, with several expressions of their own, cited by the forenamed Divines, and charged home with foulness: and dangerousness of error, will find them to agree like Harp and harrow. It fully appears from several passages there, that by that Faith, which the Arminians so generally affirm to bee imputed for righteousness, they mean not a bare assent to the word of God, that it is true( which is Mr. Ws. {αβγδ}, but an universal obedience to the will of God, in all those duties, which he requires of men in the gospel. In the beginning of that Chapter, they are challenged by these worthy Divines, for affirming the word, Faith, to be sometimes taken( in Scripture) protota& universâ illâ Dei voluntate that is, for the whole universal will of God, which before they had said, God would have performed by us. In which sense, they would be taken and understood in this Chapter. Afterwards they are charged again, with Pontifician friendship, in eo, quòd opera inter justificationis causas numerant, aequali cum fide jure, that is, that they place works amongst the causes of justification, and that with as much right, as Faith itself. again( a little after) they are charged to have drawn this their notion of faith in justification, out of the Socinian Lakes, which yield such waters as these: Meminisse debemus, fidem hanc, Scilicetquà iustificamur, Dei obedientiam esse. That is, we must remember, that that Faith whereby wee are justified, is the obeying of God. And presently after: In Christum credere nihil aliud est, quàm Deo ad ipsius Christi normam& praescriptum obedientem sepraebere. That is, To believe in Christ is nothing else, but for a man to yield up himself in obedience to God according to the rule and prescript of Christ. To pass by many other passages in this chapter, to the same effect: The Arminian Doctrine is further charged, by that faith, which it holds to be imputed for righteousness, to understand and mean, fidem ipsam in se, quae apud Deum habeatur pro iustitiâ, quatenus fidei nomine comprehenditur poenitentia, resipiscentia,& in universum obedientia hoins Christiani. So that either Mr. travailer, or these men are foully out, in drawing the lineaments of the Arminian faith in this point of imputation. If Mr. W. will choose rather to lay the burden upon their shoulder, I suppose it will not much pinch them, because I do not think there is any man else will do it but himself. I aclowledge there are some expressions, used by these great and learned men▪ in this tract of their discourse, wherein I desire Christian leave to dissent from them: but as well for their ability as integrity, in representing the true, genuine, and native shape both of the Arminian and Socinian Doctrine in these points, I think their Authority is unparellable. Consonant unto these things, set down by them, touching the way of Remonstrancy in the point under question, are those brief passages that are found in Doctor Prideaux( a great light of the Church, yet living and shining) Lect. 5. de Iustificatione. Having mentioned Vorstius opinion, who held faith to bee imputed, immediatè& formaliter; meritum Christi, mediatè& effectivè, he adds as followeth: ubi per fidem ulteriùs ostendit, se observationem Christianismi solummodò intelligere, quia credere idem est, quod observare Christi praecepta, that is, by faith, he further sheweth, that he onely meaneth the observation of Christianity, because to believe, and to observe the Commandements of Christ, are the same. Nec dispuduit tandem concludere &c. that is. And was not ashamed at the last to conclude, that justifying faith is that same inherent righteousness, which the Papists urge▪ a little before, mentioning the opinion of Arminius himself, touching faith in the matter of justification( as Corvinus a great Disciple of his undertakes to interpret his Master) Arminio( saith he) minimè placuit quod fides dicitur instrumentalis justificationis nostrae causa, that is, Arminius would by no means have faith termed the instrumental cause of justification; which is as directly contrary to what I have openly professed, and maintained since my first dealing in this controversy, as it is to what Mr. W. affirmeth, concerning the Arminians themselves, p. 4. Where he affirmeth, that they say that faith is imputed for righteousness, as an instrument, which abundantly confirms that which I said before, that Master W. hath highly befriended the Arminian party in laying down their opinion, onely to do me and my opinion the great displeasure and despite. The last name Doctor in the same Lecture, cites one thing more out of Bertius,( another Prince of the Arminian band) in an Epistle written by him to Lubbertus: viz. that here he acknowledgeth, hanc sententiam meritum Christ● excludere, that is, that the opinion of Vorstius touching the imputation of his Faith( which is the same with the common opinion of the Remonstrants, as was before intimated) doth exclude the merit of Christ,( viz. from justification) which again is not more contrary, to what Mr. W. grants concerning the Arminians, viz. that they aclowledge Christs perfect satisfaction and righteousness, to be the meritorious cause of our justifications p. 4. then to what I have both publicly taught ever since my first stepping into these waters of strife,( as some have made them) still ready to profess and maintain( upon occasion) every hour. I wish that Master W. and his opinion, maintaining the imputation of the active obedience of Christ( in the letter and formality of it) for righteousness, did no more endanger or trench upon the merit of Christs satisfaction, then either I or mine opinion do. I do not charge any guiltiness that way upon the man: I verily conceive of him, that it is far from his intentions, either to deny or to destroy, or in the least measure to wrong or prejudice the satisfaction of Christ: but for that opinion of his concerning imputation, it hath been arrested and arraigned elsewhere, and was found full, if not of perfect guilt, yet of much jealousy and suspicion that way. There are several other things in this tract of his discourse, concerning the corrupt exposition of Socinus, Arminius &c. as one or two contradictions, with some such petty oversights, and divers things affirmed loosely and at peradventure, without the least proof or semblance of truth, which if matters of exception and advantage, were any thing rare and hard to come by, might be improved to good purpose that way. But I rest contented with this onely, to make it known to the World, that Master Ws. arminianism, and arminianism indeed, are in many things( and those of mainest importance in the question depending) as contrary the one to the other, as the East is to the West: and that the opinion maintained by me, in the notes I left with him, hath as little of Arminian blood running in the veins of it, as the opinion that himself maintaineth, yea and far less too, if matters were thoroughly sifted and examined between us. The Arminian Faith, which they set up for imputation unto righteousness, includes obedience to the Law of God Mr. Walkers Faith, set up by him for the same purpose, includes obedience to the same Law: their faith an obedience performed in their own person: Mr. Ws. Faith or obedience, as if it had been performed in their own persons. The Arminian faith excludes( as we have heard) the merit of Christs satisfaction from justification: and Mr. Ws. faith if it were well examined, doth little less. For he that hath a perfect legal righteousness imputed unto him upon as good terms, as if he had performed it in his own person, what need hath he of any satisfaction, or atonement by blood, to bee made for him? But I have impleaded this opinion, more at large else where, and have wrung the best weapons out of the hand of the adversary, wherein he most puts his trust. I shall therefore here rest from this labour. And for Mr. Ws. arminianism, how oft soever he shall afterwards bee troublesone to me, therewith in his discourse, I shall neither be troublesone to myself, nor to my Reader with it any more; but let it go for nought, when it comes in my way. Onely this I will say for it, before I here give it over, that so wee may yet have a friendly parting: that if ever I be weary of the truth and desire to turn Arminian, I will be an Arminian of of Mr. Ws. calculation: his Arminian, is incomparably better, and more harmless in his dogmaticalls, then any other mans Arminian that I can meet with. And notwithstanding his Charity hath abounded towards the Arminian party( as you have heard) yet towards the Socinian, it abounds much more. Other Divines and Writers generally, represent socinianism upon the Stage, as an accursed Denier of Christs satisfaction. Sociniani( saith Doctor Prideaux in his fifth Lecture de iustificatione) impudentius negant, Christum pro peccatis nostris satisfecisse:& ubivis asserunt &c. that is: The Socinians more impudently deny, that Christ made any satisfaction for our sins, and still affirm, that God the Father hath received us into grace or favour, by a free condonation or remission of sins, for Christ. But Mr. W. making them to draw in the same yoke with his Arminians, wipes off this foul aspersion from them, and claps on a beutie's spot( in comparison) upon their face, in stead of it: speaking of them both together thus: when they aclowledge that Christ his perfect satisfaction and righteousness, is the meritorious cause of our justification &c. So that it seems Mr. W. hath wrought a great and miraculous cure upon the Socinian heresy, and hath brought it back ten degrees( at least) by which it was gone down towards Hell: It now acknowledgeth Christs perfect satisfaction, as the meritorious cause of our justification: onely it halts upon a lame interpretation, of what it holds consonant to the truth. But Mr. W.( I conceive) was more provident and subtle then angry men usually are, in displaying the Socinian heresy by the figure synecdoche, onely mentioning a part( and that a very small one too) for the whole: for by this means he gains more liberty▪ and freedom, to draw me and my opinion into the reproach, and scandal thereof. For otherwise had he but mentioned that which is the head and height of Socinian blasphemy, viz. the denying the merit and satisfaction of Christ, now it would not have so much as coloured with the opinion maintained by me, which riseth up with a high hand to pled the merit of that satisfaction. But Mr. W. having onely a desire and intent to cast dirt in the face of the truth, and him that maintains it, was loathe to loose the opportunity of such a kennel. Otherwise as marshal descanted upon the Painter, that had drawn a picture of Venus somewhat coarsely, and untowardly, saying of him, that surely he meant to flatter Minerva,  
Qui Venerem tuam pinxit, Lycori,  
Blanditus( puto) Pictor est Minervae:  
So on the contrary, a man might think, that Mr. Ws. intent in drawing the portraitures of the Arminian and Socinian heresies, with so much favour, was onely to oppress the ancient heresies, of Arrius and the rest, with new envy and indignation.  
Well: Master W. having so foully and Ignoramus-like miscarried in acquainting us with the state of the Arminian and Socinian heresy in the exposition of his Scriptures, and having painted the Crow and Raven, more like a Dove, and a Partridge then otherwise: I appeal to Master Ws. own conscience,( if there be any motion or life yet left in it) whether here be not a fitter and more just occasion, then any he hath met with in my writing( if a man had a mind to it) to cry out, liar, lying Sophister, ignorant, impudent, &c. And yet I confess again, that though I had a mind to do it, it were no wisdom( but impudent foolishness indeed) to writ the destruction of Troy after Homer. But if Mr. W. bee no better, at giving us out the mind of the Holy Ghost in the Scriptures, then he hath shewed himself an Interpreter of the mysteries of the Arminian, and Socinian heresy,( and it is much to be feared the whole piece is of the same spinning) instead of the true and Orthodox exposition of the Apostles meaning, you shall have the Heterodox and misshapen conceit of his own brain, set up upon the Stage before you. I will spend no more time about Master Ws. socinianism, neither( though it be the best that ever man met with, or can hope to meet with in any Author under Heaven) except, it be to say this: though he professeth the deepest enmity and even a hellish detestation of that way, yet is he the greatest Tempter and allurer of men into this way, of any I know, one or other, at this day living amongst us, by his too too ingenuous and gracious qualification of their blasphemous errors.  
The true exposition defended, here my Antagonist, being 
Mr. W. p. 5, 6, 7, &c.  conscious( it seems) that he had not played the man, in laying down the sense and meaning of the Scriptures in question, before( page. 1. and 2.) sufficiently, hopes to come into his credit( in due time) by bestowing words enough upon the business, if his Reader will be content to take that for payment. If he will not, I know not how he will much mend himself by this long word discourse of several pages together. I profess ingenuously, I never met with more loose, indigested, and male-coherent stuff from the pen of a Scholar, within such a compass, all my dayes. I dare not say that Mr. W. himself wants either logic or rhetoric: but this I may boldly say, that many things that come from him, are like to starve through extreme want of both: There is scarce ever a page. but enterfires with other: Neither is there any thing said to purpose in one place, but is unsaid in another: his notions and sayings, being like unto Cadmus his souldiers that sprung up of the Dragons teeth.  mart cadunt proprio per mutua vulnera fratres. ●. Brother his Brother Wounds to death each other. 
So that Mr. W. needs not sand to me to answer this piece of his: he hath performed the service himself to himself, and plainly sheweth, that he objecteth nothing against me, but what he knoweth himself how to answer. And if he will seal to●, and ratify what with open mouth he affirmeth, in this limb of his discourse, he will ipso facto cancel and deface the whole body besides. For doth he not( after an importune and impertinent discourse, concerning the difference between that Faith, which he calls a natural habit or power, and that which he defines a supernatural gift &c.) come to grant( page. 7.) that Abraham resting upon the Lord by firm Faith, for the performance of the promises made to him, the Lord counted it to him for righteousness, and presently after( somewhat more emphatically, and with better agreement to the truth, then to his own opinion) even Faith was reckoned to him for righteousness. And more plainly afterwards page. 11. where he pretends to center the large circumference of his former discourse thus: By faith and believing, which is counted to every true believer,( and was counted to Abraham) for righteousness I understand here( according to the iudgement of the most Orthodox Divines,) the true, holy, spiritual Faith and belief, which is before shewed to have been in Abraham, and which is proper to the elect and regenerate &c. Now whether such a faith as this, being as himself acknowledgeth, that very faith, which he had so operously and carefully distinguished, defined, explained, page. 7. 8. be a tropical or metonymical faith, or Faith in the proper nature, and direct signification, I leave to those that want that, wherewith Master W. so aboundeth, to judge and to consider. Therefore if he means as he saith in this place, that faith in the proper sense, and not in the figurative( in which sense, according to his acute interpretation, it signifieth th● righteousness of Christ, apprehended by it) be that which is imputed unto a believer for righteousness, what have we to do with all the discourse following?  Aut fugiat Vticam, aut unctus mittatur Ilerdam. 
down let it swim the stream to utica,  
Or to Ilerda anointed let it pass.  
Let him disband those troops of slanders, reproaches, calumnies, falsifications, which he hath mustered up against me in the sequel of his Tract, for holding and maintaining the same interpretation of the word faith, which himself here avoucheth▪ And further that by faith in these Scriptures, which is oft said to bee imputed for righteousness, Master W. cannot understand a tropical or metonymical Faith, viz. the righteousness of Christ, is as evident, as the foulest nonsense is from the fairest truth: because immediately after page. 11. interpreting the word righteousness, he saith by it is meant the righteousness of Christ &c. So that if by faith we shall understand, the righteousness of Christ, and by righteousness, the righteousness of Christ too, we must make the Apostles meaning, in plain language to run thus: the righteousness of Christ, is imputed to a believer, for the righteousness of Christ: which is such a Hyper absurdity, that in Honour to Mr. Ws. intellectuals and learning, I cannot fasten upon him. Therefore whatsoever he talks afterward in his discourse, of a tropical and metonymical acception of Faith in these Scriptures, I will not believe but that he is in jest there, and in earnest here. I do not think so m●anely of him, that he will cast away his gold, to fill his hand with chaff in stead of it.  
But the truth is, that in all he hath done( infolio) about the explication of this Scripture, he hath onely prospered, in his interpretation of the word, Faith, or believing: which prosperity notwithstanding stayeth him, in all( almost) that followeth: and is it not pitty that faire weather should do harm? In his exposition of the two other words, imputing and righteousness he boggles and slunders foully.  
First, for the phrase of imputing a thing to one, he makes a supposition, that to impute and account, or count, are universally termini aequipollentes, words always of one and the same signification. Against which misp●rision his own instances from the Scriptures, might have relieved him. For 1 King. 1. 21. Where Bathsheba saith to David, I and my son Solomon shall be counted offenders, it had hardly been good English to have said, I and my son Solomon shall be imputed offenders. So Nehe. 13. 13. where it is said of the Levites, that they were counted faithful, it would have come off somewhat rugged, to have said, that they were imputed faithful. In some cases, and falls of speech, I confess they may be of indifferent use, and signification, and particularly in the Scriptures in hand: to say that Abrahams Faith, either was counted, or imputed to him for righteousness, are both expressions of good propriety; and not much difference between them( except a man hath a mind to cavil and wrangle.) And wherein Master W. hath strengthened his cause, by making these two terms, imputing and counting, to run always hand in hand, I do not yet apprehended: except it bee by gaining an opportunity of laying on more tongue, and multiplying discourse: which how it availeth him in this business, hath been already intimated.  
But the man is no where liker himself( as touching the whole carriage of this business) then in the description he lays down, of the sense or signification of the phrase, imputing a thing to one, page. 9. His description is this: the phrase of imputing or counting a thing to one, signifieth both in the Old and New Testament, an act of judgement and estimation, by which a thing is judged, esteemed, reckoned, and accounted, to bee as it is indeed. Capiat, qui potis est capere. Let him understand it, that hath where withall. I confess Master Ws. eloquence passeth my intelligence. But  
First, I should have thought( had I not been here informed otherwise, and may yet for ought I know, strain courtesy with my information) that God his imputing faith for righteousness( take faith in what sense you will) had been an act of grace or mercy in God, and not an act of judgement.  
Secondly, every act of judging or esteeming a thing, to be as indeed it is, is not an imputing or counting it to another: which yet must bee, if Master W. hath rightly defined or described the signification and importance of the phrase of imputing: because the old standing Law of a true definition is, that it must be convertible with that which is defined. But that every judging or esteeming a thing, to be as indeed it is, is no imputing it to another, is evident: because when I judge the Sun to be greater then the moon, I judge it as indeed it is: yet do I not impute the sun to any man. So when I judge and esteem Master Ws. quarrel against me, to be groundless and causeless, I judge and esteem the thing, as indeed it is: yet do I not hereby impute it to any man.  
Thirdly, when God imputes either my Faith unto me, or Christs righteousness unto me( the one being the Scripture phrase, the other Mr. Walkers,) for my righteousness he doth not judge, or esteem any thing to bee as indeed it is: for neither is my faith, nor the righteousness of Christ indeed my righteousness. But my faith in Christ, is that Grace which God hath consecrated, and ordained to bring me into Communion and fellowship of that righteousness, that is, of that justification and redemption which Christ by the merit of his life and death hath purchased for me, and for all those that believe in him. Therefore the phrase of imputing doth not signify, an act of judgement or estimation, by which a man iudgeth or esteemeth a thing to be as indeed it is.  
Fourthly, neither do any of the instances from Scripture, either of the Old or New Testament, which himself produceth, any thing willingly, or naturally comply with this his description, of the signification of the word, imputing, as will appear to any man, that shall but considerately and unpartially umpire between them.  
Fif●ly▪( and lastly) there are some of these instances, that do manifestly contradict that description of his, and that according to his own interpretation, of the phrase imputing, when he comes to city them. As that 2. Sam. 19. 19. where Shimei saith, Let not my Lord impute iniquity unto me. He doth not( saith Mr. W. and that very truly, but contradictingly to himself) desire that David would not think, nor judge, nor count his iniquity to be no iniquity: this had been against all reason. Therefore( say I) it is against all reason too, that Mr. W. should say that the phrase of imputing both in the Old and New Testament, still signifies an act of judgement and estimation, by which a thing is judged and esteemed, to bee as it is indeed. Shimei's act in cursing David, was iniquity: and yet Shimei desireth( neither doth he herein desire any thing sinful or unlawful on Davids part to grant) that it might not be imputed, as, or for iniquity unto him. So when job pleading with God. job 33. 10. saith that God counted him for his enemy: he doth not charge God foolishly▪ or affirm any thing unworthy of him: and yet job was not Gods enemy, though it be here said, that God counted him so, or, for such. Therefore the phrase of counting or imputing, even when it is applied to God himself, doth not always signify such an act of judgement or estimation, as Mr. W. describeth.  
So in the New Testament, where it is said Rom. 2. 26. that the uncircumcision( viz. of the Heathen keeping the Law) shall be counted for circumcision, it is meant of God himself, that it shall be so counted by him. Yet no man I conceive,( except perhaps Mr. W.) will say, that uncircumcision, is circumcision indeed. Where God is said; not to impute sin( viz▪ to persons believing, and consequently justified) as Rom. 4. 8. 2 Cor. 5. 19. the meaning is not, that God doth not judge or esteem a believer to have sin in him( which were an act of judgement or estimation, whereby the thing were judged ●o be, as it is indeed:) but by Gods not imputing sin, is meant Gods gracious absolving, or discharging such men from guilt, and punishment due unto sin. Therefore to impute sin to a man( in Scripture phrase) and so to impute righteousness▪ signifies an act of a far differing nature a●d importance, from that which Mr. W. lays down, viz an act of iudgement, and whereby a man judgeth and esteemeth a thing to be, as indeed it is. God iudgeth or esteemeth( by an act of knowledge or understanding) every thing to bee, as it is indeed: and yet he counteth one thing for another, which it is not indeed( as you have heard) and so he imputeth one thing for another, which it is not indeed. Take Mr. Ws. one tenet or supposition: the truth hereof will appear no where more evident then in that. God( saith Mr. W.) imputeth the righteousness of Christ unto us, for our righteousness, that is, for that righteousness which we should have performed in our persons. And yet who will affirm( except the before excepted) that the personal righteousness of Christ is the righteousness indeed, which wee should have performed in our own persons? It may be a righteousness of the same nature and kind: and yet be far from being the same righteousness indeed, which requires all the same individuating circumstances, as of time, person, number and nature of acts &c. Therefore how importune is Mr. W. in bringing in that Epiphonêma here, Gods thoughts are always just, and his iudgement according to truth, as if Gods imputing righteousness to him that is a sinner, and hath no righteousness, were an act of injustice in him, and contrary to truth: or as if he had to do with one, that denied either directly or indirectly, either expressly or by consequence, the one or the other. gualther, an Orthodox and learned Interpreter, finds grace and favour, not strictness of iudgement, in the phrase of imputation. Docet imputandi verbum( saith he in his 20. Homily upon the Romans) posse Deum suo erga nos jure uti, gratiae vero eius hoc nos debere, quòd aliter nobiscum agit, quàm nos me●uimus, that is, the phrase of imputation teacheth us, that God might indeed have dealt in strictness of iudgement with us, and that we are indebted to his free grace, that he dealeth not with us as wee have deserved. But concerning the signification or importance of the word, or phrase imputing,( in the business of justification) more afterwards. In the mean time let us examine Mr. Ws. dexterity, in explaining the third word, righteousness: Surely we shall find him no where more left-handed then here. If I knew where his logic or rhetoric were, they deserved a chiding, to give no better attendance upon their Master, where he had such occasion to have used them. But in their absence, this is the best explication of the word, righteousness, he can afford us. By righteousness( saith he) is here meant evangelical righteousness( which is opposed to the legal righteousness of works, which is inherent in every man, and is every mans fulfilling the Law in his own person) even the perfect satisfaction and righteousness of Christ, our mediator and surety, which he the son of God, in mans nature performed to the Law, &c. p. 11. Riddle me, riddle me, what's this? For  
First can Faith in any sense, proper, tropical, metonymical( let beggars themselves be choosers here) be said to be imputed to us for the satisfaction, or righteousness of Christ? I thought Mr. Ws. opinion had been, that this satisfaction or righteousness of Christ, had been imputed to us for some other thing, but no other thing imputed for it. And indeed what( in reason) can bee conceived should be imputed unto us, for▪ or instead of the satisfaction of Christ? especially according to Mr. Ws. notion of imputation, wherein it is required, that the thing imputed, be truly, really, and indeed the same, with that for which it is imputed. Surely there is nothing truly really& indeed the same with the satisfaction of Christ, but this satisfaction itself. And whether any thing may properly be said, to be truly& indeed the same with itself, I refer to Mr. Ws. own determination, when his logic returns again to him. However, if by righteousness( in this place) he will needs understand the righteousness of Christ, here is a relapse into his former acute interpretation, and makes the current of the place this: Faith that is, the righteousness of Christ, is imputed to us for righteousness, that is, for the righteousness of Christ.  Hic furor haud dubius: haec est manifesta phrenesis. 
Secondly why he should call the righteousness of Christ, an evangelical righteousness, and that with such emphatical opposition to the legal, and yet define a legal righteousness to be, every mans fulfilling of the Law in his own person, I want Mr. Ws. intellect to comprehend. Surely Christs righteousness was a fulfilling of the Law in his own person: I do not know( nor I think Mr. W. himself, though he knows so much more then I do) any other man that performed it for him, yea himself( in the close of this period) acknowledgeth it to have been performed by himself unto the Law.  
Thirdly, whereas he affirms a legal righteousness of works to be inherent in every mans person, it may bee he consulted with his own logic about his expression: but surely other mens never advised him so to speak. works or actions are matters transient, not inherent.  
Fourthly, why he should say that to be inherent in every man, which was never inherent in any man,( no not in his own sense of inherency) Christ onely excepted, I believe it would a little trouble him, to give a faire account.  
Fiftly, why he should affirm the evangelical righteousness of Christ to be a satisfaction performed to the Law, i● himself can give no better reason then I can, it must either pass by authority, and by virtue of the writ, Ipse dixit, or else be arrested and stayed. For though the active obedience or righteousness of Christ, may be called a satisfaction to the Law, in as much as the Law requires such obedience from all men: and that properly is a satisfaction either to a person or thing, when the whole is given, that is required or demanded. But how the death or passive obedience of Christ( which I conceive Mr. W. chiefly intendeth, in the word satisfaction) should bee a satisfaction performed to the Law, it will take more of my thoughts to apprehended, then yet I have leisure to bestow upon it. The Law was satisfied in that perfect and entire obedience, which Christ exhibited to it, from the beginning of his life to the end: and did not require of him( no more then it doth of any other man that shall fulfil it, as he did) that he should be made a curse, or die the death. If Mr. Ws. meaning bee, that the death of Christ was a satisfaction performed to the Law for us, or on our behalf, in respect of our sins: I answer that he doth not yet hit the joint: for this is no part of the demands of the Law, that an innocent or righteous person should die, but onely the transgressors and disobedient. Therefore when a righteous person death, it is rather a crossing, then a satisfaction to the Law: because the Law promiseth life, to those that keep and fulfil it,& do●h no ways threaten or impose death upon them. It is true, the death of Christ was satisfactory for the sins of the world; but to whom was it a satisfaction? not to the Law, which neither required, nor demanded it, nor yet had any power to release, or discharge her Prisoners, and condemned ones, upon the tender and payment of it: the Law knows no satisfaction▪ But to God( the Law giver) who had a power over and beyond his Law, it was a satisfaction, because he indeed required it, and to him it was tendered and performed.  
sixthly( and lastly) this Dedalian Divine, makes no clever work, when he jumbles together the active, and passive, obedience of Christ, and sets the passive before the active, and subjecteth them to the same consideration, in respect of their performance to the Law. But his greater oversights are good for nothing, except it be to overshadow his lesser, therefore it is pitty this privilege should be denied unto them.  
I conceive by this time Mr Ws. own heart smites him, and tells him, that he hath not quitted himself in the opening of his Scriptures, answerably to the confidence reposed in him, by those that choose him for their Champion. Pauls imputation is yet a secret; notwithstanding, Mr Ws. interpretation hath passed upon it, yea, by tampering with a false key, he hath made the Lock harder to open then it was before. If any man or Woman, long's for contradictions, or other absurdities of the blood, I can yet relieve them out of this tract of Mr Ws. answer before I leave it.  
Pag. 6 he affirmeth,( and that truly as I conceive) Faith to be the first& radical grace and virtue of renovation: and yet pag 5. in his definition of faith, he supposeth the Subject or person in whom it is wrought, to be regenerate,( which is as much doubtless, as renewed) before. again, pag 9. he affirmeth, that God doth account and judge of all persons and things, so as they are, and yet pag 11. granteth, that God counted job his enemy, which he was not▪ Sop. 5. he defines,& affirms that faith which is here said to be imputed for righteousness, to be the supernatural gift and grace of believing: and yet pag 8. he saith, that God imputes a righteousness which neither consists in any work, or works, nor in any grace, or virtue inherent. and pag. 12. by imputing faith for righteousness, he saith, is meant Gods setting of Christs righteousness on the score, and putting it on the account of every true believer, &c.  Atque idem jungat vulpes, et mulgeat hircos. 
This man can Foxes yoke in Plough,  
And make wild Goates give Milk enough.  
But thus much for contradictions in this place; and I think well too( all things considered.) Pag 7 and 8. Pretending to define that Faith, which the Apostle saith is imputed for righteousness: he defines a strong Faith, or Faith in the highest degree. So that if Mr Ws. Divinity were Gospel, woe to the weake-faith'd Christian,( how true soever his Faith should be) he must to Hell notwithstanding: such faith is not capable of Pauls imputation for righteousness: for pag 6. in laying down the second difference( as he calls it) between the faith the Apostle meaneth, and the natural habit or power of faith, he affirmeth, the Spirit of God, in working that faith, confirms the heart with CONFIDENCE, AND firm persuasion; you shall find words of like importance in the very definition itself, which he gives of this faith pag 6. I will not be troublesone to him, in desiring him to show his licence, for making the 4 Kings slaughtered by Abraham, so mighty, p 7. Onely this I say, that in such his advancement of their pvissance, and greatness, he doth not Dogmatize with my Authors, nor with the common opinion, which makes the Kings of those times, in comparison of the Kings that now are on Earth, but as grasshoppers, in respect of giants: nor( as far as I am able to apprehended) with the Scriptures themselves, which make five several Kings of five Cities, which were situate no great distance the one from the other, and besides some of them, none of the largest, Gen. 14. 2. Lastly, pag 12. where he saith, that God sets Christ righteousness on the score, and puts it on the account of every true believer: I would gladly know, whether his meaning be, that God accounteth every believer to have done and suffered, the things which Christ did and suffered, or what other tolerable construction or meaning can be fitted to those expressions. If God puts the righteousness itself, of Christ, upon a believers score, he must put the merit of it also upon the same score, for these are inseparable. If he puts the merit of Christs righteousness upon this score, he must put all the fruits and effects of this merit also; for these likewise are as inseparable as the other. And so God shall account every true believer to have redeemed, justified, and saved the world.  For the confirmation of this exposition, and justifying 
M. W. from p. 12▪ to 15.  of this truth, &c. 
Here the Answerer buckles on his harness, and means to fight stoutly for his beloved Dalila, the beautiful interpretation hitherto given by him, of the words in question: onely I desire you to remember, and to carry steadily, and distinctly in mind with you, what this interpretation was, that so you may the better discern and judge, how close the suit of his Arguments and proofs, sits upon the back of his interpretation to be proved. The sum and effect of his interpretation( as you have heard) and if any thing can be made of it, this is) Faith aprehending Christ or the righteousness of Christ, is imputed to a believer, for the Evangelicall righteousness of Christ. Now let us see how he laye's about him, and with what singular Dexterity, and learning, he proves twice fifteen, to make just three and twenty.  
The first Argument( saith he) is drawn from the words of the Apostle, Rom. 2. 26. &c. He may well say, his Argument is drawn, and might have added, Obtorto collo, by head and shoulders: the man in forging this argument, labours( as it were) in the very fire, and though he gives it heat upon heat, yet he brings it to no shape or perfection at all, at the last, but is in the managing of it, as a wild Bull in a Net( which is the prophet Esay's comparison in another case) who beats and tears himself with struggling, but knows not how to expedite or deliver himself ever the more. If a mans reason, wits, or understanding, had offended him, Mr. W. hath provided rods of Scorpions in the carriage of this Argument, to scourge them with. I might very lawfully excuse myself from saying any thing by way of answer to this Argument, by authority of that saying, Quod non vult intelligi, debet negligi, that is, 
understood what will not be,  
To neglect you may be free.   
Mr. W. himself I hope will( in part) excuse me, if I cannot find out the quadrature of his circled: I confess I was never made for that speculation, neither take I any contentment to fish in such troubled waters? However, something must be done, Gamesters must play bad games and hard casts, as well as good.  
The Scripture Mr. W. so largely insist's upon, to prove his interpretation of the former, viz that faith( in a tropical sense, that is, as it signifieth the righteousness of Christ) is imputed to a believer, for the Evangelicall righteousness of Christ is this: Rom. 2. 26. If the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the Law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? Surely this Scripture, if it were well managed, would do good Service towards the pulling down of the said Interpretation, but for the building of it up, it can do none at all, till itself be pulled down; I mean the true sense and meaning of it destroyed, which Mr W. labours hard, and with both his hands to do in this place; and yet when he hath done all, he hath( upon the matter) done nonothing. For if all the particulars were granted in the first and most liberal manner, for which he contendeth about the meaning of this Scripture, yet would they operate no more, then what might be summed up in a cipher, towards the establishing of the other interpretation,( which is the thing intended by him) as will evidently appear to a considering Reader. What if he could prove that here were trope, upon trope, and mountaines of metonymies; doth this prove a necessity of finding either the same number, or the same kind of tropes or figures, in an other Scripture? And yet in this consequence, lieth the best part of the strength and sinews of Mr. Ws. Argument from this place.  
But let us make something of nothing, as well as we can, and give you a taste of his profound interpretation of this Scripture. By uncircumcision( saith he) in the former clause, we cannot understand the foreskin of the flesh &c.( but a gentle not circumcised, &c.) By the same word in the latter clause, not the foreskin, or uncircumcision, in a proper sense &c. but the state and condition of him that is uncircumcised, and yet not this neither barely considered in it self, but as comprehending in it the righteousness of the Law, &c. And yet immediately he adds, that this word further in this very place, signifieth the man in the state of uncircumcision, keeping the righteousness of the Law, and yet this figuratively too, for the righteousness of the Law, by him performed. I think we are in the Quagmires or quick-sands already, but let us go forward, and we shall be sure to be in before we have done. By circumcision( saith further towards the opening of this Scripture) we cannot understand, the outward cutting away, of the foreskin of the flesh, &c. but by circumcision is here meant the circumcision of the heart, in the spirit. The word {αβγδ} shall be counted, signifies( in a full sense) judging, counting, accepting, and using accordingly. Thus we have( with much ado) spelled Mr. Ws. interpretation of this Scripture. Now let us put together, and see what we have gotten. If a gentle not circumcised, keep the Law, shall not his state and condition, not barely considered in itself, but as comprehending in it, the righteousness of the Law, that is, The man in the state of uncircumcision, keeping the righteousness of the Law, that is, the righteousness of the Law by him performed, be judged▪ accepted, and used accordingly, as the circumcision of the heart in the Spirit? This is the express tenor, and carriage of his exposition of this Scripture, conceived in his own words, without either adding any thing, or diminishing any thing,( to my knowledge) which should make matters any whit worse, or more exorbitant, from sense or reason, then as himself hath delivered them. Something I have left out, which would be as oil to increase the fire, and would burden the interpretation further, as viz. where he brings up a false report upon Gods gracious intent, in giving the Sacrament, or seal of circumcision, to the Jews. It was( saith he) an obligation, by which the circumcised was bound under pain of cutting off forever, to perform the whole Law, and to prove this so irrational, and extravagant a supposition, he misuseth that Scripture, Gal. 5. 3. I testify to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole Law, which place doth not speak of any obligation upon men from God, to do the whole Law, under pain of damnation, or cutting off for ever, for then miserable had the case and condition been of the whole Nation of the Iewes, who generally, from the time when circumcision was first given by God, to their Father Abraham, were circumcised till now, and yet certainly none of them performed the whole Law, but failed or offended more or less, in many things( as james speaketh) and so by the cruel Sword of Mr. Ws. interpretation, must be all cut off from God for ever. But the Apostles meaning clearly in this Scripture is to show, that if any man were circumcised in such a way, or with any such purpose or intent, as the jewish teachers of circumcision amongst them urged, and pressed them unto: that is, with a conceit of the necessity thereof to justification; then were they in reason bound, as well to observe all other points of the Law, as that of circumcision, there being no ground to hope they should be justified, by the observation of one thing in the Law, if any other were neglected. For the rule of God in this case is, Cursed be he that continueth not in all things that are written in the Law, to do them. This is Calvins exposition of this place, or very little differing from it. But when men cry out against reason, as the Answerer in great passion doth, in the sequel of his discourse, they receive but a just recompense, of reward, to be delivered up into the hand of Non-sense. But let Non-sense say what it will, the man will not be dashed out of countenance, by it, but will need's set this Crown of fine Gold, upon the head of his Leaden interpretation, strike it off who dares, and makes him a Rebel, or traitor, that shall rise up against it. This sense, and meaning, of the words and of this phrase, is so clear, and manifest, and so perfectly agreeable to all true reason, that none can deny it, unless he will set himself to rebel against the light. I thought he would have liked his interpretation the worse, for being agreeable to any reason, and so would any other man think, that shall but red his invective. Pag 27. against that great enemy of his, which still thwarteth, and contradicteth him, in most of his undertakings▪ Right Reason. And it doth no less in this place, though here he would fain be friends, and scrape acquaintance with it.  
But when he comes to parallel the Scripture last interpnted by him( as you have heard) and his interpretation thereof, with the Scriptures in question, and attempts a conformity between them in their interpretations, he falls into such a rhetorical rage and fury, and buffets his reader, so thick and so fast, with tropes, and figures, that it is not for a mean man to come near his meaning( at least if his meaning be mans meat, any thing prepared for the understanding) by 40 foot. He had need have Angels for his readers, or men of angelical comprehensions, otherwise his tyrannicall and stern Oratory, will be ready to laugh them in the face to scorn: Onely thus much, a man of low apprehensions, and that wants both logic, and rhetoric,( as Mr. W. lamentably complains, pag 28. 29. that his adversary doth) may evidently perceive; that here with his left handed Retorique, he quiter pulls down the good interpretation of the word Faith, or believing( in his Scripture) which he had formerly built up with his right-handed reason. For if you look back to pag 6. there you shall find him with this description of that faith, or believing, which is here said to be imputed to Abraham for righteousness. Here by Faith we are to understand, that supernatural gift, and grace of believing, wrought in the Elect by the Spirit, &c. Which whether it be a description, or definition of faith properly( yea, most properly) taken, I am not much afraid to make the party himself Judge. Yet in this place page.. 14.( heu regni, rerumque oblitus suarum, alas forgetful of his great affairs? he delivers( or rather indeed, entangles) himself thus. We must by Abrahams believing, by a metalepsis, or double trope, understand Abrahams standing in the state of a true believer, united, &c. And presently after, By Faith imputed, or counted for righteousness, we must not understand, faith in a proper sense, but by a double trope, for the estate and condition, of a true faithful man &c.  Quo teneam vultus mutantem Portea nodo? 
It's hard to know what knot to tie,  
To make wild Porteus skill to lye.  
If Abrahams standing in the state of a true believer, united, &c. be that supernatural gift, and grace of believing, wrought in the Elect, by the Spirit, &c.( as Mr. W. hath synonymizd them) Xanthe retro propera, &c. Let Xanthus backward run, and Rivers all turn head- upon their fountains— Yea, the m●n is so intemperate in contradictions, that in the very next page., towards the close he affirmeth, that which( ineffect) he had 7 times denied before, viz. That the faith of that man which doth not rest on his own works for justification, as comprehending in it Christ and his righteousness, is counted for righteousness unto him, because it settles him in the state of a righteous man: which tenet, according to the plain, and direct importance of the words. If it be Mr. Ws. opinion, and judgement indeed, in this controversy; I cannot sufficiently wonder, what oracle he consulted with, about this serious and sad War he hath made against those Notes of mine I left with him, which I know as certainly have nothing in them, little nor much, against this opinion; as I know that Mr. W. hath misused them with his iron intellect. I pass by many other things, which the Answerer hath let fall in the carriage of this his first Argument, obnoxious enough to the obelisque, because I would deliver both myself and reader, upon as good terms of dispatch, as conveniently may be.  
A second Argument to confirm the expositions, is drawn 
Mr. W. p. 15. 16.  from the Apostles words; ver. 4. The strength of this argument( if it hath any) may be considered of, in this syllogism.  


That thing which is counted for righteousness, bringeth with it a reward to the believer, which is counted not of debt, but of grace( which reward is eternal life, as he rightly enough supposeth.)  
But it is the righteousness and satisfaction of Christ, not faith, that brings the reward of eternal life with it.  
Therefore it is the righteousness and satisfaction of Christ, and not faith, that is imputed for righteousness to a believer.    
I answer, first to the Proposition, by distinguishing that expression, bringeth with it a reward, out of it's ambiguity, whereof the Disputer makes his whole advantage in this Argument( being indeed his own Language, and not the Language of that Scripture, upon which he pretends to build his Argument) A thing may be said to bring with it a reward, two several ways at least( besides many others,) either first by way of voluntary and free Covenant, or compact; or secondly, by way of merit, or just retribution, and compensation. As for example, a man may promise to as many as he pleaseth, that if they will but come over the way to him, he will give them the same money or reward, upon their coming, which the Law appointeth( or which equity and conscience would allow) to a Labourer for 7 dayes work or Labour. In this case, the crossing the way onely, by virtue of the promise made upon such terms, brings the same reward with it, which the labour, and travail of 7 dayes doth. If Mr W. takes the phrase of bringing with it a reward in the former sense, viz. by way of Covenant, the proposition is granted for truth: but then his assumption will halt right down; Because Faith brings with it a reward in this sense, as well as the satisfaction of Christ doth in the other. If he means the clause in the other sense, viz. by way of merit: so the pr●position is to be arrested for falsehood; for that which is accounted for righteousness, doth not necessary bring with it a reward, upon such terms, or in such a way. God in a gracious, and free Covenant, hath promised the same( if not greater) reward, to those that shall believe in Iesus Christ, which he hath promised to those that shall keep the whole Law.  
To the Assumption I likewise answer, that it is sick of that common disease in argumentation, which they call, fallacia divisionis. Those things are divided and put asunder, which God hath joined together, viz. Christ and Faith, in bringing the great reward of eternal life unto the creature. See joh. 3. 16. joh. 6. 40. Rom. 5. 1. 2. besides other places( without number) of like importance: in all which, Faith or believing in Christ, is found in perfect conjunction with Christ himself,( not in opposition to him, as here it is) about the matter of justification and salvation. It's true, there is an opposition between Christ and Faith, even in the business of justification; but this is in the manner, not in the matter itself of justification: for both justify Christ and faith( Rom 5. 1, 2.) and consequently, both bring eternal life: but Christ doth it in that way which is meet for him and proper to him, and Faith doth it in another way proper to it. Christ justifieth, by way of merit, satisfaction, and attonement-making with God for sin: Faith justifieth, as ordained by God to bring men into Communion and fellowship of that ransom, atonement, or satisfaction which Christ hath made. Therefore this minor proposition also is manifestly false, which makes an opposition between Christ and Faith in justification itself( wherein the Scriptures still make them to accord) whereas the opposition that is between them, stands in the several manner, or diversity of influence into the same justification.  
His third argument followeth, which is built clean besides the foundation it claimeth, which is the sixth and seventh verses of this Chapter, where God is said to impute righteousness without works to him that believeth. This Argument, if any thing at all can bee made of it,( which indeed is very little) must rise up in this form of reason.  
If the thing imputed by God, be righteousness, and no righteousness else is to bee found amongst mankind, but Christs perfect righteousness onely, then must the righteousness of Christ, needs be that which is imputed for righteousness.  said verum prius: ergo& posterius. 
To this argument I answer. First that the conclusion which he here raiseth from the promises, viz that Christs righteousness must needs be that which is imputed for righteousness to a believer, is diametrally opposite to himself, in several passages of this discourse already examined, and particularly to what he affirmed towards the close of his first argument, viz. that the Faith of a man, which doth not rest on his own works for justification, comprehending in it Christ and his righterousnes, is imputed for righteousness unto him. Surely faith comprehending the righteousness of Christ, and righteousness of Christ comprehended by Faith, are as far differing one from the other, as Mr. Ws. opinion and mine are in this controversy, take them at their greatest elongation.  
Secondly, I answer more particularly and fully, that had Mr. W. understood the Apostles phrase, of imputing righteousness( verse 6.) he would never have sought footing for any such argument here. He supposeth, that when God is said to impute righteousness to a believer, he must needs have a proper, literal and pre-existent righteousness for the matter of such his imputation, or otherwise he conceiveth the Apostles expression cannot stand, which supposition we may number amongst many other Mr. Ws. mistakes in this his answer, and yet not do it the least wrong: For  
First it is not here said, that God imputeth {αβγδ}( with an article) a righteousness; but indefinitely, and without an article, {αβγδ} righteousness, which is a faire intimation( at least) that he doth not here speak of any particular or special righteousness fixed in any subject, as the righteousness of Christ is.  
Secondly if by righteousness here said to bee imputed by God, be meant the righteousness of Christ, then according to the tenor of Mr. Ws. own exposition, formerly mentioned, the strain of the Apostle in this passage must be this, that God imputeth the righteousness of Christ, for the righteousness of Christ, to him that believeth see page. 11.  
Thirdly, that imputing righteousness to a believer, which is here ascribed to God is said to be an imputing righteousness, without works. Now the righteousness of Christ is so far from being a righteousness without works, that works are the very substance and essence of it. If it be objected and said, that this is meant concerning a mans own works, that God imputes the righteousness of Christ unto him, without th●se, not otherwise; To this I answer, First that such a distinction or limitation as this is, hath no foundation, at al either in this or any other Scripture. Secondly, here is not the least necessity, or occasion to invocate the aid or assistance of any such distinction. Here is no streight or difficulty against which we should be relieved by it. Now to coin distinctions, where there is neither ground in Scripture, nor necessity in reason for it, is no less then( being interpnted) to coin new Scriptures. Thirdly( and lastly) it is but vain and frivolous,( especially quoad homines, in respect of those that maintain Mr. Ws. way of imputation, because they hold, that this righteousness of Christ imputed; by virtue of this imputation becomes or is made ours, so, or upon such terms, as if it were in dead, and in truth, properly and personally ours, and performed by ourselves. But  
Fourthly, if by righteousness, which God is here said to impute, be meant the righteousness of Christ, then is the description or explication of this imputed righteousness which immediately followeth,( verse 7. and 8.) very impertinent and unproper, being conceived and laid down in these three expressions, the forgiveness of iniquities, the covering of sins, the not imputing sin. The imputing of Christs righteousness( in the sense pretended) is much more then the forgiveness of iniquities; or the not imputing sin. As the putting on of glorious apparel upon a man, is much more, then not to cloath him with rags. Therefore  
Fifthly,( and lastly) by Gods imputing righteousness in this place, is meant, onely his justifying men, or( according to Mr. Ws. own Interpretation of this Scripture phrase, pag. 10. of this his discourse) a dealing with men, and using them accordingly, as if they were righteous. To ●mpute righteousness, is a short periphrasis, or description, of the act of absolution, justification, with reference to the rights and privileges, belonging thereunto, as to impute sin, expresseth the Act of charge, or condemnation, with reference to the evil or punishments ensuing thereupon. In this sense you shall find the very phrase of imputing righteousness, or righteousness imputed, used in the eleventh verse of this Chapter, for passive justification, or, being justified, where the Apostle hath these words concerning Abraham, that he should be the Father,( i.e. the grand example, pattern, or leader) of all that believe, not being circumcised, that righteousness might be,( or rather should be) imputed to them also, that is, that they should be justified as he was. Let the best Interpreters be consulted withall about the sense of this phrase, Imputing righteousness( in this place), I do not believe any one will be found to contradict the Interpretation now given, or by righteousness, to understand the righteousness of Christ. certain I am, that as far as my short library will reach, I have my books, my Friends, in this exposition: Ergo justitia Dei( saith Musculus upon the place) quae gratis imputatur, est non imputari peccatum. that is, the righteousness which God here freely imputeth, is the not imputation of sin, which( according to his opinion, again, and again, expressed both in this Chapter, and elsewhere) is nothing else but justification itself. Notandum est,( saith he, a little before the words cited) remissionem pecatorum esse justiciam nostram: i. It is from hence to be observed, that remission of sins is our righteousness,( or justification) and so goeth on to demonstrate this conclusion from the context. For brevities sake, I forbea●e other Authors, as Calvin, Peter Martyr, gualther, &c. in whose Commentaries upon these two places, there is not the least intimation that by the word righteousness, should be meant the righteousness of Christ. And thus you see the doom of Mr. Ws. third Argument, which is, to vanish into nothing.  

His fourth Argument follows, but succeeds not, neither: if the Author would have pleased to have given it any Shape or form, it must have been this.  
If that which is here said to be imputed to Abraham, is for righteousness to justification, and there be nothing that will serve for such righteousness, but that which is found in Christ our mediator, then must somewhat in Christ, here be said to be imputed to Abraham, and not his faith. But the Antecedent in this proposition, is true. Therefore the Consequent must needs be true also; and so it must be somewhat in Christ, viz. his righteousness that is said here to be imputed to Abraham.  
There is nothing in this Argument, but what( for the substance of it) was contained in the two former, and hath been already sufficiently answered. Not to repeat that which I observed in answer to his former Argument, viz. That the conclusion which here he seeks to establish, makes every whit as much, and as directly against himself, as against me: I onely add this( to stop the mouth of importunity) that there is indeed nothing that will serve meritoriously unto justification, but the righteousness or satisfaction of Christ; but there are several things that may serve ministerially, or instrumentally thereunto. The word of God may as well, and as properly, be said to justify men( instrumentally) as to give them an inheritance amongst those that are sanctified. Act. 20. 32. And so the Minister of God, may be as well said to justify men( instrumentally, or ministerially) as to save them, which yet is ascribed to him. 1 Tim. 4. 16. And so faith itself,( I mean faith in Christ) is in 20 places said, sometimes to save men, sometimes to justify men, viz. instrumentally, or ministerially, being( as it were) the Officer appointed by God, to bring men into part and fellowship, of that righteousness, or justification which Christ hath purchased, and procured, for the world: and is therefore said to be imputed unto them for righteousness( or unto righteousness, {αβγδ}) because God requireth nothing more of them to their justification, but onely to believe in his Son Iesus Christ.  
Mr. Ws. Fift, and last argument, comes now upon the Stage, but hath such a viz or upon the face of it, that a man cannot tell of what Shape or complexion it is, only thus far the thing is evident, from his own words, that here he Starts, or rather Coniures up a new Conclusion, as far differing from what he laboured to conclude in his 4 former arguments, as the East is from the West. For thus he writes here( stylo novo) that the imputing, or counting a thing for righteousness, is no more but DECLARING a man thereby to be righteous, and giving him the testimony of righteousness, &c. And this he labours in the fire, to prove from that clause, in Psal. 106. ver. 31. where Phineas zealous act in executing judgement, is said to be imputed to him for righteousness. So that by his reasoning in this place, he seems plainly to deny, that a man is constituted, or made righteous, or truly, and really justified by the imputation of Christs righteousness, or satisfaction itself unto him, but onely that he is declared to be such, and to receive a testimony thereby that he is such. If his meaning be otherwise, his words and he are of two mindes. If this be to reason, or to rove, let reasonable men judge. But, Omnis Aristippum decuit colour, that is, Brave Aristippus all things did become.  
Yet doth not the Scripture he allegeth, prove that heterogeneal conclusion of his, for that Clause, of Gods imputing that zealous act of his for righteousness, doth not import any testimony from God, of his personal righteousness, or of his justified estate before God, but onely of the righteousness or justifiablenesse of that particular act. Videbatur( saith Musculus upon the place) factum Phine as et crudele inse, et temerarium respectu personae: Ideo ex ipso ore Dei, &c. i.e. This fact of Phine as seemed cruel in itself, and rash, in respect of the person: wherefore it was expressed by the mouth of God himself, that he was righteously zealous, and had the honour of the Priesthood, added; as a testimony that that his fact was approved of God. If I were in Mr. Ws. case, I could not tell how to bring over this Orthodox Author to me, in such an interpretation: but Autolycus had an art to make  Candida de ingris, et de candentibus atra. White Cowes of black, and black of white again. 
In the conclusion of this Argument, he tells us,( in effect) that were it not for fear of writing a large volume, he would insist upon human testimonies, and the opinons of Orthodox expositors, for the further proof of his exposition. So that( it seems) he hath hitherto insisted onely upon himself, and his own opinion, in his exposition, which I verily believe: and for his human testimonies, whereof( Fencer-like) he boasts. I am full of jealousy, that they would prove no better then his Divine testimonies have been, which( as you have seen) have been as little to his purpose, as his adversary could wish them.   

The Confutation of the false exposition made by Socinus, 
Mr. W. pag. 18, 19. &c.  and other heretics, his Disciples, as Wotton, Goodwin, and their Companions.  
Bona verba quaeso, Good Sir, good words I pray you. I am sorry, you should turn a Heretique-maker in your old dayes; you had better( a great deal) make Candle-sticks. The Pope makes Saints, and Mr. W. makes heretics; which( think we) is the honester Profession? as for their Art and Authority, in their Professions, I take them to be much the same. How either Wotton, or Goodwin, became either heretics, or Disciples of Socinus, or why they should be so accounted or called, the accuser of his Brethren doth not show.  
But though Mr. W. might make bold to sacrifice the Name and Credit of that hiobular fellow, Goodwin, upon the service of his furious fancy; it may be, he might think him good for little else: yet the worth, learning, and reputation, of the other, might have been a bridle in his lips, to have kept him from falling so foul upon him, especially having now taken Sanctuary in the Grave: which should be a privileged place( at least for the Servants of God) from the rage of tongues.  
Mr Wotton was a man I never knew( by face); but as well by his writings, as by the general report, and testimony, of those that knew him, and somebody else, it is easy to determine which was the Thistle, and which the Cedar in Lebanon.  
{αβγδ},  
{αβγδ}  
{αβγδ}.  
Thersites yet alone would needs with foul mouth bluster,  
Who knew to speak at large, but to his own disgrace,  
'gainst Princes vainly with bold words to fluster, &c.  
But how unsavoury, importune, and impudent, Mr Ws. charge of socinianism upon the other, and the opinion maintained by him in this controversy, is, hath been discovered already, and( I think) so fully, that Mr. W. will have much ado to cover it again. Besides, in making me Socinian, and heretic, for what I hold concerning the imputation of faith, he clotheth himself with the same shane, affirming the very same thing which I do herein, more then once and again, in this his worthy answer. And whether that which was observed in the beginning of his fifth and last Argument, doth not smell ranker and stronger, of the Socinian Dunghill, then any thing that ever was maintained by me, I refer to men that have their noses about them, to judge.  
Concerning his Confutation, of the false exposition, made by Socinus, Goodwin, Wotton, &c.( as he pretendeth) upon which he very bountifully bestoweth 8 whole pages and upwards, I verily believe, that none of all the three, nor any of their companions( as the courtesy of his pen compliments with he knows not whom) ever conceived, or delivered that exposition, upon which he poureth out his wrath in black, in so lasting a storm: but it is a man of Paper, made and set up by himself, to exercise his artillery, and to keep his hand in ure. And therefore it is pitty to trouble him in all this discourse, since he doth no body any harm, but onely finds himself exercise, and employment, with his own shadow. As for the other two, I shall leave them to stand or fall,( in this exposition) by their own writings, onely this I cannot but think and say, that Mr. W. surely rather dreams, then reads what mens opinions, and Interpretations are: yea though, he hath their books and writings, before him, yet he seems feerefull to trust, or believe these, and thinks it more safe to rely upon one straggling imagination of his own, for the certainty of their opinions, then upon the plainest, and most express words uttered by themselves. If I were to begin again, I would not reason with such a Spirit for Shoo-buckles.  
But for this tempestuous, and fulminant quarter, of his discourse, wherein he lays on sore, where it lights ( but that is no where but on his own fancy) I shall pass the lighter over it,( that so I may hasten to what he hath in particular charge against me) because here is little, but what( in effect) he had said before, and hath been accordingly answered already; except it be some higher and fouler streyns of portentous revilings: to all which, the best answer is, {αβγδ}: The Lord rebuk thee.  
I shall onely propound( and that with as much brevity as may be) some sober and calm questions to him, about some particulars in these pages.  
First I would know, from what fountain, Mr. W. drank that draft of Divinity, that Faith in Iesus Christ, whereby the Scriptures still affirm a man to be justified. Rom. 5. 1. 2. &c. taken in a proper sense, should be a part of our obedience to the Law? pag. 18. certainly, entire obedience to the whole Law, was required of Adam in the state of innocency, but no man( I think the man of exceptions onely excepted, Mr. W. I mean) will affirm, that Adam in this condition, was bound to believe in Iesus Christ, for his justification, the Law not being of Faith( as the Apostle affirmeth, Gal. 3. 12.)  
Secondly I would know, where either Wotton or Goodwin teach, that wee are justified( meritoriously, or else the charge vanisheth) by a work of obedience to the Law? Ibidem.  
Thirdly, how Mr. W. proves, that the righteousness imputed to Abraham was a perfect conformity to the Law? page. 19.  
Fourthly how it followeth, that God must needs err lie, and judge unrighteously, if he, imputeth righteousness to any man without works? ibidem.  
again how Mr. W. proveth that the imputation of faith for righteousness, makes the satisfaction of Christ, and his perfect fulfilling the Law, a vain and needless thing? Mr. G. conceiveth, that it establisheth both the one and the other. Ibidem.  
again: how Mr. W. can bring it about either by Scripture or reason, that the making of Christs satisfaction ours, as truly as if we had fulfilled the Law in our persons, should bee a means, whereby God is revealed to be infinitely just, merciful and wise? Mr. G. conceiveth, that if Christs satisfaction were made ours upon no better terms, then as if wee had fulfilled the Law in our own persons, it would stand us in little stead for our justification: because he supposeth, that man having once sinned and fallen, could never have been justified by the fulfilling of the Law in his own person, though he had fulfilled and kept it as perfectly as Christ did, a thousand times over. page. 20.  
again whether Mr. W. doth not think, that God did dispense with his iustice, when he passed by the sinner, and inflicted the punishment of death upon the innocent? or whether he will call either the one, or the other, an act of iustice? Mr. G. conceiveth that Gods iustice lead him directly to the sinner, to execute vengeance upon him: and that it was his mercy that lead him aside from him that had deserved death, to another that had not deserved it. Ibidem.  
again: what should move Mr. W. to think or say, that those that hold imputation of Faith for righteousness, should deny Communion with Christ in his satisfaction: when as Mr. G. still affirmeth, that that faith which is imputed for righteousness, is ordained by God to bring men into Communion, and fellowship with Christ in his satisfaction: and by virtue of such ordination, justifieth instrumentally, or( which is the same) is imputed for righteousness? page. 19.  
again: how doth Mr. W. prove, that the Authors of Imputation of faith for righteousness, deny the infinite iustice of God to stand in strength, or to require such a satisfaction as Christ God and man made? page. 22. when as they conceive no possibility of such imputation, but by virtue of such satisfaction: neither can they imagine any such faith, as they conceive to bee imputed for righteousness, without supposing a mediator, God and man, on whom it should rest, and who gives it that very nature and being which it hath. It is true, they deny, that the iustice of God simply and absolutely required such a satisfaction as Christ, God and man made: but upon supposition, that God would bring many sons to Glory, and save that which was lost, they deny it not. But their denial, or not denial in this kind, hath little dependence upon the point of imputation.  
Again how doth it appear, that the men under the lash of Mr. Ws. tongue, hold, that God by his sovereign power, may do and will things contrary to his iustice( p. 22.)  
again: how doth it appear, that to count or accept that for righteousness,( or unto righteousness) which is not righteousness( that is a legal righteousness) must needs be contrary to Gods justice: whereas Mr. W. himself holdeth, that God accepts Christs righteousness and satisfaction, for every mans personal righteousness, that believeth; which yet I presume, himself will not say, is every mans personal righteousness, in dead and in truth: at least not that personal righteousness, for, and instead of which it is( according to his mind) so accepted p 22. But of this enough, and enough before.  
again where Mr. W. finds it, that either Wotton or Goodwin, deny Christs righteousness, to bee the righteousness of true believers, page. 22. Indeed they deny it, sensu Walkeriano, that is, Apocrypho; to be the righteousness by which they are formally justified in the sight of God: but they affirm it to bee that righteousness, by which, and by which alone, they are justified meritoriously in the sight of God. But they affirm it to be that righteousness by which, and by which alone, they are justified meritoriously in the sight of God. And this they conceive imports as full, as deep, as entire a propriety in it, as that apocryphal propriety which Mr. W. would( if he knew how) entitle them unto.  
again, where the men he wot's of, argue, that the righteousness of one, cannot be sufficient for all the Elect▪( pag. 23.) whereas they maintain, the righteousness and satisfaction, of Christ, to be sufficient, both for all the Elect, and Non-elect too, but with a Scriptures sufficiency too, not an apocryphal. That the same acts of obedience to the moral Law, should the Letter, and formality of them, make a moral, or legal righteousness, that should fit all men, and women, of all Callings, and Conditions, in the world, they hold it every whit, as senseless, and unreasonable, as that the same garment should fit all Statures, and Proportions of bodies, or the same show, all feet of all sizes; And they conceive the Scriptures to be as far from affirming the one as the other. And yet they fully believe, that the righteousness and satisfaction of Christ, taken together, in the Spirit, or merit, of them, are, as of absolute necessity, so of absolute sufficiency, for the justification of a world of Sinners.  
again, what colour, or appearance of reason, Mr. W. can bring, that they should overthrow the Doctrine of Redemption, and Christs satisfaction, who deny, that men may be properly said to have satisfied Gods justice themselves in Christ? pag. 23. certainly, a difference about propriety of speaking, doth not overthrow a fundamental Article of faith. But Mr. W.( Womanlike) molliter irasci non novit, knows not how to chide under heresy and Blasphemy: well, for all this great wrath that is boiled up to such a height in Mr. Ws. breast, against me, I shall still think it safer, both to think and say, that Christ satisfied the justice of God for me, then that I myself satisfied the iustice of God for myself.  
again, What ferventnes of opinion it is, or what contrariety there is in it, either to common sense or reason, to deny any formal legal righteousness, in justification: justification, consisting onely in remission of sins, ( as both Scriptures, and Calvin, and many a worthy Divine more with him, jointly testify) pag. 23. as I have proved at large, elsewhere.  
again, What those express words are, Rom 5. 19. and 8. 4. and 10. 4. wherein the Apostle should affirm, that the faithful are constituted and made formally righteous, by the obedience of Christ communicated, and imputed unto them, pag 24. I cannot in all those Scriptures find so much as one express word▪ either of the communication, much less of the imputation of Christs righteousness to the faithful, least of all, of their being made formally righteous by such imputation. And yet if Mr. W. could be persuaded to use a mans words kindly, I would grant also, that we are justified even formally too, by the communication of Christs righteousness, and satisfaction, to us, viz. In as much as by such communication we obtain remission of sins, which is our formal justification. Therefore we do not deny a formal righteousness in justification( as Mr. W. ignorantly, or falsely, which he will, chargeth us) but onely a legal, formal, righteousness.  
again, where he finds it to be any branch of the Pelagian heresy, to deny that Adams posterity, are made formally sinners, with Adams sin imputed to them in the Letter, and formality of it? pag. 24.  
again, Who they are that deny, that Infants, dying before they commit actual sin, are punished by death, because they are guilty of Adams sin; or affirmeth, that God out of his iustice destroyeth innocent Babes? pag 24. But Mr. W. may please to understand( if he be not too much inamourd upon the lovelesse face of confusion) that it is one thing to have the guilt of Adams sin derived upon his posterity, another thing to have the act of his sin( in the Letter, and formality of it) imputed to his posterity, so that for such imputation, they should all be destroyed. I do not think the former was ever denied, either by Wotton, or Goodwin. Neither do I think the latter will ever be proved by Mr. W. And therefore ridiculous is that qualification, which he seeks to apply to ease the destruction of innocent Babes( as he calls them) in affirming, that by the word and Law of God they were not to die for the sins of their Parents, unless they be partakers with them, either by communion▪ and imputation, or by imitation, and approbation,( as if imitation, and approbation, were no communion with them in their sins, being indeed, the greatest, and deepest of all) or as if the destruction of these Babes, were at all lightened, or eased, because God is pleased to impute their Parents sins unto them: or as if the iustice of God in the destruction of such Babes, were ever the more cleared, or justified, by Mr. Ws. imputation of the acts of the Parents sin, then by the charging of the guilt, or demerit, of such sins upon them: especially considering, that howsoever the act of God, involving Adams posterity in the guilt of his sin, or exposing them to condemnation for it, was a righteous and just act in him; that is, was nothing but what he might lawfully, and justly do: yet was it no act of his iustice, whereunto he was necessitated, but an act of his will and free pleasure: as Dr. Twist, and other Divines teach, and aclowledge▪ For the charge he puts upon us of the Children of konrah, be shall do well to name who have made that use of them, he speaks of, and let them answer for them.  
again, How they that deny the imputation of Christs righteousness,( viz. In the Letter, and formality of it) to believers, do hereby give or ascribe as much justification by it to Infidels, and impenitent Reprobates, as to believers themselves?( pag. 25.) when as they so expressly affirm and maintain, that Faith is the onely means ordained by God, to bring men into communion with Christ, and to give them part in that great benefit of Redemption, which was purchased for the world by him.  
again, how Mr. W. can possibly avoid the same absurdity himself, which he falsely charged his adversaries with, in the former quere viz the bringing in of Infidels, as well as believers, for justification, by Christ, when-as he affirmeth the new Covenant by Christ, to be no ways conditional, nor faith itself, to be any condition of the Covenant, to be performed on our part, for our justification, and salvation▪ In which conceit( certainly) he is, A pierce A. and hath no man either at his right-hand or at his left, to stand by him, or relieve▪ him therein.  
again( once more) how Mr. W. can prove it to be a mistake( I shall be content to abate and ease him of the fag end of the tasque, the grossness, and absurdity, of it) to hold or say, that justification and life▪ are promised, upon condition of believing, pag. 25. Either they are promised absolutely, and without all condition, or they are promised upon some other condition, besides believing, or they are promised upon the condition of believing; or lastly, they are not promised at all. If they be absolutely and without all condition what doth faith or believing, conduce to the obtaining them? Mr. Ws. distinction, between the condition of obtaining a promise and the means or way of obtaining a promise, puts me in mind of the Physitians wife, in Bishop jewel who comprimis'd a solemn difference between her and, some of her neighbour● women, concerning pepper, she( it seems) affirming it to bee could, they opposing her, by the hot taste it hath in the mouth but she under the protection of this distinction, that though it were hot in working, yet it might bee could in operation▪ came off with Honour, and amusing her opposers with her profound learning and subtlety, carried the cause with a strong hand. If Mr. W. meets onely with such Readers, as she did opposers, his distinction between the condition, and the means of obtaining a promise, may work wonders and make him seem something. But in denying faith to be the condition of the gospel or new Covenant; he doth not onely hang out the flag of defiance against Wotton, and Goodwin, but swims against the stream of the most confessedly Orthodox Divines of our own Church, yea and opposeth those that take part with him in this controversy; and are the ablest maintainers of his Faith therein. For Bishop Downeham expressly affirmeth, the condition whereon the gospel promiseth justification, to be Faith in Christ, as the condition of the Law, to bee our own perfect and personal obedience: And builds this condition of the gospel, upon those very Scriptures, which Mr. W. hath rejected. For( saith he) the gospel saith, If thou believe in Christ, thou art justified, and shalt be saved.( Rom. 10. 5.) the Law, If thou dost these things thou shalt live thereby. B. Downham: in his Doctrine of Christian Liberty, on John 8. 36. page. 44. By which it appears, that he makes Faith the condition of the gospel, in the same manner, and upon the same terms, that works, or perfect obedience, was of the Law. And Calvin on Rom. 10. 8. to the same purpose: Ex hâc distinctionis nota &c. that is, from this distinction we gather, that as the Law requires works, so the gospel requires nothing, but that men bring Faith to receive the grace of God. That great light of our Church, Mr. Perkins, could not discern the subtlety of Mr. Ws. distinction neither, but without scruple, affirms Faith to be the condition of this Covenant. In the Covenant of grace( saith he) two things must be considered: the substance, and the condition &c. the condition is, that wee for our parts, are by Faith to receive the foresaid benefits( Reform. Cath: of justific▪ Differ. 2.) So Mr. Fox, Conditio quâ propriè instificamur &c. that is, the condition whereby wee are properly justified, is this, that wee believe in Christ: In his treatise of Christ freely justifying. again( in the same treatise) the promise of salvation by Christ, belongs but unto some, and that under a certain condition: So that he never conceited that the least prejudice could arise to the freeness of Gods grace in the Covenant of the gospel, by making Faith the condition of it. I might heap up Testimonies( in this kind) without end, If I thought any man were of Mr. Ws. opinion in this point, but himself. Nay I am certain that himself is not of his own opinion: because immediately after he had rejected Faith, with great indignation, from being any condition of the gospel, he writeth thus: In all which and the like places, there is no condition of the Covenant propounded, but onely the means and the way to receive blessing, or the quality and condition, by which men are made capable &c. As faire and goodly a contradiction, as a man shall meet withall in a summers day, or seven yeares reading: there is no condition, but onely a condition. O acuteness! quibus Coelo te laudibus aequem! I see many other things in this limb of his discourse, that deserve the Censors rod: but Non ego si centum pennas &c.  
Having already proved the Socinian and Arminian 
Mr. W. p. 26.  opinion, to be most false &c. I proceed to discover the weakness and absurdity of Mr. Goodwins Arguments in the second chapter of his Socinian discourse &c.  
They that will believe Mr. W. may; but otherwise( setting his own sayings aside, as I am constrained to do) he hath left his Reader at full liberty to doubt and question, whether he hath so much as touched either the Socinian or Arminian opinion( touching the point in hand) in all his discourse hitherto; because he hath not proved so much as any one word, of all those things wherewith he hath charged them, either out of any of their own writings, or from the testimony of any approved Author against them, yea they that will please to peruse, and consider what hath been already said in this Reply, will easily conceive that Mr. W. doubtless was in the midst of Samaria, when bee supposed himself to have been in Dothan,( at least would have persuaded his Reader, that there he was.)  
Well: But though he hath miscarried and misbehaved himself in the front, he will now play the man in the rear, and gather up the credit and reputation he hath scattered. Now he hath to deal with Goodwin alone, he will be revenged on him, he and his Socinian discourse shall pay for all. Whethe● Mr. W. hath an ●ll tongue, in his head, or no, I know not: but sure I am▪ that the discourse he speaks of, was not Socinian, till he cal●'d it so: neither was so much as one thrid of that spinning in all the whole pi●ce. But I hope Mr. Ws. tongue from henceforth, will be no slander. However, the second chapter of this discourse, Socinian or not Socinian, the Lion hath go●●en between his teeth, and threatens to tear it into a thousand pieces. And first of a●l, Sampson-like, he rouseth and shakes himself, and sets himself cheerfully to stand against the truth.  
How he means to proceed, he sufficiently declares in his beginning, viz. by the rule and method of malice, and frowardness. If the first fruits bee sour and unclean, so is the whole lump like to bee also. What I speak indefinitely, and in the general, concerning the hard measure that is oft-times measured out by men to those that speak the truth from God unto them, he misuseth and perverts, as if I assumed all to myself, and would leave nothing for him.  
But the rude multitude of my Disciples are a great offence unto him, by proclaiming me to bee the great light of the Church &c.( Who Mr. W. means by my rude disciples, I know not: neither( I believe) doth he know himself. If I knew them, I would sand them to him to learn better manners, and to be taught more elegant behaviour. But they proclaim me the great light of Gods Church. Surely this was whilst Mr. W. slept: these rude fellowes got in by the door of his nostrils, and so clambered up into his crown, and there played their pranks, and made that sacrilegious proclamation. But more soberly: suppose these fellowes indeed spake such words of me, what will Mr. W. give me, and I will pull off the fools babble from my head, and he shall have it to set on his: if he longs, his longing shall not cost him much: he shall have it at a very low rate. I will entreat my disciples to proclaim him, this great light &c. But the multitude of my disciples stick in his stomach too. Surely the shadows of the Mountaines seem men to him: or else he looks through the multiplying glass of envy. And yet I conceive the number of the men he means, may be somewhat increased, by his own unreasonable, un-Christian, and furious proceedings against me. An unmerciful enemy many times begets friends.  
But how shall I do? he wounds me on the heel, and takes me tardy with a contradiction. Well: I see it is no halting before a cripple. A man cannot counterfeit a contradiction, but Mr. W. a man so much overseen in contradictions, will find it out. But Contradiction, where art thou? and what is thy name? Here Sir, and my Name is,  

The Holy Ghost is the best judge for determining controversies:  
The Holy Ghost leaves his meaning( in many things) to be debated by men.   
Thou a Contradiction? who made thee a Contradiction? Mr. W. Sir. But how could he possibly make thee a Contradiction? by a wrench that he hath, whereby he can turn light into darkness, and truth into error, and the honour of God into blasphemy, and streight things into crooked, and the fairest consistencies into contradictions. Well, go thy ways: thou hast fallen into bad hands: but do but pray men to look well upon thee, and the charm will be dissolved, and thy native shape shall return unto thee: thou shalt be no longer a contradiction.  
Immediately after, he springs a new game, and in that phrase used by me, stamped with a rational authority, he discovers the Arminian heresy, and falls foul upon right reason. Indeed it is no strange thing, for an angry man to fall out with right reason, because they are seldom friends. 
{αβγδ}:  
{αβγδ}.  that is, 
'Twixt Men, and Lions, no league firm will stand,  
But to destroy each other still they band.   
But I confess Mr. W. may bee the better born with, if he calls for club-Law against right Reason, and would by all means have it knocked down, because it is still an enemy to him, and still crosseth and opposeth and contradicteth him in his enterprises. And yet presently after he had cried out against me for an Arminian heretic in the point of Right Reason, he makes a second out-crie upon me, for running away, from right reason, in the whole progress of my disputation. Sure the man is not to be dealt with, or pacified, neither with right reason nor without it; but is as full of contradictions in his morals, as in his intellectuals, that the one might not laugh at the other. But it stands him in hand in the business he is now about to turn Arminian heretic himself( if that be an Arminian heresy to make use of Reason in the Interpretation of Scripture) because the letter of the Scripture he is to deal with, still with-stands him in the face, and will not come near the opinion he maintains, except it be brought over by a strong hand of reason and discourse. And whereas he complains of scandalousnes in me to profess excellent things of myself, &c. but is not able to bring one the least word, or tittle out of all my discourse sounding that way: I am sure it is 7. times more scandalous in him, to deliver such staring and broadsac'd untruths. All that I speak of myself, is rather by way of disparagement, and with more modesty then he( it seems) was able to bear: and therefore gets him up into God's Throne, and there plays Sathans part, judging the mindes and intentions of men, contrary to their doings. job 1. But I perceive what meat Mr. W. loves: he is loathe there should bee a Feast of excellent things, whereunto he is not invited: Well: If I have trespassed against his appetite, here, I will make him this promise( for amends) that the next time I speak such excellent things of the undeserving, he shall be the man.  
His first Argument &c. In his answer, to that 
Mr. W. pag. 30.  which he calls my first argument, he presently sets his Ignorance and mine together by the ears, and raiseth a fearful dust and combustion between them. Let his be the Conqueror, and mine the Gras-hopper. First he arraignes me at the bar of his supposed learning, for those heinous crimes of Ignorance in rhetoric and logic: Secondly for showing myself a bold lying Sophister, which hang together, as the testimonies of those false witnesses, that came to give in evidence against Christ, Mar. 14. 59. Ignorance in logic destroys sophistry, as ignorance in the Scriptures doth Divinity. Well: his charge( you see) is sore: but his proofs as ridiculous and contemptible. he demonstrates my ignorance in rhetoric, thus: because it is counted an excellent ornament of speech, to continue a trope &c. which is, as if I should prove Mr. W. to be ignorant in Divinity, because in the beginning God made heaven and earth. If Mr. W. should deny this, the proof were somewhat to the purpose: but not denying it, it is no proof at all against him, but that possibly he may be a learned Divine notwithstanding.  
My ignorance in logic, he proves from the unquestionable profundity of his own insight into that Science, which appears in this, that he is able to te●l us, that in logic he is counted a bold lying Sophister, who holds, that a syllogism; a true and perfect Argument, hath a proposition, which is manifestly false. I confess I do not remember, that ever I met with this golden rule to measure a bold lying Sophister by, so punctually in any logic, or Logician I have red: and though I easily grant Mr. Ws. reading to have out-compassed mine, yet I believe, that neither hath he met with this rule in all his sphere of reading; but we have it here new out of the mint of his own brain, the fire is not yet out of it, Logicians are wont to speak with reason, and sobriety, and not to call their Brethren, bold lying Sophisters: the thrid is too course ever to have been spun unpon their wheel; well, but let us grant this profound axiom to be true: What is the truth thereof to evince my ignorance in logic more then my knowledge that twice two make four, is to prove Mr. W. ignorant in arithmetic?  
But leaving these collateral impertinences, which( I conceive) are but the crude, and indigested ebullitions of his unnatural heat and passion, deserving rather pity then Answer) let us( with what brevity is possible) see what weight and substance there is in what he opposeth here against me. I argue the imputing of faith for righteousness in a proper sense( that is, in the very same sense, that himself hath formerly given, and approved again, and again, in this his discourse, as hath been already observed from hence, because the phrase is so often used in this Chap. without any alteration or exchange; and affirm withall, that the imputation of Christs righteousness for our righteousness( in the sense rejected in my former Chapter, and which Mr. W. must maintain, or else I cannot count him an adversary in the point in question) hath not the least relief, either from found of words, or sight of Letter in the Scriptures.  
To this Mr. W. answers, that jer. 26. the Lord is said to repent 3 sev●rall times, and that this speech is not proper &c. and that Gal. 3. the word Faith is used 10. times in an unproper sense, &c. and hence infers, that the frequent, and constant use of a phrase, doth not prove a proper acception of it &c. Which conclusion indefinitely taken, and in the general, is unquestionably true: and his instances, are currant proofs hereof. I will deny nothing that he speaks with reason, but freely assent to him, and commend him; because I would encourage him to speak more upon such terms.  
But yet he might have pleased here to have considered, that rule which Austine long since gave, and Divines generally have approved from him; that a literal, and proper sense in Scripture, is still to be preferred, where there is no necessity of rejecting it, or substituting a tropical, or improper in the stead. And except this rule be admitted as unquestionable, the clearest, and most express truths in Scripture, will still be obnoxious to dispute, and controversy, and may be tossed up and down, by the wills, and wits of men. Now this rule wholly evacuates the strength of his answer: because in those Scriptures produced by him, there is an apparent necessity of having recourse to an improper signification of the words, because the literal, and proper, imports a manifest contradiction, to common sense and reason; as is sufficiently evident to him that shal but a little consider those and the like Scriptures. And in such a case as this, where there is no danger or fear, that the literal sense should be taken, because the very principles of reason, are ready to cry out against it: the holy Pen-men of Scripture, may use a metaphoricall expression, 10 times together, and twenty times after that; the frequency of the repetition, will never be any proof, or argument, of a proper, or literal signification. But in the Scripture and phrase controverted between Mr. W. and me, the case is far otherwise: the literal, and proper sense, may here be taken, no rule of reason,( no nor of Religion neither, as hath been proved both here, and elsewhere) gainsaying it,( at least not manifestly, nor notoriously contradicting i●) and therefore the frequent, and constant use of such a phrase, is a strong inducement( at least) that the literal and proper sense is here to be embraced.  
Whereas( towards the close of this answer) he breaks out again, and gives me a new Livery of the same Cloath, with the former, calling me bold lying Sophister, for affirming most falsely and impudently, that which he would not have to be affirmed upon this occasion, though he be not able to disprove it( nor so much as attempts to do it) because it little concerns the present question. I will gratify his infirmity so far, as to pass it over without any further censure.   

The second Argument Couched under the other, &c.  
How kind and courteous an adversary have I met withall, who rather then I shall want Arguments to oppose him, will furn●sh me, at his own cost and charge, yea and( that which is yet more) with such Arguments that are too hard for himself, and which all his learning is not able to overthrow. As for example, out of my words, wherein I had no thoughts of any New Argument, distinct from the former, Mr. W. raiseth this syllogism.  


That which hath not the least relief, either from sound of words, or sight of Letter in the Scriptures, is an untruth, and mere fiction.  
The imputation of Christs righteousness( in the sense questioned) hath not the least relief either from the one, or the other. Ergo.    
Mr. W. having coniur'd up this Spirit, to show his art, and to make himself merry withall, presently attempts to conjure him down again. But his condition in this skirmish, is as sad as that of the Vagabond Exorcists, Act. 19. who would needs be meddling with, and adjuring the Spirit in one that was possessed, but the Spirit was sturdy and would not obey, but ran upon the adjurers, and overcame them and prevailed against them, so that they fled naked and wounded. v. 16. So Mr. W. heaving at the Minor proposition, of this his own syllogism, receives a wound in his reputation, and so leaves it, the proposition remaining as strong, and as unshaken, as before he lift up his weapon against it. For going about to prove that the imputation of Christs righteousness( in his sense) hath testimony from the express words and le●ter of Scripture, he onely produceth the 4. and 11. verses of this 4. Chap. to the Romans, both which are as silent concerning any imputation of Christ's righteousness, as Mr. W.( on the other side) is full of words. And it hath been already shewed and proved in this reply, that the phrase of imputing righteousness in these two places, onely notes God's free justification of men, or his accepting of them as righteous, without works.  
In answer to my second Argument( which he hath made 
Mr. W. page. 31.  the third by his munificent multiplication) he either findeth( or maketh) a heap of lies mixed with contradictions( and that in one proposition onely) I see my Antagonist is two to one better at making lies, and contradictions then at judging of them, or finding them out. A man may easily deceive him with a very slender appearance of a contradiction: but those which himself makes are very re●ll and substantial and can deceive no man( as we have given good proof in particular instances, out of this his answer, not a few.) But who would think that one poor proposition, could bee so mischievously bent, as to have no less then a heap of lies mixed with contradictions, in the belly of it? I know not how many lies go to Mr. Ws. heap: I hope he doth not mean any great heap: for then no man will be able to believe him. But I marvel why he adds, mixed with contradictions. I cannot yet fathom his intent and meaning in this, whether he makes this addition by way of any diminution, or of further aggravation of that charge, a heap of lies. I cannot be so uncharitable in my thoughts to Mr. Ws. passion, as that that should betray him, or suffer him to speak any thing by way of favour or mitigation of any thing, that he can come by, either by hook or by crooke, to lay to my charge: and how on the other hand to interpret it, by way of deepening or further aggravating the charge, I know not. Because, a heap of lies alone, without any mixture of contradictions, is much worse, then where there is an inlaying of contradictions with it, there being no contradiction, but the one half of it is ever truth. But I further appear in Mr. Ws. eyes, like a mad or a drunken man: which certainly is as perfect a sign, that his eyesight is not good, as the seeing of men walking like trees, was of the imperfection of his eyes, who was not yet recovered of his blindness, Mar. 8.  
But let us see a little what the angry man aileth, and pick the thorn out of his finger( if wee can) which makes him rage and take on as if he were wild. If the heap of lies mixed with contradictions be removed from before his door, I hope his neighbours shall live in peace by him. Wee will carry it clean away by little and little.  
The top of this heap( which must first be taken away) is a contradiction, which( for want of better sight,) he descrieth in these words of mine: The Scope of the Apostle is to put men by the false way of justification, which lies through works, and to discover the true way, by informing them what they must do, and perform for justification. Here because I affirm, the way of justification by works, to be the false way, a way wherein men cannot be justified, and yet suppose that men must do somewhat, before they bee justified,( or for their justification) he triumphingly insults over me, as a drunken and mad man, for contradicting myself, as if he that doth any thing at all towards his justification, must needs se●ke to be justified by works. I hope, if Iesus Christ himself speak as I do in this case, Mr. W. will presently discharge me of this contradiction, for fear of worse matters. I think he will not deny, but that faith, or believing in Christ, is necessary to justification( or else he will justify the infidels, and impenitent Reprobates he spake of, as well as the faithful) and certain I am, that Christ calls this faith, or believing in him, a work: This is the work of God( saith he to the Iewes, joh. 6. 29.) that ye believe in him, whom he hath sent: And when Paul exhorts the Philippians, to work out their salvation with fear and trembling, he doth not exclude their faith, or believing in Christ. So our best and most Orthodox Divines, speak without scruple, terming that believing by which wee are justified, the doing of something. Quid enim fecit Abraham, quod imputaretur ad justitiam, nisi quod credidit Deo? Musculus in Gal. 3. 6. that is, what did Abraham, that should be imputed for righteousness, but onely believe God. So Mr. Perkins Reform. Cathol. concerning justification. The meaning is( saith he) that nothing within man, and nothing that man can do, either by nature or by grace, concurreth to the act of justification before God, as any cause thereof, either efficient, material, formal, or final, but onely faith. And I would fain know of Mr. W. whether when he believeth, he doth something or nothing: or when he believeth, whether he believeth not for justification, or that he may bee justified. The Apostles themselves believed for such an end, and purpose Gal. 2. 16. We have believed in Iesus Christ, that wee might be justified by the faith of Christ, surely if they might have been justified without doing any thing at all, they might have let this believing in Christ alone: which I hope Mr. W. himself doth not, for sear of seeking justification by works. Yea, doth he not in this very place, in as express terms( as usually he speaketh) affirm, and avouch the very same doing or work as necessary to justification, for which he rates m●e with that prodigious indignation? he affirms, that the Apostles whole scope is bent against justification, by works of our own, and to show that all which we are to look to, is to receive that, which is freely given &c. questionless, receiving, is the doing of somewhat, and indeed one and the self same work, with believing. S●e John 1. 11. 12▪ &c. besides many other Scriptures. And I marvel from what breast he sucked that same {αβγδ}, to call every thing that is done by us, if it bee just and lawful, a work of the Law,( meaning the moral Law.) Surely to serve, worship, and believe in Iesus Christ, as mediator, are just and lawful, yet no works of the moral Law, nor was Adam in his innocency bound unto them. And if Mr. W. had understood what the Scripture means, by works, in opposition to grace, in the business of justification, he would not have condemned an innocent and clear passage of the foul crime of a contradiction. By works( in this case) is not meant, whatsoever may in any respect be said to bee done by a man himself, as if the freeness of Gods grace in justification, should any ways suffer, or be destroyed, if any thing should upon any consideration, be required of him in reference to his justification: neither Mr. W. nor all the abettors he hath under Heaven, will ever be able to prove this: but by works,( opposed to grace, in justification) is meant the merit of works, or whatsoever is done, or attempted to be done by men themselves, with an opinion or intent of deserving justification thereby. Nay the truth is, that the work of believing,( as our Saviour calleth it) is so far, from carrying any opposition in it to the freeness of Gods grace in justification, that it is purposely required of men( and it onely) by him, that the freeness of his grace in their justification might be established. Therefore it is by Faith, that it might be by grace, Rom. 4. 16. and cap. 5. 2. We are said to have access or admittance into the grace of justification, by or through Faith. But for the perfect and entire consistence of the work of faith, with the freeness of Gods grace in the justification of a sinner, consider those and such like Scriptures at leisure, Rom. 3. 24. 25. Eph. 2. 8. &c.  
Well, the heap of lies mixed with contradictions, is( I hope) well lessened by this time: the plural number in charge, proves but the singular in proof, and that just nothing: he talked of contradictions, as of many: but finds but one, and that one made of as faire a consistency of speech, as the Scripture itself useth.  
But besides the contradictions, and other absurdities and untruths( observe, he speaks more mannerly then he did: is there not hope he will mend?) he finds th●se gross errors &c. Wee are come now towards the bottom of the heap, where( it seems) the grossest and thickest of the lies are settled. The first is, that I say, that God doth not require of us the righteousness of Christ, &c. this he requires of Christ himself. Before he comes to show the grossness of this error, he himself drops two gross errors( indeed) by the way viz. That God requires nothing of us for our justification, when as it is notoriously known, that he threatens damnation, except we believe; and to credit his saying, he cites, Rom. 3. 24. whereas the verse immediately following, quiter overthrows it, wherein the condition of faith is expressly mentioned. he drops yet again a second error( more gross then the former) saying, that Faith is a qualification to u●, for the receiving, applying, and enjoying Christs righteousness: that is, Faith is a qualification to us for believing: for what is the receiving, applying, and enjoying the righteousness of Christ, but believed( as was before observed.)  
But with these two errors dropping from him, it seems his memory dropped also, for by this time he hath forgot his enterprise, and instead of proving what I had said, a gross error, he onely complains of it, as a harsh unsavoury and absurd phrase. And to justify his complaint, he tell us, that to say God requires the righteousness of Christ, not for our justification, but of Christ himself, implies, that Christ had need of justification, and was bound to fulfil the righteousness of the Law for himself: which savours of the Socinian and Samosatenian heresy, and denies Christs God-head, with much more( as the manner of the man is)  Spectatum admissi risum teneatis amici? 
Is not this a solid and demonstrative proof, of the harshness and unsavourinesse of this saying, God requires not of us the righteousness of Christ, &c. he that can make these premises and Conclusion hang, may well set up the trade of gluing Oyster-shells, and undertake to make the iron and the day in Nebuchadnezzars Image, mix and work together. He that saith, that God doth not require of us the righteousness of Christ for our justification, doth not so much as in colour or show, affirm, that he therefore requires it of him, for his own justification: onely it seems to imply, that he required it of him for our justification: which( I conceive) is no harsh or unsavoury, but a proposition well pleasing to Mr. W. himself.  
But setting aside the irrelativenesse and impertinency of what he affirmeth here, to what he had in hand to prove, I could( I conceive) put some queries to him, that would a little trouble him, to make good the truth thereof in a positive way. As  
First, how he can prove, that Christ had no need of justification? Surely Christ was a justified, or righteous person, in the sight of God. This justification was not superfluous, or no ways useful to him. And whatsoever is not superfluous, we men of the lower form of learning and understanding, judge to bee some ways needful.  
Secondly how he would prove, that Christ was not bound to fulfil the righteousness of the Law for himself? certain I am, that some Divines of our own Church, and Nation, no whit inferior to Mr. W. himself, either for choycenesse of learning or soundness of iudgement,( and yet neither Wotton, nor Goodwin, nor any of their Disciples) have written otherwise: Christ( saith Mr. Deering in his second Lect on the Heb.) by the spirit, still filled his manhood more and more with grace, till the fullness of all righteousness was within him, that so his manhood might inherit salvation, according to the promise, do this and live. But hitherto as he is righteous, so he is righteous for himself, and onely that man is yet blessed which was conceived by the Holy Ghost &c.  
And he that holds, that Christ as man, was not bound to fulfil the righteousness of the Law for himself, during his continuance on Earth in the flesh, must( if he will be true to his principles) hold with all, that Christ as man had a liberty, or dispensation from his God-head, to transgress in respect of himself: and that this dispensation could not take place, or bee put in execution, onely because of that work of Redemption, which he had undertaken. It may be this is no such camel, but Mr. W. can swallow, without straining. But I hope he will not be offended, if they that stand charged with so many Heresies and blasphemies already, bee unwilling to charge themselves yet further with this also.  
Thirdly I would put him upon this, to prove such an absolute inconsistency, or diametrall opposition, as he seems to imagine, between Christs fulfilling the Law for himself, and for us, as if at no hand they could stand together. Surely Mr. W. when he compiled and wrote this answer, he wrote it both for himself, that is: for the discharge of such a conscience as he hath; and for others also, that is, for the good, benefit and instruction of me, and many others. And Saint Bernard in that 190. Epistle,( cited by Mr. W. himself, afterward) speaking of the work of Redemption wrought by Christ, affirmeth it to have been, Opus aequè nostrum,& suum,& Angelorum, that is, a work indifferently ours, and his own, and the Angels: and then goeth on, showing how respectively.  
Fourthly,( and lastly) it would cost him many of his thoughts, and much of his Learning, to give a sufficient and clear account, how it should any way entrench, or so much as look towards the denial of Christs Godhead, to conceive that Christ might be bound to fulfil the righteousness of the Law, for himself. I conceive it tends far more dangerously to shake the truth of his humanity, to deny that he was any ways bound to keep the Law for himself. And as the error of the vbiquitarie tends to dissolve the truth of his manhood, viâ naturali, so doth this opinion of Mr. W.( which yet he maintains with that fearless confidence) as far as yet I am able to see into it, tend to the same end, via morali.  
It is marvelous improbable unto me, that he should be the Seed of the Woman, who by the Law of his creation should not be bound, to keep that Law, which both the man and the Woman stood bound to keep in their innocency. And as the personal union with the God-head, could not privilege his human nature, or Body, against those properties which are natural, and essential to it, as locality, quantity, finitenesse, commensurablenes to its place, nor communicate or convey over to it, those properties of immensity, ●ubiquity, omnipresence, &c. which are essential to the Divine nature. So neither could it privilege his manhood, against those moral habitudes, relations, or conditions, which are as essential to such a creature in another way, as viz. subjection unto God, obligation of serving him, and fulfilling his will, &c.  
Concerning Christ's meriting his exaltation, I shall not strive with him for the present. Onely( I believe) wee have neither of us waded so far( in our meditations) into those Scriptures, which speak to this point, but that we may wade yet deeper, and know more concerning it, then we do. As viz. Rev. 5. 12. Heb. 12 2. Phil. 2. 7, 8, 9, &c. Luk 24. 26. &c.  
There remain now but two little shovel-fulls more of the dunghill or heap of lies that troubled Mr. W. so excessively, to be removed, and then the street( in this place) will be clean.  
Another gross error( he saith) is, that I call faith and believing, a thing done and performed by us, when as the Apostle affirms, and all Christians confess that our believing is not of ourselves, but the gift of God &c. Surely Mr. W. hath as rare a gift of making gross errors, as King Midas had of making Gold.  
Quicquid contigerat &c. that is what ere he touched, his touch made glistering gold: so it seems, whatsoever Mr. W. casts his eye upon, becomes a gross error ipso facto: but( I hope) not without bale or main prise. Though Faith be the gift of God, that is, the grace and spiritual strength by which we believe: yet is there no Apostle that affirms, nor Christian( that I know) that confesseth, that the Christians believing, is Gods act of believing: or that denies, but that men themselves are the believers, though not of themselves, nor by their own strength. But as Aristotle's Proverb is: {αβγδ}; that is, if water chokes me, what then shall I drink?  
If Mr. W. makes gross errors of such expressions as these, he is not a man for me to speak: when I have washed my hands of him this once, I hope I shall foul them no more.  
Wee are now come to the very bottom of the dunghill, and are near hand of being sweet and clean. But the man is in some distress of thoughts, whether he should call that which remaineth, a gross absurdity, or rather a blasphemy: but surely he will be as advised in his choice between them, as men are when they choose Lobstars: he will choose the heavier. But in this particular he deals more cowardly with me then in all the rest. Till now he came before me and smote▪ me in the face, his onely offence being that he did wrongfully: but now he comes behind my back, and at unawares knocks me down to Hell with a double club, or with the Apostles iron Mace of an Anathema Maranatha, nor for any offence of mine at all, but for his own forgery, who Ananias-like, keeps back part of my words, and presents what he pleaseth for my assertion. He chargeth me, that I here maintain, that teaching justification by Christ, and his righteousness, is the casting of a snare upon men, and not opening the door of life and salvation to them. I shall need no other compurgators from this crime, but onely the setting down mine own words, which are these: whereas to have said thus unto them, that they must be justified by Christ, or by Christs righteousness, and withall not to have plainly signified, what God requireth of them, and will accept at their hand, to give them part and fellowship in that righteousness, or justification which is by Christ, and without which they could not be justified, had been rather to have cast a snare upon them, then to have opened a door of life and salvation unto them. Well: of Mr. W. I will speak no evil, for all this leger-de-maine: but if some other man had served me so, I should hardly have refrained from calling out to him — {αβγδ}, that is, Ah crafty Mate, clad with bold impudence.  
But for Mr. W. — Sit satis ut poenam culpa secunda ferat. that is, 'T shall be enough his next time fault to punish.  
It is like indeed, that this will prove but a very small gratification to him his next offence( I fear) is even at the door. In the mean season my heap of lies mixed with contradictions, is quiter vanished: and a heap of Mr. Ws. errors, absurdities, false and forged cavillations, left in the stead of it.  
The first Argument reduced &c. But here Mr. W. 
Mr. W. page. 34.  stumbles at another heap of manifest and impudent lies: and in the close of his answer, he takes his leave with this sweet and courteous salutation: Thus you see how he hath bent his tongue and pen, like a bow for lies, and shoots them forth thick and threefold like poisoned arrows, as if his Quiver were the armoury of the Father of liars, the Prince of darkness. Can any man think amiss of him, that utters from time to time, such gracious words as these? Surely the Prince of darkness doth not think amiss of him. Well: but I must take spade and shovel in hand, and to work again: Mr. W. hath laid a new dunghill before my door, and I am sure that he that laid it, will not remove it, therefore I myself must. The first manifest and impudent lie( which he makes the top or head of this dunghill) is, that I affirm it, to be a strange and harsh expression, to express the imputation of Christs righteousness, by saying that Faith is imputed to men for righteousness. Suppose it be a mistake▪ to call it a strange and harsh expression, it is far from being a manifest, and furthest of all, from being an impudent lie, Mr. W.( surely) is mistaken in the point of impudence, here: it is not the lie, but the slander that is impudent. But how doth he prove it to be so much as a mistake, or untruth, that such an expression would be strange and harsh, to carry that sense, which he is resolved to force upon it? His demonstrative proof is this, because it is no strange or harsh expression, to use a figure of speech: and by Faith and believing to mean the state, or a man in the state of a true believer, and by righteousness, the state, or a man in the state of righteousness &c. Mr. Ws. ordinary Readers had need have an Oedipus still at hand, to find out the Enigma's of his proofs and arguments: for poor Davusses have much ado to understand any thing. It is true, there are many figures of speech, which are no strange or harsh expressions: but first there are few plain and direct expressions( as we have proved this to bee) which will not bee made strange and harsh, if men will metamorphose them into metalepticall and figurative: as the sweetest wine changed, becomes the sharpest vinegar. Secondly, if men will take upon them to coin new forms of speaking, and will call these, figures, these may well be strange and harsh expressions, which is Mr. Ws. beloved enterprise in this place. He saith and affirmeth, that by Faith and believing, to mean the state, or a man in the state of a true believer, is no strange or harsh expression. I would therefore ask him, whether this would not bee a very strange and harsh expression, to say that Faith is justified by Faith, his meaning being onely this, that a believer is justified by faith. And yet by the rules of his rhetoric, it should bee but a Divine figure of speech. So again, whether to say that righteousness is a member of the mystical body of Christ, meaning, that a righteous person is such, would not be a strange and harsh expression.  
again suppose it bee granted, that sometimes the abstract or simplo form, may be used for the concrete, as righteousness, for righteous, or justified persons, 2 Cor. 5. 21. so circumcision, for circumcised, Philip. 3. 3. Election, for elected, Rom. 11. 7. and such like, yet to put the act or action, for the agent( as Mr. W. would here have it, believing for the believer) is more seldom( if at all) found: and consequently the more strange and harsh expression.  
Yet again: neither will Mr. Ws. metalepticall oil, at all mollify or smooth the harshness of the Apostles expression Rom. 4. 3.( though it bee anointed therewith) if this interpretation be put upon it. Abraham believed God( saith the Apostle) and it( that is, this his believing God, that is, saith Mr. W. his state of believing, or the believer himself) was imputed to him for righteousness, that is, for the state of a righteous man. Qui me in me quaerit, non me, ut me invenerit in me▪ that is, 
Who in myself shall seek me, hardly he  
shall in myself, like to myself, e're find me.   
I appeal to all ears that have not quiter lost their palate and taste, whether any expression can( lightly) be more strange, harsh, and uncouth, then that which Mr. W. hath put upon the Apostle in this place. Thus you see the first manifest impudent lye( as Mr. W. elegantly phraseth it) is neither lye nor impudent: but onely manifest, and that, a truth.  
A second impudent lye( like the former) is, that I say that this figure of speech,( viz. wherewith Mr. W. adorneth, as he thinks: deformeth, as I think, these passages of the Apostle) is not to be found in all the Apostles writings. He should have done well first to have found it, and then it had been more tolerable to have called it a lye, in him that had denied it. But to call it a manifest and impudent lye, there had been small reason howsoever: because Mr. W. himself, who pretends to find it, pretends to find it onely in the utmost corner or nook of one onely chapter, Rom. 2. and the four last verses. But what non-sensicall work he makes with, how he figures and misfigures those passages, we have sufficiently acquainted the Reader from his own pen formerly.  
The third bold lye, and manifest falsehood is, that the Apostle time after time useth the phrase of Faith, or believing imputed &c. without ever explaining himself, or changing his speech. Well: how doth he prove his substantives( for he takes it for granted, it seems, that his epithets must bee abated him in his proofs) how doth he prove either lye or falsehood simply, in such an affirmation? yes, ue produceth the 6. and 11. ver. of this chapter, where it is said, that God imputeth righteousness, and that righteousness is imputed. he might as well have brought forth his letters of Orders, or his licence to preach, and made them his proof. For these phrases speak not of Faith: and how then should they explain the imputation of it? yes that which he calleth Faith( saith he) verse 3. and 5. saying there, that it is imputed for righteousness, here he explaining himself, and changing his speech, calleth it righteousness. But( good Mr. W.) what doth he call righteousness, here? that which he called Faith before, verse 3. and 5. &c. why not rather that which he called righteousness before? As for example, where he saith, verse 13. that the promise was not given to Abraham, or to his seed, by the Law: why should I rather, by the word Abraham in this place, understand David, mentioned verse 6. then that very Abraham spoken of ver. 1. 2. 3: So by the word righteousness, verse 6. and 11. why should I rather understand Faith, which is said to be imputed for righteousness, verse 3. and 5. then that righteousness itself, for( or unto which) Faith is there said to be imputed?  
again, let Mr. Ws. reason-lesse supposition be admitted, viz. that by righteousness in these places, the Apostle meaneth Faith, see what a faire market he hath brought his hogs unto. Vpon this supposition, when the Apostle saith, that God imputeth righteousness to him that believeth, the meaning must be, that God imputeth Faith to him that believeth, and so it will bee so far from being an explaining of himself in his former expression, that it will rather obscure what he had directly and plainly said before. But concerning the true importance and meaning of this phrase, imputing righteousness, wee have discussed it before: where wee found Mr. W. sitting, quiter beside the Cushion. Thus wee see how this soldier charging his musket deep with powder and brown paper, but wanting bullets, makes terrible cracks onely, but doth no execution at all, except it bee in the recoil of his engine, upon himself.  
His second Argument is briefly, &c. Behold a miracle: 
Mr. W. page. 35  Mr. W. here reasons, and doth not rail. I hope his powder by this time is well spent: and for the time to come, he will be {αβγδ}; more soft to handle. It may be his passion being down, his intellectuals will advance. Well: we must try him hot and could. My Argument here riseth thus: That which is imputed for righteousness, to a believer, is said to be● his Faith, before it be imputed: but the righteousness of Christ, is not any mans righteousness, before it be imputed: Therefore by Faith( in these places) cannot 〈◇〉 meant the righteousness of Christ.  
To this Mr. W. frames a bimembred answer: t● first member as ambiguous and impertinent, as the l●●ter untrue and rea-sonlesse. First he saith, that t●… righteousness of Christ, by spiritual union with Chr●… is as truly the believers as his Faith is. But the q●●stion between my good Friend and me, is not, whether the righteousness of Christ, be the believers, 〈◇〉( we are friends in good earnest so far) nor wh●… the believer bee justified by the righteousness of Christ, but wh●ther it bee his, in such a manner, as it was Christs himself, that is, whether he be justified or made righteous with it, as Christ was, or whether he bee justified, or counted righteous onely for it, and not with it. As a man may be clothed for his money, but cannot be clothed with it. So the question is, whether the righteousness of Christ, be the believers clothing, or garment itself,( formally and properly taken) or whether it be the money and price, by which his clothing and garments were bought. But the Scriptures he brings to prove his first assertion( or part of his answer) are as impertinent for proof, as the assertion itself is to the business in hand. To prove the righteousness of Christ to be the believers, as his Faith is, he miscites those two Scriptures 1 Cor. 1. 30. and 2 Cor. 5. 21. In the first it is said indeed, that Christ is made unto us righteousness: but what is this to prove, that the righteousness of Christ is made ours, as our Faith is. The person of Christ, and the righteousness of Christ, differ toto genere And suppose it had been said, that the righteousness of Christ had been made righteousness to us, or our righteousness( which yet are expressions that the Scriptures know not) yet would it not follow, that the righteousness of Christ must needs be ours, as our Faith is ours. The other Scripture turns the back upon his purpose, after the same manner. It is onely here said, that believers are made the righteousness of God in Christ: that is, the justified ones of God, by means of Christ, their great sinoffering, and atonement. Here is nothing spoken concerning the righteousness of Christ, made formally ours by imputation; but onely our justification meritoriously wrought, and purchased by him, signified.  
But secondly he answers, that this righteousness of Christ is the believers, in order of nature, before it be counted( or imputed) for righteousness unto him. And this he proves with this left-handed argument, that GOD, whose judgement is according to truth, doth not count that to the believer, which he hath not before, or at the same time doth communicate to him. What is this but that poor trick in logic, which they call Petitio principii, or begging the Question, right up and down. He proves the righteousness of Christ to be the believers, before it be imputed to him, because God doth not impute that to him, which he hath not before: where he takes that for granted which is the Cardo controversiae, viz. that God doth impute the righteousness of Christ( in his sense) to a believer. And then again, here is nothing but Idem per idem, the same thing proved by itself,( upon the matter) he proves the righteousness of Christ to be a believers, before it is imputed, because God doth not impute it, before it be his. Which is as if he should say: the righteousness of Christ is a believers, before it be imputed, because, before it be his, God doth not impute it. But the positive strength of it is even as little, as the relative: neither is there more truth, then dependence in it. For if the righteousness of Christ bee the believers, before the imputation, to what purpose is the imputation at all? whereof there can be no other reason given, but onely the making that a believers, which was not his before. And Mr. W. himself had  told us before, page. 30. of his discourse, that we are not justified by the righteousness of Christ, as it is his, but as it is ours: which ever and anon he affirmeth to be, by communication or imputation. Besides if the righteousness of Christ be the believers, before it be imputed then doth not justification stand in the imputation of Christs righteousness, but is complete before and without it: for he, whose the righteousness of Christ is, is( doubtless) a justified person.  
Concerning that which he calls his second answer, more then an answer hath been given to it formerly.  
In his answer to my third Argument, he gently censures my ignorance in rhetorical tropes, and lovingly observes my vain tergiversation, and ignorantly conceits, that an argument might be framed out of the third verse strong against me. Well: let us pause a while upon these: the S●as are somewhat lower and less grown then they were. My argument here is: that the object of that faith, which is here said to bee imputed, is God himself, or the promise of God, and not the righteousness of Christ: for to conceive, that by God, is meant the righteousness of Christ, is to set up a trope, which is not a figure, but a monster of speech. How now doth Mr. W. answer this, and prove that by God, is here meant the righteousness of Christ, and that by a rhetorical trope, without any strangeness, or monstrousnes of speech? If he had not a good Friend indeed of the figure Metalepsis, which like a sure pinhorse in his team, will never fail him at a dead pull, he could never have driven the way he hath gone, thus far, and( doubtless) would have been fast in this slow,( how ever yet he recovers himself.) But by virtue of this benign figure, he can make Mercuries statue of any wood, and make plain, nay elegant and graceful speech, of such phrases and expressions as would astonish William lily, and put Tully and Quintilian half besides their rhetorical wits. But let us see what Metalepsis, and he can do together, to clear the business in question. He proves, that by God, who was here the object of Abrahams Faith( for, he believed God: and that, it was imputed unto him for righteousness) is to bee understood the righteousness of Christ, thus: because no man in believing by a true faith can separate Christs satisfaction and righteousness from Christ himself: If he enjoys Christ himself, he enjoys his benefits also &c. Dicite jo Paean: Strike up a triumph. Because a man cannot in believing separate the righteousness of Christ from Christ, therefore by the word God, must necessary bee understood the righteousness of Christ. But first I marvel why Mr. W. throughout this whole discourse, still mentions the satisfaction of Christ, with the righteousness of Christ: whereas I never to this day, so much as thought of, or intended the least difference, or dispute about the satisfaction of Christ, but onely about his active obedience to the Law, whether this bee so imputed to a believer, that by virtue of this imputation, he may claim Heaven in right of the first Covenant, do this and live, that is, whether a believer bee formally righteous with Christs righteousness imputed, or no: Therefore his importune mention, and thrusting in the passive obedience or satisfaction of Christ, from place to place, without any occasion or necessity, can argue nothing else, but an exulcerate desire, to represent me to the world, as an enemy or denier of Christs satisfaction.  
But secondly, what though a man cannot separate the righteousness of Christ from Christ himself in believing? doth it therefore follow, that the righteousness of Christ must needs be the object of Faith, as justifying? much less doth it follow, that this righteousness of Christ, must needs be signified, either by the word, God, or by the promise of God concerning Christ( which himself granteth to have been the object of Abrahams Faith in this place.) A man cannot separate the soul of Christ, or the members of his human body; from Christ himself in believing: yet neither the soul of Christ, nor any member of his body is the object of Faith, as justifying. For then whosoever believed Christ had a soul, or a head, hands &c. should be justified. Besides, it is not altogether so true( as perhaps he thinks it is) that the righteousness of Christ, cannot be separated from Christ himself, in believing, at least from Christ considered, as the object of justifying faith. The Turkes at this day believe Christ to have been a righteous man, and consequently believe his righteousness: yet do they not believe in Christ himself, justifyingly.  
As for that which followeth in the remainder of his answer to this argument, &c. as his charge of vain tergiversation, of bringing Scriptures to confute myself with the rest, I conceive them to bee of that manifest inconsequence and indigestednesse, that I had rather trust my Reader with his own apprehensions concerning them, then adventure to trouble him with any long confutation. Quilibet ignavus praecipitata premit. that is, 
What of itself is tumbling down,  
With little strength down may be thrown.   
Christs righteousness, can in no tollerabe sense, be called 
Mr. W. p. 38.  that Faith, whereby Abraham believed in God, who quickeneth the dead. This is my next Argument, to prove that by the word, Faith, in these passages, is not meant the active obedience of Christ. And how doth Mr. W. deliver himself out of the hand of this enemy? by this charm: because God neither quickened Christ, nor raised him from the dead, till he had fulfilled all righteousness. If this be an answer, much joy may Mr. W. and his friends have of it. Onely let me say this to him: that neither did God raise up Christ from the dead, till he had lain three dayes and three nights in the grave: and yet I conceive Mr. W. will hardly find his lying three dayes and three nights in the grave, any where called Faith, or signified by that expression.  
But Quoniam vult Alexander Deus esse, Deus esto. that is, 
Since Alexander needs a God will be,  
( Much good, may't do him) a God let him be,   
My fift Argument was: Abrahams Faith, which was imputed to him, was such a Faith, wherein he was not weak, neither doubted of Gods promise &c. ver. 19. 20. This can be no description of the righteousness of Christ. Ergo &c. How are we beaten out of this field? with this wooden dagger: The more strong Abraham was in Faith &c. the more firmly he was united to Christ, and had more full communion of his righteousness &c. therefore this argument makes against me. I think( indeed) the argument, as much as the answer, and both alike. The Question is not, whether Abraham had communion with Christ in his righteousness, or no, either more full or less full: but whether that which is here spoken and affirmed concerning Abrahams faith, can with any possible congruity of speech, be applied to the righteousness of Christ, and be conceived, as spoken of that. Was that Faith, whereby Abraham doubted not of Gods promise, the righteousness of Christ? or rather was not the promise of God, that whereby Abraham doubted not of Christs righteousness? But my Antagonist starts one new notion in Divinity, which I do not remember that I have met with all either from the pen or mouth of any Divine hitherto. viz. degrees in justification. For that expression, communion with Christ in his righteousness, is still used to signify justification: and therefore if Abraham, by means of the strength of his Faith, had fuller communion with Christ in his righteousness, then other believers have, he must needs bee more justified then they: and consequently their justification by Christ must be imperfect.  
My next argument he turns over with the same wet finger. The argument was this: Abrahams believing, that God who had promised, was able to perform, was the Faith imputed to him. But this was not Christs righteousness. Ergo. This Mr. W. confuteth( or rather confirmeth) by this answer: The more that Abraham restend on Gods power &c The more communion he had of Christs righteousness, and the more justly did God count him for a righteous man, and impute Christs righteousness unto him. I thought to have turned Argument and answer loose together; and to have suffered them, each to stand, or fall, by their own strength, without bringing in any second to umpire: but that there is an ill sounding phrase or two in the answer, which( at best) deserve rods, if not Scorpions. Besides the repetition of that expression, censured( and that for no good) in the former answer, he useth such streyns as these, that the more Abraham restend on Gods power, the MORE JVSTLY did God count him a righteous man, and impute Christs righteousness to him. Which let Charity herself be the interpres, cannot but imply, that God doth with less justice count a weak believer, a righteous man, and with less iustice impute the righteousness of Christ unto him, then to a strong. I know if Mr. W. had me thus upon the hip, I should bee violently thrown upon my back, and beaten when I were down, with the fist of lies, heresy, blasphemy &c. but I will let him gently down and onely advice him between him and me, to speak more advisedly and considerately hereafter.  
My next Argument is: That Faith which God imputes to us for righteousness, is said to bee, our believing on him which raised Christ from the dead. But the righteousness of Christ, is not our believing on him which raised Christ from the dead. Ergò. How doth Mr. W. fence this blow? Crimine ab uno-Disce omnes: he that one answer hath of his, hath all. I cannot properly say that which he answereth, but that which he here saith, is this: our believing in God who raised Christ from the dead, is our assurance that Christ hath made full satisfaction for us, and therefore the righteous, God, who raised him up, is satisfied for us, and hath accepted his righteousness for our righteousness, and &c. concluding thus. Therefore this is for us, and not against us. Surely a shoemaker might as well sell Scabberds for shoes, as Scholars put off Arguments with such impertinent discourses as these, instead of Answers; For what is there in all this to prove( or so much as to colour over a proof) that by that Faith which is described to be our believing on him that raised Christ from the dead, must needs be meant the righteousness, or active obedience of Christ? or what reasonable man is there under Heaven, that can imagine, that the Apostle intending to describe the righteousness of Christ, should describe it thus: The righteousness of Christ is our believing on him, that raised up Christ from the dead. This is the quintessence& extract of Mr. Ws. answer.  
My eight( and last Argument) either he or his Scribe so defaceth in the laying it down, that it rather looks like one of his Answers, then any of my Arguments.  
He calls it, a bare affirmation, that to take faith in a proper sense, is more plain and clear, and better- believing the Apostle in this discourse, where he largely handles the point of justification. Indeed if this were my Argument, Mr. Ws. Answer would serve. The sum of my Argument,( more at large opened in my papers) is this, The point or question of imputation in justification, being onely handled in this passage of Scripture, and no where else explained; it is no ways probable, but that the Apostle should speak somewhat distinctly, and plainly, of the nature of it: otherwise he might seem rather desirous to lay a stumbling in the way, then to writ any thing for the learning and comfort of Christians, &c. To this Mr. W. answereth mum. Onely he gravely instructeth us, that it is more comfortable for us to rest on Christs righteousness, &c. then to build on Faith, which in the best is mingled, and stained with many doubtings oftentimes. Therefore the Apostle undoubtedly intends Christs righteousness; and so he doth express in plain words( to another purpose) cap 5, 19. and 10. 4.  
In which words he maketh an opposition between things of the most direct and essential subordination that can be,( and which do inseparably involve one the other) viz. r●sting on Christs righteousness, and building on Faith. It is impossible that any man should build on Faith, that doth not rest on Christs righteousness, that is, the satisfaction that he hath made: because Faith is a resting on this satisfaction. And so again: a resting on Christs righteousness, includes a building on Faith; For who is there that will or can rest upon this righteousness, except he believes, that such a resting or believing as this▪ will stand him in stead? Sure I am, that Paul built upon Faith, for his justification, as well as on the righteousness of Christ himself( as Mr. Ws. beloved phrase is) though in a different manner,( which hath been formerly explained) when he said: We know that a man is not justified by the works of the Law, but by the Faith of Iesus Christ, and have believed in Iesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, &c. Gal. 2. 16. And as Christ speaketh concerning himself, John 12. 44. He that believeth in me, believeth not in me, but in him that sent me: that is, not so much in me, as in him that sent me: So may it be said, that he that buildeth on faith, buildeth not on faith, but on the truth and faithfulness of him, who hath promised forgiveness of sins and salvation to him that believeth. And for the mixture or staining of faith with many doubtings this is no consideration at all, to defer or keep a man from building upon it, if it be a faith unfeigned and true: because there is the same justification and salvation promised to the weakest faith, and to the strongest.  
After these Arguments &c. In this passage he pretends, 
Mr. W. p. 39.  to countermine and dissolve the Answers I give to those places, where the words, faith, and hope, are used to signify their object. And here I am arrested again by this troublesone bailiff, for notable tergiversation. I know not what he calls tergiversation: he that reads the passage glanced at by him, wil● hardly say, that either I betray, or turn my back upon the cause I undertake. But if that be tergiversation, to dissemble and turn the back upon the main strength of those things which are pretended to be answered, and onely to catch and snatch here and there, where any word seems to lie a little loose: then I may truly say, that the Fox is the finder, and the tergiversator is, from whence the accusation comes. I will not be so troublesone to my Reader here, as to relate the passage he strikes at: there are some copies thereof, in some mens hands, and more( I conceive) may be taken upon this occasion, but the substance of the answer he gives to this passage, consists( chiefly) of 2 or 3 untruths. As first, where he saith, that especially the act of belieefe and hope, are to be understood, Gal. 1. 22& 3. 23. Col. 1. 5. Cujus contrarium verum est. 2. where he saith that he hath proved the righteousness or active obedience of Christ, to be the object of Faith, as justifying: whereas he hath not in all his discourse, made the least hair of that head, either black or white. 3.( and lastly) where he affirms this righteousness of Christ, to be the onely proper object of Faith, as justifying: whereas it hath been evictingly demonstrated, that it is neither the proper, nor less proper object thereof, as such, and also that the Scriptures no where speak so of it. And yet as the Israelites when they had made their golden calf, were not satisfied therewith, but rejoiced over the work of their own hands, and eat and drank and played before it. So neither doth this man content himself, to speak his pl●asure in untruths, but boldly concludes thus insultingly and triumphantly, over what he had said against me. Thus he shamefully trifles to show his impudency, and perversnes. If he that trifles most, or shows most impudence, and perverseness, should forfeit hi● learning to the other, I believe Mr. W. would soon be as ignorant in rhetoric, as I am; and I every whit as skilful and expert as he.   

The fourth way of confirmation, &c.  
Now we come to the fift and last act of our Tragoedie. 
M. W. p. 40.  Where before he comes to answer all my testimonies at once, he hath a great mind to get up into Gods Throne, and there to act the Divels part. For whereas I ingenuously confessed that I had not red all the testimonies ● produced in the Authors themselves,( neither indeed is my poor Library so well furnished) he first undertakes to know my heart and intent,( which is the prerogative of God) and then against all reasonable and charitable construction, of my ingenuous confession, he chargeth me, not to have made it out of humility, and modesty, but out of satanical subtlety, to vent my poisonful lies under the person of another, as the devil did vent his, by the Serpent. Gen. 3.( and now doth by Mr. W. his successor) which is the express part and practise of the devil. job. 1. 9. 11.  
The reason( I conceive) why he could think no better of that my Confession, then to be made out of subtlety, was the faultiness of the standard in his own bosom.  
The reason why the reviling Scribes, and pharisees, concluded against Christ, now hanging on the cross, that he could not save himself,( Mat. 27. 42.) was onely( or chiefly) this, because if they had been able to save themselves, they would have done it upon the like occasion.  
He blames me further, for not being ashamed, or blushing to affirm, that from the times of Luther, and Calvin▪ the fairest stream of interpreters, run to water, and refresh my interpretation. No Mr. W. seeing men so bold and big fore-headed, in proclaiming untruths; I know no reason I have of being ashamed, or blushing for standing up for the truth. And as our Saviour faith to the Jews, who would fain have had him denied and retracted what he had said concerning himself and his Father: I know him, and if I should say I know him not, I should be a liar like unto you. John 8. 25. So must I say to Mr. W. in this case, that should I say otherwise concerning the judgement of the best interpreters, since Luther and Calvins time, touching the Scriptures in question, then I do, I should be like unto you, and speak what is contrary to the truth. What he speaks concerning either Socinus or Arminius, as being the first authors of my interpretation hath been more then refuted long since; when by express testimonies from themselves we shewed that they led the sense and interpretation of these Scriptures, quiter another way, and( of the two) nearer to Mr. Ws. interpretation then mine. So far are they off from being the first Authors of it, that they do not admit it at al( as far as I can yet see) either from themselves, or any other approved Author. I have name already more then one, or 7 Orthodox writers, that hold the imputation of Faith in a proper sense, and am ready to examine and scan the testimonies, with any sober, and dispassionate man whatsoever. And for his tale of Peter Ainlard,( as his Scribe surely hath mis-named him instead of Abilaird) that was gelded for his incontinency; it is well for him that there is not a Law of like penalty amongst us, for incontinency of tongue, because I fear then, that Mr. Ws. manhood would be one of the first that should suffer. But for Saint Bernards 190 Epistle, out of which this Tale of a Tub, is pretended to be  told, I can hear no sound of it there, and yet have laid both my ears as close as well I could to hear.   

An answer to all his Testimonies, &c.  
To all? nay( quoth Bolton) bait me an ace? There 
M. W. a p. 41. ad finem.  are 17 whereunto there is nothing at all answered: In the mean time: Quid dignum tanto ferat hic promissor hiatu? that is, 
What shall this promise-maker have,  
In reward of this promise brave?   
The old proverb here works. Parturiunt montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. that is, 
The Mountaines were in travail sore,  
The birth's a Mouse, and nothing more   
But first he whets his courage upon the hone of indignation, and rageth( after his wonted manner) against my impudent boasting, of the general consent of Interpreters, and infers, that a more odious example, of impudency and folly, cannot be imagined, then here I make myself, by making m f●lly and absurdity, to strive for Master-ship with my impudence. I see I shall have new Liveries from my Mr. before my old be choir worn up. Well, I believe, that a more odious example, both of impudency and folly, may not onely be imagined, but visibly demonstrated, and pointed at with the finger, I know where. And for Mr. Ws. railing and reviling speeches, they are( at the best) but like Silver in Solomons dayes, which for the abundance of it, was nothing worth. But except either much learning, or somewhat else, had set him and his wits at odds, he could never have affirmed, that no one Orthodox Divine either ancient or later, ever understood, by Faith imputed for righteousness, Faith in a proper sense, but the satisfaction and righteousness of Christ himself. I make no question but he takes in himself( whosoever else he thrusts out) into the number of Orthodox Divines: and how oft hath he, in former passages of this very discourse,( as hath been observed) affirmed the very self same thing himself, in as ample and express terms, as I do.  
As for this last quarter of his worthy piece, which concerns Authors and testimonies, I shall bee very brief in framing m reply unto it: because I verily believe, that the Author himself would have spared it, had he but rightly understood the opinion against which he hath armed himself with so much fury, and what is meant by Faith in a proper sense.  
Concerning the testimonies which he himself brings forth out of the rich magazine of his Library and learning, because they are so pregnant and pertinent to prove that which no man questions, viz. justification by the righteousness and satisfaction of Christ, in a meritorious way, and do not so much as touch or come near the point in controversy,( except it be in way of contradiction to him that produceth them) I take my leave of them( at once) and wish them rest and peace. Onely I cannot but take special notice of a very strange piece of divinity( wheresoever he had it) which drops from him in those passages where he speaks so much to so little purpose, and some things with as little truth) concerning Calvin: Here he teacheth, that sins of commission, are taken away by that part of Christs satisfaction imputed, which is called his passive obedience, or voluntary suffering the penalty of the Law: and sins of omission by his active obedience, in fulfilling the righteousness which the Law requires, which is the other part of Christs imputed satisfaction. Mr. W. talks much( as we have heard) of heaps of lies, of heresies, blasphemies &c. but here we have a Lernaean Lake of hideous and portentous Divinity, things which I should have conceived, that Mr. W. would not have received though an Angel from Heaven should have brought them unto him.  
First he affirms the taking away of sins of omission, by the active obedience of Christ onely: whereas the Scriptures teach expressly, that without shedding of blood, there is no remission.( Heb. 9. 22.) neither of sins of commission nor of omission. So 1 joh. 1. 7. The blood of Iesus Christ his son, cleanseth us from ALL sin: not of commission onely, but of omission also. again, Rev. 1. 5. unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his blood. So Rom. 4. 25. who was delivered to death for our sins &c. The Scripture never mentioneth any purging or taking away of sin, but by the blood, death and sufferings of Christ: neither doth it give the least intimation of any distinction or difference to be made( in this respect) between sins of omission, and commission. Neither is there any colour or appearance of difference between them, in reference to their purgation and atonement, there being many sins of omission, which are much more heynons and grievous, then many sins of Commission.  
Secondly, he makes the active obedience or righteousness of Christs life, of like consideration, with his death and passive obedience, viz. penal and satisfactory: as if to live righteously and holily, had been a punishment laid upon Christ, to make satisfaction for all the sins of Omission, whereas himself affirmeth, that it was his meate,( not his punishment) to do the will of him that sent him. John 4. 34. The Papists indeed make prayer, and other their serving God, penal and satisfactory: but( as Solomon saith, Prov. 21. 15,) It is ioy to the just to do iudgement, and job that he put on righteousness and it covered him, and iudgement was a rob and diadem unto him, job. 29. So generally when the heart is renewed by grace, and brought to an inward and habitual conformity with the Law of God, ways of righteousness and holiness, are ways of pleasure, and of entire contentment. Much more then must it needs be conceived; that the Lord Christ, being full of grace and truth, and having the Spirit without measure( as the Scripture witnesseth) and not the least reluctation in the frame of his Heart and soul against any holy Commadement or way of God, took very high and rich contentment, in all those ways of holinesse, wherein he walked, and exercised himself all his dayes: yet is it not denied in all this, but that this active obedience of Christ, may in some sense and respect, be called satisfactory too, viz. as concurring and falling in with its influence into the blood or death of Christ, but not in and by itself. And this our Saviour himself teacheth, John 12. 24. Except the corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: that is, Christ by his active obedience, and the righteousness of his life, had justified none but himself, without his death: but if it die,( saith he) it bringeth forth much fruit, that is, so holy and righteous a person as Christ was in his life, by his death justifieth many. Hence it is, that the Scriptures so frequently when they mention the death of Christ, for the redemption, or expiation of the sins of men, still mention his holinesse or the righteousness of his life with it. For Christ also hath suffered for sins, the IVST for the unjust, 1 Pet. 3. 18. So 1 Pet. 1 18. 19. knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, &c. but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a Lamb undefiled, and without spot: See Heb. 9. 14. and 1 Pet. 2. 21. 22. even as those qualifications, of age, Sex, spotlessenes, soundness &c. required in the legal sacrifices, were expiatory( in their kind) when the Beast came to be offreed and slain, but not before.  
Thirdly( and lastly, and which is of the worst, and indeed of desperate consequence) by dividing the satisfaction of Christ into parts, he utterly destroys and abolisheth the infiniteness thereof. For that which may be divided, must needs be finite: and that which is but the part of another, cannot itself be infinite. And as certain it is, that that whose parts are finite, cannot itself be infinite. If he will maintain the active part of Christs satisfaction( as his rhetorical expression is) to be infinite( which is the more consonant to his principles) why might not the sins of the world, as well of commission, as omission, have been fully expiated, and taken away thereby? Certainly no sin, nor sins, can require more then an infinite satisfaction. And if this active satisfaction be infinite, and consequently sufficient to take away the sins of the world: what necessity can there be conceived of the passive satisfaction, if the work and intent thereof be otherwise performed. I do not frustrate the grace of God( saith Paul) for if righteousness be by the Law, then Christ is dead in vain. Gal. 2. 21. It is as true, concerning the Law performed by Christ, as by men themselves: if the righteousness or justification of the world be by Christs active obedience, and performance of the Law, his death must be in vain. If I do not lay on load upon Mr. W. here, and heat the furnace of my censure seven times hotter then ordinary, let him say that he scaped a scouring, when time was.  
My last labour( in this my reply) is to vindicate the testimonies, produced by me out of several Authors, as well ancient and modern, for the further establishing and confirmation, of the Imputation of Faith in a direct and proper sense, in those controverted passages of the Apostle, Rom. 4. And here had we not to do with men of wilful and importune spirits, that conceit they have a dispensation from the Figure Metalepsis, to kick the nominative case and the verb out of doors; the bare recital and laying down the sayings themselves, were an abundant vindication of them in that behalf. Or if wee had to do with a man that would stand his ground, and own his own opinion when it is at the best, this labour might be spared altogether. For Mr. W.( as hath been more then once observed) hath more then once ratified and sealed to that very interpretation, for the ratification whereof these testimonies are brought forth by me. But his infirmity is, Fluctuation, Nunc hùc, nunc illue, exemplo nubis aquosae. that is, 
Much like a Waterish cloud, which now is here,  
And by and by the winds will have it there.   
Howsoever, I shall be very succinct and brief in my demonstrations, being full of confidence, that every man that is not Mr. W. will be very easily satisfied in the point▪ Concerning these testimonies in general, I desire to propound but this one consideration, to any reasonable and considering man: whether it bee so much as tolerably credible, or probable in the least and lowest degree of probability, that so many learned Interpreters, one succeeding other through so many generations, and undertaking to expound a Scripture which they conceived to be figurative and tropical, nay( as Mr. W. contends for) hypertropicall, where there should bee figure upon figure, and trope upon trope, should none of them give warning, or so much as take notice of any tropical expression, but deliver their mindes and judgements concerning the places, in the very same term, and word, wherein the trope upon trope, should lie. Credat Iudaus Apella, Non ego. that is, 
This let the circumcised jew,  
believe, instead of me, for true:   
Especially considering that it is the manner of Interpreters, when they came to any tropical and figurative expression so conceived and apprehended by them, though the figure be ten times more obvious( then it can be in the Scriptures controverted, if there were any) yet either to give notice of the figure by Name, or at least to set down in more plain and express words, what is meant by the figurative expression in the Scriptures: neither of which is done, by any of the Authors cited by me upon those places; but still, that which Paul saith was imputed to Abraham, viz his believing God, or his Faith, the same say these interpreters also: yea some of them emphatically, seeking( as it were) to bind their Reader to the very word and term of Faith, which the Apostle useth, and not suffering them to cast about in their mindes or thoughts, for any other thing. As in the testimony cited from Bucer: Abraham fidem habuit jehovae, &c. that is, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness, that is( saith Bucer) he accounted this FAITH, or believing to him for righteousness. If he had ever once imagined, the righteousness of Christ to have been that, which was imputed to Abraham for righteousness, and not Abrahams faith in a proper sense, would he have expressed himself in such a manner? So in that cited from Bullinger: Concredidit se Abraham Deo &c. that is, Abraham committed himself unto God by believing,& illud ipsum &c. that is, that VERY SAME THING was imputed to him for righteousness. He that will here by illud ipsum, that VERY SAME THING understand the righteousness of Christ, must seek his substantive to his adjective he knows not where, and when he hath found it, will break poor Priscians head with it too. Again, in that other testimony cited from the same Author, upon Gal. 3. 6. imputatum est ei &c. hoc est, ILLA IPSA ABRAHAE FIDES, ipsi ad justitiam imputatum est, that is, it was imputed to him for righteousness: that is, this very self SAME FAITH OF ABRAHAM, was imputed to him for righteousness. Surely though Mr. W. makes bold, to understand by faith, the righteousness of Christ( where be pleaseth) yet by the Faith of Abraham, he will not adventure to understand the righteousness of Christ, least he should sin against the reputation and credit of his own understanding too far. In these and sundry other testimonies yet remaining a man of very reasonable apprehension cannot but conceive, that the Authors, with as much anxiety and wariness of speech, as well they could use, excluded all other things whatsoever,( without exception) from this imputation, but onely that VERY self SAME FAITH of Abraham, in the proper literal, and most usual and obvious sense and signification. This for the first demonstration, which concerns the testimonies in general, whereby it appears, through and through all that thick mist of words and passion which Mr. W. hath cast upon it to obscure and darken it, that the Authors generally by me alleged upon these Scriptures, did not understand the word, FAITH, or believing, in a tropical or metalepticall sense, for the righteousness of Christ, but in a proper, plain, and direct sense, for that grace or act of Faith, by which Abraham through the work and assistance of the Holy Ghost believed in God.  
The latter demonstration, will not( I take it) extend so far as the former did, to include all the testimonies without exception: but as far as it will reach, which is to many of them, it makes the matter greater then contradiction; that their Authors in their commentaries and expositions, could not possibly take the word Faith, or believing in a figurative or metalepticall sense, but in a proper. The demonstration is this: because the word FAITH, taken in a figurative sense for the righteousness of Christ, will make them speak partly manifest and open blasphemy, partly most ridiculously and absurdly: As for example, in that cited from Luther, on Gal. 3. 6. Deus reputat istam IMPERFECTAM FIDEM &c. that is, God for Christs sake, in whom I have begun to believe, accounts this IMPERFECT FAITH, for perfect righteousness: If by FAITH here, we understand the righteousness of Christ, and not Faith properly, we make Luther an execrable Blasphemer: for then he calls the righteousness of Christ, an imperfect righteousness. So in that of Illyricus, Mendica illa fides, &c. that is, that SAME beggarly FAITH, apprehending the righteousness of Christ, was imputed unto him, instead of his own righteousness. I● here by the word, Faith, wee shall understand the righteousness of Christ, wee make this Author first to speak abominable blasphemy, in calling the righteousness of Christ, a beggarly righteousness: and secondly most ridiculously and absurdly, in saying, the righteousness of Christ apprehending the righteousness of Christ, was imputed unto him &c. So in that of Calvin. Fides reputatur in justitiam, non quòd ullum à nobis meritum afferat &c. that is, Faith is imputed for righteousness, not because it brings any merit from us, but because it apprehends the goodness of God. If by Faith here, which this Author affirmeth to be imputed for righteousness, we shall understand the righteousness of Christ: then we must suppose him to give this reason, why this righteousness of Christ should be imputed to us for righteousness, viz. because it brings no merit with it from us, but because it apprehends the goodness of God, both which are very ridiculous( if the one be not blasphemous.) I might include many other of the testimonies within the compass of this demonstration: but I judge by myself, that my Reader● would gladly be at his journeys end. Wherefore if Mr. W. who so confidently affirm's, that of all the testimonies by me cited, there is not one that affirms, that Faith( taken in a proper sense) is imputed for righteousness, and calls me the most odious example of impudence and folly that can be imagined, for saying the contrary, will willingly and patiently from his own pen, be content to bear himself the imputation of this odious exemplarinesse both in impudence and folly, I conceive it may do him much good for the time to com●: but my pen is merciful, and shall cast no such imputation upon him, though he deserves it. And for those bloody crimes, of forgery and false subornation of witnesses, Mr. W. is pleased out of his lenity and clemency, to content himself with the bare charge and accusation: but doth not prosecute his inditement, nor once goeth about to prove, that I have forged so much as the least jot, or title in any of the testimonies alleged by me, fearing( it seems) that he should make no earnings of that labour.  
I must yet add a little, concerning some rare passages in the very last page., of his discourse. This is one special commendation of his tragical choler, that it doth not in extremo actu deficere, fail or faint in the last act, but is in very good plight and liking, and brings forth more fruit, then at the first. He first gravely admonisheth all indifferent Readers, and zealous Christians, of two grand duties: first to take heed to themselves, and then to admonish others, to have no fellowship with so openly professed Socinian heretics, &c. Next he calls the opinion I maintain a wicked and blasphemous heresy: then he aggravates an offence that is not, by affirming that which was not, viz. our persisting in our pestilent heresy, notwithstanding many admonitions given by divers grave and learned Divines, and often public confutations and censures &c.( The man had as good have  told me, that the man in the moon drinks Claret I know as much of the one, as of the other) Next, he methodically proceeds, to make a fierce outcry against me, as a desperate man, wilfully, and against the known light, and against my own conscience, proclaiming Luther, Calvin, &c. to be of my opinion &c. and so he goeth on beating, and te●ring himself, like a wild Bull in a Net, Foaming out his own shane( after his wonted manner) till he hath satiated himself, with railing, and speaking evil, both of persons and things, which he knoweth not: Onely in the end and catastrophe of his tragic piece as if he envied Apuleius, his merry tales of his golden ass, or Ovid▪ his pleasant Fables in his▪ Metamorphosis: he contrives a Gorgonean fiction, with much curiosity, and quaintnes, of device: How I and my followers, proclaiming our pedigree from the Father of liars, should make false reports. How that Mr. Goodwin did confute and confounded him,( whereas he can do both himself, to himself) and did mightily convince him▪ by the power of his Arguments; and( as follows in his most hideous and piteous complaint.) Hoc animis natum, inventumque Poema juvandis. that is, 
This Poem( doubtless) bread was, and contrived,  
To please the fancies of men much agriev'd.   
For my part— 
Esse canes utero sub virginis, esse Chimaeram,  
Sphyngáque, et Harpyas, serpentiferosque Gigantes,  
Centimanumque Gygem, tergeminumque canem;  
Haec ego cuncta priús &c.  that is, 
I sooner shall believe, that bawling Dogs,  
Are in the Virgins belly, and those hobbs,  
Chimera hight and sphinx, that monster rare,  
With ravening harpies, and that giants are;  
Like Serpents footed, and that Gyges had  
An hundred hands, and Cerb'rus triple head.   
I confess, men may be foolish, and take pleasure in the vanity of their tongues, and sending abroad reports of strange shapes and figures, into the world: but for those in whose faces Mr. W. spits out his gull, calling them, rude, impudent,& unmannerly: I fully believe they have so much of their wits yet unshaken, and remaining, as is sufficient to preserve them from any such ridiculous exorbitance of tongue, as the pen of exorbitancy here would fasten upon them. Notwithstanding, if any of them have committed that high Treason, they here stand charged with, against the princely dignity of Mr. Ws. reputation; he shall do well to call them to account for it. It were no hard matter for him to trace the report by the footsteps, and follow it home to the very mouth, out of which it first issued: and I believe, before he came to the fourth or fift man, the Author would be found. In the mean season( if Mr. W. please) my Books, to his, that it was some of his own followers or friends( that I do not say of his Cloath too) and not mine, that made the wooden Image he speaks of: though neither can I think, but that he hath bestowed much cost in garnishing, and polishing it himself, and that when it came, it came but rough into his hands, in comparison of those goodly ornaments of rhetoric, which he hath now put upon it. Facile est inventis addere, that is, Once invented, soon augmented.  
From cursing and reviling, he falls to praying, that God would defend his Church and People, from such spirits( which no where molest or hurt them) and thinking it high time to repent at last, he gives glory to God: I remember Squire, when he clapped poison upon the pummel of queen Elizabeths Saddle, to take away her life, cried out aloud, God save the queen. But if Mr. W. indeed, desires to give glory to God, he must repent of his forged accusations, his slanderous reports, of his rage and fierceness, against those that never wronged him in the least matter: he must retract and cancel the greatest part of what he hath sent abroad in this his scandalous Pamphlet, viz. all the palpable errors and untruths therein, whose name may be called Legion, for they are many. And for this so solemn, anxious, and laborious an acquitting himself, from joining or submitting to the truth, he might have spared it, without much danger of prejudice to him. For those that know him( as who do●h not?) know him to have Pelidae stomachum cedere nesci●●i. Achilles stomach sto●t▪ that knows not how to yield, no more to truth then to error, but onely to what hath already surprised his fancy and imagination.  
The Lord who alone is the giver of new hearts, unto men, give him a heart to do all this, and whatsoever besides belongs to his peace, or may through him, tend to advance the glorious Gospel of Jesus Christ, in the world. If he shall yet writ more books against me, if they be not too big, I will lay them upon my shoulder( as job speaketh) but here make him a solemn promise, that I will never anti-pamphlet with him more. If he be wilful and resolved to have the last word, I shall not envy him the glory and privilege of a skould.   
FINIS.